N ORDIC C OUNTRIES Juni 2009

Nordic Countries Office Stockholm Västmannagatan 4 11124 Stockholm Tel. 004684546592 Fax: 004684546595 email: [email protected]

2 - 2009

FINLAND AND PROSPECTS FOR NATO MEMBERSHIP Raimo Väyrynen Finnish Institute of International Affairs

Finland’s intentions vis-a-vis NATO are for many outsiders a puzzle. The issue also divides the Finnish public and its class politique. For some, the country which is not any more in the shadow of its Eastern neighbor, be it the USSR or Russia, has legitimate reasons to join the alliance that promises security and freedom. Finland should join all international organizations whose membership consists of democratic countries. For others, joining NATO would unnecessarily increase the vulnerability of the country in a crisis and thus even undermine its national security that is now based on strong territorial defense and general conscription.

Historical context of the Finnish Moscow’s approval of them in various (non)alignment bilateral deals.

The divided opinion of the Finns on the The other view, which is surfacing now but relationship with NATO cannot be could not be mentioned during the Cold separated from the shadow cast by the War, was that the nuclear deterrence as the divisions can be traced extended by the to Europe back to the political experiences during protected also Finland. In this perspective, that period. The official view, promoted NATO has been an alliance producing especially by Presidents J.K. Paasikivi deterrence - and ultimately defense in the (1946-1956) and (1956- case of an attack - that contained the Soviet 81), was that Finland should manage its expansionist plans and thus protected the relations with the on a entire Europe. On the conceptual level this bilateral basis and avoid any undue might have been the case, but contrary Western interference in them. In effect, evidence is provided, for instance, by the NATO’s policies, and the German role in meeting of the NATO Council held in the them, were considered in to have fall 1968 in the aftermath of the occupation contributed to both the so-called of by the Soviet and in 1961, prompted in part by Soviet Pact forces. Information leaked reactions to the Multilateral Force (MLF) from this meeting hinted that in the case of plan in the , and other problems the Soviet attack on Northern Europe, in the Finnish-Soviet relations. Kekkonen’s NATO would come to the rescue of efforts to integrate Finland in Western but not of Finland. European free-trade and payments arrangements were made contingent on The Finnish discussion on NATO is on one level a non-debate. Finland has been an N ORDIC C OUNTRIES Juni 2009

active member of the Partnership for Peace they are routinely downplayed. To meet (PfP) and the Euro-Atlantic Partnership NATO’s formal target of military Council (EAPC) guiding its activities. In spending, two per cent of the GDP should that context, the Finnish armed forces have be used for that purpose. Today, Finland been standardized to match the material has allocated 1.4. per cent for this purpose. and operational specifications of NATO. The standard response to costs of the They have been tested and practiced in membership in NATO is that now only NATO-led crisis management operations, seven NATO members meet this goal and especially in Afghanistan in the northern that, in reality, the economic costs for part of which Finland has deployed a bit Finland would be rather limited. over 100 persons. Now Finland is sending additional 90 troops to protect the The first assessment of the issue by the presidential elections of Afghanistan, but Ministry of Defence in 2004 concluded only on a temporary basis. Also the that the additional costs of membership Finnish air fields and harbors are made would be about 70 million euros, though compatible with potential joint operations the media received the piece of with NATO. Technically, for Finland, the information with skepticism. The transition to a membership in NATO supporters of membership also tend to would be, in all likelihood, quick and stress that even as a NATO member smooth. Finland will remain a sovereign country. Finland will decide itself whether it will Arguments pro and con stick in the future to the general conscription - which is, by the way, The issue of the Finnish membership in becoming an exception in Europe - and NATO is, first of all, political in nature. participate in specific crisis management Among the supporters of the membership, operations. In other words, we would only the argumentation moves on two different gain and not lose anything. levels. The first level of arguments deals with the nature of the Finnish society and Another level of argumentation concerns the influence exercised by the country on the national security of Finland. It is the international scene. According to this commonly said that it is too late to take view, Finland as a democratic and market- insurance when the house is on fire. It is based country should sit at the same table recognized that while the new with other European countries sharing the assertiveness of Russia does not pose a same values. In so doing, Finland would direct threat to the Finnish security, it may also be able to exercise its legitimate have raised the political hurdles for influence on the decisions made in the applying for the membership. It is alliance. It is felt that now, even though a lamented by the supporters of membership member of the PfP, Finland is ostracized that we should have applied in the 1990s from the activities of NATO’s inner core when Russia was still weak. To and placed on par, say, with the Central accommodate Putin’s and Medvedev’s Asian counties. Because Finland is not, in Russia, its potential threat should not be the NATO context, in the right peer group, emphasized at all in public as a reason for it was not, for instance, invited to the 60 th applying the NATO membership. It is anniversary summit of the Alliance in early likely that in such a situation Moscow April 2009. would probably react by political criticism which we should, however, stoically Naturally, the supporters of the receive as the price that needs to be paid membership are aware of the demands that for a better choice. it would create obligations for Finland, but N ORDIC C OUNTRIES Juni 2009

