|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
13.06.2002 Markus Lehtipuu A COMMENT ON THE ARTICLE BY MINISTER JAKOBSON I greet with great joy the main opening by Max Jakobson in the Karelia debate. It was a great opening by a great statesman in a debate which will hopefully continue. However, I would like to focus on some aspects. Firstly, Finland still remains the victim of the “europeanisation” of problems: the issue of Karelia is not a Central European problem. When small and medium-sized countries in Central Europe integrate on objective grounds, Finland is a neighbour to the largest country in the world and a victim of its arrogance. Jakobson also as if “forgets” Germany, that is – German borders have been “changed” – the loot of Stalin has been returned to the western motherland. This as well did not lead to disorder, but to conclusive cleaning up of the “sword-drawn borders” and especially peace, human rights, prosperity and lawfulness. Disorder was the result of Stalin’s activities, not declaring them void. The same way, “changing” the borders of Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia, the Baltic countries and other former Soviet countries is a part of the general European reality. All these countries have achieved wealth, improved human rights and invalidated the crimes of Stalin. The initiator of the wars in Central Europe has been punished, whereas the other perpetrator of the wars and its successor, Russia, still hold the stolen territories (Karelia and others). Secondly, the story includes an inner conflict, concerning the comparison with Kekkonen. Kekkonen was acting at the time of the “evil empire”, that is, the Soviet Union. Russian imperialism differs from the Soviet imperialism. If Kekkonen failed with the “world conquerors”, maybe Halonen will now succeed with the “europeanising” Russians. Thirdly, the Finnish Karelians were literally refugees and deportees – they could not return to their native places for 45 years. The way refugees are called is exactly the “re-education” started by the supervisory commission, evoking strong resentment in the present atmosphere of freedom of speech. Fourthly, I have extreme doubts as to the possibilities to cooperate with Russians for the development of Karelia. The experience until now has been that Finland pays and the money gets into wrong hands, and Karelia does not develop. Fifthly, the article is completely ignoring the fact that the border of independent Finland was defined only once in agreement with Russians in the year 1920. The border agreement concluded was permanent and final, and Petsamo was submitted to Finland for “forever”. It is the duty of the whole humankind to request adherence to signed treaties, and to object borders “drawn with swords”, always and everywhere. It is extremely sad that the rules of the game, international laws, treaties and the moral backbone created mutually by the humankind end at the border of Stalin, so that the raped Karelia of Finland is left outside of these common ideals of the humankind. http://www.prokarelia.net/en/ markus.lehtipuu@prokarelia.net  ^ Takaisin ylös  Lisää artikkeleita kirjoittajalta
Artikkeli-arkisto
|
|
|
|
