“Cross-border
cooperation is motivated by personal interests. - Who would do this, if not us?”
By Tiina Soininen
In
your dissertation you studied the cross-border cooperation in Finnish Russian
case. Your main argument is that civic neighborhood cross-border cooperation is
a bottom-up alternative to the official policy of European neighborhood. What
do you mean by this?
”With
the term ‘civic’ I don’t refer only to associations but also, and maybe even more
importantly, to all kind of civic activities that individuals take in relation
to the border and Russia. In the Finnish context this action most often is turned
into organized civic action because we tend to found third sector organizations
for every event. It is the traditional way in Finland. But anyhow, the cooperation
on civic level was established even before Finland joined the European Union.”
Laine explains the cross-border co-operation. He walks through his thought and
continues to explaining the EU framework for cross-border cooperation. “Then EU,
it has very forcefully, and also elegantly, promoted its actions in the border
region, but these argument cumulate from the geopolitical targets that seem
quite distant to everyday problems of the people who live in border area. The
empty phrases of EU don’t link up to individual needs.” Then Laine carries on
to final conclusion. “So, the cross-border action in practice is based on local
needs. It is people to people action. This creates a situation that is in line
with EU politics, but motivated by personal interests. It is very pragmatic and
rather distant from the power politics.”
But
it might be argued that these individuals are just a part of power politics
because EU funds these cooperative actions. If there hadn’t been EU funding
available, would the neighborhood cooperation be differently constructed?
“Actually,
I don’t think it would have made much difference. Many civil society organizations
in this area have had only little funding from the EU. Many have taken part in
EU funded contact forums etc., but a trip to St. Petersburg to see a theater
play or a ballet can hardly be called cross-border cooperation.” Laine defends
his argument and motions further. “For people this cooperation is a question of
real neighborhood. It is not a project! Neighborhood is constant, indifferent
to power politics. It needs to be maintained and nurtured. It is created by
people living next to each other and these people are tied together. They feel
companionship.”
What
do you mean with companionship?
“In
the interviews, that I made, I approached the question of individual motivation
from many different angles. There weren’t one all encompassing motive for cross-border
cooperation. But what stood out between the lines was that cooperation across
the border, especially with Karelia, was seen as ‘our duty’ or the respondents
would refer to the idea of neighborhood in terms of proximity. Often informants
also challenged me and asked back: “Who would do this, if not us?”
Is
it about charity, then?
“Well,
maybe in the beginning it was about charity, but it has changed into more
balanced co-operation where information, knowledge and other resources are
exchanged both ways. On both sides of the border the
individuals gain some new resources from the co-operation. Each actor has their
own targets and receive something that they aspire for. It
enriches peoples’ lives in many ways. They might start to understand different
cultures, they meet new people, they even meet their future spouses, etc.”
Laine smiles and sips the last of his coffee. “This then, of course,
corresponds to many social theoretical ideas, for example familiarity. People
get socially closer. Furthermore, it is then in line with power politics which
stresses for importance to diminish contradictions between people.”
‘Coffee break conversations’ is a series introduces research done in the Karelian Institute.
Ei kommentteja:
Lähetä kommentti