10.3.2003 Assessment of the international activities of defence administration, Minister of Defence Mr. Jan-Erik Enestam

Distinguished members of the Paasikivi Society, Ladies and Gentlemen, As the second cabinet of Prime Minister Paavo Lipponen is soon ending its term of office it is a suitable moment to make an assessment of the international activities of defence administration during the past four years.

The years 1999 to 2003 make up an interesting period of time during which a large number of world political changes have taken place, changes that have influenced also Finland´s position.

The most profound change has been the expansion and deepening of European integration. In 1999, the European Union recognised the importance to contribute to security in Europe and started to develop a common security and defence policy. Nato´s enlargement process started in the same year in the aftermath of the Cold War era and since then the Alliance has accepted new member countries from Eastern Europe, which soon number ten. As also the European Union is preparing to accept new members, it can be noted that the focus in Europe´s political chart has significantly shifted towards east.

Another profound change took place in September 2001 when terrorists struck in the United States with fatal consequences. This led to a global war against terrorism; in this context Russia and the United States and also Russia and Nato have found a new strategic partnership.

To put it briefly, we have moved into an entirely new type of international order where we have had to question many traditional operation models. Here we should keep in mind that Finland is not separate from problems and development elsewhere in the world. On the contrary, we are part of the more and more closely connected international community.

During the past four years, so much has happened in international defence policy co-operation that it is not possible to cover it all now. Therefore I have chosen a number of items, which I personally find important. First, I shall discuss the development of the common security and defence policy of the European Union. The European Union is at the moment the most important frame of reference for the international activities of Finland?s defence administration. A glance at the Defence Minister?s schedule shows this, too: Brussels has become very familiar also to the Finnish defence administration.

As to the EU, the situation today is highly different from the situation in March 1999 when I took on the responsibilities of the Defence Minister. Finland made preparations for her first EU presidency and also the Ministry of Defence was looking forward to this with special interest. There were on the whole high expectations about European security and defence policy.

This matter had been shelved for decades because of the conflicting views of France and Great Britain, both military great powers in Europe, and hardly any progress had been made. After the outbreak of wars in the Balkans, which led to the collapse of Yugoslavia, the EU countries had no alternative but powerlessly observe the enormous destruction and human suffering. Even if the EU had had political will, it would not have had the military capabilities to interfere in what happened in the Balkans.

In December 1998, France and Great Britain struck a common note in the development of security and defence policy component in the European Union. After this breakthrough, the EU countries agreed upon the basic guidelines of the common security and defence policy in the Cologne European Council in June 1999. The heads of state of the member countries noted that since significant political and economic resources are available to the EU, it has the prerequisites to become a credible actor in crisis management also militarily.

The proposal made jointly by Finland and Sweden in 1996 provided a common ground for the views of the fifteen member countries to include military crisis-management tasks in the powers of the Union. Based on this proposal, during Finland?s presidency the member countries started to work on building the EU´s military crisis-management capability. By the Helsinki European Council held in December 1999, the EU countries committed themselves to a common goal still known as the "Helsinki Headline Goal". According to it, by 2003 the EU should be able to provide a crisis-management force comprising at the most 60,000 troops. In addition, naval and air force components would be needed.

Since then we have seen how rapidly things have developed. New politico-military bodies required by crisis management were established within the EU exceptionally fast and the member countries started to co-operate to develop the capabilities defined in the Helsinki Headline Goal. This is what we have accomplished: the European Union started in January 2003 its first crisis-management operation by continuing a police operation in Bosnia, which had been started by the United Nations.

The aim is to launch the first military crisis-management operation of the EU in Macedonia in March when the Union takes over the command of a stabilisation operation started by Nato.

As can be seen, progress has been made and concrete steps have been taken. However, everything has not run as smoothly as possible, which sometimes is the case in EU matters. As to the number of troops, the Headline Goal agreed upon in Helsinki was reached already in 2000, but defects in quantity still occur in important areas, especially as to capabilities needed to execute demanding crisis-management operations, such as a strategic air and naval transport capability, staffs suitable for multinational operations and command, control, communications and intelligence systems.

The work to improve these areas is carried out in capability panels, with national approach and voluntary contribution as key elements. The aim is to analyse the situation and together find viable solutions. It has not been possible to correct all deficiencies through panels because some of the deficiencies can only be corrected through new headline goal offers by member countries.

Within the frame of today?s European defence budgets, a capability goal can only be reached through a great deal of innovation, commitment and the will to co-operate. We also have to think about new methods in defence materiel co-operation, such as finding resources for common use, borrowing and leasing contracts, and various funding models. Our experts are working to find new solutions.

