From: thietaniemi@cc.helsinki.fi
Subject: Re: Estonia, Russia and Finland (Was: Bilingualism & Imperium)
Organization: University of Helsinki
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 14:39:12 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.165027.15310@cs.chalmers.se>, tammet@cs.chalmers.se (Tanel Tammet) writes:
> In article <1993Jan7.162623.1@cc.helsinki.fi> thietaniemi@cc.helsinki.fi writes:
>>In article <1993Jan6.085712.14512@cs.chalmers.se>, tammet@cs.chalmers.se 
>>(Tanel Tammet) writes:
>>> In article <1993Jan5.163658.1@cc.helsinki.fi> thietaniemi@cc.helsinki.fi 
>>writes:
> .... stuff deleted  ...
>>>>Estonia is also a part of the Imperium. You have many economic
>>>>and cultural and political ties to Russian speaking Imperium.
>>>>And - the struggle for Estonian independency and democracy in Russia
>>>>are deeply tied together! That's why bilingualism should be supported.
>>> 
>>> In a sense Finland is (was until recently?) part of the Imperium (though
>>> a different denotation of Imperium than you use), the ties personified
>>> by the macho figure of Kekkonen. 
>>
>>
>>I think you are overexaggerating the Role of president Kekkonen. The
>>Finnish new policy towards the Soviet Union was started by conservative
>>state president Paasikivi (1946-56), not Kekkonen (1956-1981). This
>>policy of friendship was accepted by the all important parties of Finland.
>>It found support in the Finnish population: Finland became year by year
>>more independent and prosperous.
> 
> Of course I agree with what you write above. I have no personal
> dislike for Kekkonen. 


This surprised me! And delights me.


> But I am not at all convinced that his
> politics (Paasikivi line) was a single useful choice, and other
> choices of line in foreign policy would have been worse.


You can't get me convinced without argumentation (which might
be following...)


> Why I am writing this? To say that I fail to see the usefulness
> of working out an analogy for Paasikivi line in Estonian
> foreign politics.


To quote the old president Kekkonen in the end of seventies:
"Today the people of Finland can freely without outer intrusion develop
the social and economic system it has chosen. We are the smiths of
our own fortune." (= in German: Schmiede unseres Glueckes).

I think we share this ultimate goal of foreign policy. It worked
in Finland.


> Just a few first thoughts on the theme: Estonia became independent
> at the same time and due to the same processes that ended the
> usefulness of Paasikivi-Kekkonen line in Finland. 


I agree that the collapse of the Soviet Union as a consequence of an
attempted coup made the Estonian independence possible. The other
alternative would have been the proposed "independence inside the
Soviet Union" as Gorbachev put it, whatever it meant (we will never
know).

I do not agree that the collapse of Soviet Union has made the main
outlines of Finnish foreign policy obsolete. Some rearrangements have
been done, however:

(1) There is no treaty of Friendship, mutual trust and co-operation
with the USSR any more. It is not needed.
(2) Finland has applied for EC membership which could not have been
possible during the Soviet era.

Only Finnish NATO membership would mean a totally new kind of
foreign policy in Finland (see my previous posting: Russia's
4 alternatives).


> The eastern
> neighbour has changed and will change radically. 


Right. But we agree that the current conditions pose threats
to peace around the Gulf of Finland. Russia is - unfortunately -
the sick man of Europe. And Russia seems to bee suffering from
a case of schitzopheny I described in one of my earlier postings.


> Second, the
> historical context was totally different - Finland had been at
> war with USSR, 


Estonians have fought the USSR, too.


>and had clearly too few contacts with USSR.


Well, too many contacts with KPSS. Too few with the bulk of population.


> Estonia, on the other hand, was annexed and IMHO has too
> many contacts with USSR. 


With CCCP, right! These "contacts" should be broken down - and some
of them should be replaced with voluntary CIS grass root contacts.
I think we agree here totally.


> What was (is) needed in both cases is
> restoring sensible balance. This means movement in opposite
> direction, when Estonia is compared with Finland.


I think I know what you mean. I will not quarrel here about formulations.

