Miehitetyn Karjalan ja muidenkin miehitettyjen alueiden palautusta haluaa puolitoista miljoonaa suomalaista
Karjala-lehden teettämässä kyselytutkimuksessa 70 prosenttia suomalaisista ilmoitti olevansa sitä mieltä, että suomalaiset saavat keskustella julkisesti Karjalan mahdollisesta palauttamisesta Suomelle. Vain 15 prosenttia oli sitä mieltä, että suomalaisten tulisi lopettaa keskustelu Karjalasta.
Viime sodissa menetetyn Karjalan kohtalosta ja tulevaisuudesta ei saanut Suomessa julkisesti puhua vielä 1980-luvulla. Neuvostoliiton ollessa voimissaan oli painostus Suomen suuntaan niin kova, että julkiseen keskusteluun ei päästy.
Nyt naapurimaan nimi on Venäjä ja edelleen rajan takaa tulee viestejä, että suomalaisten keskustelu Karjalasta ei ole sopivaa. Kyselytutkimus kuitenkin todistaa, että suomalaiset haluavat keskustella ja myös ottaa kantaa asiaan.
Suomalaisten mielestä maan poliittisen johdon pitäisi ottaa selkeästi kantaa Karjalan mahdolliseen palauttamiseen. Tätä mieltä on joka toinen aikuinen suomalainen.
Pitäisikö Suomen hallituksen keskustella Venäjän hallituksen kanssa Karjalan palauttamisesta? Tämä kysymys jakaa kansan kahtia.
Suunnilleen puolet suomalaisista (n sitä mieltä, että ei. Kuitenkin lähes yhtä suuri määrä kyselyyn vastanneita on sitä mieltä, että kyllä.
Pääministeri Matti Vanhanen on antanut ymmärtää, että hänen mielestään Suomen hallituksella ei ole aihetta tällaisiin keskusteluihin. Ulkoministeri Erkki Tuomioja on ollut samaa mieltä.
Kansasta 43 prosenttia on kuitenkin sitä mieltä, että hallituksen pitäisi tehdä jotain. 43 prosenttia tarkoittaa noin kahta miljoonaa aikuista suomalaista.
Karjalan palautus on noussut valtakunnalliseen keskusteluun vasta 1990-luvun jälkipuolella ja merkittävä osa kansalaisista (42 prosenttia) on tällä hetkellä sitä mieltä, että he eivät ole saaneet riittävästi puolueetonta tietoa mahdolliseen palautukseen liittyvistä asioista.
Tämä on tärkeä tutkimustulos. Kansalaisille pitää entistä enemmän kertoa taustatietoja ja tosiasioita.
Entinen presidenttimme Mauno Koivisto pelotteli kansalaisia lopettamaan Karjala-keskustelun sanomalla sen johtavan mahdollisesti sotaan. Samantapaisia kysymyksiä on tehty aikaisemmissa kyselytutkimuksissa.
Kansalaisia on myös peloteltu Karjalan mahdollisen palauttamisen ja ylösrakentamisen suurilla kustannuksilla. Laskelmat varmaan pitävät paikkansa, mutta yleensä ei puhuta mitään siitä, mitä tuottoja palautus seuraavien vuosikymmenien aikana toisi.
Investointien hintahan lasketaan niin, että katsotaan sekä menot että tulot. Niiden erotus on lopullinen panostus.
Karjala-lehti kysyi suomalaisilta yksinkertaisesti "pitäisikö Venäjän palauttaa Suomelle Karjalan alueet, jotka talvisodan jälkeen vuonna 1940 menetettiin Neuvostoliitolle?".
Suomalaisista 36 prosenttia vastasi, että "kyllä". Tämä joukko muodostaa yli kolmanneksen Suomen kansasta eli tarkoittaa noin puoltatoista miljoonaa aikuista suomalaista.
