Finland

Subterms

    Latest story

    113 Shares189 Views

    Finnish Right-Wing Party Leader Apologizes After Racist Posts Surface

    by

    Riikka Purra, who leads the nationalist Finns party, was the second member of her faction to come under fire for offensive comments since the government was formed a month ago.Finland’s deputy prime minister apologized on Tuesday for “stupid social media comments” after a series of racist and sometimes violent remarks posted in 2008 surfaced in the Finnish press — the latest scandal for the party she leads, the right-wing Finns, since it joined the country’s governing coalition less than a month ago.Though the deputy prime minister, Riikka Purra, did not say the posts, published under the user name “riikka,” were hers, she said in a Twitter thread, “I apologize for my stupid social media comments 15 years ago and for the harm and resentment that they understandably caused. I’m not a perfect person, I’ve made mistakes.”According to local news media reports, in posts on a right-wing blog in 2008, “riikka” repeatedly used a racist Finnish slur against Black people, described Turkish people in derogatory terms and asked if there were any like-minded people in the city on a particular day to beat Black children. The blog was hosted by the former Finns party leader Jussi Halla-aho, who was fined by Finland’s highest court for racist incitement in 2012. The comments attributed to “riikka” are not currently on the blog. The Finnish newspaper Helsingin Sanomat tracked Ms. Purra’s whereabouts in one instance and linked it to a post from that location.Ms. Purra did acknowledge on Tuesday that she had posted on the blog “in ways and with words that today I absolutely do not accept and would not use,” though she did not identify specific posts.Her apology came as Finland’s president, Sauli Niinistö, was attending the country’s first NATO meeting as a full member of the alliance. In reference to the incident at home, Mr. Niinistö urged the governing coalition to adopt a “clear zero-tolerance position to racism,” although he added that racial prejudice was different than opposing immigration.In Finland’s recent elections, Ms. Purra’s Eurosceptic, anti-immigration party took 46 seats in the country’s 200-strong Parliament, the faction’s strongest-ever showing. Last month, Finns joined a four-party ruling coalition and picked up seven cabinet positions under Prime Minister Petteri Orpo of the National Coalition Party.Mr. Orpo thanked Ms. Purra for “making the right decision” and gave no indication that she would be forced to resign. “The government will not fall because of this,” Mr. Orpo said.“The government has jointly committed to the principles of nondiscrimination and equality,” Mr. Orpo wrote on Twitter. “Everyone in Finland must feel that they are safe.”Johanna Vuorelma, a researcher at the University of Helsinki, said the recurring scandals had weakened Mr. Orpo’s coalition, although it was not in imminent danger of collapse. Mr. Orpo’s alliance unseated the former prime minister, Sanna Marin, who now leads the country’s opposition. She wrote on Twitter, “Nothing that has come up about the party over the last few weeks has been new or surprising,” and called on the government to “directly and unequivocally renounce racism, hate speech and violence.”Ms. Purra is not the first Finns member to have the past catch up with her.Vilhelm Junnila, another Finns minister, resigned last month after reports in the Finnish news media of his far-right sympathies, which included him joking about a Finns candidate’s electoral number, 88, a well-known neo-Nazi code for “Heil Hitler.” More

    More stories

    • 113 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Finland Shifts Right With Coalition Including an Anti-Immigration Party

      by

      When the party of the country’s political rock star, former Prime Minister Sanna Marin, lost in April, a center-right party’s power rose.Finland’s main conservative party announced a new coalition government on Friday after weeks of negotiations, in a deal that moves the country firmly to the right and follows a pattern of similar political shifts elsewhere in Europe.Petteri Orpo, leader of the center-right National Coalition Party, would become prime minister under the coalition, which includes the right-wing nationalist Finns Party.“Finland needs change,” Mr. Orpo said at a news conference on Friday. “Our prosperity is hanging in the balance.”Assuming the coalition is approved when lawmakers vote on the prime minister in Parliament, probably next week, it will leave in opposition the more liberal Social Democratic Party led by the former prime minister Sanna Marin, who became a political rock star during her tenure. The new government is expected to introduce an era of financial belt-tightening and stricter immigration policies.Who won Finland’s election?A National Coalition Party election event in Helsinki in April. The party claimed a narrow win in the voting.Alessandro Rampazzo/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesDespite popular support for Ms. Marin’s handling of issues such as the war in Ukraine and Finland’s joining NATO, the election in April largely hinged on economic concerns like high inflation and rising public debt. Right-leaning parties made gains by focusing on worries about the country’s financial situation and by calling previous migration policies too permissive. They also criticized high spending on the welfare system.The National Coalition Party, led by Mr. Orpo, promoted a conservative economic agenda, including cuts to some housing allowances and unemployment benefits, and claimed a narrow victory, with 20.8 percent of the vote. The Finns Party came second, at 20.0 percent, campaigning on pledges to cut immigration, reduce financial contributions to the European Union and slow down action on climate change. The Social Democrats were third, with 19.9 percent, underlining the closeness of the vote.Other European countries have tacked to the right in recent years, including Italy, which is governed by a coalition under Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, leader of a party with post-Fascist roots; Sweden, which in September swapped a center-left government for a right-wing bloc; and Spain, which will hold a snap national election next month after the Socialist Workers’ Party of Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez was thumped in regional and local elections.Who is in the coalition?Representatives of the coalition parties, from left: Anna-Maja Henriksson of the Swedish People’s Party, Mr. Orpo, Riikka Purra of the Finns Party and Sari Essayah of the Christian Democrats.Heikki Saukkomaa/Lehtikuva, via Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesAfter no party reached a majority in Parliament, National Coalition Party leaders began efforts to form a government in talks that would stretch for weeks. Mr. Orpo said the negotiations lasted so long because the potential coalition partners were trying to decide where to make onerous spending cuts and how to increase revenue. Mr. Orpo ultimately struck a deal with the Finns, but also with two other smaller parties which got about 4 percent of the vote each.One is the Swedish People’s Party, which aims to represent Finland’s minority Swedish-speaking population. The party, which is centrist, pro-European and socially liberal, was also part of Ms. Marin’s government.The other party in the coalition is the Christian Democrats, a center-right group.On Thursday, representatives of the parties gave a joint news conference to announce that they had reached consensus on a government program.“We have been able to find accord under heavy pressure,” Mr. Orpo said. “What unites us is that we want to fix Finland.”What is the coalition likely to change?Helsinki, the capital of Finland, last year. The election in April largely hinged on economic concerns.Juho Kuva for The New York TimesThe new coalition plans to bring down the debt level by implementing measures such as cutting subsidies, according to the program.Direct cuts to public spending would amount to €4 billion, or $4.37 billion, Mr. Orpo said at the news conference on Friday.“This is not easy,” he added. “We have to make cuts where it feels bad.”The coalition also vowed to halve the number of refugees that Finland accepts every year, to 500, from about 1,000, and in general to take a harder stance on immigration.The coalition also committed to keep Finland’s military spending in line with NATO’s goal of at least 2 percent of gross domestic product and to promote membership in the alliance for both Sweden and Ukraine. Some formal steps still need to be taken before the new government is installed, but Jenni Karimaki, a political scientist at the University of Helsinki, said that, with the details already ironed out by the parties in the coalition, she did not expect any last-minute changes.Who will be the next prime minister?Mr. Orpo campaigning in Vantaa, Finland, in April. “Finland needs change,” he said at a news conference on Friday. “Our prosperity is hanging in the balance.”Antti Aimo-Koivisto/Lehtikuva, via ReutersMr. Orpo, 53, has already served in past administrations as finance minister and deputy prime minister and has held several other ministerial roles. He is now poised to take the top job.Known for being a compromiser and a negotiator and for having an austere approach to public finances, Mr. Orpo’s style contrasts with that of his predecessor.“Finland’s prosperity cannot be based on debt,” he said on Friday.Ms. Marin, 37, gained a global profile for her defense of Ukraine and for her off-duty activities, too, having been caught on private videos partying with her friends, creating some debate within Finland about the appropriateness of her behavior. More

