Motion: THB that Finland should reconsider NATO and join the alliance as part of its defence doctrine
Role: MP (opp.)
It has long been talked about, or rather, bandied about, that Finland could or should become a member state in the NATO. The idea thereof is that it is a loosely knit fabric of member states that works on the principle of the Three Musketeers: all for one and one for all. Nations want to join the NATO, since it is seen as a safeguard against national insecurity, largely due to the (past) largesse of its biggest contributor and wielder of clout, the USA. This, however, may come to an end, as the internal problems, credit crunch and money drought are engulfing the USA as well.
But, in order to analyse Finland in this context, let me state that @ present Finland has its hands tied up pretty badly, and most of it is of our own doing. Put simply, as a statement: Finland cannot join the NATO, for there is an unwritten prohibition for any single party, politician or government to take us there. It is simply unthinkable. I break this down into the three constituent parts:
No party can take us into the NATO. If that happened, the other parties would begin immediately using that as a hitting weapon in the interpartisan rivalry. A Nato-fervent party would be seen as a peace-destabiliser and an underminer of the country’s position vis-à-vis Russia.
No politician can take us into the NATO. The question is seen as way too big for any individual politician to shoulder or take on. This includes the incumbent president of the Republic of Finland, as well. We have indeed had a string of NATO-indifferent or downright NATO-hostile presidents, but now that we have a rightwinger, a potential ”hawk” in place, the situation is not any different. He’ll have to toe the line just like everyone else. He has the top job in the country, but he also has ”too small” a stature to decide on ”our future” in such an ”important matter”.
No administration or government that sits for the mandated four years is allowed to consider or file an application for a NATO membership. How come?
- First of all, there would be no way that a consensus could be reached by a rainbow coalition that most governments these days are.
- Secondly, if one or two parties could dominate an administration, their internal ranks would in all likelihood be divided over the issue.
- Thirdly, the president and the media would immediately start scrutinising the govt. in question trying to break the pattern. I’d like to emphasise that the media is really the Fourth Estate. It ALWAYS intervenes in questions of national security and insecurity, even though this matter would not fall under its jurisdiction in the first place.
If we bring into the discussion another Scandinavian society, the reality is peculiar. Finland is far too interested in the Kingdom of Sweden’s intentions in this quest. It always wants to know whether Sweden is applying, even though these two countries’ military histories are totally different and incomparable. It seems that Finland is going to apply if Sweden does. But Sweden does not want to apply, if Finland won’t, as it sees its neighbour as the more vulnerable one, more in need of protection and shielding. So, in the end, neither does. This is a textbook example of military interdependence, not of military independence.
Finland is like a driftwood raft in the matter instead of a drifting log. With iron string and barbed wire, its politicians, parties, administrations and the media are tied to each other in a unified ”fear and loathing” of the NATO, and this can’t be undone.
In a broader context, Finland drifts on in the sea or river of international politics, as if it did not have a volition of its own. This is the modern interpretation of the ”ajopuuteoria” or the Driftwood Hypothesis.
Arvio: Puheessa tehdään selväksi vallitseva poliittinen tilanne. Status quota pönkitetään, mutta analyyttisellä tavalla. Tämä sopii poliittiselle oppositiolle ja sen (rivikansan)edustajalle. Whip saa valmiin paketin, jos edellisetkin puhujat ovat hoitaneet hommansa.