Berlin Green foreign policy is about intervening in the event of massive human rights violations, says Finnish Foreign Minister Pekka Haavisto. But since this would mean a confrontation between NATO and Moscow in the case of Ukraine after Russia’s atrocities in Bucha, help must be provided in a different way.
Now it is a question of “supplying Ukraine bilaterally with all the weapons that it needs for its self-defense,” Haavisto demanded. “We cannot stand aside when human rights are violated.”
The Greens politician from Helsinki called for a parliamentary decision on Finland’s accession to NATO. “If there is a clear majority among the MPs, we will quickly take the next step. And then it is up to the NATO countries to decide on our admission,” added the Foreign Minister.
Minister, what must Europe do in concrete terms to support Ukraine even more and put Russia in its place?
First of all, we must provide humanitarian and military support to Ukraine. Finland and the Nordic countries have now delivered deadly weapons for the first time. This is new for Scandinavia and a step in the right direction. Like Germany, we have always been reluctant to export arms to war zones. And then we need more political support in the form of more sanctions against Russia.
But you don’t want gas imports to stop immediately?
Russian gas imports are not so important for Finland. They don’t hit the population here, who can no longer heat them, but only industry. We can replace these quantities with liquefied natural gas (LNG). But of course we can see that a gas embargo is a significant problem for Germany, Italy, Austria and others. Europe must not shoot itself in the foot. After all, Europe also depends on the economic power of these countries, and we must not place an undue burden on the budgets in the EU countries concerned.
Are the sanctions that have been decided so far actually severe enough in view of the manageable sums of frozen funds so far?
The sanctions take effect. But when we talk about the sanctions that have already been passed, it must be clear that they will not take effect immediately. We are convinced that the sanctions that have now been imposed are already very painful for Russia, and that their full effect is slowly unfolding. We also need staying power and must not allow ourselves to be persuaded that they are ineffective.
But are they effective enough against the oligarchs?
We are now uncovering more and more ownership that was previously obscure. We now know the real owners of real estate, companies and yachts. And the more such information we have, the more effective the sanctions will be. And we’re seeing a dramatic drop in trade with Russia. Finnish consumers no longer want Russian products. More and more goods are being cleared from the shelves. Our companies are leaving Russia. And not because sanctions would prevent them from doing business, but because market conditions have deteriorated so drastically in Russia. And when the private sector leaves, it takes a very long time to rebuild trust. The collapse of the business climate hits Russia even harder than the imposed sanctions.
But back to the oligarchs: are we paying close enough attention to their wealth?
A problem with this is the dual citizenship of many oligarchs or the purchased, so-called “golden passports and visas”. This award was a mistake that we have made in the past.
Does this have to be tackled now?
We would need constitutional amendments to do this, so it is not an easy task and will take time.
Finland has a very prominent case: the oligarch Gennady Timchenko, a close follower of Putin, has also had a Finnish passport since the 1990s.
Yes, and we have a few more characters like that, but not too many.
So you don’t see your country in a league with Cyprus, Malta, Bulgaria and others who have traded in ‘golden passports’ – investments and property purchases for citizenship?
No, we are very far from that.
But is it time to stop handing out “golden passports”?
Yes, and that shouldn’t be a question for the individual EU states, but for the European Union as a whole. At the end of the day, it’s all about us in the consequences. This must now be discussed at EU level. So far we have needed a lot of time to shape the previous sanctions. But the issue of citizenship and visas must now be discussed very seriously. We see how many financial transactions in Cyprus are also processed by the holders of these “golden passports”.
But doesn’t the EU also have to confiscate the oligarchs’ funds that have been frozen so far?
Yes, because we need clarification on the question of compensation for the enormous war damage that Russia has caused in Ukraine. We must oblige Russia to pay for the necessary reconstruction. Such funds can be used for this purpose, as well as taxes on Russian exports such as oil and gas. Part of it must be confiscated for the reconstruction of Ukraine. It would be perfectly fair that Russia should pay for it. But for that we need a good model, because the oil-for-food program being used in Iraq doesn’t have the very best reputation.
Is neutrality actually an option for Ukraine from the point of view of Finland, a state that has been neutral for a very long time? Even the solution for an end to the war?
Since joining the EU in 1995, we no longer see ourselves as a neutral country. After all, we represent the political positions of the EU and are working to strengthen the EU’s military engagement within the Union. We want to develop the EU even more into a defense alliance together with France. In my opinion, the situation for Ukraine is this: NATO membership will not come any time soon, and EU membership is a new prospect.
The NATO states would ultimately have to decide whether Finland should join.
(Photo: Bloomberg)
And what about Finland’s NATO membership?
The war in Ukraine has of course changed the attitude of the Finns to NATO forever. Up until now we had assumed that Russia would behave rationally. Now we see that when in doubt, it takes a very high risk, as we see in Ukraine. This is completely new. Russia is ready to use massive pressure, over 100,000 soldiers, against a country. And Moscow is now even mouthing words like the use of nuclear or chemical weapons. Of course, that had a major impact on our attitude.
So is Finland joining NATO now?
We’ve had the NATO option in our considerations for a long time, should the security situation change. And now the population is asking: Aren’t we in exactly the position that the NATO membership option was intended for? When the war in Ukraine began, the majority of Finns were in favor of NATO membership for the first time. 60 percent of Finns are now in favour. And the parties are also discussing this now. On the Thursday before Easter, the Foreign Ministry will hand over a “white paper” on the current security situation to Parliament, where the consequences of this will then be discussed.
And then the parliament votes for joining NATO?
That’s for the President and the government to decide. First of all, we are testing how broad a majority in Parliament would be for it. If there is a clear majority among the deputies, we will quickly take the next step. And then it’s up to the NATO countries to decide on our admission.
So do you want a parliamentary resolution or a referendum?
Many used to think that there had to be a referendum. The possibility is there in our constitution, but that would be a long way to go. But if there is a really big majority in parliament and also in the political parties, that would reflect popular opinion. And many think that in the current situation, a referendum that could also be influenced by hybrid interference from outside would not be the best solution. And even after a referendum, Parliament would have to make the final decision.
After the outbreak of war, talks began on Ukraine’s rapid accession to the EU.
(Photo: IMAGO/Future Image)
Do you want to quickly admit Ukraine to the EU?
Finland sees this very positively. But it’s not a silver bullet. Of course, it will not be easy for Ukraine to meet the requirements for EU membership within a year or two. The Ukrainian government will still have to demand a lot from society for the necessary reforms. The priority now is strong political and military support for Ukraine in order to make Kiev’s negotiating position with Moscow as good as possible. After all, it is already clear that Russia has not achieved its goal of capturing the capital and achieving “regime change”. That’s a victory for Ukraine.
Like German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock, you are a Green Party politician. Do you have a “green” agenda for foreign policy?
Yes, ever since Joschka Fischer was German foreign minister and the Balkan wars began, we have been discussing again and again how we should intervene when human rights are being massively violated in a country. I agree with Fischer on that: we cannot stand aside when human rights are being violated. To do this, we also need the tools for intervention. And when we see the pictures from the Ukrainian Bucha, this question is more relevant than ever. And we are discussing this question with Ms. Baerbock.
That means you are in favor of military intervention in Ukraine?
Ukraine is a key issue for NATO. Because a military intervention is very risky there. In conversations with the Americans, I understood that they do not want to get into a situation where two nuclear powers are in direct confrontation. Until then, Ukraine needs to be supplied bilaterally with all the weapons it needs for self-defence. That’s what it’s about now.
Mr. Haavisto, thank you very much for the interview.
More: How investigators solve possible war crimes in Bucha.