What I like about Matti Vanhanen

This is part two in an on-going series where I list three things I like about a prominent Finnish politician. After President Tarja Halonen, this time I'll consider Prime Minister Matti Vanhanen.

1.) I like it that Vanhanen refuses to show emotion in public. During the Susan versus Matti court case he was kind of forced to talk about his feelings; his solution was to note that he has feelings, even though he doesn't display them - all said in the usual matter-of-fact way of his. Some other politician would whine about his travails to every available friendly media outlet. Vanhanen remains coolly detached in public, which allows him to maintain his dignity even after all those embarrassing situations.

2.) I like it that Vanhanen acts as a counterbalance to the extreme Centrists, by which I mean the forces within the Centre Party who are chiefly concerned with regional politics. The Centre has traditionally fared poorly in my personal cares-about-people-like-me sweepstakes, seeing as I don't produce food and live in a growing southern city. In that regard, Vanhanen's leadership has been a step in the right direction.

3.) ...Huh. Er... He's not Anneli Jäättenmäki?

This is harder than I thought. I'll soldier on with Finance Minister Jyrki Katainen next.

Kemijärvi interpellation

The opposition - all parties are involved - will submit its second interpellation this Friday. It's all about the closing of Stora Enso's Kemijärvi factory, which according to the opposition the government should have opposed through its role as a major Stora Enso stockholder. As a result, Prime Minister Matti Vanhanen's rhetoric is getting a bit heavy-handed:

The prime minister asked why the opposition did not issue similar demands to pension insurance companies and the unions that held sizeable stakes in them.

"The world would be an easy place to live if only the state bought slices in all key companies and cooperated with pension insurance companies with their even deeper pockets in order to "rescue" all the jobs in Finland through decisions taken at annual general meetings," Mr Vanhanen said, underlining that his remark was sarcastic.

Sarcasm? I don't see any sarcasm.

In related news, Ilta-Sanomat reports (fi) that a drunken man, angry about Kemijärvi, pushed down Minister of Economic Affairs Mauri Pekkarinen in Kolari last Friday. The incident happened when Pekkarinen was leaving a restaurant opening around midnight.

Personally, I think the drunkard is lucky Pekkarinen didn't bite his ankle. (Because Pekkarinen is really short.)

Election reform hits a snag

The Justice Ministry's election reform committee, which was intended to finish its work in late March, has reportedly hit a bit of a rough patch (fi). Anonymous sources have accused the big parties of obstructionism, so this week the Centre Party's secretary Jarmo Korhonen, a member of the committee, laid down (fi) his party's proposal. He that the big parties were prepared to change the system so that the whole of Finland constitutes a single electoral area and there's a four percent national electoral threshold. The Swedish People's Party, which benefits from its regionally concentrated support and is currently barely above the four percent threshold, obviously opposes (fi) such a move.

Of the micro-parties, the Senior Party and the Liberals issued a joint statement (fi) in which they approved of the plan for a single electoral area, but said that the threshold should be larger than four percent. Instead they would like to see a two-percent threshold - which, for what it's worth, is still so high that both of them put together would have a difficult time clearing it.

Looking at the last ten parliamentary elections, on average 6.9 parties have received more than four percent of the vote and 7.7 parties have gotten more than two percent. No parties have fallen between four and two percent in the last three elections, but in the six elections before that, one or two regularly did. Fear of fragmentation is hardly an issue unless we assume that these results would change drastically. Of the current established parties, the Christian Democrats and the Green League spent several elections below four percent back in the day, but had MPs anyway due to regional support and beneficial electoral alliances.

I kind of like the idea of a single national electoral area, but I agree that four percent is too high of a threshold. There's no particular reason why the limit shouldn't be two percent.

Party chair member vote fever - catch it!

Centre Party secretary Jarmo Korhonen presents in Apila magazine (fi) his plan for electing the party chair. Korhonen would like to see a member vote that would be binding in the case that one candidate more than half of the votes. Otherwise the choice would be left to the party conference.

Turun Sanomat interviewed (fi) other party secretaries. National Coalition Party secretary Taru Tujunen thinks a member vote is a "very interesting idea." She claims, though, that the Coalition's party conferences are "so big that in fact everyone can attend." Green League secretary Panu Laturi notes that one in ten members already attends party conferences. According to Left Alliance secretary Sirpa Puhakka, "it's clear that the party conference decides," but that a member vote "isn't out of the question for example in ten years time."

