VIEWS FROM THE CAPITALS
FINLAND’s power struggles result in mixed signals on foreign policy
Summer 2008
When Finland’s government changed from a centre-left to a centre-right coalition in Spring 2007, the make-up of the new cabinet introduced a significant shake-up in Finnish foreign policy. For 12 years, the social democrats had dominated policymaking, controlling both the presidency and the foreign ministry, so now for the first time since the 1930s Finland had a conservative foreign minister, Ilkka Kanerva, while retaining a social-democratic president. The conservatives also gained the post of the defence minister and the chairmanship of parliament’s foreign affairs committee.
The country’s changed policy stance has been particularly noticeable vis-à-vis the United States and Russia. Until recently, Finland, like “Old Europe”, was lukewarm and critical towards George W. Bush’s administration. Since 2000 there has been no state visit to the White House for Finland’s president, Tarja Halonen. Perhaps to demonstrate that change is in the air, the new government’s prime minister Matti Vanhanen, who is from the Centre Party, and his foreign minister have been intensively engaged in building bridges with US politicians and policymakers. Whether these bridges will have any lasting effect remains to be seen.
As to Russia, the new cabinet adopted a more outspoken policy line than its predecessors. Shortly after the change of government, ethnic Russians in the Estonian capital Tallinn rioted over the city’s removal to a new site of a World War II memorial to the Red Army’s dead. Foreign minister Kanerva was quick to condemn them, and further controversy over Russia was stirred when defence minister Jyri Häkämies used a US visit last September to explicitly name Russia as the key security challenge facing Finland. The impact of this speech was only slightly blunted when President Halonen stated that “she would have expressed herself differently”.
This year, Finland holds the presidency of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), the organisation that in Finnish folklore is the baby of Urho Kekkonen, legendary Finnish President from 1956 to 1981, and the prime architect of Finland’s formerly close post-war relationship with the Soviet Union. Helsinki’s OSCE presidency may yet bring a new dimension to Finnish-Russian relations; during the first months of its presidency, Ilkka Kanerva repeatedly called on Russia to act in accordance with the European institutions. He wanted to send OSCE observers to Russia’s presidential elections, but the Kremlin refused to let them in. Russia’s attitude over Kosovo, where the OSCE also plays an important part, may well present fresh problems for the Finnish presidency.
The story told here essentially shows how Finland has moved into an era of “mixed foreign policymaking”. The president personifies the social-democratic tradition, with a strong emphasis on global governance and equality, while the new conservative line favours a stronger focus on security structures, both in Europe and in the transatlantic framework. Both these lines are now competing to define Finland’s role and position in the world.
This political wrestling may further intensify as a result of the newest scandal of Finnish politics: Mr Kanerva was forced to resign in early April, following a media uproar over his 200 more or less indecent text messages to an exotic dancer. He has been replaced by Alexander Stubb, a relatively young MEP and former advisor to Romano Prodi when he was Commission President. Stubb is an outspoken Europeanist and atlanticist, and although in his first comments he emphasised the team nature of foreign affairs policymaking, it nevertheless seems likely that the tensions will remain.
There is also a constitutional aspect to the situation. The latest constitutional reform in 2000 introduced a system where the president and the government in effect compete for the right to represent Finland internationally. Section 93 of the Constitution says that “the foreign policy of Finland is directed by the President of the Republic in co-operation with the government”. But the Constitution also says it is the government that is responsible for the “national preparation of the decisions to be made in the European Union”. These formulations have contributed to much confusion over whether the president or the prime minister, or both, attend European Councils.
President Halonen insists that cooperation with the present coalition is running smoothly, but there is a passionate debate among the country’s political elite on the president’s future role in dealing with both European and global partners. Many have proposed a reduction in the president’s powers, but it remains to be seen whether this will happen. There is, after all, a strong – and democratic – tradition that favours a directly-elected president with a degree of real power.