NEWS ANALYSIS: Difficult answers over security report

print this

By Kari Huhta
     
      In the debate over security and defence solutions for Finland, everyone gets to hear the questions, but to hear the answers one would have to be a member of the appropriate Parliamentary committee.
      Public debate about the government’s new security and defence policy report was held in Parliament last week. After that, the report was passed on to the committees. In their closed sessions, hundreds of expert statements will be heard before the Foreign Affairs Committee draws up a memorandum on the report. Then debate will be public again.
     
It is possible to guess what is being discussed behind closed doors by using a little bit of imagination, and not very much of that is needed.
      In addition, the protocols of the committees are public.
      It is possible to deduce from the Parliamentary debate about the report that there will be discussions in the committees on how long Finland’s system of conscription will be maintained, how much it costs, and when it will become necessary to close down military garrisons.
      There will be discussions on NATO as well, but contrary to what is the case with monetary matters, there will be only one option available on that - the much-talked-about NATO option.
     
With respect to conscription, Minister of Defence Jyri Häkämies (Nat. Coalition Party) put forward clear-cut alternatives in last week’s discussion, which he will undoubtedly repeat in the committees in greater detail: whether or not conscription and the reserves should be cut back, and likewise the closure of some garrisons in Finland during the current electoral term, or the next.
      According to Häkämies, delaying the measures would require an increase of two per cent in defence spending above inflation, as of 2011. The money would help provide necessary equipment for regional brigades, which are the most poorly equipped and poorly trained of Finland’s military units.
     
As he told people what the money would be used for, Häkämies naturally also said what would happen if it were not forthcoming.
      To begin with, about EUR 350 million would be saved over a period of four years.
      There would be no attempt to repair the decrepit equipment of the regional brigades. The share of those whose training and equipment are currently not really adequate would be removed from the reserve of times of crisis.
      The official figure of 350,000 soldiers in the reserves would be recognised already now as deceptive. According to the annual Military Balance report put out by the International Institute of Strategic Studies, the real figure is 237,000. The publication does not say where the figure came from.
      Then at least one medium-sized garrison would have to be closed down already in a couple of years, and not in five years.
     
A layman might wonder why that should be a problem, if the credibility of defence does not suffer. At the same time it might be possible to discuss what needs to be developed in place of the declining conscript service.
      Fixing the consequences to local communities of closing down garrisons could be done with less than EUR 350 million.
      However, when viewed from Parliament, the difference is nevertheless large. Closing garrisons is dirty work politically, something which Members of Parliament would prefer to leave behind to their successors.
      The Foreign Affairs Committee has some interesting options ahead for its report.
      Opposing greater spending would lead to more work and to a difficult political dispute between the Parliament and government.
      Approving the funding at the same time as the stimulus debt grows would also not be an easy solution.
     
Helsingin Sanomat / First published in print 19.2.2009


Previously in HS International Edition:
  Defence policy report: Finland “strongly” considering NATO (26.1.2009)
  Vanhanen: Security report is no foreign policy bible (23.12.2008)

See also:
  Häkämies warns of possible closure of large military garrison (12.2.2009)

KARI HUHTA / Helsingin Sanomat
kari.huhta@hs.fi