    • 88 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Sanna Marin’s Party Loses in Finland Election

      by

      Prime Minister Sanna Marin’s party was outpolled by a rival that stressed economic concerns. Petteri Orpo of the National Coalition Party may now come to power, but coalition talks will be daunting.BRUSSELS — Prime Minister Sanna Marin and her Social Democratic Party lost a tight election in Finland on Sunday to a center-right party that focused on economic concerns.The National Coalition Party, led by Petteri Orpo, 53, captured the most votes in the parliamentary election, followed by the right-wing Finns Party and the Social Democrats. But no party is near a majority in the 200-seat body, and Mr. Orpo is going to have a complicated task pulling together a governing coalition.With almost 100 percent of the vote counted, late Sunday night, Mr. Orpo’s party had 48 seats with 20.8 percent of the vote, just ahead of the populist Finns, led by Riikka Purra, with 46 seats and 20.0 percent.Though Ms. Marin has been the closest Finland has to a political rock star, her center-left Social Democrats came in third, with 43 seats and 19.9 percent of the vote.The agrarian-based Center Party, which has been shrinking, may be a crucial part of a new center-right coalition, winning 11.3 percent of the vote and 23 seats.It was a narrow defeat for Ms. Marin, 37. Despite her popularity, the election turned on the economy, and Mr. Orpo succeeded in arguing that Finland’s debt is too high and that public spending should be cut.Mr. Orpo has a choice of trying to join with the Finns or with the Social Democrats, but he would still need the support of other, smaller parties to form a government. During the campaign, he was careful not to offend either of the major parties; Ms. Marin lambasted the Finns as racist.Mr. Orpo is expected to have the first chance to form a new government and, presumably, become prime minister. But given the tightness of the race, forming a new coalition government is expected to take many weeks of negotiations among the parties, some of whom have ruled out being in a coalition with the Finns Party.Prime Minister Sanna Marin greeting supporters in Helsinki following Finnish parliamentary elections on Sunday.Jonathan Nackstrand/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesMs. Marin has been a fresh face for a fresh generation, and made a major impact outside Finland, though she has been more controversial within it. She has gotten good marks for her performance as prime minister, especially on issues like the war in Ukraine and NATO membership, and has been more popular in the polls than her party has.With Finland about to join NATO, however, the election turned mostly on economic issues: the size of the country’s debt, the future viability of its social welfare system and its policy toward migration. There, Ms. Marin and her Social Democrats garnered more criticism and proved vulnerable.“Democracy has spoken,” Ms. Marin said after the results were in.She said: “I believe that the Social Democrats’ message was heard, and that was a values-based message. It has been a great campaign, and this is a great day because we did well. My congratulations to the National Coalition Party and Finns Party.”Government spending was a key campaign issue.With the economy contracting and inflation high, Ms. Marin’s opponents accused her of borrowing too much and failing to rein in public spending. Ms. Marin, who became prime minister in 2019, refused to specify any cuts but instead emphasized economic growth, education, higher employment and higher taxes as better answers.The Finns Party pushed an anti-elitist agenda, concentrating on restricting migration from outside the European Union, criticizing Finland’s contributions to the European Union and urging a slower path toward carbon neutrality. But it has tried to soften its image under Riikka Purra, 45, who took the party leadership in 2021, and it has used social media cleverly, increasing its popularity among young voters.In general, as in recent elections in Italy and Sweden, the vote showed a shift to the right. Ms. Marin’s party and two others from her current five-party coalition, the Greens and the Left Alliance, had ruled out going into government with the Finns. The Center Party has ruled out joining any coalition resembling the current one.Ms. Marin’s private life, including videos of her drinking and dancing with friends, gave her celebrity abroad but caused some controversy in socially conservative Finland. She even felt compelled to take a drug test to forestall criticism. But she remained unusually popular for a prime minister at the end of a parliamentary term, said Jenni Karimaki, a political scientist at the University of Helsinki.Steven Erlanger More

