[This piece is a sequel to Finland eager to deepen arms trade collaboration withIsrael]
MP Timo Heinonen of the leading right wing National Coalition Party, the biggest political party in Finland, supported the bill on the grounds of the advantages it gives to Finland’s private military companies.
“In my view, the bill is good because it gives the Finnish companies the same opportunities to participate in these projects [projects that require access to Israel’s Classified Information, editor’s note] as companies in other countries have. This is the point of view from which we need to approach this bill. This bill does not in any way remove the fact that each trade transaction is decided by the arms exports working group [vientivalvontatyöryhmä in Finnish]. This consideration is nowadays done with every arms trade transaction.”
This reasoning is untenable and problematic on a number of accounts: the MOD’s new UAV deal as well as more than 95 percent of the Finnish-Israeli military trade are imports from Israel and thus automatically fall outside the mandate of the arms exports working group. Hence, to claim that “[t]his bill does not in any way remove the fact that each trade transaction is decided by the arms exports working group” is not correct as the working group only has a say on arms exports, not on “each trade transaction”.
Even with the specific issue of Finland’s arms exports policy, only the most uninformed commentator would indicate that the formal exports consideration procedure is indeed effective or thorough. Consider the most sizable arms trade transaction Finland has conducted in the 21st century: a recent grenade launcher system export to Saudi-Arabia worth 150 million euros. If and when a massive arms export to such an infamous and obscene human rights violator like Saudi-Arabia passes the consideration of the Finnish authorities, including that of the arms exports working group and the Finnish government, then the procedure is probably not quite as compelling as some portray it to be.
Perhaps the most vocal advocate of the bill in the plenary discussion, as well as the most vehement critic of those who are seeking to seize the military trade between Finland and Israel, was MP Ben Zyskowicz from the National Coalition Party. He pronounced:
“For the sake of Finland’s national security I think it is very important for Finland to acquire weapons in a way that is practical and taking into account the quality and price of the weapons. Where would representative Yrttiaho want Finland to buy weapons from? From the Soviet Union and North Korea?”
Another indication of the depletion in the arsenal of diverting and confusing the discussion on Israel-Palestine by supporters of Israel’s policies is that not even the fact that the Soviet Union dissolved more than two decades ago seems to diminish the tendency to evoke it as an ostensibly efficacious slur, as if its evocation would in any way whatsoever score points on the topic at hand.
MP Zyskowicz went on to say:
“Israel is not a perfect state but, representative Kontula, an undeniable fact is that Israel is the only state in that region in which the principles that we in Finland and in Europe respect – democracy and human rights – are realized. The people there have the freedom of speech, freedom to assemble, they have a multi-party system, independence of the judiciary, independent media and a Western democracy.”
This paragraph hardly requires a thorough rebuttal, however, a couple of observations are in order. On freedom of the press in Israel, it is worth noting that Reporters Without Borders ranked Israel 92nd in the Press Freedom Index 2011-2012.
Zyskowicz continued:
“The objection cast by representative Yrttiaho as well as the addresses given by him and representative Mustajärvi refers to the 250 Finnish influentials on the arts, sciences and politics who have demanded the discontinuation of the arms trade with Israel. Representative Mustajärvi named a few quite respectable names from the list. But without having seen the list I am absolutely convinced that the majority of these dignitaries on culture, science and politics are those who have always been wrong in international affairs.”
The case Zyskowicz makes could hardly be more peculiar: during the plenary session, he openly states twice that he has not seen the petition nor its signers, yet he is no less than “absolutely convinced” that “a majority of the signers have always been wrong” in their positions on international affairs. (italics added)
Such commentary is commonplace in the Finnish public discourse on Israel-Palestine. One is reminded of a Finnish saying that can be translated the following way: A poke in the eye for those who dwell on the past. Whatever the merits of that proverb might be, it is not necessarily the most useful motto for historical inquiry. Furthermore, putting eye pokes and the past aside for a moment, the sheer illegality and immorality of Israel’s action in the present truly make a number of Finnish MPs look like fools. And worse.
ZNetwork is funded solely through the generosity of its readers.
Donate