The let's-hope-for-the-best foreign policy line
COLUMN
|
|
By Olli Kivinen
The approach of the Presidential elections has spurred public debate on the country’s foreign and security policy line. However, the discussion is still plagued by the traditionally non-specific nature of Finnish debate. The key figures continue to speak in clichés without sufficiently specifying the positive and negative sides of the various alternatives.
The air is thick with slogans aimed at avoiding true discussion. These include "security deficit", "security guarantees", "non-alignment", "security policy report", "Partnership for Peace", "NATO options", "strong independent defence", among others. Their meaning has been turned into increasingly vague mush.
The most important dimension of the debate would be to rectify the innumerable unintentional and deliberate misconceptions of security and defence cooperation. This would also be the responsibility of the political leadership, whose judgement the people trust, as a recent opinion poll of YLE TV News indicated.
It is difficult to give a precise name to Finland’s diffident and vacillating foreign policy line, and many explanatory words and subordinate clauses are employed for the purpose. How about this short and simple name: the let’s-hope-for-the-best policy?
There are three key dimensions in the let’s-hope-for-the-best policy, as is the case in all Finnish foreign and security policy: Russia, the United States, and Europe.
Thanks to our geographic position, Russia is always important. Unfortunately it is still difficult to discuss; those who do are labelled in the old way - either as apostles of anti-Russian sentiment, or as Finlandized toadies - and naturally as players of the Presidential game.
Finland has more reason than almost any other country in the world to hope that everything would go well in its big Eastern neighbour. The basic starting point for these hopes is the idea that a democratic state under the rule of law is being set up under the leadership of Vladimir Putin - a state that will reject all previous imperialistic thoughts and concentrate on conciliatory construction work with its neighbours and with the whole world.
Unfortunately, the signs suggest that something different is going on. Power is being concentrated around the Kremlin, freedom of speech is being stifled, corruption is rampant, Russia is snapping at its neighbours, the very brutal war in Chechnya continues, and so on.
An optimist sees all of these as growing pains of democracy. Pessimists point out that the coexistence of a sheep and a lion would require giving up the continuity of history. One example could suffice: the future and community of fate shared by Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus are the great unknowns of the future in proximity to us, in which the last word will not be said for a very long time. Unfortunately, nobody has a crystal ball that would say what the situation in our nearby areas will be in a few decades, for instance.
Another aspect of the let’s-hope-for-the-best policy is the United States, with which our country currently has politely cool relations. Optimists believe that the Americans are not too fussy, and that they will help us if it turns out that history has still not come to an end, and if uncertainty breaks out in our continent.
After all, the Cold War neutrality of a few European countries was based, in the final instance, on the strength of the West, and especially, that of the United States.
The significance of the world’s only superpower is central in our security policy, because it is also the leading NATO country, and only NATO can provide the much-talked-about security guarantees.
Prime Minister Matti Vanhanen has made some important statements on the preservation of the trans-Atlantic connection. Most recently he emphasised, in his column in the newspaper Hufvudstadsbladet, the importance of cooperation with the countries of North America, because it is not feasible to build a competing defence system in Europe.
All that was missing from Vanhanen’s words would have been a final breath, which could be as follows: "In the nurturing of the trans-Atlantic connection, NATO is the most important organisation, and most of the EU countries have chosen membership as a way to take care of their security, and at the same time, of their relationship with the United States, so Finland has no reason to stay outside."
Our country has taken part, with clenched teeth, in cooperation with NATO to show how important a partner we ultimately are. This has led to an interesting situation; the military brass of our country has very good relations with NATO and the Americans. This is a very good thing. Extensive cooperation with NATO in the former Yugoslavia or in Afghanistan creates a positive image of Finland especially among the soldiers of other countries - Finns are involved in increasingly higher positions within this cooperation.
There is a clear weakness in the foundation of this cooperation. In a democratic country the main responsibility in taking care of these kinds of relations belongs to the political leadership, and not to the military.
The third important dimension of the let’s-hope-for-the-best policy line is maintaining our country’s position and its influence as strong as possible in the establishment of the of the trans-Atlantic and European security architecture.
Our policy is at its weakest in this third part. No quibbling with words will change the fact that NATO’s peace partners are in a weaker position than the countries that are members of both NATO and the EU. The differences between membership and partnership have been diluted, but the dividing line is still there: the common defence obligation of NATO applies to the defence of members, and not partners. Naturally one can hope that NATO’s main significance - the prevention of war through its simple existence - will also protect outsiders.
Helsingin Sanomat / First published in print 25.10.2005
OLLI KIVINEN / Helsingin Sanomat
okivinen@kolumbus.fi
|
| 1.11.2005 - THIS WEEK |
 The let's-hope-for-the-best foreign policy line |
|
