Finnish imperialism collides with reality
We hereby publish excerpts from the article “Foreign and security policy report: Finnish imperialism collides with reality” published by Punalippu:
Recently, the government gave its foreign and security policy report to the parliament. The ideological basis of the report is mentioned as the so-called “value-based realism”, which is described as follows: “We adhere to important and central values for us, such as democracy, the rule of law, international law and human rights, peace and equality. At the same time, we are ready to dialogue even with countries that do not share our views and values.” It therefore defends bourgeois values, but is ready to sacrifice its “values” in order to secure its own interests – in other words, it follows the logic of imperialism. “Realism” is meant to refer to the bourgeois school of international political research, which sees the international system as a power struggle between states driven by interests. The new president Stubb has cultivated “value-based realism”, and also wants to use the concept to emphasize himself, specially as an expert an researcher on international politics. The report defines the world situation from the perspective of Finnish imperialism and its goals.
The report is based on the government program, but it has been given political guidance by the Foreign and Security Policy Committee (TP-UTVA) chaired by the President of the Republic, and it shows the influence of the President in defining, for example, of “value-based realism” as the basis of Finland’s policy. In addition to foreign policy, the report also takes a position on many internal “security” issues, which means that the president also participates in domestic politics. Broad consensus has traditionally been required on foreign and security policy issues in Finland, and this report is a tool for creating this consensus in the parliament and during the general election period, to achieve which the implementation of the report is supervised by a parliamentary monitoring group consisting of all parliamentary parties.
The report says that it represents “the foreign and security policy of the new era”, after all, Finland has joined NATO. Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine has indeed caused a change in the foreign policy thought of Finnish imperialism: Russian imperialism is in bad shape and collusion with Yankee imperialism has intensified. At the same time, all the fundamental contradictions in the world become even more acute.
Revolution is the main trend in the world in our time, and its development is also the main concern of Finnish imperialism. The report also expresses this, which can be seen in the concern about the “escalation of the confrontation”.
According to the report, the world is in turmoil, and it clearly worries Finnish imperialism, which denies the reality of imperialism, and cherishes hopes for a world where even small imperialists would have more power, which could, for example, promote the commitment of Yankee imperialism or Chinese social-imperialism to the so-called common game rules. Finnish imperialism therefore sees the world from the point of view of a small imperialist.
The entire document thus reflects the idea that Finnish imperialism must be creative in the midst of increasingly escalating contradictions in order to maintain its “bird’s nest” status and promote its aspirations. It’s a small imperialist, so it can’t avoid to show weakness when bigger imperialists implement policies that match their interests, but it still maintains, for example, “free trade” and “rules-based international system” in its report. However, its position will only ever weaken and become more difficult as the rottenness of imperialism progresses.
Much as it would like the larger imperialists to follow the “international rules-based system”, it must admit that this has failed. During his term, President Niinistö defined four pillars of foreign and security policy: 1. Own credible defense capability, 2. Western partnerships (EU, Sweden, NATO and the United States) 3. Good relations and cooperation with Russia, 4. UN and other international communities (international “rules-based ” system). Niinistö already said at the time that these pillars can become stronger or weaker – and he specifically referred to the weakening of the fourth pillar. Now these pillars have fallen.
[It] shows how important it is for Finnish imperialism to maintain general conscription and false national unity and class harmony with imperialist bribery, inciting nationalism and massive propaganda, which is also spread by opportunists: even now we see that in the political debate “national interest” comes before everything else. This can be seen, for example, in how the SDP justifies the conversion law, and the Left Alliance used similar arguments when approving the DCA agreement. “Total national defense and total security” are derived from the concept of total war, and therefore mean the militarization of society at all levels.
At the same time, this is also where the weakness of Finnish imperialism lies: its military ability is strongly based on class conciliation. As the general crisis of imperialism advances and the revolution grows, it finds it increasingly difficult to maintain class harmony, and at the same time a large part of its male population in particular, but also a growing part of its women, has received military training. There is a risk that the people dressed in bullet-proof vests will turn their weapons against their oppressors.
Due to the problems of the conscription army, Finnish imperialism has always had two military systems that complement each other and serve to preserve its existence. In Fascist Finland, this second system, which aims to prevent revolution at home, was represented by the white guards, which were preserved in covert forms, especially in various “voluntary national defense” associations, after the prohibition of white the guards. During the Second World War, the white guards were responsible for maintaining white discipline in the ranks of the conscription army, when it was sent to war against the true homeland of the workers, the Soviet Union. Nurturing internal peace, mediating class conflicts, corporatism is important for Finnish imperialism also in order to maintain its military capability.
In the midst of escalating contradictions, Finnish imperialism must strive harder and harder to secure its position in the competition between imperialists. It is looking for new opportunities to accelerate its imperialist exploitation.
In the foreign and security policy narrative, imperialist oppression is of course “partnerships” with the oppressed countries, which supposedly benefit both parties. In reality, however, it is a matter of parasitic imperialist exploitation.
One means for Finnish imperialism is the so-called “development cooperation” that improves conditions for imperialist exploitation. In the new foreign and security policy report, the role of private companies in this “cooperation” is especially highlighted.
Finnish imperialism is a relatively small and weak imperialist, although this does not make it any more innocent or less parasitic and bloody. However, it cannot achieve its aspirations alone, so it emphasizes relations with other imperialists. It benefits from the military and economic power of stronger imperialists, trading with them and engaging in alliances and joint “peacekeeping operations” to oppress and exploit oppressed nations. For this reason, relations with other imperialists are also emphasized in the foreign and security policy report, but this must be seen as a way for Finnish imperialism to promote its efforts in oppressed nations, which is nevertheless the lifeblood and main thing for an imperialist country.
This shows the contradictions of Finnish imperialism, especially with Yankee imperialism. The escalating conflicts between the larger imperialists force it into ever-increasing negotiations to secure its own interests. However, it must adapt to the interests of the larger imperialists, primarily Yankee imperialism. At the same time, it still considers China an important partner, although it sees risks in this.
In the definition of the relationship with the United States, a clear deepening can be seen compared to the previous foreign and security policy report. At the same time, the position of the United States as the only hegemonic superpower is problematic for Finnish imperialism, and it hopes that an “international rules-based system” would rein in Yankee imperialism and, for example, prevent it from completely walking over the interests of smaller imperialists. However, it has been seen that if it wants to, Yankee imperialism can, for example, break WTO [Translator’s Note: World Trade Organization] trade rules in order to strengthen its own position on the market and force other imperialists to accept, for example, sanctions that are harmful to them.
The report therefore reflects the deepening of the general crisis of imperialism and the desperate effort of Finnish imperialism to maintain its existence, with the main concern being the development of revolution all over the world. This is reflected in the fact that it must militarize heavily to defend and increase its share of the imperialist loot, utilizing various inter-imperialist alliances. As a small imperialist, it defends free trade and the “international rules-based system”, because it has to make concessions to the bigger imperialists, and it can’t help but complain when the latter act to protect their own interests while fundamental conflicts escalate more and more fiercely. Finnish imperialism is still looking for new opportunities to increase its exploitation in oppressed countries, its concern is the everywhere growing anti-imperialist struggle. It is waging a desperate struggle against its inevitable destruction as part of the death struggle of the entire imperialist system.
