Finnish Defence Minister is Bothered by History
by Ferdinand Victor Perrot
In
Login if you are already registered
(no votes) |
(0 votes) |
Doctor of Political Science, Professor, MGIMO University
On May 22, 1949 the first U.S. Secretary of Defence James Forrestal threw himself out of the window of a military hospital screaming “The Russians are attacking!” We can feel for the man who was being treated for nervous and physical exhaustion because he feared that “little Red men” from Russia were about to invade America. It is unlikely that Minister of Defence of Finland Jussi Niinistö, who recently declared that the Åland Islands might be occupied by “little green men” really believes that events could take such a turn. No Minister’s going to be hurt this time.
On May 22, 1949 the first U.S. Secretary of Defence James Forrestal threw himself out of the window of a military hospital screaming “The Russians are attacking!” We can feel for the man who was being treated for nervous and physical exhaustion because he feared that “little Red men” from Russia were about to invade America. A belief in his own delusions brought him to a tragic end.
It is unlikely that Minister of Defence of Finland Jussi Niinistö, who recently declared that the Åland Islands might be occupied by “little green men” – that is, Russian soldiers in military uniforms without insignia – really believes that events could take such a turn. No Minister’s going to be hurt this time.
Niinistö claims that, in the event of an armed conflict in the Baltic countries or in the Baltic Sea, Russia could try to invade the Åland Islands and Gotland. He has urged Finland to consider organizing the defence of these territories, calling for the coordinated efforts of the Ministry of Defence of Finland, the border service, the authorities of the Åland Islands and Sweden.
Is using hypothetical scenarios to call for the abandonment of the international status of the Åland Islands as a demilitarized zone, a status which it has held since 1856.
Political and military leaders of Niinistö’s rank should not design defence policies based on the possibility of irrational actions by other states. The Minister of Defence would hardly be able to explain what tactical or strategic benefits Russia could gain by occupying the Åland Islands and what could prompt it to do so, speaking about real and not imagined causes that could trigger an armed conflict in the Baltic countries or in the Baltic Sea.
Minister of Defence of Finland
Jussi Niinistö
However, if we take Niinistö’s words seriously, he is using hypothetical scenarios to call for the abandonment of the international status of the Åland Islands as a demilitarized zone, a status which it has held since 1856. The islands, like the whole of Finland, became part of Russia under the 1809 Treaty of Fredrikshamn. Unlike Russia, Sweden made repeated attempts to take the islands away from Finland, arguing that they had always belonged to Sweden and that they had been handed over to Russia in 1809 as a separate province, rather than as part of Finland. The Swedish side urged Finland to agree to a referendum among the predominantly Swedish population of the Åland Islands to decide the country to which they wanted to belong. As compensation, Sweden offered financial aid and assistance to Finland in taking over Russia’s East Karelia. Several options for the possible transfer of Åland Islands to Sweden were presented at the Paris Peace Conference in the autumn of 1919.
The public statements of Minister Jussi Niinistö are not addressed to the country’s leadership, or even to the members of its parliament. Rather, they are directed towards public opinion.
The Minister is well aware that there is no real need for Finland to defend the Åland Islands from Russian aggression, especially with help from Sweden. And there is nothing in the nature of Russian–Finnish relations over the past 70 years to give credence to the scenarios put forward by Niinistö. This is why all this talk has not translated itself into any real steps to remilitarize the Åland Islands or allocate money from the country’s budget for that purpose. The Finnish leadership is well aware of the highly negative consequences that practical steps in that direction could have, both for the country in particular and for European security in general, not to speak of the relations between Finland and Russia.
The logical conclusion is that the public statements of Minister Jussi Niinistö are not addressed to the country’s leadership, or even to the members of its parliament. Rather, they are directed towards public opinion. They help to bolster the case for Finland to join NATO to safeguard its security in the face of a Russian military threat. In this case, the debate was fuelled by the crisis in Ukraine.
As a professional, the Minister of Defence ought to know that the Donbass authorities are not planning to march on Kiev or seize other parts of Ukraine. Nor do they seek to secede from Ukraine. This is in stark contrast to the current central Ukrainian authorities, which seek to conquer the rebel areas, subjugate their populations and impose on them an order that runs counter to the basic interests of their Russian-speaking population. We may, of course, blame everything on Russian “aggression”, but it would be very short-sighted for the minister responsible for military planning to build Finland’s defence strategy on the basis of propaganda clichés for which there are no real grounds.
(no votes) |
(0 votes) |
