Finnish solidarity with South Africa: A Unique Case

By Timo-Erkki Heino

 

 

South Africa policy was - and has remained - sui generis, the only one of its kind in the field of Finnish foreign policy.[1] The few pressure groups who ever considered affecting Finnish foreign policy have generally failed to achieve anything more than marginal impact. Through the years those who direct Finnish foreign policy have been able to do so quite unaffected by outside influence. However, with one exception: in South Africa policy non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and solidarity actions had an outstanding effect on the formation of the policy.

Major shifts in Finland’s South Africa policy occurred in 1966 and 1973, and culminated in the imposition of sanctions in 1987. All of these changes were expressly preceded by NGO action.

 

Finland’s South Africa policy was developed through the interaction of two major groups.

On one hand, there were the Foreign Ministry including the directors of foreign policy and officials who implement policy, and the representatives of Finland’s export industries. On the other hand, there were the NGOs comprising of solidarity groups, trade unions, the Lutheran Church, and political parties.

Through the years when apartheid was the issue, the objecti­ve of the Foreign Mi­nistry was to main­tain political and eco­nomic relations with the Republic of South Africa. The objective of the NGOs was to severe or break off these rela­tions to show solidarity to the victims of apartheid or through sanctions expedite political change in South Africa.

The Foreign Ministry’s objectives for economic and diplomatic relations with South Africa were publicly justified in the principles of the UN Charter and in the principle of foreign policy free of moral stands. Howe­ver, the most important explanation was Finland’s special rela­tions with the Soviet Union. According to this argument, if Finland were to take a moral stand against a given Western coun­try, Finland would sooner or later be called on to take a moral stand against the Soviet Uni­on. Yet, this was seen to be contrary to the country’s most vital na­tional security interests. Therefore: no moral stand against any count­ry.

 

In South Africa policy initiatives for stands and actions were originated by the NGOs. They then found their way into the political agenda through youth and students’ organizations of various political par­ties. The parties themselves then brought the initiatives into parliamentary discussion and – if passed - from Parliament to be implemented as part of foreign policy. The Parliament and political parties acted as due inter­me­diaries between NGOs and the Government and the Foreign Mi­nistry.

However, in accordance with the Constitution of the time, Parliament’s decisions were only to be considered as recommendations since final executi­ve powers in foreign policy rested with the President who had the Foreign Ministry at his disposal.

The South Africa policy is also an example of how NGO pressure and democratic decision making process can be contained. Each NGO action was met with a resistance from the Foreign Ministry, and persistently contained by the Foreign Ministry. When an NGO position was recognized for instance by decisions taken in the Parliament, the Ministry almost always found ways to co-opt or nullify the position.

 

Three types of NGOs played the major role on the South African issue: the Lutheran Church, the trade-union move­ment and anti-apartheid pressure groups.

Finland’s Lutheran missionaries working in Ovam­boland and Namibia had long had first-hand experience of life under apartheid. By the mid-1960s missionary workers were beginning to sympathize with Namibian opposition to the South African regime. However, the church was rather reluctant to campaign on a large scale against the South African government, because public cam­paigns were thought to put the missionary acti­vities in Nami­bia at risk. It was not until the mid‑1980s that the church began to campaign against apar­theid.[2]

The first NGOs in Finland to actually instigate public action against South Africa were trade unions. The Finnish Seamen’s Union and the Transport Workers’ Union acted with boycotts against South African goods in the early 1960s and, again, in the mid‑19­80s.

The anti-apartheid pressure groups in Finland were usually formed in reaction to incidents in South Africa and out of dissatisfaction with the Finnish Government’s subsequent stands on the apartheid issue. In many cases they were modeled after corresponding groups in the other Nor­dic countries.

The student South Africa Com­mittee was established in 1965 out of dissatisfaction with Finland’s behavior in the UN. In 1971 the Africa Committee was esta­blished with the specific mission to get official development aid extended to liberation movements in Southern Africa. The ”Isola­te South Africa Cam­paign” was established in 1983 to lobby for the imposition of economic sanctions against South Africa.

