New Civic Neighborhood

Dissertations in Social Sciences and Business Studies No 58

JUSSI LAINE

New Civic Neighborhood

Cross-border Cooperation and Civil Society

Engagement at the Finnish-Russian Border

Publications of the University of Eastern Finland

Dissertations in Social Sciences and Business Studies

No 58

It-Suomen yliopisto

Yhteiskuntatieteiden ja kauppatieteiden tiedekunta

Joensuu

2013

Print: Kopijyv Oy

Joensuu 2013

Editor in-chief: Prof. Kimmo Katajala

Editor: BA Eija Fabritius

Sales: University of Eastern Finland Library

ISBN (bind): 978-952-61-1129-2

ISSN (bind): 1798-5749

ISSNL: 1798-5749

ISBN (PDF): 978-952-61-1130-8

ISSN (PDF): 1798-5757

Author: Laine, Jussi

New Civic Neighborhood: Cross-border Cooperation and Civil Society Engagement at

the Finnish-Russian Border, 461 p.

University of Eastern Finland

Faculty of Social Sciences and Business Studies, 2013

Publications of the University of Eastern Finland,

Dissertations in Social Sciences and Business Studies, no 58

ISBN (bind): 978-952-61-1129-2

ISSN (bind): 1798-5749

ISSNL: 1798-5749

ISBN (PDF): 978-952-61-1130-8

ISSN (PDF): 1798-5757

Dissertation

ABSTRACT

This study examines the actual and potential role of Finnish civil society

organizations in developing new forms of cross-border cooperation with Russia.

It puts forth the concept of civic neighborhood as a bottom-up alternative to the

official notion of EUropean Neighborhood. As the period to be analyzed begins

with the collapse of the Soviet Union, it covers the era during which Finnish-

Russian bilateral relations became a part of broader EU-Russia relations. The

formation of civic neighborhood is studied on the basis of two major empirical

primary datasets, of which one consists of interviews and another one of

published newspaper materials. The two datasets provide different, yet

mutually complementary perspectives on the phenomenon under study. It is

vital to study both perspectives as perceptions, since images of the other and

discursive relations are not mere results of cooperation practices but also and

more importantly their prerequisites.

The optimal way to normalize neighborly relations is to increase people-to-

people interaction, and preferably this ought to occur from the bottom up rather

than the top down. While state institutions and structures may contribute to the

shaping of the general operational environment, the maintenance of civil society

cooperation cannot be expected to rest entirely on the state. In light of the

current trends that reduce the funds allotted for cross-border cooperation on the

one hand, and the decentralization and privatization of public services on the

other hand, it would be fruitful to conceptualize a cross-border space for social

contracting and entrepreneurship through civil society organizations. This

would allow the civil society organizations to gain further leverage to fill in the

gaps created by borders and bordering, and to bridge the apparent intersectoral

crevasses.

Keywords: civil society, neighborhood, cross-border cooperation

Tekij: Laine, Jussi

Uusi kansalaisnaapuruus: Rajat ylittv yhteisty ja kansalaisyhteiskunnan

osallistuminen Suomen ja Venjn rajalla, 461 s.

It-Suomen yliopisto

Yhteiskuntatieteiden ja kauppatieteiden tiedekunta, 2013

Publications of the University of Eastern Finland,

Dissertations in Social Sciences and Business Studies, no 58

ISBN (bind): 978-952-61-1129-2

ISSN (bind): 1798-5749

ISSNL: 1798-5749

ISBN (PDF): 978-952-61-1130-8

ISSN (PDF): 1798-5757

Vitskirja

ABSTRAKTI

Tm tutkimus ksittelee kansalaisyhteiskunnan todellista ja potentiaalista

roolia Suomen ja Venjn vlisen rajan ylittvn yhteistyn kehittmisess. Se

nostaa esiin kansalaisnaapuruuden ksitteen alhaalta yls rakentuvana vaihto-

ehtona viralliselle ajatukselle Eurooppalaisesta naapuruudesta. Analyysiss

tarkasteltava ajanjakso alkaa Neuvostoliiton romahtamisesta ja ulottuu vuoteen

2010, min aikana Suomen ja Venjn kahdenvliset suhteet ovat tulleet osaksi

laajempia EU:n ja Venjn vlisi suhteita. Kansalaisnaapuruuden muodostu-

mista tarkastellaan tutkimuksessa kahden pasiallisen empiirisen primaari-

aineiston avulla, joista ensimminen koostuu haastatteluista ja toinen

sanomalehtimateriaalista. Nm kaksi aineistoa tarjoavat erilaiset ja toisiaan

tydentvt nkkulmat tutkittuun ilmin, joiden molempien tarkastelu on

trke, sill ksitykset, toiseuden ilmentymt ja diskursiiviset suhteet yleens

eivt ole vain rajat ylittvn yhteistyn seurauksia, vaan mys ja mik

trkeint niiden edellytyksi.

Optimaalinen tapa naapuruussuhteiden normalisoinnissa on ihmisten

vlisen henkilkohtaisen vuorovaikutuksen lisminen, mink tulisi tapahtua

ennemmin alhaalta yls kuin ylhlt alaspin. Valtiolliset rakenteet voivat vai-

kuttaa yleiseen toimintaympristn, mutta kansalaisyhteiskunnan yhteistyn

ei voida olettaa olevan kokonaan valtion vastuulla. Kun otetaan huomioon

viimeaikainen yhteistyhn kohdistettujen varojen vheneminen sek julkisten

palveluiden hajauttaminen ja yksityistminen, olisi kaukonkist ksitteellist

kansalaisjrjestjen avulla rajat ylittv tila sosiaalisille ja yhteiskunnallisille

sopimusjrjestelyille ja yrittjyydelle. Tll tavoin kansalaisjrjestt voivat saada

lis vaikutusvaltaa tyttkseen rajojen ja rajaamisen luomia kuiluja sek

kaventaakseen yhteiskunnallisten sektorien vlisi railoja.

Asiasanat: kansalaisyhteiskunta, naapuruus, rajat ylittv yhteisty

Foreword

Thisisaninquiryintocoalitionformingamongpeople,lesssoofthatbetweenstates. As a human geographer, I find it interesting to explore how peopleinteractnot justwith theworld around them,but alsowith eachother andhowthechangingworldimpactstheirbehavior.Butthisstudydeviatedgreatlyfrom its original premise. It combinesmy own interests in also internationalrelations,politicalsociology,andhistory,allofwhichoffervaluableinsightintothetopicathand.Thefocusoncivilsocietywaschosenforitsabilitytofunctionas a locomotive for cooperation, often overlooked by grand scale policyproposals,aimingtobringthetwosidesclosertoeachother.ThisstudyaimstounderlinethedynamicsfrombelowastheprocessofEuropeanintegrationis,afterall,aresultofcivilsocietypursuit.

The evidence of globalization is all around us, yet geography remainsoverwhelmingly important and so does history. Ones life is still largelydefinedbyhisorherplaceofbirthandwhereonechoses to liveafter that. Inmost cases, these two coincide asdespite increasedmobility surprisingly fewpeopleliveoutsidethecountryinwhichtheywereborn.Whilereasonsforthisaremultiple, it isclear thatbelonging toacertainnationhasacertainappeal.The territorial trap endures and endures, because people prefer confined,familiarspaces.Asacontainer,thenationstatehas,however,become leakyasthereareeverincreasingchallengestostateauthority.FollowingideasputforthbyRumford,thisstudymaintainsthatthefocusshouldindeedbeshiftedfromthestatetowardsbordersthatarewovenintothefabricofsociety.Itisborders,notnecessarilystates,thatarethekeytounderstandingnetworkedconnectivity.Borders are no longer at the edges, in the marginal. They have becomeimportant spaces ofwhere questions of identity, belonging, political conflict,andsocietaltransformationarediscussedandactedout.Thatiswhytheyhavealsofoundtheirwayintotheheartofpolitics.

