![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
varjohaltiaThat being a recently voiced opinion of one of Finland's powerful business leaders, regarding the policies of Tarja Halonen, Finland's current president.
This apparently has lead to a fair bit of discussion in Finland, but also has some rather more general aspects to it, and I wish to address some of those. First, some background.
Having Tarja Halonen as a president always made me proud. She's a woman who isn't pretty, nor young. She used to be on the left side of the political spectrum, and worked with a sexual minority organization. She lives in something akin to a common law marriage with her domestic (male) partner. That a nation elected such a person by popular vote tickles me pink.
The main point of the criticism was that she was ruining relations with both the US and Russia by being too idealistic and ignoring the aspects of realpolitik. She was told to stop being a do-gooder and return to the harsh realities of this world. In short, it was realist criticism against a liberalist president. The more I have seen of the world, especially filtered from the rather distinctive viewpoint of someone living in the US, the more I have come to understand the realist viewpoint--the world is a chaotic place, and strength is the only way to survive. There are people in the world who want to take over the world, who will not accept diversity. Those people have to be fought if we wish to preserve freedom. Yet, for some reason, I felt remarkably proud to hear that the country I call my own more than any other is headed by someone who would rather forego a trade deal, or even hamper national security, than compromise on human rights.
Another rather notable Finnish character, Matti Wuori, points out in his piece on the debacle that idealism is Finland's strength rather than weakness. Finland is a small country, with almost no political, economic or military might. However, Finland has an honorable history with peacekeeping missions and political activism in certain venues. (The track record certainly isn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but is still fairly well respected.) This means that there is a certain freedom from the concerns of realpolitik. Finland can afford to take an idealistic stance, since it is rather unlikely to make a difference in national security. Invading countries, getting involved with wars, developing global weapons systems and all those things are far outside of her scope, and that simplifies things.
In light of how the US "War on Terror" (quotes due to Iraq) is being perceived abroad, it truly heartens me to see that there are nations with the courage and integrity to say that some things are wrong, and that the end does not justify the means. To see nations for whom military action is not an option, and who have learned to find other ways of conflict resolution speak up. When failing Russian nuclear power plants near the border threaten Finland, saber rattling or economic sanctions are not useful; the methods that produce results are more carrot than stick, taking the time to understand the issues, build trust and convince the other party that there are no losers, and that things can be fixed with everyone keeping face and benefiting.
The US has, at the very least in the view of the world, lost its moral authority to wage its war. It detains people indefinitely, with no legal recourse to prove guilt or innocence. It uses large numbers of hired soldiers that are not clearly accountable under any law. It claims that its aims are to bring the rule of law and freedom, yet it demands immunity from any international legal systems. It is seen as lacking sensitivity to regional relations and cultures, and going about its business in a very arrogant, cowboy-like manner, in all the negative connotations of the word. Indeed, it might be good to remember that in Europe the word Cowboy refers to the likes of Rambo and Dirty Harry, who shoot first and ask questions later. There is little positive meaning to the term. There is a clear view that the US doesn't give a damn about the values it claims to protect, and is only interested in exerting its influence around the globe, making sure it gets enough oil for its wasteful horde of oversized vehicles, and shaping regions to suit itself. Even things as seemingly unrelated as enviromental treaties are at play here. The US is seen as having only selfish, short-term commercial interests in mind, and no care for the future of the planet. Is this really someone that anyone wants to trust to rearrange the political map?
This is a great pity. I believe that, as a whole, the US military is perhaps the most professional in the world. It is led by very intelligent people. It is manned by idealistic people who want to do the right thing and make the world better, not by people who want to rob other nations or tell people that their religion sucks. It goes to lengths to develop weapons that are accurate and minimize collateral damage. It is disciplined, and does not engage in raping, looting, pillaging or abuse of the occupied population nearly as much as any other army in world history. If I had to be invaded by an army, I would pick the Americans.
