Kari Möttölä (Helsinki) Military cooperation, transatlantic relations and military non-alliance – a conceptual analysis with a focus on the cases of Finland and Sweden Der Artikel behandelt die Teilnahme militärisch bündnisfreier Mitgliedstaaten der Europäischen Union – mit Finnland und Schweden als Fallbeispielen – an der im Entstehen begriffenen internationalen militärischen Kooperation in Europa. Besondere Aufmerksamkeit wird dabei den Implikationen von Bündnisfreiheit für ihre Rolle in den transatlantischen Beziehungen geschenkt. Finnlands und Schwedens Beziehungen zur NATO im Rahmen der Partnerschaft für den Frieden (PfP) folgt der Logik institutionalistischer Trends in der Theorie und Praxis internationaler Beziehungen. Im Zuge der NATO-Erweiterung in der Region sind die beiden Staaten mit Machtpolitik konfrontiert, wobei die Option ihrer eigenen Mitgliedschaft durch politische und Identitätsfaktoren bestimmt wird. Durch ihre aktive Rolle im Rahmen der Europäischen Sicherheits- und Verteidigungspolitik (ESDP) der EU sind Finnland und Schweden Teil des Mainstreams der Union. Sie lassen sich dabei von pragmatischen Zielen der Entwicklung einer autonomen Handlungsfähigkeit der EU in Kooperation mit der NATO leiten, wobei sie die Autonomie der Entscheidungsfindung der Union als Basis weiterer Integration zu verteidigen suchen. Dadurch verfolgen die beiden Staaten dezidiert europäische politische Ziele, die in zunehmendem Maße von den Zielen der USA in Bezug auf Themen der globalen Sicherheit abweichen können. In Zukunft werden die Gemeinsame Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik sowie die ESDP die effektivsten Mittel Finnlands und Schwedens zur Beeinflussung der transatlantischen Beziehungen sein. 1. Introduction: military cooperation and conflicts and disputes have emerged as security its implications for European security risks and challenges that concern not only the direct parties but also other states concerned Military cooperation has an enlarging and about such spill-over effects as the spread of growing role in the transformation of the Euro- political instability, the danger of escalation and pean security order that has entered the second the regression of transition and integration pro- post-Cold War decade. At the same time, the cesses underway since the end of the division interaction over a wide scope of military and of Europe. Simultaneously, traditional military defence issues has become a key challenge for threats against territorial integrity have contin- the foreign and security policies of states as ac- ued to diminish for the large majority of states, tors in the unification of Europe. Defence poli- although the arrangements established for open- cies and military doctrines, adapted to the re- ness in defence policies, armaments projects and quirements and possibilities in the security and military activities and the assessment of defen- integration environment, are shaping the secu- sive-offensive capabilities remain on the secu- rity order as its essential elements.1 rity agenda for all responsible and competent The nature and substance of international actors. military cooperation has changed over the past Consequently, crisis management has decade. A complex array of internal and local emerged as the new main focus of military co- ÖZP, 30 (2001) 4 393 operation, but it remains part of a broader prac- joint missions and to close the widening gap tice of cooperative security. The use of military between the United States and its European al- means by states and international institutions for lies and partners in the generation and such missions as peacekeeping, peace-enforce- modernisation of military resources. ment and humanitarian intervention is embed- ded within cooperative security management across the entire conflict cycle that entails also Explaining the new military cooperation early warning and conflict prevention as well as post-conflict reconstruction and rehabilita- As an element shaping the European security tion. Facing a growing set of tasks that may in- order, military cooperation is driven by a wide clude the militarily robust separation of parties range of factors that can be related to all the as well as the politically sensitive cooperation principal theories or explanatory models of In- between political and military missions on the ternational Relations.2 field, defence establishments everywhere are Primarily, military cooperation can be viewed engaged in restructuring and reconfiguration as another task for multilateral or inter-state that may turn out to be as demanding as the management, where institutions and regimes build-up effort aimed at stemming the Cold War serve as platforms for states’ cooperative efforts confrontation was in its time. based on common gains to be won in the reduc- The concept and practice of military coopera- tion of transaction costs and improved efficiency tion extends beyond crisis management in its of outcomes. In neoliberalism, and the institu- varying and developing forms. Defence-related tionalist approach in general, military coopera- support is provided for states that are recon- tion is envisioned and pursued along a progres- structing, reforming and restructuring their sive path towards such goals as stability and armed forces for tasks related to national or col- democracy in Central and Eastern Europe. As lective defence and international responsibili- institutions and other arrangements grow and ties by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation adapt in their performance capability, security (NATO) in its Partnership for Peace (PfP) problems are mitigated, solved and overcome programmes and Membership Action Plans through cooperation based on common rules and (MAP) as well as by countries in regional con- practices. texts such as the Baltic Security Assistance At the same time, military cooperation can be (BALTSEA) coordinated by a number of Nor- explained in neorealist terms, as persuasion ar- dic and western states. Military-to-military co- ranged, led and shaped by actors pursuing their operation is aimed at contributing to the overall security interests within a recurring power struc- transition support for recipient states in the ture. Institutions and other multilateral arrange- value-based unification of the geopolitical space ments reflect or reinforce power relations, no- covered by the Organisation for Cooperation and tably the aggregation of the military capabili- Security in Europe (OSCE) and the enlargement ties of the United States and NATO, the recent of European integration. assertion of the EU onto the military-security Finally, military cooperation is not only a chal- scene and the weakened position of Russia in lenge for transition states, it has acquired a new shaping and determining European security, urgency among the established democracies and while actors in conflict regions remain objects members of NATO and the European Union of policies. (EU). Faced with the dynamics of high-tech- Finally, military cooperation may be seen as nology at the core of the Revolution of Military political and social construction reflecting the Affairs and the growing but unpredictable de- significance of values and other ideational fac- mands for their indispensable contribution to tors such as identity in international relations, military crisis management, these states are as proposed by constructivist and critical theo- struggling to develop effective armaments co- ries. Accordingly, NATO membership is not operation and new institutional solutions for viewed merely as a security-seeking strategy of 394 balancing against potential threats but also as a environment. Moreover, institutions are becom- process of self-identification and an act of be- ing hybrid in order to combine different secu- longing in the political and economic western rity functions from the management of risks and community. Likewise, the development of com- the resolution of disputes to the aggregation of mon security and defence policy within the EU power to confront threats (Wallander/Keohane can be considered a natural part of comprehen- 1999). sive and deepening integration, resulting from The order of international institutions in the the socialisation process of policy-makers and security field has gone through a structural and the Europeanisation of member-states’ foreign substantive change. While the United Nations policies. 3 (UN) and the OSCE, as universal institutions, On the actor level, participation in military were featured in the immediate post-Wall years cooperation has become indispensable for the as the mandating and lead institutions for tradi- foreign and security policies of states – what- tional peacekeeping, NATO has entered the ever their alignment or orientation in the Cold scene as the institution of choice for organising War system – in transatlantic and all-European and conducting what has emerged as more de- relations. The internationalisation of the doc- manding and complex military crisis manage- trine and practice of defence policy can be ac- ment operations forced by the conflicts in the counted for as adaptation of a state towards its Balkans. More recently, the European Union has security milieu. Moreover, states do not act only launched a process of creating a capability for on a national basis but membership of security- autonomous military crisis management opera- related international organisations affects their tions, gaining a new operative dimension for the policy preferences and outcomes. A particular Common Security