Why is Somalia unwilling to meet Finland’s conditions for continuing development cooperation?

Finland suspended its development cooperation with Somalia last November. At that time, Finland’s Minister for Foreign Trade and Development, Ville Tavio (Finns Party), made it a condition that Somalia must begin taking back its citizens who are residing illegally in Finland and/or who have committed crimes. The minister did not specify in more detail what kind of change would be sufficient for cooperation to resume.

According to media reports, however, Tavio has suggested that one condition for development aid would be the return of one hundred Somalis to Somalia, although this has not been officially recorded. Last Monday, the minister reiterated that development aid to Somalia will remain suspended, since the repatriations of Somalis have not progressed as hoped.

Some progress has nevertheless been made, as Somalia had previously refused altogether to accept any of its citizens deported from Finland. Since the suspension of development cooperation, Finland has returned 11 Somali citizens, three of whom went back voluntarily.

* * *

In Somalia, the government has expressed a desire to refuse compliance with Finland’s demand to take back its citizens, showing irritation and describing Finland’s conditions as blackmail. The background is thought to lie in the fact that Somalis do not want to receive back citizens deported from abroad, some of whom have committed crimes.

This year, the Finnish Immigration Service has issued only 128 removal decisions for Somalis, meaning the number of people to be returned is not particularly large. Nevertheless, Somalia has accepted less than ten percent of the citizens who were intended to be sent back.

If the pace does not improve, it means that Finland will not spend the roughly nine million euros earmarked this year for cooperation with Somalia. That money was intended to support the improvement of the status of girls and women in difficult situations in Somalia.

That is why I, at least, cannot help but wonder whether Somali politicians’ reluctance stems more from the goals of the development cooperation itself than from the potential problems caused by Somalis who are to be returned. Hopefully, of course, I am wrong about this, and the Somali government does—in contrast to the suspicion that crossed my mind—have a genuine desire to improve the position of women in the country.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
A New Beginning: Economic Independence in the Hands of Developing Nations
Finland Suspends Development Cooperation with Somalia
Could Kenyans serve as a model for Somalis and Iraqis?

AI Drones: Ukraine’s New Edge in the War?

The Financial Times reported that Ukraine is now using a new type of American-German drone, which can operate independently using its own artificial intelligence. If this information is accurate, it marks another significant step forward in the evolution of warfare.

As a consequence, Ukraine’s technological superiority over Russian forces is increasing, shifting the balance—at least to some degree—in favor of the defenders, who have so far been the underdogs. Whether this will be enough to reverse the course of events on the front lines remains to be seen.

Naturally, this news is extremely bad for Russia, and especially for its dictator Vladimir "Little Man" Putin, whose political future is closely tied to success on the battlefield. It certainly doesn't help that Putin’s war chest—namely the National Wealth Fund used to cover the budget deficit—is inevitably running dry, having shrunk from €110 billion at the start of the war to around €30 billion.

For us bystanders, the situation is undeniably fascinating, as the long-standing trench warfare reminiscent of World War I might shift into a more dynamic and mobile conflict as early as next summer. This could ultimately lead to the collapse of the Russian army—and with it, the fall of Putin from his throne.

Previous thought on the same topic:
Military Support Is Needed to Reinforce EU Sanctions
Russian Soldier in Finland – A Sign of Crumbling Morale?
Renaissance of the Finnish Defense Industry

The Strike Made Finnair the Worst Airline in the World – But the Strike General Doesn’t Care

Finland’s national airline, Finnair, has – at least according to the Germans – become the worst airline in the world. The reason for this is the high number of flight cancellations caused by employee strikes.

I won’t take a stance in this piece on whether the strikes were justified or not, but I would like to draw your attention, dear readers, to what the chairman of the union behind the strikes, Juhani Haapalehto, bluntly stated when asked what he would like to say to the at least one hundred thousand passengers whose travel plans were disrupted by the strikes.

Haapalehto said: “It’s not worth it for me to comment one way or another. It would be misunderstood. After all, air passengers are not our customers – our members are.”

His comment has been met with astonishment in Finland. For example, the CEO of the Chamber of Commerce, Juho Romakkaniemi, wondered how “the union (and apparently its members) seems to have no understanding of who ultimately pays their salaries. It’s sad, all in all.”

Unfortunately, this case reflects a broader trend of Finnish union leaders becoming increasingly detached from the everyday lives of ordinary people and wage earners. Their only apparent goal seems to be preserving their own positions and perks, and – as happens in every election in Finland – funneling union membership fees into the campaign efforts of left-wing parties.

For now, the strikes have ended, but the actual dispute between the unions and Finnair’s management remains unresolved. As a result, the rights of passengers and the future of the airline are likely to hang in the balance once the current agreement expires.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Finnair Pilots' Actions Spark Employer Countermove 
Why Can't Finland Find Workforce?
History of Finland XIII: The far-right's rebellion

Who Is Responsible: The Donor or the Recipient of Aid?

