New book assesses recent changes in Finland’s relations with neighbours

BOOK REVIEW

print this

By Jukka Tarkka
     
      In his new book Suomettumisen uusin aalto. Suomen haasteelliset naapuruussuhteet 1990-2110 (“The New Wave of Finlandisation. Finland’s Challenging Neighbour Relations 1990-2010”) Professor Esko Salminen, a media expert with a variety of credentials, examines recent phenomena with such a lack of emotion that it is positively frightening.
      When the imperialist Soviet Union and the Finlandized Finland co-existed peacefully, the kind of audacity that he shows could have led to a loss of reputation and his job.
      In the 1990s Europe experienced a series of historic upheavals, but after joining the European Union, nothing changed in Finland. Nor were the countries’ reactions to changes particularly flexible in the preceding decades. Finland made note of the new conditions with whimpers, squeaks, and dazzling delays, or then not at all.
     
It is hard to imagine a greater peacetime upheaval than the shutdown of the Soviet Union, or the NATO membership of the Baltic countries.
      The official wisdom of Finland nevertheless taught us that nothing especially noteworthy had taken place in nearby areas, so everything could continue as before.
      Finland made such a stunning mental in-flight manoeuvre that it found itself psychologically stalled. Life continued almost as if the Finnish-Soviet Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance were still in effect.
     
Salminen clearly enjoys describing this oddity in his pithy style. However, he hardly makes any commentary on the matter, which would actually require some intellectual assessment. Such perfect self-discipline on the part of a researcher does not awaken respect alone. It is actually quite a disappointment.
      The source material that the book is based on often feels somewhat thin. At times a new phenomenon is described with the help of nothing more than a quotation from a column in an afternoon tabloid. Salminen passes very briefly over the greatest blunder of Finland’s postwar history. Finland’s lacked the fortitude to join NATO when both internal and external opposition to membership were at their lowest ebb. Finland could not achieve what the former satellites and even a few former Soviet republics managed to do.
      Although Salminen does not pay heed to this lapse in Realpolitik, he nevertheless describes other psychological structures of post-Finlandisation in a marvellous fashion. It is virtually unbelievable what all we hardly noticed when events flashed by in those years.
     
The basic structure of smarmy faux friendship is still there. If there is nothing positive to be said, something positive is constructed out of mere words, if necessary.
      In 2005 the President of Finland described the goals of Russian politics as being similar to those of Finland: democracy, the rule of law, respect for human rights, and good governance.
      Considering that Russia could not be called democratic by almost any measure, it was said that the country is striving toward democracy.
      This kind of Orwellian doublespeak is nearly at the same level as Prime Minister Urho Kekkonen’s eulogy after the death of Joseph Stalin.
      Salminen describes the characteristics of Russian policy which inspire the kind of fear that leads to a Finlandised type of silence: the concept of the near abroad, protection of Russian minorities in other countries, the militarism of the defence doctrine, land acquisition policy, the Baltic Sea gas pipeline, and a very proactive stance on child welfare in cross-border custody battles.
     
In the conditions of post-Finlandisation these cannot be evaluated on the same basis as the activities of the United States or the leading countries of the European Union are assessed.
      The new wave of Finlandisation expands at times to a quick course in recent Russian history, which actually makes for quite useful reading, but which moves away from the main topic of the book. Salminen’s political assessment of Estonia’s domestic and security policy is completely off-topic.
      Nevertheless one has to admire Estonia for its cool-headed determination, which has brought magnificent results, although the starting point for the journey was not even zero – it dipped into the negative numbers.
     
There is much that is new and to the point in the book, but there is also much that is confusing and conventional. Its culmination is in the book’s subtitle: Finland’s Challenging Neighbour Relations 1990-2010.
      It is something quite exceptional for a researcher to refer to his topic as “challenging”. If relations are awkward, he should say it. This kind of unctuous fashion-consciousness resounds with emptiness.
      All that is missing is the call to look in the mirror.
     
Helsingin Sanomat / First published in print 7.5.2011


Previously in HS International Edition:
  Academic pressured by “useful idiots” during Finlandisation period (25.8.2009)
  Aamulehti: Historians call for thorough examination of Finlandisation era (8.10.2007)

Helsingin Sanomat