COMMENTARY: Let's not forget the YYA option

print this

By Jukka Luoma
     
      It may be that the resurrection of the Finnish-Soviet YYA Treaty of 1948 sounds somewhat far-fetched, particularly to those of the younger generation.
      I will nevertheless explore the matter as one Finnish security policy alternative. The Finnish "NATO option" has now been set aside to wait for such bad times that would make it worth redeeming, even if the price at the time were not satisfactory.
      Under these circumstances it would seem then that no alternative is really too far-fetched. So, what about YYA?
      The renewal of the YYA Treaty would have significant impact, but there are some obstacles in the way of this option.
     
The world has changed somewhat from the time when Finland and the Soviet Union signed an Agreement of Friendship, Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance [in Finnish: Ystävyys-, yhteistyö- ja avunantosopimus, and hence the YYA abbreviation] in Moscow on the 6th of April, 1948.
      It is worth drawing attention to the nature of the mutual assistance and to the timing of its delivery. From the Finnish perspective, these were also undoubtedly the most interesting aspects of the treaty back in 1948. Older Finns will recall the ruminations that went on over how "the threat of armed attack referred to in Article 1" would be realised in practice.
      It was agreed in 1948 that Finland would receive Soviet assistance if its own forces were unable to withstand an attack on its sovereign territory by the Western powers. The Soviet Union clearly had an understanding of the assistance, and of the timetable for providing it, which it did not explain in any greater detail.
      However, in any event help would have been promised - this was clear to all. The information on this assistance played its own part in stabilising Finland's image in the immediate neighbourhood and in the wider world. The implications would perhaps be greater still in the modern situation.
     
In terms of its effect on domestic policy matters, the YYA Treaty was - and still would be - a further stabilising element. The 1948 agreement removed the shadow of harmful speculation, particularly among the representatives of the Finnish press. YYA gave a practical content to that rather mysterious concept known as "the public interest".
      There was in YYA a lofty sense of common reluctance to say anything very much, just as there is in the tight-lipped approach to NATO today.
      A part of our national heritage has been lost with the passing in 1992 of the YYA Treaty.
      The Finns have had erased from their collective consciousness the impressive power of the rumbling of great figures. The thunder could then be heard rolling all the way from Moscow. Seen from an Eastern European perspective, these rumblings were like an inverse medal of honour for those they were directed at.
      YYA brought a measure of imperial gravitas to the political language and ceremonies. YYA had an almost Croesian effect, swelling everything it touched to become greater than the sum of its parts and making great statesmen out of mere politicians. This would have a value of its own in today's world of cheap celebrity.
     
Of course, there are problems. Above all the eastern signatory to the treaty is not what it once was.
      It is no longer a certainty that one could expect security guarantees from Russia against a threat from the United States and Israel. According to some polls, these threats are regarded as considerable among today's Finns.
      The central threat set out in Article 1 of the YYA Treaty, namely one of "an armed attack by Germany or any state allied with the latter", has undeniably rather lost its topical thrust in the years since 1948.
      The former threatener is now Russia's most important European friend and partner. The two countries unabashedly agree between themselves matters that affect the entire region, for example the construction of a natural gas pipeline on the bed of the Baltic Sea.
      Finland is in all respects too small a country. Finland does not have what it takes, for example, for cooperation between countries applying different social or governmental systems - a subject that was much discussed during the old days of YYA.
     
Nevertheless, a small state such as ours must doggedly try to move forward with whatever can be called to hand.
      The rather stuffy public security policy debate in Finland would undoubtedly get a breath of fresh air if a broad opinion poll survey were to be made on the merits of creating a new YYA Treaty.
      It would be particularly exciting to see the results if the alternative to a new YYA were NATO membership.
     
Helsingin Sanomat / First published in print 18.11.2006


Links:
  YYA Treaty (Wikipedia)

JUKKA LUOMA / Helsingin Sanomat
jukka.luoma@hs.fi