Finnish Foreign Policy: Some Comparative Perspectives
| Date | 01 November 1969 |
| DOI | 10.1177/001083676900400304 |
| Author | Krister Wahlbdck |
| Published date | 01 November 1969 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Finnish
Foreign
Policy:
Some
Comparative
Perspectives
Krister
Wahlbdck
A
useful
expedient
when
analyzing
the
foreign
policy
doctrine
of
a
nation
may
be
to
focus
on
one
particular
text,
authoritative
in
origin,
comprehensive
in
scope,
and
reasonably
frank
in
facing
.
the
sensitive
issues.
Such
texts
are
rare,
of
course.
There
may
be
too
much
change
or
too
little
consensus
to
make
a
single
exposition
representative
for
’
long-term
policies.
In
countries
where
this
does
not
apply
those
who
could
speak
with
authority
seldom
do
so,
for
a
variety
of
reasons.
They
may
not
feel
any
need
to
articulate
the
basic
assump-
tions
underlying
their
thinking;
or
they
may
lack
the
capacity
to
do
so
ade-
quately ;
or
they
may -
especially
in
small
exposed
countries
-
be
too
pru-
dent
to
sum
up
their
reasoning
pub-
licly.
For
the
Nordic
countries,
at
least,
there
is
clearly
no
book
which
comes
so
close
to
meeting
the
required
stan-
dardsl
as
Max
Jakobson’s
study
on
Finnish
foreign
policy
(Finnish
Neu-
trality :
A
Study
of
Finnish
Foreign
Policy
Since
the
Second
World
War,
Hugh
Evelyn,
London
1968).
It
is
au-
thoritative
by
virtue
of
the
author’s
background:
a
former
head
of
the
Po-
litical
Department
of
the
Finnish
For-
eign
Ministry
and
a
close
advisor
to
President
Kekkonen,
he
was
appointed
Ambassador
to
the
United
Nations
in
1964
(where
he
has
represented
Fin-
land
in
the
Security
Council
since
Jan-
uary
1969).
It
is
comprehensive
in
the
right
way:
in
little
more
than
a
hundred
pages
Jakobson
manages
to
present
his
version
both
of
the
pre-1945
policies
and
of
the
ten
most
important
events
in
Finnish
post-war
foreign
po-
licy,
using
these
events
to
illustrate
what
he
considers
as
the
basic
factors
for
Finnish
policies
rather
than
to
re-
late
them
in
detail
(he
gives
hardly
any
factual
information
not
previously
published
in
Finland).
It
is,
finally,
a
remarkable
book
to
be written
by
an
official
representative
in
the
sense
that
Jakobson
does
try
to
treat
seriously
the
arguments
of
the
skeptics;
he
pre-
fers
to
expound
Finnish
neutrality
in
a
subtle
and
ingenious
way
rather
than
to
nail
down
the
official
doctrine.
In
the
present
article,
Max
Jakob-
son’s
book
will
be
used
as
point
of
departure
for
a
discussion
which
dif-
fers,
in
fact,
from
the
basic
tenor
of
his
study.
The
thesis
which
permeates
Jakobson’s
book
is
one
of
the
unique-
ness
of
his
subject
matter.
The
rela-
tionship
with
the
Soviet
Union
which
Finland
has
managed
to
develop
since
1944
is
due
to
unique
factors
and
should
not
be
fitted
into
any
general
category.
From
this
approach
it
follows
that
Jakobson
is
extremely
reluctant
to
compare
Finnish
policies
to
those
of
other
countries,
or
to
draw
infer-
ences
from
his
analysis
of
Soviet-Fin-
nish
relations
to
relations
between
big
and
small
Powers
in
general.
This
restraint
is
very
natural,
of
course,
for
anyone
serving
as
his
country’s
diplo-
matic
representative,
since
parallels
with
other
states
may
well,
once
accept-
ed,
turn
out
to
be
embarrassing
in
fu-
ture
contexts.
