16.1.2003 Keynote address by Minister of Defence Mr. Jan-Erik Enestam, Oberammergau planning symposium 16-17 January,"Partnership for peace after the prague summit"

Mr.

Chairman,

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Thank you for the opportunity to address this very important annual event. I am honoured to appear here as the Key Note speaker. From a Partner country's perspective, this year's Planning Symposium is particularly relevant because it takes place only a couple of months after the successful Summit at Prague where NATO members committed themselves to a number of far-reaching decisions regarding the future of the Alliance.

Prague epitomizes the change that has transformed the international system and the European security environment in the last decade, and continues to do so. This change is about the interplay between integration and uncertainty. Prague and Copenhagen decisions regarding the enlargement of NATO and the European Union, and the new NATO-Russia relationship exemplify the former.

The spectre of globally operating terrorists seeking weapons of mass destruction, on the other hand, represents the common threat compelling us to seek even additional forms of security cooperation. In Lord Robertson's words: "A strong and stable Europe is a key asset at a time when American and Western security is under attack elsewhere." I would like to add: a strong and stable Euro-Atlantic community is indispensable in our effort to counter threats common to us all.

This is the framework where I locate the Prague Summit. From the Partners perspective, the decision to strengthen the Euro-Atlantic Partnership is very important. Today, I am going to share with you some ideas how I think we should carry on developing the Partnership.



According to the Prague Summit declaration and the Report on the Comprehensive Review of the EAPC and PfP, the involvement of the Partners will be increased "to the maximum extent possible" in those activities, in which they participate and to which they contribute. This is a sound point of departure.

The Comprehensive Review is a well-balanced document, which offers something for all Partners. From Finland's perspective, references to developing the Political-Military Framework, as well as enhancing interoperability and capabilities, are particularly relevant. The drafting of this document took place in an atmosphere of transparency and Alliance-Partner co-operation. We look forward to working in a similar manner also in the implementation phase.

The Comprehensive Review provides us with an opportunity to take the relationship to a qualitatively new level. What we are now facing is a long-term process. This endeavour has different content for various geographic areas, where substance and focus must be matched with specific needs and available resources. This is a process that requires determination, commitment and hard work on all sides.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I think we can all agree that the work on enhancing interoperability between Allied and Partner forces has been the most important practical achievement of the Partnership. As a result, the NATO-led operations in the Balkans have turned out to be such success stories.

This spring Finland will take over the co-ordinating responsibility for the KFOR Multinational Brigade Centre from the United Kingdom. This is a living example of how well the PfP programme and especially the PARP Process actually work. So PARP has indeed proven its full worth, but how could we still improve it? Let me make some suggestions.

In the spirit of the Comprehensive Review and the Political-Military Framework, we should examine how to enhance interoperability in a way of providing more visibility to Partners by bringing together the PARP Process and the Partnership Goals, standardization, planning of exercises, as well as lessons learned and assessment and feedback.

First of all, it would be useful if there were more direct Partner involvement through PARP in setting up the Partnership Goals. It would also be helpful for the Partners to get more technical information on the Partnership Goals, in particular on those that have their origins in the Prague Capabilities Commitment. This would help the able and willing Partners to fulfil their goals and work in a more proactive manner.

Secondly, new Partnership Goals should be derived from the Alliance's responses to the new asymmetrical threats, including the fight against terrorism. I can also envisage an increasing need for Partnership Goals related to the protection of civil societies - where targets could be, for example, information and communications networks - as well as countering nuclear, radiological, biological and chemical threats. In this field we should look for synergies with similar on-going work in other international organizations.

Thirdly, we would all benefit from wider Partner access to the lessons-learned process through various NATO instruments. This would enhance the success of current and future Partner participation in NATO-led operations and exercises. We should also be able to put together a schedule for robust and capability oriented exercises, which would improve our capabilities to operate even better than is the case today.



One more issue deserving a thorough look is the possible effect of NATO's new command structure on the future of the PfP. The Comprehensive Review includes a chapter titled "Increasing the Association of Partners with NATO Decision Making Process in Specific Areas". Also, the restructuring of functions within the International Staff is important from the Partner point of view in terms of continued access to information.



All this involves essential questions, such as: should we carry on with the existing Partner Staff Element officer arrangement, or should we look for a new solution that would be better in line with the new thinking and new structures in NATO?



I ask these questions, because I firmly believe that for Partners to successfully take part in planning presupposes an appropriate presence at SHAPE. In addition, it would probably also make sense if the Partners were involved in the work of the new strategic headquarters that will soon begin working on the transformation of the Alliance.



Ladies and Gentlemen,

A functioning NATO-EU relationship is vitally important in exploring new, cost-effective and flexible ways of creating lacking military capabilities. We can only benefit from transparent co-operation between the two organisations.

The capability initiatives undertaken both in NATO and the EU complement each other to a large degree and demonstrate the need for close collaboration. In particular, we need to ensure continued coherence and mutual reinforcement between the respective plans and priorities undertaken within the two organisations.

It is important to avoid any disparities or duplication in the objectives of NATO's Prague Capability Commitment and the European Capabilities Action Plan, and therefore it is necessary to make full use of the existing synergies. Potentially this brings fruitful opportunities for mutually reinforcing both programmes, for example by combining the lead nations for work in given capabilities in both organisations, as has already been done in many capability areas. "Keep it simple" applies also here, and co-operation could be initiated without unnecessary bureaucracy by simply exchanging information on the current plans transparently.