The opponents of the membership fall in anti-Americanism which leads to oppose different factions. For some in the extreme the membership in NATO for entirely left, it is enough to say that NATO is an different political reasons. Perhaps these imperialist alliance led by the United views reflect two faces of Finnish States that is bent to attack other countries, ; conservative and radical ones including Afghanistan and Iraq. If Finland of which the former stresses independent were to join it, the likely outcome would statehood, while the latter combines be that our boys and girls will have to fight nationalism with an alternative view of in the future imperial wars. This view is in preferable international alignments. a distinct minority in Finland. However, the Finnish participation in crisis One particular strand in the Finnish debate management operations enters the national has concerned the changing nature of debate also in another way. In conservative NATO. Both the critics and some circles, it is stressed that the main task of supporters emphasize that NATO is still the Finnish armed forces is to defend the the old-fashioned military alliance with an sovereignty and territorial integrity of its iron-glad defense commitment embodied own country and not to participate too in Art. 5 of the North Atlantic Charter. actively in foreign operations. The critics tend to argue that the defense commitment to the security of other NATO For the Finns, participation in international members would embroil Finland in war if operations may be teaching useful lessons the war breaks out in Europe. in the military arts, but it should be kept limited so that the capacity to defend the A different perspective is offered by those country’s own territory is not jeopardized. who see NATO increasingly as a crisis In this respect, contrast is made with management organization in which the Sweden which that largely dismantled its defense clause is secondary due to the low territorial army and has invested instead likelihood of an interstate war in Europe heavily in international operations. Indeed, between the members and non-members of the official Swedish attitude is unfailingly NATO. While Russia is a cumbersome positive towards international operations partner, the real test of NATO is in crisis (Sveriges samarbete… 2008). You can areas such as Afghanistan. This often hear in Finland a half-joke that intermediary view has appeared both in Sweden can afford such a solution because official documents and research reports there are 350.000 Finnish reservists (Effects of Finland’s Possible… 2007; standing between Russia and Sweden. Salonius-Pasternak 2007).

In sum, Finnish reservations about joining Political opinions NATO spring in part from historical experiences and in part from political Political divisions on the elite level mirror stances taken by various parties. differences in the public opinion which Historically, it is deep in the Finnish have been fairly constant over the period mentalité that the country has had to since the 1990s when it became possible to defend its independence since 1917, ask in the polls about Finland’s primarily against the Soviet Union, by its relationship with NATO. In the most own forces because no one else will come recent comprehensive study of the Finnish to our rescue at the moment of truth. This public opinion on security and defense is not exactly true in empirical terms, but issues, published in December 2008, 60 the view is ingrained deep in national per cent of the respondents felt that Finland thinking. This national conservative view should remain non-aligned and stay outside is allied in an unholy relationship with NATO, while 28 per cent favored military N ORDIC C OUNTRIES Juni 2009