One significant feature in NGO action was that once the pressure group succeeded in reaching its particular goal, its activities usually subsided quickly.

 

1960-1966: In the shadow of Sharpeville

The Sharpeville shootings in March 1960 shocked the world and aroused solidarity actions throughout the world, even in Finland, if a little belatedly.

 

In 1963, Finnish NGO acti­vity on the South African question awakened for the first time. In October 1963 the Federation of the Transport Workers’ Unions (Kuljetusalan Ammattiliittojen Federationi) and its major member union, the Finnish Seamen’s Union (Merimies-Unioni), headed by the legendary trade union leader, Niilo Wälläri, star­ted a bo­ycott of South African ships and goods in Finnish har­bors. The boycott had been inspired on the initiatives by the interna­tional trade union-movement and by the National Union of Finnish Stu­dents (Suomen ylioppilaskuntien liitto).

However, the boycott was called off practically before it started. Only one ship, the Swedish-registered m/s Vingaren was actually boycot­ted. The boycott decision was reversed when the Department for External Econ­omic Relations of the Foreign Ministry and the Finnish Foreign Trade Associa­tion drew attention on the difficulties the boycott would bring for the export industry and its workers. Ac­cording to Wälläri, however, the boycott had been a war­ning to importers to reduce imports from South Africa.

 

At the UN General Assembly in 1965 the South African question was placed on the agenda once again. As on earlier occasions Finland abstained while 80 countries, including Sweden and Denmark, voted for the resolution condemning the South African government.

Finland’s reason for abstaining was that the determination of a threat to internation­al peace and security, as well as sanctions, were only within the com­peten­ce of the Security Council, not the General Assem­bly.

This time Finland’s abstaining stance received strong criticism at home. The newspaper Suomen Sosiali­demok­raatti, a media organ of the social democrats, who were in opposition at the time, reacted with an editorial entitled ”White Finland’s Line” which asserted:

Little white Finland is now courting South Africa’s favor in order to save its commercial interests and business­ relations with the white minority rulers of that country. In our view this constitutes a great sha­me, but that shame rests only with the bourgeoisie of our cou­ntry and the infamous Government.[3]

 

Boycotting Lumumba

The criticism was followed by the first serious - and successful - attempt by the Finnish NGOs to influence the Finnish South Africa policy. In January 1966 the boycott on South African goods was reactivated by Niilo Wälläri and the Federation of Transport Workers’ Unions. This time the boycott was directed specifically at alcoholic bevera­ges of South Afri­can origin. The bo­ycott forced Finland‘s state-owned alcohol mono­poly, Alko, to can­cel its orders from South Africa.[4]

To direct the boycott against a state-owned enterprise was an effort to directly influence the Government’s South Afri­ca policy. In an official letter to the Government, the trade unions demanded that Finland join the overwhelming UN majo­rity cal­ling for sanctions a­gainst South Africa. It went on to request that state agencies and state-owned companies refrain from South Afri­can imports.[5]

 

Following interna­tional models the South Africa Commit­tee (Etelä-Afrikka toimikunta) was esta­b­lished in 1965. The committee was supported mainly by stu­dent or­ganiza­tions, but cooperated with the Lutheran Church and trade unions as well. The student organizations of all the major political parties participated in the Committee at the time when the political par­ties themselves were deeply divided as to what stand should be taken on the South African issue.[6]

In November 1966, about a month before the South African question was to be again on the agenda of the UN General Assembly, the South Africa Committee organized an ”Anti-apartheid Week”. The objective of the week was to inform the public on racial discrimination in Southern Africa in order to get Finland and the Finns to oppose apartheid.[7]

 

The most important factor to influence Finland’s official position on the South African questi­on was the election victory of the left-wing par­ties in 1966, which resulted in the formation of a ”po­pular front” Go­vern­ment of the Left and Centre par­ties. The new social democratic Prime Minister, Rafael Paasio, stated in his UN Day speech:

The alarming developments in South Africa have publicly been called to our attention in recent months in a way which shows that citizen interest has increased. A kind of ”international awakening” has clearly taken place, especially among the Finnish youth.[8]

 

In December 1966 at the UN General Assembly the resolution on the South African question was adopted by a vote of 84 in favor, 2 against, and 13 abstaining. This time all Nordic coun­tries, including Finland, voted for the resolution.