I haveproven by actual trial that adissertation,which takes five years towrite, takesonlyabout threedays to read!Certainly, towritesome400pagescanbedonemorequickly,butIwasalwayskeentobelievethatonehastoknowhis or her topic before writing about it. This, however, presented anotherproblem.Themoreonelearns,themoreheorsheunderstandshowmuchelsethere is to learn. If I feelmore ignorant now thanwhen I commenced thisjourney,Imusthavelearnedagreatdeal.

Towriteaforewordforthisbodyofworkisallthemoredaunting.Iregretthat the lack of space prevents me from having the satisfaction ofacknowledgingallof thosewhohave, inawayoranother,given theirhelp in

putting this book together. I cannot, however, let this opportunity pass by

without expressing my deep obligations to the pre-evaluators of this

dissertation, Professor Vladimir Kolossov (who also kindly agreed to be my

Opponent) and Dr. Docent Pirjo Jukarainen. Your insightful comments and

suggestions for improvements have played a key role in turning my manuscript

into an academic dissertation.

With this dissertation, I attempt to bring to fruition a set of ideas planted in

my mind by my supervisors Professor Heikki Eskelinen, Professor Ilkka

Liikanen, and Professor Markku Tykkylinen, all of whom took care of their

respective duties in an exceptional manner. I thank you for having believed in

the merits of this study and providing the encouragement that has helped me

see it through to completion. Without your constant support and constructive

feedback throughout my doctoral studies, this dissertation would have never

been possible. I am also deeply indebted to Professor James W. Scott who has

not only been a great inspiration to me, but has included me in many of his

projects. Working with him has been not only beneficial, but also a great joy. I

am proud to be in such company.

I would also like to thank Dr. Martin van der Velde, from whom I have

learned a lot during the last years. My gratitude goes also to Prof. Jopi Nyman for

his valuable guidance. In order to mention all those who have helped me during

the course of these years would take another 400 pages; I trust that you know

who you are. I promise to thank you in person the next time our paths cross.

In addition to the multiform support provided by the Karelian Institute and

the Department of Geography at the University Eastern Finland, this work has

profited from generous financial support from the Onnenmki Foundation, the

Fulbright Center, the American-Scandinavian Foundation, the North Karelia

Regional Fund of the Finnish Cultural Foundation, and the Foundation for

Municipal Development. I also wish to acknowledge the Russia in Europe

Doctoral Program in Border Studies, coordinated by the Karelian Institute, which

granted me an ideal supporting frame for conducting my research a special

thanks to its Coordinator Dr. Joni Virkkunen for all of his help. My thanks go out

also to The Finnish Doctoral Program for Russian and East European Studies,

coordinated by the Aleksanteri Institute at University of Helsinki, and the

Institute for Regional Studies of the Californias at San Diego State University,

especially to its Director Dr. Paul Ganster for his kind help and assistance.

I wish to thank my beloved sons, Gabriel and Benjamin, who have taught me

valuable lessons about life and how to prioritize. Last, but certainly not least, I

wish to thank my wife, Kate, for her help in finalizing this work, but more

importantly for her unending patience.

Vantaa, May 11, 2013

Jussi Laine

Contents

1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 18 1.1 Prologue ............................................................................................................ 18 1.2 Research Design ............................................................................................... 22

1.2.1 Niche and Approach ................................................................................ 22 1.2.2 Research Objectives and Focus ............................................................... 27 1.2.3 Research Process and Methodology ...................................................... 29 1.2.4 Research Material and Its Use ................................................................ 30

1.3 Background and Context ................................................................................ 33 1.3.1 Finland and Its Neighboring Regions ................................................... 33 1.3.2 Shifting Significance of the Finnish-Russian Border ........................... 37 1.3.3 Russia: So Near and yet so Far ............................................................... 43

1.4 Structure of the Work ...................................................................................... 48

2 UNDERSTANDING BORDERS AND CROSS-BORDER

INTERACTION .............................................................................................. 50 2.1 Uses and Abuses of Borders ........................................................................... 50

2.1.2 Nations and Nationalisms in a Borderless World ............................... 50 2.1.3 Development of Early Border Studies ................................................... 56

2.2 Contemporary Views on Borders .................................................................. 59 2.2.1 Post-National Practices of Borders......................................................... 59 2.2.2 Borders as a Construct ............................................................................. 63 2.2.3 Pragmatist Reconfiguration of Borders ................................................. 67

2.3 Borderlands and Cross-Border Governance ................................................ 68 2.3.1 Defining Borderlands .............................................................................. 68 2.3.2 Modeling Borderland Interaction .......................................................... 70 2.3.3 Openness vis--vis Interaction ............................................................... 77 2.3.4 Reterritorialization and Regionalism .................................................... 78

2.4 Reconfiguring the International Domain ..................................................... 81 2.4.1 Multilevel Governance and Paradiplomacy ......................................... 82 2.4.2 International vs. Transnational .............................................................. 85 2.4.3 Building a Transnational Space for Action ........................................... 87 2.4.4 De- and Re-rooting Transnationalism ................................................... 90

2.5 Synopsis: Borders as Complex Constructions ............................................. 93

3 UNDERSTANDING CIVIL SOCIETY ................................................... 97 3.1 Debating Civil Society: Contested Conceptualizations and

Development Trajectories ............................................................................... 98 3.1.1 Classical Civil Society as Partnership of Individuals .......................... 98

3.1.2 Community with Virtues Derived from Natural Laws ...................... 99 3.1.3 Enlightenment Ideal and the Epistemological Centrality of

Morality and Reason ............................................................................. 101 3.1.4 Classical Modernity and the Distinction between State and Civil

Society ..................................................................................................... 103 3.1.5 Postmodern Civil Society as Basis of Democracy .............................. 106

3.2 Current Understanding: Defining the Research Subject .......................... 107 3.2.1 Plurality of Civil Society ........................................................................ 108 3.2.2 A Sector of its Own?............................................................................... 109 3.2.3 Social Economy ....................................................................................... 111 3.2.4 Whos Making Who? ............................................................................. 116 3.2.5 Strengths and Weaknesses of Civil Society ........................................ 118

3.3 Geography of Civil Society........................................................................... 120 3.3.1 State, Nation and Nationalisms ............................................................ 121 3.3.2 European Civil Society?......................................................................... 127 3.3.3 The Nordic Frame .................................................................................. 128 3.3.4 Civil Society in Finland ......................................................................... 131 3.3.5 Civil Society in Russia ........................................................................... 140

3.4 Synopsis: Which Civil Society? .................................................................... 149 3.4.1 State vis--vis Society ............................................................................. 149 3.4.2 Civil Society as an Arena ....................................................................... 152

4 EUROPEANIZATION OF COOPERATION ....................................... 157 4.1 Understanding European Union ................................................................. 157

4.1.1 Are We Rome Yet? ................................................................................. 158 4.1.2 A Non-EU Europe? ................................................................................ 163 4.1.3 Historical Context: What Form for a Union? ...................................... 165

4.2 Europeanization Theory or Practice? ....................................................... 170 4.3 Russia as Partner and Global Player ........................................................... 172

4.3.1 A Neighbor, a Partner or on its Own? ................................................. 172 4.3.2 Framework for Engagement with Russia ........................................... 176

4.4 Recontextualizing Civic Cross-border Cooperation ................................. 177 4.4.1 Technical Aid and Regional Cohesion ................................................ 178 4.4.2 European Neighborhood and Partnership ......................................... 180

4.5 Initiation and Institutionalization of Civil Society Engagement ............. 187 4.5.1 Civil Society Actors in Bilateral Cooperation ..................................... 187 4.5.2 Neighboring Area Cooperation and Civil Society ............................. 192 4.5.3 Euregio Karelia a Tool for What? ...................................................... 201 4.5.4 Northern Dimension .............................................................................. 203

4.6 Role of Civil Society in the EU ..................................................................... 208 4.6.1 Civil Society Organizations as Agents of Change ............................. 210 4.6.2 New Institutional and Discursive Practices in a Multi-level

European Frame .................................................................................... 212

4.7 Synopsis .......................................................................................................... 214 4.7.1 EUrope? ................................................................................................... 214 4.7.1 EU as a New Frame for Cooperation ................................................... 218

