International Diplomacy and Deniability

Finland, a small North-European nation with a population just over five million, has been mulling over NATO membership in recent months. NATO membership has been a political hot potato
for decades in Finland: during the Cold War Finland maintained a careful non-aligned status between the East and the West. The Finns sustained a realpolitik relationship with the Soviets (almost a 1000-mile common border with a great power makes one tread cautiously), while their hearts were firmly planted with Western ideals of democracy and individual freedoms.

Since the end of the Cold War Finland has joined the European Union (1995) and has witnessed tremendous prosperity in the wake of globalization and newly opened markets. The Soviet Union has ceased to exist, but a “great bear” called Russia is still next door, and many Finns consider Russia to be the greatest security threat to Finland. But while most newly liberated Eastern-block countries quickly joined NATO in order to feel secure and to express their desire to be politically aligned with the United States, Finland - with its long-standing neutrality - stayed away.

In recent years the view of realpolitk has changed: Russia is a democracy (at least on paper), and terrorism is the new Cold War frontier; fighting global terrorism together with NATO forces makes sense. Joining NATO has become a real option for Finland. Although the majority of the population is still against joining NATO, most Finns support holding a referendum on the NATO question: let the people decide.

Just last month, as the NATO debate was underway in Finland, a high-ranking Russian diplomat, Vladimir Kozin, suddenly gave an interview on two Finnish TV stations speaking out against Finland’s possible NATO membership. He declared that “Finnish membership in NATO would pose a direct military threat to Russia”. This sent shockwaves throughout Finland as it reminded people of the bad old days of the Soviet threat across the border. According to Christer Jönsson and Karin Aggenstam (Trends in Diplomatic Signalling) television is often used by actors in order to influence public opinion in international relations. The timing of the interviews was impeccable, and although the Russian diplomat’s statement was his “personal opinion”, there was no mistaking that he had the backing of higher-ups in the Russian government.

Finnish government officials were mum about the comments made by the Russian diplomat, other than to state that no country can give orders to a sovereign nation, and that they believed this was not the view of President Vladimir Putin.

Just a few days after the incident, Mr. Kozin was recalled to Moscow and the Russian embassy repudiated the statements made by him.

The Finnish media were used by Russians as a “policy test site”. A contentious statement made by a high-ranking Russian official was very provocative, but because Mr. Kozin spoke as a “private person”, Russian government officials could distance themselves from the controversial statement and maintain “deniability”. The statement by Mr. Kozin was also an attempt to try to manipulate public opinion during a time of vigorous debate in the public sphere by the Finnish government and the public.

Because of the deep-rooted fear – especially among older Finns - of the “great bear” next door (fear, which has accumulated over generations due to hostilities between the two nations); the effects of Mr. Kozin’s statements may be greater than just a momentary uproar.

--- T