Speeches
Minister of Defence Stefan Wallin at the CSIS in Washington
It is a great pleasure and an honor to speak at the CSIS. I would like to use this opportunity to share some thoughts with you about multinational defense cooperation. I will do this from a European NATO partner country’s perspective.The urgent need for multinational defense cooperation concerns all European countries, whether allied or non-allied. We all strive to develop military capabilities that efficiently meet our security challenges at home and abroad. At the same, time we experience a growing gap between capability requirements and resources available for defense.
For the foreseeable future, public funding for all the government sectors is likely to remain tight. And that concerns also defense. Defense expenditure is falling in the short term and, at best, recovering slowly in the medium term. Providing the capabilities we need is going to be a major challenge. But we have the responsibility to provide them.
I firmly believe we will only be able to meet that responsibility with a new mindset. A new mindset based on prioritizing, cooperating closely with chosen partners and - above all - focusing on what we keep, not just on what we cut.
The current state of public financing is forcing us all to take far-reaching measures. We face rather brutal decisions. The challenge is to maximize the capabilities we can squeeze out of the resources available. But this is not necessarily only bad news. Sometimes necessity drives innovation and breaks down old barriers.
With budgets so tight, we need to reconsider approaches and ideas that previously may have seemed too much “out-of-the-box”. And we need to look for multinational solutions instead of unilateral solutions. We should not be afraid to explore new initiatives that add value to everyone involved. There are many different ways of working together.
The challenge is how to work together towards smart cost savings, in order to cut fat and not muscle. That is why Finland is actively pursuing collaborative initiatives. In addition to the bilateral cooperation, NATO and EU frameworks and Nordic Defense Cooperation, we are engaged in the so-called “Northern Group” of nations, which includes the Nordic and Baltic countries, the United Kingdom, Germany, Poland and the Netherlands.
We have a mixed record with multinational defense projects from the past. One classic example of a successful project has been the C-17 Strategic Airlift Consortium. Small and medium-sized states seeking large and expensive platforms often have no other options than multinational arrangements. Our budgets and national requirements are simply too small to buy such equipment. The C-17 consortium was good news for Finland also because it was opened for interested non-NATO nations, even though the arrangement was prepared in NATO framework. Looking to the future, we would like to see more similar initiatives.
Another successful example has been the Sea Surveillance Cooperation in the Baltic Sea. This cooperation began in 2009 and it will reach operational phase during this year. The basis lies within bilateral maritime surveillance cooperation between Finland and Sweden. Our good experiences were the drivers for wider cooperation in the Baltic Sea area. The final step has been a European-wide project called Maritime Surveillance Initiative, which is currently conducted in the European Defence Agency under Finnish leadership.
The Sea Surveillance Co-operation in the Baltic Sea is also an excellent example of cost effectiveness. No new surveillance infrastructure has been purchased. We only needed software to link nationally produced data together, and to create a networked forum for daily cooperation.
Despite the positive steps taken in some smaller groups, the pace to find innovative, multinational solutions together has so far been slow. Deepening defense cooperation brings up fundamental questions related to the trust between nations and the degree of self-sufficiency in defense capability.
A complex set of challenges derives from the needs to share and specialize. While a country can provide added value to the common pool by developing a niche capability, it will need to rely on others regarding some other capability areas. What if one of the participants chooses to opt-out? Again - a new mindset is needed, as we get used to the idea of not having it all by ourselves.
These are complicated issues, especially for small countries. When it comes to countries outside collective defense arrangements, such as Finland, challenges are yet multiplied. It is a fact of life that the countries covered by mutual security guarantees have more freedom of action in the development of their defense systems.
Nevertheless, it has become clear that a country of some five million inhabitants, such as Finland, cannot sustain complete or balanced armed forces on a national basis alone. One basic question that I keep on asking from my fellow political decision-makers is the following: which is more important - national sovereignty or national interest? My own answer is that the latter counts more. In any case, the best way to secure both of them is multinational cooperation.
In those multinational projects that have succeeded, certain key elements seem to apply. The countries involved should share mutual confidence and trust, similar quality of military forces and similarity of cultures. These key elements no doubt played a role for us in Finland, when we decided to intensify defense cooperation with our Nordic neighbors.
The Nordic armed forces are based on similar fundamentals in terms of tasks, objectives and concepts, making broad cooperation both possible and preferable. The cooperation is based on the conviction that there is much to be gained through shared experiences, cost sharing, joint solutions and joint actions. Mutually reinforcing cooperation in capability development constitutes a supplemental approach in providing the capabilities and forces required by NATO and the EU.
The Nordic defense cooperation has long traditions starting already in 1960’s with cooperation in the field of peacekeeping training. Later on the cooperation has developed to cover armaments cooperation and building operational capabilities. We aim at cost-effectiveness, but also try to reach operational, financial, technical and industrial benefits.
One of the strengths in the Nordic defense cooperation is its flexibility, making it possible for the participants to choose in which projects to participate. This means that in many cases the work is carried out bi-or trilaterally.
