Finlandization (Finnish:suomettuminen) is the process by which one powerful country makes a smaller neighboring country refrain from opposing the former's foreign policy rules, while allowing it to keep its nominal independence and its own political system.[1] The term means "to become like Finland", referring to the influence of the Soviet Union on Finland's policies during theCold War.[2]
The term is often consideredpejorative. It originated in theWest German political debate of the late 1960s and 1970s. As the term was used in West Germany and otherNATO countries, it referred to the decision of a country not to challenge a more powerful neighbor in foreign politics, while maintaining nationalsovereignty. It is commonly used in reference to Finland's policies in relation to the Soviet Union during the Cold War, but it can refer more generally to similar international relations, such as Denmark's attitude toward Germany between 1871 and 1940, or the policies of the Swiss government towardsNazi Germany until the end of World War II.
In Germany, the term was used mainly by proponents of closer adaptation to US policies, chieflyFranz Josef Strauss, but was initially coined in scholarly debate, and made known by the German political scientistsRichard Löwenthal,Walter Hallstein andKurt Birrenbach, reflecting feared effects of withdrawal of US troops from Germany.[3] It came to be used in the debate of the NATO countries in response toWilly Brandt's attempts tonormalise relations with East Germany, and the following widespread scepticism in Germany against NATO'sDual-Track Decision.[3] Later, after thefall of the Soviet Union, the term has been used in Finland for the post-1968 radicalization in the latter half of theUrho Kekkonen era.[4][2]
In the 1990s, Finlandization was also discussed as a potential strategy that the Soviet Union underGorbachev may have attempted to revise its relationship with theWarsaw Pact states from 1989 to 1991, as a way to transition frominformal empire to a loosersphere of influence model, which was precluded by the fall of the USSR.[5]
As early as 2010Shinzo Abe feared the Finlandization of Japan and South Korea to China, because of its growing influence and power.[6][7]
The term has also been used in discussing other countries, for example as a potential outcome of theRusso-Ukrainian War.[8]
Finns have, and had, a wide variety of reactions to the term "Finlandization".[9] Some have perceived the term as blunt criticism,[citation needed] stemming from an inability to understand the practicalities of how a small nation needs to deal with an adjacent superpower without losing itssovereignty. These practicalities existed primarily because of the lingering effect of Russian rule in the time before theFinns first gained sovereignty; and because of the precarious power balance eastwards, springing from a geographically extended yet sparsely populated state with a traditionally imperialist superpower right across the border.
The reason Finland engaged in Finlandization was primarilyRealpolitik: to survive. On the other hand, the threat of the Soviet Union was also used in Finland's domestic politics in a way that possibly deepened Finlandization (playing the so-calledidänkortti, 'east card'). Finland made such a deal withJoseph Stalin's government in the late 1940s, and it was largely respected by both parties—and to the gain of both parties—until the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991. While the Finnish political and intellectual elite mostly understood the term to refer more to the foreign policy problems of other countries, and meant mostly for domestic consumption in the speaker's own country, many ordinary Finns considered the term highly offensive.[citation needed] The Finnish political cartoonistKari Suomalainen once explained Finlandization as "the art of bowing to the East withoutmooning the West".[2]
Finland's foreign politics before this deal had been varied: independence fromImperial Russia with support ofImperial Germany in 1917; participation in theRussian Civil War (without official declaration of war) alongside theTriple Entente 1918–1920; a non-ratified alliance with Poland in 1922; association with the neutralist and democratic Scandinavian countries in the 1930s ended by the 1939Winter War against the Soviet Union, in which the Finns thwarted the Soviet attempt to conquer Finland, albeit with the cession of 9% of Finnish territory; and finally in 1940, a rapprochement withNazi Germany, the only power able and willing to help Finland against the expansionist Soviet Union, which led to Finland'sre-entry into the Second World War in 1941.
.jpg)
After theParis Peace Treaty of 1947, Finland succeeded in retaining democracy andparliamentarism, despite the heavy political pressure on Finland's foreign and internal affairs by the Soviet Union.Finland's foreign relations were guided by the doctrine formulated byJuho Kusti Paasikivi, emphasising the necessity to maintain a good and trusting relationship with the Soviet Union.
Finland signed anAgreement of Friendship, Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance with the Soviet Union in April 1948, under which Finland was obliged to resist armed attacks by "Germany or its allies" against Finland, or against the Soviet Union through Finland, and, if necessary, ask for Soviet military aid to do so. At the same time, the agreement recognised Finland's desire to remain outsidegreat power conflicts, allowing the country to adopt a policy ofneutrality during theCold War.
As a consequence, Finland did not participate in theMarshall Plan and took neutral positions on Soviet overseas initiatives. By keeping very cool relations to NATO and western military powers in general, Finland could fend off Soviet pressure for affiliation to the Warsaw Pact.