alignment. The balance between the The road of Finland to NATO is opponents and proponents has shifted complicated by the reluctance of most slightly in the positive direction, but the political parties to offend their supporters biggest increase has been in the share of by speaking favorably on the application undecided respondents. In an empirical for membership. It has been openly stated analysis, it turned out military alignment that in the programs of last two and independent defense are two main governments that they will not apply for separate dimensions on security attitudes in membership during their terms. This the Finnish media debates (Rahkonen pledge has been maintained by the second 2006). Vanhanen government that is expected to rule until the next parliamentary elections The differences between the supporters of in 2011. The program states briefly that different political parties are rather stark. the government will maintain and develop Among the supporters of the Conservative national defense, based on general party, 62 per cent favored and 29 opposed conscription and territorial defense, and the membership in NATO. Among the “preserves the possibility for applying a Center Party, the corresponding shares membership in NATO”. The program were 22 and 70 per cent, among the Social also stresses the importance of full-fledged Democrats, 23 and 60 per cent, in the Left participation in the common security and League, 3 and 88 per cent, and among the defense policy of the European Union Greens, 22 and 67 per cent. Among the (Government Programme 2007). major parties, the Conservatives are the only one to have a solid support for the The common pledge of the government has membership in NATO. This trend is also constrained the Conservatives who accentuated by the fact that in the present continue to say that while they are in favor government all of its key ministers in of membership, they do not advocate the Finance, Foreign Affairs and Defense have application for it to maintain consensus openly spoken in favor of membership among the government parties. The application. situation is also shaped by the constitution according to which the President directs In fact, this young and dynamic trio of foreign policy in cooperation with the Conservative politicians has by its Government. The current President, Tarja behavior changed the tone of the Finnish Halonen, is widely perceived to be critical debate on security and defense policies. It of the membership in NATO. The hands of is interesting to note that the bourgeois the present government are tied both by its government in Sweden has not embarked internal dissensus and the need to find a on a similar campaign for the NATO common line with the president. membership. On the other hand, a key personality among the Conservatives, Sauli There has been, however, a political shift Niinistö, has considered it unwise to apply towards a more positive description of for the NATO membership in directly, but NATO’s functions in Europe and beyond, rather support closer integration between and its implications for Finland. The the EU and NATO and thus associated government Security and Defence Policy with NATO through an indirect route Report in 2004 stated that “Finland (Niinistö is the former President of the considers NATO to be an organization of Conservative Party, a former finance key importance for military transatlantic minister, and quite possibly the next security policy… In Finland’s view, the after 2012). development and functioning of EU- NATO cooperation is essential”. Against this backdrop, the Report concludes that N ORDIC C OUNTRIES Juni 2009

“applying for membership of the alliance depends on the level of military will remain a possibility in Finland’s capabilities and their allocation between security and defence policy also in the different theaters of potential war. In the future”. real world, the effectiveness of deterrence is difficult to judge unless it is violated by The most recent governmental report on an attack against one or more alliance security and defense policy appeared in members. early 2009. The basic policy line on NATO is largely similar than in the The alliance politics becomes, however, previous report in 2004. The formulations much more complicated if deterrence fails chosen in 2009 are, however, somewhat and the adversary attacks (in theories, the more positive. Thus, Finland “regards alliance and its leader rarely initiates the NATO as the most important military attack!). The critical issue is whether the security cooperation organization… and alliance members come to help the target fosters wider transatlantic security policy of the attack as promised in the defense cooperation through NATO”. The pledges or whether the member is conclusion pretends to repeat the earlier abandoned, in particular by the alliance formulations, but it comes out in a stronger leader. If the latter is the case, the form; there exist “strong grounds for commitments made in the alliance considering Finland’s membership in framework have proved to be baseless. The NATO”, but this can happen only if there decision to abandon the ally may depend is a “broad political consensus” that also on whether the alliance leader perceives takes “public opinion into consideration”. the attack on it to be unprovoked or whether the member has been itself at least There are reasons to expect that the NATO partially a culprit and thus entrapped the issue will be reflected more strongly, and leader in a conflict against its own will. be more divisive, in the parliamentary elections in 2011 and presidential elections In other words, the commitment to defend in 2012. On the other hand, none of the allies depends on the degree of loyalty they main parties might be willing to go to have shown to the leader and other key elections by advocating a membership in members. The interplay between the NATO as such a policy could be punished commitment by the leader and the loyalty by voters whose majority does not like the of members is shown, for instance, in the idea. Moreover, any positive stance on decision of Poland and the Baltic countries NATO would open up divisive internal to send their forces in the harms way to debates within especially the Center party Iraq in return of the expectation that the and the Social Democrats. United States is serious about its commitment to defend them against an The implications of membership attack from outside.