    • 113 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Sanna Marin, Finland’s Political Rock Star, Could Be Slipping

      by

      Parliamentary elections on Sunday are extremely tight among the three biggest parties, with the prime minister’s Social Democrats in a tough fight to lead the next government.At a recent campaign rally in her hometown, Tampere, Finland, Prime Minister Sanna Marin defended her time in office and tore into the rising right-wing populist Finns Party, which opposes immigration and is fiercely critical of the European Union.Ms. Marin remains remarkably popular after governing for three and a half years, through the pandemic, the war in Ukraine and Finland’s rapid decision to join NATO — despite her assurance only a month before Russia invaded that Finland would never join the alliance on her watch.But with most Finns now focused on other matters, particularly inflation and rising public debt, she is at risk of losing her job in Sunday’s parliamentary elections. Finland’s three biggest parties are essentially tied in the polls, and the mood of the country seems to be swinging rightward, which has been a trend in Europe in partial reaction to the economic costs of the pandemic and the Ukraine war.“The main criticism of Sanna Marin is her economic policy,” said Johanna Vuorelma, a political scientist at the University of Helsinki. “The image is one of spending too much.”Ms. Marin, who is more popular than her party, which is lagging, favors economic growth, high employment — Finland is currently at around 75 percent in employment — and taxation polices that include closing loopholes that favor the wealthy.But she has refused to specify budget cuts despite the public concerns over growing government debt at a time when the cost of living is rising and inflation is high.She has tried to deflect attention from economic policy by emphasizing broader issues. “These elections are about value choices, about what kind of future you’ll vote for,” Ms. Marin said to a friendly crowd in her own constituency. And she emphasized her center-left government’s support for Ukraine and NATO, saying: “Russia must be stopped in Ukraine!” Ukraine, she said, “is fighting for all of us.”Ms. Marin speaking at a campaign rally for her Social Democratic Party in her hometown, Tampere, Finland, this month. She is seen by some as out of step with Finnish sentiment, refusing to talk about budget cuts and debt.Mika Kylmaniemi/Lehtikuva, via ReutersMs. Marin, 37, is the closest thing Finland has ever had to a political rock star. She is known globally for her strong words about defending Ukraine and for her off-duty pleasures, too, having been caught on private videos partying with her friends, creating a controversy in socially conservative Finland.The current center-left government, led by Ms. Marin’s Social Democrats, is a coalition of five parties, including the Center Party, the Greens, Left Alliance and Swedish People’s Party.But the three traditional parties — the Social Democrats, the National Coalition Party and the Center — have been losing ground to smaller, more ideologically focused parties, particularly the Finns, who even four years ago came second, winning only one seat fewer than the Social Democrats.Taru Veikkola, who works at the University of Helsinki, is thinking of voting for the Finns Party. “This government has used money carelessly,” she said. “Sanna Marin talks in a roundabout way, about everything and about nothing in particular. You can listen to her for 20 minutes and wonder, ‘What did she say?’”At this point, seemingly any coalition to emerge from the vote will almost surely include the center-right National Coalition Party. It is one of only two parties in Parliament headed by a man, Petteri Orpo, 53, and holds a very slight lead, with 19.8 percent of the vote in a poll released Thursday by the state broadcaster Yle. The Finns Party, led by Riikka Purra, 45, is close behind, with some 19.5 percent, while Ms. Marin’s Social Democrats have slipped to 18.7 percent.But the margin of error is 2 percent, so the race is essentially even.Ms. Marin, with Riikka Purra, chairperson of the Finns Party, left, and Petteri Orpo, chairperson of the National Coalition Party, at an election debate in Helsinki on Wednesday.Markku Ulander/Lehtikuva, via Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesWhile Mr. Orpo has refused to say which party he would prefer to align with in government, Ms. Marin and some of the smaller leftist parties in her coalition have ruled out any deal with the Finns, said Jenni Karimaki, a political scientist at the University of Helsinki.The Finns are fiercely anti-immigration, and they favor Finland leaving the European Union eventually.At the rally in Tampere, Ms. Marin said: “The Finns Party’s alternative is to turn inward, to shut themselves out of international cooperation, to leave the European Union at some time in the future. The Finns Party doesn’t offer anything good to Finnish people.”Still, the party has proved surprisingly popular among younger voters. Analysts say that they are also gaining votes by promising to slow down Finland’s commitment to becoming carbon neutral by 2035.“I can’t remember an election this exciting,” said Veera Luoma-aho, political editor of the Helsingin Sanomat newspaper. Any of the three leading parties could win, she said, noting that around 40 percent of Finns have already cast a ballot — designated polling places allow early voting — in an election that is expected to have a high turnout.“This election has been about the economy, people’s own wallets, but also about government debt and energy politics, quite traditional left-right issues,” she said. But with the Social Democrats having refused to identify any significant spending cuts, she added, “maybe their economic program is not credible for some voters, and some voters may think she’s even too aggressive.”In televised debates, Ms. Marin has concentrated her fire on Ms. Purra and the Finns, while emphasizing issues of social welfare and education. “She’s not trying to attract voters from the middle, which is quite surprising,” Ms. Luoma-aho said. “She’s trying to inspire the left.”She is also criticized for speaking so openly about foreign and security policy, which is traditionally discussed privately with Finland’s powerful and immensely popular president, Sauli Niinisto. “This is a very delicate, sensitive issue with a neighbor like Russia,” Ms. Vuorelma said. “So she is seen as breaking from this particular tradition, and she says we have to change the way we talk about these issues and talk about them in public.”Ms. Marin with President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine, during her visit to Kyiv this month. She is known for her fierce backing of Ukraine.Alina Yarysh/ReutersA recent example was Ms. Marin’s apparent promise this month in Kyiv that Finland would consider sending some of its older fighter jets, American-made F/A-18 Hornets, to Ukraine. She had not discussed the matter with Mr. Niinisto or her foreign and defense ministers, and any such move would require American permission. She later walked that back, saying that “no one promised Ukraine Finnish Hornet jets.”Among the participants at her election rally, most expressed support. But there was some criticism, too.Pekka Heinanen, 59, said that the government had a lot of crises to deal with, but that “an awful lot of money got spent that could have been spent on other things.” Ms. Marin is charismatic and a celebrity, he said, “But she’s still a bit like a foal in the field, there’s too much excitement.”He mentioned the Hornets, saying that she spoke “without having studied the background of the question.” Still, he said, “everybody makes similar mistakes.”Campaign posters for the Social Democrats, center and right, and the Finns in Espoo, Finland, on Wednesday.Heikki Saukkomaa/Lehtikuva, via ReutersNoora Kivinen, 24, and Jasmin Harju, 25, both voted early, but neither of them for Ms. Marin. Ms. Kivinen voted for the Greens and Ms. Harju voted for a different Social Democratic candidate in the Finnish system of proportional representation in multiparty constituencies, where numerous candidates from the same party can run.Still, Ms. Harju said she hoped the Social Democrats would be re-elected. “Looking at the prime ministers of recent years, she has done the best, when one thinks that there was a pandemic, a war and other crises.”Ms. Kivinen said that “she could have handled social welfare and health care questions better than she did,” especially early in the pandemic. “But you can’t say that she did something wrong when it was a new situation for everyone.”But neither woman had much patience for the controversies over Ms. Marin’s partying in her free time. “Male prime ministers have also fooled around,” Ms. Harju said. “That whole thing was overblown. To see that she makes similar mistakes as everyone makes her human.”Given the tight race and the gradual fragmentation of the large parties, forming a new governing coalition may take some time and could well require more than three parties to build a majority in Parliament, said Markku Jokisipila, a political scientist at the University of Turku.If the Social Democrats do not form the next government and Ms. Marin is no longer prime minister, there is a lot of speculation about her future. Would she run for president or take a job in Brussels? Neither alternative interests her, she told Mr. Jokisipila this month. But there are also rumors she might succeed Jens Stoltenberg as NATO secretary general.“There is wild speculation around her in Finland right now,” Mr. Jokisipila said. Given her prominence, that is bound to continue. More