 
>>> In my opinion one of the primary tasks of Estonia is to minimize
>>> the economic, cultural and political ties to Russian speaking
>>> Imperium. Of course, this may lead to some immediate economic
>>> losses (or maybe not?), but I consider the harm coming from
>>> strong connections to Russia greater than the good. 
>>
>>
>>Here, I fail to understand you totally.
> 
> Now, I am not madly advocating losing all contacts with Russia.
> I am advocating restoring balance - see above. The 
> network of connections with Russia is currently too strong
> when compared to connections with other countries.


"Balanced", yes... But I suspect that you are underestimating the
dependence of Estonian economy and politics of Russia.

 
> For example, considering just CIS countries,
> I'd be all for closer ties and better connections
> with Ukraine.


Right! Ukraine is unfortunately not a leading force in CIS reform
politics. But Estonia needs to construct it's connections to Belarus
and Ukraine, that should not be underestimated. Are you going to
use your Russian or English abilities when constructing the new
ties?

 
>>I am ready to accept that you are not any more dependend on CIS
>>oil, because it can be bought from world market with world market
>>prices as well.
> 
> Now this is pretty much the general pattern, as is grudgingly
> found out by Estonian companies doing trade with Russia. 
> Russia does not sell stuff to foreign countries (especially
> Estonia!) cheaper than "world market".


This is the case. Estonia can get nowadays the oil it needs
from Finnish harbours. Porvoo/Borgaa has the capabilities for it.

 
> On the other hand, Russian market (unfortunately!) has not very
> much buying power (how come the Finnish-USSR trade has fallen :-)


Indeed. But Russia (and Ukraine, Belarus and Kazahstan) will not be
kneeling for ever. Unfortunately, the recovery might take a long time,
perhaps a generation. This is a pessimistic view...


> and is covered with various obstacles. Eg, Russia has frozen
> bank accounts owned by Estonian banks, to the sum of about
> 80 million USD (lots of money for Estonia), so it is hardly
> guaranteed that a seller gets his money. 


Right! The Russians would deserve a new banking system!


> Etc. It is a VERY risky
> (though profitable when succesful) business.


Risky business, sometimes. But the CIS markets are stabile customers
of Estonian textiles and food processing industies and agriculture.
Even Leningrad oblast' will need Estonian oil shale, I suppose?
The peoples in CIS will eat and dress even in the future. So will
the peoples in EC, but the market is harder to conquer!

 
> It is also politically dangerous. Since government in Russia
> is in position to control foreign trade, they have (as they
> have also proved several times) to apply pressure by
> frightening to stop trade. 


The economic reform in Russia is lowering exactly these obstacles.


> EG, now it seems that Lithuania
> is going to orient to Russian market and supplies - due
> to the newly elected former-communist rule. 


Brazauskas is a patriotic social democrat. The orientation you
describe above is a healthy one. Unfortunately the Lithuanians
lack some preconditions that the Estonians have: The crown and
predictable legal surroundings created by the constitution
and privatization legislation (correct my details, I might
be overexaggerating the difference).


> I am very pessimistic
> about the effects of this policy to Lithuania.

 
Why? The only thing that makes me pessimistic that the Lithuanians
might take over your markets and previous healthy contacts.
 
 
>>But what will the Estonian textile and foossing industries do?
>>Their markets and partly the raw material sources (for textiles) are situated 
>>inside CIS.
> 
> Why? Not so any more for textile, less and less for food
> processing industries. 


I have been taught that your textile industries are very dependent on
raw materials they receive from Central Asia.

Where will the Estonian food processing industries sell their production
in the near future?


> My point is that so far the ideas of doing
> profitable trade with Russia have largely been wishful thinking,
> and the successful cases (reexport of metal) are fairly
> crime-ridden. 

You have not yet convinced me that the other alternatives were more
than wishful thinking!

And, according to my humble opinion, solving the economic crises
would be the most important thing in Estonia right now!

So - I ask you as an Estonian patriot: what are the other plausible
markets for Estonian manufacturers when not the CIS states?

