PROFILE Kekkonen: Political Equilibrist

Press, Volume CI, Issue 29724, 18 January 1962, Page 18

PROFILE Kekkonen: Political Equilibrist

[By SIMON KAVANAUGH] LONDON, November 17,1961. Finland’s President, Dr. Urho Kekkonen, performs the most astonishing act in the international political circus. He walks the neutralist tightrope and juggles at the same time.

His country lives in the menacing shadow of Russia end twice within four years she was _J>eaten in war by the Soviet Union. The largest single representation in the Finnish Parliament is held by the Communists. Yet Finland does not allow Communists to hold Cabinet office; it remains neutral and votes independently at the United Nations; it has joined the European Free Trade Association and at a reception given by Mr Khrushchev in honour of Dr. Kekkonen's sixtieth birthday the Finnish President declared: “I am convinced that even if the whole of Europe turns Communist, Finland will remain traditionally democratic. Now. once again, the Russian pressure is stepped up. The Soviet Government has suggested defence consultations to meet the alleged threat of a West German military attack on Russia.

Dr. Kekkonen’s reaction was to send his Foreign Minister, Mr Karjalainen, to meet the Russian Foreign Minister, Mr Gromyko. Within hours of the publication of a statement on their meeting in which Mr Gromyko declared that the Soviet Union had no intention of intervening in Finland’s domestic affairs. President Kekkonen dissolved Parliament and announced that a general election would be held in February.

For having given his assurances, Mr Gromkyo pointed out that the Soviet Union could not fail to take note that the political situation in Finland had become uncertain and that in Finland a certain political grouping had emerged which aimed at attempting to prevent the continuity of the present foreign policy.

All the Soviet Government wanted was to have as soon as possible the assurance that the present Finnish foreign policy would continue and that if such an assurance could be given, then military consultations between the

two countries might be avoided. Or (as in the best thrillerwriting tradition): Blackmail? That’s an ugly word. Let’s say a business arrangement. In any other country outside the Soviet Bloc any leader bowing before such demands would not be a leader for long. And the last thing he would do would be to go to the country on such a deal. Dominant Issue Finland is not like any other country. Relations with Russia are the dominant issue in Finnish politics and in Finnish life. Because of proportional representation, Finland has a host of political parties. In the 200-seat Parliament? the largest representation is held by the Communist-dominated Finnish People’s Party with 50 seats. Dr. Kekkonen’s Agrarian Party, which is in power (through Communist and Left-wing support) has 47; the Social Democrats have 37; the coalition Conservative Party has 29; the Swedish People’s Party and the Social Democratic Opposition have 14 each; the Finnish People’s Party has eight and the Peasants’ Party has one. Many Governments

Such division of political thought leads to a quick turnover in governments and between the end of the war and 1956, when he was elected President, Dr. Kekkonen was Prime Minister five times. Since assuming office, President Kekkonen has exerted a firm grip on affairs and stabilised them with his iron hand. But even throughout the changes and in any future balance of power, foreign policy will govern Finland’s affairs. The same foreign policy. It is known throughout Finland as the Paasikivi line after its originator, President Juho Paasikivi. President Paasikivi had the task of establishing the best relations he could with Russia after the war. He had to concede stretches of land and £lOO million in reparations

but he did stand up to Stalin and in 1948 he thwarted an attempted Communist coup, sacked the Minister behind it and banned Communists from holding Cabinet office. The Paasikivi policy is one of conciliation up to a point, but beyond this no compromise is possible. Goes Further

Where is Dr. Kekkonen’s point of no compromise? His opponents feel that he goes much farther along the road of appeasement than Paasikivi would have done. They point to his wooing of the Communists and extreme Leftwingers and the way he ignores the bulk of the middle class and the moderate Socialists. He is accused of being hungry for power and of dragging his office into party politics when as Head of State he should be above such things. He is accused of using Finland’s precarious position in international affairs to further his own political ends, conveying the image that while Dr. Kekkonen is tickling the nose of the Russian bear, the hug will remain friendly. In fact, in Finland people either accuse Dr. Kekkonen, or praise him. No-one is neutral about this neutralist supreme. Still Countrymen He is mentally and physically tough. He is the son of a forest worker and was born 60 years ago in a croft that did not even have a chimney. He remains a man of the country and will still ski 30 or 40 miles a day. As a schoolboy in 1918 he fought in Finland’s successful war of independence against Russia. As a politician he strongly opposed the idea of seeking peace at the end of the 1939-40 war.

A year later Finland was again at war with Russia to recover large areas of ground ceded in 1940. This time Finland joined up with Germany. She w-as not a German ally, but a co-belligerent. The difference was not as subtle as it sounds. Finland retained much sympathy in the West and America was never at war with Finland

During this war. Dr. Kekkonen tempered his views on patriotism. He saw that Germany would not win and decided that Finland would gain nothing from “heroic suicide.” From then on he advocted peaceful co-existence with Russia. 1948 Treaty

No-one knows the value of Dr. Kekkonen better than Nikita Khrushchev. Through

Dr. Kekkonen Russia can exercise all the control over Finland she needs while still boasting of respecting Finland’s neutrality. This latest pressure was exerted under the legal cloak of the 1948 Treaty of Friendship and Mutual Assistance. Finland was due to have an election next summer anyway. Solving an international crisis and putting the issue before the country without delay would not impair Dr. Kekkonen’s position. A fact of which Mr Khrushchev would not be unaware.