UN Security Council Resolution Draft Risks Encouraging Terrorism

The United States has used its veto power to block the adoption of a UN Security Council resolution demanding an immediate and permanent ceasefire in Gaza. It justified its use of the veto by arguing that the draft resolution was not linked to the release of Israeli hostages.

The resolution also failed to meet two other U.S. demands. The United States had wanted the resolution to condemn the October 2023 attack on Israel by the extremist group Hamas, which started the war. The bloody assault claimed the lives of over a thousand people. The draft resolution also lacked the U.S.-requested clause stating that Hamas should be disarmed and withdraw from Gaza.

In fact, I find it strange that the Security Council even attempted to draft a resolution that would leave hostages in the hands of terrorists and not even require their disarmament. And that is why I question the attitude of other Security Council members toward the war in Gaza.

Moreover, it is logically indisputable that the proposal as presented would, globally, encourage the use of terrorism to advance various political causes, while failing to offer—even in theory—a credible solution to enable coexistence between Israelis and Palestinian Arabs.

Such a resolution may well reflect current political realities, but its outcome would clearly not lead to lasting peace—neither for the Jews nor the Arabs of the region. And for that reason, pursuing such a resolution cannot be considered a legitimate goal of international political will.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
How Hamas Exploited Aid and Lost the Support of Many Palestinians
Finnish International Law Experts Viewed as Political Influencers by Peers
Polish Minister for Foreign Affairs reminded Russians about their nightmare

Expert Statement Highlights Russian Hybrid Threat Over Migration Across the Mediterranean

The European Centre of Excellence for Countering Hybrid Threats (Hybrid CoE) has issued a warning about the threat of instrumentalised migration. According to the Centre, "large-scale instrumentalised migration could cause significant problems for Finland's societal peace, as well as public order and security, potentially impairing crisis decision-making and operational capabilities."

The Centre also noted that "it is possible that by exploiting disinformation arising from such a situation, solidarity towards Finland within Europe could be significantly diminished. Should such a hybrid campaign become highly effective, it may pave the way for some unexpected political and military arrangements."

The Centre drew attention to the fact that “unauthorised crossing of Finland’s eastern land border is considerably easier and safer than the hundreds of kilometres of sea travel across the Mediterranean. Therefore, Finland may face even greater pressure than what has traditionally been seen at the Mediterranean. This vulnerability is of a permanent nature, and Russia can exploit this mechanism with minimal effort.”

A representative of the Hybrid CoE also pointed out the EU Commission's stance, which states that "to safeguard the security of the Union and the territorial integrity of its member states, it is essential that member states bordering Russia and Belarus can act decisively and firmly to effectively control the Union’s external borders. Consequently, member states may need to make exceptions to EU regulations if instrumentalised migration threatens the public order, internal security, or national security of the Union and its member states."

* * *

This expert statement was issued in connection with the plans to extend Finland's border security law concerning the eastern frontier. Originally passed as a one-year measure in the summer of 2024, the law sparked intense debate, particularly among the political green-left. As a result, six Social Democrats, one Swedish People's Party representative, and the entire parliamentary groups of the Greens and the Left Alliance voted against it. Despite the objections from MPs who, in effect, aligned themselves with Russia’s position, the law passed in Parliament with the necessary majority: 167 votes to 31.

This spring, the political left has once again voiced pro-Moscow criticism regarding the extension of the border law (one, two, three examples). That is why it is important that the expert statement referenced above not only addressed the actual threats but also clearly highlighted the European Commission’s position, which justifies deviation from EU regulations in cases of instrumentalised migration.

Indeed, it would be an utterly untenable situation if the EU or any of its member states were unable to defend themselves against hostile threats from the East simply because they clung to regulatory frameworks, regardless of the consequences. One would hope this point would be heard—and more importantly, understood—even by the political green-left, though that may be a vain hope.

