Finland abstained from voting on the UN resolution, which demanded an immediate humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza. The national leadership has defended the line chosen by Finland.
Finland did not vote in favor of the UN resolution demanding an immediate humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza.
The chairman of the left-wing coalition sitting in the opposition, presidential candidate Li Andersson’s according to the reasons presented by the government give an unclear picture of Finland’s position.
Foreign minister Elina Valtonen (collective) and the Prime Minister Petteri Orpo (collective) defended Finland’s voting behavior by saying that, according to them, the resolution does not condemn the terrorist organization Hamas and its attacks.
– Justifications do not convince. The text of the resolution very clearly condemned all attacks and acts of terrorism against Palestinians and Israelis, says Andersson.
According to Orpo’s explanation to on Saturday, Finland abstained because “Hamas was not even mentioned in the resolution.”
Foreign Minister Valtonen also repeated a similar message. According to Valtonen, Finland would have been ready to accept the resolution in other respects.
– We voted in favor of the amendment presented by Canada, in which the attacks by Hamas would have been condemned, Valtonen said.
Hamas is not mentioned by name in the UN resolution. However, the resolution condemns all acts of violence against Palestinian and Israeli civilians, including acts of terrorism, indiscriminate attacks and provocations.
– Hamas was not mentioned by name, but neither was Israel. We would have liked to see that Finland would have followed the example of some EU countries, such as France, Belgium and Spain, as well as for example Norway, and voted in favor of the resolution, says Andersson.
120 countries voted in favor of the resolution. 14 countries voted against, and in addition to Finland, 44 member states abstained from voting.
According to Andersson, the voting decision made now gives an unclear picture of Finland’s position on demanding a ceasefire, and the state leadership’s explanations only add to the confusion. For example, Finland has emphasized the importance of getting humanitarian aid to its destination. According to Andersson, it is basically a good and important goal.
– But as long as the hostilities continue in such a large and intense manner, it will be impossible for humanitarian aid to arrive. It also means that there will be more and more civilian casualties all the time. That is why this call for a ceasefire is important. And that’s why it would also have been important to get the broadest possible front of countries to take a stand for it, Andersson says.