Tag: Soviet Union

Cold war winds still chill Finland's ongoing debate on racism and social exclusion

Posted on by Migrant Tales

By Enrique Tessieri

The anger and surprise that Gerry Brownlee has stirred up in this country sheds light why debating an issue like discriminaiton is so diffeicult to accept by some Finns. The  New Zealand minister sharply criticised Finland last week in an address in parliament. Is our anger due to our low self-esteem or to the cold war, when censorship and self-censorship were pretty much the rule?

The first story that I published about Finnish-Soviet relations was for Spain’s leading newsmagazine, Cambio16, in the mid-1980s. The story was about how Bibles were smuggled to the former Soviet Uinon from Finland.

It didn’t take long for a Finnish foreign ministry official to express her dislike for what I wrote. Another embassy official in Madrid, whom I knew, was very straightforward: “If you continue writing those kind of stories you will be blacklisted by the foreign ministry,” she said.

During the end of the 1980s, the foreign ministry spent hundreds of thousands of Finnishmarks inviting foreign journalists to Finland. This was done through Finnfacts. I never knew what Finnfacts’ real role was back then except that its employees toured, wined and dined many of the foreign journalists that came to  Finland.

How much objectivity can you expect from a newspaper if the foreign ministry pays the reporters his plane ticket, lodging and stay in Finland? When I worked for BridgeNews in 1998-2001, we weren’t allowed to accept any gift that was worth over $25.

Some names that come to mind from that period are Matti Kohva, head of Finnfacts, Ralf Friberg, Lasse Lehtinen and Pekka Karhuvaara of the foreign ministry. It sounds incredible but back in those days these officials watched over what foreign journalists wrote like white on rice. They made sure that they followed the official foreign policy line, which did not recognize cold war terms such as Finlandization.

One lunch date I had at the Savoy Restaurant in Helsinki, Friberg asked me to my surprsie that I should get in touch with him if I wrote about Finnish-Soviet relations. At the time I worked for the London Financial Times. Considering that Friberg could make such a suggestion, showed how far the foreign ministry would go to get its point across.

Not only did the foreign ministry watch closely what was written in the foreign media, but they exerted the same influence over the local media. If you do not agree, read the editorials when Soviet forces overran Czechoslovakia in 1968. All the evidence is sitting under our noses.

It goes without saying that the foreign ministry and Finnfacts decalred war on me for exposing what Friberg suggested. They did every thing possible to blackwash me.

Fortunately, I found work abroad in Argentina, Colombia, Spain and Italy as a foreign correspondent and burueau chief. My journalistic career reached new heights thanks to the opportunity I got to work for the big newspaper leagues outside of Finland.

My point is the following: The same mistrust that existed in official circles of foreign correspondents and their utter rejection of anyone who dared question Finnish-Soviet relations at the time is happening today when debating racism and social exclusion. In other words, who are you to tell us we’re wrong?

If you agree it explains a lot of things. For one it reveals why there are so few immigrants and Finns with international backgrounds taking part in the ongoing debate.

Certainly, like during the cold war, you can write and debate these issues today as long as you don’t stray too far from the official or general view of things.

Soviet refugees in Finland: No escape to freedom

Posted on by Migrant Tales

By Enrique Tessieri

I met Aleksandr Shatravka in 2009 thanks to Migrant Tales after searching for over twenty years for such a person. He was one of twelve former Soviet citizens documented by Amnesty International who was forcibly returned in 1974 to the USSR after being caught by Finnish Border Patrol authorities. 

Shatravka sent me by email a video clip documenting that ordeal with his brother Mikhail and two friends, Boris Sivkov and Anatoly Romanchuk.

After they were caught by Finnish Border Guard Antti Leivo they were soon sent back to the Soviet Union, where they ended up at a special psychiatric hospital.

While Shatravka holds no grudges against the Finnish authorities for sending him back, Finland was not during the cold war a place to seek political asylum especially if you were from the Soviet Union.

Aleksander and Irina in Mikkeli in October 2011.

I wrote in February 2010 a feature in Apu magazine about Shatravka. I met him and his second wife, Irina, for the first time in Finland last year.