With the change in the Finnish voting pattern, NGO interest in the South African issue was reduced – at least temporarily.

If among the NGOs was anticipated that voting for the resolution would also mean that Finland would take steps to actually curtail the economic relations with South Africa, that was not to be the case. The fact that the Finnish delegation voted for the reso­lu­tion did not mean any change in Finland’s actual poli­cy vis-à-vis the South African government and economic sanc­tions. The chan­ge was formal, a step towards a more fle­xible inter­pre­ta­tion of the UN Charter and the resolutions in question. Earlier the Finnish delegation had expressed its sup­port to the resolu­tions in its addresses to the General Assembly while abstaining from vo­ting for reasons concerning the compe­tence of the General Assem­bly. Now Fin­land showed its support by voting for the resolu­tions and expres­sed reserva­tions in the addresses.[9]

 

The position shift to condemn South Africa at the UN was brought about by the student South Africa Committee, trade union action, and an electoral victory of left-wing parties. However, the condemnation at the UN in no way affected actual trade and diplomatic rela­tions between Finland and South Africa, as was understood and emphasized at the Foreign Ministry.

 

The tran­sport workers’ boycott of alcoholic bevera­ges did last even after 1966, although the Central Association of the Finnish Wood­work­ing Industries, the Department for External Economic Relations of the Foreign Ministry, and the director general of Alko tried, on several occasions, to persuade tran­sport workers to aban­don the boycott. The South African ambassador to Helsinki did likewise, by ”almost by toadying up to” the union and by ”threaten­ing to take counter-measures.” But to no avail. Wälläri did not yield.[10]

In August 1967, Niilo Wälläri, the driving force behind the boycott, died. His successors were more willing to rethink the boycott strategy.

Partly on the basis of persuasive arguments – trade with South Africa benefits also Finnish seamen – by the Finnish business community, and partly out of weariness with the boycott, the Federa­tion of the Transport Workers’ Unions very disc­reetly called off the boycott of South African alcoholic beve­r­ages in 1970.[11]

 

In a significant move, Finland did announce in 1966 that it intended to con­tribu­te to the UN Trust Fund for South Africa, and actually made a US$ 10,000 contribution in 1968.[12]

H­owever, it would take seven years – and a lot of NGO action - before Fin­land was prepa­red to give direct hu­manit­arian aid to the liberati­on move­ments in Sout­hern Africa.

 

1967-1976: The Little League vs. The Gang of Doctors

From 1966 to 1970 domestic political underpinning of fo­reign policy was formed by the left-wing majority in Parliament and the ”popular front” Government, in which the social democrats and communists particip­ated after long periods of par­liamentary opposi­tion.

A move towards more active foreign policy was advocated by the younger generation. Many of them were interested in Third Wor­ld problems and held leftist views of the student radi­calism of the 1960s. According to them Finland’s foreign policy should be open to discussion, leftist in its ana­lyses and appro­aches, and more active policy for pea­ce.[13]

Consequently, the late 1960s witnessed the most intense debate on fo­reign policy in Finland so far. On one side were the Foreign Ministry’s top offi­cials, Presi­dent Kekkonen’s close foreign political confidants and aides with centrist or conservative views. Their opponents of the younger generation, primarily social democratical­ly orien­ted individuals at the beginning of their academic or political careers, labeled these officials as the ”Gang of Doctors” (”tohtorikopla”) or ”co­lonels’ junta” (”everstijuntta”). The media labeled the young adversaries as ”The Little League” (”nappu­laliiga”).[14]

The debate shifted even more towards Third World with the establishing of a special NGO association and publishing house called Tricont - as in Tricontinental - in 1968. Tricont turned out to be a hotbed of ideas, debate and actions against colonialism and imperialism as well as for national liberation movements in Third World.[15]

 

South Africa in Parliament

From 1960 to 1966 the South Africa question was handled only twice in Par­liament. From 1967 to 1978 the question was treated on 27 occasions. In 1971, 1973 and 1978 relations with South Africa appeared on Parliament­’s agenda four times each year. Throughout the 1970s debate focused on diplomatic relations. Concerns about economic relations remained rather limi­ted. Part­ly this was due to the debate between ”The Little League” and the ”Gang of Doc­tors”, which centered around the objectives of the fo­reign poli­cy and on the actions of the Foreign Ministry.