Within the Social Democratic Party, Erkki Tuomioja, who set off this discussion, has found a supporter in potential rival candidate Jutta Urpilainen. As per her text message to Helsingin Sanomat (fi), "a non-binding referendum would be a good start" to increasing party members' opportunities to make a difference.

Presidential election procedure

Re constitutional reform, Aamulehti interviewed (fi) parliamentary Constitutional Law Committee members Kimmo Kiljunen (Social Democratic Party) and Kimmo Sasi (National Coalition Party). Lest my previous post on the topic leave the wrong impression about said gentlemen's opinions, I'll summarize what they had to say.

According to Kiljunen, the Social Democratic representatives involved with constitutional affairs believe that if the President's powers are taken away, electing the President should be left to the Parliament. Kiljunen said that he considers this to be the best alternative.

The article notes that the Social Democrats have traditionally demanded that the President be elected by the Parliament. After the last five presidential elections, however, it shouldn't take a genius to see that the election system is good for the Social Democrats due to the centre-right parties supporting their own candidates and the Left Alliance usually backing the Social Democrat in the race. Why would Kiljunen want to make an unpopular change that is likely to hurt his party's power? I wonder how widespread his kind of thinking is among the Social Democrats.

According to Sasi, the President should be elected through a popular vote, because "There's not yet enough confidence that some electoral college would select the sort of person the people want. And there's no reason to take the election away from the people, even if the powers are reduced." Sasi, too, favors stripping the President of her powers.

The logical options, I think, are a ceremonial head of state elected by the Parliament and a President with real powers elected by the voters. Sasi's argument about the potential for cabinet wheeling and dealing is silly; there'd be no point whatsoever in electing a controversial, unpopular figure to a ceremonial post. If the choice is left to the Parliament, I fully expect our future Presidents to be inoffensive establishment figures. It'll all become frightfully dull.

As far as other parties are concerned, the article says that the Centre Party is undecided, with the party base traditionally supporting a strong President. True Finns chair Timo Soini, who rarely misses these kind of opportunities, announced (fi) that he, at least, likes the current situation.

141 agreement

Finland and the European Union Commission have reached an agreement on the so-called 141 agricultural subsidies. The news was reasonably good for Finnish taxpayers:

Next year, nearly 94 million euros will be granted to farmers in southern Finland. By 2013, support will be just 62.9 million euros.

However, Less Favoured Area (LFA) subsidies will help compensate for the cuts.

During the first four years of the national subsidies, funds will decrease on average by 2.7 percent annually. In the final two years, support will be cut more drastically.

The Central Union of Agricultural Producers and Forest Owners (MTK) said it is very disappointed by the decision to cut subsidies. The union said pig and poultry farmers will be the most affected by the loss of support.

As expected, the EU Commission didn't buy the rather unconvincing argument that the 141 subsidies were meant to permanent. I wonder if it will still be dragged out of storage in 2013.

The LFA subsidies - wouldn't "More Favored Area" be a more accurate name? - are an interesting addition, but it seems that they won't cover the drop in the 141 subsidies. The 141 cuts will amount to about 30 million euros after six years. According to Alexander Stubb MEP (fi), the LFA subsidies will cover about 15-20 million euros of that.

More presidential polls

Re the presidential polls published in Apila, they've now come out with the numbers for the Centre Party (fi). As expected, Prime Minister Matti Vanhanen leads with 34% percent of support. He's followed by former Prime Minister Esko Aho and Jorma Ollila of Nokia fame, both at eigth percent, and then former (and future) Environment Minister Paula Lehtomäki and EU Commissar Olli Rehn at six percent. Anneli Jäätteenmäki MEP and Foreign Trade Minister Paavo Väyrynen are at four percent.

Interestingly, they also released some figures of where the candidates' support is coming from. Among Centrist, Vanhanen scored at 59 percent, Aho at 12 percent, Ollila at eight percent, Lehtomäki at seven percent, Rehn at three percent, Väyrynen at two percent, and Jäätteenmäki at one percent. I wouldn't have predicted that Väyrynen and Jäätteenmäki are less popular among Centrists than respondents as a whole. Conversely, Vanhanen and Aho are more popular among their own. Outside of Centrists, Aho is most popular among Christian Democrats and National Coalition Party supporters; Lehtomäki among Left Alliance and Green League supporters; Ollila among Social Democratic Party supporters and Greens; Väyrynen among True Finns supporters; Rehn among Coalitionists, Greens, and Social Democrats; and Jäätteenmäki among True Finns.