One analytical way to approach the Finnish This is also the reason why many of the alliance dilemma is to explore it in the new member states of NATO want to light of theories on military alliances by stress the importance of the defense the contrafactual method. The most typical commitment, embedded in Art.5, and link starting point in alliance theories is the it with the participation in international deterrence of the adversary that is expected crisis management. In the background, to provide security for the members. there is a doubt that the U.S. defense Nuclear deterrence is said to be collective commitment is not as credible as it is said as it covers in principle all members, while to be, partly because NATO has no conventional deterrence is partial and concrete military plans to defend the new N ORDIC C OUNTRIES Juni 2009

members, including Baltic countries, circumstances, would deliberately provoke against an attack. This problem is also Russia to use military means in relations reflected in the Polish insistence to deploy between the countries. Then the alliance U.S. Patriot tactical air defense missiles on commitments within NATO should be its territory as the price of letting respected bona fide. Washington to place on its soil ten interceptor missiles for the strategic If Finland were even partially responsible defense of the United States. for the crisis, then the problem of abandonment arises; will the United States What has the contrafactual approach to and other member states come to the offer to the discussion on Finland’s defense of the country. The matter is relationship with NATO? Without going further complicated by the EU dimension into the specifics of the method, it helps to if the Lisbon Treaty enters into force. The ask what consequences alternative political Finnish political opinion is divided on this choices might have. The application of issue; there are those who strongly believe such a method is heavily dependent on the that Washington is true to its declarations premises adopted. In the present case, one and will honor its commitments. On the premise is that Russia, the only other hand, there is also a realist conceivable potential enemy that Finland conservative school which argues that may have, does not have any aggressive neither the United States nor the leading designs on Finland in any foreseeable EU states will ever engage themselves in a future. Another premise is that Finland will serious military manner in a secondary stick to its defense model of territorial country having a 1300 kilometer long defense and general conscription. This border with Russia. situation, which largely describes the present Finnish assumptions and policies, Let us assume, in the contrafactual mode, is in an equilibrium on which all key that Finland is not a member of NATO in a parties are satisfied. situation of a deep military crisis in Europe. The remnants of the neutrality A more challenging application of the school in Finnish foreign policy making contrafactual method is to ask what would suggest that the country should stay happen if a serious military crisis breaks outside the military alliance as it would out in Europe and what will happen for save us from being a battlefield in a big Finland if it is or if it is not a member of war. This was, of course, the way of NATO. One possibility is that its present thinking among most of the Finnish elite, defense arrangement is considered by other in particular among the Social Democrats states to be credible and effective, and and the centrist forces, in the second half Finland will thus be able to stay outside the of the 1930s. Then it was decided to stick crisis. In other words, all parties would to the Nordic line of neutrality and stress respect Finland’s nonalignment and the legal sovereignty of the country. territorial integrity. This was expected to reassure the Soviet If Finland were a NATO member, and the Union on the benign and neutral intentions alliance deterrence has failed as a result of of Finland even though, at the same time, the military attack, a key issue is whether the political, economic, and even military the United States and other allies would ties with Germany were growing stronger. perceive that Helsinki has entrapped them This policy failed and has left a double in a defensive mission in a remote corner legacy: on the one hand, it is argued that of Europe by its own provocative actions. Finland should ally with a stronger power It is hard to believe that Finns, in any to obtain security guarantees while, on the N ORDIC C OUNTRIES Juni 2009