The US is also the only actor on the planet that has the capability to project force decisively and rapidly and actually make a difference. Europeans are talking about their own joint army, but the cultural differences among its people are quite remarkable, and integration into one effective fighting force is rather unlikely. Europeans also loathe war, perhaps too much. They see the need to make a difference in conflicts, be it in their own back yard (Yugoslavia) or elsewhere (the current genocide in Tunisia). They however lack the will or resolve to take painful measures, in the form of sending armed troops in harms way or paying for significant militaries. (The difficulty of this for all those nations who have conscription-based militaries is a different can of worms altogether.)
The UN is indecisive. In order to not alienate its members, decisions have to be done by consensus, and by the time you have two interest groups with inflamed relations, its rather unlikely that such an outcome can be reached. It is also, as the US correctly points out, corrupt and unnecessarily bureaucratic, slow and slumbering. On the other hand, it is singular in its ability to bring together representatives from different countries. It is a super-embassy of sorts, offering magnificient opportunities for countries to talk about any manner of issues, thereby resolving many an issue before they ever evolve into real conflicts.
All that said, idealism is necessary. If the rest of the world doesn't clearly tell the US, or anyone else acting greedily in self interest in violation of what global norms have been established, the global system certainly will slide into just the kind of anarchy that the realists proclaim is the true state of mankind. If there is no pressure to consider things in depth, and listen to everyone's opinion, it is much too easy to make rash decisions and rely on force when it isn't absolutely necessary. Idealism is what should leash the dogs of war, the wisdom that decides what battles are worth spilling blood over.
I am proud of my president and her idealism. The world needs more leaders like her. Leaders that realize that doing the morally right thing is the only way to create future on this planet for all of us. Leaders that realize that acting in short-term self interest is grabbing at fool's gold, and that it does not matter how much military or economic power a country has, if it has lost the respect of the world. I salute president Halonen for allowing me to stand proudly when I say that I am Finnish. For the sake of all of those brave men and women on the battlefields, I hope that their leaders listen, and have the wisdom to make certain that the sacrifices of the fighting men and women are towards noble goals and not squandered on goals whose justification history will question.
This apparently has lead to a fair bit of discussion in Finland, but also has some rather more general aspects to it, and I wish to address some of those. First, some background.
Having Tarja Halonen as a president always made me proud. She's a woman who isn't pretty, nor young. She used to be on the left side of the political spectrum, and worked with a sexual minority organization. She lives in something akin to a common law marriage with her domestic (male) partner. That a nation elected such a person by popular vote tickles me pink.
The main point of the criticism was that she was ruining relations with both the US and Russia by being too idealistic and ignoring the aspects of realpolitik. She was told to stop being a do-gooder and return to the harsh realities of this world. In short, it was realist criticism against a liberalist president. The more I have seen of the world, especially filtered from the rather distinctive viewpoint of someone living in the US, the more I have come to understand the realist viewpoint--the world is a chaotic place, and strength is the only way to survive. There are people in the world who want to take over the world, who will not accept diversity. Those people have to be fought if we wish to preserve freedom. Yet, for some reason, I felt remarkably proud to hear that the country I call my own more than any other is headed by someone who would rather forego a trade deal, or even hamper national security, than compromise on human rights.
Another rather notable Finnish character, Matti Wuori, points out in his piece on the debacle that idealism is Finland's strength rather than weakness. Finland is a small country, with almost no political, economic or military might. However, Finland has an honorable history with peacekeeping missions and political activism in certain venues. (The track record certainly isn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but is still fairly well respected.) This means that there is a certain freedom from the concerns of realpolitik. Finland can afford to take an idealistic stance, since it is rather unlikely to make a difference in national security. Invading countries, getting involved with wars, developing global weapons systems and all those things are far outside of her scope, and that simplifies things.