The Tampere daily Aamulehti published a poll (fi) on Social Democratic party council members' views. 38 out of 60 members responded and the winner was Governor of Bank of Finland Erkki Liikanen with 16% of first preference votes followed by former Prime Minister Paavo Lipponen at 11% - although Aamulehti asked the respondents to name three people and then gave points, which increased Liikanen's lead. Apparently the party council hasn't warmed up to Erkki Tuomioja MP. The respondents also backed party chair Eero Heinäluoma for another term; only five of them wished him to move aside next summer.

Latest polls on party primaries

...for the Finnish 2012 presidential election, that is. The Centre Party's web magazine, Apila (fi), has been publishing polls on who the most popular presidential candidates are in the major parties.

For the National Coalition Party (fi), the list goes Speaker of Parliament Sauli Niinistö at 55 percent, Foreign Minister Ilkka Kanerva at four percent, and a slew of people who have no shot in hell at three percent. There's no surprise here; it's generally understood that the Coalition candidacy is Niinistö's if he wants it.

For the Social Democratic Party, the rankings are Erkki Tuomioja MP at 20 percent, former Prime Minister Paavo Lipponen at 17 percent, former Left Alliance chair Suvi-Anne Siimes at 11 percent, and Governor of Bank of Finland Erkki Liikanen at eight percent. It should be noted that the respondents were not limited to party supporters. I'd imagine that Tuomioja has a larger lead among Social Democrats than the general public.

It would be interesting to see how a Tuomioja presidential run would pan out. He agrees with President Tarja Halonen about pretty much everything and Halonen enjoys broad popularity. Nevertheless, I suspect Tuomioja isn't nearly as acceptable to center-right voters as Halonen. Lipponen has said he won't run, which leaves the floor open for someone from the Third Way wing of the party to challenge Tuomioja.

Party chairs Eero Heinäluoma and Finance Minister Jyrki Katainen are at four and three percent, respectively. At least Katainen can say he's essentially tied for second.

Now all we need is a third poll to account for the Centre itself. I mean, Prime Minister Matti Vanhanen will be in the lead, of course, but who's second?

Vanhanen's approach in EU talks

A charge that surfaces whenever there's bad EU-related news is that Prime Minister Vanhanen (Centre Party) is a wimp who fails to properly stand up for national interest. Further, things would go better if only former Prime Minister Paavo Lipponen (Social Democratic Party) was still in charge. Lipponen, the theory holds, had awesome international connections and was active in all matters EU. (As far as I can tell, an "active EU policy" seems to mean that one actively pushes for decisions that will be made regardless of whether one supports them.)

Recently Vanhanen's performance in the 141 agricultural subsidy issue has been criticized and compared unfavorably to the doubtlessly much more positive results Lipponen would obtain. Now Lipponen has defended Vanhanen's approach:

Speaking on YLE's Saturday political programme Lauantaiseura, Lipponen noted that the 141 agricultural subsidy for southern Finland was only supposed to be temporary.

He said the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry Sirkka-Liisa Anttila and Prime Minister Matti Vanhanen have taken the right approach in talks with the EU, and deserve the full support of Parliament.

[...] [Lipponen] says Finland should not undermine constructive EU politics with threats, but try and negotiate a good compromise for all concerned.

The comments put a damper on the notion that this wouldn't have happened in Lipponen's time, I think.

Addendum: But Lipponen did say that the government and MPs should be more "active" e.g. in energy questions.

The 411 on the 141

The biggest European Union related story of the week was, naturally enough... agricultural subsidies. Something or other happened with some minor treaty, but that was inconsequential compared to the government's struggle to defend the so-called 141 subsidies, named after the 141st article of Finland's EU membership treaty (fi), that are paid out of Finnish taxpayers' pockets to the farmers of southern Finland.

Because such subsidies distort intra-EU competition - which makes them a form of protectionism - Finland needs the EU's permission to keep paying them. It obtained a temporary permission when it entered the Union. That was 15 years ago and now the EU Commission is starting to wonder just how long will the farmers of southern Finland remain temporarily hampered by EU membership. Last year close to 100 million euros was paid out. The Commission wants to either eliminate the subsidies completely or at least reduce them significantly, e.g. by 20 percent.