5 DISCURSIVE PRACTICES: RECONSTRUCTING THE IMAGE OF

A NEIGHBOR ............................................................................................... 223 5.1. Analytical Considerations ........................................................................... 224

5.1.1 Temporal Changes in the Image of Russia ......................................... 224 5.1.2 Newspapers as a Source ........................................................................ 228 5.1.3 Opinion(-ated) Journalism .................................................................... 229 5.1.4 Helsingin Sanomat Voice of truth within the Finnish society? ....... 232 5.1.5 Russia a Neighbor among Many? ..................................................... 238 5.1.6 Semiotic Meaning-Making .................................................................... 241

5.2 Images and Perspectives of Cooperation ................................................... 244 5.2.1 Post-Soviet Euphoria: Russia as a Neighbor in Need ....................... 245 5.2.2 EUphoria: Russia as our Neighbor ....................................................... 257 5.2.3 Tables Turned: Crisis and the Redefinition of Relations .................. 261 5.2.4 To Transform or not to Transform? ..................................................... 271 5.2.5 New Realism: Russia as a Contradictory Neighbor, but a

Necessary Partner .................................................................................. 290 5.2.6 Govern and Conquer: Russia as a Neighbor, Partner or on Its

Own? ....................................................................................................... 299 5.3 Russia in Helsingin Sanomat .......................................................................... 313

5.3.1 No News is Good News ........................................................................ 316 5.3.2 Russia as a Semiotic Sign....................................................................... 321

6 CIVIL SOCIETY ENGAGEMENT: INSTITUTIONAL PRACTICES . 330 6.1 Actors active in Cross-Border Interaction .................................................. 331

6.1.1 Thematic Focus of Cross-Border Interaction ...................................... 332 6.1.2 Cooperation in the Area of Regional Development .......................... 339 6.1.3 Examples of Cooperation in Entrepreneurial Development ............ 340

6.2 A Gendered Civic Sector? ............................................................................. 341 6.2.1 Finland: A Genderless Gender Sector ................................................. 342 6.2.2 Russia: Feminist vis--vis Feminine .................................................... 345

6.3 Double-Edged Europeanization .................................................................. 347 6.3.1 The European Union as an External Stimuli ...................................... 348 6.3.2 Europeanization and its Influence ....................................................... 354

6.4 Civil Society in Cross-Border Cooperation ................................................ 357 6.4.1 Asymmetrical Bases for Cooperation .................................................. 358 6.4.2 Why Cooperate? ..................................................................................... 362 6.4.3 Andrey Does Not Want a Barbie Backpack ........................................ 363

6.5 Environments for Civil Society and Social Economy Development ...... 366 6.5.1 External Funding Dependency and its Consequences ...................... 368 6.5.2 Processes of Social Learning ................................................................. 372

7 NEW CIVIC NEIGHBORHOOD ........................................................... 375 7.1 Borders for Whom and for What? ............................................................... 376 7.2 The Cold and the Beautiful: Image of Russia as a Partner ....................... 379 7.3 Civil Society Engagement in Finnish-Russian Cross-Border

Cooperation .................................................................................................... 384 7.3.1 What Role for Civil Society? ................................................................. 384 7.3.2 Self-sufficiency through Social Economy Development ................... 391

7.4 Epilogue: Something Old, New, Borrowed, and Blue .............................. 396

SOURCES ...................................................................................................... 405

APPENDICES................................................................................................ 456

TABLES Table 1. An index of friendliness towards Russia ................................................... 44 Table 2. The EU NUTS III border regions typology ............................................... 74 Table 3. Cross tabulation of positive connotation and sectors of writings ........ 320 Table 4. Main positives per period ......................................................................... 321 Table 5. Main signifiers per category ..................................................................... 324 Table 6. Main signifiers by article type .................................................................. 324 Table 7. Tone of analyzed articles, letters vis--vis editorials and op-eds ........ 328

FIGURES Figure 1. Total number of border crossings and the share of Finns at the

Finnish-Russian border 19892012........................................................... 34 Figure 2. Border crossings at Vaalimaa in 19582011 ............................................. 35 Figure 3. Finland and its neighboring areas ............................................................ 36 Figure 4. Share of Russia/Soviet Union/Russia in Finlands Foreign Trade

18602011 ..................................................................................................... 46 Figure 5. Territorial shape of Finland since 1323 .................................................... 55 Figure 6. A critical theory of geopolitics as a set of representational practices .. 61 Figure 7. Influence of the opening of a border on the increase in regional

systems cross-border interactions ............................................................ 70 Figure 8. A layer-model of networks and its alteration, a multilayer model

of borders .................................................................................................... 71 Figure 9. Four paradigms of borderland interaction .............................................. 72 Figure 10. A theory of borderland studies ............................................................... 76 Figure 11. A boomerang pattern ............................................................................... 89 Figure 12. Six processes of transnational contention .............................................. 92 Figure 13. A conceptual diagram of the third sector ............................................ 110 Figure 14. Two conceptions of social economy vis--vis market ........................ 115 Figure 15. Three sectors of the overall economy and their respective

economic principles ................................................................................ 115 Figure 16. Three sectors of the overall economy and their respective

way of managing the economy/modes of production ....................... 116 Figure 17. Four predominant modern polity models ........................................... 130 Figure 18. Memberships in voluntary organizations in Finland ........................ 139 Figure 19. Memberships in voluntary organizations in Russia .......................... 142 Figure 20. Civil society as an arena with fuzzy borders ...................................... 154 Figure 21. Gratuitous aid ......................................................................................... 193 Figure 22. Gratuitous aid for NGOs ....................................................................... 194 Figure 23. Total number of letters received and published by Helsingin Sanomat

19772010.................................................................................................. 236 Figure 24. Russia in Helsingin Sanomat 19902010 ................................................ 238 Figure 25. Russia in Helsingin Sanomat opinion pieces 19902010 ...................... 239 Figure 26. Russia in Helsingin Sanomat letters section 19902010 ....................... 240

Figure 27. Distribution of collected articles per year by type ............................. 241 Figure 28. Distribution of the letters included in the study according to

authors place of residence in 1990, 2000, and 2010 ............................ 314 Figure 29. The share of letters devoted to Russia of all accepted letters ........... 315 Figure 30. Sectors of opinion pieces by type of article ......................................... 315 Figure 31. Sectors per year in letters and editorials and op-eds ......................... 316 Figure 32. Sectors vs. tone ........................................................................................ 316 Figure 33. Distribution of tones 19902010 ............................................................ 317 Figure 34. Writings with negative tone on Russia. Letters vs. op-eds and

editorials ................................................................................................... 319 Figure 35. Tones by article type............................................................................... 319 Figure 36. Share of signifier categories ................................................................... 322 Figure 37. Sectors per main signifier categories .................................................... 323 Figure 38. Signifier categories by year.................................................................... 325 Figure 39. Signifiers per article type ....................................................................... 326 Figure 40. Signifiers categories per year in letters and editorials and op-eds .. 327 Figure 41. Tone of analyzed articles by sign category ......................................... 328 Figure 42. SWOT analysis of the CSOs role cross-border cooperation in

the EU era ................................................................................................. 387 Figure 43. Social enterprises at the border of the private sector and civil

society ....................................................................................................... 395

ABBREVIATIONS AC Arctic Council

BASTUN Baltic Sea Trade Union Network

BCCA Baltic Sea Chambers of Commerce Association

BEAC Barents Euro-Arctic Council

CAP Common Agricultural Policy

CBC Cross-border cooperation

CBSS Council of the Baltic Sea States

CEE Central and Eastern Europe

CEP-CMAF European Standing Conference of Co-operatives, Mutual

Societies, Associations and Foundations

CFSP Common foreign and security policy

CIA Central Intelligence Agency

CIS Commonwealth of Independent States

CoR Committee of the Regions

CSCE Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe

CSDP Common Security and Defense Policy

CSO Civil society organization

DG Directorate-General

EC European Commission

ECSC European Coal and Steel Community

EDC European Defense Community

EEA European Economic Area

EEAS European External Action Service

EEC European Economic Community

EESC European Economic and Social Committee

EFP European Foreign Policy

EFTA European Free Trade Association

EIDHR European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights

EK Euregio Karelia

EMU Economic and Monetary Union of the European Union

ENI European Neighborhood Instrument

ENP European Neighborhood Policy

ENPI CBC European Neighborhood and Partnership Instrument, Cross-

border cooperation

ENPI European Neighborhood and Partnership Instrument

EPC European Political Community

ERDF European Regional Development Fund

ESF European Social Fund

EU European Union

EUR Euro

FCA Finn Church Aid

FIM Finnish markka, the pre-euro currency of Finland

FNPR Federation of Independent Trade Unions of Russia

FRCC Finnish-Russian Chamber of Commerce (Suomalais-Venlinen

kauppakamari SVKK)