The initiatives in Parliament highlighted the importance given to the South African question but did not yield in any concrete results except in only one area: sports.

 

The sports connection

At the 1971 UN General Assembly, all Nordic countries voted for the resolution calling upon member states to refrain from sports contacts with South Africa. However, certain Finnish sports organizations continued to maintain contacts with South Africa and even partici­pated in a sporting event in Pretoria.

In 1973 in Par­liament attention was drawn to the fact that sports con­tacts still continued. Special weight was given to the matter by the fact that the written question was signed by MPs from all parties represented in Parliament.[16]

Minister of Education, responsible for sport affairs, replied to Parliament that parti­cipa­tion in the sporting event had been a mistake. The reoccurrence of such incidents should be avoided by all possible means in the future. The minister emphasized that the finan­cial support given to the organizations by the state constituted effective means to direct sports organiza­tions’ conduct. The state was in a position to withhold the support if the need should arise.[17]

After this initiative by the political parties, sports contacts with South Africa - apart from professional sports such as car racing and tennis - were discontinued. Sports contacts were the sphere where Finland effectively applied exten­sive sanctions against South Africa. This was possible due to the mar­ginal significance of the contacts.

 

Aid to liberation movements

Financial assistance to liberation movements was ini­tiated as a voluntary activity by NGOs, taken up by the political parties and, fi­nally, ended up as official measures taken by the Govern­ment and the Foreign Minist­ry.

The first significant assistance project was ”Opera­tion One Day’s Work” (Taksvärkki) organized in 1969 by the Union of the Secondary School Students (Teiniliitto) to collect educa­tional materials for the liberated areas in Mozambique. This fund-raiser was repeated in 1971. The collections brought in about US$ 110,000 and about US$ 180,000 respectively.[18]

A rather vivid public debate on the princi­ple of assisting liberation move­ments took place in connecti­on with these fund-raisers.

The political parties followed the example of the stu­dents’ organiza­tions. In 1970 the Social Democratic Party esta­blished the Interna­tional Solidarity Foundation, which dona­ted about US$ 1,500 to SWAPO the following year.

 

In 1970 the Africa Committee (Afrikkakomitea) was esta­blished in connecti­on with the Finnish Peace Committee, Finnish arm of the Soviet-dominated World Peace Council. The first objective of the Africa Committee was the extension of direct offi­cial Finnish develop­ment aid to the libe­ration move­ments.[19]

On the initiative of the Africa Committee an open letter was addressed to the Foreign Ministry in autumn 1972. The let­ter proposed that the liberation movements in the Portugue­se co­lonies should be included in Fin­land’s bilateral humanitarian development assistance. The pro­posal carried particularly strong emphasis because it was signed by all the political par­ties rep­resented in Parliament.[20]

 

Foreign Ministry officials - more or less following the ”Gang of Doctors”-line - opposed aid to liberation movements because there seemed to be a contradiction in giving aid to liberation movements while simul­taneously maintaining diplomatic relations with the governments the liberation movements were opposing.

To speed up the process an ad hoc working group was established in the Foreign Ministry in December 1972 to examine the liberation aid question. In contrast to normal procedure, the working group was mostly composed of experts from outside the Foreign Mini­stry represent­ing the Govern­ment parties.