Finland’s belated response to the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989

Posted on by Migrant Tales

By Enrique Tessieri

Finland lags behind the rest of Europe in some areas. Good examples are immigration and reaction to the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. Is the growth of right-wing populism in Finland today only a belated response to the demise of the former Soviet Union in 1991 and Berlin Wall?

I remember clearly when Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev paid his first visit to Helsinki in autumn 1989. That historic visit, which I covered for the London Financial Times, was the first big step in the thawing of cold war relations between Helsinki and Moscow.

Even if over two decades have passed since Gorbachev’s visit to Finland, it is curious that Finland has not yet begun to debate in earnest its cold war era. This is understandable since those policy makers who were junior civil servants in cold war Finland  are today senior officials on the verge of retirement.

The cold war era took too long and was too big of an event to forget or conveniently brush under the rug. Some of the matters we should look at are how the media was censored and how politicians used Finnish-Soviet relations to strengthened their grip on power.

The lack of any meaningful debate on the cold war and that era in general could explain in great part the victory of the Perussuomalaiset (PS) party in the April election. Was it a belated response to the end of the cold war?

Each European country is different and their responses to a post-Soviet Union era differs. In Finland, our initial response was to become an EU member in 1995 and to continue life in this corner pocket of Europe as normal as possible.

Finland’s past and present small immigrant population says as well a lot about the PS and today’s political situation. For one, it reveals that those that came out to celebrate the end of the cold war twenty-two years late are probably more anti-EU than anti-immigration. If this is the case, it shows why all right-wing anti-immigration populist parties in the Nordic region except for the PS have lost ground after Anders Breivik went on his mass-murder rampage in Norway on July 22.

If there is a silver lining in the PS’ election victory in April it is Finland’s slow but certain rejection of anti-immigration populism by the likes of PS MP Jussi Halla-aho and his cronies. Nobody knows for certain but it is pretty clear by the reaction of other political parties, the media and common people that we do not want to follow Denmark’s former example.

Why? Because immigration laws and attitudes have been pretty tight in Finland to begin with.

The present political situation has placed new challenges on the country’s traditional parties as well. The Center Party could be seen as the first casualty of the post-post cold war era.

It’s pretty clear that “Finland’s Spring” will get stronger in the months ahead as our economic standing weakens in the face of a financially ever-troubled Europe and anemic global markets. It would be a mistake to assume as well that the PS will be the only party to benefit from the situation.

A visible group like the PS with all of its populist rhetoric has fuelled the rise of other parties like the Greens, Left Alliance and Kokoomus.

People may flock to Kokoomus to offset the rise of the PS and others to the Greens and Left Alliance to challenge the rise of right-wing populism.

What opinion polls tell us about Finland and anti-immigration

Posted on by Migrant Tales

By Enrique Tessieri

A lot of people are scratching their heads at the stellar rise of the True Finns in the polls. Even though we have to wait for the ballot boxes to have their final say in April, certainly the polls and the success of the True Finns tell us something about where Finland is at this moment and where it is heading.

According to a poll published by Helsingin Sanomat on February 17, the popularity of the True Finns now stands at 17.9%, which is the same as the Social Democrats and close behind the Center Party (18.2%) and Kokoomus (20.2%).  A  supporter of the True Finns told me candidly that  everyone in his party is lying low to not say or do anything that would put in jeopardy their popularity.

Even though the head of the True Finns, Timo Soini, claims that anti-immigration only accounts for 10% of the party’s supporters, some believe that immigration is one of the key driving forces behind its popularity.

In Sweden, were the far-right Sweden Democrats got 5.7% of the votes, immigrants make up 14.3% of the population.  Contrarily in Finland, our immigrant population totals 2.9%.  Alexis Kouros correctly asks in his column in Magma if these figures are out of proportion when compared with Sweden and the support that  other anti-immigration parties have elsewhere in Europe.

Any historian and person who lived during the 1930s in Finland can tell you that one characteristic of our society back then was  fear of foreigners and the outside world, especially the former Soviet Union.