    • 138 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      As Europe Piles Sanctions on Russia, Some Sacred Cows Are Spared

      by

      The European Union has been severing economic ties with Moscow to support Ukraine, but some countries have lobbied to protect key sectors.BRUSSELS — Eight months into the war in Ukraine, and eight rounds of frantic negotiations later, Europe’s sanctions against Russia run hundreds of pages long and have in many places cut to the bone.Since February, the European Union has named 1,236 people and 155 companies for sanctions, freezing their assets and blocking their access to the bloc. It has banned the trade of products in nearly 1,000 categories and hundreds of subcategories. It has put in place a near-total embargo on Russian oil. About one-third of the bloc’s exports to Russia by value and two-thirds of imports have been banned.But even now some goods and sectors remain conspicuously exempted. A look at just a few items reveals the intense back-room bargaining and arm-twisting by some nations and by private industry to protect sectors they deem too valuable to give up — as well as the compromises the European Union has made to maintain consensus.The Belgians have shielded trade in Russian diamonds. The Greeks ship Russian oil unimpeded. France and several other nations still import Russian uranium for nuclear power generation.The net impact of these exemptions on the effectiveness of Europe’s penalties against Russia is hard to assess, but politically, they have allowed the 27 members of the bloc to pull together an otherwise vast sanctions regime with exceptional speed and unanimity.“Ultimately, this is the price of unanimity to hold together this coalition, and in the grander scheme of things the sanctions are really working,” said Jacob Kirkegaard, a senior fellow in the Brussels office of the research group the German Marshall Fund, citing Russia’s diminished access to military technology as evidence.A Lukoil gas station in Priolo Gargallo, Italy, last month. The European Union has put in place a near-total embargo on Russian oil, but some sectors of trade remain conspicuously exempt from sanctions.Gianni Cipriano for The New York Times“We would love to have everything included, diamonds and every other special interest hit, but I am of the opinion that, if sparing them is what it takes to keep everyone together, so be it,” he added.The Ukrainian government has criticized some of the exemptions, with President Volodymyr Zelensky chiding European nations for continuing to permit business with Russia, saying they are skirting sacrifices.“There are people for whom the diamonds sold in Antwerp are more important than the battle we are waging. Peace is worth much more than diamonds,” Mr. Zelensky said to the Belgian Parliament during an address by video link in late March.Keeping Diamonds ComingThe continued success of Belgium and the broad diamond sector in keeping the Russian diamond trade flowing exemplifies the sacred cows some E.U. nations refuse to sacrifice, even as their peers accept pain to punish the Kremlin.Exports of rough diamonds are very lucrative for Russia, and they flow to the Belgian port of Antwerp, a historically important diamond hub.The trade, worth 1.8 billion euros a year — about $1.75 billion — has been shielded in consecutive rounds of the bloc’s sanctions, despite being raised as a possible target soon after the Russian invasion of Ukraine in late February.The Belgian government has said that it has never asked the European Commission, the E.U. executive body that drafts the measures, to remove diamonds from any sanctions list and that if diamonds were added, it would go along.Diamonds being sorted in Mirny, Russia, at a facility operated by Alrosa, the Russian state-owned diamond company. Russian diamonds have been shielded in consecutive rounds of European sanctions.Maxim Babenko for The New York TimesTechnically speaking, that may be true. But the latest round of penalties, adopted this month, exposed the intensive interventions when a coordination error occurred among the various services in the bloc that are involved in the technical preparation of sanctions.The incident, described to The New York Times by several diplomats involved as “farcical,” shows how the lobbying works. The diplomats spoke anonymously in order to describe freely what happened.The European Commission over the course of September prepared the latest round of sanctions and left diamonds off that list.But the European External Action Service — the E.U.’s equivalent of a foreign service or state department, which works with the commission to prepare sanctions — did not get the memo that diamonds should remain exempted and included in its own draft listings Alrosa, the Russian state-owned diamonds company.Once Alrosa had been put on the draft document, removing it became difficult. Spotting the error, Poland and other hard-line pro-Ukraine countries in the bloc dragged out the negotiations over the package as much as they could on the basis that Alrosa should indeed face sanctions.In the end, the need for unanimity and speed prevailed, and Alrosa continues to export to the European Union, at least until the next round of sanctions is negotiated. In proposals for a fresh, ninth round of sanctions, presented by Poland and its allies last week, diamonds were again included, but formal talks on the new set of penalties have not yet begun.A spokesman for the European External Action Service declined to comment, saying it does not comment on internal procedures involved in preparing sanctions.The Tricastin nuclear power plant in the Drôme region of southeastern France. France is one of several E.U. countries that depend on Russian uranium to operate civil nuclear power facilities. Andrea Mantovani for The New York TimesNuclear PowerMost exemptions have not been as clear-cut as diamonds because they have involved more complex industries or services, or affected more than one country.Uranium exported from Russia for use in civil nuclear power production falls under this category. Nuclear power plants in France, Hungary, Slovakia, Finland and other countries depend on Russian civilian uranium exports.The trade is worth 200 million euros, or about $194 million, according to Greenpeace, which has been lobbying for its ban. Germany and other E.U. countries have supported the calls to ban civilian nuclear imports from Russia, making this another issue likely to come up in the next round of sanctions talks.In August, Mr. Zelensky also highlighted the persistent protection of the Russian nuclear exports to Europe just as Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant came under fire.Some supporters of keeping Russian uranium running say that France and the other countries’ ability to generate electricity by operating their nuclear power plants during an acute energy crisis is more important than the political or financial gains that could come from a ban through E.U. sanctions, at least for now.Tankers in the NightOne