The Centre Party is, as you would expect, going slightly nuts over the issue. Several senior Centrists, most notably ex-Prime Minister Esko Aho and parliamentary Agriculture and Forestry Committee chair Jari Leppä, have suggested that the issue be tied to the ratification of the not-a-constitution in order to show the EU that Finland means business. Prime Minister Matti Vanhanen is opposed and the odds of this happening are slight, but it speaks of the central importance of agricultural subsidies to Centrists.

In the press our Nordic neighbors Sweden and Denmark have been singled out as opponents of the 141 subsidies and Leppä wrote a letter (fi) to the Swedish parliament. In it he mentioned all sorts of reasons for why agriculture in Finland is dependent on subsidies, none of which seems to have anything to do with Finnish EU membership. He even brought up the war. Lest we forget, the stated rationale for the 141 subsidies was easing serious difficulties caused by joining the EU.

By contrast, the so-called 142 subsidies, which are paid out to farmers in northern Finland and account for well over half of all national agricultural subsidies, are pretty much permanent. If the 141 is done away with, will farming in Finland be concentrated in the north of the country? That would be a rather perverse outcome.

Subsidies and protectionism

In a radio interview today, Prime Minister Matti Vanhanen opined (fi), "Of course a union of 27 member countries works on a different logic than a union of 15 member countries. In parts of the union changes have occurred in the logic of politics; protectionism is to some extent gaining ground in thinking, and that's in no way in Finland's interests."

The issue on which negotiations have been most difficult as of late is agricultural subsidies. Vanhanen as a Centrist defends them whereas many others in the EU want to cut them. In Vanhanen's mind, this shows that other countries don't want competition from Finnish agricultural produce. Defending subsidies naturally has nothing whatsoever to do with protectionism or national interest or any of those bad things.

Friday's Helsingin Sanomat had an article on some of the wrangling going on right now.

Interpellation vote

It went pretty much as expected:

The government front did not waver, bar a single MP. Paula Sihto (centre), the first deputy chairman of the council of the Union of Health and Social Care Professionals, abstained.

Sihto was on A-Talk last night (fi) together with Social Democratic chair Eero Heinäluoma, National Coalition MP Ben Zyskowicz, and Union of Health and Social Care Professionals (Tehy) chair Jaana Laitinen-Pesonen. The highlight of the show was a clip of Heinäluoma and a somewhat lost-looking Finance Minister Jyrki Katainen arguing over how much financial support Katainen had promised to municipalities during the election campaign, followed by the program's host asserting that Katainen got it wrong, followed by Zyskowicz arguing that the government had essentially done what according to Katainen no one had promised. It was all quite confusing.

Sihto's take on the issue was curious, too. She seemed to me to be arguing that the National Coalition Party is responsible for raising nurses' expectations too high. That's a fair viewpoint and one with which I agree up to a point. At the same time, however, she was backing Tehy's approach. Where's the logic in that? If Tehy members have unrealistic expectations due to politicians' meddling ways, it suggests that their expecations should be lower - the problem isn't that the offer was too small, but that it was turned down. But Sihto didn't take her argument to its logical conclusion.

Centre sour on EU sugar decision

Yesterday in Parliament, Prime Minister Matti Vanhanen criticized the EU commission in unusually harsh terms:

[Vanhanen] strongly criticised the European commission for what he said was an unfair reform of sugar production in the EU.

Mr Vanhanen said during question time in the Finnish Parliament that the commission had failed to be impartial and to take into account Europe's diversity.

He added this would no doubt affect Finland's opinion of the commission.

Startlingly, the prime minister did not even attempt to dress the issue as some sort of defensive victory, saying point-blank that Finland had lost in the negotiations.

Vanhanen needed to show his displeasure with the decision just for the sake of party morale. Agricultural subsidies are a huge issue for the rural Centre Party rank-and-file.

Although I don't like the Centre's pro-subsidies position, on this particular question Vanhanen and Agricultural Minister Sirkka-Liisa Anttila (Centre), who was also very critical of the decision, have a point about fairness. Finnish farmers already cut sugar production by 40 percent during the previous phase of reform. Now farmers in other countries which didn't do what they were supposed to do are being rewarded with higher incentives to stop production.

