11.4.2002 Minister of Defence Mr. Jan-Erik Enestam, remarks at the CSIS, Washington, D.C.

NEW THREATS, NEW CHALLENGES: A FINNISH VIEW Mr.

Chairman,

Ladies and Gentlemen,

On September 11, 2001, I happened to be at the Warsaw airport, returning from an official ministerial visit to Poland, when I received a call to my mobile phone. I was informed that two airplanes had just hit the World Trade Center towers in New York and that the towers were in fire.

On the plane flying back to Helsinki, I sketched with my assistants an outline of measures we could adopt under the authority of the Ministry of Defence, and when we landed at Helsinki, I was whisked to an emergency meeting of the Finnish Government, where the Government made decisions on our first moves in the fight against international terrorism.

The Economist cover on its first issue after the tragic events of September 11 carried a color photo of the two burning towers with a caption that read: " The Day the World Changed". And change indeed it did.

The barbaric attack united the world in a way we have never seen before. We all knew in an instant that the battle against terrorism is an effort that concerns us all. For us Europeans it was a dark reminder of the fact that insecurity had become globalized. For you Americans it was an end to an illusion that this continent, no matter how huge and powerful, could continue to be a sanctuary. We all learned that national and international institutions devised for another era were inadequate to deal with the new threat.

What has become an extremely important lesson is that security is global and that to tackle global threats there is no substitute for global cooperation.

What is also of vital importance is that the fight against terrorism has reaffirmed the necessity of the transatlantic link. The day after the attacks, on 12 September, the 19 members of NATO declared that the attacks were an attack against them all, invoked Article V of the Washington Treaty, and triggered the same collective defence arrangements for the United States which the Europeans had counted on during the Cold War. Those arrangements, including the AWACS aircraft patrolling the US skies, are in effect to this day.

Also, that same day, 12 September, the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC), with its 46 member countries, Finland among them, passed a declaration of unqualified support to the United States, issuing a statement in which they agreed that these acts were an attack not only on the United States, but on our common values. And they pledged to undertake all efforts needed to combat terrorism.

For her part, Finland condemns terrorism in all its forms. For us, international cooperation and collective action against terrorism are of utmost importance. Here, the exchange of information and effective cooperation between the competent national and international authorities is absolutely necessary. I might add here that in Finland, just as in most countries, action against terrorism falls primarily under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Interior. The Ministry of Defence just provides professional assistance if needed.

We also fully support the view that we are in the fight against terrorism for the long haul. Because the financial, intelligence, criminal and civil protective components of counter-terrorism exceed both the national borders and the reach of any one power, even a superpower, our campaign against terrorism will have to be cooperative, and prudent measures will take time to be effective. One particularly grave concern is the spread of weapons of mass destruction. We must cooperate to prevent such weapons from falling into wrong hands.

One component of our common strategy against terrorism will have to be military. Finland is carrying her share of the burden here, too. We are not part of Operation Enduring Freedom, but we were among the first countries to send liaison officers to USCENTCOM at Tampa, Florida. This we did the day after the decision was reached by our Government to send a Finnish unit to the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan. Our experiences of the cooperation at USCENTCOM are excellent.

The Finnish unit in Afghanistan is the largest ISAF Civil Military Operations (CMO) unit in Afghanistan. The unit currently consists of about 50 officers specializing in civil-military relations. In other words, these experienced officers provide links between the ISAF military and local authorities, helping the Afghan people start rebuilding their badly ravaged country.

Finland's national capability to deploy troops in international operations has been developed over the past 45 years. In fact, our first troops were sent in their heavy winter clothing in 1956 to the Sinai Desert to hold the cease-fire line between the Israelis and the Egyptians. We have come a long way since. By now, about 45 000 Finnish peace-keepers have been deployed literally all over the world. Right at this moment we have a total of almost 1100 soldiers deployed from Afghanistan and Kashmir to the Ethiopian-Eritrean border and the Balkans, and almost everywhere in between. The single largest contingent we have is a battalion of about 820 soldiers in the NATO-led operation KFOR in Kosovo. To put these numbers in perspective, Finland is the largest per capita contributor in crisis management operations in Europe, challenged only by Norway. So I guess I could call my country a superpower in crisis management.

As a country of just over 5 million people Finland will obviously never be able to contribute vast resources to international operations. However, we have made an attempt to offer special expertise often vital for such operations. We have tried to corner niches, if you will. Here, I could mention such special areas of expertise as NBC protection (measurement devices and specialists), experts for humanitarian mine clearance, expertise on civil-military cooperation (like the contingent were are deploying in Afghanistan), as well as our knowledge in some high tech areas, such as advanced information technology.

Campaign against international terrorism, as vitally important as it is for all of us, is only one area where we need international security cooperation. Another crucial area is the strengthening of transatlantic bonds between the United States and Europe. One practical example of transatlantic cooperation is the common crisis management task in the Balkans. There is already deep and effective cooperation between NATO and the European Union where we are working together to ensure security in Bosnia, Kosovo and Macedonia. But my point is that continuing US involvement is essential in order to avoid repeating the mistakes of the early 1990's in the Balkans in the future and that involvement should be carefully nurtured.

