VII Eri tiedotusvälineille annettuja haastatteluja

42. Tasavallan Presidentin haastattelut norjalaiselle Dagbladet-lehdelle 18. ja 20.11.1978

How would you describe the development of your principal political point of view?

I am an open-minded centrist politician. In Finland in recent years it has become customary for people, even those with political interests, to say they are politically unattached. I am not unattached. On the contrary, I am completely aware of what my political and economic points of view are. My attitude to social questions has been in a spirit of reflective radicalism. I was only a slip of a boy before the Civil War, but during the adventure with monarchy I became a young man who in 1918 strongly disagreed with the idea of a German king in Finland.

Is it particularly in the economic field that the President`s point of view has been radicalised?

The international economy is so completely malfunctioning that a really thorough re-organisation is necessary. Even bourgeois economists recognise this. The Finnish language has a word to describe the current situation: "hullunmylly". This means "chaos".

Has there been success in healing old divisions in the nation and integrating the strongly opposed groups?

Thanks to my general political bearing, I have had the opportunity to try to bring about a more integrated society, when the country has required, and when it has been necessary and possible to do it, that old contrasts be evened out. I actually think that I have succeeded reasonably well in it.

You have intimated in one of your letters that you feel relieved after you have told off some politician or other, or gotten it off your chest in a letter. Is it so lonely to be the President of Finland?

As a young man I had occasional lightning outbursts of temper. My principal point of departure was, perhaps, that even the President of the Republic wanted to be allowed to express his opinion so clearly that the other party was not left particularly much room for misunderstandings.

Of course it is lonely to be the President, but when one follows both foreign and domestic politics with such detailed interest as I do, at least one does not have to worry about becoming too bored.

Do you surround yourself with groups of confidants or advisors, to whom you can present your policies completely freely?

I have not had regular discussion groups or advisors. However, since the 1940s, I have had a regular "sauna party", with whom I have discussed important and not-so-important things. I may, of course, summon civil servants and other experts to study important matters.

In your opinion, is it time to amend the Constitution of Finland?

In our country, the many constricting regulations on qualified majorities in the parliament have on occasion proved themselves to be obstacles to the formulation of practical policies. It might be appropriate to amend these regulations in individual, specially defined cases. A reform of this kind would obviously give a government better opportunities to direct the work of legislation in a better and longer-range manner than at present. At the same time, the regulations dealing with fundamental civic rights should be improved and extended.

There are some people both in Finland and abroad who claim that you take arbitrary decisions. How do you react to such charges?

Such assertions are usually founded on little knowledge of conditions in Finland. My task has usually been to support the governments in power and, particularly, with long-range legislative programmes in mind, to ensure that they have enough time to do their work. Finland will soon have been an independent nation for 61 years and has had 60 governments during this period. The pattern would have been even more unpredictable if the President had not supported governments on the point of departure.

In my view, I deserve thanks for having done my best to guarantee the country as stable government as possible.

You cut Gordian knots in the nation`s political life. Can you give some examples to illustrate why this has been necessary?

As one example, I can mention my role in 1970, when I acted as a "midwife" at the birth of the UKK agreement; also my visit to the Congress of the Centre Party in conjunction with the negotiations to form a government in the autumn of 1972.

In 1970, the labour-market organisations could not reach agreement in their negotiations for a collective agreement. I went to the negotiation meeting and enquired whether I could take part. They agreed, and an agreement was concluded. In 1972, we were again confronted with a cabinet crisis, and the Centre Party had already passed a resolution which meant the collapse of plan for a majority government. I asked my aide-de-camp to telephone the party`s representatives and tell them that I would be arriving to meet them in half an hour. After we had had discussions for a while, the government was saved.

Does Finland need a president with strong powers?

I have just told you, in my opinion, Finland needs a president with strong powers. Our political circumstances and our party system makes this necessary. Since one is always predicting or anticipating the resignation of the government, it is not possible to pursue a consistent and conscious policy, unless the country has a president with relatively broad authority or a government in which the leaders have a skillfully tight grip on the prime minister`s gavel.

How would you characterise your position and style of working compared with those of predecessors such as Mannerheim and Paasikivi?

Mannerheim himself regarded his position as that of president during a period of transition and as that of a national figurehead. By contrast, Paasikivi used his presidential powers in such a way that they were both felt and well known, but always within the limits imposed by the Constitution. I have also pursued this line.

To me, Mannerheim was a rather distant person, but with Paasikivi I had long and good co-operation and a good discussion relationship.

Indeed, Paasikivi has been your great mentor; how about Machiavelli, for example?

Don`t you believe that Paasikivi was enough?

You obviously enjoy writing!

Certainly, it both relaxes and refreshes me.

But isn`t this form of publicistic activity, writing under pseudonyms and publishing one`s private letters, both exceptional for a president and possibly stemming from special motives?

That is correct. In this way I try to influence the result of my work.

How is your physical condition? How far are you going to ski this winter?

I`m hoping to do 1 000 kilometers.

And do you also have time to read both fiction and nonfiction?

I probably read far too much. But it has become a habit with me. It takes up time, since I also have to meet representatives of social organisations, give interviews to journalists - and in addition to that talk with public figures.

Finally, to be very frank, your letters and articles testify to a strong temper. Do you always have it under control, or how much remains of the young, angry Kekkonen?

The anecdotes about my temper are something that one has invented. I had a master in temperamental behaviour without parallel: J.K. Paasikivi. I am not temperamental in the direct meaning of the world, but every now and then I create a commotion in public debate just to get people thinking. Because of my duties, I fear impulsiveness like the plague.

One subject that Kekkonen is reluctant to discuss is the question of his successor.