FSB Federal Security Service (Russia)

GATT General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade

HCF International Contact Forum on Habitat Conservation in the

Barents Region

HS Helsingin Sanomat

ICNL International Center for Not-for-Profit Law

IMF International Monetary Fund

IPA Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance

IR International Relations

JHA Justice and Home Affairs, the former name for a pillar of the

EU; renamed Police and Judicial Co-operation in Criminal

Matters (PJC) in 2003

JMA Joint Management Authority

JMC Joint Monitoring Committee

JOP Joint Operational Program

JTS Joint Technical Secretariat

KANE Advisory Board on Civil Society Policy

(Kansalaisyhteiskuntapolitiikan neuvottelukunta)

LIEN Link Inter-European NGOs

MAUP Modifiable areal unit problem

MEP Member of European Parliament

MLG Multilevel governance

MTR Mid Term Review

NAC Neighboring Area Cooperation

NAFTA North American Free Trade Agreement

NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization

NCM Nordic Council of Ministers

ND Northern Dimension

NDBC Northern Dimension Business Council

NDEP Northern Dimension Environmental Partnership

NDI Northern Dimension Institute

NDPC Northern Dimension Partnership on Culture

NDPHS Northern Dimension Partnership in Public Health and Social

Well-being

NDPTL Northern Dimension Partnership on Transport and Logistics

NGDO Non-Governmental Development Organization

NGO Non-Governmental Organization

NIS Newly Independent States

NPM New Public Management

NUTS Nomenclature of territorial units for statistics

OSCE Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe

OSI Open Society Institute

PCA Partnership and Cooperation Agreement

QMV Qualified Majority Voting

SE Social Economy

SEA Single European Act

STETE Finnish Committee for European Security (Suomen toimikunta

Euroopan turvallisuuden edistmiseksi)

SWOT Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats

TACIS Technical Assistance to the Commonwealth of Independent

tates

TAN Transnational advocacy network

TCE Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, a proposed

constitutional treaty of the European Union

TEU Treaty on European Union, formal name of the Maastricht

Treaty (1992)

TTT Agreement on economic, technical, and industrial cooperation

(Tieteellis-taloudellis-tekninen yhteistysopimus)

UN United Nations

US United States (of America)

USA United States of America

USAID United States Agency for International Development

USD United States dollar

USSR Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

WTO World Trade Organization

WW World War

YYA Agreement of Friendship, Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance

(Ystvyys-, yhteisty- ja avunantosopimus)

1 Introduction

1.1 PROLOGUE

Borders have long been one of the most central topics to political geography.

However, much has changed since the pioneering framework of early border

studies. The focus of border studies has developed in relation to the

predominant geopolitical models and visions from studying borders as

delimiters of territorial control and ideology towards areal differentiation and

later towards more dynamic role of borders as bridges rather than barriers. The

emergence of globalization and the rhetoric of a borderless world only fuelled

interest in borders. The apparent renaissance of border studies that followed

acquired an increasingly interdisciplinary take. The significance of borders is

doubtlessly in flux, but instead of disappearing altogether, the borders

themselves seem to be merely changing their institutional form. The traditional

definitions and comprehensions of borders have been challenged primarily

because the context in which they were created and existed has also altered.

Borders continue to separate us; we live in a world of lines and compartments.

Even though we may not necessarily see these lines, they order our daily life

practices, strengthening our belonging to, and identity with, certain places and

groups and in so doing perpetuate and re-perpetuate notions of difference and

othering (Newman 2006).

This study draws on the experience from the border between Finland and the

Russian Federation 1 where CBC has reflected both the political and socio-

cultural change as well as politically and economically motivated interaction.

The border provides an illuminating laboratory in which to study border change

or the lack thereof. Finlands post-WW II relationship with the Soviet Union,

and more recently with Russia, has been both close and distant at times both

concurrently. It has been shaped by a common history, Cold War realities,

pragmatism, interdependencies and the lessons learned from devastating armed

conflicts.

Despite these tensions, the basis for civil societys role in cross-border ties

was also forged already during the Soviet era. The 1948 Agreement of

Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance (the YYA treaty) began to serve

as the key document for governing post-war relations between the two

countries. Dictated by the treaty, post-WW II Finnish foreign policy towards the

Soviet Union was based on the principle of official friendship. Even though the

1 The Russian Federation is hereafter referred to as Russia.

19

border remained heavily guarded between two separate armies, a sound and

trusting relationship with the Soviet Union was sustained in order to avoid

future conflicts with the ideologically alien superpower at Finlands doorstep.

Interestingly, while such a friendship was orchestrated at the level of

intergovernmental relations, it was put in practice through paradiplomatic links

within which Finnish civil society organizations (CSOs) also played an

important role (e.g., Eskelinen, Liikanen & Oksa 1999).

As the geopolitical situation ameliorated in the wake of the Soviet Unions

collapse, Finnish-Russian cooperation began to develop rapidly. After being

practically closed for decades, a more open border enabled actors from the both

sides to interact with each other. In addition to historical ties and the related

nostalgia tourism, much of this early cooperation was fuelled by the

paradiplomatic friendship-town system and then increasingly by the

Neighboring Area Cooperation (NAC) funded by the Finland Government.

More open conditions also revealed the stark contrasts between the two sides. In

Finland the formation of civil society has deep roots, and CSOs are perceived as

serious partners for the public sector. In Russia the operations or even the

existence of civil society as a social force independent from state ideology

remained practically illegitimate until the collapse of Communism.

The practices and rhetoric of cross-border cooperation (CBC) underwent an

exceptionally deep change, overlapping with broader changes in political

perspectives as regional and local level actors were now also allowed and able to

take an active role in cross-border relations by cooperating directly across the

border (see Eskelinen, Liikanen & Oksa 1999). The administrative discussion

concerning CBC policies acquired a new European twist when Finland joined

the European Union (EU) in 1995. Suddenly, activities formerly administered

through bilateral, state-level agreements became part of the broader dynamics of

international politics and EU-Russia relations. This further fuelled cross-border

interaction, and the related programs and projects became streamlined to fall in

line with the policy frames defined by the EU and the new Europeanizing

rhetoric (Liikanen et al. 2007). With the introduction of EU policy frames

picturing a Wider Europe and European Neighborhood in the early 2000s, the

focus of CBC shifted from technical aid and regional development towards

external relations and the fostering of interaction between the EU and its

neighbors. Such an ambitious vision of a ring of friends around the Union was

considered necessary in order for the EU to safeguard the transnational space

beyond its external borders (Scott 2005).

The first backlash to this vision took place when Russia, the EUs largest

neighbor, opted out of joining the European Neighborhood Policy (ENP), the

most explicit form of geopolitical integration between the EU and its immediate

region, thereby rejecting the presumptions embedded in the policy. Instead,

relations with Russia are nowadays developed under a strategic partnership,

which, however, also receives funding through the European Neighborhood

20

and Partnership Instrument (ENPI). Accordingly, this study follows the

suggestion made by Scott and Liikanen (2010, 423) that understandings of

Neighborhood ought not to be strictly limited to specific policies but can also

be interpreted in terms of a political, cultural and socio-economic space within

which the EU exerts transformative power beyond its borders. This is to say that

cooperation agendas concern not only high politics and that more attention

should be paid to bottom-up dynamisms.

What stood out from the new CBC program documents was that the border-

spanning activities they outlined were portrayed as laying ground for a new

type of cross-border regionalization even at the external borders of the Union.

