Reading the news about how Prime Minister Petteri Orpo’s government plans to not comply with the right to seek asylum speaks volumes about Finland’s “R” problem. In many cases, the media, which acts more like a rubber stamp for the government on migration issues, is also part of the problem.
It is sad to see the treatment of the Russian community of Finland starting from President Sauli Niinistö, whose dislike of dual citizenship and asylum seekers is well documented.
Dual citizenship is a right guaranteed by Finnish law but it takes candidates, who should know better, to make incredulous nd demeaning statements that their dual citizenship should be revoked.
As a person who has lived in Finland for many decades, I am ashamed that we have politicians that want to score brownie points with xenophobia.
Katja Marova, a member of the 37,813-strong community (2022) who holds dual Russian and Finnish citizenship, admitted that her stress level rose thanks to recent statements by presidential candidates concerning banning dual citizenship for Russians.
“This is scary and has raised a lot of conern among Russian speakers in Finland,” said Morova.
Katja Marova was attracted to Finland by its peaceful life. You need a lot of time to move about St. Petersburg. There is also a different type of freedom in Finland to do things. Souce: Mikko Savolainen/Yle
Apart from a clear example of shameful xenophobia by politicians who should know better, the dual citizenship debate has popped up in the media a number of times. it has been mentioned by politicians like President Sauli Niinistö since 2014.
The reason why the “dual citizenship” issue has not gone anywhere despite opposition to it is because of our constitution and EU laws. You cannot single out or discriminate against a group. If Finland wants to do away with dual citizenship, then it would have to abolish it for all nationalities.
National Coalition Party (NCP) candidate Aleksander Stubb, who did not mind labeling all Russians in Finland as a potential threat, openly supports scrapping dual citizenship rights of Russians. He argued that “a debate is needed on the matter” because Vladimir Putin will go to any lengths to defend its citizens abroad.
“Then we need to find some kind of system to prevent this security threat from materializing,” he added.
Sure Stubb, we’ll have a productive discussion on the topic after you label and demonize Russian speakers in Finland for your own political aims.
Of the nine presidential candidates, only two (Jutta Urpilainen and Li Andersson) were against scrapping dual citizenship rights of Russian speakers in Finland. Even the favorite in the polls, Pekka Haavisto, together with Olli Rehn and Mika Altola didn’t go as far as Stubb, Jussi Halla-aho and Sari Essayah, but were ready to stop granting dual citizenship to Russians in the future.
Positive change
Marova, who is a city of Lappeenranta Left Alliance deputy chairperson, has organized two demonstrations protesting the closure of the Russian-Finnish border in her home city. She is also the new treasurer of the newly founded Aleksranterinliiton association, which aims to be a watchdog on Russian rights in Finland and promote dialogue.
“One of the mattters that has changed since we spoke about two years, is that Russian speakers [in Finland] are more outspoken,” she said. “They undertand that if they do not speak out for their rights, nobody will.”
Marova said that a group has founded Aleksanderiliitto association, a new association that aims to look after the legal rights of Russian speakers in Finland.
Finland is still far from regaining its former political composure after the April 2011 elections, which saw the right-wing populist Finns Party win a historic election victory by becoming the country’s third-largest political force in parliament after the National Coalition Party and the Social Democrats. Compared to the elections before 2011, the number of Finns Party MPs rose from five in 2007 to an astonishing 39.
Many political observers have wondered how an anti-EU, anti-immigration and especially anti-Islam party can become a major political force in Finland in only four years. My guess is the following: Our lack of cultural diversity. Finland’s foreign population totals today about 4% of the population. It is still too small to make a dent on national politics.
Certainly, there are other factors at play that helped the Finns Party to win the last parliamentary elections. There’s the euro crisis and the deep recession, which have helped far-right and right-wing populist parties to see unprecedented growth in today’s Europe. Even so, if Finland had larger ethnic and religious minorities, the result of the 2011 election would have been different.