In the coming weeks, we shall see what kind of spectacle unfolds in the Finnish Parliament and the media as the border security law is revisited. However, it already seems clear that this is nothing more than political theatre, as there are ultimately too few MPs willing to act as Putin’s advocates by opposing Finland’s security interests and reopening the country’s borders to hybrid operations. Still, it is helpful that they reveal themselves so openly.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Be Ready: Russia May Launch Another "Special Operation"
Human Rights Judge Pauliine Koskelo Questions Asylum Interpretation That Ignores the Threat of Hybrid Warfare
Defending National Security: Finland's Response to Hybrid Warfare

An African and an Iranian Immigrant Educated a Woke-Blinded Deputy Mayor

Yesterday, I wrote about how an ethnically Finnish female deputy mayor Piia Elo (Social Democrats) wanted to take an old board game - Star of Africa - away from children in daycare. It didn’t take long before Somali-born school assistant Jama Jama weighed in on the matter.

He stated, “Good people, leave the board games alone. This makes no sense… Leave the board games for children and youth to play. The ‘Star of Africa’ is part of Finnish culture… I play it (‘Star of Africa’) every day with the kids. There is no racism in that game.”

And he’s not the only one. An Iranian living in Finland, Bijan Rezah Jahromi, also commented on social media, writing, “I personally remember when I moved to Finland at the age of 6, we played the ‘Star of Africa’ and other board games as well as ice hockey. That’s how I quickly learned the Finnish language. Let children be children.”

So, it took an African and an Iranian immigrant to tell an ethnically Finnish, woke-blinded deputy mayor that she is utterly lacking in understanding. Unfortunately, I suspect that this particular Social Democrat and self-appointed advocate doesn’t have the insight to recognize even the disregard—if not outright racism—toward Africans and their culture inherent in her own behavior.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
A Finnish Deputy Mayor Wanted to Ban an Old Board Game from Children
A Finnish police officer is afraid to speak about the problems of immigration
Finnish journalist called for British Prime Minister´s head to be placed on London bridge to dry

Political rats and useful idiots

The leading Finnish newspaper - Helsingin Sanomat - wrote in its editorial about members of right-wing popular parties in Europe by calling them "rats" escaping from their close relationship with president Vladimir Putin. That was noted by Jussi Halla-aho, the former chair of the True Finns, which is considered as the right-wing populist party of Finland, but which has never followed the Russian leaders. 

Halla-aho was wondering in his Twitter message chain, whether the newspaper - known as politically slightly liberal left - would also call many former leading politicians in Finland as "rats" due to their extreme closeness with Russians. He mentioned among others the former President Tarja Halonen and former Prime Minister Paavo Lipponen as well as the former Speaker of the Parliament of Finland and current Member of the Europarliament Eero Heinäluoma. 

Tarja Halonen has for decades had close and warm relationships with Vladimir Putin, and she insisted Finland to sign the Ottawa treaty, which eliminated anti-personnel landmines from the defense forces of Finland despite the ca. 1300 km common border with Russia. She also worked actively in 1990´s to leave Finland out of NATO when the Baltic countries joined it, and considered for very long that Russia would be on its way to a decent democracy.  

Paavo Lipponen has - since his retirement - made a lot of money as a consultant for a company that builds up the Nord Stream gas pipelines from Russia to Central Europe. Eero Heinäluoma - still in February 10th this year - acted as an advocate of Putin by explaining that deployment of defensive weapons in Russia's neighboring countries is a threat to Russia, and therefore western attitudes are a solid justification for its aggressive behavior against Ukraine. 

Halla-aho also noted that he or his party has no problem in calling European right-wing politicians (with close relationships to Putins administration) as "useful idots". He asked - obviously rhetorically - whether also the social democratic Prime Minister of Finland, Sanna Marin, would call Gerhard Schröder, Tarja Halonen, Paavo Lipponen or  Eero Heinäluoma - all social democrats - as "useful idiots".

Overall, Halla-aho pointed out that the difference between right-wing populists and social democrats is in their effect on European policy. The populists are in political marginal with no influence on the European decisions whereas social democrats are in the center of decision making - and therefore much more able to promote Russian interests in EU. Therefore their relationships, instead of powerless populists, to Russian administration should be in the focus of the press.

I think Halla-aho has a clear point here. 

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Finland and NATO - problems to be solved
An ignorant mediahouse failed again in historical facts