The True Finns’ rising popularity and anti-immigration sentiment in Finland may reveal that we have not yet begun as a society to deal seriously and effectively with issues such as immigration, racism and exclusion. Even though sensible Finns may give their thumbs down to racism, it does not mean that political parties like Kokoomus and others have an effective strategy to combat such a social ill. We are still novices on this front.

Moreover, our geography and long geopolitical isolation from Western Europe during the cold war never gave us a chance to study deeper what happened during the Continuation War (1941-44) and what it meant to be a cobelligerant (the official term) of Nazi Germany. That question, in my opinion, has never been answered properly by Finnish historians.

Many of the concepts about ethnic groups and nationalities were never openly questioned because our country’s isolation never gave cause to challenge these views after the war.  But how can you debate immigration, racism and stereotypes if there were hardly any foreigners living in Finland at the time?

Today we have that opportunity thanks to the rise of our immigrant population.  We are now facing what other societies have gone or are going through: asking questions about our ever-growing cultural diversity and what it means in larger context. The questions that are being asked may vary from Armageddon-type threats to Finnish culture to sensible ones that look at it with a cool head.

The rise of the True Finns in the polls reveals, in my opinion, that that debate is now going on in earnest.

The origins of modern Finnish xenophobia and racism

Posted on by Migrant Tales

By Enrique Tessieri

Modern Finnish racism has two sources: nationalism imbedded deep in our history coupled with low self-esteem. Compared with the 1970s, 1980s or 1990s, matters have got better though there is still a lot of room for improvement.

One of the cornerstones of Finnish nationalism is the myth that we are alone and therefore we must be self-reliant to the extreme. The truth, however, is that we could not have become an independent nation nor have made it through two terrible wars with the former Soviet Union without outside help and support.

Thanks to our resolve in the Winter War (1939-40), the conflict took a critical turn in favor of Finland after England and France were threatening to send troops to fight against the Red Army. If this had happened, it would have changed the course of World War 2.

Despite the hatred that some Finns have of Russians, it was Czar Aleksander II that gave language rights to Finnish-langauge Finns. As a Grand Duchy of Russia, Finland also got its own currency. These rights, which were gained in a single decade, were more than what the Finnish-langauge Finns got when they were under Swedish rule during 1249-1809.

Despite ardent nationalism and diehard suspicion of the Russians, leaders of Finland’s independence intelligently understood that it would be a wise choice to maintain the country officially bilingual. The final adoption of the flag was done in the spirit of the Nordic region as well, even though Akseli Gallen-Kallela proposed one that had a red background and the Finnish lion.

This was the official flag that waved over Finland from January to May 1918. It  was designed by Akseli Gallen-Kallela. Source: Wikipedia

While our independence and national unity were based on our hatred of the Russians and to a lesser degree of the Swedes, Finland’s fear of outsiders took a new turn in the 1930s. During the Great Depression, Finland enacted the Restricting Act of 1939 (law 219/1939) that kept foreigners and outside investment to a minimum. Moreover, responsiblity for immigrant affairs during that decade was handed to the secret police, which saw foreigners as a threat to national security.

The interesting question to ask is how come nationalism continues to shape the view that some Finns have of the outside world? Why do politicians still scare Finns and maintain the myth that we will be invaded?

The answer is simple: It is profitable.

It reaps rewards because it offers instant short-term benefits if you want to smother dissent rapidly, encourage self-censorship of the media and public, as well as support public enterprises and institutions at the cost of competition. Worst of all, it creates an antagonistic situation between immigrants and the rest of the population. How can one integrate smoothly in such a hostile atmosphere?

The Finland of the future, which we are building today, will have more freedom of thought, less self-censorship of the media and public, greater competition, acceptance that we are a culturally diverse and start to see the outside world (especially Russia) in a less defensive fashion.

Politicians, institutions like the Finnish Border Guard and other public leaders who continue to inject fear of the outside world, choose to live in the past because it is profitable.

It is high time they modernize their view of the world and embrace the challenges of the new century in a novel way. Why?

Because it is more profitable for Finland in the long-term.