The working group quickly came to conclusions that differed with the policy at the Foreign Ministry. Following the example of Sweden, which gave aid to libe­ration movements while main­taining diplomatic relations with the governments the movements opposed, and considering the human rights principles of the UN Char­ter, the working group saw no barrier to giving direct official humanitarian aid to liberation movements.[21]

 

Accordingly in 1973 the Finnish Government started humanitarian aid to the libera­tion movements recognized by the OAU. At first aid went to the libera­tion movements in the Portuguese colo­nies, later, in 1974 to SWAPO of Namibia and finally, in 1978 to the ANC of South Africa.[22]

Finland’s official aid to liberation movements was initiated by NGO fund-raisers and by actions of the Africa Committee. However, the Foreign Ministry did start humanitarian assistance to Southern African liberation movements first after the Ministry had become convinced that such aid had no effect on Finland’s ongoing diplomatic relations with govern­ments those liberation movements were opposing.

 

Already in 1969 a broad spectrum of public figures had for the first time demanded the Finnish Government to break off diplomatic and trade relations with South Africa.[23]

The decade-long debate culminated in 1976, heightened by uprisings in Soweto in June that year. In October Parliament almost unanimously required the Government to study the tightening of the sanctions policy.[24]

 

However, the Foreign Ministry succeeded in con­tain­ing this decade-long debate on ending relations with South Africa. By sharply raising the tone of Finnish criticism of South Africa at the UN the Foreign Ministry was able to portray Finnish foreign policy as strongly committed to an anti-apartheid course. At the same time the Foreign Ministry tied Finnish sanctions even more tightly than before to the bin­ding reso­lu­tion of the UN Security Coun­cil, a policy shift which went unnoticed by most of the Finnish public. The Ministry fully expected that the veto powers of Great Britain and the US would effectively obstruct any future UN action on the issue.[25]

 

By the late 1970s public and parliamentary interest turned away from problems related to the Third World, underdevelop­ment, and racial discrimination. The foremost members of ”The Little League” were grafted into the Foreign Ministry.[26]

 

1983-1987: Increase economic and political pressure

In autumn of 1984 pressure for change in South Africa began to mount again. Images of the South African police beating black people with sjamboks were broadcast and printed all over the world and aroused the outrage of the entire international community.

 

In Finland NGOs mobilized their forces and joined with the political parties in Par­liament to pressure the Finnish Go­vern­ment to take acti­on on the South African issue.

A new pressu­re group, the ”Iso­late South Africa Cam­paign” (Eris­täkää Etelä-Af­rikka kam­pan­ja, EELAK), had been established already in 1983 modelled after a similar Swedish organization, ISAK, founded in 1979. As an umbrella organization EELAK coor­dinated the activities of various NGOs, including the trade unions and the Lutheran Church. EELAK operations took off with the aggravated situ­ation in South Africa and became the new focal point for NGO efforts.

EELAK’s first major campaign was to circulate a petition demanding the breaking off of economic relations with South Afri­ca. The petition, signed by 26.000 Finns, was delivered to the Foreign Ministry in May 1985. Many church congregations had been active in collecting signatures for the petition.

 

Based on the NGO pressure Parliament took up the South African ques­ti­on again. In 1984 relations with South Africa had been trea­ted routinely in Parliament on four occasions. In 1985 the ques­tion was han­dled on 14 occasions. NGOs and Parliament took the initiative in Finnish South Africa policy by pushing the Foreign Ministry to move on the matter.[27]

The leaders of Finnish foreign policy continued to take a cautious and reserved stand on the South African issue. Foreign Minis­ter Paavo Väyrynen - Centre, President Kekkonen’s former protégé and a junior version of the ”Gang of Doctors” - stated unequivocally in April 1985 that Finland will engage in economic sanctions only on the binding decision by the UN Security Council.[28]

However, with increasing domestic pressure from Par­liament and the NGOs, the Finnish Fo­reign Ministry finally reacted, at first with volun­tary mea­sures, such as negotia­tions with the business com­munity, then with Govern­ment-level decisions, after that with legislative measures on relatively minor aspects of South Africa relations and, finally, with the official trade embargo.

