Keskustelu kansainvälisestä maineesta ja turvallisuudesta: Suomi ja Japanin ero Kansainliitosta 1933

Abstrakti

In the spring of 2024, Finland had many discussions about securing the eastern border against Russia’s possible attempts to influence it. In connection with that were concerns about how the new law might conflict with the constitution and international agreements regarding asylum seekers. In other words, the question was how to balance international agreements and the contradiction created by national security.

This type of security policy discussion seeking balance related to conflicts of interest is by no means new in Finnish history. As an example, I will examine the process when the League of Nations discussed Japan’s aggressive foreign policy on the Asian continent from 1931 to 1933. In that, Finland had to consider the different emphases of national security in relation to international cooperation and reputation.

The handling of the question of Manchuria in the League of Nations forced Finland to take an official position. Finland had to vote against Japan, albeit reluctantly, because security policy at that time relied on the League of Nations. In addition, through England, concerns about important financial interests were also associated with the vote and were partly related to concerns about general international prestige and reputation. The counterweight was Japan’s possible support against the threat of the Soviet Union. However, it did not weigh so much that Finland would have abandoned its security policy based on the League of Nations. A line was drawn in which Finland could appear to be a united front with the leading states of the League of Nations and be part of the international regulatory system of the time. Thus, in that situation, the line of supporting international order and regulation was followed at the time. The case speaks well of how difficult it is, especially for a small state, to find a suitable line amid contradictions caused by international pressure.