In order to accomplish this, more attention had to be paid to people-to-people

connections. As the EU had already discovered civil society as a political force

central to modernizing and democratizing EU governance, these new

documents now expanded the civil society dimension to cover also CBC across

the external border of the Union. While CSOs had already played a role in the

Finnish-Russian bilateral CBC from the start, the Europeanization of the civic

agenda politicized the cooperation and elicited the centuries-old interface

between Western and Eastern notions of civil society. Given that civil society is

characteristically not a stand-alone concept but is commonly paired with the

concept of the state (ODowd & Dimitrovova 2006), the EUs attempt to promote

civil society cooperation could thus also be interpreted to involve an indirect

agenda of reshaping political institutions in the neighboring states.

In contrast to explicit programs and policies, such as the Finnish government

funded NAC or the ENP, this study draws attention to less formal and more

subtle channels and networks through which the delimiting characteristics of

the border can be eroded away and new, less loaded and more pragmatic

relations formed in their place. In engaging in various cooperation practices

across the border, individual citizens as well as various types of civil society

organizations are building a new civic2 neighborhood, crucial not only for the

bottom-up diffusion of Europe beyond EU borders and also for fostering the

less value driven people-to-people connections that would form the foundation

for the development of interaction and integration.

The formation of the civic neighborhood is studied with the help of two

major empirical primary datasets, one consisting of transcribed interviews and

another comprised of materials gathered from newspapers. The two datasets

provide different yet mutually complementary perspectives on the phenomenon

in question. Following Habermas (1991) civil society is approached here not only

from an institutional angle but also from a discursive vantage point; i.e., not

2 I have chosen to use the word civic instead of civil in order to imply (inter-)action that is

voluntary and takes place between or among citizens and other non-state groups but does not

exclude action undertaken under the direction of the state if it is determined to contribute to the

public good as defined by the people.

21

only as a sphere of organization but also as a sphere for public discussion. It is

expected that civil society plays a vital role as a field of discursive practices that

shape the image of Russia, and, at the same time, the image of Russia as a

neighbor influences and even directs civil society engagement. The newspaper

material is thus used to illuminate the state of public debate within which cross-

border relations have evolved. The interview material is then used to provide a

complementary perspective emphasizing institutional practices that have

influenced these perceptions. It is vital to study both sides of the coin as

perceptions, image of the other, and discursive relations altogether are not only

a result of CBC practices but also importantly their prerequisites.

Defining what is meant by civil society is a political project in itself. It is a

social construct that is often invoked in debates on democracy, governance and

intercultural understanding. A comparative setting, here between Finland and

Russia, confirms that using the term civil society in a global sense obscures as

much as it illuminates, proving that the nature of civil society can only properly

be understood within the context of, or in terms of, particular societies (Crook

2002, 2). In the Western European context, the idea of civil society gives

expression to the expectations of European citizens of more direct participation

in their future and the collective choices that it entails (Mokre & Riekmann

2006). With fiscal retrenchment, reduced redistributive outlays, and the

privatization of public services, debates on civil society have also increasingly

focused on its role in economic life and in the support of social welfare policies.

As a political and increasingly economic force, civil society organizations and

philanthropic associations are often seen as a mirror reflection of an increasing

lack of confidence in the capacity of traditional governance modes to address

problems of modern societies. By the same token, organizations of the social

economy, such as cooperative style enterprises, mutual help societies, and

voluntary associations have long played an important role in national and

regional development in Western countries.

Within the context of post-socialist transformation in which the Finnish-

Russian CBC largely developed, civil society is understood not only as a

democratizing force but also as an actor capable of compensating for state

dysfunctionality (Fritz 2004). In Russia, in particular, the state has reduced its

involvement especially in social welfare services. Here, CSOs have stepped in to

provide basic services to those who have suffered the most from economic

change. In addition to these vital services, CSOs have also been engaged in areas

of local development that encompass cultural, educational, training, and

business development activities areas where the state has shown little

presence, either for ideological or practical reasons (Laine & Demidov 2013). To

understand the dynamics underpinning civil society involvement in social

welfare and local development issues in Russia, it is necessary to assume an

unbiased perspective. Russian civil society needs to be approached as a cultural

22

formation (Kennedy 2002), as a product of a specific context within which it has

evolved.

1.2 RESEARCH DESIGN

1.2.1 Niche and Approach On the face of it, the significance of Finlands borders appears unaffected. The

border with Russia remains secure and well controlled; younger generations can

hardly remember that there would have ever been a real border with Sweden,

and even fewer recall that Finland shares some 730 kilometers of borderline with

Norway somewhere up north. Running through nothing but forest and some

occasional lakes for almost its entire length, the Finnish-Russian border does not

inevitably appear to be a pressing research object, at first glance. In terms of

dynamics, it fades in comparison with other EU borders as well as with other

seemingly asymmetrical borders, such as the border between the United States

and Mexico.

Given what was stated above, the scholarly and popular attention the

Finnish-Russian border has attracted, and continues to attract, is astonishing.

Even though many of these writings discuss not the border per se but what lies

beyond it, it is the border that has gained a sizable symbolic load. The lengthy

shared border with Russia is still commonly put forth as excuse for why various

issues are as they are and not necessarily as they could or should be. Everybody,

even those who have never seen or crossed it, seem to know the meaning of it

and what it stands for, and thus many statements on it go unquestioned. Alas,

quantity does not compensate for quality. It has been customary to assume a

rather (banal) nationalist stance and build on uncontroversial acceptance of the

historical setting and current state of affairs. Their actual merits aside, such

writings reproduce a particular image and perspective and in so doing diminish

room for alternative views. While historical perspective and context specificity

are crucial for understanding a particular border, the Finnish-Russian one in this

case, placing it in the greater European perspective broadens the analytical

frame and allows for the interpretations that a more narrow approach might

preclude.

Similarly, the borders of a particular discipline, geography in this case, might

also confine the analytical lens. Even if disciplinary specialization has its

benefits, a strict immersion in a particular field, as Strober (2006, 315) notes, may

limit social innovation and the intellectual horizon of researchers.

Interdisciplinary research, in turn, runs counter to the disciplinary taken-for-

grantednesses, thus allowing more holistic, richer understanding of the topic at

hand. As Baerwald (2010, 494495) remarks, the drive to study the broad

ranging and intertwined problems that encompass a complex mix of phenomena

and processes, which taken together lie beyond the margins of existing

23

disciplines, has impelled the conduct of research that necessitates inter-, if not

postdisciplinary approach.

Fortunately for geographers this is not a major cause for concern. While

many traditional disciplines are defined by the topics that they study,

geography has been inherently interdisciplinary since its establishment as a

modern discipline. Among the classics, Richard Hartshorne (1939)

acknowledged that geography could never be understood as a discrete science

but rather as a synthetic, unsystematic enterprise that aggregated data from the

other sciences to create a larger understanding. In 1934, A. E. Parkins contented

himself with summing up quite insightfully that g eography is what

geographers do (Martin & James 1993, 356) as a result there has been plenty

of room to maneuver within the discipline. The active pursuit of inquiries

related to space, place and interactions leads geographers to venture far from

the fields core and explore realms where geographical perspectives intersect

with those from other fields (ibid., 495496; Gober 2000, 4).

Recently, geographers have delved, inter alia, into the interrogating

potentials for a democratic governance of borders (Anderson, ODowd & Wilson

2003), exclusion and discrimination (van Houtum & Pijpers 2007, van Houtum &

Boedeltje 2009), the technologization of borders and visualization practices

(Amoore 2009), violence of borders and teichopolitics (Elden 2009; Rosire &

Jones 2012), the relationships between traditional borders and the so-called

borderless world of networked, topological space (Paasi 2009), external drivers,

such as the EU and CBC (Johnson 2009; Popescu 2008), the conflicting logics of

national borders and supranational unity (Sidaway 2001), and the new

European borders as sharp markers of difference (Scott & van Houtum 2009).

