Welcome to the new version of European Tribune. It's just a new layout, so everything should work as before - please report bugs here.

Finlandisation 2.0: Plus ça change...

by NordicStorm Mon Oct 1st, 2007 at 04:50:22 PM EST

In a previous diary I wrote a bit about the origins of the term "finlandisation", which refers to the intricate relationship Finland had to its largest neighbour during the Cold War, the Soviet Union, while still remaining a functioning democracy. The term can also analogously refer to any undue influence a large country has on a smaller neighbour.
Though the dissolution of the Soviet Union occurred more than 15 years ago, the term remains as relevant as always, in Finland in particular.


In a recent speech in Washington DC, the Finnish minister of defense, Jyri Häkämies (of the conservative National Coalition Party), made the following comment in regards to threats to Finnish national security:

In general, Finland is privileged to be located in one of the safest corners of the world. However, given our geographical location, the three main security challenges for Finland today are Russia, Russia and Russia. And not only for Finland, but for all of us.
(full speech available on the website of the Finnish Defense Ministry)

Though the speech in itself was fairly boilerplate stuff, consisting mostly of vague generalities, that particular remark drew a lot of ire back home in Finland. The Social Democrat-led opposition immediately criticised Häkämies and the government, claiming that decades of Finnish foreign policy were being thrown out of the window. Some even went as far as calling for his resignation (Hufvudstadsbladet, September 12 2007, registration required to access online archive).
One can certainly make the argument that the opposition is playing politics by opposing Häkämies as vehemently as they have. Though accusing politicians of engaging in politics hardly seems like a particularly harsh indictment.
Of course, deciphering what exactly Häkämies was trying to say is no trivial task.
I think it would be a foolish - and mistaken - conclusion to draw that the new Russia will threaten Finland's security...Geopolitics is back, and it is back with force, and we who have the responsibility for Finland's national defence must draw certain conclusions.
Russia is not a threat, but we must draw "certain conclusions". Huh?
Certainly one may argue that Russia poses a "security challenge" to Finland. Nothing particularly peculiar in that argument. But the context in which he made that statement is important.

In the run-up to the elections to the Eduskunta (Finnish parliament) earlier this year, former minister of finance, presidential candidate and current speaker of the Eduskunta Sauli Niinistö (NCP) lambasted then foreign minister Erkki Tuomioja (SDP) for his supposed anti-Americanism, stating that Finland's relationship to the USA had faltered during Tuomioja's tenure at the foreign ministry, among other things citing the fact that Finnish president Tarja Halonen (SDP) had not met even once with American president George W Bush (Hufvudstadsbladet, March 2 2007)
It was thus fairly obvious that a defeat for the SDP would result in a foreign policy that sought to bring Finland closer to the United States and NATO.
Finnish foreign policy has always been conducted with a certain amount of consensus among the parties. The current government is seeking to end that, ostensibly attempting to make Finnish foreign policy an entirely partisan affair.

This is where the term "finlandisation" becomes useful: any criticism of the current Finnish foreign policy can easily be dismissed as "finlandisation", "attempts at censorship" or "living in the past". The supposed perpetrators of "finlandisation" are accused of attempting to stifle the debate, but that is exactly the purpose of making the accusation in the first place. In this regard, the term is entirely analogous to dismissing something as "anti-American", "Pétainisme" or the all-time greatest put down of the warmongering movement: "appeasement". It only serves to disparage differing opinion.
See for example columnist and former politician Jutta Zilliacus:
Bara nu inte Häkämies faller på knä och ber om ursäkt. Då är vi tillbaka i finlandiseringen.
As long as Häkämies doesn't fall to his knees and apologises. Then we're back in finlandisation.
The sentiments were echoed by speaker Niinistö:
På presskonferensen gjordes upprepade försök att få honom att berätta vem han menar när han kritiserar försöken att begränsa den utrikespolitiska diskussionen.
- Det verkar som om man skulle anse att bara vissa personer får ha åsikter om utrikespolitiken. Det är som en fläkt från femtio år tillbaka.
During the press conference repeated attempts were made to get [Niinistö] to say whom he's referring to when he criticises the attempts to limit the foreign policy debate.
- It seems as if some would think that only certain persons are allowed to have opinions about foreign policy. It's like a breeze from fifty years ago.

