Responsible Development Aid and New Priorities: Finland's Development Cooperation Reforms

Finland's development cooperation will be reformed during this government term. This means that the private sector will play a larger role in delivering development aid, and limited resources will be more carefully targeted to countries that genuinely seek growth and prosperity. These changes aim to increase the effectiveness of the aid provided.

Finland will also not cooperate with countries that support the current Russian administration. Additionally, development aid will not be provided to countries that refuse to accept their citizens when they lack the necessary conditions to reside in Finland.

At the same time, the amount of development aid will be significantly reduced and focused on the rights of women and girls, as several studies have shown that countries are more stable and prosperous when there are fewer restrictions on the rights of girls and women in education and the workforce. Of all the countries in the world, Ukraine will be the largest recipient of Finland's development aid.

In my view, these policies are excellent, although one could always question whether it is wise for a heavily indebted country to take on more debt to give money to others. However, this has been the practice in Finland and will undoubtedly continue in the future.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
New aid package keeps Finland as one of Ukraine's biggest supporters
The Finnish Government is Unanimous on Fixing the Country's Economy
Getting asylum in Finland becomes significantly more difficult

A National Rally election victory does not mean that France will become like Finland under the Finns Party

The result of the first round of the French elections met expectations. This indicates that the residents' frustration with the current immigration policy and its consequences is now becoming a reality.

An example of these consequences was seen when an attack occurred at a wedding of Turkish background individuals in Thionville, France, where a group armed with assault rifles killed one and injured several people. The incident is reportedly linked to gang conflicts involved in drug trafficking.

If and when such events – and similar ones – occur repeatedly, it is understandable that people accustomed to European order are dissatisfied and thus desire the change offered by the National Rally.

* * *

A Finnish journalist outlined four consequences of the election results. The first, according to her, is the reduction of France's support for Ukraine. This would mean a small victory for Vladimir Putin's Russia and is starkly opposed to the strongly pro-Ukraine stance of Finland's immigration-critical Finns Party.

The second issue the journalist mentioned that can be expected to change in France is the populist economic policy of the National Rally, which threatens to drive the country into an even deeper debt crisis. This is also a significant difference from the Finns Party, which has pushed for strict economic policies in government, causing the political left in opposition to resort to populist outcries.

The third potential change highlighted by the Finnish journalist was France's refusal to pay its membership fee to the EU. This would obviously have a massive impact on the entire Union, potentially pushing it back towards being a pure trade alliance. This would fit well with Finns Party's immigration-critical and EU-critical stance.

Finally, the journalist mentioned that the EU would become more value-conservative. This would mean not only stricter immigration policies but also a more conservative approach to sexual deviations and abortions.

In this respect, the relationship between the immigration-critical parties in France and Finland is not straightforward. In Finland, practically everyone supports the right to abortion, but many immigration-critical individuals view the hype around sexual deviations negatively.

* * *

As my esteemed reader noticed, the message of this blog post is that although the immigration policies practiced across Europe have led to the emergence of large immigration-critical parties in both Finland and France – and many other countries – this does not mean that European politics is changing in all other respects.

This is particularly evident in these parties' relations with Russia and economic thinking, but also in many other aspects. Therefore, no hasty conclusions should be drawn from the first round of the French elections.

Additionally, it must be remembered that an unholy alliance is forming in France between Macron supporters and the left, which, if successful, could prevent the rise of the National Rally to power and thereby block the rise of the immigration-critical Gauls for another term.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
The future of all Europe is at stake
Swedish-Somali Offspring, Penalties, and Our Country's Attractiveness Factors
Mass immigration is the greatest concern for EU youth

The British human rights decision led to unwarranted calls

In the UK, a bill has passed which would allow asylum seekers to be sent to Rwanda while awaiting a decision on their asylum application. However, this hasn't been put into practice just yet, as it requires approval from King Charles first, followed by what are known as human rights activists organizing a trial farce, and then there must be a court decision on the matter.

In the future, we will likely see mass deportations of asylum seekers from Europe to Africa. Additionally, according to the new British law, a potential asylum would only entitle the applicant to stay in Rwanda—not to unsettle British society.

What's particularly interesting about the case is that Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has directly stated that the purpose of enacting the law was to create a deterrent effect on asylum seekers heading to Britain. On the other hand, there has been skepticism in the opposition about its impact on the numbers of people attempting to cross the Channel.

It remains to be seen how the law will impact the numbers of asylum seekers attempting to cross the English Channel. Will it achieve its goal of redirecting the flow of people, or will the previous trend continue, with the difference being that British taxpayer money is used for the nearly 6,500-kilometer flights of arrivals?

The question is pertinent, as according to Britain's own parliamentary institution, the Rwanda program costs nearly two million pounds per asylum seeker sent to Africa. If this estimate holds true, the bill for combating modern-day migration will be considerable.

On the other hand, if the flows of migrants seeking to exploit European social welfare were indeed effectively redirected elsewhere as a result of the decision, London's administration would save significantly more money. Moreover, the process of demographic change in Britain, sometimes referred to as population replacement, would slow down significantly from its current pace. Consequently, Britain's population would remain predominantly European well into the future.

* * *

Today I got to read an article where it was reported that the United Nations and the EU are urging the island nation to reject the bill.

According to the story, Michael O'Flaherty, the director of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA), expressed that he is "concerned that the Rwanda bill enables the implementation of a policy of removing people to Rwanda without any prior assessment of their asylum claims by the UK authorities in the majority of cases.

The statement raises the question of whether there is a misunderstanding among influential figures in the UN and EU. The explicit intention of the British bill is that the assessment of the spontaneous asylum seekers' protection will be conducted in Rwanda, and thus there is no rational basis for conducting it first in the UK.

According to the same article, Rwanda has expressed satisfaction with Britain's decision and welcomes any potential entrants. This way, they can find a safe place to build their lives, which is ultimately what the international asylum system is about. It's not about the subjective right of all people in the world to settle in Europe and burden its inhabitants' economy or change its culture.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
A white family does not represent real Londoners
Finnish journalist called for British Prime Minister´s head to be placed on London bridge to dry
The arrival of caliphate citizens must be prevented