I am highly optimistic as to the will of the EU countries to develop a common defence component.

I meet my European colleagues on a regular basis and have noticed that despite certain national traditions and differing approaches we find a common ground and agree on major issues. We do share the common goal of promoting security and well being in Europe.

The deadline for the headline goal, which was agreed upon during Finland's presidency, was set for the end of 2003 when the EU should be able to perform crisis-management tasks. At that point it is most likely to be criticised again for making such slow progress, the main result being further growing massive bureaucracy. Here I would like to note that I have had the opportunity to closely follow the EU´s work in crisis management and I know that a lot of concrete progress has been made in spite of a tight schedule.

We should bear in mind that the EU´s common security and defence policy has been seriously developed only for about three years. There was nothing to start with, and today we participate in crisis-management operations. The fifteen countries have made decisions, based on a common view. In 2004, after enlargement, the European Union is going to comprise 25 member countries and, by the end of the decade, almost 30 countries. One of the great challenges in the near future is how to ensure effective and well functioning co-operation in security and defence policy.



Distinguished audience,

in addition to the European Union, Nato´s Partnership for Peace programme is a significant frame of reference for Finland?s defence administration. In developing the European crisis-management capability, Nato is clearly a stronger factor than the EU. However, they are not alternatives to each other and the EU is not made to compete against Nato, on the contrary; the EU´s common security and defence policy is being developed in co-operation with Nato.



Finland has been very active in developing the Partnership for Peace programme because military interoperability to be gained from there is vital in developing our national defence capability. The central content in Partnership activities is participation in international crisis-management tasks and exercises, and development of interoperability through partnership goals and the relevant planning and review process.

The experiences we have gained from Nato-led crisis-management operations in the Balkans have been highly positive and Finnish expertise has been noted among countries with whom we co-operate. This is the message that was passed on to me in January by Nato Secretary General George Robertson who especially thanked our contribution to crisis management. According to him, the fact that in May a Finnish general takes over the duties of commander of one of the four sectors in Kosovo (MNB (C)/KFOR), directly under the leadership of the operation´s command is an undeniable sign of this; this is the first time that a task of this calibre and level is given to a militarily non-allied country.

Nato´s enlargement has considerably changed the nature of partnership. After the Prague Summit in which new members were invited, the remaining partner countries constitute a rather heterogeneous group with very different backgrounds and objectives concerning partnership co-operation. In addition to the four militarily non-allied EU countries, the Partnership for Peace programme also includes countries from the Balkans, Caucasus and the Central Asia. Since the PfP programme continues to be an important channel of communication for Finland to the sole security and defence policy organisation in Europe, these changes affect also Finland.

Sweden and Finland have co-operated for a common goal: that the PfP programme would continue to benefit all participants and offer a viable alternative to all parties. The main principle of the initiatives that the two countries have taken is to gain as much muscle as possible to influence matters in which they participate. Their initiatives have been well received among Nato countries ? now it is time to make sure that these initiatives are put to practice in connection with Nato´s transformation.

Nato is in the midst of a transformation process. The troops and command structure, which were based on the demands of the Cold War era, are being profoundly transformed and capabilities are being developed through a new programme. The transformed command structure is to be used in operations, which may take place far beyond Nato?s territory. This requires that the areas of responsibility be re-divided among headquarters and overlapping structures be pulled down. Deficiencies in Nato´s military capabilities are for the main part the same as in the EU; the capabilities that need improving were checked in the Prague Summit to better meet requirements especially in the capability to act beyond Nato´s own territory.

The key element contributing to the transformation of Nato is the need to be better prepared to meet the challenges of the new security threats, which have caused tension for the entire international community at the beginning of the new millennium. Although the threats posed by terrorism and weapons of mass destruction have not affected Finland?s security policy as deeply as Nato?s development, the need to make preparations for possible new threats is a more and more important issue also for Finland in international co-operation. It is not possible to repel security threats such as terrorism only through national measures.

We are developing in co-operation with other EU countries and in the framework of Nato´s PfP programme the defence forces´ capabilities so that they could better protect societies against various catastrophes and disorders. Defence forces have a great deal of useful competence, which originally was developed to protect own troops and information systems in a crisis situation. The challenge now is to make this know-how benefit the entire society in the best possible way. This specific aspect highlights the importance of flexible co-operation between different administrative branches.