However, geography by no means monopolizes border studies. Borders have

spread also not just into international relations, political sociology, and history,

but also into cultural studies (Rovisco 2010) and philosophy (Balibar 2009). The

bordering (border-making) perspective not only transcends disciplinary

boundaries, but it takes a step further by advocating that scientific knowledge

ought not to be privileged over everyday geographical imaginations and

popular geopolitics (Scott 2009).

In the field of border studies, theorizing has proven to be quite a challenge.

All borders are unique, and each of them is related in different ways to local,

regional, state-bound, and supranational processes the geosociologies of

political power (Agnew 2005, 47). As a result of this, however, concerns have

been raised that during the past decade border studies have been overly focused

on case study material, which has been thought to overshadow attempts to

develop the discussion of concepts, theories, and common ideas (Newman

2012). There is little abstract theorizing in border studies, and those who have

attempted to theorize on borders have run into unique circumstances that make

it impossible to conceptualize broad scale generalizations (Kolossov 2005;

Newman 2006).

24

Even so, attempts have been made. Van Houtum and van Naerssen (2002)

have sought to understand borders through sociological concepts of ordering

and othering. Brunet-Jailly (2004; 2005) has put forth an attempt to theorize by

drawing the general lessons that single case studies can offer. The same logic has

been used more recently by Mor (2011). Newman, who earlier went against the

grain by calling for a general border theory (Newman 2003a/b; cf. Brunet-Jailly

2004; 2005; Kolossov 2005; Paasi 2005a/b; Rumford 2006), finally gave up and

accepted that it is futile to seek a single explanatory framework for the study of

borders (Newman 2006, 145). Border as a research topic is complex, making the

study of borders so diverse, both in terms of geographic and spatial scales, that

any attempt to create a single analytical metatheory is doomed to failure.

Borders as a topic of research must be untangled in a context specific manner.

We need not restrict ourselves to mere case studies, but go one step further to

establish broader conceptualizations, trajectories, and even a common glossary.

While all borders are unique, they are still affected by the same global

phenomena; it is their regional implications that differ.

Even if most scholars have given up on the enterprise, Payan (2011)

continues to insist that in order to advance the field of border studies beyond

purely descriptive work, [c]ontinued theorizing on borders is not only a

pending task but necessary today, particularly because the optimistic discourse

on a borderless world has fallen flat and there is in fact a renewed importance

assigned to borders both in the political and in the policy world. He claims that

the path to border theorizing is not closed but only out of sight because border

scholars have been looking in the wrong place. Precisely due to the fact that

border scholars are spread around the world and are in fact disciplinary and

geographical specialists, often miss the forest for the trees, and need to take the

birds eye view and find what unites us (ibid.).

What unites us, Payan (2011) suggests, is our methods: in order to theorize

on borders, scholars need to engage in a dialogue on the methodological

strategies as well as the tools used and pick those that can enhance our

explanatory power. Even though Payan is correct in arguing that more

comparative work in teams is needed in order to discover the optimal tools to

identify what actually gives shape and character to the borders of today, his

argumentation postulates that border studies would form its own academic

discipline, no different in nature, say, from geography, sociology, history, or

anthropology with their own accustomed and well established currents of

research. That, border studies is not. Instead, borders studies main contribution

lies in its ability to draw these disciplines together. It is fueled by the diversity

carved out by its eclectic multidisciplinarity. Creating a metatheory and naming

the variables to be used by all would only restrict the potential that border

studies as a discipline has to offer.

This study combines my own interests in geography, international relations,

political sociology, and history. I am a firm believer that geography, even if

25

subjective, matters in the understanding of a wide variety of processes and

phenomena and borders are evidently not an exception. Despite the forces of

globalization, we remain located somewhere and this has an impact on how we

perceive that which surrounds us. Newmans (2003a, 130) notions that the

longer they [borders] remain in situ, the harder they are to remove or change

seems valid and clouds the assumption that humans would interact most with

those to whom they are the closest the axiom being that the way in which a

border is perceived affects the volume of interaction across the border. A good

policy then needs geography and history. A historical approach complemented

with postmodern concepts, which acknowledge that postmodernism is a

historical condition in itself, provides an essential context for the analysis.

Even if geographical realities do not change, their meaning for different

purposes may. Relying on the ideas of North (2005), a change is, for the most

part, a deliberate process shaped by the actors perceptions on the consequences

of their own actions and beliefs, which are typically blended with their own

preferences. Choices and decisions are made in light of those perceptions with

the intent of reducing uncertainty in pursuit of a given goal. As a result, borders

may lose some of their functions while simultaneously obtaining new ones;

these functions are seldom stable but rather under continuous change. Borders

may not disappear completely, but they can become more transparent and

permeable in terms of some of their functions. A gradual opening of a

previously closed national border enables the formation of new forms of

interaction between countries but may also reveal political, cultural, and

economic inequalities. All this makes them more tangible for people, especially

borderland-dwellers. In some cases, a border may be so profoundly rooted in

the minds of people that some of the borders functions may never lose their

relevance even if the actual institutional border would eventually subside.

It has to be acknowledged that in order to appreciate the big picture and to

challenge its taken-for-grantednesses, a purely geographical approach would be

insufficient. In addition to taking a spatial perspective, it is necessary to view the

context both temporally and structurally (cf. de Blij 2005). This study takes

ODowds (2010) call for bringing history back in seriously. He argues that in

privileging spatial analysis space over time, that is many contemporary

border studies lack an adequate historical analysis of state and nation formation.

A failure to acknowledge the historical positioning thus easily leads to a

disfigured perspective of the present. Over-emphasizing the novelty of

contemporary forms of globalization and border change, propped up by poorly

substantiated benchmarks in the past, failing to recognize the past in the

present as in the various historical deposits of state formation processes, and an

incapacity to recognize the distinctiveness of contemporary state borders

deceptively discount the extent to which we continue to live in a world of

diverse states (ibid., 10321034).

26

While the field of international relations has evolved from its positivist

premises from a single means of understanding and studying world politics

towards a more nuanced and holistic approach it still remains insufficient for

the understanding of the big picture. Despite recent efforts to broader the field,

it remains tied to great power politics and its basic units of analysis remains the

modern state. As such, alone it is incapable of explaining the multileveled and

multiscaled processes that take place today.

There is a clear need to incorporate several voices that are, in turn, able to

communicate with each other. Warkentin (2001, 1415) suggests placing people

at the center of things: [p]eople are not only at the center of world politics, but

they make politics (ibid., 15). Accordingly, attention needs to be paid to

morals and ethical values as the basis of peoples decision-making and

interaction with one another. Consequently, civil society, which can be

appreciated as an aspect of politics, is a dynamic phenomenon created and

shaped by individuals through social interaction. He specifies, firstly, that

people as agents, as actors and doers, have the ability to make things happen

and, secondly, people are also social beings, naturally oriented towards

establishing and maintaining social relations and conducting their lives within

the context of relational networks (ibid., 17).

As was already mentioned, the EUs emerging politics of regional

cooperation have placed increased attention on the actual and potential roles

attributed to civil society. Civil society is understood as a political force central

to the development of a wider community of values and societal goals; it is seen

to have a modernizing and democratizing function within state-society relations

(Scott & Liikanen 2010, 424). It also provides a significant political forum for the

articulation of social, cultural, environmental, etc. agendas. As a forum, as a

public space, it has become increasingly transnational. CSOs now operate not

just within and but also beyond the state. The number of organizations and

networks operating across the border, often through concrete projects, has been

on the increase not only within the EU but also between the EU and neighboring

states.

The EU cannot build its CBC agendas only on high politics; the building of

Neighborhood must encompass also social and cultural issues. However, the

previously unseen premium placed on the role of transnational civil society

cooperation raises also the issue of the EUs impacts on civil society agendas in

the neighboring countries and the EUs ability to promote CBC across its

external borders. The EUs normative power is not only exercised through

explicit policies but also through more subtle and informal channels (Scott &

Liikanen 2010, 424).

Borders offer us a useful lens to view the changing shape of governance.