Obviously, there are several eligible candidates, he assured me, but there would be far too much unrest and insecurity around such persons and in the parties concerned if a discussion of this type were to begin today. It is probably best to hold off with this matter, was his definite addition to the discussion at this point. He also said that he gave much thought to Finnish politics and bringing up the new generation.

The generation gap as we now perceive it is a question of a considerable disparity between the experiences and history of the pre-war generation and the life the post-war generation is used to. The pre-war generation has been through the Civil War period that followed the First World War, the troubled 30s, the Winter War and the Continuation War with the Soviet Union, and the very difficult period of reconstruction after the war. For the new generation in Finnish politics, this is inclined to be "only history".

Has the relationship of trust between the Soviet Union and Finland reached a temporary high with your re-election as President?

The relationship of trust between Finland and the Soviet Union has been gaining strength year after year. The broad unity which was expressed in conjunction with my re-election to the presidency is, in my opinion, clear proof of the trust our foreign policy enjoys among the Finnish people.

But how do you react personally to the expression "Finlandisation" in the sense in which it is often used by certain persons and groups around the world?

We know well enough from which circles the "Finlandisation allegations" are thrown at us. Nor are we so naive that we fail to comprehend when the expression "Finlandisation" is consciously used to offend us.

Of course, we have no objection to the use of the relationship between Finland and the Soviet Union as an example of how states of different sizes and with different social systems can live together in political peace and fruitful co-operation. But we certainly object to the use of the term "Finlandisation" as a political cudgel.

Does this mean that the expression "Finlandisation" can be employed in a positive sense indicating that a small country like Finland has achieved an especially good relationship with a large and powerful neighbour?

Once upon a time I tried to give the expression a positive meaning, but a German stole a march on me in the opposite sense.

Another concept is often discussed both in and outside Finland: self-censorship. Does this so-called self-censorship stem from political wisdom or fear of the superpower to the East?

Is it not possible to distinguish between the words "self-censorship" and "self-discipline" in Norwegian?

As I see it, each and every one of us considers his behaviour in various situations. Perhaps one could call this political wisdom.

There is a general conception in the West that the relationship between Finland and the Soviet Union is a kind of one-way traffic. Commentary?

We have a relationship with the Soviet Union, in which we co-operate on a basis of trust. Supported by over 30 years of experience, I can assure you that in our mutual relationship the Soviet Union has been willing to take into consideration the points of view we have put forward, even from the beginning of the negotiations for the Treaty of Friendship, Co-operation and Mutual Assistance. Therefore our communications have functioned with guarantees in both directions.

What is the importance of the Kostamus project and other Fenno-Soviet co-operation schemes for the country`s economy?

We have nearly 170,000 unemployed, and without projects of Kostamus` magnitude there would be even more. This fact makes the usefulness of our co-operation self-evident and understandable in concrete terms by all citizens.

There have recently been a number of newspaper reports around the world that increased military co-operation with the Soviet Union was under discussion. Can you, Mr. President, now provide us with a clear insight into the actual situation?

A clear picture! Very well. There have recently been reports in the western press to the effect that the Soviet Union`s military leadership had put forward a proposal that joint military manoeuvres be held. Similar reports were even published in some Finnish papers, and a question concerning the matter was tabled in the Finnish parliament.

In reality, no such proposal has been made to Finland by the Soviet leadership and Ministery of Defence. The western press was obviously motivated by a desire to disturb the friendly relations between Finland and the Soviet Union.

In discussion of the Treaty of Friendship, Co-operation and Mutual Assistance, there has been a tendency from the Finnish side to emphasize that military assistance is of secondary importance in comparison with the preamble to the pact, which recognizes Finland`s endeavours to remain aloof from conflicts of interest between great powers. From the Soviet side, by contrast, it has been emphasized that this preamble must not be isolated from the military articles in the pact.

Finland`s official stance has always been that the Treaty of Friendship, Co-operation and Mutual Assistance is a single entity, within which all parts are of equal value and have retained their original meaning.

You have visited the Soviet Union nearly 40 times. What significance have your personal relations with Soviet leaders had?

I am convinced that my personal contacts have made it easier to deal with many of the political questions and even with economic ones. However, trust between states can not be founded solely upon the personal relations between national leaders. Foreign policy must also have the support of the people as a whole.

Supposing one agrees that a form of security balance exists in the North of Europe, what could disturb such a balance?

The security position in the North of Europe has been quite stable and peaceful in recent decades. In the stances adopted by Finland, one has always stressed the importance of rejecting macrostrategic speculations regarding the region, and especially those linked with the new nuclear weapons technology; thus one has assured oneself that the new nuclear weapons technology; thus one has assured oneself that the region will remain outside international conflicts. On this basis, all the states concerned should avoid undertakings likely to increase tension in the North of Europe.

Are there any strong or conflicting interests at all between Norway and Finland, with regard to conditions in the Barents Sea, Spitzbergen etc?

No.

You have again launched the Kekkonen plan for a nuclear weapons-free zone in the North of Europe, without its having awakened a strong symphathetic response from the political leaderships in Finland`s Nordic neighbours. How, therefore, have you planned to follow up the proposal in practice?

In my speech in Stockholm last May, I set forth detailed arguments to support my renewed proposal that the North be declared a nuclear-weapons-free zone; something I do not need to repeat during this interview. I emphasized then that the establishment of such a zone would have to be founded on the agreement of the states in the region concerned, and that the initiative should originate among them. Against this background, further action in this matter will depend on the reactions we receive from the states affected by my proposal.

Norwegians and Swedes often say that there is something mystical and Byzantine about Finnisch politics!

That thought is an alien one to us Finns.

Finally, is it absurd for a foreigner to characterise Finnish politics as controlled chaos?

A foreigner could have a lot to learn, first from the ordered conditions in his own country, and then from the chaos which prevails in Finland.