When Should We Recognize the Independence of Palestine?

According to a recent opinion poll, 44 percent of Finns would like to recognize the State of Palestine. This group consists mainly of voters from the Left Alliance, the Greens, and the Social Democrats. On the other hand, on the political right, supporters of the National Coalition Party and the Finns Party are more opposed to the idea than others.

There are hardly any differences between age groups, but women are more inclined than men to support the establishment of a new state in the Middle East—despite the fact that women’s rights would likely not be realized there. Finland’s President Alexander Stubb, for his part, has stated that Finland should also recognize Palestine if the United Kingdom, France, or other major countries do so.

* * *

All of this reminded me of Finland’s own independence from Russian rule. The Declaration of Independence was approved by the Finnish Parliament on December 6, 1917, shortly after the October Revolution.

After that, Finland began seeking support for its independence from Western countries, but they were unwilling to recognize it. Support was first sought from Germany, which initially promised to raise the matter in the peace negotiations with Russia in Brest-Litovsk. However, this did not happen; instead, the Germans said they would wait for Soviet Russia to recognize the new state first.

Consequently, the Finnish government sent a request for recognition of independence to Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Germany, France, and Britain. Recognition was not requested from Russia, as it was thought that it would be more inclined to approve the matter once the Western powers had already done so.

This hope turned out to be in vain, as the Western countries urged the Prime Minister to turn to the Bolshevik government of Russia, led by Lenin. The Finnish Prime Minister, however, was reluctant to do so, as he did not want to acknowledge the Bolsheviks as the legitimate rulers of Russia.

Eventually, on December 22, the Finnish Parliament decided to seek recognition not from the Bolshevik government, but from the Russian Constituent Assembly, which was expected to convene soon and where the majority was made up of Russia’s more moderate left-wing parties. Germany, however, intervened and pressured the Finnish government to approach Lenin’s Council of People's Commissars instead.

This is what happened, and Lenin did recognize Finland’s independence. He did so because he believed that supporting the right of national minorities to secede would further the Bolsheviks’ main goal—the spread of the socialist revolution. In his view, the separation should only be temporary, as he assumed that the small nations breaking away from Russia would later voluntarily rejoin either the Russian socialist federation or a broader worldwide Soviet union.

* * *

As for myself, when it comes to recognizing Palestinian independence, I believe the time is not yet right. After all, there isn’t even a theoretically independent Arab state in the Holy Land that would meet the criteria for statehood.

However, I would be ready to recognize Palestine immediately after Israel does. In other words, I would act in the same way that the Western countries did when they eventually recognized Finland’s independence.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Gambling Addiction and the Shadowy Instigator
The Complete Demilitarization of Gaza: What Would It Mean for the Palestinians?
Independence day of Finland now and 83 years ago

The Lenin Museum Will No Longer Serve as a Reminder of the Dangers of Political Correctness

Vladimir Ilyich Lenin was the leader of the Russian Revolution and the first dictator of the Soviet Union. Among his most notable achievements in this position was the starvation of at least five million people due to his idiotic agricultural policies.

Less well known, however, is Lenin's history in my home country. During his exile, he often operated from Finland.

Lenin first expressed his support for Finland's independence at meetings held in Tampere in 1905 and 1906, in the building that now houses the Lenin Museum. The Soviet dictator did not do this out of goodwill but rather to weaken Tsarist Russia.

After his revolution, Lenin hoped that newly independent Finland would fall into a revolution that would bring it back into the fold of Soviet Russia. To this end, he incited the left, which indeed launched a bloody rebellion in 1918.

Today, it was reported in the Finnish press that the Lenin Museum, which I mentioned earlier, has seen more visitors this summer than in a long time. The reason is likely that the museum is set to close on November 3rd.

Thus, one monument to a time when Finland sought to secure its independence by avoiding provoking the eastern superpower is closing. This strategy was quite successful in that Finland remained independent, but the price was the eventual withering of Western-style democracy and the media's descent into the "woke" phenomenon of its time, where all opinions critical of the Soviet Union were condemned as politically incorrect and heretical.

This fate eventually befell even the largest right-wing party, the National Coalition Party, which subsequently joined the ruling center-left in adhering to the same policy of silence on certain facts. In doing so, it had to abandon the virtues of open democracy and freedom of speech.

All of this is relevant in the current world, where there are also attempts to condemn views based on people's own experiences and understanding as politically incorrect, regardless of their truth. In this sense, it is a shame that the Lenin Museum is closing, as it serves as a reminder of a time when Finland gradually slid into its own "truth," where black was white if the country's political leadership decreed it so in fear of the Soviet Union.

If my dear reader notes similarities in this writing to recent events in the United Kingdom or Ireland, Olympics or the changes in the workplace experienced in many Western countries, they may very well be on the right track.

