Lessons for EU Citizens from the Ceuta Episode

The events in Ceuta have led Europeans to wake up. Or at least almost all of them, since 22 EU countries – Germany, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, the Czech Republic, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Sweden – have signed a letter calling for effective protection of the external borders, action to prevent illegal entry, and support for Spain. Finland’s signatory was Prime Minister Petteri Orpo (National Coalition Party).

It is regrettable, of course, that five countries have expressed their desire to see the continuation of the modern-day mass migration by refusing to sign the demand. They are Spain, France, Ireland, Luxembourg and Portugal, whose motives are – at least to me – rather difficult to understand, because this is not about immigration in general but specifically about illegal immigration.

* * *

The Finnish Government evidently takes illegal immigration seriously, since Minister of the Interior Mari Rantanen (Finns Party) immediately instructed her ministry’s officials to prepare the measures required for closing Finland’s EU internal borders. According to her, the purpose is to ensure that the “decisions required to close the internal borders can, on the basis of this preparatory work, be made very quickly if the need arises.”

In other words, neither Rantanen nor Finland is unilaterally closing the EU’s internal borders, but rather creating the capability to do so quickly if necessary. This is important because, in the absence of both the necessary legislation – and the political will – the Finnish Government was forced in 2015 to stand by helplessly as large numbers of illegal immigrants poured into our country from the western border.

As a result of the preparations now under way, the steps required to close our country’s EU borders will in future already be prepared in advance, meaning that shutting them can be accomplished with a single order from the Government. And as a result, the internal movement of illegal immigrants into our northern land will come to an end.

* * *

It remains to be seen whether Finland will ever need the legislation currently being prepared. In any case, the events in Ceuta turned out to be a brief episode, possibly caused by organized – perhaps even state-sponsored – crime.

This is because there is no way to get from Ceuta to mainland Europe without border checks. Thus, it was not a route that could have led to a repetition of the events of 2015. Consequently, the Moroccans who had rushed there soon returned to their home country.

In the end, the whole Ceuta episode concluded happily, just like a fairy tale. Instead of the modern-day mass migration taking another step forward, it reminded EU politicians that it is better to prepare in advance than to find themselves searching for illegal immigrants all over the Union.

That is why it is difficult to understand the stupidity demonstrated by the power-holders in Spain, France, Ireland, Luxembourg and Portugal by refusing to sign the demand mentioned at the beginning. Perhaps, in their next parliamentary elections, the citizens of those countries will understand that they would be well advised to consider giving their votes to politicians more responsible than their current rulers!

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
From Burden to Benefit: Reforming Immigration in Finland
Sensible Immigration or Moral Posturing?
Why is Somalia unwilling to meet Finland’s conditions for continuing development cooperation?

Finland's Stance on NATO Defense Spending Is Linked to the Geopolitical Threat from Russia

Finnish Minister of Finance Riikka Purra (Finns Party) suggested today that the defense spending target for the military alliance NATO will be raised to three or even 3.5 percent of the member countries' gross domestic product. Such an increase would be quite high, as many European NATO countries have not previously reached the current two percent target.

However, Finland appears to be ready for such an increase, provided that the decisions are made in a way that the allocated funds are specifically directed towards enhancing the country’s military capability and addressing threats against Finland, as well as fulfilling identified defensive needs.

In practice, the Finnish military currently has the greatest needs in the development of ground forces, so investments will initially focus on that area. This is because Finland has recently or is currently investing heavily in both naval and air forces.

However, the extent of the military threat against Finland remains unknown, as it depends on the outcome of the war in Ukraine. If the outcome is such that Russia can interpret its aggression as having achieved any form of victory, the risk to Finland increases in proportion to the certainty of Russian military achievements.

For this reason, it is not in Finland's interest to support a resolution that would, for example, limit Ukraine's sovereignty, involve territorial concessions, or restrict its military capabilities. Unfortunately, it seems that such elements are included in President Donald Trump's plan for a ceasefire and permanent peace. Even more clearly, these elements are present in the demands that Vladimir Putin has set as conditions for his involvement.

Unfortunately, at the moment, it seems that Trump does not understand — or care — about the consequences of such peace for Russia’s neighboring states. Nor do European countries, due to their previous neglect of defense, possess the military strength to offer Ukraine an alternative or to pressure Russia to withdraw from Ukraine.

Therefore, the current phase of the peace process in Ukraine appears outright threatening to both Finland and other neighboring states of Russia. On the other hand, it ensures that the citizens of these countries have a strong will to enhance and strengthen their military defense capability.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Now It's Putin's Turn to Show His Hand
Shifting U.S. Foreign Policy Sparks Concerns in Estonia
Trump's Indecision Benefits Putin – Deadly Consequences for Ukraine

Which one should be excluded from the Olympics?

In the Olympic football match between France and Mali, the tension between Palestinians and Israelis emerged. According to a report by The Finnish Broadcasting company Yle, it was mainly about pro-Palestinian demonstrations and the reactions of Israelis to them. However, direct violence was avoided.

The report mentioned - once again - that "due to the Gaza war, some countries participating in the games have demanded the exclusion of Israel from the Olympic movement. This has not happened, which has raised the security threat towards the games."

This demand is peculiar because the current events in Gaza were triggered by an exceptionally brutal terrorist attack carried out by Palestinians, during which a large number of hostages were taken. And Israel's actions are specifically a response to this.

Thus, the first step towards calming the situation in Gaza should come from the Palestinians, more specifically their terrorist organization Hamas. In practice, this would mean the release of all hostages and the return of the bodies of any individuals who may have died in their hands.

From this perspective, everyone can of course draw their own conclusions about which party should be excluded from the games if such action were to be taken. Israel, which has gone to war as a result of terrorism, or - likewise participating in the games - Palestine, which has not clearly distanced itself from Hamas, but whose administration has even sought reconciliation with it?

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
According to the Israeli army, Hamas cannot be defeated
Two out of three Palestinians support October 7 attack
University of Helsinki gained an anti-Semitic reputation