of the most complex and important lobbying efforts to protect a European industry from sanctions is the one mounted by Greek diplomats to allow Greek-owned tankers to transport Russian oil to non-European destinations.This has facilitated one of the Kremlin’s biggest revenue streams. More than half of the vessels transporting Russia’s oil are Greek-owned, according to information aggregated from MarineTraffic, a shipping data platform.Supporters of the Greek shipping industry say that if it pulled out of that business, others would step in to deliver Russian oil to places like India and China. Experts say lining up enough tankers to make up for a total Greek pullout would not be simple, considering the sheer size of Greek-interest fleets and their dominance in this trade.According to European diplomats involved in the negotiations, their Greek counterparts were able to exempt Greek shipping companies from the oil embargo in a tough round of talks last May and June.Since then, the E.U. has come around to a United States-led idea to keep facilitating the transport of Russian oil, in order to avert a global oil-market meltdown, but to do so at a capped price to limit Russia’s revenues.The Greeks saw an opening: They would continue to transport Russian oil, but at the capped price. The bloc offered them additional concessions, and Greece agreed that the shipping of Russian oil would be banned if the price cap was not observed.The Greek-flagged oil tanker Minerva Virgo. Greek diplomats have lobbied for Greek-owned tankers to be allowed to transport Russian oil to non-European destinations. Bjoern Kils/ReutersEven if the economic benefits of such exemptions are hard to define, from a political perspective, the continued protection of some goods and industries is creating bad blood among E.U. members.Governments that have readily taken big hits through sanctions to support Ukraine, sacrificing revenues and jobs, are embittered that their partners in the bloc continue to doggedly protect their own interests.The divisions deepen a sense of disconnect between those more hawkish pro-Ukraine E.U. nations nearer Ukraine and those farther away, although geographical proximity is far from the only determinant of countries’ attitudes toward the war.And given that the bloc is a constant negotiating arena on many issues, some warn that what goes around eventually will come around.“This may be a raw calculation of national interests, but it’s going to linger,” Mr. Kirkegaard said. “Whoever doesn’t contribute now through sacrifice, next time there’s a budget or some other debate, it’s going to come back and haunt them.” More

    • 125 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      US Senate overwhelmingly approves Nato membership for Finland and Sweden

      by

      US Senate overwhelmingly approves Nato membership for Finland and SwedenIn 95-1 vote, body supports ‘slam-dunk for national security’ after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine The US Senate delivered near-unanimous bipartisan approval to Nato membership for Finland and Sweden on Wednesday, calling expansion of the western defensive bloc a “slam-dunk” for US national security and a day of reckoning for Vladimir Putin.The 95-1 vote for the candidacy of two European countries that, until Russia’s war against Ukraine, had long avoided military alliances took a crucial step toward expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and its 73-year-old pact of mutual defense among the United States and democratic allies in Europe.Joe Biden, who has been the principal player rallying global economic and material support for Ukraine, has sought quick entry for the two previously non-militarily aligned northern European countries.Approval from all member countries – currently, 30 – is required. The candidacies of Finland and Sweden have won ratification from more than half of the Nato member countries in the roughly three months since the two applied.“It sends a warning shot to tyrants around the world who believe free democracies are just up for grabs,” said Senator Amy Klobuchar, a Minnesota Democrat, before the vote.“Russia’s unprovoked invasion has changed the way we think about world security,” she added.In Taiwan, as in Ukraine, the west is flirting with disaster | Simon JenkinsRead moreThe Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, who visited Kyiv earlier this year, urged unanimous approval. Speaking to the Senate, McConnell cited Finland’s and Sweden’s well-funded, modernizing militaries and their experience working with US forces and weapons systems, calling the decision a “slam-dunk for national security” of the United States.“Their accession will make Nato stronger and America more secure. If any senator is looking for a defensible excuse to vote no, I wish them good luck,” McConnell said.Senator Josh Hawley, a Missouri Republican who often aligns his positions with those of the most ardent supporters of Donald Trump, has been one of the few to speak in opposition. Hawley took the Senate floor to call European security alliances a distraction from what he called the United States’ chief rival – China, not Russia.“We can do more in Europe … devote more resources, more firepower … or do what we need to do to deter Asia and China. We cannot do both,” Hawley said, calling his a “classic nationalist approach” to foreign policy.US state and defense department officials consider the two countries net “security providers”, strengthening Nato’s defense posture in the Baltics in particular. Finland is expected to exceed Nato’s 2% GDP defense spending target in 2022, and Sweden has committed to meet the 2% goal.Sweden and Finland applied in May, setting aside their longtime stance of military non-alignment. It was a major shift of security arrangements for the two countries after neighboring Russia launched its war on Ukraine in late February. Biden encouraged their joining and welcomed the two countries’ government heads to the White House in May.The US and its European allies have rallied with newfound partnership in the face of the Russian president’s aggression, strengthening the alliance formed after the second world war.“Enlarging Nato is exactly the opposite of what Putin envisioned when he ordered his tanks to invade Ukraine,” Senator Bob Menendez, a New Jersey Democrat and chairman of the Senate Foreign relations committee, said on Wednesday, adding that the west could not allow Russia to “launch invasions of countries”.Biden sent the protocols to the Senate for review in July, launching a notably speedy process in the typically divided and slower-moving chamber.Each member government in Nato must give its approval for any new member to join. The process ran into unexpected trouble when Turkey raised concerns over adding Sweden and Finland, accusing the two of being soft on banned Turkish Kurdish exile groups. Turkey’s objections still threaten the two countries’ membership.TopicsNatoUS SenateUS CongressUS politicsSwedenFinlandEuropenewsReuse this content More

