COMMENTARY: Finland trying to hide away
Former head of Finnish Institute of International Affairs says Finland could work for common EU air defence
By Tapani Vaantoranta
Although the next Parliament will get a new government security policy report to approve, security policy is an issue which has been largely avoided in the Parliamentary elections.
The silence is not the result of consensus. For instance, events in Russia have been a cause for some to step up their criticism. President Putin has made some people more cautious than before with respect to Russia. There are also those who want to join NATO quickly because of Russia.
The issue seems to interest the citizens. There has been lively debate in the letters to the editor pages of Helsingin Sanomat. The difference in the debate that is going on in letters from the public, and that among decision-makers is vast. Decision makers have often not explained the reasons for what they have said, and have repeated the same arguments over and over again.
So why is there no discussion on security policy in the election debates?
One big reason for the silence is that the politicians do not want to tacke difficult issues before elections. There has not been discussion on what kind of a world we live in, what Finland is threatened by, and what kinds of preparations should be made in the face of the threats.
The question of Finnish security cannot be condensed into just two options - joining NATO or not joining NATO. The two-by-two table on the side makes it easier to analyse the debate.
The horizontal line represents the debaters. There are those who feel that Finland is still living in a jungle (VIIDAKKO), and those who feel that we have moved into a garden (PUUTARHA). In the jungle, war is always a possibility, and the threat from Russia is real.
In the garden alternative, a war between states is seen as unlikely, and even Finland is faced with security challenges, but not by a threat from Russia.
Let's take one example. Journalist Annamari Sipilä recently expressed wonder that the Parliament's "reform-minded" Foreign Affairs Committee, has viewed developments in Russia with greater suspicion than the more "conservative" Defence Committee (Helsingin Sanomat Feb. 18th).
The table offers an explanation to that as well.
When Putin talks tougher, the Defence Committee does not worry, because it has already known that there is a dangerous bear lurking in the forest. There is no reason for concern as long as the bear stays far away from human habitation.
In the Foreign Affairs Committee, on the other hand, there are members who had imagined that the bear had been tamed, and who now have to admit that it is not safe to walk in their own gardens unarmed.
When we add a vertical line to the analysis of the security policy environment - that is, a choice between military alignment and non-alignment, we get four possible ways of thinking about Finnish security policy: joining NATO, hiding, the post-modern world, and EU defence.
Supporters of joining NATO do not believe that the world around Finland has become safer, and for that reason they want to change the basic lines of policy. Even if Russia does not pose a threat to Finland right now, they ask "what about tomorrow?". Independent defence is not believed to be enough: they want to join NATO, because the feeling is that Finland needs the security guarantees of the Untied States.
So why don't the supporters of NATO membership raise the issue in election debates?
One reason is that NATO is not something that candidates win elections with. A majority of voters oppose NATO membership. Russia also cannot be called a threat in public, and if there is no threat, then what need is there to join an alliance?
The hiders agree with NATO supporters that Finland's security environment has not improved. They also see Russia as the greatest threat, but they draw a different conclusion.
They feel that Finland should not change its basic line, because "we do not want to be theoretical targets". The best policy is to be cautious with Russia, to keep a distance to the United States, and to invest in national defence. NATO membership is not seen as a good idea, because membership would inevitably link Finland with a possible conflict between Russia and the West.
The collective memory of the nation supports the thinking of the hiders. Finland has powerful faith in having made it through the storms of history in the past as well.
However, memory can be shaky. Finland stood alone in late 1939 and tried to stay outside. It didn't work.
Post-modern thinking assumes that a change for the better has taken place. Russia will not attack Finland, and military alignment does not feel necessary, because the "real threats", such as climate change and poverty in the developing countries call for different kinds of solutions.
Cooperation between countries to prevent problems from taking place, and to fix the ones that do exist are the essence of modern security policy - not military alliances and arming one's self for the defence of one's own territory, the post-modern thinking goes.
For that reason, they want to move the focus of defence toward international crisis management. But the post-moderns also have public opinion to contend with. The desire to defend the country remains strong in Finland. Russia is also a problem. The policies of Russia, which is enriching itself with energy, is no better for the Finns than the United States of George W. Bush, whom the post-moderns have loudly criticised. The basic weakness of post-modern thinking is that the change for the better has actually happened only within the EU. With whom can Finland and the EU create a better world?
Where in the table is Finnish policy located then? The mainstream is now closest to the hiders. The other options have been rejected in recent times.
In connection with the EU's constitutional treaty, Finland would not accept a wording in which the member states would have unequivocally committed themselves to defending each other. And a clear support for not joining an alliance is probably what secured President Tarja Halonen a second term in last year's Presidential elections.
Now Defence Minister Seppo Kääriäinen narrows down the options to two: either the Defence Forces need more money, or then we should join NATO. A majority say that more money for defence is preferable to joining NATO.
Not even the post-modernists are asking if we really are living in a jungle in which these are the only two options.
It is surprising that the fourth option in the table has not won more visible support - that is, the option in which the basis for Finnish security policy thinking would clearly be a common defence of the European Union.
One might think that the security provided by the French and British nuclear arsenals would be enough for supporters of NATO membership as well. The EU is also not the great power feared by the hiders, because Finland itself is one of those who decide on its policies. And the EU should be good enough even for the post-modernists, as it is "more efficient than the UN and nicer than the United States".
The kind of EU defence that Finnish security could be built on does not yet exist. But Finland could now prepare itself for the post-Hornet age by starting to actively promote an EU air defence. Nordic cooperation in this area would be a step in this direction.
Thinking about security policy through EU defence requires relinquishing two entrenched ideas: those of the necessity of an independent defence, and of fear of Russia. The final stretch of the election campaign offers a possibility to raise these issues into public debate. At least one vote is on offer for the candidate that dares, and knows how to do this.
Helsingin Sanomat / First published in print 11.3.2007
The writer served as Director of the Finnish Institute of International Affairs until February 28th this year.
Helsingin Sanomat
|
| 13.3.2007 - THIS WEEK |
 COMMENTARY: Finland trying to hide away |
|