In addition to the transformation process, Nato is currently preparing to accept seven new member countries, which include our Baltic neighbours Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. The Baltic States´ membership in Nato reflects their determined and creditable efforts; their new status will certainly increase stability in Northern Europe. At the same time it also means a successful termination of a long-term project by the Finnish defence administration.

From the beginning of the 1990´s, we have significantly contributed with a number of other countries to developing the defence capability of the Baltic States. Estonia has been the main recipient of Finland´s support but we have contributed also to several bilateral and multilateral projects in Latvia and Lithuania. During the past four years we have assisted, for example, Estonia to establish field artillery as a branch of service and a reserve officer school, have trained Estonian officers in our National Defence College and have provided courses to the high command of the Estonian Defence Forces.

About ten years ago the Baltic States started to build their national defence, almost empty-handed. Now they are able to continue to develop their defence systems independently and with support from Nato. Although the actual Baltic project is gradually coming to an end, co-operation with the Baltic States will continue in different forms. Our advisers continue to support them, if necessary.



Distinguished audience,

the development of crisis-management capabilities both within the EU and Nato is characterised by specialisation of individual countries in certain capabilities and competence. Specialisation and division of work are highly welcome as the requirements set by today´s crisis-management tasks are so high that it would not be sensible to try to do everything alone. By harmonising the capabilities of various countries we shall reach a multinational entity, which suits whatever needs are required.

Finnish special competence includes, for example, civil-military co-operation, CIMIC, for which a Finnish peacekeeping unit consisting of reservists is highly suitable.

Finnish peacekeepers are also now contributing to improving conditions in Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan. Apart from CIMIC, we aim to develop also other special areas where we could draw on the Finnish high level of technological know-how. These capabilities include command, control and communications systems and protection against weapons of mass destruction.

The strength of international co-operation lies in the possibility to save and to streamline functions within the frames of limited budgets and personnel resources. NORDCAPS, the project of the Nordic countries Finland, Sweden, Norway and Denmark created to strengthen crisis-management capabilities, has won recognition internationally. This arrangement is based on Nordic co-operation in peacekeeping matters, which dates back several decades. In practice NORDCAPS means readiness to participate as of July 2003 in a crisis-management operation with Nordic troops.

In addition to the Nato- and EU-led operations, which I already mentioned, Finland continues to take part in the UN peacekeeping missions, as she has done for nearly 50 years. Finland participates in the UN-led UNMEE operation in the frontier area between Ethiopia and Eritrea. We are going to further strengthen our contribution by sending a 200-strong headquarters and guard company. Furthermore, we are going to contribute to the UN´s military observer operations in the Balkans, Kashmir, Kuwait and the Middle East.



Ladies and Gentlemen,

Increasing co-operation in international security and defence policy is clearly reflected in the changing role and tasks of the minister of defence and the entire defence administration. Today ministers of defence play a central role in developing the capabilities required by the EU´s military crisis-management capability. They meet at the General Affairs Council of the EU and at unofficial defence minister meetings. As the official representative of Finland, the Chief of Defence takes part in the work of the EU´s Military Committee. The Defence Forces have a representative in the Military Staff, at Finland´s embassies and missions, in international organisations and in a number of capability panels.

Although changes have taken place at a high speed, defence administration has been well able to respond to challenges. We have hardly seen the end of developments; it was proposed at the Convention on the Future of the EU that a defence minister council be established so that guidelines for defence policy could be further strengthened. The Convention has also proposed attaching defence materiel issues to the common security and defence policy. This would be a natural continuation of the on-going capability work for which national defence materiel directors of the EU member countries have convened on a regular basis. Making defence materiel co-operation more intense would be highly welcome both for security of supply and the competitive edge and viability of our defence industry.



Distinguished audience,

We have come a long way from the times when Finland had to make decisions concerning her national security separately from the rest of the world. In the future, the course of development is exactly the opposite one ? towards more and more interdependency. Isolation and striving for full self-sufficiency are no longer sensible options, let alone possible ones. Only through international networks can Finland be a prominent and active actor also in current environment.

Our contribution to developing European crisis-management capabilities has provided us with new opportunities and new information, which can be useful also for national defence. At the same time this has meant an opportunity to accept responsibilities and to take part in activities that benefit Finland. We Finns have gained a great deal of experience internationally in planning and implementing common operations and finding peaceful solutions to crises. The work, which we together have carried out, has improved security in Europe.

It is for these reasons that an active role in the common security and defence policy of the EU, Nato´s Partnership for Peace programme and the UN-mandated operations to promote peace and security is of vital importance to Finland.

Return to headlines