 

In February 1985 Sweden tightened its 1979 law res­tricting new investment in South Africa. Denmark did likewise in June 1985, and later withdrew its consular envoy from Pretoria. Norway started to license all imports from South Africa in August 1985. To bring Finland into line with the other Nordic count­ries, the Foreign Ministry in August 1985 started to prepare a law prohibiting Finnish investments in South Africa. For the time being no Finnish investments in South Africa did exist nor were they planned.

 

In his speech on Namibia Day in August 1985 the Lutheran Archbishop of Finland, John Vikström, accused the Finnish Government of hypocrisy and inactivity on the South African issue when it restricted its ”actions only to forbid things that nobody had actually done”.[29] Since a vast majority of Finns are - at least nominal­ly - Lutheran, the Foreign Ministry had to give serious consi­dera­tion to the church’s critique of Finland’s offi­cial South Africa policy. The church’s provoking divergence from official foreign policy led to informal dis­cussions bet­ween Foreign Minister Väyrynen and the church leaders.

The debate concerning the role of morality in foreign policy continued in the autumn when the Archbishop and the Church Council for Foreign Affairs (Kirkon ulkomaanasiain neuvosto) proposed that the Government implement a trade embargo against South Africa. A simultaneous appeal by the Lutheran Church to 60 Finnish companies to end trade with South Afri­ca failed to generate a big response. In a typical reaction, Fredrik Castrén, CEO of the Kymmene Corpora­tion, replied:

”I don’t regard the Church as any sort of a negotiation partner in these matters”.[30]

 

Something more can be done

Finally in October 1985 the NGOs took decisive action on ec­onomic rela­tions between Finland and South Africa. On 20 October 1985 the Finnish Transport Wor­kers’ Union (Auto- ja Kuljetusalan Työnteki­jäliitto, AKT) in a highly unexpected move started its boycott of goods being shipped to and from South Afri­ca. The boycott effective­ly stopped all direct trade between Finland and South Africa.[31]

Risto Kuisma, chairman of the Transport Workers’ Union, known to be a somewhat loose cannon in the trade union-movement, however, whose input was crucial for the implementation of the boycott, argued for the action:

“International solidarity has been mentioned in the trade unions’ programs for a hundred years. If it is written in the program, then something also should be done. One cannot simply write manifes­tos against the South African government knowing all the time that something more could be done”.[32]

The action taken by the Transport Workers’ Union was supported by the Central Or­ganization of the Finnish Trade Unions (Suomen Ammattiliittojen Keskusjärjestö, SAK). The Central Organization regretted that the mea­sures by the Govern­ment to stop the trade had been so slow. Other trade unions joi­ned the trans­port workers in actions against South Africa. Even postal traffic bet­ween Fin­land and South Africa was cut off for a fort­night in No­vember 1985 by the boycott of the Postal Workers’ Uni­on. The acti­on of the Finnish transport workers received even interna­tional attention.[33]

 

The Finnish Government had mixed feelings about the boycott. The social democratic ministers favored the boycott reflecting the advantage gained by letting the trade boycott be carried out by the trade unions. Finland could be seen as taking action even though the Govern­ment itself was absolved of any responsibility for the action and therefore the Government could then not be taken to task for violation of international agreements.

The Centre party ministers were explicitly against the boycott. Foreign Minister Paavo Väyrynen stated in Parliam­ent­:

“If these boycotts continue, they are going to worsen the employment situation and cause losses to very many workers and their fami­lies...These boycotts will have no effect on the Republic of South Africa, if the example is not followed by the trade unions in other countries...This well-intentioned effort seems unfortunately to have come to nothing”.[34]

 

After the trade had been stopped in practice, and based of the renewed Nordic programme of action approved in October 1985, the Finnish Government in November 1985 introduced to Parliament the Act on Certain Measu­res Directed at South Afri­ca.[35] The act banned economic transac­tions, investments as well as loans and guarantees to South Africa, which were either non-existent or of marginal importance. Trade was not included in the act.

