Surprisingly little change in Finnish debate on Russia

Konstantin Kosachev

Jyri Häkämies

Alexander Stubb

Jyrki Katainen

print this

By Unto Hämäläinen
     
      Whenever National Coalition Party ministers Jyrki Katainen, Alexander Stubb or Jyri Häkämies say something about Russia, people’s ears pick up. What are they going to say now? The last time that this happened was when the three pondered out loud whether or not Russia is still an economic great power.
      The discussion that the three ministers had was rather harmless speculation and it took only about half an hour at a party event, but it led to three weeks of media debate in Finland. The discussion branched out in a confused manner, but the plot was a familiar one.
      The debate over Russia is probably over for now, and now it would probably be the right time for an evaluation.
     
For the National Coalition Party the debate brought at least some temporary setbacks. One might conclude this from opinion polls published during the weekend, according to which the number of people who are undecided about on which party to choose has increased among those who generally support the National Coalition Party. That has usually been the first indication of a decline in support.
      So why were National Coalition Party leaders at a disadvantage in Russia debate, once again?
      The most important reason is historical tradition. During the Cold War people in Finland became accustomed to speaking about their eastern neighbour with extreme caution. Fifty years is such a long time in the life of a nation that a certain mode of speech has taken deep roots in the minds of the Finns. Even the slightest deviation from this grates on the ear.
     
New evidence of this caution came again last week with the publication of a new book by Juhani Suomi. A tome of 750 pages, it is a condensed version of the biography of President Urho Kekkonen.
      At the press conference marking the publication of the book, historian Jukka Tarkka pointed out that Kekkonen did not write anything critical of the Soviet Union even in his secret diaries which he kept almost throughout his entire presidency.
      Juhani Suomi said that Kekkonen probably was afraid that the diaries might end up in the wrong hands in spite of all efforts. In such a case he might have faced accusations of anti-Soviet thinking.
     
Juhani Suomi may well be right in his assessment. But Kekkonen’s caution is a shocking example of all of the things for which the President has to be prepared.
      After the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, public debate became more relaxed in Finland as well. People spoke about Russia openly and without inhibitions.
      It also had an impact on official appearances. Presidents Martti Ahtisaari and Boris Yletsin did not hesitate to tackle difficult issues, and the use of language was at times very strong on both sides.
      This proved to be something of an interim period.
     
The atmosphere began to change gradually after Vladimir Putin became President of Russia in 2000. During the Putin period, Russia has restricted democracy and freedom of speech, and the change is also reflected in the Finnish debate on Russia.
      Clocks were turned backward here, and this happened very much at Finland’s own initiative.
     
President Tarja Halonen speaks about Russia with emphasised caution, and the change could also seen in statements in the latter part of the term of Matti Vanhanen.
      So far, Prime Minister Mari Kiviniemi (Centre) has not said anything about Russia. She is likely to continue on the same line.
     
Leaders of the Centre Party and the SDP found it quite easy to adopt a new - or actually the old - way of talking, but for leaders of the National Coalition Party it has proven to be difficult.
      One consequence of learning at a different pace was the somewhat amusing characteristic that whenever a National Coalition Party trumpets something about Russia, others rush to condemn or pity the unfortunate clumsy person.
     
In reality, the other parties are happy with the missteps of the National Coalition Party. It is easy to strike at the party, because it is impossible for it to prevail in the debate.
      After all, it years gone by people got used to the idea that there was something suspicious about the party in terms of relations with the east.
      The National Coalition Party is also burdened by the fact that it is the only party that openly supports Finnish membership in NATO, which is something that creates tension between the National Coalition Party and the Russian political leadership from the outset.
     
Russian leaders are opposed to the idea of Finnish membership in NATO, and it does not hesitate to say it out loud, at least if its opinion is asked.
      When Antero Eerola, an employee of the Finnish Broadcasting Company (YLE) interviewed Konstantin Kosachev, the chairman of the foreign affairs committee of the Russian Duma, he linked the issue of possible Finnish membership with NATO and Russia’s attitude toward it.
     
Eerola asked Kovachev:
      “As you probably know, all of the ministers that we spoke about (Jyrki Katainen, Alexander Stubb, Jyri Häkämies) are in favour of Finland joining NATO. Do you believe that these statements are part of a campaign in favour of Finnish membership in NATO?
      And finally Eerola asked: “What kind of attitude would Russia take if Finland wanted to become a member of NATO? Would you expect some kind of reactions?”
     
Eerola is a young man, but his manner of asking questions of Russian politicians is very familiar in the long common history of Finland and the Soviet Union/Russia. In the formula, a question is asked, and the person asking the question knows in advance what the answer is likely to be.
      And the questions probably sounded quite appropriate from Kosachev’s point of view.
      The answer struck a familiar tone: “I am sure that the neutrality policy that Finland has adopted after the war has had a key role in the fact that you have achieved an important position in world politics and the economy.”
     
The answer seemed to have come straight from the 1970s. All that was missing was a mention of the Finnish-Soviet Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance.
      How is it that Kosachev was able to give such a thoroughly orthodox response?
      He had learned it as a child. His father, the now deceased Josif Kosachev, served at the Soviet Embassy in Helsinki twice over a period of several years in the 1970s.
     
It is ironic, and today, it is possible to laugh at it a little, that the tasks of the elder Kosachev included, among other things, to monitor the programming of the Finnish Broadcasting Company.
      The younger Kosachev went to school in Helsinki and learned what an important news medium the YLE TV News is, and how sensitive Finns are to warnings from their neighbour, if that warning is presented skilfully.
      This is what he did in his interview with Eerola. First Kosachev reiterated Russia’s sharply negative view of NATO enlargement, but emphasised at the end that any possible decision on whether or not to join military alliances is purely an internal matter for Finland.
      “Russia does not plan to take a stand of any kind on how this hot potato is used in Finnish domestic politics.”
     
After the interview, Jyrki Katainen travelled to Moscow and met with Konstantin Kosachev. After the meeting, the two gave assurances that relations were in good shape.
      As if to underscore this, Kosachev wrote nice things about the National Coalition Party leader in his blog. Already before that, Katainen had declared that Kosachev is his good friend.
      Such expressions of affection indicated a new and interesting characteristic in debate over Russia, which otherwise followed familiar lines in Finland.
     
If Moscow had followed its old pattern, Katainen’s invitation would have been cancelled, or there would have been some other negative reaction to what he had said. the Russians used to enjoy these kinds of tricks in the old days.
      Now this was not done.
      Katainen was able to speak directly with the Russians, and apparently he was successful at something in which he failed in Finland - convincing the Russians that he has nothing but good intentions toward the great power neighbour.
     
Helsingin Sanomat / First published in print 12.9.2009


Previously in HS International Edition:
  Stubb: Relationship with Russia is no “special relationship” (19.8.2010)
  Katainen: Finns jumpy about debate on Russia (20.8.2010)

See also:
  Experts surprised at poll results indicating widespread lack of fear of Russia (14.9.2010)

UNTO HÄMÄLÄINEN / Helsingin Sanomat
unto.hamalainen@hs.fi