Our large Finnish-American and Finnish-Canadian expatriate communities abroad are good examples how diversity has not only enriched Finnish culture but made it stronger.
One of the big debates going on in Finland is how our ever-growing immigrant population will change our country demographically and culturally. While we don’t have a precise answer to such questions because the future rarely reveals itself to us, the only matter we can say with some certainty is that our population will change in the next two decades.
As the xenophobic government of Prime Minister Petteri Orpo aims to open some border crossings on the Finnish-Russian border on 14 January, the big question will the government revert to illegal pushbacks?
Why is there concern?
Orpo has gone as far as to suggest earlier that asylum seekers should be sent directly back to Russia supposedly because it is a safe country.
Such a suggestion, denying people the right to asylum, has received strong criticism from international law professor Martti Koskenniemi.
Even if some news outlets like Yle claim that parties belonging to the government “have increased” their support, according to the latest opinion poll published by Yle, another fact is left out of the story.
Is this the case? The full story? The total support given to the parties in the government stood at 48.5%, which is up a tad from 47.9% in ther previous opinion poll.
Moreover, the Finnish-Russian border crisis, which the Perussuomalaiset (PS)* have hoped to increase support, was not a boost for the PS.
The government of Prime Minister Petteri Orpo is anticipating with some dread the opening of the Finnish-Russian border on 14 January. In order to deny people the right to asylum, Orpo has gone as far as to suggest that asylum seekers should be sent directly back to Russia supposedly because it is a safe country.
Such a suggestion, denying people the right to asylum, has received strong criticism from international law professor Martti Koskenniemi.
“I can only conclude that Orpo does not know what he is talking about,” Koskenniemi was quoted as saying in Yle. “Surely the prime minister is not proposing such a thing [like denying asylum with illegal pushbacks]. There is no need to use the English term. The proposal [by Orpo] is an excuse to breach international agreements.”
As Koskenniemi correctly asks, why haven’t politicians suggested any credible changes to international agreements on asylum?
The answer is a no-brainer: They don’t have any answers except for weakening human rights and trashing international agreements governing refugee and asylum rights.
Another important question that should concern us is what is the government’s new steps to further undermine human rights and civil rights? They are already doing this on a massive scale by weakening social, labor and migrant rights.
As far as Orpo’s government is concerned, its record on racism and human rights reveal an incompetence rarely seen in Finnish politics.
There only argument for breaching human rights is fear.
The only route of the government is to exit from power.
Russia is not unpredictable. In its operations against Finland, it exploits racism because Finland is a racist country.
The observation by writer Sofi Oksnanen is the only one I have read that reveals the government’s pushbacks and their draconian immigration and asylum policy. The government’s knee-jerk reaction to closing the Finnish-Russian border shows how Finnish politicians and the media have jumped on the populist-racist bandwagon.
Oksanen is a sharp writer and observer, especially of governments with autocratic intentions. It is surprising that the Finnish media, never mind politicians, have not dared to question the government’s policies but bowed instead to them.
Prime Minister Petteri Orpo can claim with a poker face its immigration policy isn’t racist because it is a copy of what is being done in other Nordic countries. Would it be fair to say that the immigration policy of all Nordic countries is then racist?
Thanks to a talk hosted by the European Network on Religion and Belief (ENORB) this week, we were able to witness once again the violent pushbacks occurring on EU borders, Migrant Tales recently published a story about this pushback on the Turkish-Greek Evros River border.
The pushbacks, which go largely unnoticed by the European media, are happening right now and are the region’s blind spot and shame.
Writes Mireia Rimbau Vilà of ENORB: “As negotiations for the New EU Pact on Migration and Asylum are finalized, the future is bleak. For this, we need to stand together in solidarity. At the European Network on Religion and Belief, we want to build bridges between different groups to strengthen community cohesion.”
Pushbacks are a reality that asylum seekers and migrants are facing in many parts of the EU.
It is hard to make any sense out of the on-and-off Russian border closings.