Sweden has decided to terminate its support for the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA). Their aid to Gaza will henceforth be channeled through the country’s development cooperation agency, Sida. Additionally, support will be provided via the UN World Food Programme (WFP), the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), the United Nations Children's Fund (Unicef), and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).

This decision is likely a consequence of the fact that UNRWA’s operations have proven to support terrorism and are riddled with corruption. Therefore, the entire organization should be dismantled, or at the very least, all Western countries should follow Sweden’s example and cease financial support.

Finland, however, has resumed its support for UNRWA after a brief hiatus. According to the responsible minister, Ville Tavio (Finns Party), ten percent of the granted aid must be allocated to combating misuse of funds.

Everyone should ask themselves whether this is a sustainable use of emergency aid funded by taxpayers. Or would it be better to halt all payments and redirect the funds to organizations that understand on their own that grants are not intended for corruption?

As for my stance, I declare that there is no reason to assist Palestinians through UNRWA or by any other means until it is guaranteed that the aid reaches its intended purpose. And the responsibility for demonstrating this does not lie with the donor but with the recipient. 

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Two out of three Palestinians support October 7 attack
United Nations, corruption and terrorism
Change of immigration policy and development cooperation

Finland Suspends Development Cooperation with Somalia

Finland is suspending its development cooperation with Somalia. The decision follows the Finnish government’s policy that development aid will only be provided to countries that accept the return of their nationals whose asylum applications have been deemed unfounded. Somalia has not fulfilled this requirement.

According to Finland's Minister for Development Cooperation and Foreign Trade Ville Tavio (Finns Party), who announced the decision, “Suspension means that no new funding decisions related to the country program will be made until there is concrete progress in return cooperation with Somalia. I believe it wouldn’t take very long if sufficient will exists.”

He further stated, “Now we are suspending funding for the country program and hope it can resume with minimal disruption. In other words, we hope to move forward through cooperation.” This indicates that Finland views development cooperation with Somalia positively but expects reciprocity on migration issues.

The ball is now in the Somali government’s court, which has two options. The first is to accept both Finland’s development aid and the return of Somali nationals being repatriated from Finland for various reasons. The second option is to refuse to accept deportees and try to manage without Finnish development aid.

It remains to be seen which option Somalia will choose. If the latter, Finland and Finnish taxpayers will save nearly ten million euros annually. If the former, Finland will achieve the removal of illegal immigrants and continue to support Somalia in building a more functional society.

From Finland’s perspective, the first option also has the benefit of potentially serving as a model for development cooperation with other countries that send large numbers of migrants to the EU. This, in turn, could help curb the influx of illegal immigration into Finnish society from elsewhere.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Finland’s Minister of Finance Believes Not All Cultures Are Equally Good
The attractiveness of Finland to welfare-seeking economic migrants reduces
Information for Asylum Seekers in Finland

Meretricious Democracy

Yesterday's news revealed the world's most popular president by far. He is Paul Kagame, who rose to power after the Rwandan genocide and received 99.18 percent of the votes in the recent elections. In other words, his two competitors together received just under a percent of the votes.

The achieved election result was also Kagame's personal record, as the same news report indicated that he previously only reached a 98.8 percent performance. Or were the competing candidates more popular in the past elections than in the recent ones?

It was also interesting to note that a few days ago, when the US President Joe Biden stepped aside, Vice President Kamala Harris raised $230 million for her campaign in two days. This means nearly $115 million per day.

With this money, she will certainly get a good start, especially as Biden's already collected $96 million will likely end up at her disposal. And perhaps those who have already offered Biden a $700 million support package will transfer their promises to the Vice President.

From all this, we can see that democracy in the great West is not cheap, as the other candidate - Donald Trump - will undoubtedly raise a substantial amount for his use as well. For comparison, it should be remembered that presidential candidate Alexander Stubb collected a modest €2.7 million for his use in the last elections.

Unfortunately, the media has not reported the size of Kagame's campaign fund. But if I may guess, it probably does not contain a very large stack of bills, as he likely had more effective means at his disposal. So much so that Rwandan democracy could be considered meretricious.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
The British human rights decision led to unwarranted calls
Biden's Withdrawal Opens a New Possibility for Democrats!
Finland Will Thrive with Any US President, Trump Survived the Assassination Attempt

The European Commission appears unreliable as a decision-maker to the Finns

In Finland, it is customary to trust a person's word, whether it be a man's or a woman's, once it has been given. Therefore, a person who goes back on their word is considered unreliable.

This cultural characteristic has contributed to making Finnish society quite functional in many ways, despite the fact that there are many unreliable individuals also in Finland.

That is why it was interesting, but unfortunate, to read about how Commissioner Jutta Urpilainen (Social Democrat) lightly approached the promise that the EU made when establishing the European Union Recovery Instrument. That is, the promise that the EU would no longer take on shared debt.