It is entirely in this spirit that neocon "thinker" Norm Podhoretz attempts to popularise a new phrase with regards to the threat posed by "islamofascism":
But in the meantime, looking at Europe today, we already see the unfolding of a process analogous to Finlandization: it has been called, rightly, Islamization.

And so, anyone disagreeing with Podhoretz' characterisation of Europe can easily be dismissed as cowering in fear before the behemoth of evil that is islamofascism with as little effort as it would take to type "islamisation".

Häkämies' statement is part and parcel of the foreign policy the current centre-right Finnish government seeks to conduct. The government has become increasingly vocal about a possible NATO membership. Nevermind that a majority of the Finnish people are opposed to NATO membership (and as an aside, in the 2006 presidential election, only one candidate, the Swedish People's Party's Henrik Lax, openly advocated NATO membership. He received a paltry 1.6% of the vote, a terribly small percentage even for the SPP).

This is not to say that Russia is above criticism, nor should it be. But invoking "finlandisation" when your argument in turn is criticised is not adhering to the "open debate" you claim to be in favour of. It is merely invoking a modified Godwin's law.

Display:
I'm not overly fond of the current Finnish government...

"The basis of optimism is sheer terror" - Oscar Wilde
by NordicStorm (m<-at->sturmbaum.net) on Mon Oct 1st, 2007 at 04:53:03 PM EST
Finland is privileged to be located in one of the safest corners of the world.
 

:D  

A few months ago Echidne of the Snakes posted a clip of the Complaints Choir of Helsinki (with subtitles).  It included such highlights as:  

Summer is like the cord on the vacuum cleaner--too short.  
The weather is always terrible.  
Our ancestors could have picked a better place to live.  

That is a lot of safety right there!  

I suppose not having any oil worth stealing helps too.  
_  

I do not think one would have to be a friend of Russia to doubt that the US would make a reliable ally . . .

The Fates are kind.

by Gaianne on Mon Oct 1st, 2007 at 11:28:28 PM EST
I've been thinking that maybe finlandisation does still exist. If finlandisation means cosying uncritically up to the superpower, that is. It's just that the superpower has changed; formerly Soviet Union, nowadays the US.

(It's no secret that many of the Kokoomus (NCP) politicians used to visit the embassy at Tehtaankatu quite frequently..)

You have a normal feeling for a moment, then it passes. --More--

by tzt (tzt) on Tue Oct 2nd, 2007 at 05:21:46 AM EST
I stopped short of saying as much in the diary, but I think you're right.

While I was out looking for sources, I happened to find this interview with president Tarja Halonen, who had an interesting take on "finlandisation":

Republikens presidents intervju i Vasabladet den 4 Maj 2001 Interview with the president of the Republic, Vasabladet May 2001
-Statsminister Paavo Lipponen har kraftigt, och riktigt, betonat att det samarbete Finland tidigare utövade nu utövas av alla i EU. Det borde vi var stolta över. Stämpeln finlandisering vi fick på oss gäller nu hela EU, om jag litet hårdrar, säger Halonen. - Prime Minister Paavo Lipponen has forcefully, and correctly, emphasised that the cooperation that Finland previously had (with Russia) is now practised by everyone in the EU. This is something we should be proud of. The stamp "finlandisation" which we received now applies to all of the EU, if I may exaggerate a little, says Halonen.


"The basis of optimism is sheer terror" - Oscar Wilde
by NordicStorm (m<-at->sturmbaum.net) on Tue Oct 2nd, 2007 at 08:27:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I thought Finlandisation 2.0 was going to refer to Atlanticism...

We have met the enemy, and it is us — Pogo
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Oct 10th, 2007 at 01:35:34 PM EST
Yeah, I opted to not make that connection explicit, as it felt slightly odd to accuse them of being finlandised, while lambasting them for accusing others of being finlandised...
I couldn't think of a more applicable title at the time. "Finlandisation as Godwin's law" might have been more descriptive.