We strive for closer coordination in all defense areas, from strategic studies, through acquisition and logistics, education and exercises to operations. For example our air forces conduct frequent cross-border training and exercises, taking the advantage of using Finnish, Swedish and Norwegian airspace and facilities. Another noteworthy example is the Nordic Battle Group. Preparations for the Battle Group have proved to be a real catalysator for defense reform.
The Nordic defense cooperation, NORDEFCO, is unique in many respects. Not only the long history, but also the exceptional momentum that has been created to boost the cooperation is special. It has remarkably enhanced our mutual understanding and interoperability. But the pace in capacity has been rather slow. This is still very much a work in progress. And it is far too early to tell, when our new structures reach and deliver real added value compared to the cooperation we have carried on for decades.
Many say that we still need more time to develop and mature. But one could also say that even more importantly, we need concrete examples of new type of cooperation. No quick wins, but actual progress.
So, what are the challenges we have faced and may face? I guess these challenges fit generally for defense cooperation between any groups of countries. Above all, it is important to understand that it takes time for the multinational cooperation to be efficient and to overcome friction. For the Nordic family - and despite the unique momentum we have had – capability development has in fact taken more time than expected.
The five Nordic countries do share many similarities, but at the same time we are also different. Finland and Sweden are EU members and NATO Partners. Norway belongs to NATO, but not EU. Denmark belongs to both NATO and EU; but does not participate in EU’s Common Security and Defense Policy. This is often considered to be our strength. But it is obvious that for the cooperation especially in the field of defense, it poses some challenges.
Another constant challenge is to maintain clarity of intentions. If deeper co-operation is to leave all partners satisfied, there has to be clarity and agreement on what purpose the initiative is to serve. This common understanding will determine the scope, form and depth of joint projects in practice.
Thirdly, even if our legislation is quite similar, there are still national rules and regulations that sometimes slow down the process. There are also issues such as cultural differences and bureaucracy. Yet another factor we have found creating friction is different industrial solutions. And - as always - there is the usual organizational resistance against change. But despite the challenges, I think we are on the right track.
Similar challenges apply also to the enhanced multinational defense cooperation within the European Union. The momentum in the EU was initiated one and a half years ago at the meeting of Ministers of Defense in Ghent. Strengthening defense cooperation through pooling and sharing capability projects has already led to some promising results. A package of concrete initiatives has taken shape, including air-to-air refueling, medical support, training and maritime surveillance. However, the need to do more remains urgent. The level of complexity tends to multiply, as the number of nations involved increases.
Finland has participated in NATO’s Partnership for Peace program from the very beginning, for more than fifteen years. And we continue to use all partnership tools available for us to the fullest extent.
Transforming military capabilities and enhancing interoperability are keys to operational success for both NATO nations and partners. NATO’s defense planning and force evaluation tools available for Partner countries, as well as NATO exercises and training and education programs are the most important elements in our Partnership cooperation. We have used all of these for transforming our armed forces and enabling us to contribute capable troops to NATO-led operations.
No matter what institutional shape NATO’s global partnership arrangements may eventually take, these tools should be maintained, further developed and offered to new participants. Current and future threats are likely to transcend geographical borders. Therefore, instead of geography or history, we should look for flexibility, self-differentiation and pragmatism as the guiding principles.
We have been satisfied with the way these principles have been applied to NATO’s partnerships reform. Consolidating the currently fragmented partner categories and focusing on mutually beneficial activities could save heavy administrative burden and lessen duplication. But most importantly, this would contribute to cost-effectiveness and improved operational output.
Each partner country has to find the solution, which best suits its needs. But it is crucial to have a capability-driven approach. Let’s take Finland as an example. In the early years, after joining the Partnership for Peace program, our focus was on applying NATO standards and partnership goals, in order to improve the interoperability of the troops reserved for international operations. During the past couple of years, Finland has chosen to utilize partnership goals for the full range of capability development.
Another new element is our participation in the NATO Response Force. Finland considers NRF a central tool for transforming European armed forces and appreciates the possibility of partner participation. We welcome NATO’s plans to expand exercise schedule and focus on NRF, as put forward by the Secretary General in the Connected Forces Initiative. The US plans to rotate units from an American-based Brigade Combat Team through Europe further add to the viability of the NRF concept.
For this year, Finland has contributed a Deployable CBRN laboratory with a detachment of some 50 experts for the NRF Response Forces Pool. We also have a solid plan concerning our NRF participation for coming years. Next in the line will be army special operations unit, followed by air force F-18 fighter squadron and navy amphibious task unit.
As NATO’s Chicago Summit approaches, we have identified four key areas where we should increase our mutually beneficial cooperation. These ideas were listed in the Swedish-Finnish Food-for-Thought paper delivered in March.
First of all, develop the political dialogue in flexible formats. There is a need to further develop methods for dialogue and cooperation in flexible formats with advanced partners. This is related both to regional and thematic issues at political as well as experts level.