All direct trade bet­ween Finland and South Africa had been effectively stopped by the transport workers’ boycott. However, indirect trade via third countries did continue. In June 1986 the Government officially appealed to the organizations representing business community to urge their mem­ber enterprises to imme­diately terminate all direct and indi­rect trade with South Africa. The measure was preceded by the threat by the Transport Workers’ Union to widen their boycott to include all the exports of the companies found to continue their export indirectly to South Africa.[36]

 

The US Congress decided in October in 1986 on limited trade sanctions against South Africa. Laws prohibit­ing trade with South Africa went into effect in Den­mark in December 1986 and in Norway in March 1987. In March 1987 the Swedish Go­vernment intro­duced a similar bill in its parliam­ent. At the meeting of the Nordic Foreign Ministers in March 1987 it was stated that a Nordic trade boycott would soon become a reali­ty. Finland, as the last of the Nordic countries, introduced official boycott legisla­tion in May 1987.

Technically, the act was an amendment to the previous South Africa act. The new act prohibited all export of goods from Finland to South Africa and Namibia, and all import to Finland of goods originating from South Africa or Namibia.[37]

 

After the passage of the 1987 South Africa Act, the interest of Finnish NGOs and Parliament focused on indi­rect trade bet­ween Finland and South Africa. The Fin­nish Go­vern­ment adhe­red to the strictly for­mal interpre­tation of the law. Even in cases where indirect trade had obviously occurred, no measures were taken as the letter of the law had not been formally violated.

Boycotts against a given country, company or products are not uncommon practice in the international trade union movement. Boycott actions tend to be limited, short-lived and, at best, to have a very limited influence. In this respect, the South African trade boycott by the Finnish Transport Workers’ Union was very exceptional even by international standards. The action taken by the transport workers lasted long, achieved its goal and was able to change the course of Finland’s foreign policy.[38]

 

Surprising change

In South Africa things started to change. In February 1990 President F.W. de Klerk in surprise move an­nounced the unbanning of the ANC and other organizations and the release of Nelson Mandela and the repeal of the main apartheid laws by mid-1991. Further, Namibia, the focus of Finnish missionary activity, gained independence on 21 March 1990—an extremely important event from the Finnish point of view.

 

Finland was quick - quicker than other Nordic countries – to react to the changed circumstances in South Africa. In a surprisingly swift move the Finnish Government decided on 27 June to lift trade sanctions against South Africa. The decision went into effect on 1 July 1991.[39]

A legal technicality made it permissible to lift the trade embargo simply with a decision in the Government. This avoided having to handle the matter in Parliament. The opportunity was utilized by Foreign Minister Paavo Väyrynen and the Government.

The public discussion that followed the ending of the trade embargo was far less intense than the pre-sanctions debate. MPs from the Left-Wing Alliance (former People’s Democrats) and the Greens expressed their opposition to the decisi­on. The Church Council for Foreign Af­fairs voiced its opinion that sanctions should have been lifted only when the changes in South Africa were irreversible. The Central Or­ganization of the Finnish Trade Unions and the Trans­port Workers’ Union, stated that trade unions’ boycott would continue regardless of the Government’s decision.

Risto Kuisma, Chairman of the Transport Workers’ Union, stated that the boycott would only be ended when South African trade unions and black opposition organizations let it be known that sanctions were no longer needed.[40] Accordingly, the transport workers ended their boycott in February 1992 on the basis of the positive developments in South Africa.[41]

 

25 years of solidarity

Official Finnish South Africa policy was influenced by the posi­tions of other UN member states and, most importantly, by the views of the other Nordic countries. Actual policy shifts, however, stemmed from NGO action.

The Foreign Ministry sought to avoid concrete legislative action as long as possible. In the mid-1980s the Foreign Ministry at first proceeded with measures of a voluntary nature. These included appeals to the business community and decisions by the Government to cease transactions which, even by the Government’s own admission, were either non-existent or sporadic in nature.

However, with the persistence of the NGOs and the effectiveness of the trade union action, started already in 1963, Finland in 1987 had to follow the exam­ples of the other Nordic countries, influenced by their own NGOs, and terminate trade with South Afri­ca by law.