Only after the ascent of Mikhail Gorbachev to Soviet leadership in 1985 did mass media in Finland gradually begin to criticise the Soviet Union more. When the Soviet Union allowed non-communist governments to take power in Eastern Europe, Gorbachev suggested they could look to Finland as an example to follow.[10]
Between 1944 and 1946, the Soviet part of the allied control commission demanded that Finnish public libraries should remove from circulation more than 1,700 books that were deemed anti-Soviet, and bookstores were given catalogs of banned books.[11][12] TheFinnish Board of Film Classification likewise banned films that it considered to be anti-Soviet.[citation needed] Banned films includedOne, Two, Three (1961), directed byBilly Wilder;The Manchurian Candidate (1962), directed byJohn Frankenheimer;One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich (1970), by Finnish directorCaspar Wrede; andBorn American (1986), by Finnish directorRenny Harlin.[citation needed]
The censorship never took the form of purging. Possession or use of anti-Soviet books was not banned, but the reprinting and distribution of such materials was prohibited. Especially in the realm of radio and television self-censorship, it was sometimes hard to tell whether the motivations were even political. For example, once a system of blacklisting recordings had been introduced, individual policy makers within the national broadcaster,Yleisradio, also utilized it to censor songs they deemed inappropriate for other reasons, such as some of those featuring sexual innuendo or references to alcohol.[citation needed]
.jpg)
After thedissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 and the end of the Cold War, the Finno-Soviet Treaty of 1948 was replaced by a new bilateral treaty between Finland and theRussian Federation on a more equal footing, ending the Paasikivi-Kekkonen doctrine. Finland joined theEuropean Union in1995, adopting itsCommon Foreign and Security Policy. Since joining thePartnership for Peace program of NATO in 1994, there has been increasing cooperation with NATO, including interoperability and participation in NATO missions.
Despite these changes, Finland initially remained militarily non-aligned and attempted to retain good relations with Russia. However, the 2022Russian invasion of Ukraine caused a dramatic increase of public and political support in Finland for full membership in NATO. Theapplication for membership was formally submitted on 18 May,[13] and after all 30 NATO members ratified the application, Finland became the 31st member of NATO on 4 April 2023.[14] The notion of "end of Finlandization" has been applied both to the changing circumstances resulting from the end of the Cold War and to Finland's decision to join NATO.[15][16]
Ukraine has been seen as adhering to Finlandization due to its proximity toRussia. Until 2014, Ukraine officially identified itself as a non-aligned "non-bloc" nation. Under the presidency ofViktor Yanukovych, Ukraine was neutral but pursued stronger links with Russia. Yanukovych signed into law a bill that prevented Ukraine from formally joining any military alliance, including NATO, while allowing cooperation.[17] Following the outbreak of theRusso-Ukrainian War in 2014, and the subsequent annexation ofCrimea by Russia, Ukraine renounced its neutral status;Petro Poroshenko, then-President of Ukraine, submitted a legislative amendment to join NATO in December 2014.[18] This was seen as the end of Finlandization in Ukraine.[19] Ukraine formally applied for NATO membership in September 2022.[20]
Russia escalated the Russo-Ukrainian War byinvading Ukraine in February 2022. As a result, it has been suggested that Ukraine re-adopt Finlandization to end the war.[21][22][23]German ChancellorOlaf Scholz announced he opposes Ukrainian membership in NATO, calling on Ukraine to return to neutrality.[24]Donald Trump's victory in the2024 United States presidential election has raised concerns that a Trump administration may force Ukraine to accept a neutral, non-aligned Finlandization policy, due to Trump's intent to end the conflict as quickly as possible.[25]
International responses to the Russian invasion of Ukraine have also reflected Finlandization from some countries, particularly in Asia.India did not formally condemn the invasion, owing in part to its history of positive relations with Russia. It was also noted thatBangladesh,Kazakhstan,Kyrgyzstan,Laos,Mongolia,Pakistan,Sri Lanka,Tajikistan andVietnam did not have strong responses to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, "reflecting pressures from Russia and China."[26]
Mongolia has been perceived as following a policy of Finlandization, due to its geographic location being surrounded by Russia andChina. Since Mongolia is considered to act as a buffer state between Russia and China, as well as being dependent on the latter, Mongolian foreign policy tends to be neutral and avoids hostility towards China or Russia.[27]
Some scholars have argued thatTaiwan has developed a policy of Finlandization with China.[28] Taipei City Councillor Hsu Chiao-hsin suggested that Taiwan could learn from Finland's policy of Finlandization in the Cold War era.[29]
| International | |
|---|---|
| National | |