The article mentioned that Finland has been opposing the mentioned EU sovereignty fund. According to the article, it could be established either with debt financing or by granting the Union new types of fundraising possibilities - in plain language, some form of taxation authority.

So far, Finnish political parties have been quite united in this matter, likely due to the influence of negative public opinion. It remains to be seen what kind of operation the EU propaganda machinery will embark on to change it - as the article in question seems to ultimately address this issue.

In the article, Urpilainen also brought up another point. According to her, Finland's decision-making concerning EU matters should be altered to enable more proactive influence.

Regarding this matter, it is likely that all Finns can agree, to some extent, that Finland should indeed allocate resources to proactively influence EU decision-making. This is necessary to counteract decisions that could be harmful to both Finland and the entire EU, ideally at the earliest possible stage. However, it is important to acknowledge that each influencer or lobbyist operating in Brussels contributes to indirect costs associated with the EU, thereby increasing the financial burden on our national economy and that of other countries within the EU.

Therefore, the most crucial EU matter for the upcoming Finnish government this year is to exert influence on all EU member states to ensure the selection of competent individuals capable of making sensible decisions as commissioners. This is crucial to prevent future catastrophes similar to the von der Leyen Commission, which consists primarily of politicians who had largely failed in their national political careers.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Finnish Prime Minister Sanna Marin is quickly losing her national credibility
Fair policy will build a strong Union
Will an attitude lead Ukraine into EU?

Eva Kaili, unsurprisingly a Greek socialist

Greek Socialist MEP Eva Kaili, one of the vice-presidents of the European Parliament, is suspected for corruption and money laundering involving "a Gulf country". As a consequence, the Greek socialist party PASOK announced on Friday evening that she was expelled from its membership.

We do not know yet, whether MEP Kaili was corrupted or criminal, but I just want to remind about three things. 

First: she is a socialist. That is, she believes in a political theory that has never produced a decent society. In contrast, socialistic countries have always been known for their dual moral including corruption among the leaders of the system. 

Second: she is a Greek. That is unfortunate, because it reminds us that the problems in Greece a decade ago emerged from irresponsible economic leadership of the country. And that we - other Europeans - are still paying for the costs. 

Third: Greece was accepted as a member of the European Monetary Union despite it did not fulfill the criteria set. 

Taken the items pointed out above, I was not surprised to hear that a European Parliament vice-president suspected for corruption "happened to be" a Greek socialist. Not saying, however, that all other MEP´s would be incorrupted with 100 percent certainty.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:

Fair policy will build a strong Union
Share of EU recovery funds will turn attitudes more negative
The Center and the National Coalition Party are willing to donate our tax money to the EU

Scientific community discriminates its youngsters

Recent research showed that scientific reports are more easily published if their authors are well known and respected scientists - e.g. Nobel laureates. The results reported by an Austrian group showed that only 23 percent of reviewer´s recommended rejection on manuscripts, when a prominent researcher was the only author shown, whereas 48 percent did so when authors were not known and 65 percent if the only author given was a little-known person. The evaluated manuscripts were the same for all three groups.

For me, as a well known and old scientist in my field, but also a supervisor of young talented students, the figures given above are just disgusting. That is because it shows the hurdles for success to be higher for young people. And even worse: the Austrian study seems to imply that old veterans might easily publish less important findings or even rubbish.

The scientific evaluation of manuscripts is basically simple. The peer reviewer of a scientific publication is another scientist in the same field, who is expected to check that the methodology is adequate to the problem and the evidence obtained is correctly interpreted. And that the findings add sufficiently to the scientific understanding of the topic addressed. 

The bias observed by Austrians obviously affect also funding organizations. If the applicant is well known and has a long record of scientific success, he probably gets funding much more likely to his applications than a young researcher with minor achievements. 

Therefore it was interesting to learn, that some funding organizations - such as the British Academy or the Swiss National Science Foundation - have taken advantage of a lottery in their funding decisions. That is, if several project proposals are very close to each others - but there is not enough money to fund all - a lottery will be used to select the ones getting funded.

That should be beneficial to the regeneration of scientific community, and provide young innovative researchers better chances to get funded. After saying that, even this kind of a lottery will not provide equal chances to youngsters, but at least it would reduce the gap to us - the veterans already going towards the sunset of our brilliance. 

All in all, I suggest that at least part of the European Union research funding would implement lottery in its research funding process. For example, in the Framework Programs for applied research - where application process often has two rounds of evaluation - the second round including only top applications rated by evaluators, could be replaced by a lottery. 

And nationally, I would be happy to see Academy of Finland funding to be partly replaced by a lottery. The principle could be simple: in the first step, all applications rated as "outstanding" by expert panels would be provided funding, and thereafter the lottery would be used - instead of the Research Councils - to pick up proposals to be funded from applications rated by the expert panels up to a level of "excellent". 

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Scientific misconduct on prevailing theories is too attractive 
Should forbidden questions be answered or not?
Facts, US Supreme Court and the case of Roe v. Wade