Antti O. Arponen
Pietarilainen lehti kehuu Seppo Lehtoa Suomen Göebbelsiksi ;) ja muistaa oheisessa artikkelissaan myös kehua Seppo Lehdon perustamaa http://www.kavkaz.fi ja http://www.kavkaz.fi/ru sivustoa
Seppo Lehto kiittää pietarilaista lehteä selkärankaisesta lähestymisestään asiaan ja antaa pyyhkeitä suomettuneille tsuhnajournalisteille, joille olisi parasta tunkea ryssäläinen tsuhnapäänsä lähimpään toisen ryssäläisen ahteriin.
MIEHITTÄJÄ-RYSSÄN PUOLELLA SEPPO LEHTOA ARVOSTETAAN GÖEBBELSSIN TAPAISEKSI LOISTAVAKSI PUHUJAKSI
BRC Info - Publications 22.10.05
Anti-Russian Propagandists in Finland: Single Provokers or a Broad Public Movement?
14.02.05 BRC INFO
There are a number of problems in the relations of Russia in Finland aggravating the two-sided cooperation with bad memories. Territories passed as a result of World War II to the Soviet Union are still originally Finnish for most Finns. Of course not a single sensible politician dares to make a summon to revise the results of World War II, but among the public figures there are many of those who are eager to summon to stopping all the contacts with Russia until "a Finish banner unfurls over Vyborg anew".
Such a position is the shortest way to complete denying everything Russian and criticizing Russia in all aspects. And there are really many things in Russia to criticize. In particular the situation in the Chechen Republic.
The new web site of the separatists
A new web site appeared in Finland not long before the new year. There seems to be nothing strange in it in a country where almost all the people use Internet regularly. At the same time the contents of the web site is interesting – this is a common site of the Chechen separatists and those who speak for returning the territories lost by Finland in 1940 and 1944.
Of course the design of the new web site is not perfect and it has not attracted much attention. Of course most authors of the web site are crazy people who have long ago gained the fame of non-standard personalities if not to say frankly strange ones. It is enough to mention Seppo Lehto, one of the site administrators who is famous for his absolutely wild ideas and reportages of Gebbels’s level exposing "the Russian imperialists". The very fact that a coalition of two forces characterized by extreme negativism towards Russia is already demonstrative. The question whether it is an accidental union, a single phenomenon, or something else will be logical. A question appears whether some powerful force has appeared in Finland that is extremely interested in destabilizing the relations with Russia. It is possible to recall the events of the recent months to get the confirmations for these assumptions. In autumn 2004 the results of a Gallup poll were published in Finland that showed that among all the European nations the Finns were extremely critical towards Russia and for this characteristic yielded only to the population of the autonomous region of Kosovo.
Of course after the Gallup poll a poll by the Finnish sociologists was also carried out that showed that in fact 25% of the Finns were positive or extremely positive towards Russia, and the rest of the population were not so critical. However even judging from this poll it turns out that among all the neigbours of Finland Russia brings the most diverse and contradictory emotions. The fact that the Internet resource abounds in links to web sites that are informational sponsors of the Chechen terrorists is also demonstrative. The notorious "Caucasus – Center" is among the links. In this connection we can remind that for some time after being closed in Lithuania "Caucasus-Center" was functioning on the Finnish server of the telecommunication operator "Sonera" and currently it functions from the Swedish territory but it is registered on the name of the Finnish citizen Mikael Storsjö.
All these facts brought together make an impartial picture of Finland. There is a great temptation to see a course for destabilizing the relations with Russia behind these facts. However in order to understand the real situation with supporting the Chechen separatists in Finland and to understand whether the Finns support the murders of children in Beslan for the sake of doubtful receiving lands on Karelian Isthmus it is necessary to consider the problem from several points of view.
Helsinki: closer to Copenhagen or to Brussels?
