Taken from: In Defense of Communism
Following the decision of the Finnish government to seek NATO membership, the country’s communists, alongside other progressive and anti-imperialist forces, have expressed their opposition to the accession of Finland in the imperialist alliance.
The Communist Workers’ Party for Peace and Socialism (KTP), a member of the European Communist INITIATIVE, participates in the STOP NATO campaign.
Below, you can read eight reasons why Finland should not join NATO but remain non-aligned militarily:
1. Weapons and military alliances increase violence and suffering, their human cost is measured in the dead and wounded, and funding for them is excluded from basic services and development work that could increase peace and prevent future wars. The best policy for peace is to take care of the welfare state. A welfare state that invests in human development is not a threat to other countries, so it can prioritize improving the living conditions of its citizens.
2. The United States, which effectively leads NATO, is the most dangerous and militarily active state in the world.
The United States has been in a virtuous state of war throughout its existence. There is no reason to trust the imperialist superpower because there is nothing to be proud of in its tradition of bloodshed.
3. A NATO alliance would permanently end Finland’s status as a non-aligned country
It could no longer credibly act as a mediator for peace. Instead, it would be at the forefront of great power conflicts. This would increase its vulnerability to military attacks. In this way, Finland would contribute to the promotion of militarism and armaments in its neighboring areas, while rejecting the valuable legacy of all its policies since the Second World War. The arms industry, trade and military exercises also have significant environmental and economic impacts that should not be underestimated.
4. Finland should not be pushed to the west, and it is not worth protecting oneself from the East by throwing oneself into the arms of the Western powers imagined to be rosy. The vast international community guaranteed by the military alliance is an illusion of security. NATO countries are a minority at the UN, and China and India, the two most populous powers in the world, or other major states such as Brazil and Mexico, do not belong to this military alliance that serves U.S. interests.
5. This is a far-reaching domestic and foreign policy decision. The NATO project is a domestic policy issue, involves a change in political culture and requires a broad consensus of political forces to support it. It has long-term cost implications for the state budget. This project did not start this spring but has a history of decades.
The fighter acquisitions raised Finland to the forefront of European armaments, and in addition to these, the government decided in a framework debate in March 2022 to increase the annual defense budget by EUR 500 million in 2023–2026. In foreign policy, NATO membership would bind Finland to the United States, a militarized and politically unstable superpower. Finland may also have to invest in Baltic military operations in the future. Finland would lose the opportunity to criticize the ongoing domestic and foreign human rights violations in the United States.
6. Finland’s military strategy has relied on credible independent defense. NATO’s enlargement to the Baltic States and Poland has increased instability in the Baltic Sea region. The military non-alignment of Finland and Sweden will stabilize the security of Northern Europe.
7. Finland would become NATO’s front line against Russia.
The 1,344-kilometer external border with Russia, a key enemy of NATO, would radically change NATO’s military strategy in Europe, bringing with it major troop investment needs and increasing arms procurement. Finland’s NATO membership would also force Russia to change its military strategy, especially in relation to the extremely important Russian Northern Navy base in St. Petersburg and Murmansk, which would lead to an acceleration of military equipment on both sides of the border. Military equipment, especially with nuclear weapons, increases the threat of war and creates a risk of a nuclear accident in Finland.
8. Finland’s current foreign policy line. The government program of the government led by Sanna Marin states on page 92: “The goal of Finland’s foreign and security policy is to prevent Finland from becoming a party to the military conflict. Finland pursues an active stability policy to prevent military threats. Finland does not allow its territory to be used for hostile purposes against other states.” The consequences of NATO membership would be far-reaching, complex and unpredictable. They would be the final complete translation of the Paasikivi-Kekkonen line and the foreign and security policy and defense policy pursued.
NATO membership would put Finland at the center of world war policy. Finland’s NATO membership would widen the conflict between Russia and the United States and increase the division of the world into two alliances more and more clearly – as happened before the First World War.
ktpkom.fi / stopnato.fi
Source: In Defense of Communism