Here,
however,
I
would
rather
make
a
point
of
discussing
Fin-
nish
foreign
policy
in
general
terms
and
in
a
comparative
perspective,
using
Finland
as
one
instance
only.
Two
particular
sets
of
problems
will
be
283
considered,
both
in
a
sketchy
and
most
preliminary
way:
the
impact
of
the
foreign
policy
situation
on
domestic
policies,
and
some
of the
dilemmas
of
neutrality.
I
Few
political
scientists
would
deny
that
national
political
systems
are
con-
ditioned
by
their
international
en-
vironment.
This
insight
is,
however,
seldom
incorporated
in
research
as
more
than
a
marginal
factor;
the
in-
ternational
system
is
taken
for
granted,
and
the
national
systems
are
treated
as
if
they
were
isolated
entities.
This
may
be
due
to
traditional
subdivisions
of
political
science,
separating
students
in
international
politics
from
those
on
the
nation
state
level.
It
may
even
be
a
reflection
of
the
firm
grip
which
the
doctrine
of
national
sovereignty
still
maintains
on
political
analysis.
In
any
case,
it
seems
safe
to
predict
that
there
will
be
an
increasing
interest
in
systematic
exploration
of the
inter-
play
between
national
systems
and
their
international
environment.
Within
this
immense
field
of
’linkage
politics’
-
to
borrow
a
current
term2 -
one
limited
sector
would
be
the
ways
in
which
the
small
Power’s
’domestic’
policies
(as-
suming
that
they
can
be
separated
from
’foreign’
policies)
are
influenced
by
more
powerful
nations
in
its
en-
vironment.
In
this
context,
the
case
of
Finland
is
a
particularly
interesting
one.
Finland’s
political
and
geographical
position
close
to
vital
parts
of
the
Soviet
Union
is
matched
neither
by
any
other
state
at
the
Soviet
borders,
nor
by
any
state
on
the
periphery
of
the
other
Big
Power.
True,
some
of
the
Latin
American
states
in
the
Ca-
ribbean
area
may
be
regarded
as
the
United
States’
counterpart
to
Finland
in
a
geographical
sense.
This
is
in fact
implied
even
by
Jakobson,
who
per-
ceives
a
Soviet
Monroe
Doctrine
in
the
claims
on
Finnish
policy
which
the
Russians
presented
in
1938
and
have
maintained
ever
since
(p.
10,
36-37).
Further,
Finland
and
the
’typical’
Ca-
ribbean
state
are
similar
in
that
they
have
both
opted
for
what
might
be
called
an
’adaptive’
policy
towards
their
Big
Power
neighbor,
i.e.
a
poli-
cy
implying
in
essence
that
a
war
with
the
neighboring
Big
Power
is
ruled
out,
either
in
fact
by
the
posture
of
the
military
forces,
or
as
an
officially
stated
policy.3
Yet
the
differences
are
of
course
much
more
important,
and
one
of
them
is
worth
examining
more
closely.
When
exploring
the
ways
in
which
a
Big
Power
(BP)
affects
the
domestic
politics
of
a
Small
Power
(SP)
pur-
suing
an
adaptive
policy
towards
its
neighbor,
one
of
the
relevant
factors
would
be
the
relationship
between
their
economic
and
political
systems.
Fin-
land
represents
a
case
where
the
BP
and
the
SP
adhere
to
different
sys-
tems :
a
Capitalist
SP
bordering
on
a
Communist
BP.
The
Caribbean
state,
however,
represents
a
case
where
the
BP
and
the
SP
live
under
roughly
the
same
systems.
Thus
it
would
be
more
rewarding
to
compare
Finland
with
an
instance
of
the
other
possible
com-
bination
of
different
BP
and
SP
sys-
tems :
a
Capitalist
BP
and
a
Com-
munist
SP.
This,
of
course,
has
never
material-
ized
in
the
Caribbean
region,
Cuba
having
adopted
defiant
rather
than
adaptive
policies.
Only
a
settlement
To continue reading
Request your trial