COMMENTARY: In statue dispute, Russia tests limits with Finland as well

print this

By Kari Huhta
     
      Probably in no country did people follow the statue dispute between Russia and Estonia more closely than in Finland, with the possible exception of the countries actually involved. The media has not been alone in following the situation closely; the topic has clearly sparked emotions within the public in general.
      Finland's role has been exceptional on the official level as well. Foreign minister Ilkka Kanerva was the first to urge EU presidency-holder Germany to react to the dispute. Usually Finns in the EU have managed to react only to the reactions of others.
     
There are many good reasons for the interest, in addition to support for Estonia's right to self-determination. Finland itself faces difficult moments, both on its own and as a member of the EU. The crisis sparked by moving the bronze statue of the Soviet soldier in Tallinn reveals information about how both Russia and the EU act in disputes.
      The information that emerged gives cause for concern.
      Crowds in Moscow humiliated foreign diplomats, Russia made threats to Estonia and the EU, but the EU woke up to the crisis on its northeastern edge only after some delay, and somewhat reluctantly at that.
      What was positive was that the EU finally reacted, and that Russia gave at least some kind of a response.
     
In the light of the dramatic nature of the events, the reaction in Finland was actually rather mild.
      The President and the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Finnish government did not meet. Sources in the civil service say that the President, the Prime Minister, and the Foreign Minister coordinated their statements by telephone.
     
During Parliamentary question time on Thursday, Prime Minister Matti Vanhanen again had to explain his view that outsiders should not interfere with the Estonian statue dispute, but the criticism of the government did not go beyond needling.
      There was no great sense of drama. Support to Estonia through the EU was widely backed.
      Vanhanen avoided questions about what the crisis means for Finland.
      At first Vanhanen emphasised that Germany, as the holder of the EU Presidency, represents all EU countries in this matter. According to a civil servant source, Finland was never in bilateral contact with Russia during the dispute.
      Later Vanhanen added that only non-governmental organisations and the Parliament have been active in the matter in Russia, so that there is still an opportunity for the highest foreign policy leaders in Russia to act in a constructive manner.
     
The assessment was rather optimistic and somewhat deceptive, too. Perhaps it would have been a bit difficult for Vanhanen to say in that situation that for Finland and all others too, it is very worrying that Russia is now playing completely by its own rules, and playing very dirty as well.
      NGOs and the Russian Duma are not independent players in Russia: they clearly carry out the will of the central government in the Estonia dispute.
     
The EU is trying to speak with one voice, but Russia is speaking with many. It allows people to move forward aggressively, check the reaction of the other side, and then fine-tune the reactions appropriately. In this way the top leaders can have room to manoeuvre in the statue dispute, according to the script written by the highest leadership.
      The difference with the rest of the world can also be seen in what is seen as appropriate to say out loud. Nowhere is Russia discussed as politely as in NATO.
      As it has been unanimously decided that Russia is not a threat, but rather a partner in cooperation, speeches are kept along the same lines. Even disputes that emerge are spoken of as opportunities for an open exchange of opinions. The views of the EU are equally vague, when seeking a common stand on Russia from the 27 member states.
      Meanwhile, Russia and its various mouthpieces can freely denounce Estonia as a fascist state, for instance.
      Pressure is growing to develop different tones in the Western camp, but not only because of the statue conflict.
     
The conflict in the far end of the Baltic Sea apparently appears to be remote when viewed from the heart of Europe, at least at first glance. In Finland there will certainly be comments accusing the media of overdramatising the situation, while focusing on the positive sides of developments in Russia, as well as economic growth.
      However, the statue dispute is not a separate event; it is one in a series of Russian actions with which to evaluate the ultimate intentions and strategic goals of President Vladimir Putin.
      The dispute reinforces the image of Putin as a great-power nationalist who takes an extremely suspicious view of the intentions of the outside world, and correspondingly reserves the right for Russia to take countermeasures that it deems necessary.
     
Putin usually plans his moves well, without forgetting economic advantages, while testing the limits of Russia's actions. Sometimes Putin becomes very angry, and that is what may have happened in the statue dispute.
      One could expect that the statue dispute, the missile defence dispute, the Polish meat dispute, the Georgia dispute, and the dispute over the position of Kosovo will all be followed by other things, and Finland will not be bypassed - we already have our own dispute over wood tariffs.
     
Helsingin Sanomat / First published in print 4.5.2007.2007


Previously in HS International Edition:
  Kanerva in Estonia: Events in Moscow serious (3.5.2007)
  Finnish PM denounces Russian demands for resignation of Estonian government (2.5.2007)
  COMMENTARY: "Oh, sorry, I thought you were Estonian" (1.5.2007)
  Finnish PM denounces Russian demands for resignation of Estonian government (2.5.2007)

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