NATO membership could still hinge on money

EDITORIAL

print this

Minister of Defence Seppo Kääriäinen wrote already on October 29th, 2003 that Finland can choose either to remain non-allied, or to join NATO, but that we "must make a choice in any case". Almost exactly three years later he gave the same message in his speech at the National Defence Course Association: either continue going it alone, or join NATO.
      The minister was consistent in other respects as well. He was no more willing to reveal now what his own personal choice might be than he was then.
      The previous time, the defence policy report of 2004 was under preparation; now there is already talk of the next one. The basic options are the same, but something has changed. The price of national defence, its cost in euros and cents, is coming out in a new way.
     
The government's traditional view has been that the question of joining NATO is one of security policy, not of money. Kääriäinen repeated this, but the other content of the speech was no longer in line with that view.
      The minister's starting point was the view that maintaining the present level and credibility of national defence requires more funds than before, for reasons that include the sharply rising cost of arms technology. Because of this, there are three main options. Defence could be allowed to deteriorate gradually, or then the defence budget should be allowed to rise considerably - or then Finland must seek to join NATO. However, Kääriäinen was quick to add, that "In NATO as well, Finland should raise its defence budget".
     
So should Finland join NATO to cut costs and spend more money? Professional politicians can make things sound very complicated when they want to, but the logic behind the idea is quite valid. Joining alliances costs money, but maintaining a credible defence without joining an alliance would cost more.
      The defence of a small country can never be gauged for "total" security. The question is simply one of raising the threshold that a possible adversary must cross when considering the use of violence. Joining an alliance can raise that threshold - and at the same time, ease the rise in the cost of national defence - in two ways.
     
The first, naturally, is the simple fact of being a member of an alliance. The famous Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty is not quite what it used to be, and it does not automatically commit every member state to place its full power at the disposal of all of the others. Nevertheless, it is still the cornerstone of common security and mutual solidarity.
      The second benefit of membership is also significant, even though it is not easy to calculate a price for it. A non-allied country must be ready to go on its own, if it finds itself in a serious and drawn-out crisis. All outside help, from fuel to munitions, missiles, and spare parts, constitutes a political stand taken by the helper - a choosing of sides on behalf of the recipient of the aid. They need to consider their decisions carefully.
      There is no such impediment to aid inside a military alliance; the sides have been chosen in advance. Decisions are easier, deliveries of supplies are faster, and the need to stockpile goods is smaller.
If the starting point is one of maintaining the present credibility of defence, the expected rise in prices needs to be compensated in one way or another. Joining an alliance does not eliminate the problem, but it does make the cost curve less steep.
      Kääriäinen's speech was an interesting opening. His points of view can no longer be sidestepped, as the discussion surrounding the new defence policy report takes wind. Which leading politician will be the next to open his or her mouth?
     
Helsingin Sanomat / First published in print 4.11.2006


Previously in HS International Edition:
  Minister Kääriäinen: Finland must spend more on defence, or join NATO (2.11,2006)

Helsingin Sanomat