Journal of European Integration History – Revue d'histoire de l'

Swedish Neutrality, the Finland Argument 69Another argument for keeping Norden together, frequently used by Lange, wasthe consideration of Finland’s exposed position. 14 Regarding Finland, Langeargued that the Nordic Market should come in first place, because they would notobtain Moscow’s permission to join the Free Trade Area directly. Therefore hewanted to avoid early decision in principle on the Free Trade Area suggested by theBritish. 15Finland was not as yet a member of the OEEC and did not participate in theMaudling negotiations. Even though she only joined the Nordic Council and theNordic Market negotiations in 1956, it is worth noting that from the very beginningit was taken for granted that Finland belonged to the Nordic club. At the inauguralmeeting of the Nordic Council in February 1953 the Finnish flag had been hoistedin front of Christiansborg and there had been frequent mentioning of that absentfriend; Finland was referred to in no less than half of the speeches. When Finlandparticipated for the first time in 1956, the President of the session, Bertil Ohlin,said:“We have felt as if a chair was empty, when Finland was not among us, the countrythat for centuries maintained Nordic law and culture in an exposed position. Nowour Nordic circle is complete.” 16Swedish Efforts to bring Finland into EFTANeither the Maudling negotiations, nor the Nordic Market plans succeeded, and thethree Scandinavian countries went for EFTA instead. In July 1959 when the decisionwas made to shelve the Nordic plans, the problem arose of how to handle Finland.To everybody’s surprise and relief the new Finnish Prime Minister Jussi Sukselainenintimated that if there would be no Nordic market then Finland too wouldjoin EFTA. 17 Henceforth from the beginning the Scandinavian governments aimedat Finnish membership. The British, however, were not at all happy about that.They objected that a Finnish adherence could lead to corresponding demands fromIceland, Ireland, Greece and Turkey, and they, everybody agreed, were to be heldoutside. To complicate matters further, Finland was not yet a member of the OEEC,14. However, in his memoirs ambassador Ingemar Hägglöf writes that behind the constant reference toFinland he could sometimes discern “the discomfort of the Swedish Social Democrat at having theSwedish economy tied to the freer market economy of the Continent.”, HÄGGLÖF, Drömmen,pp. 121-122.15. I. HÄGGLÖF, Drömmen, p. 128.16. Translated by the author. P. WALLENIUS, Finlands väg till Nordiska Rådet 1951-1956, Pro gradudissertation (unpubl.), Åbo Akademi 1996, pp. 39, 115.17. “(...) if the plan does not include political obligations nor provide for supra-national organs Finlandis not less interested in this plan than the other Nordic countries.” See K. TÖRNUDD, “Finland andEconomic Integration in Europe”, in Cooperation and Conflict, 1/1969., p. 64; and I. HÄGGLÖF,Drömmen, p. 199.