In Finland there are not only people who would like to destabilize relations with Russia focusing the public attention on the problems of the "lost territories" or on the confrontation in the Chechen Republic. For example "Caucasus-Center" was closed after the interference of the Finnish security police SUPO. The officers of this Finnish service spoke to Storsjö himself and to the managers of "Sonera" company after which the company refused Storsjö to host the site on their server referring to the right of the owner to decide independently whom to give the services and whom not. Though the interference of the state in the relations between a private person and private companies caused objections of many public figures in Finland, many Finnish politicians spoke in the support of the SUPO. On understandable reasons the Minister for Home Affairs of Finland Kari Rajamäki became an ardent defender of the policemen. Although theoretically it is possible to stop the activity of a web site in Finland it is possible only on a decision of the court and that is why many people found breaking the law in the SUPO’s activities formally the Finnish special services acted in strict accordance with the Finnish Constitution, as nobody can forbid the state officials to talk to businessmen. And the fact that after this talk Storsjö could not place the file system of the web site "Caucasus-Center" on a single commercial server can be referred only to the specifics of cooperation between the commercial bodies of Finland and their customers.
So side by side with those who act from the anti-Russian positions there are sensible politicians in Finland not ready to aggravate relations with Russia for the sake of adventure initiatives. Besides if the first group generally includes public figures, the second group mostly consists of incumbent politicians occupying responsible positions.
The seminar for the problems of peaceful conflict settling in Chechnya that took place in the Eduskunta on the 21st of January is demonstrative in this connection. The event, provoking in itself (what will Finland say if a seminar on the subject "Between Finland and Sweden: Whom the Aland Islands Belong to?" took place in the State Duma?) became simply obscene after the seminar organizers invited terrorist emissary Ahmed Zakayev accused in kidnappings to participate in it.
The initiator of inviting Zakayev to Finland was the Chairman of the Party of the Greens in the Finish Parliament Heidi Hautala. It is not difficult to imagine the consequences of Zakayev’s visit to Helsinki: the Russian-Finish relations characterized by extremely positive dynamics would have been irreparably spoiled. The active dialogue at the level of the Heads of the governments would have finished, the sittings of the intergovernmental trade commission would have been stopped – in short the relations between Russia and Finland would have started to remind those between Russia and Denmark after the latter permitted to carry out an assembly of the emissaries of the soldiers after the tragic events with seizure of musical "Nord-Ost" spectators by the terrorists. Again the Finnish officials had enough self-control to soberly evaluate the situation and the importance of the relations with Russia.
The initiators of inviting Zakayev turned to the Minister of Justice of Finland Johannes Koskinen (the Social Democratic Party) with a question whether Zakayev’s safety would be guaranteed for the time of his stay in Helsinki. The Minister clearly answered that the legal consequences of Zakayev’s stay in Finland were regulated by the international agreements and by the internal legislation of Finland, i.e. after arriving in Helsinki Zakayev would have been arrested as a person in the international search and would probably have been given to Russia. I.e. the Finnish authorities acted in the same way as the Belgian ones in the due time – they officially refused to receive Zakayev. The Finnish mass media reacted to this initiative in a reserved manner, and on the whole the scandal with Zakayev’s potential arrival in Helsinki exhausted itself (as distinct from Russia where one of the seminar participants, journalist Politkovskaya regularly publishes articles in the "Novaya Gazeta" about the frustrated visit of Zakayev and about the seeming political difficulties caused by it).
Returning the territories: two groups again
The case with supporting the demand to restore the boundaries of year 1920 is the same as with supporting the Chechen separatists. Not a single sensible politician can summon to revising the existing Russian-Finnish boundary. At the same time numerous public organizations do it willingly. They include such organizations as "ProKarelia" or "Aleupalautus". Such organizations regularly promote the initiatives "to request Russia on returning the territories", "that the heirs of the land owners at the lost territories should demand their lands back", "to appeal to the International Court with a claim against Russia". Such types of organizations have managed to collect the signatures of 100 thousand Finns under the request to return Vyborg and other territories that was presented by them as a great achievement.
There are many journalists who prove the illegality of owning Vyborg and Priozersk by Russia, but to tell that "joining Karelia to the USSR was unfair" for a state official means the end of the career. This is exactly what has happened to the former Commander of the Eastern Military District of Finland who was born on Karelian Isthmus. After a number of statements about Karelia he was dismissed from his post.