Through the processes of horizontal political socialization (network

governance), the overall societal significance of the EU acquis has not only

increased but also extended beyond its borders (Filtenborg, Gnzle & Johannson

27

2002). Europeanization proceeds through the cooperation practices of CSOs that,

intentionally or not, promote and develop EU values, creating an informal

institutional basis for their diffusion beyond the confines of the EU (see, e.g.,

Scott & Liikanen 2010; Laine & Demidov 2013).

At the EU-Russian interphase, Western explorations of its complexity have

often been eschewed in favor of a normative approach in which the relationship

between civil society and the state is underpinned by liberal democratic

assumption rather than by engagement with wider debates about the politics of

post-Soviet development. The turmoil of the 1990s in Russia allowed the EU, in

particular, to insist that relations with a nascent Russia be built on the principle

of conditionality with the underlying objective of steering Russia gently yet

forcefully on its path to a better, i.e., European, future. Gauging the

development and progress of Russias civil society sector on the basis of

international norms privileged form above function. However, in order to

comprehend Russian civil societys role as an agent of social change it is more

telling to assume a more pragmatic, contextualized and less value-laden

approach and seek to understand the political role of CSOs, the logics that

inform their agendas as well as their embeddedness within more general

societal contexts.

1.2.2 Research Objectives and Focus This study of human geography focuses on the cross-border cooperation

practices of civil society organizations at the Finnish-Russian border. While it is

acknowledged that the concept of cross-border cooperation or CBC connotes

a direct links to EU policies and objectives, it is used here more broadly to refer

to transnational interaction, the processes of working or acting together for a

common purpose or benefit across borders. Empirically, this study analyzes the

development of the operational forms of cooperation on the one hand and that

of the discursive practices that shape the image of Russia on the other and tries

to unearth the relationship between the two. The analysis begins from the onset

of collapse of the Soviet Union in 1990, covering thus a period during which

Finnish-Russian bilateral relations became enveloped into the broader EU-

Russia relations. Thus, even though the analysis draws from the border, it

cannot exclude the wider entities that it divides. Critical notions concerning the

theories of Europeanization and post-national borders raise the question how

thorough and how rapid the change in practices of CBC has actually been on the

regional level and in civil society relations that have stood in the center of the

new EU policies. While the focus remains on the Finnish-Russian cooperation,

setting this binational context against the EU framework allows us to examine in

which ways the changing contexts that govern cooperation have affected the

perceptions of Russia and the work carried out in practice.

Through the analysis of perspectives of civil society actors and those voiced

in the media, this study strives to achieve a better understanding of present-day

28

multi-layered Finnish-Russian and EU-Russian relations, especially with respect

to the role that civil society plays. Furthermore, the goal is to introduce new,

more nuanced perspectives to the discussion on Europeanization of the

institutional and discursive practices of CBC. The research executes this analysis

by exploring empirical experiences from cross-border cooperation as well as

popular perceptions towards Russia as a neighbor and as a partner. Extra focus

is placed on the role of the EU in shaping its relations within wider Europe.

The analysis is anchored by two main thematic questions:

1. How has the actual role of Finnish civil society organizations in

developing new forms of cooperation with Russia changed, and what

might their future roles potentially be?

2. How has the image of Russia portrayed in the public discussion within

Finland evolved, and how has this affected civil society cooperation?

Though formulated as two separate questions, the two inquiries are interlinked.

The latter question aims to enlighten the discursive practices not just as a

context for CBC but also as a sphere for public discussion. The former explores

the CSOs institutional role civil society as a sphere of organization. Particular

focus is placed on the impacts of CSO networks, the organizational and financial

arrangements that characterize them, as well as the social and technical issues

that condition and often complicate civil society cooperation. The public

discussion and the image of Russia it portrays are then analyzed specifically

within the CBC context. It is assumed that the gestalt in image of Russia differs

from the image of Russia as a neighbor and as a partner for cooperation.

The answering these research questions is done from various angles, all of

which have their own specific questions guiding the analysis. In geographical

terms, this study aims to clarify what is special about the Finnish-Russia border

and what makes it a special case within the European frame and likewise within

the frame of other asymmetric borders. In historical terms, it asks how the

specific history of the border and the Finnish nation influence the current

situation and events. Does the understanding of historical positioning help

explain the way things are today? Structurally, this study ponders how the

contemporary forms of globalization are influencing the functions and the

distinctiveness of state borders. Is the world becoming borderless or do borders

continue to profoundly influence us? Finally, contextually, this study aims to

find out to what degree do the practices and rhetoric of regional level CBC

projects reflect changes in the definitions of CBC in EU level policies and to

what degree do they still carry traces of preceding traditions of Finnish political

culture and Finnish-Russian relations.

The research questions necessitate familiarization firstly with the state of

border research and especially with how cross-border cooperation has been

analyzed (Chapter 2). Secondly, it is necessary to outline the development of the

29

concept of civil society and the specificities of the Finnish and Russian

conception of it (Chapter 3). Thirdly, these two themes have to be placed in the

broader European context, to which they are inherently linked (Chapter 4).

1.2.3 Research Process and Methodology Narrowed views of the world tend to be misleading. In order to create a

research design across many disciplines and to unearth a more profound

understanding of a research problem, the subject needs to be approached from a

variety of perspectives and with different tools. As distinct methodologies each

have their particular strengths and weaknesses, using more than one allows us

to gain a clearer and more complete picture of the social world and make for

more adequate explanations (Creswell 2009).

A multimethodological approach is used in research situations within which

the problem can be better understood through both investigation and

interpretation (Rauscher & Greenfield 2009). This has been increasingly the case

during the postmodern era as many of the research agendas are already from

the start too broad, complex and multidisciplinary to be confined to a narrow

methodical frame. The requirements during the different phases of a research

project all make their own specific demands on a general methodology

(Creswell 2009). Accordingly, mixed methods research has become more

prevalent as researchers seek a more complete understanding to research

problems in the social sciences (Whitney 2010).

The research here is based on methodological triangulation, a mix of material

and methods involving the mapping of actors, newspaper screening and

semiotic analysis, basic background and more thorough in-depth interviews (96

in total), document analysis, and active participant observation. Empirical work

also includes the gathering of supporting material by collecting other relevant

official documents, political statements, press material, reports of debates and

brochures, and by participating actively in not just academic but also more

practical civic activity related conferences, seminars, forums, workshops, and

other types of meetings in Russia and Finland, as well as elsewhere in Europe.

This was felt necessary to experience first-hand how cooperation is planned,

maintained, and generally discussed in practice. Correctives and supplements to

views brought up in the interviews were later on gatherer through numerous

less formal but enormously useful personal communications.

While the main focus of this study is on the Finnish perspective of the topic

at hand, material was also collected from Russian actors as CBC by nature

involves actors from both sides of the border. Without the Russian perspective,

the analysis and results derived from it would be inevitably lop-sided and

therefore incomplete. Out of the aforementioned 96 interviews, 28 were

conducted on the Russian side of the border in the Republic of Karelia, the city

of St. Petersburg, and Vyborg, a city within Leningrad oblast. I owe a debt of

gratitude to Andrey Demidov and Dr. Elena Belokurova for conducting these

30

interviews and providing me with the resulting material as my own language

skills would have not allowed me to do so. One additional interview focusing

on the EU-Russia level issues was conducted in Brussels.

The insights acquired from the interviews, local seminars, and personal

communications are reflected against official documents and statements

originating from national sources and the EU, as well as the newspaper material.

As a process, the newspaper analysis was clearly the most time consuming

phase but also one of the most revealing ones for it provided an exceptional

historical record of a day-to-day basis of ephemeral information (for a more

detailed description, see subsection 5.1.2), much of which tends to be forgotten

or purposefully left out from interviews conducted in retrospect. The interviews

of cross-border actors, of course, provided deeper, more detailed and practical

information. This was needed in order to put the partial interpretations and

rhetoric that had arisen from the newspaper material and also from official

documents and statements, as well as policies formulated locally and regionally

based upon them, into perspective. As already mentioned, the newspaper

material from the leading Finnish newspaper, Helsingin Sanomat, is, however,

not only used to inform the context for cooperation but also analyzed in terms of

the public sphere with the aim of tracing what sorts of opinions, images and

perceptions arise from public discussion.