Whether these will have any real effect in the long run on numbers of asylum seekers remains to be seen.
The way the war is going in Ukraine this winter almost guarantees an influx of hundreds or thousands more from that country, all of whom have so far been granted humanitarian protection. The impact of the Gaza conflict looks increasingly scary.
Ostensibly some of those who come from Ukraine have other destination options and as many might be diverted elsewhere as the number seen to be trickling across the Russian border when allowed. That way the objections about the social costs of accepting asylum seekers could be managed. A place in a refugee reception center has the same price, regardless of nationality.
But then there is this political contention that we should be helping Ukraine.
Now, the news just out from Russia is that the country is tightening up its laws regarding undocumented persons and that those who are not regularized will be fined or jailed- but given the option to fight in Ukraine after which they would be granted Russian residence.
It seems to me that if we really want to help Ukraine, we (meaning Finland) could grant many of those applying to Finland entry residence permits and deny the Russian army their services as reinforcements to destroy Ukraine. Accommodating, hundreds of such applicants from Russia would likely come much cheaper than the millions we are now spending to send weapons for Zelensky to fight a losing war. It would also likely be a policy appreciated by both Ukraine and our EU colleagues struggling to retain a credible refugee protection regime in the eyes of the world.
It would likely also be accepted by Russia as such a policy could also allow us to open the eastern border permitting persons of Russian extraction to be reunited over the holidays and winter months. Keeping the border open would also allow the continuation of container and automobile traffic transiting Russia, the loss of which is costing Finnish businesses millions.
This is the kind of “realpolitik” we could use as the birthrate in Finland has plummeted and those entering retirement are increasing apace. In an economy that is hardly growing, there is not much to attract the high-flying career movers that the Confederation of Finnish Businesses (EK) and Business Finland fantasize about, not even with fast-track residence permits.
On the other hand, knocking at the Eastern border among the “anonymous masses” are many highly educated and experienced professionals of working age. There is no really good reason not to allow them to enter. We just need to do the screening to identify them. This could to a large extent probably be done at Finnish consulates like Petroskoi. This would also take the pressure off the border crossings. Unfortunately, our government decided to close those as an empty gesture to Russia meant to show disapproval of the invasion of Ukraine.
The problem at the Eastern border is really a management one. In 2016, there was a similar issue of hundreds without documents entering from Russia. President Sauli Niinistö set up a meeting with Vladimir Putin and the whole problem was dealt with. Orpo, then the Finnish interior minister, went to Moscow and worked out the details behind the scenes. In short order persons without documents were stopped before getting to the border and the crisis was over. This was done with quiet diplomacy and no-one asked how this could happen under international or EU refugee protection laws.
I ran into former SUPO chief Seppo Tiitinen at an event where he was promoting his book at a community center in my neighbourhood. I asked him why Finland does not use the same formula to address the crises at the eastern border as in 2016.”We have to come off our high horse and talk to the Russians,” he said or words to that effect. “If we are able to,” He pointed out that the country had long used a “special” link to the top Russian leadership.
Orpo has announced that he has no interest in talking to Putin -or the Russians. So has Niinistö. Foreign Minister Elina Valtonen met Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov at the CSCE meeting in Skopje, a meeting convened to keep alive “The Helsinki Spirit” of all things. The words describe a high point of Finnish diplomacy, all about ending the cold war with peaceful diplomacy. Valtonen refused to shake Lavrov’s hand. Being new to the job, it seems Valtonen doesn’t understand what she is there for.
Finns are entitled to be represented by politicians who are willing to pragmatically manage relations with neighbouring countries- not build antagonisms.
Before starting their jobs, leaders-particularly in small countries neighboring huge ones, should be required to repeat Paasikivi’s famous quote a hundred times. They can find it engraved on the statue dedicated to him on Mannerheimintie Avenue.
“Peace comes from understanding the reality of things.
*Ahti Tolvanen is on the Migrant Tales’ editorial board.
