We are living dangerous, tear-filled times.
Most people I know do not worry about the international politics. We wake up, expecting the day to be either a happy or a sad one, depending on ones personality, and during the day we glance at the news, shaking our heads at the various, usually confusing topics. I dare say the celebrity gossip get more hits than war in Ukraine, for example.
And war it is.
What eludes people living in a generally peaceful country, is the subject of history. Very few paid any serious attention to it in the school, few care today. Most think only about avoiding wars, and just like before any major war, most do not think a wholesale, wanton destruction of ones country is possible, that something could and will one day threaten one's family and friends, one's home and way of life.
Yet, that is the way of it. It can and will happen, to some of us. If you could ask the people who watched Hitler come to power over a decade, I wonder how many paid serious attention to it. No, they thought WWI was the last of the wars and surely the loss of millions of idealistic boys taught us to deal with things in a humane manner.
That does raise the question on what "humane" means. Ask people who had lived like you live this day, peacefully minding their own business, now burying their family members in ruined cities and perhaps you might not like the answer.
I studied international politics in the university, graduating with a masters degree. Yet, no amount of studies have truly prepared me to the vast truths of the history of how often and how willingly people kill each other for simplest of reasons. Mainly greed, power and distrust. Yet, despite the evidence, most people think there is some greater power to guide they dirt ball of ours, something like a sensible, democratic policy, common, humane goals and some are still disillusioned by UN, thinking this organisation has some power, and does not only lurk around international politics as the clean up crew and some sort of a conscience.
We pay no attention to the conscience, we do not, even if we like to think we are gentle, that we try to avoid trouble, that talking is better than fighting.
Finland is rife with sentiments to this point; we must avoid wars with all possible gusto and we are proud to be the sensible, neutral ones. Yet, we have made some choices, at least. Looking at belonging to either east or west, the confused Finland joined EU willingly, and I for one, feel much more a westerner than an easterner. I have some distant Russian blood running in our family, but then again, there is blood from Europe in the family as well. Most of Finland, when put to the test, I think would rather choose to be of a western mind. We do enjoy the benefits of the western culture, at least. I doubt very many actually believe the Russian way of doing things would suit us. We yap at the way US goes to war over some shady subjects, but then, so does Russia, and one can ask Chechnyans what happened to them. UN is a powerless husk of a bunch of well-intended goals and should a great nation choose to go to war, they will, no matter how a war can be made to look like some form of internal insurrection, like Russia is now doing in Ukraine. Of course, there are people who think the Ukrainian "separatists" are able to run complicated tank manoeuvres, supported by heavy artillery, or that these Russians fighting there are "volunteers." Some people believe anything. International law is made by what some nation can get away with. There is no real law to govern anything nations do, especially if they win.
The question for Finland is: in such a world, is it truly feasible to be neutral?
The one thing about being neutral in a time of war, should that arrive, is that neutral countries sometimes get into a war nonetheless, yet have few friends to help them out. After the war, it might be a neutral country that finds it is alone, and that neutrality is but an illusion against the wishes and needs of the winner, who is not held back by any form of opposition.
What is neutrality, if one is not stronger than the aggressors and there is no state of law to protect the weaker party? It is but an illusion. That it is, Finland. Just an illusion.
I always respected people who take a stand. That sometimes, for sensible reasons, one does not teeter totter on two sides, but actually stands up and speaks out, hanging one's hat on a peg everyone can see. If diplomacy is not the solution, sometimes you have to show a bully you won't take lies and manipulation and won't back down, and always, without exception, it is sensible to have friends who do so with you. Only in the movies, does one, sole hero take a stand along against many. We might be very proud of surviving WW2 and the winter war practically alone, but it was called a miracle and by definition, miracles are hard to reproduce.
I grow tired of the constant worry over Finland's Nato decision. I grow weary of it, dreadfully so.
Finland is great at listing issues with Nato membership, but does not see the problems with being... "neutral", what I call "a lost lamb", for such creatures are confused and lonely, and often get devoured easily. When our neighbours know where they belong, Finland does not. We worry about the trade. The jobs. We worry, that Nato would not be in position to help us in a case of a war, anyway. We worry about the yearly fees. We worry about getting dragged into foreign wars. We think we are capable of defending the country alone.
Yet, as I said, one must take sides at some point, that many bad choices presented to one does not mean you do nothing, and hope for the best. Why would we not have friends in such a eventuality?
What is the cost of getting levelled alone in a war? What is the cost to the jobs, the lives and the trade, if one day we find ourselves alone and isolated and objects of impossible demands after we have not taken a stand? Is the financial cost of Nato bigger than cost of getting our cities transformed into rubble or being forced into a sphere of some nation, that has no respect or gratitude towards us? Would Nato dare leave one of its own undefended in the case of a war, and risk losing support from other countries that might need similar help one day? Is not a hundred fighters with proper air control capabilities sortied from Europe and most powerful and versatile navies in the world something we could use in case of serious and sudden trouble? Is it not so, that we might benefit from sending our boys occasionally to fight alongside friendly countries, for is that not what we would be promised as well, should the need arise? That their boys would fight for us, far from home, some times even dying for that common goal? Why are we too selfish to shed blood for those who would do so for us? And unfortunately, as we see, sometimes blood is shed, no matter how many good intentions one has and should one wait for too long, one might have to do all that bleeding alone and in much more massive amounts than one would when one has friends to bleed with.
I am no war mongering bastard. Yet, as for neutrality, I think I am very sceptical and would rather negotiate in a table full of friends, than table full of people who owe us nothing.
Sometimes, in a violent world, a formerly neutral nation can make bold decisions. I feel belonging to a single minded organization is a more concrete guarantee to safety, than illusionary neutrality. A question. Had Hitler defeated the Allies, forging a terrible world led by Germany, how many of you think Switzerland and Sweden would have enjoyed the fruits of neutrality post war?
Ei kommentteja:
Lähetä kommentti