On Feb. 2, days before Emmanuel Macron met in Moscow with Vladimir Putin to seeka solution toward a new security architecture in Europe, Paris daily Le Monde published an article entitled “History of a Notion: ‘Finlandization’ or ‘Obliged Neutrality,’” by Marc Semo, one of their diplomatic correspondents. In the last few days, Macron has stated publicly that Finlandization of Ukraine was one of the issues he would bring up with Putin.
Semo discussed the origin of this idea. At the end of World War II, Finland aligned its foreign policies to those of the U.S.S.R., and in exchange, preserved its sovereignty until the fall of the Soviet Union. Even though it was under surveillance, Finland was able to preserve its democratic institutions and liberal economic system. The problem with such a solution today, according to Semo, is that “the word has a negative connotation, to say the least, evoking the institutionalized control by a powerful neighbor over a small country.”
Nonetheless, this forgotten concept has made a comeback into the public debate as a possible solution to the Ukrainian crisis. “In the right wing, or to the left of the left, numerous voices—who generally call for listening to Russia—are picking up the idea, without necessarily using its name. The hypothesis of a neutral Ukraine becoming a ‘buffer state’ between East and West seduces international relations experts and diplomats for whom this could be a stepping stone in the construction of a new security architecture for the Old Continent, on condition, of course, that it is not brought about via threats.” If accepted, Ukraine would be forbidden from joining NATO or the EU.
In fact, the only way Finlandization could work today is if it were part of a broad reorganization of the entire international security architecture, which takes into account Russia’s stated security concerns, as well as the need for global economic development of all parties, as Helga Zepp-LaRouche has elaborated.
“Finlandization is not a swear word and, in fact, it was a success, notes Nicole Gnesotto, vice-president of the Jacques Delors Institute. By asserting its neutrality after the Second World War and by transforming a constraint imposed by geography into a political choice, Finland succeeded in preserving its independence and in gaining respect from the Russians.”
On Jan. 25, Le Monde interviewed Sven Biscop, a Belgian professor of strategy at Egmont, the Belgian Royal Institute of International Affairs, on the question. Biscop observed that the Europeans had never wanted Ukraine to join NATO. What was negotiated in 2008 at Bucharest, he says, was a bad agreement, where the Europeans submitted to the pressure of the Bush administration, and accepted the principle of integration against their will, but without fixing a delay.
Russia would of course, have to pay a price for Ukraine’s neutrality, says Biscop, which would be a total withdrawal from Donbas and an end to all support for the armed separatist forces, in order to allow Kiev to take control of the whole territory. In exchange, Kiev would have to abandon Crimea, since, he argues, nobody seems to want to fight a war over Crimea.
