Finland’s Troubles

Press, Volume XCVII, Issue 28766, 11 December 1958, Page 16

Finland’s Troubles

The fall of Finland’s coalition Government is disturbing for two main reasons. First, it illustrates the ruthlessness with which the Soviet Union may pursue political ends by economic means; second, it confirms widely-held fears that the

Finns have yet to remedy the political instability - which threatens their gallant recovery after two disastrous wars with Russia since 1939. From October, 1957, to July this year Finland was without normal parliamentary government. At the general elections of July, there was a surprising, though not sweeping, increase in the Communist vote; and the People’s Democrats (a merger of Communists .and Left-wing Socialists), with 50 seats, emerged the strongest party in the Diet. Although the Soviet Union undoubtedly hoped for the. formation of a “ popular “front” government, Mr Fagerholm, the Social Democrat leader, succeeded in forming a coalition which, although commanding 137 seats in the Diet, consisted of naturally opposed elements; Social Democrats, Agrarians, Conservatives, and members of the Swedish and Finnish People’s Parties. The remaining 13 seats in the Diet are held by Independent Social Democrats, a group which split away from the main party before the elections. By including Conservatives in his Cabinet, Mr Fagerholm flouted an unwritten rule adopted since the wars in deference to the Russians. The result was the most broadly-based Finnish

Government in post-war years; but the risk of internal disagreement was present from the Government’s birth. Traditionally, the Social Democrats, supported by town workers, clash over food prices with the Agrarians (who have now contrived the Government’s downfall); and both compete with the People’s Democrats for the votes of the town and country proletariat respectively. The new Government soon ran into difficulties, both in its relations with the Soviet Union

i and in its economic policy. . Almost immediately after it t took office it successfully resisted a proposal that Mr. 1 Kuusinen, who had headed the ’ Finnish puppet Government set . up by the Red Army ini 1940, • should revisit Finland for the i anniversary celebrations of the • Finnish Communist Party. Mr i Fagerholm’s Government was ■ pledged to continue its prei decessors’ foreign policy, based i on neutrality and friendship ■ with all Finland’s neighbours. 1 That did not satisfy the Rusi sians, who launched a vigorous ; propaganda campaign, spreading wild (and unsubstantiated) i claims of a serious worsening of relations. Finnish commercial negotiations with Russia were unaccountably held up; and Finnish attempts to recruit economic aid from the West were cited as evidence of Finland’s new alignment. If Finland’s economy and political structure had been sounder, all this could have been disregarded. But economic crisis has daily become more imminent. The Government faced a Budget ’deficit of about £4O million. Unemployment has grown more serious. Industry has been handicapped by insufficient capital and high taxation, necessitated by a Government promise to maintain and expand social services. To solve its problems, which result partly from territorial cessions to Russia, Finland needs foreign aid. Several months ago, the Soviet Union granted a credit of £5 million; and the Finns recently asked the World Bank for 50 million dollars to modernise and expand their industries. By alternately fostering dependence on Soviet markets and rejecting Finnish exports, the Russians have contributed adroitly to Finland’s difficulties. The sequel could be the collapse of Finnish democracy and the absorption of Finland into the Soviet bloc. Such a fate would ill reward the Finns’ courage in the face of crushing handicaps; and democrats everywhere will earnestly hope it can be averted.