In light of how the US "War on Terror" (quotes due to Iraq) is being perceived abroad, it truly heartens me to see that there are nations with the courage and integrity to say that some things are wrong, and that the end does not justify the means. To see nations for whom military action is not an option, and who have learned to find other ways of conflict resolution speak up. When failing Russian nuclear power plants near the border threaten Finland, saber rattling or economic sanctions are not useful; the methods that produce results are more carrot than stick, taking the time to understand the issues, build trust and convince the other party that there are no losers, and that things can be fixed with everyone keeping face and benefiting.
The US has, at the very least in the view of the world, lost its moral authority to wage its war. It detains people indefinitely, with no legal recourse to prove guilt or innocence. It uses large numbers of hired soldiers that are not clearly accountable under any law. It claims that its aims are to bring the rule of law and freedom, yet it demands immunity from any international legal systems. It is seen as lacking sensitivity to regional relations and cultures, and going about its business in a very arrogant, cowboy-like manner, in all the negative connotations of the word. Indeed, it might be good to remember that in Europe the word Cowboy refers to the likes of Rambo and Dirty Harry, who shoot first and ask questions later. There is little positive meaning to the term. There is a clear view that the US doesn't give a damn about the values it claims to protect, and is only interested in exerting its influence around the globe, making sure it gets enough oil for its wasteful horde of oversized vehicles, and shaping regions to suit itself. Even things as seemingly unrelated as enviromental treaties are at play here. The US is seen as having only selfish, short-term commercial interests in mind, and no care for the future of the planet. Is this really someone that anyone wants to trust to rearrange the political map?
This is a great pity. I believe that, as a whole, the US military is perhaps the most professional in the world. It is led by very intelligent people. It is manned by idealistic people who want to do the right thing and make the world better, not by people who want to rob other nations or tell people that their religion sucks. It goes to lengths to develop weapons that are accurate and minimize collateral damage. It is disciplined, and does not engage in raping, looting, pillaging or abuse of the occupied population nearly as much as any other army in world history. If I had to be invaded by an army, I would pick the Americans.
The US is also the only actor on the planet that has the capability to project force decisively and rapidly and actually make a difference. Europeans are talking about their own joint army, but the cultural differences among its people are quite remarkable, and integration into one effective fighting force is rather unlikely. Europeans also loathe war, perhaps too much. They see the need to make a difference in conflicts, be it in their own back yard (Yugoslavia) or elsewhere (the current genocide in Tunisia). They however lack the will or resolve to take painful measures, in the form of sending armed troops in harms way or paying for significant militaries. (The difficulty of this for all those nations who have conscription-based militaries is a different can of worms altogether.)
The UN is indecisive. In order to not alienate its members, decisions have to be done by consensus, and by the time you have two interest groups with inflamed relations, its rather unlikely that such an outcome can be reached. It is also, as the US correctly points out, corrupt and unnecessarily bureaucratic, slow and slumbering. On the other hand, it is singular in its ability to bring together representatives from different countries. It is a super-embassy of sorts, offering magnificient opportunities for countries to talk about any manner of issues, thereby resolving many an issue before they ever evolve into real conflicts.
All that said, idealism is necessary. If the rest of the world doesn't clearly tell the US, or anyone else acting greedily in self interest in violation of what global norms have been established, the global system certainly will slide into just the kind of anarchy that the realists proclaim is the true state of mankind. If there is no pressure to consider things in depth, and listen to everyone's opinion, it is much too easy to make rash decisions and rely on force when it isn't absolutely necessary. Idealism is what should leash the dogs of war, the wisdom that decides what battles are worth spilling blood over.
I am proud of my president and her idealism. The world needs more leaders like her. Leaders that realize that doing the morally right thing is the only way to create future on this planet for all of us. Leaders that realize that acting in short-term self interest is grabbing at fool's gold, and that it does not matter how much military or economic power a country has, if it has lost the respect of the world. I salute president Halonen for allowing me to stand proudly when I say that I am Finnish. For the sake of all of those brave men and women on the battlefields, I hope that their leaders listen, and have the wisdom to make certain that the sacrifices of the fighting men and women are towards noble goals and not squandered on goals whose justification history will question.