One aspect emphasised in both the PCC and the ECAP is the importance of launching multilateral procurement projects. This could be one area, where the new Partnership Action Plan mechanism could be utilized. A capability-specific PAP project would link together the ECAP and the PCC, and thus act as a bridge between the capabilities development work under way in both organisations.

As we now have an agreement on the "Berlin+", it is important to examine how the EU could be assured of adequate and continuous access to those NATO planning structures, which are relevant in preparing recourse to NATO assets by the EU. This implies personnel both in forms of national liaison as well as international staff. Respectively, the EU should offer similar arrangements for NATO, bearing in mind the differences in military structures of the two organisations.

Regarding the NATO's transformation and the NATO-EU relations, one more relevant issue is the forthcoming NATO Rapid Response Force. Although designed for different kinds of operations, the NATO NRF and the Rapid Reaction elements of the EU Headline Goal will inevitably contain many of the same force structures. Therefore, it would be essential for us to be well informed of the work under way in NATO. The NRF and the related work in the EU should be mutually reinforcing while respecting the autonomy of both organisations.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Let me now draw your attention to the question of how we Partners could make a special contribution to making more out of the Partnership for Peace.

First of all, it requires active participation in the various Partnership programmes, Individual Partnership Action Plans, trust funds and exercises. It also presupposes role specialisation, as it does not make sense that all of us keep on doing more or less the same things with limited resources. Individual Partnership Action Plans are especially useful for those countries in need of tailored assistance.

We should also bear in mind that quite a few Partner countries have significant experience on security structures beyond defence, including civil emergency planning, environmental issues and border security. These areas could be worked out further through the Partnership Action Plan mechanism. The PAP could also be used to approach specific problems pragmatically in a regional context.

Furthermore, Partners could be drawn more closely into co-operation through NATO's Weapons of Mass Destruction Center. Taking into account that many Partner countries have national expertise on technologies and protection measures, as well as concrete plans for responding to NRBC emergencies, an exchange of information with the Weapons of Mass Destruction Center would not be only a one-way street.

When preparing the EAPC community to meet the new security challenges, one obvious area to focus at is the need for information gathering and sharing. This applies also to the on-going and planned operations. In this field I warmly welcome the decision to establish an EAPC-PfP Intelligence Liaison Unit. It is crucial that we now make full use of it in co-operation with other international organisations.

To be sure, "Partners helping Partners" or "mentoring" is an important way of pragmatically using the already existing capabilities and know-how among the Partners. Finland is prepared to share its experiences in creating international training centres and how to connect them in the distance learning networks. We would be happy to further develop this idea together with other interested Allies and Partners.

We have earlier proposed the creation of regional trust funds to support especially countries in Central Asia and Caucasus. Our intention has been to develop the trust fund mechanism in a direction, which would allow creating issue and region-based funds, instead of only leadnation and project-based ones.

This would require a co-ordinating role from for the International Staff, assisted by the Member States and Partners. We should also look for possibilities of cooperation with other international organisations. The main benefit of this kind of arrangement will be that it would allow smaller states and especially Partners to contribute according to their own resources.

Finland remains interested in developing the concept of trust funds. How we will proceed in this field is now up to the decisions by the NATO Member States. I am confident that the guidelines agreed at Prague and the seminar to be organised by the International Staff at the end of this month in Brussels will form a good basis for going ahead.

Providing specialist advice and financial resources, as well as creating trust funds and mentorships could go a long way towards covering the education and training expenses in carrying out necessary reforms in the most exposed and resource-challenged Partner countries.

The question of resources is not limited to the Partner countries only. We all know how tight NATO's International Staff is with workforce available for Partnership. The workload could be at least slightly eased, for example, by having Partner nationals working in the International Staff, not only as interns as is the case today, but as full-fledged staff members.

Furthermore, there is a clear need and room for more regional programmes, like the NATO Mediterranean Dialogue. That process has successfully drawn the participating Mediterranean countries in a political dialogue on regional issues of security and stability. Perhaps one way to take a step further beyond seminars and symposia would be to offer these countries practical co-operation through various Partnership programmes?

I also appreciate initiatives like the "Geneva Forum" operated by Switzerland, which bring new dimensions to the PfP and take benefit of the possibilities brought by modern information technology.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Are we able to successfully face the challenges ahead of us and keep Partnership an interesting and viable option? I believe we are, but as I said at the outset, it requires determined and hard work from all of us.

The long record of success of the EAPC and the PfP, and the Comprehensive Review as a new roadmap, all together demonstrate that there is a solid basis of mutual understanding and practical cooperation for us to build upon in developing the Partnership.

However, we must avoid taking too large a bite out of the cake at once. Prioritising and careful planning are without any doubt the key aspects in a successful implementation of the Comprehensive Review.

I recognize, of course, that the ongoing internal restructuring process at NATO binds lots of key resources. As we now begin the implementation process of the Comprehensive Review document, we must give full consideration to financial and especially human resource implications. This is the only way to ensure credibility in our efforts.

At the end of the day, the key question is the following: Will we be able to generate enough interesting substance to maintain high-level political interest in the Partnership? It should be clear from what I have said here this morning that I am personally convinced that this is the case.

In essence, what we need is a Partnership capable of continuously renewing itself. I am confident that we will succeed in this common endeavour.

Return to headlines