Super ministry to the rescue

The new Ministry of Employment and Industries - or Labor and Business, or whatever the final translation will be - will come into being (fi) next year. Trade and Industries Minister Mauri Pekkarinen (Centre Party) and Labor Minister Tarja Cronberg (Green League) held a little press conference to introduce the new ministry's organization (fi). In summary, quite a few people will be working there and a lot of money will go through the place.

As to the motivation for setting up the new ministry, Cronberg explained that currently unemployed people and work that needs to be done don't meet, but Mauri and she will change all that now that everything related to the process is under one roof. All that remains to be seen is whether they'll fix the problem by eliminating work or the unemployed.

From a party political standpoint, this is a bit of coup for the Centre. Pekkarinen, to be called the Minister for Industries or something like that, will be in charge of distributing a great deal of dough that's related to regional development. This is particularly desirable for the Centre as its support is quite regionalized. The project probably isn't entirely about patronage, but I'd be very surprised if that angle hasn't been considered at Centre party headquarters.

In other news, Pekkarinen revealed that he would have liked to have called it the Economy Ministry. He was puzzled why that name wasn't picked. (Because it's pompous, Mauri.)

Hot Häkämies chat on YLE

YLE's A-Talk (fi) is the leading Finnish political talk show - and just about the only political talk show around. The proceedings tend to be rather dry at most times, but yesterday's episode (fi) was more colorful than usual. The topic was Finnish foreign policy in general and Defense Minister Jyri Häkämies's (National Coalition Party) Washington speech in specific. The guests were Pertti Salolainen and Tuulikki Ukkola from the Coalition, Antti Kaikkonen from the Centre Party, and Kimmo Kiljunen from the Social Democratic Party.

That's an interesting party breakdown, what with three guests from government parties and only one from the opposition. I suspect the assumption was that Kaikkonen would take a critical view of Häkämies's speech. My impression was influenced by the seating arrangement which had Salolainen and Ukkola sitting one one side and Kiljunen and Kaikkonen on the other. As it happened, Kaikkonen mostly allowed the other three to bicker among themselves.

Kiljunen, whose rhetoric tends to rub me the wrong way even when I agree with him on an issue, clearly wanted Häkämies to resign, but couldn't bring himself to say it aloud. Instead he said that Häkämies should shoulder his "political responsibility", and kept repeating that phrase to comical effect when the Coalitionists pressed him on what he meant by it. He mentioned the possibility of an interpellation on foreign policy; the Coalitionists response amounted to "bring it on". When talking about EU forces, Kiljunen pointed out that they'd be like NATO forces, but without American troops. For some reason he considered this an argument for, not against EU forces.

I often have a tough time telling whether Ukkola knows much of anything about the topic she's discussing, although I'm never in doubt that she has strong opinions on it. This time she kept her comments brief as Salolainen did most of the talking. When Kiljunen kept asking what the government foreign policy line is in light of many Coalitionists' pro-NATO views, Salolainen argued that such views don't prevent Coalitionist MPs like himself from backing the commonly agreed upon government line. Neither Salolainen nor Ukkola expect the current government to apply for membership.

Salolainen made a pretty bizarre comment about how he'd like all EU members to belong to NATO so that European countries' weight inside the organization would increase, which he thinks would be needed because Americans have messed things up. Kiljunen made the obvious comment, wondering what the Americans would think about that assessment. Salolainen's response that they might like it probably didn't convince even himself.

The biggest disagreement between Kaikkonen and the Coalitionists came when the topic turned to the NATO Response Forces. Salolainen wanted Finland to make a decision next based on NATO's schedule. Kaikkonen said nothing definite, but gave the impression that he wouldn't be upset if the process took longer.

Rusi's list

This should provoke some reactions:

Lawyers working for Alpo Rusi, a Finnish diplomat and former presidential aide, presented a list of a dozen people who they claim had "maintained regular contact with officials of the German Democratic Republic's Helsinki embassy in 1969-77".

I'm starting to get the feeling Rusi has something against Social Democrats.

The full list:

Matti Ahde MP (Social Democratic Party)
Seppo Halminen (Social Democrat)
Matti Kekkonen, son of Urho (Centre Party)
Pekka Kuusi (Social Democrat)
Lars Lindeman (Social Democrat)
ex-PM Paavo Lipponen (Social Democrat)
Jouko Loikkanen (Centre)
Pentti Poukka (National Coalition Party)
Jukka Rusi (Social Democrat)
ex-PM Kalevi Sorsa (Social Democrat)
Ulf Sundqvist (Social Democrat)

NB: These people haven't been proven to have done anything.