The European Union is at the verge of completing its plan of building a credible crisis management capability. At the EU Helsinki Summit in December 1999, a decision was made to establish an EU force of 50 000 - 60 000 soldiers available in 60 days for the so-called Petersberg missions, starting from small humanitarian rescue operations but also including separation of parties by force, if necessary. By now we have had two Capability Conferences to assess what is available. There are obvious deficiencies and shortfalls, and those shortfalls will have to be addressed and remedied. The work to do exactly that is well under way.

Lord Robertson, Secretary General to NATO, has in one of his recent speeches maintained that in spite of its recent efforts, the European Union remains a military pygmy. It might be so, and in my opinion it should remain so. Why to re-invent the wheel? We already have NATO, and it would be foolish indeed for the European Union to try and compete with NATO. It would be particularly foolish in light of the fact that 11 countries of the 15 members of the European Union already are members of NATO. It must also be remembered that when it comes to demanding crisis management tasks, EU's operational capability will depend on the possibility to use NATO's resources. So, to create parallel planning structures and military capabilities would be wasteful and harmful duplication at its worst.

What is needed, however -- and there Lord Robertson is absolutely right -- is an injection of more money, and not only new money but wisely spent money, to EU countrie´s defence budgets. We need to spend money not to support old and inefficient structures, but we must invest on soldiers to give them the right training and we must invest on modern equipment that can bring conflicts quickly to a successful conclusion. It is instructive and quite sobering to realize that the extra defence spending of nearly 50 billion US dollars announced by the Bush administration for the fiscal year 2003 equals the defense spending for that year of France and Germany put together.

Of course, the United States is a global superpower with global interests, so the comparison might be a little unfair. But there is no escaping of the fact that we, on both sides of the Atlantic, will have to pay increasing attention to the capabilities gap that is beginning to separate our militaries in real action. The least we can do is to streamline the NATO and EU planning systems, to communicate with each other thoroughly on the purchase of new equipment, and make sure that the hardware we buy -- and the personnel we train -- are fully interoperable with each other. Only then we can hope that the transatlantic relationship that has so long served us so well has a chance to endure.

We have tried to do our part. Late last year, the Finnish Parliament gave its approval to the Government's Defence White Paper. In that Paper, we decided to increase the defence budget by about 5% from 2001 to 2002, and to keep increasing the budget in real terms by about 2% annually until the year 2006. We have never been a big spender on defence, but what particularly helps us is that our cost-effective way of training our conscripts and running our system in general has given us a possibility to spend money on teeth, not on tail.

As a result, we are able to devote about 30-35% of the defence budget to purchasing major equipment, which in concrete dollar terms means that we have about half a billion dollars every year to invest in new equipment. If Finland were a member of NATO, we would find ourselves at about in the middle of the 19 member states in absolute terms, right there with countries like Canada, Spain and Norway. If we were to make the same comparison in per capita terms, we would be number four after the United States, Great Britain and France.

The pool of forces that Finland has announced to the EU Headline Goal comprises about 2000 soldiers out of the fully mobilized strength of about 450 000 soldiers as of today. That pool is available for all international operations Finland decides to participate in, be they NATO-led, future EU-led or UN operations. From the very beginning of the EU force generation process we have emphasized the importance on non-duplication. Therefore, the Finnish contribution is firmly based on the troops and capabilities we have declared in NATO's Planning and Review Process (PARP). That continues to be the primary tool for us for developing interoperability of our troops with those of NATO member countries.

A particular strength of our contribution is the sustainability of our commitment. The pool enables us to take part in various kinds of operations with various sizes and levels of units, and our training system for international operations guarantees that we always have enough personnel for rotation. One of our priorities is to take part in operations in a Nordic framework. The Nordic countries Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland are cooperating in developing a common pool of forces, and the goal is to be able to offer a Nordic force package of up to a brigade trained and equipped for peace support operations. It goes without saying that this concept is fully NATO interoperable.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

We are facing a period of time when the transatlantic link is more important than ever. It is important in our common fight against international terrorism. There we must continue to cooperate innovatively and effectively, so that we are able to unravel the terrorist networks before the terror strikes at us again.

The transatlantic link is also important in terms of our common efforts to manage crises in Europe and around it. We must build capabilities that match the ambitions adopted by the European Union. We Europeans will have to dig deeper into our pockets. You Americans can help us in facilitating the process of European defence modernization. You can ease unnecessary restrictions on technology transfer and industrial cooperation, and by doing that help us cooperate more fully in critical areas of defence procurement.

And, finally, the transatlantic bonds are important in fostering the security community between the United States and Europe; the community that has for decades been the fundamental guarantor of Euro-Atlantic stability and security. It is no optional extra, but the essential platform for defence cooperation for the years to come.

Return to headlines