Foreign journalists and Finnish interpretations of history

Posted on by Migrant Tales

If one wants to do an interesting study into the role of the state and the media, one could look at the cold war years of Finland.

An article written by Max Jakobson, Substance and Appearance: Finland, is one example of how the governments viewed foreign journalists.  He writes: “As a result, Finland is forever at the mercy of the itinerant columnist who after lunch and cocktails in Helsinki is ready to pronounce himself upon the fate of the Finnish people.”

Notice that he uses the word “columnist” not “journalist.”

When the article was written in 1980, there was little to no criticism even by the Finnish media on our special relations with the former Soviet Union. Even though it is a great matter that Finland retained its independence despite two wars with the Soviet Union, Jakobson asks a key question in the article whether Finlandization forced the country to give up any essential national interests in order to have good relations with Moscow.

He writes: “Here it is important to distinguish between substance and appearance, between abstract principle and political reality and to make the distinction in terms of the Finnish experience. One again it is necessary to take the account of the legacy of the war.”

One of the biggest flaws in the article is that it aims to be THE only opinion on how we should interpret Helsinki-Moscow relations. Nobody, except for a few wise men such as Jakobson, were able to speak publicly about Finnish-Soviet relations. The former diplomat does not mention a word about the censorship and self-censorship that existed on this front even though he stresses how “Western” we are.

What does Jakobson’s article tell us today? It shows, I believe, a country that has seen foreigners with suspicion. Even though there are valid factors that have fueled this suspicion, it has been reinforced over and over by our history. Apart from having few foreigners in the country, the Restricting Act of 1939 also made made foreign investment virtually impossible.

Like the government, which must have reaped a lot of political benefits from our special relation with Moscow, Finland enjoyed and grew accustomed to being a geopolitical recluse.

Language rights in 1862, independence from Russia in 1917, civil war, Winter and Continuation War and Cold War tell us of a continuing story that has fueled suspicion of outsiders. So, for a foreign journalist to come to Finland and, “after lunch and cocktails,” to write about our special relation with the Soviet Union naturally hits a very nationalistic nerve.

The impact of the previous century on the present one explains why some of us continue to see immigrants as a threat.

Those reticent one-sided views or ourselves and the outside world we learned in the previous century may turn out to be a threat to our future because opening up is still a painful process.

Mannerheim and Finnish provincialism

Posted on by Migrant Tales

I heard yesterday an interesting talk on Marshall Carl Mannerheim (1867-1951) just a few days before the outbreak of the Winter War exactly 70 years ago on November 30, 1939. The talk centered on different aspects of the Civil War of 1918 and how Mannerheim saw the world.

Those who have studied this man, know that he was not the easiest person to get along with and had a mean temper. If he would wake up today from his eternal sleep, one of the matters that would shock him is our liberal, democratic Nordic welfare society.

Without stealing any of his thunder from those difficult decades when he led Finland, Mannerheim’s thinking would have been totally out of touch with these times.

Despite his strong distaste for dissension and the ideology behind Bolshevism (he was trained as an officer of Czarist Russia and had a soft spot for the Menshevics), his view of the world was more open than many Finns when the country became a republic in 1917. How many Finns had back then a broad international view of the world and were not overtaken by the hysteria of nationalism and petty provincialism?

How did nationalism and that narrow view of the outside world impact Finland during those crucial decades that led to the Winter and Continuation Wars? If mistrust and hatred of Russians was the driving force that unified some Finns back in those difficult times, how did it affect its foreign policy? Can we still see this same suspicion and mistrust today sprinkled in our views of immigrants?

Even though it is questionable that Finland could have done something to prevent the Winter War, there are a lot of question marks concerning the Continuation War. Answering, or pondering these queries seriously, will bring to light many things about ourselves as a a people and hitherto-unknown or hidden aspects of our history.

One of these is the reticent attitudes of Finnish authorities towards foreign investment (Restricting Act of 1939) and draconian laws to discourage foreigners to move to the country.

One of the biggest culprits, I am certain, were a small country’s petty provincialism, fear, and suspicion of the outside world.