other hand, the history shows that no one environment and civilian naval traffic. will come, in a deep crisis, to our rescue. There should also be a joint disaster Therefore, it is better to prepare ourselves response unit and a maritime response for all eventualities and stand proudly on force and, perhaps, as the most ambitious our own ground. proposal, the construction of a Nordic satellite system for monitoring changes in The Stoltenberg report environmental and other civilian conditions. Last year, the Nordic foreign ministers gave an assignment to the former In the military field, the report went far Norwegian foreign and defence minister, beyond the current arrangements. It Thorvald Stoltenberg, to gather an expert proposed a Nordic resource network to group of two persons from each of the protect against cyber attacks which makes and prepare a report on sense and would complement the NATO how to promote cooperation in foreign and outfit now in operation in Estonia. Less security policies. In the background is the realistic is the proposal to start Nordic closer military and security cooperation cooperation on surveillance of the that has evolved in recent years especially Icelandic airspace. It is difficult to see between a NATO country, , and where this idea emanates from and at least two non-aligned countries, Finland and in Finland it has been received with Sweden. The report was released in scepticism (as NATO countries should be February 2009 and carried clearly able to monitor the airspace of their Stoltenberg’s own fingerprints. The report member countries if the needs arise). contained a total of 13 recommendations. Even more disturbing is the proposal to Some of these proposals repeated and issue a Nordic declaration of solidarity in intended to reinforce the established which the five countries would pledge, in a Nordic approach to international binding manner, to specify the ways in cooperation. The report suggested the which they would to respond together to an strengthening of the existing peacekeeping attack or undue pressure against any of and crisis management operations by them. This would mean the revival of the setting up a Nordic Stabilization Force and old idea of Nordic defence alliance, albeit a joint war crimes investigation unit as in new circumstances. It is highly unlikely well as promoting cooperation between that most of the Nordic countries would Nordic foreign services. In the spirit of agree to issue such a declaration in a effective crisis management, it was also situation in which three of them have a proposed in the report that a Nordic mutual defence commitment in the NATO amphibious unit needs to be established to framework and three of them are waiting operate in coastal waters (the anti-piracy for the ratification in the European Union operations off the Somali coast might have of the Lisbon Treaty that contains its own been in mind). defence and solidarity clauses.

Another set of proposals concerned the In sum, the Stoltenberg report contains need to develop Nordic responses to several useful proposals on how to environmental and strategic challenges promote Nordic countries on several vital faced in maritime areas. In concrete terms, issues. On the other hand, it is an the Stoltenberg report suggested that the idiosyncratic report that adopts a very Nordic countries should set up a maritime Norwegian perspective. It clearly tries to monitoring system both in the Baltic and place Norway more in the centre of Nordic Barents seas to follow up the state of the cooperation from its position as a NATO N ORDIC C OUNTRIES Juni 2009

member and non-member of the EU. At least from the Finnish perspective, the Government Programme of Prime Minister neglect in the Stoltenberg report of the EU ’s Second Cabinet. as a viable actor in Northern Europe Helsinki: Prime Ministers Office, April 19, diminishes its value. 2007.

Rahkonen, Juho, 2006, Journalismi taistelukenttänä. Suomen NATO- Literature jäsenyydestä käyty julkinen keskustelu 2003-2004. Tampere: Europe’s Northern Security Dimension. Press. Assembly of Western European Union. Fifty-Fifth Session. Document C/2016, 5 Regeringens skrivelse 2008/09: 137. November 2008. Sveriges samarbete med Nato inom Euroatlantiska partnerskapsrådet (EAPR), Effects of Finland’s Possible NATO Partnerskap för fred (PFF) och Membership. Helsinki: Ministry for krishanteringsinsatser. Stockholm 2008. Foreign Affairs of Finland, December 21, 2007. Salonius-Pasternak, Charly (ed.), From Protecting Some to Securing Many. Finns` Opinions on Foreign and Security NATO’s Journey from a Military Alliance Policy, Defence and Security Issues. to a Security Manager. Helsinki: Finnish Helsinki: The Advisory Board for Defence Institute of International Affairs 2007. Information. Bulletins and Reports, December 4, 2008 Stoltenberg, Thorvald, 2009, Nordic Cooperation on Foreign and Security Finnish Security and Defence Policy 2004. Policy. Meeting of the Nordic Foreign Government Report 6/2004. Helsinki: Ministers in Oslo , 9 February 2009. Prime Minister’s Office. Publications 18/2004.

Finnish Security and Defence Policy 2009. Government Report. Helsinki: Prime Minister’s Office Publications 13/2009.