Since NATO’s partners constitute a very heterogeneous group, it is necessary to tailor the cooperation according to the diverging interests, objectives and capabilities of individual partners. We see flexible formats as one tool to this end. The anti-piracy meeting last September and the cyber security meeting last November were a good start. We now need to make sure that this indeed only was a start. Flexible formats should be actively used, so that they can become a meaningful tool for cooperation.
Secondly, deepen cooperation with advanced partners for future operations. Particular attention should be given to the involvement of advanced partners in all the stages of a future operation, including planning and preparations. As the current large-scale operations in Afghanistan will soon come to a close, it will be important to find new ways to preserve and deepen cooperation with advanced partners.
Thirdly, enhance involvement in capability development. Capable forces are essential for multinational operations. Further attention should be given to armaments cooperation as well as extended use of training and exercises to increase interoperability, interconnectivity and preparedness.
Again, we have to keep on working together in order not to loose the enhanced level of interoperability gained through common engagement in Afghanistan. This is of course a two-way street. By enabling partners to develop a high level of interoperability, NATO gains partners which can “plug and play” in NATO’s operations and other activities.
In the light of the upcoming Summit, we are especially interested in Smart Defense. We hope that willing and able partners could be closely involved in the work being done in NATO on Multinational Approaches and in the discussions concerning Smart Defense. It is also essential to coordinate the work done in NATO and the European Union.
The fourth idea is to intensify regional cooperation. For example Nordic and Nordic-Baltic security and defense cooperation, as well as engagement in the Northern Group, are of vital interest for Finland. This kind of cooperation and networking will improve wider European security, and is as such important to the partnership with NATO. We just have to ensure that it is complementary, not duplicating.
In addition to these four areas I just mentioned, we need to make sure that the European Union can present a concrete package in Chicago. We should reiterate EU’s commitment to take greater responsibility on the international scene. We also need to outline the potential added value EU can offer in the field of capability development, including the concrete projects already taken forward in the EU framework. After all, EU members are bound together by a Single Market as well as common currency and legislation. Our defense cooperation does not take place in a vacuum, since all sectors of the government are interwoven together.
I have now been talking for quite a while about the urgent need for deepening multinational defense cooperation. At this point some of you may wonder why on earth Finland still remains outside NATO, the most successful and important defense alliance in the wide Euro-Atlantic area.
The reasons behind Finland's policy of military non-alliance still lie deep in our history, and explaining this in depth would take me at least another half an hour. I just want to note that we are well aware of NATO’s role in safeguarding also Finland’s security through the long decades of the Cold War. The United States’ engagement in Europe through NATO allowed Finland the luxury of prospering as independent non-allied nation.
Finland is not a member of a military alliance, but cooperates with NATO and maintains the option of applying for membership. Finland will not prepare a membership application during this Government’s term of office. Finland will evaluate a possible NATO membership on the basis of its own national security and defence policy interests. We will work to develop cooperation between the European Union and NATO, and recognize NATO’s importance as the key forum of European security policy.
Finland has greatly benefitted from partnership with NATO. And while benefitting, Finland has also been able to contribute for our common security and stability through NATOs operations and the partnership network. The world around us is integrating even faster and deeper than before. Finland is an integral part of the Euro-Atlantic community. We share the same undivided values, interests and responsibilities with other countries around us. This is a fact that I will keep reminding my compatriots.
What I have tried to argue in my brief remarks is that all nations need more effective deployable and usable capabilities. The only way to get there is to do more together. And while speaking about multinational cooperation, we should of course not forget the importance of bilateral cooperation. Bilateral relations lay the basis and contribute to deeper multinational arrangements. This has been the case also with Nordic defense cooperation.
For Finland’s defense sector, the United States is by far the most important bilateral partner. I always keep in mind how a former US Ambassador to Finland, Her Excellency Bonnie McElveen-Hunter, used to describe relations between our two countries: “Finland is the best ally we never had”.
The fundamental question is not only about belonging to one organization or another. I believe that we will see an increasing number of different groupings, involving both NATO and EU nations. What bring these groups together are political will, know-how and resources. NATO and EU should facilitate cooperation and make sure that bureaucracy or institutional fracture will not lead to unnecessary duplication and waste of our diminishing resources.
The Finnish approach is to build a network of carefully targeted co-operation with key partners, with focus on getting things done - not on producing more paper or more bureaucracy. Such an approach allows natural partnerships and regional groupings to flourish. The point is to engage in multinational cooperation in such groups, which generate real value added. To create and maintain the necessary core capabilities needed in future multinational operations – and to do this with reasonable burden-sharing.
I will finish my remarks with a quote from the former Finnish president Martti Ahtisaari. President Ahtisaari ended his Nobel Peace Prize lecture in December 2008 with the following words: “If we work together, we can find solutions. (…) Peace is a matter of will”. I would apply this thought by concluding that also multinational defense cooperation is a matter of will.
Thank you for your attention.