From lamentation to real foreign policy

COLUMN

print this

By Olli Kivinen
     
      Constant repetitions about not being part of a military alliance, and the obsessive assurances that of the unanimity of Finland’s decision-makers have obscured the reality of Finnish foreign policy: our country faces a significant change, and resources need to be channelled into "traditional" EU actions and foreign policy. There is plenty that needs to be done there.
      Military cooperation within the EU is taking rapid steps forward, relations between the EU and Russia are difficult, Ukraine is a reminder of all the things that can take place in our continent. Positions in the EU need to be secured, and Atlantic relations nurtured. Globalisation brings new challenges, and the world has not stopped in other respects either, nor has history ended.
      The past year is evidence of the fast pace of events. During the year our country quickly changed its stance on EU security guarantees, on the EU’s solidarity clauses, and on military cooperation. Just as quickly, Finland had to respond to the call to allow every country to be involved in the EU’s rapid deployment battle groups, which is a very significant turnaround.
      Another dimension is the nurturing of the trans-Atlantic link. Finnish leaders claim to put great emphasis on this. But, and this is a big "but", the actual glue of the connection is NATO membership, and 19 of the 25 countries of the EU are members of NATO. Therefore, a "non-allied" country is automatically in a weaker position than they are. The situation has not been helped by harsh statements by Finns concerning the United States.
     
Adding to the confusion on the debate on foreign policy are the constant assurances of unanimity on the part of decision-makers. Public speeches and actions by President Tarja Halonen and Prime Minister Matti Vanhanen clearly reveal differing points of view. There should be nothing strange about this, especially considering that a practical definition of decision-making is underway under the terms of the new Constitution, and with the Presidential elections approaching.
      One difference can be seen in globalisation. With some exaggeration, we might see a contrast between the "save Tanzania" line of President Halonen and Foreign Minister Erkki Tuomioja, and the "save Finland" line of the rest of the government.
      On the infantry land mine issue the government steamrolled the President. On the issue of the peacekeeping law, the President is suspicious of the idea of giving up the requirement of a UN mandate, a move which Vanhanen feel is absolutely necessary.
      A new tone of discord came from President Halonen’s comments about body bags. The issue is an important one, and it must be clarified to all, because the danger is a real one. The question is one of timing, which has caused consternation in the government’s Centrist camp. People there are asking why the President is distancing herself from the decision on combat forces, as if she did not have anything to do with it earlier. In reality she was closely involved in all of our country’s decisions on the matter.
     
An added dimension to the evasive talk came from the unbelievable common lead editorial published by the main organs of the two large government parties, the Social Democratic newspaper Demari and the Centre Party’s Suomenmaa concerning Finland’s policy line. As a precaution of sorts, the panic reaction included expressions dug up out of the ash heap of the history - from the time of Finlandisation.
      The apparent purpose was to defend the government and to make criticism look like a plot of the National Coalition Party. Dismissing discussion on foreign policy matters as party political scheming is a traditional way of stifling debate, and one would imagine that promoting public debate would be a newspaper’s mission. This article is also not a secret plot of the National Coalition Party, or of the FSB (the Russian security service), or the CIA.
      Finland has traditionally required a mandate from the UN for its peacekeeping operations. EU forces cannot agree to that, because it would leave the operations of the EU at the mercy of the whims of the permanent members of the UN Security Council. That would undermine the entire military cooperation of the EU, without which there would be no credibility even in crisis management.
      In fact, shifting over to an "EU mandate" is a somewhat curious notion. In fact, the EU decides on tough crisis management actions by consensus - that is, it needs the consent of Finland as well. In other words, the Finnish mandate is given by the Finnish Parliament, and the mandate should be sufficient for all actions taken by Finland. Talking about an EU mandate is therefore an evasion; it is the sand into which it is possible to insert one’s head in the face of difficulties.
     
Russia remains one of the great black holes of Finnish debate. People do not want to call the bear by its real name. Our country has no reason to jump on the bandwagon of right-wingers in distant countries, but reality must be recognised. Russia has drifted rapidly away from democracy.
      Another dimension is the traditional hypersensitivity to what Russian commentators choose to say. The disconcerting statements do not come by accident, but they also do not necessarily represent the views of the whole country. At the same time it is natural that they exist.
      It is natural that the Russians want to maintain as much influence as possible, especially in their neighbouring countries, and specifically in the neighbours on the western border - Ukraine, Belarus, and Finland now that the other countries of the nearby sphere of influence have run to the safety of NATO membership. The more its western neighbours adhere to traditional appeasement, the better for Moscow.
     
The events in Ukraine made part of this reality quite evident. The popular uprising against oligarchy and the friction that it caused for relations between the EU and Russia are evidence of pitfalls which require good old foreign policy - a focus on issues that are most important for our country, instead of trying to cure the ills of the whole world.
     
Helsingin Sanomat / First published in print 14.12.2004


Previously in HS International Edition:
  Opposition conservatives break ranks over defence policy (21.12.2004)

OLLI KIVINEN / Helsingin Sanomat
okivinen@kolumbus.fi