"The basis of optimism is sheer terror" - Oscar Wilde
by NordicStorm (m<-at->sturmbaum.net) on Thu Oct 11th, 2007 at 03:40:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It's like "You're an appeaser, d'you hear me? An appeaser!"

We have met the enemy, and it is us — Pogo
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Oct 11th, 2007 at 04:29:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
[Split Infinitive Alert]


"The basis of optimism is sheer terror" - Oscar Wilde
by NordicStorm (m<-at->sturmbaum.net) on Thu Oct 11th, 2007 at 08:44:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Would you like that to be a macro?

We have met the enemy, and it is us — Pogo
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Oct 11th, 2007 at 08:48:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Only if there's also a [Grammar Nazi Alert] ;)

"The basis of optimism is sheer terror" - Oscar Wilde
by NordicStorm (m<-at->sturmbaum.net) on Thu Oct 11th, 2007 at 08:54:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]
What are you? Some kind of a prescriptivist?

prescription can refer both to the codification and the enforcement of rules governing how a language is to be used. These rules can cover such topics as standards for spelling and grammar or syntax; or rules for what is deemed socially or politically correct.
...

Prescription is typically contrasted with description, which observes and records how language is used in practice, and which is the basis of all linguistic research. Serious scholarly descriptive work is usually based on text or corpus analysis, or on field studies, but the term "description" includes each individual's observations of their own language usage. Unlike prescription, descriptive linguistics eschews value judgments and makes no recommendations.

How do you feel about "ending a sentence with a preposition"?

by someone (s0me1smail(a)gmail(d)com) on Fri Oct 12th, 2007 at 03:30:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Surely I am allowed to chastise myself? ;)

A preposition is not something I would end a sentence with. Though it's not something I have anything against.

"The basis of optimism is sheer terror" - Oscar Wilde

by NordicStorm (m<-at->sturmbaum.net) on Fri Oct 12th, 2007 at 04:24:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
No, no self flagellation allowed on this site! Further, we must preserve any and all idiosyncrasies of language, promote increasing ambiguity, and so on! Or people will be breaking out the much detested </snark> tags to clearify their statements. Which kind of defeats the purpose of sarcasm and irony as far as I'm concerned!
3~
by someone (s0me1smail(a)gmail(d)com) on Fri Oct 12th, 2007 at 04:52:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
What? I thought we were all about building narratives counter to mainstream media conventional wisdom; how are we gonna do that if not even we know what we mean?

"The basis of optimism is sheer terror" - Oscar Wilde
by NordicStorm (m<-at->sturmbaum.net) on Fri Oct 12th, 2007 at 05:05:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, yes, yes. For the mass-public propaganda bit. There we need to create the illusion of clearity. But, that shouldn't mean we can't have some fun 'round here!
by someone (s0me1smail(a)gmail(d)com) on Fri Oct 12th, 2007 at 05:51:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Aah, fair point! In that spirit, I will add a completely unnecessary preposition at the end of this sentence and I will deliberately machinate to frequently split infinitives at.

"The basis of optimism is sheer terror" - Oscar Wilde
by NordicStorm (m<-at->sturmbaum.net) on Fri Oct 12th, 2007 at 05:55:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
3~
by someone (s0me1smail(a)gmail(d)com) on Fri Oct 12th, 2007 at 05:59:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Excellent! Clearly there's enormous potential in the field of ass-based emoticons. I'd elaborate, but the bad taste police would have me disappeared...

"The basis of optimism is sheer terror" - Oscar Wilde
by NordicStorm (m<-at->sturmbaum.net) on Fri Oct 12th, 2007 at 06:10:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]

Top Diaries

A Trip to the Woodshed

by Cat - Nov 3
20 comments

Catalonia?

by Frank Schnittger - Oct 28
17 comments

The Brexit effect

by Frank Schnittger - Oct 25
20 comments