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in World Politics

      India Looks to Finland for an Effective Educational Model

      by

      The Fair Observer website uses digital cookies so it can collect statistics on how many visitors come to the site, what content is viewed and for how long, and the general location of the computer network of the visitor. These statistics are collected and processed using the Google Analytics service. Fair Observer uses these aggregate statistics from website visits to help improve the content of the website and to provide regular reports to our current and future donors and funding organizations. The type of digital cookie information collected during your visit and any derived data cannot be used or combined with other information to personally identify you. Fair Observer does not use personal data collected from its website for advertising purposes or to market to you.As a convenience to you, Fair Observer provides buttons that link to popular social media sites, called social sharing buttons, to help you share Fair Observer content and your comments and opinions about it on these social media sites. These social sharing buttons are provided by and are part of these social media sites. They may collect and use personal data as described in their respective policies. Fair Observer does not receive personal data from your use of these social sharing buttons. It is not necessary that you use these buttons to read Fair Observer content or to share on social media. More

    • 88 Shares169 Views

      in World Politics

      The State of Press Freedom in Finland

      by

      A decision to prosecute three journalists at Finland’s largest newspaper, Helsingin Sanomat, has called into question its status as one of the world’s leading countries for press freedom. Investigative journalists Laura Halminen and Tuomo Pietilainen, along with their supervisor, Kalle Silfverberg, are accused of disclosing and attempting to disclose state secrets. All three deny the charges.

      The case concerns a series of investigative articles about a military intelligence research center operated by the Finnish defense forces. If found guilty, the journalists face up to four years in prison, with a minimum sentence of four months.

      Is Peace Possible in Ukraine?

      READ MORE

      Despite Finland’s status as a leading example for freedom of the press, it has not been problem-free, particularly with targeted harassment of journalists. However, the case against Helsingin Sanomat’s journalists has opened up an entirely new front for defenders of press freedom. It has also raised uncomfortable issues from Finland’s past, which the country is still grappling with.

      A Small Country With a Large Neighbor

      Finland, with a population of 5.5 million, shares a border of more than 800 miles with Russia and its population of more than 144 million. For Finnish leaders, this has meant taking a realist approach to foreign policy. In particular, the Winter War of 1939-40, when Finland resisted an attack by the Soviet Union, is one of the defining events in the country’s history.

      The decades that followed World War II were challenging for Finland, a small country ravaged by war. Maintaining good relations with the Soviet Union during the Cold War was a necessity. Finland successfully avoided Soviet occupation and remained a democracy, but it paid the price in the form of “Finlandization,” which meant strict political neutrality and not challenging the influence of the Soviet Union.

      Embed from Getty Images

      Finland’s national security strategy is founded on conscription, a trained reserve, defense of the entire country and a willingness to defend it from attack. The aim is to make it an unappealing target for a would-be aggressor state.

      A recent decision to renew Finland’s aging fleet of Hornets with 64 Lockheed Martin F-35A Lightning II fighter jets, popular with NATO countries, forms part of the strategy. Maintaining good international relations and participating in international military crisis management are other key elements. Finland is not a member of NATO, but it joined the European Union in 1995. Polls indicate that support for NATO membership has grown significantly following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on February 24.

      Prosecution Before Publication

      The case against the three journalists was triggered by an article that Helsingin Sanomat published in 2017. Legislative changes that aimed to extend the information-gathering powers of the security services were underway at the time. The newspaper’s representatives have argued that there were strong public interest reasons for publishing the story.

      The police investigation included a raid on one journalist’s home and left them stuck in limbo for four years. The decision to prosecute, announced in late October 2021, concerns the article published five years ago and material for a series of unpublished articles. The prosecution based on unpublished material has understandably raised concerns.

      There are currently limited facts available about the basis for the prosecution or the details of the case, but more information is expected to become public at a later stage. Based on the available information, it appears likely that one of the central questions in the case will hinge on when an investigative journalist’s research potentially crosses the line into an attempt to disclose state secrets.

      The Finnish Union of Journalists has raised strong concerns about the case, pointing out that it could set a precedent and mean that a journalist’s unpublished notes might result in a conviction. The union and the Council for Mass Media, the independent media regulator, have called for openness in the legal proceedings.

      Embed from Getty Images

      While not taking a position on the case, the council has expressed concerns that it could result in restrictions on freedom of expression on grounds that may remain secret. The council has emphasized the need for clarity about the circumstances in which considering material for publication or finalizing material, without actually publishing it, could constitute a crime.