More social than you

In recent days the leading lights of the government have been conducting something of a counterattack on the Social Democrats' insistent criticism of their social policies. First Jyrki Katainen had a go:

Jyrki Katainen, chairman of Finland's National Coalition party and the country's finance minister, on Tuesday pulled no punches in blasting what he said was the Social Democrats' "no-alternative, contradictory and yapping" opposition line. [...]

The SDP had said, among other things, that increases in certain taxes and charges would nullify improvements in the pensioners' role.

Mr Katainen rejected the critique, saying the increases in the prices of electricity, fuels and services would be covered by index-based rises in pensions.

Then Matti Vanhanen craftily invited the Social Democrats to defend his previous government's record:

Matti Vanhanen (centre), the prime minister of Finland, said Wednesday that the current Centre-Conservative government had produced clearly more social and equitable policies than had its Centre-Social Democrat forerunner.

[...] Vanhanen underlined that the draft budget contained increases in pensions and the student grant.

The prime minister spoke of a war veteran living alone in Kajaani whose pension and related additions would rise by 76 euros a month next year.

"That is something completely different from the mockery heard last legislative period over five euros," Mr Vanhanen added.

That's consensus politics for you: all sides pretty much agree on what should be done, leaving politicians to bicker over who has actually been doing it. In this particular case centre-right politicians are defending their commitment to equitable and social policies by pointing out all the income transfers they're implementing. Par for the course.

NRF debate

Helsingin Sanomat's Tanja Aitamurto gave a pretty good account of the debate over Finnish participation in the NATO Reaction Force. She closes the article with a plea for decision-makers to say something already:

There has been hardly any debate with any real vision. Of the large parties, only the National Coalition has tried to arouse debate with its clear stands on the NRF. The Centre and the Social Democratic parties have settled for their vague "let's wait and see, no hurry" arguments.

[Foreign Minister] Kanerva has again challenged other parties to express their views on participation in the NRF forces. Might someone now stand up to the challenge and answer yes or no - clearly, publicly, and possibly even giving good reasons - to the wooing of the NRF?

Well, it's important to understand that we can stand up at any time or, indeed, not stand up at all if we so choose, so we should carefully weigh our options. We should be fully aware of what we're getting into with regard to standing-up-related activities. It is my unequivocal position we must consider all available courses of action and make the appropriate decision in due time.

Centre edited its own Wikipedia entry

You may have heard of the new Wikipedia scanner which allows you to search for Wikipedia edits by IP address and organization. Playing around with it can be great fun. For example, I found a list of edits made by someone with a Centre Party ("Suomen Keskusta Rp") IP address.

The entity behind the address wants you to know that the Centre isn't right-wing or conservative. He apparently disapproves of (admittedly subjective) analysis of Centre's attempts to find support in cities. The user has also found time to tell Wikipedia about the positive properties of wood fuel, the usage of which the party promotes, and to note that the Estonian Centre Party is socially liberal.

The problem here is so much the content of the edits - although I think some of them were questionable - as who's doing them. The conflict of interest is obvious. It's not difficult to come to the conclusion that a Centre Party official would have political reasons to highlight the party's centrism and liberalism at the expense of its conservative side.

I also searched for edits made from IP addresses belonging to the other main parties, but didn't find anything - maybe you'll have better luck. It should also be noted that I'm not the only one to notice this (fi).

Niinistö on self-sufficiency

Speaker of Parliament Sauli Niinistö (National Coalition Party) thinks (fi) Finland should become more self-sufficient in energy and agriculture. That would mean higher agricultural subsidies, but "self-sufficiency is worth paying a little." He predicts that due to China's rise global competition for energy and natural resources will intensify, and Finland should prepare itself.

I have to say I'm not convinced by Niinistö's analysis. Energy self-sufficiency would be nice, but is currently far off. Agricultural self-sufficiency seems damned pointless in the age of the European Union. If it's good for anything, then surely its benefits include the opportunity to buy agricultural produce from countries in which the climate is better suited for that sort of thing.

Niinistö's problem is that any thoughts he might want to offer on agriculture will inevitably be seen in light of the 2012 presidential election. I'd be surprised if a large majority of people who read the linked article didn't consider the possibility that he's trying to ingratiate himself to farm-subsidy-loving Centre Party voters.

Update: Here's an English version of the linked article.