As his personal motivation to act on the South African issue Risto Kuisma, Chairman of the Transport Workers’ Union, cited André Brink:

”There are two types of lunacy: firstly that you think you can do everything and secondly that you think that you cannot do anything”.[42]

 

 

Sources

Archives

Information Center of the Church

Arkkipiispa Vikströmin puhe [Archbishop Vikström’s speech], “Suomen moraalista on kysymys” [It is a question of Finland’s morals], 26 August 1985

Ministry for Foreign Affairs

Lehdistötiedote [press release], 3 April 1973

 

Published Original Sources

Muistio Portugalin siirtomaista [Memorandum on the Portuguese colonies], Tricont no. 7/1972

SK, Suomen Säädöskokoelma [Code of Decrees of Finland] 1985, 1987, 1991. Helsinki 1986, 1988, 1991

ULA, Ulkopoliittisia lausuntoja ja asiakirjoja [Statements and documents on foreign policy] 1966. Helsinki Ulkoasiainministeriö [Ministry of Foreign Affairs], 1967

VP ak, Valtiopäivien asiakirjat [Parliamentary documents] 1973, 1985. Helsinki 1974, 1986

VP pk, Valtiopäivien pöytäkirjat [Parliamentary records] 1976. Helsinki 1977.

 

Newspapers And Periodicals

Helsingin Sanomat, Helsinki

Iltalehti, Helsinki

Merimies, Helsinki

Suomen Sosialidemokraatti, Helsinki

Uusi Suomi, Helsinki

Ylioppilaslehti, Helsinki

 

Literature

Bergholm, Tapio: Kovaa peliä kuljetusalalla. Kuljetusalan ammattiyhdistystoiminta vuosina 1960-1990 [Rough play at the transport sector. Trade union movement at the transport sector in 1960-1990], Helsinki: Otava, 2000.

Bergholm, Tapio: ”Ay-liike ulkopolitiikan tekijänä. AKT ja Etelä-Afrikan boikotti” [Trade union movement as foreign policy formulator. Transport Workers’ Union and the boycott of South Africa], Ulkopolitiikka no. 3/ 2001.

Brodin, Katarina: ”Quo vadis, Finlandia”, Internationella studier no. 4/ 1973.

Brodin, Katarina: ”Debatt om Finlands neutralitet” [The debate on Finnish neutrality], Finsk Tidskrift no. 8/ 1974.

Hanlon, Joseph and Omon, Roger: The Sanctions Handbook, Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1987.

Heino-Timo-Erkki: Politics on Paper. Finland’s South Africa Policy 1945-1991. Uppsala: Nordiska Afrikainstitutet, 1992.

Kontro, Ari: ”The Finnish Mission Society's ‘Political Image’ of Afri­ca”, Scandinavian Journal of History, Vol. 4/ 1979.

Kuisma, Risto: Tilinpäätös [Closing of the books], Jyväskylä: Gummerus, 1994

Lipponen, Paavo: ”Nuoren polven ulkopolitiikka” [The foreign policy of the younger generation], Ulkopoli­tiikka no. 3/ 1966 (a).

Lipponen, Paavo: ”Suomen ulkopolitiikan tulevaisuuden näkymät” [The future vision of Finland’s foreign policy], Yli­op­pilasleh­ti, 18 November 1966 (b).

Lipponen, Paavo: ”Lapualaisoopperasta Nappulaliigaan eli Kuinka radikalismi kesytettiin” [From the Lapua Opera to the Little League or the Taming of Radicalism], Kuvastin no. 3/1985.

Soiri, Iina and Peltola, Pekka: Finland and National Liberation in Southern Africa, Stockholm: Nordiska Afrikainstitutet, 1999.

Törnudd, Klaus: Suomi ja Yhdistyneet Kansakunnat [Finland and the United Nations], Helsinki: Tammi, 1967.

Wälläri, Niilo: Antoisia vuosia. Muistelmia toiminnasta am­mattiyh­dis­tysliikkeessä [Rewarding years. Memoirs from work in the trade union movement], Helsinki: Weilin & Göös, 1967.