      The issues raised by the Council for Mass Media include concerns about the risk of self-censorship. This is a sensitive historical issue, as the era of “Finlandization” included heavy self-censorship in the media and in publishing. Writing about the case for Politiikasta, academic scholars Anu Koivunen and Johanna Vuorelma warn against the risk of a return to a Cold War-era media environment, where every decision to publish was assessed from a security perspective.

      Welcome to the Land of Free Press

      In 2018, hundreds of billboards commissioned by Helsingin Sanomat famously greeted Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin on their visit to Helsinki with messages such as, “Mr. President, welcome to the land of free press.” The case against Helsingin Sanomat’s journalists may test whether Finland still is that land of a free press.

      Whatever the outcome of the case, it has given Finland, the world’s happiest country, cause for serious self-reflection.

      The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More

    • 163 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      The week where decades happened: how the west finally woke up to Putin

      by

      The week where decades happened: how the west finally woke up to Putin From Germany’s shock military spending rise to sanctions unity, leaders have come together over the war in Ukraine

      Russia-Ukraine war: live news
      Lenin, a Russian leader as obsessed with history as Vladimir Putin, famously said: “There are decades where nothing happens; and there are weeks where decades happen.” This has been the latter. The little more than a week since Russian troops invaded Ukraine has indeed shaken the world. Change has been telescoped, national taboos broken, moribund institutions given purpose and the spectre of a nuclear war in Europe has been raised for the first time since the 1980s. Germany has called it Zeitenwende, the turning point. It will not just be Ukraine that is changed for ever by this war.But there is something specific about how war accelerates change. In The Deluge, his classic work on how society is changed by war, the British historian Arthur Marwick wrote: “War acts as a supreme challenge to, and test of, a country’s social and political institutions. War results not only in the destruction of inefficient institutions (such as the Tsarist regime in Russia), but also in the transformation of less efficient mechanisms into more efficient ones”.The west has surprised itself with its ability to respond to the misery inflicted on the people of Ukraine. All kinds of unimaginable images emerge. The German Bundestag cheered an extra €100bn (£82.4bn) on defence spending, followed by 100,000 people on the streets in protest at Putin. Matteo Salvini, the great Italian defender of Putin, bringing white tulips to the Ukrainian embassy. Liz Truss, the UK foreign secretary, attending a meeting of the EU foreign affairs ministers meeting. The Hungarian leader, Viktor Orbán, sharply criticised by human-rights groups and others over the years for his hardline border policies, sitting on a school bench opening his arms to refugees.It was just a fortnight ago that the German foreign minister, Annalena Baerbock, had appeared at the Munich security conference to caution the crisis was not the moment to try to execute an 180-degree turn on the decades-old German policy banning the sale of arms into conflict zones. Josep Borrell, the EU external affairs chief, batted away calls for Ukraine to join the EU, saying they already had an exceptional trade deal. He spoke about the “power of the EU’s language”, distancing himself from his own one-time claim that the EU must learn “the language of power”.The next day – Sunday – all the talk was of Emmanuel Macron’s diplomatic initiative, and the concessions the French president had extracted from Vladimir Putin. Even on Wednesday, on the eve of the invasion, Baerbock gave an interview saying it was impossible for Germany to impose the strongest sanctions because of “the massive collateral damage” to Germany’s own economy. Putin could end up laughing at us, she warned.Yet by the following weekend, two days after the invasion began on Thursday, Germany’s coalition government had started that 180-degree course correction. Chancellor Olaf Scholz and his cabinet agreed to send Ukraine 1,000 anti-tank weapons and 500 anti-aircraft Stinger missiles, lifting restrictions on German weapons being sent to conflict zones by third parties in the process. The next day, Scholz told the Bundestag in his trademark matter-of-fact manner that he was injecting €100bn into German defence, but protecting other budgets, and defence spending would rise above 2% of German GDP. The MPs from government and the CDU gasped and cheered in equal measure. David McAllister, a leading figure in the German CDU and chair of the European parliament’s foreign affairs select committee, admits he nearly fell off his chair when he heard the plans.Russian forces attacked multiple targets in southern UkraineThe promised growth catapults Germany into becoming the third largest spender on defence globally, behind only the US and China. GlobalData forecasts an annual German defence budget of $83.5bn in 2024, equating to a 45% increase on 2021’s budget of $57.5bn. That is bigger than France and the UK. Overnight Germany became not just an economic but also a geopolitical powerhouse. Polls said 78% of Germans backed the decision.Matthias Matthijs, Europe senior fellow for Europe at the Council on Foreign Relations, said: “It is quite astonishing how fast this government broke pretty well every taboo in postwar German foreign policy.”He attributes the scale of the change to a visit to Berlin on Sunday by the Polish prime minister, Mateusz Morawiecki. “I came to Berlin to shake the conscience of Germany,” Morawiecki said.Sophia Besch, from the Centre for European Reform, points out Scholz himself insisted he had not acted due to pressure from allies, but due to Germany changing its view of the threat posed by Putin. “The truth is the world did not change last Thursday,” she said. “Berlin for years has ignored the warnings that came from many of our allies and from Putin. We need to learn the lessons of how this could have happened and how we could have been so blind. We are leaving behind some of our old beliefs – that economic interdependence prevents conflict, but I am not sure we know yet with what we are replacing this belief.”Sergey Lagodinsky, a German Green MEP, argued Germany needs not only to spend more money, but to shift its mindset without becoming militaristic or interventionist. It needs to discuss how to adopt escalation, including military escalation, as leverage as part of its foreign policy toolbox. Foreign policy is not just a peace policy, Friedenspolitik in German, but also the ability to deal, manage and face conflict.But the new German coalition, faced by the need to extricate itself from Russian energy, may have to challenge other orthodoxies. The Green economics minister, Robert Habeck, does not rule out extending the use of coal-fired power plants. “This blind, naive, one-sided relationship of dependency on Russia for energy for decades is one of the biggest strategic mistakes of the past 20 years,” Lagodinsky said. “Now we are stuck. It represents a medium- and