 
>>The new phenomenon that Finland has become the greatest trading partner
>>of Estonia is partly even unhealthy development. Finland should be
>>the second biggest - after CIS. Or are you trying to sell your food
>>to European Community markets? Good luck - but it won't get you
>>far :-(
> 
> This is what I'd call a competitive attitude :-)
> Of course, there is no bright future for food export to
> EC. What follows? Unfortunately, CIS is unable to buy food
> at prices making it profitable for Estonian farmers.
> Africa is also a great market - look how many people 
> are starving there! :-(  


Right! But what are the "alternative markets?" Many people inside
CIS are starving, unfortunately. They must converse their oversized
military production and bureacracy and create purchasing power
of some sort. It is an existential necessity. And they do not
live on African continent, but next door!

 
<deleted passages>


>>> Me, on the other hand, am against official
>>> total bilingualism exactly for the reason to escape the sphere
>>> of Russian dominance. I am not at all optimistic about keeping
>>> close ties with Russia to gain something WITHOUT losing more
>>> than the gain. 
>>
>>
>>I am not for KEEPING previous close ties (like Communist dictatorship and
>>marxist-leninist lectures in university) but for CREATING new
>>ones. The keys for Baltic independence (and perhaps, even to
>>prosperity) are still in Moscow.
> 
> Now I am looking forward to the situation where those keys would
> NOT be any more in Moscow!


Imitate Finland. Our keys are not any more in Moscow. We brought them
back with patience. :-)

 
>>>>> Imagine
>>>>> dropping Swedish from Finland and introducing Russian as
>>>>> official language - no political consequences in the long run?
>>>>
>>>>Of course, but that would be unnecessary, since there are only
>>>>8000 Russians in Finland, mostly, in Helsinki.
>>> 
>>> It would be necessary to get closer ties with Russia if you
>>> somewhy want that :-) 
>>
>>With smiley, OK... But Finland needs more Russian education that
>>has been neglected in past years. The situation when our Eastern
>>trade has collapsed is an unnatural and unhealthy one. And, one
>>of the main reasons of the deep economic depression that we are
>>now facing.
> 
> Exactly! BUT: I do not think that more Russian education
> would in any way help in restoring trade. 


I do not think that, either: but reducing drastically Russian education 
might damage your future trade. It's Finland that needs MORE Russian
education, not Estonia.


> I am also a supporter
> of the viewpoint that now the Finnish trade situation with Russia
> is normal, since companies, not the Russian government, are
> deciding the issues. 



Well, it's not PERVERSE to trade with goverments, either :-)
But I welcome the Russian reform, of course, irrespective of the fact
that it in the short run damages the conditions of the Finnish
trade. One has just to compete harder. War is hard and the
cavalry is cruel, according to old Finnish saying.



> Rather, the trade techniques before
> the current collapse were unnatural and unhealthy.


No trade is NATURAL. There is nothing wrong with the previous
Finnish "Eastern trade". The problem is that the "Western trade"
was left undeveloped. Estonia has the problem the other way around
right now! Be careful and do not repeat our mistakes! (= Do as
we say, do not as we do :-) :-)


> The current depression could equally well be explained as
> a consequence of orientation to eastern trade in the previous
> period.


A consequence of too exclusive orientation. We agree.

  
>>The Finns would like to, as an example, provide the St. Petersburg
>>with milk. But I suppose that the Estonians could produce cheaper
>>milk?
> 
> Probably yes. But again, I am afraid that  Russians can produce
> even cheaper milk :-( 


We have not seen that yet!


> and it will not be easy to sell
> even Estonian milk to St. Petersburg at prices profitable to Estonian
> farmers.


The Estonian agriculture needs a total not perestroika but a revolution. 
And it should be not made more difficult by Finns that subside their 
unprofitable agricultural production and dump Finnish butter and margarine into
Estonian markets. It's a shame, according to my opinion!


Tapani Hietaniemi, Universitas Helsingiensis
                   urbs fennorum

Newsgroups: soc.culture.soviet,soc.culture.europe,talk.politics.soviet