For peace – no to NATO membership

Why do we Helsinki communists oppose Finland’s accession to NATO? And what is our response to the changed security situation?

We understand the concern caused by the Russian invasion into Ukraine. The attack has been a shock for us too. We condemn Russia’s criminal war and call on Russia to withdraw its troops from Ukraine.

At the same time, we note that Finland is not under threat of military attack. This assessment has also been included in the Sanna Marin Government’s Security Policy Report, which is currently before Parliament.

Finland’s accession to NATO will not bring more stability to the region, but more tension. Turning Finland’s eastern border into a border between NATO and Russia would bring more armed forces and military activity here. There would also be increased risks, since we are talking about areas that are important to Russia, such as the large nuclear arsenals in Kola and the sea links with St Petersburg. Russia could no longer rely on Finland’s territory not being used against it.

The expansion of NATO to Finland, and with it possibly Sweden, will not help to end the war in Ukraine either. On the contrary, it is likely to strengthen the Russian leadership’s threat perceptions that it has justified invasion to Ukraine. In our view, Finland and Sweden remaining militarily non-aligned would, on the other hand, support the Ukrainian President’s proposal to end the war so that Ukraine gives up aspirations to join NATO.

As a member of NATO, Finland would be drawn into the conflicts of the United States and NATO which we could otherwise stay out of and which, as a non-aligned country, we could help to mediate. It is already known that as a member Finland would be involved in NATO’s strategic plans for the Baltic States.

As the government report states, NATO’s common defence is ultimately based on the military capability and nuclear deterrent of the United States. We do not believe in security based on weapons, and especially not on nuclear weapons. On the contrary, we must work towards disarmament and a ban on nuclear weapons. As a member of NATO, Finland would also be committed to the NATO strategy drawn up under the leadership of the United States, which includes nuclear weapons, the readiness to use military force without a UN mandate, the deployment of NATO troops on the borders against Russia and arming also against China. That would be a historic mistake.

The alternative: peace policy and military non-alignment

There is a realistic alternative to joining NATO, one that we Finns have decades of experience with. It is a foreign policy of peace and military non-alignment, complemented by the military defence capabilities of our own country. However, the Government’s report does not address the possibility of military non-alignment at all, even though it promised to assess a wide range of options. Decisions on Finland’s position and future should not be made on the basis of such a one-sided approach to NATO membership.

The most fundamental reason for opposing NATO membership is that a security policy based on arms races and confrontation does not respond to the greatest security threats of our time, such as climate change, natural disasters, pandemics and poverty, and it does not respond to the insecurity of the everyday lives of Finns. On the contrary, it exacerbates these problems by diverting huge resources to arms and by hampering the cooperation that is urgently needed to solve, for example, the environmental crisis.

Adopted at the annual meeting of the Helsinki District Assembly of the Communist Party of Finland 25.4.2022