Eugene Holman wrote:
> In article <ddfr-0B755E.10481316082008@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, David
Friedman
> <ddfr@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> <deletions>
>> An interesting account, and for all I know a correct one. But it still
>> leaves unexplained the particular feature I mentioned in my post.
>> Wouldn't the arrangement have still been in the interest of both
parties
>> if the barter trade had been on terms no worse for the USSR than what
>> they could have gotten elsewhere?
>
> The USSR wanted Finland as a showpiece for its doctrine of peaceful
> coexistence. Thus it was willing to shoulder the losses that came with
the
> barter trade. Additionally, its centralized economy was geared more to
> five-year plans than to case-by-case trade. Profit was no their primary
> motive.
>
>> Indeed, wouldn't it have been still in
>> the interest of Finland on terms even worse than that, given the
>> alternative?
>
> Perhaps. But once the ball got rolling, neither side was interested in
> tweaking it.
>
The bilateral trade as it was with the USSR was commonly seen in Finland
also as a protective ****eld against menaces of capitalism such as
business cycles. Prices did not go up and down as fast as on the western
market and even seasonal fluctuations were milder. And payments from the
Soviet Union were always punctual up until the late 1980-s when the real
state of the Soviet economy became visible.
Incoming tourism is a good example. Groups of ca 40 passengers came
evenly all year around for tours of usually ten days with exactly the
same all expenses paid itinerarys. The Soviet tourist had practically no
money to spend due to strict currency regulations, but the big steady
volumes provided a good financial backbone for the Finnish travel
industry to develop their infrastructure in order to get more demanding
and better paying customers from the west. In the mid 70-s the volume of
incoming Soviet tourists ranked third right after Sweden and West Germany.
>> Or are you assuming that, once the system was going, Finland had a
>> viable threat of dropping the relation****p, joining NATO, and facing no
>> serious risk of a Soviet attack--and the favorable terms were necessary
>> to make that option not worth considering?
>
> The Treaty on Fried****p, Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance specifically
> precluded the possibility of Finnish NATO member****p. Neither did
Finland
> regard the USSR as such a threatening neighbor that NATO member****p
would,
> if it had been possible, brought it any advantages. Even today Finnish
> public opinion is solidly against NATO member****p.
>
One should also bear in mind what was happening with the western
markets. EC in the core of Europe was turning from a trade bloc into a
more political structure. The more loose EFTA disappeared gradually.
Exactly 40 years ago Nordek, an union similar to present day EU was
about to be formed between the five Nordic countries to deepen the
already significant Nordic co-operation in various fields (freedom of
movement, common labor market etc. already established in the 1950-s,
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_Council
)
1968 was an year of turmoil in Europe and one of the lesser known events
was the Finnish backing down right before the conclusion of the Nordek
treaty. Tough decisions had to be made. Looking back today the Nordek
goals have been met with the framework of EU. Soviet Union has
collapsed. It is pure speculation to ponder whether Finland would be
better off now having turned more to the west and less to the east than
what it did.
|
