From: thietaniemi@cc.helsinki.fi (Tapani Hietaniemi)
Subject: Re: Karelians the palestinians of the north
Organization: University of Helsinki
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 13:51:32 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.135448.7841@jyu.fi>, ryyti@jyu.fi (Jarmo Ryyti) writes:
> Tapani Hietaniemi (thietaniemi@cc.helsinki.fi) wrote:


> : (1) There is no possibility whatsoever to negotiate a new peace treaty
> :     with Russia that would include the returning of Karelia.
> 
> Everything is possible. Even the independence of Estonia. 


With one crucial difference: Yeltsin was FOR the Estonian independence
and is definitely AGAINST changing the Russo-Finnish border. The
successor of Yeltsin (read: Rutskoi) must find even the Estonian
independency repulsive.


> The russians
> have experience of negotiating of the borders with Finland:-
> It would be nothing new in Russo-Finnish history.


Exactly - the wars and feuds have been THE TRADITION of Russo-Finnish-history.
The last two generations have been a great exception. I see clearly that
you want to return back to the tradition. I don't. 
 
 
> : (2) If the government of Finland started demanding a new peace treaty,
> :     it might be fatal for our security interests in the very near future.
> : 
> 
> Which way? The russians are going to reconstruct with the help of
> a finnish company a military base and village in Ala-Kurtti, former
> finnish Salla-area. Is it not a threat for the security?


Would you like to attack Russia and get it back?

 
> : Fortunately, I can't imagine any forthcoming Finnish government demanding
> : that. Of course, it's a free country (after two generations of succesful
> : Realpolitik) and any individual can claim anything, even the annexation of
> : Siberia to Finland.
> : 
> The Federation of Karelia has already demanded negotiations.


The Karelian republic has definitely not asked us to demand border
changes. Or do you mean that Finnish association? It's a free country
- they can demand anything they wish.


> There is even
> on russian side a movement which demands Russia to give back these
> former finnish areas. Its name is also something like Federation of
> Karelia but is in russian side.


I have never heard of such a thing. It can't be very popular
in Russia if it's existing.

 
> If the things remain as they are now we  accept that violence is
> justified to change borders.


It has been a typical measure when changing borders in history.
The current borders of Finland are guaranteed by international
conventions and treaties and can not be changed without
illegitimate use of violence. We should be satisfied with it.
Moreover, the European Community (and the Western military
co-operation instititutions) Finland is trying to join are not
interested in having a contested Russo-Finnish border.

 
> The same argument the estonians use of Petseri and Narva-areas which
> they demand back.


The argument is not the same you are using. The Estonian government
has pointed out that there is only one valid peace treaty between
Estonian republic and Russia, the Tartu/Dorpat treaty of 1920, which
was accepted even by Stalin, when he introduced the puppet government
in Estonia in 1940. So the Estonians have a strong legal claim to these
areas. 

Still, according to my opinion, demanding Jaanilinn/Ivangorod
and Petserimaa/Petshora back is a lost cause: especially Ivangorod
is totally russified. Petserimaa should have open borders and
a some kind of special status inside Russia. But the Russian
governments now and in the near future oppose fiercely changing
the Russian borders, which is rational indeed: they do not want
to open the box of Pandora with it's demises! Estonians need a
new peace treaty with Russia, a treaty that would be accepted by
the both parts. They must SWAP something with Russia (they are
not legally obliged to do that but that would be prudent politics):
like "giving" Russia the areas it already possesses and receiving
some guarantees for the Estonian sovereignity and statehood
in return! Otherwise, if the Estonians do not play their cards
right, they might lose even Narva or the whole North-East Estonia.


I see that you do not realize how severe the situation around the
Gulf of Finland currently is. It's very plausible that Russia faces more
and even more severe civil wars and the collapse of the state
can not be ruled out. And Estonia has not yet - unfortunately - stabilized 
it's independence. The main point - the Finnish raison d'etat -
is to survive!

Down with nationalism - long live survivalism!

"Russia is sometimes weak. But even the weakest Russia is still
strong enough for Finland." 

(Juho Kusti Paasikivi, the Conservative Finnish State President
1946-1956)

"Alla vishets begynnelse {r att erk{nna fakta."
(ibid. On the pedestal of the Paasikivi monument in Helsinki).

- with Realpolitik
- Tapani Hietaniemi