At the same time the Finnish politicians not always unambiguously comment upon the subject of the "lost territories". Their behaviour can only be called "Väyrynen’s syndrome". In the years of "special relations" with the USSR the subject of the "lost territories" was an absolute taboo in Finland. However after the collapse of the USSR reevaluation of the country’s position on the problem of the lost territories has started. The author of the new "absolute formula" for the territorial problem was the Minister for Home Affairs of the beginning of the 1990s Paavo Väyrynen. He was the first one who commenting upon the problem of the lost territories said that Finland unambiguously acknowledged the conditions of the Paris Peace Treaty but was ready to discuss the territorial problem if Russia raised it on its own initiative. Since that the formula appeared: "Finland acknowledges the Paris Peace Treaty and the existing boundaries (comma), but … If Russia wants to discuss the problem of territories…" Not long ago, on the 4th of January 2005 the Minister for Foreign Affairs Erkki Tuomioja (the Social Democratic Party of Finland) commenting upon an MP’s request repeated "Väyrynen’s formula" again: "the territories belong to Russia, but theoretically… If Russia wants… we are ready to discuss their destiny…"
Partially this formula was dictated by those one hundred thousand Finns who put their signatures under the appeal of the radical organizations. Understanding that for many Finns the territories are not lost forever and for many of them the return is quite real the politicians always try to do a necessary ritual remark often not believing in its verity.
The only politician in Finland who for the time being refuses from "Väyrynen’s formula" is the country Prime Minister Matti Vanhanen (the Center Party). To all the questions about the lost territories Vanhanen answers the same phrase, "Finland acknowledges today’s boundaries and the peace treaties of 1940 and 1944" putting a dot at the end of the phrase instead of the obligatory for most Finns comma. Vanhanen feels himself a rather powerful politician who does not have to make advances to the nationalists looking for cheap popularity. It is indicative that when Vanhanen was nominated for the position of the Prime Minister in 2003 after the scandal connected with the moral cleanliness of the former Prime Minister Anneli Jäätteenmäki the Party leaders recommended him as "most honest person in the Party". It is not surprising that Vanhanen is honest enough not to deceive the electors with the perspectives that some time Russia would be able to break its territorial integrity.
Public organizations: how strong are they?
Coming back to the subject of the merge of the Chechen separatists and the Finnish revanchists (even in the frames of a common web site) we should again emphasize the fact that for the time being these forces are represented by only two NGOs. There are many different political and public forces in Finland among which there are those that are ready to destabilize the Russian-Finnish relations and those that are on the opposite trying their best to improve the relations. The membership of the Society of Friendship with Russia is much greater than the number of members of "Freedom to Chechnya" and "ProKarelia" altogether. Public organizations of Finland speaking for normalizing the relations with Russia also exist and their number is not less than that of those who speak for aggravating the relations with Russia for the sake of unclear goals. A developed civil society assumes the presence of a large number of public organizations confessing different opinions. Sympathies to terrorists are not so strong. In September 2004 thousands of Finns put candles in their windows to memorize the innocent victims of Beslan.
Many Finnish organizations touching upon the debatable points of the Russian-Finnish history are trying to go away from the negative anti-Russian image. For example let’s mention the organization "Karelian Union" that initially was founded as a union for the migrants from the territories that on the results of World War II passed on to the Soviet Union. It is not surprising that initially the "Karelian Union" was perceived in the USSR and in Russia as a revanchist organization. Now the "Karelian Union" is an organization dealing with the problems of popularizing the cultural heritage of Karelian people that does not raise either the question of aggravating relations with Russia or returning "the lost territories".
In the same way the Finnish politicians understand that relations with Russia present a priority for Finland while Russia perceives Finland as just one of its partners. If under the influence of morbid forces demarches like Zakayev’s visit or statements of the official forces on the subject of the "lost territories" happen in Finland the Russian side will stop neighbourhood relations with Finland. And it will be Finland that will lose from it and not Russia. While Finnish politicians understand this fact the chances of the creators of common web sites for the informational sponsors of Chechen separatists and Finnish revanchists to hope for the least important public response are trifling.
Translated by Inna Borymova
Alexey Razumikhin, BRC-Info expert = Read: Lunatic KGB = FSB agent who delivers russian shit into internet