Finland, which aspired to join NATO, did something in the name of security policy that it would not have done otherwise.
This is what a world politics professor says Teivo Teivainen.
According to Teivainen, one example is the agreement that Finland and Sweden made with Turkey last summer. Finland and Sweden promised to support Turkey against threats to its national security. The countries also promised, among other things, not to support certain Kurdish organizations.
– The formulations were such that if you replaced Turkey with China or Russia, such a declaration would not be made in the case of an authoritarian country or especially a country waging an authoritarian war of aggression, says Professor Teivainen of the University of Helsinki.
Turkey has restricted the rights of its Kurdish minority in many ways and has attacked the Kurds in Iraq and Syria as well.
Finland, on the other hand, had to wait a long time for Turkey’s approval of its NATO membership.
In addition to Teivainen, we asked the executive director of the human rights organization Amnesty From Frank Johansson and from the chairman of the Finnish Kurdish Association Welat from Nehrihow Finland’s actions during the NATO application process looked from a human rights perspective.
“Little Finland has to flex a little”
Teivo Teivainen brings up the actions of the police during demonstrations in Finland as another example.
Flags other than those of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), which is classified as a terrorist organization, were taken away from the demonstrators, and the president of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdoğan the performing doll was confiscated.
According to Teivainen, many people think that the idea has been: “Now let’s relax a little and when Turkey has ratified Finland’s NATO membership, we’ll go back to the way things were”.
Some have called Finland’s co-operation a new Finnishness. Teivainen uses the term “security political democratic flexibility”.
– These are not as blatant violations of democracy and human rights as the handover of Jews to Germany in the 1940s or the handover of defectors fleeing Soviet tyranny to the Soviet Union President Urho Kekkonen by order in the 1950s and beyond.
– But in a certain sense, they are a continuation of the thinking that little Finland has to at least slightly relax humanitarian norms because of its own security policy interests.
Johansson: The conversation is difficult now
According to Frank Johansson, the executive director of Amnesty Finland, the discussion in Finland was in overdrive and the narrowly viewed military security has overtaken all other values for well over a year, i.e. after Russia attacked Ukraine.
– In other words, human rights issues do not really fit together with security, even though it could be said that security is created specifically by society being equal, fair and equal, says Johansson.
He points out that Finland has previously been at the forefront, together with other EU countries, in addressing human rights violations in Turkey and violations of the rule of law in Hungary.
– During the last year, it has been striking that such exits have not been seen.
In addition to Turkey, Hungary also delayed the ratification of Finland’s NATO membership.
Johansson is concerned that the police have restricted the freedom of assembly in various demonstrations in very questionable ways.
When the police had removed the puppet representing the Turkish president from the demonstration, Amnesty tweeted that the foreign and security political situation must not affect freedom of speech and assembly.
Passing opportunism?
According to Johansson, the current development may lead to the fact that in the future we may not be as ready to discuss as before.
– It could be that it’s just political opportunism that will pass. But once they have started to suppress public opinion and demonstrations, it can also remain permanent, he says.
According to Johansson, there is currently a rather black and white discussion atmosphere in Finland. According to him, we are on a slippery slope if, for example, violations committed in the Ukrainian war are not allowed to be discussed.
Amnesty felt a huge summer fury when it published a report in August, according to which, in addition to the atrocities committed by Russia, Ukraine has also committed violations of international law.
– Probably democracy, the rule of law and compliance with international agreements are being defended against the Russian war of aggression. If it is said that the person under attack is allowed to slide a little, how do we choose when to slide and when not, Johansson asks.
Kurdish Federation’s Nehri: Finally, human rights can benefit
Welat Nehri, the chairman of the Finnish Kurdish Association, estimates that Turkey’s human rights situation can ultimately benefit from Finland and Sweden’s NATO membership, even though many issues have been overlooked during the NATO process.
– Finland and Sweden are states governed by the rule of law, where human rights and democracy are respected. In a way, they also have the opportunity to influence how NATO works. There will be an opportunity to address Turkey’s human rights violations and the problems it has caused within NATO, says Nehri.
Nehri is happy that Finland and Sweden have not given in to Turkey’s demands to hand over political activists. He believes that the countries will continue to respect the principles of the rule of law.
Turkey’s May elections also bring hope. If the opposition wins, there will be an opportunity for discussion and improvement of the situation, he believes.
The president of the Kurdish Union considers the Finnish and Swedish NATO process to be the worst setback arms export (you move to another service) enabling (you switch to another service) To Turkey. EU countries suspended exports when Turkey attacked the Kurdish region of northern Syria in 2018.
Professor Teivo Teivainen does not believe that there will be a return to the old ways when Finland and Sweden are in NATO. For example, the fact that Finland is in a military alliance with Turkey brings a new dimension to arms exports.
– It is unlikely that the foreign policy leadership will show a long nose to Turkey and say that now we are moving back to a line that respects human rights.
We hope for more criticality in the discussion
Amnesty’s Frank Johansson says that Russia’s war of aggression and war crimes have done the most harm to human rights recently.
However, he would hope that Finland would be ready to have a critical discussion and also highlight human rights violations committed by allied countries.
– It has just been 20 years since the US invasion of Iraq, and there are still many war crimes suspected of being committed by US and British forces that have not been investigated.
Teivo Teivainen’s wish, on the other hand, is that there should be no attempts to deny things that are self-evident.
– Democracy and human rights flexibilities have been made, but the authorities are hesitant to grant them.
He hopes that Finland would get rid of the thinking of Kekkonen’s time, according to which foreign policy speech should be coordinated with those who decide on foreign policy.
– In the foreign policy discussion, it would be good to have more pluralism and discussion of difficult issues. For example: when Russia’s war of aggression has been clearly condemned, what does it mean that even closer relations are established with Turkey and Saudi Arabia, which are in comparable situations, Teivainen says.