A year before the next parliament elections in Finland and at the beginning of a very critical EU period, where Finland is the president country, some people started the conversation about NATO again: Should Finland join NATO?
In the past I have written a long article trying to explain what happens with my country that is a member of NATO. I tried to explain that despite many millions spent on weapons under the instructions of NATO and built by companies that NATO has - what shall I call it - a 'friendly' relationship, which coincidentally are all American.
When it came to NATO fulfilling their obligations to a member country by helping with an invasion against a member state they just pretended they couldn't hear anything. NATO suddenly became deaf and blind, so in the loudest way NATO has proved to Greece to be a damaging factor for the country's finances and has proved to be an untrustworthy ally.
30 years after Turkey's invasion of Cyprus and the occupation of the Cypriot land, Turkey continues its hostile and aggressive attitude against an ally member of NATO with the latest incident over the Aegean Sea that cost the life of a pilot. To that you can add provocations, spying and anything else that could only constitute a declaration of war by Turkey.
Going even further, during the invasion there are suspicions that the Americans often informed the Turks about the Greek army's movements. If that's true - and the truth will come in public one day - then aside from the fact that a NATO ally invaded another NATO member and nobody in the NATO alliance did anything to stop the war between the two countries, except supply both countries with weapons, the leading member country practically committed treason against an ally.
Is this the alliance that some Finns want to join? Let's go a bit further and this is something that I have also written about often in the past. What's the reason NATO exists? NATO was the North Atlantic military organization to answer any military plans from the USSR. Dear Finnish politicians and army consultants, I'm not sure if you have understood it but the USSR doesn't exist any more. Communism? Well, Russia and their former allies have become the worst enemies of anything communist. Oddly, out of all the former members of the Warsaw Pact and the USSR, only Russia is not member of the NATO and hasn't applied for membership.
The idea of NATO becoming the international policeman and fight where needed is pathetic as it sounds. First of all, that's why we have the UN and nobody wants the Americans to create their own UN; they have done enough damage as they are. I don't think there is even one nation in this world that hasn't got issues with them and their peace mission in Iraq that has led the country into a civil war.
Finland, as a member country of the EU, is going to participate in the Euro-army, so what's the point in joining another club that does exactly the same and finally Finland is one of the main countries who participate in every UN mission. There is a Finnish army in Kosovo, Cyprus, Africa and the Middle East.
Add to that the neutrality that Finland kept so carefully during the hard years of the Cold War, isn't all this trouble a waste? The Finns stood bravely between two superpowers and even though they were threatened nearly daily with destruction they just stood there forcing everybody to accept their neutrality. Why would a country that made neutrality part of their constitution want to join an army alliance that has in theory been dead for over a decade?
It all leads to the last thing. NATO was from its very beginning a gigantic weapons' hypermarket with only one supplier: the American weapon's industry. In NATO's hypermarket you can find everything from the defensive Patriot missiles, powerful F16 war planes, Apache helicopters to M16 rifles. The hypermarket needed an exhibition center, so they called it NATO, and a testing ground, which has had different names including Iraq and Afghanistan. Finally they needed arms dealers, the right personnel, which they found in the leagues of ex-generals and general patriots.
Take a closer look at that, from one side you have fat ex-generals with huge salaries who lobby for American weapon companies and from the other side you have ex-generals or generals a couple of years before retirement in Finland that insist that the country should join NATO. Do I need to add anything more? Can't you make the connection? Come now people, it is not that difficult!
ovi magazine, ovi lehti, NATO, Finland & USA