COMMENTARY: Finnish Foreign policy decisions coming late

Disagreement over Afghanistan was serious problem

print this

By Kari Huhta
     
      Bad news for those who are already feeling bored by the public debate on Finnish foreign and security policy: this is just the beginning. Making new decisions has hardly even begun, and it is getting increasingly difficult to find widespread agreement on new topics of foreign policy.
      In spite of the debate, a widespread consensus prevails in Finland on the main part of security policy. That could also shrink if the bickering really gets going.
      The timetable for decision-making has slipped somewhat. The disagreements within the foreign and security policy committee of the President and the government over details of the Afghanistan report on Friday was a serious problem.
     
Fairly broad agreement prevails among the parties in Parliament on aid to be given to Afghanistan, according to a survey by Helsingin Sanomat. If no decisions are possible on that matter, it cannot be easy with other topics either.
      The much-repeated list of topics for the following year also includes possible participation in the NATO Response Force, overall principles for participation in military crisis management in general, and finally, a comprehensive security and defence policy report by the government to Parliament.
      In addition to decisions marked on the calendar, things are constantly happening in the world around us, of which the violation of Finnish airspace by a Russian plane on Friday, accidental or not, served as a reminder.
      A better example of events in nearby areas is the statue dispute between Estonia and Russia in April and May. During that time there was not much time to think if Russia is a challenge, or a threat. Foreign Minister Ilkka Kanerva (Nat. Coalition Party) reminded the EU about its obligation of solidarity toward its member state Estonia, and President Tarja Halonen kept the issue in the forefront during a visit to Germany, which held the EU Presidency at the time.
     
No agreement was reached in the committee on the statue dispute. Apparently there already was a policy line in place on how to react to challenges from Russia, or whatever. It would be good to know if the policy line has remained intact and clear in the wake of recent disagreements.
      A policy line toward Russia will be much needed next year, when Finland presides over the Organisation on Security and Cooperation in Europe. The challenge of the OSCE Presidency - or to put it more plainly, the problem is that Russia wants to wipe out the right of the OSCE to monitor democracy in its member states, especially in Russia, and Finland should defend the OSCE.
      Practical work in the OSCE is in the hands of the Foreign Minister, but the government's foreign and security policy committee should decide at some point how tough a line Finland takes toward Russia.
     
Former Prime Minister Paavo Lipponen (SDP) asked in a speech held during the weekend who would take responsibility if participation in NRF were to be scuttled through party political manoeuvring. It is a good question. Party politics is clearly one reason why decision-making in foreign and security policy matters is so sluggish.
      Lipponen was ready to blame the National Coalition Party, but the Social Democrats are not exactly blameless themselves. Foreign and security policy has been a welcome tool of political manoeuvring for a party that feels lost in opposition.
      Lipponen urged the National Coalition Party to make initiatives and to acquire sufficient support for them. It would help, but it is difficult.
      It became clear in talk during the weekend, that alongside party disputes, one major breakdown in communications is between President Halonen and the National Coalition Party. The logjam will get worse, if it is not cleared up.
     
Helsingin Sanomat / First published in print 18.9.2007


Previously in HS International Edition:
  Häkämies says Washington speech in line with Finnish policy (10.9.2007)
  Häkämies in Washington: Russia Finland´s greatest challenge (7.9.2007)
  Government parties disagree on participation in crisis management (3.9.2007)
  Vanhanen seen to take background role in foreign affairs (17.9.2007)
  Poll: Finns oppose expansion of involvement in international crisis management (14.9.2007)
  Foreign Minister Kanerva: Finland should not delay decision on NRF forces (17.8.2007)

KARI HUHTA / Helsingin Sanomat
kari.huhta@hs.fi