long-term problem”.But Putin’s recklessness is not just causing a revolution in Germany, but across Europe.Sweden abandoned its policy of not sending weapons to conflict zones, agreeing to send Bofors AT-4, a single-use anti-tank launcher, to Ukraine, plus medical supplies. In Finland, a bombshell poll showed 53% want Finland to join Nato. “This poll flipped everything on its head,” said Charly Salonius-Pasternak, of the Finnish Institute of International Affairs. Moreover the poll showed that if voters were told that politicians said they backed the plan the support went up to two-thirds. “You could sense the president, Sauli Niinisto, realised the whole defence dynamic was changed.” Niinisto, seen as one of the best readers of what Putin is thinking is now rushing to hold urgent talks with Joe Biden in the White House.Ukraine war prompts European reappraisal of its energy supplies Read moreEven in Switzerland, leaders had to catch up with the public mood in the space of a weekend, and by the Monday an emergency cabinet promised to implement the entire EU sanctions package. The decision does not formally end a policy of neutrality that has survived two world wars, but there is now pressure to track down the many oligarchs that live in the country. There are also calls for an increase in the defence budgetThere has been a mini-revolution in Italy, too, where the prime minister, Mario Draghi, accused last week of seeking sanctions carve-outs to protect Italy’s dependence on Russian gas, has also found some mettle. He told parliament on Tuesday: “Yes, we want peace, but it is obvious that whoever amassed more than 60km of tanks near Kyiv does not want peace. We cannot turn our backs on Ukraine. Italy does not intend to look away.” He proposed an international public register of those with assets of more than €10m. In France, Macron looks likely to be re-elected comfortably next month as the rightwing candidates find themselves compromised by links to Putin they cannot deny.Eastern European countries, sometimes hostile to refugees, have instead had the most open arms. Poland has taken an unprecedented 600,000 people. Orbán the Hungarian leader photographed smiling at child refugees, vows “No one will be left uncared for.”The UK too has been experiencing unusually heavy traffic on the Road to Damascus. The Conservative government promises there will be no hiding place for oligarchs, publishing the delayed economic crime bill and seemingly unnerving Roman Abramovich into selling his stake in Chelsea football club. The endless denigration of Brussels has stopped. “The quality and intensity of the contacts between the EU and UK has been different to anything since before Brexit,” one EU official said. “We have restored a level of trust”.But it has been at the level of the European Union that the action has been quickest and most surprising, revealing Ursula von der Leyen, the head of the EU Commission and former German defence minister, as a powerful advocate for action. For the EU to release €500m from the European Peace Facility to provide equipment and supplies to the Ukrainian armed forces, including – for the first time – lethal equipment, was a first. EU military staff based in Poland are now coordinating military supplies into Ukraine. The EU as a military player is no longer just the stuff of seminars.Equally, the Commission in discussing its EU sanctions package acted with an unparalleled speed, and by consensus among the member states. Some EU sanctions packages take months to be agreed as one country or other exploiting the requirement for unanimity uses their veto power to pursue a national interest.That the UK, US and EU were able to coordinate an attack on the Russian central bank, freezing out some Russian banks from the global Swift bank payment system and implementing measures to prevent Russian banks and firms raising capital, showed a wholly unexpected level of resolve. This was a financial declaration of war – an attempt to turn Russia into a pariah economy – something never tried before, using methods never deployed before. It involved, for instance, some G20 central banks freezing the Russian central bank reserves held in their own jurisdiction, so depleting the war chest of reserves that Putin had accumulated to defend his economy if it came under western attack.All this is remarkable, indeed epoch-making, but not a cause for celebration. The institutions of liberal democracy may have belatedly shown resolve and unity, but in the here and now they are still losing. Keir Giles, from the Chatham House thinktank, is blunt: “Russia will want to present Zelenskiy with an appalling choice – whether to fight on at immense human cost and to the destruction of his country, infrastructure and economy or to submit to his terms in order that life can go on.“The decision to abandon Ukraine to that fate was made by the west when it gave the green light to Putin by reassuring him that no one would intervene. Nato does not have a strategy to win the war in Ukraine because Nato does not want to be in the war in Ukraine.”European politicians will also be worrying as the price of bread and energy soars in the months ahead whether voters are willing to make the sacrifice.the Lithuanian foreign minister told the UK foreign affairs select committee that half-measures would not do. “Putin has no boundaries to what instruments he is going to use and unleash against the Ukrainians”, Gabrielius Landsbergis, said, adding the west “had to go all-in”.He wants humanitarian corridors supported by no-fly zones. But the UK and the US have firmly rejected this since it would pit Nato pilots against Russian pilots. A Polish plan, backed by Borrell for Nato to provide Ukraine with Nato jets, training and bombs, got shot down in less than a day.The other remaining option is to end the final carve-outs in the sanctions regime. “The push is now for carpet sanctions to match the carpet bombing,” said Orysia Lutsevych from the Ukraine Forum, adding the UK, EU and the US are still buying more than €700m of oil, gas and other commodities that is the equivalent of 150 tanks a day that Russia can finance.That could be stopped either through an energy trade embargo, or by reversing the EU decision to let Gazprombank and Sberbank, the vehicles through which Europe pays for Russian oil and gas, stay in the Swift payment system. UK officials briefed on Wednesday they want to abolish the carve out given by the EU. If these two banks are thrown out of Swift that might immobilise Russian oil and gas exports, or lead to unspecified retaliation by Putin.The breadth and range of economic and financial measures taken against Moscow, not to mention growing sporting and cultural isolation, has been a humiliation for Putin, but it is also a risk for the west if the Russian leader sees no answer but total victory. “He is in a corner, but unfortunately with nuclear weapons, says Giles.The west has been transformed in a week, but the question this weekend is if it would be willing, forced by the chaos of events, to go even further. The charge facing the west after a week of war is the one made by George Orwell of Neville Chamberlain in 1938. Like almost everyone at the time, he “neither wanted to pay the price of peace nor that of war”.TopicsUkraineEuropeRussiaGermanyMilitaryArms tradeSwedenfeaturesReuse this content More