COMMENT: “War in Georgia no turning point in world politics”

print this

By Paavo Väyrynen
     
      On October 5th, an article was published on the Sunday pages of Helsingin Sanomat, dealing with views expressed on world politics by Finnish ambassadors. The writings of the ambassadors were in response to a request by Minister for Foreign Affairs Alexander Stubb.
      The answers do not give an accurate overall picture of the thinking of civil servants at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs. The validity of the material is weakened by the constraints contained in the assignment.
     
Foreign Minister Stubb asked the chiefs of diplomatic missions for a “first diagnosis” specifically about the “post-080808 world” and asked them to give their own evaluation of world politics. The date, August the 8th, restricts the analysis to how Russia responded to the military actions launched by Georgia. For this reason, many of the responses completely sidestepped Georgia’s own actions.
     080808 is not a turning point in world politics, and not even in the development of our own continent. Russia’s reaction to Georgia’s attack was a logical consequence of changes both in its own position, and in the international operating environment.
     Russia undoubtedly used excessive military force, but one must keep in mind that Georgia was the attacker. It started the war. Russia took advantage of the mistakes of the Georgian leadership, and strengthened its positions near its vulnerable southern border region.
     
What are we to think of the Georgian attack, its consequences, and the reactions that it brought on? How will all of this affect our position, and how should it affect our policies?
     The situation sparked by Georgia’s attack was the first case in which Finland has found itself in a truly difficult situation in its relations with Russia. Giving a flavour of its own was the fact that we are serving as the holder of the Chairmanship of the OSCE.
     In light of the events in Georgia, our future does not look very rosy. There are plenty of international tensions south of Russia, which can escalate into violent outpourings. They can lead to difficult conflicts between the EU and Russia, which will also affect relations between Finland and Russia. Finland would suffer more from sanctions placed on Russia and the countermeasures taken against them than any other EU member state.
     In the final instance the question is one of our attitude toward and our relationship with Russia. This has always been, and will always be a core question of Finnish foreign and security policy.
     I offer three starting points for future debate.
     
First, Finland needs to have a realistic view of the EU. EU member states have national foreign, security, and defence policies, which are augmented by EU cooperation. The common foreign policy of the EU specifically takes place among the governments of member states. Finland’s relations with Russia are primarily bilateral. In some matters related to external relations, such as trade and environmental policy, we have relinquished jurisdiction to the EU and its Commission. Therefore, negotiations on Russia’s export tariffs on raw timber have been negotiated primarily through the EU, but direct negotiations have had to be held with our neighbouring country as well.
     It is not in Finland’s interest that the EU would develop a more multinational foreign, security, and defence policy than it has now - that we would move decision-making power over our own foreign, and security policy to the Commission, the European Parliament, and other member states. On the other hand, the EU should be developed into a stronger player in nearby areas and in the whole world. This is best achieved if the Union remains an organisation of independent states, and a civilian power, which is the sum of the politics and mutual cooperation of its member countries.
     
Second, Finland needs to have a realistic view of NATO. NATO is not in its core an organisation that provides humanitarian aid or rescue services. It is a military alliance, but it no longer offers the same kind of collective security that it did during the Cold War period; the security guarantees have gone stale. Nevertheless, NATO requires that its member states be present in crisis management in countries such as Iraq or Afghanistan. The transmission ratio in security policy has weakened.
     Russia sees NATO primarily as a tool with which the United States and other Western countries seek to expand their sphere of interest to its borders, and even into former Soviet republics.
     Finland does not face any kind of a separate threat from Russia’s direction. We can become targets of violence only in a situation in which a large scale military conflict emerges between NATO and Russia. No such conflicts are within sight. Russia has neither the desire nor the will to challenge the West militarily.
     
Third, Finland needs to act on behalf of a Europe of cooperation.
     After the dissolution of the Soviet Union we launched an extensive and varied interaction with Russia. We believed that we could create stability, security, and well-being in all of Europe with it. Do we have any reason to change our strategy because of what happened on 0708 and 0808? No, we do not. On the contrary, we must step up our action to build a Europe of cooperation, so that similar events might be averted.
     Europe has a number of frozen conflicts. Many European states are in difficult positions as both global and regional great powers seek to expand their spheres of influence. Finland and the EU should seek to establish the kind of cooperation that gives all states the possibility to maintain good relations amongst themselves, and with all great powers. This applies to the eastern dimension of the EU as well: Russia should be allowed to participate in it if it wants to.
     Finnish membership in NATO would go against this line of action. Constantly keeping membership in the forefront tends to establish the view that Finland could be moving from a policy of cooperation to a policy of confrontation. Maintaining such uncertainty is not in Finland’s interests.
     
Helsingin Sanomat / First published in print 12.10.2008
     
The writer is the Minister for Foreign Trade and Development, a former Centre Party chairman, MEP, and Minister for Foreign Affairs.


Previously in HS International Edition:
  Diplomatic confessions (5.10.2008)
  Former Foreign Minister Tuomioja: Foreign policy leadership adrift (14.10.2008)
  Policy differences emerge between ministers at Foreign Ministry (13.10.2008)

Helsingin Sanomat