Finland’s Neutrality as Part of Its National Identity
https://doi.org/10.24833/2071-8160-2019-2-65-86-100
Abstract
The article examines Finland's case within the framework of current discussions on the relevance of neutrality policy. It is widely believed that Finland's neutrality arose during the cold war as a result of a pragmatic assessment of the general world order at that time. The military non-alignment is regarded from this perspective as a rational and necessary policy for a small state in the bipolar world. After the cold war some politicians and researches argued that under the new conditions the policy of military neutrality is not relevant anymore and that belonging to the Western community is the only choice. However, Finland's military non-alignment policy and reliance on self-defense have remained unchanged for almost three decades. Finnish authorities have consistently pursued this line with a strong support of the majority of population. The reasons for that cannot be explained only as a rational political choice of a small state in certain geopolitical realities, the issue is more complex. Some Finnish researchers consider neutrality as part of the Finnish national identity. Using this approach, the author examines the genesis and development of neutrality policy as part of its national identity, which evolved at the junction of East and West. The article examines the influence of Sweden and Russia on the development of Finland’s statehood and its foreign policy. Sweden determined the political structures and inculcated Finns with the Scandinavian identity. The role of Russia in the beginning of Finnish statehood was crucial. It formed the subsequent Eastern vector of Finland’s foreign policy. The symbiosis of Western (Swedish) and Eastern (Russian) vectors gives Finland additional advantages, allowing a small state to claim the role of a «bridge-builder» between East and West. The author concludes that this complex combination has created the prerequisites for neutrality expressed in the policy of military non-alignment. Neutrality as a part of Finnish national identity has deep historical roots. It was born together with the Finnish statehood and has been staying with it despite all the changes in international environment.
About the Author
N. Yu. VezhlivtsevaRussian Federation
Natalia Y. Vezhlivtseva – counsellor.
119200 Moscow, Smolenskaya-Sennaya Sq. 32/34.
References
1. Voronkov L.S. «Severnoe sotrudnichest- vo» i osobennosti severoevropejskoj inte- gracii [«Northern Cooperation» and Features of the North European Integration]. Moscow: MGIMO-Universitet, 2016. 340 p. (In Russian)
2. Meinander H. Istoriya Finlyandii. Linii, struktury, perelomnyye moment [History of Finland. Lines, Structures, Turning Points]. Moscow: Ves' mir, 2008. 256 p.
3. Pohljobkin V.V. SSSR-Finljandija. 260 let otnoshenij 1713-1973 [USSR-Finland. 260 Years of Relationships 1713-1973]. Moscow: Mezhdunarodnye otnoshenija, 1975. 410 p. (In Russian).
4. Jussila O. Suomen historian suuret myytit. WSOY, 2007. (In Finnish)
5. Jussila O. Suomen Suuriruhtinaskunta 1809-1917. WSOY, 2004. 832 p. (In Finnish)
6. Aaltola M., Agile Small State Agency: Heuristic Plays and Flexible Nation al Identity Markers in Finnish For eign Policy. Nationalities Papers. The Journal of Nationalism and Ethnicity. 2011, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 257-276 DOI: 10.1080/00905992.2010.549469.
7. Arter D. Finland: From Neutrality to NATO? European Security. 1996, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 614-632.
8. Aunesluoma J., Rainio-Niemi J. Neutral ity as Identity? Finland’s Quest for Security in the Cold War. Journal of Cold War Studies, 2016, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 51-78. DOI:10.1162/JCWS_a_00680
9. Blombergs F. (edit.) Suomen turvallisuuspoliittisen ratkaisun lahtokohtia. Tam pere: National Defence University, 2016. 581 p. (In Finnish).
10. Bloomberg J. Vakauden kaipuu, kylman sodan loppu ja Suomi. Helsinki: WSOY 2011. 696 p. (In Finnish).
11. Erkka R., Laamanen V. Suomi muuttuvassa maailmassa: Ulkosuhteiden ja kansallisen itseymmarryksen historiaa. Helsinki: Edita, 2010. 452 p. (In Finnish).
12. Forsberg T. Nato-kirja. Jyvaskyla: Gummerus Kirjapaino OY., 2002. 327 p.
13. Forsberg, T., Pesu, M. The “Finlandisation” of Finland: The Ideal Type, the Historical Model, and the Lessons Learnt. Diplomacy & Statecraft. 2016, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 473-495. DOI: 10.1080/09592296.2016.1196069.
14. Forsberg, T., Vaahtoranta T. Inside the EU, Outside NATO: Paradoxes of Finland's and Sweden's Post-Neutrality. European Security. 2001, vol.10, no.1, pp. 68-93. DOI: 10.1080/09662830108407483
15. Heikka H. Republican Realism: Finnish Strategic Culture in Historical Perspective. Cooperation and Conflict. 2015, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 91-119. DOI: 10.1177/0010836705049736
16. Iloniemi J. Maantieteelle emme mahdamitaan. Docendo, 2015. 198 p. (In Finnish)
17. McNamara E., Nordenman M., SaloniusPasternak Ch. Nordic-Baltic Security and US Foreign Policy. FIIA Report 87. The Finnish Institute for International Affairs, 2015. 26 p.
18. Mouritsen H. Pohjoinen dilemma. Ulkopolitiikka, 2018, no. 1, pp. 68-73.
19. Mouritzen H. Small States and Finlandisation in the Age of Trump. Survival, 2017, vol. 59, no.2, pp. 67-84. DOI: 10.1080/00396338.2017.1302191.
20. Pyykonen J. Nordic Partners of NATO. How Similar are Finland and Sweden within NATO Cooperation? FIIA Report 48. The Finnish Institute for International Affairs, 2016. 136 p.
21. Tarkka J. Karhun kainalossa: Suomen kylma sota 1947-1990. Helsinki: Otava, 2012. 495 p. (In Finnish)
22. Tarkka J. Koskenlaskun lyhyt historia. Puolustusmunusterionjulkaisuja. 2017, no. 2. (In Finnish)
23. Vanhanen M. Ulkopolitiikka. Omakustanne, 2016. 116 p. (In Finnish)
24. Wahlroos B. Miksi liittya Natoon? Ulkopolitiikka. 2017, no. 3, pp.74-77. (In Finnish).
Review
For citations:
Vezhlivtseva N.Yu. Finland’s Neutrality as Part of Its National Identity. MGIMO Review of International Relations. 2019;(2(65)):86-100. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24833/2071-8160-2019-2-65-86-100