1.2.4 Research Material and Its Use The mapping of actors and potential respondents was an important activity as it

provided an overall picture of the CSOs operating within Finnish-Russian cross-

border contexts. Upon completion a broad constellation of CSO actors and

agencies relevant to CSO activities emerged and interviews carried out. Most of

the interviews were conducted in connection to the EUDIMENSIONS3 project. A

total of 96 persons from 78 organizations were interviewed. The distribution of

selected organizations is based on the mapping exercise conducted and reflects

the prevalence and activeness of the respective sectors in CBC. On the Finnish

side, the primary research area included the provinces of North Karelia, South

Karelia, and Kymenlaakso. Also actors active in the border region, yet based

elsewhere (most notably in Helsinki), were included. The basic interviews were

conducted in late 2007 and early 2008 and the in-depth interviews in late 2008

and early 2009.

The research commenced with a set of basic interviews in order to ferret out

the most relevant CSOs to investigate. An indicative list of questions and the

3 EUDIMENSIONS Local Dimensions of a Wider European Neighbourhood: Developing Political

Community through Practices and Discourses of Cross-Border Cooperation project was supported

by the European Commission under the Sixth Framework Program for Research and Technological

Development of the European Union under PRIORITY 7 (Citizens and Governance in a Knowledge-

Based Society), Area 4.2.1 New Borders, New Visions of Neighbourhood. Contract no: CIT5-CT-

2005-028804. The project ran from May 2006 through June 2009.

31

topic to be discussed was sent to the interviewees upon their request. The

persons to be interviewed were first contacted by telephone and in some cases

by e-mail to explain the purpose and focus of the research. While general

understanding of CSOs and their cooperation activities had been formed

through various documents and online research during the mapping exercise, a

more thorough and up-to-date picture was formed during the basic interviews.

The more involved interviews aimed to gather perceptual information on the

contexts within which civil society cooperation is developing between

Finland/the EU and Russia. Both the political and social contexts in which CSO

are embedded and have a bearing on CBC were discussed. Interviews consisted

of both simple structured questions and section of open-ended questions.

However, as the interviewees formed a rather heterogeneous group, the

interviews often developed into rather open narrative interview on the personal

experiences of the interviewee in question. This openness allowed the

interviewee to steer the discussion and, instead of answering a pre-defined set of

questions, introduce the aspects and issues concerning the topic at hand which

he or she felt to be the most imperative. Whenever possible these interviews

were recorded and always with the consent of the interviewee. While interviews

were set up with a particular person from a particular organization, in a number

of cases the person in question was joined by other representative(s) of the same

organization as it was felt that expertise from different tiers or sections of the

organization was needed in order to competently answer the questions.

Several interviewees in the very beginning of the research asked that their

names not to be used. The reason for this was that it would prevent them from

mentioning critical aspects of their experiences as it might harm their future

initiatives. I firmly believe that for the purposes of this study, what was said was

more important that who said it. As no apparent benefit would result from

using the names of the interviewees, the decision was made to conduct all the

interviews anonymously as to allow unrestricted opinions to be voiced. The list

of organizations can be seen in appendix I, and an indicative list of the interview

questions is found in appendix II. As there have been many developments since

the interviews were conducted, in numerous occasions it was necessary to

update the information via phone or e-mail.

Newspaper analysis was seen as particularly fitting to complement the

insights gained from the interviews of the civil society actors. The public

discussion, for which the opinion pages of Helsingin Sanomat provide a forum, is

relevant here firstly for it forms an important aspect of civil society. Secondly it

provides a contextual frame for the interpretation of the interview material (see

subsections 5.1.2-3). Media plays an important role in the formation and success

of a strong civil society structure not just by swaying public opinion but also by

influencing and even directing social change. As Galaty (2003, 2) explains, by

providing accurate and timely information the media is a tool that can help put

civil society principles into action and enable more effective participation in a

32

civil society framework. Responsible journalism also helps to reinforce

accountable behavior in society and drive public perception, by either creating

or eroding support for the work of governments, CSOs and businesses (ibid.).

Newspapers and the media in general play a crucial role also in terms of border

work in defining how CSOs involved in CBC regard the other.

A total of 4,708 opinion articles were collected from the years 19902010 as a

resource for analyzing the Finnish context within which Finnish-Russian CBC

has developed. The collected empirical material consists of opinion pieces:

editorials (E), op-eds (OE), and the letters to the editor (L). The fundamental

logic and methodological basis of the approach relies on social semiotics (see

subsection 5.1.6). As social semiotics investigates human signifying practices in

specific social and cultural circumstances and tries to explain meaning-making

as a social practice, the aim here is to situate what has been reported in the

context in which it has occurred in order to investigate the discursive field in

which they exist and describe the potential changes in the foci of the debates by

interlinking them with the broader changes that have occurred at the border.

This is not an attempt of a quantitative extrapolation from a few individuals and

their opinions to many. I rather seek to give a contemporary human voice to

situations often talked about in retrospect and in a very academic and formal

manner and to move, following Kuus (2011a) example, these specific anecdotes

and incidents to the broader discursive field that has enabled these particular

incidents and constrained others.

The number of articles used, was then narrowed down to 2,383 articles as

only those relevant to the study were chosen for further scrutiny. A large

encompassing database was nevertheless needed to begin the analysis of the

border and to observe which topics received mention as opposed to presuming

in advance which topics must be important. The core of the semiotic analysis

involves coding the articles with signifiers. Based on the work of Hall (1986),

Edensor (1998; 2002), and Wodak (2004; 2008), five categories of signifiers have

been distinguished: places (specific geographies and landscapes), activities

(performances of longer duration), and objects (abstract or physical, people) but

also stories (narratives, myths) and events (lasting limited duration of time). In

addition to determining the signifier, it is important to establish the connotation

of the signified. I confine myself to a coding of articles that is based on their tone

with respect to Russia (negative, neutral or positive). The thematic

categorization is adopted from Virtanen (2004); though given that most articles

consisted of elements based on which they could have been placed under more

than one of the categories, the use of the themes loses some of its applicability.

Despite the context specificity and codedness of the newspaper material, the

Finnish language material is presented here in English. While having to accept

that some things are lost in translation, I firmly believe that the benefits of this

approach outstand its drawbacks, already for the reason that this is something

that has not been done to any major extent before. Finnish-Russian relations are

33

written and talked about differently in Finnish and in English and by different

people, to different audiences. Even though exceptions certainly exist, in

academia, those who seek to emphasize that internationalization and

Europeanization have tended to write in English while more national and

bilateral issues are commonly discussed in Finnish. Public opinion and its

spontaneous, unstructured representations are logical and with every reason

largely limited to national fora.

1.3 BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT

1.3.1 Finland and Its Neighboring Regions For the majority of its 1,340-kilometer length from the Gulf of Finland to the

high north, the Finnish-Russian border runs through forests and extremely

sparsely populated rural areas, the metropolis of St. Petersburg lying some 150

kilometers from the border being the only notable exception. Even though small

towns and villages are located near the border, urban centers are situated far

away from each other and from the border precluding the existence of any

authentic twin cities. The actual borderline is beefed up on either side by a

special border zone, accessible only with permission from the Border Guard

authority. At its widest stretches on the Finnish side, the zone is three kilometers

in width. On the Russian side, the actual width of the zone has been altered on

several occasions and has ranged anywhere between five and 130 kilometers.

During the Soviet period, the zone ballooned up to 200 kilometers in width.

In 2010, the population living on the Finnish side in the border municipalities

amounted to approximately 300,000 and in the border provinces (maakunta)

numbered around 1.14 million. A common characteristic of the border region is

that with the exception of the main regional centers, such as Joensuu and

Lappeenranta, population continuously dwindles. On the Russian side,

population in the three border regions (Leningrad Oblast, the Republic of

Karelia, and Murmansk Oblast) totals 3.47 million while the city of St.

Petersburg with more than five million inhabitants makes up a separate

administrative unit inside the Leningrad Oblast and forms a federal subject of its

own. Certainly the use of administrative units in defining the border region

presents a typical modifiable areal unit problem (MAUP), which ne