Aiempia ajatuksia samasta aihepiiristä:
History of Finland XII: Bloody civil war
A young woman skiing in a swimsuit caused a controversy among women
Nightwish and the Disney Company

Should Putin´s regime be overthrown by supporting Russian opposition?

In the United States, Swedish economist Anders Åslund contemplated how the war in Ukraine could be brought to an end. According to him, Jevgeni Prigožin's recent attempted coup "demonstrated that Russia is practically defenseless on its own territory, as Putin has sent all his real troops and weapons to Ukraine. Apparently, it is better to attack Russia directly than the fortified and mine-saturated occupation zones in Ukraine."

He also noticed that the rebels were not punished, and Vladimir Putin even agreed to negotiate with them after the insurgency. According to Åslund, this showed weakness, and "this weakness could be potentially fatal for Putin."

Therefore, Åslund suggests that Western countries should strive to overthrow Putin's regime from within by supporting Russians opposing him. This way, results could be achieved faster than by causing the deaths of thousands of Ukrainians in well-fortified Russian frontlines.

Åslund also reminded us that we should learn from history: "The threat is not Russia's instability, but Putin! Nobody, including Putin, benefits from the use of nuclear weapons. The sooner Putin is defeated, the lower the risk of nuclear war. Defend freedom and democracy!"

* * *

It would be desirable if the Russians themselves were to overthrow Putin's regime. However, a significant problem may arise, especially because during his long rule, the dictator has managed to eliminate any credible opposition within the country. Consequently, it might be impossible for Western countries to find a force that would be willing and capable of toppling Putin from power.

Furthermore, it is worth noting that if such a force were to emerge, perhaps even from Putin's inner circle, the new administration could be even more insane than Putin himself. There is a historical example of this, referring to the developments following the Russian March Revolution. Initially, democratic forces toppled the Tsar from power, but later, the hardline Communists, led by Lenin, took control in October Revolution.

Thus, Russia's democratic development came to a halt, leading to a communist authoritarian regime with long-lasting effects that are still visible today, despite the collapse of the Soviet Union more than 30 years ago. The Moscow government continues to violate human rights and allow political elites to plunder national assets. As a result, we face a wicked problem for which an easy solution may not even exist.

Nevertheless, the downfall of Putin's criminal regime, by any means, is in the best interest of the entire world, not least the Russian people - even if they don't fully comprehend it.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Putin´s Russia got mad about the Finnish chairman of the Parliament
Does the attack by Russian rebels pose a problem for Ukraine?
Incapable of learning but capable of genocide

 

Does China prove the superiority of market economy?

The economy and standard of living in China was ruined by the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution ordered by the Chairman Mao in 1960´s. After the death of the Chairman, the economic direction was changed in China towards the current system, where communistic dictatorship is combined with a market economy. 

That has led to great progress in the most populous country of the world. And now the statistics tell the Gross National Income of China is soon going to reach a level of $12 000 per capita. 

That means Chinese people are reaching the level of citizens of Costa Rica or Venezuela and has already passed over e.g. Russians, Malaysians, Bulgarians or Turkish. And even the standard of living in countries like Chile, Uruguay or Hungary will be reached in the next ten years - provided that the growth rate of China corresponds to the development of the last twenty years.

At the same time, China has become the second biggest economy in the world - and the difference to USA is narrowing quickly. The difference in GDI per capita between the two is, however, about sixfold - and therefore it very clear that the difference in the welfare of the two biggest economies of the world will be huge for decades. 

Taken the facts above, it is very clear that even a communistic rule may produce economic welfare despite the horrific examples provided by the Soviet Union or - more recently - Venezuela. The key to that is, however, to give up on the economic principles of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels - and definitely avoiding Leninism as a means to apply their ideas. 

Instead it might be worth noting that the example provided by Xi Jinpin´s China seems to prove the superiority of market economy over socialism. And it drives me to consider, if more strict market economy should be preferred over the milder versions of socialism - such as Nordic social democracy? 

After all, considering other aspects usually thought to advance economy are excellent in the Nordic countries. The freedom of speech is among the best in the world, democracy is challenged in no ways and people are highly educated. Despite those facts, their economies have become more or less stagnated (Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Norway) during the last decade or so, according to GNI.

For me, these notions will be of extreme interest in the becoming years. And therefore I intend to follow future developments in the Chinese economy - and make conclusions about the contributions of market economy and social democracy by comparing future developments in China and the Nordic countries. 

Previous thought on the same topic:
The main consequence of Putin´s attack to Ukraine
Once upon a time in China and Taiwan
Could China take advantage on the weakness of Putin´s Russia?