Wednesday’s papers: Nuclear Nato, banking bishops, and pandemic preparedness | News

The discussion around Finland’s potential Nato bid continues to be at the forefront of national news.

Helsingin Sanomat carried an article analysing some of the issues regarding Nato membership and nuclear weapons.

HS looked closely into the question of tactical nuclear weapons—nuclear weapons that are considerably smaller in payload than strategic nuclear weapons, intercontinental ballistic missiles, and designed to be used on the battlefield. The specific model in question was the United States’ B61, small enough to be carried by fighter jets.

Tapio Juntunen, a researcher specialising in nuclear weapons policy at the University of Tampere, reminded HS readers that Nato’s nuclear weapons policy is more than just technical.

“Nuclear weapons have symbolic value as they demonstrate the commitment of the United States in defending Europe,” Juntunen said to HS.

HS clarified that nuclear weapons would not come to Finland, unless Finland allowed it, even as a Nato member. Only five of Nato’s thirty members carry deployed US nuclear weapons—Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy, and Turkey.

Since the 1970s, the number of US nuclear weapons has dwindled drastically, but Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has brought Nato’s nuclear policy to the forefront.

HS wrote that politicians in Finland have been apprehensive regarding Nato hosting nuclear weapons, declaring that Finland should not allow nuclear weapons to be hosted within its territory.

Juntunen argued that Finland’s policy should be more open to hosting nuclear weapons, as their deployment is a core tenet of Nato’s deterrence policy. If Finland were to abstain from nuclear weapons sharing, other Nato member states may view them as freeriding off the alliance without committing to shared defence. However, other Nato members like Norway have signed the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which effectively means that the Nordic country does not host nuclear weapons nor participate in Nato’s nuclear sharing. Additionally, most of the Nato nuclear weapons are clustered in Western Europe, with no post-Cold War Nato members hosting nuclear weapons.

According to Juntunen, while deterrence is an effective strategy in nuclear policy, it is also important that these weapons do not fall into the hands of an adversary. Nato therefore places its nuclear weapons away from its frontier, meaning Finland is not an ideal host for nuclear weapons given its 1300 kilometre border with Russia.

“It is important that Finland is aware of Nato’s nuclear sharing programme and ready to agree to its principles. Finland must engage in a political debate on the importance of nuclear deterrence, including in relation to nuclear disarmament,” Juntunen added.

The finances of top church figures are often obscured behind tax records, so Iltalehti asked the church for their records.

The tabloid discovered that 16 bishops are paid salaries over 100,000 a year. Archbishop Tapio Luoma’s salary was reported as over 150,000 euros, the highest salary.

The Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland collects its funds through the church tax, which is levied on taxpayers who are also members of the church.

Iltalehti’s research also brought to light a discrepancy in the church’s finances. Some bishops were paid higher salaries and offered greater increases than other bishops. The Church had not been aware of this difference until Iltalehti questioned them on the issue.

Timo von Boehm, a labour lawyer for the Church attributed that to salary adjustments in 2015, when housing benefits for bishops were also altered. This affected salaries and their subsequent raises and had gone unnoticed as a human error for these past years.

While the salaries of Church leaders seemed high, von Boehm assured Iltalehti that the salaries were more equitable.

“The Church is definitely a fair employer. In the Church, the difference between the lowest and highest salaries is about three times greater. In large companies, that difference can be thirty-fold,” von Boehm clarified.

Covid took Finland and the world by surprise over two years ago, and Ilta-Sanomat (siirryt toiseen palveluun) asked Mika Salminen, Director of the Finnish Institute of Health and Welfare (THL), how he would approach the pandemic if he could go back and start again knowing what he knows now.

“In an emergency, we had to practically shut down all of society. It is not a good way to treat infectious diseases,” Salminen said in response.

IS asked Salminen whether or not the moderate Swedish approach taken by Sweden’s state epidemiologist Ander Tegnell was correct in its assessment of the disease.

“The issue is much more complicated in this respect. I don’t think Tegnell was right because he took too much risk without enough information. Therefore, the line taken by Sweden meant a big risk, which unfortunately also materialised, especially for the elderly,” Salminen said to IS.

One of the biggest improvements Salminen believes is in vaccine cooperation between countries.

“The development of vaccines should have been globally organised and agreed before the Covid pandemic began. That way, all countries would have received vaccines on time and there would have been greater capacity for the whole world. In this way, it would have helped avoid the spread of Covid,” Salminen told IS.

According to Salminen, Finland is currently considering a model for preparing for future pandemics.

“Efforts should be made to better prepare for all crises. For example, there has been a very unanimous approach to the situation in Ukraine at the EU level. The same should happen in the event of a health crisis,” Salminen emphasised.

Let us know what you think in the comments below. You’ll need an Yle ID to join the discussion, which you can sign up for here. Comments are open on a trial basis until 13 May, and moderated between 10 and 17:30 each weekday.