Translation

SPEECH BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF FINLAND
AT THE 15^TH ANNIVERSARY JUBILEE OF THE ASSOCIATION OF FINNISH FOREIGN NEWS
JOURNALISTS IN HELSINKI ON 15.5.1998


DEVELOPING MILITARY COOPERATION
IN A CHANGING INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY

Europe was a politically and militaily divided continent for more than 40 years. Fears and threat perceptions are still deeply rooted. The emancipation for the past in particular is a psychological challenge. Are were able to proceed on the way to a deepening cooperation? Strengthening cooperation in the military field plays a key role.

I want to share my assessment with you on these issues and the tasks which Finland is expected to undertake when we aim at sharing our responsibility for international peace through military cooperation.

I shall emphasise right at the beginning that the foreign- and security-policy line that we have pursued in recent years has strengthened our position. Non-participation in military alliances and an independent defence form the basic solution on which our security policy rests. As a member of the European Union, we are participants in political solidarity-centred cooperation, which is developing a common foreign and security policy that includes working to prevent and manage crises. Finland is also participating in NATO cooperation structures. Through our policy, we have been able to contribute to strengthening stability and increasing cooperation in our continent. It is a good basis from which to carry on.

The development of military cooperation has been an enormous security challenge since the end of the Cold War division. This has resulted primarily from changing perceptions of threat and risk. We are ever better aware of them, but they do not any longer follow the logic of bipolarity. New forms of cooperation are being developed.

Preventing and managing crises is the most important of the new forms of cooperation, both military and in civilian questions. Supporting military change in the new democracies is part of this cooperation.

The past few days have given us serious reminders that security still hangs in the balance in many parts of the globe. I am referring in particular to the nuclear tests conducted by India and to the heightening tension in Kosovo and Indonesia. These examples illustrate what the security challenges of our times are like. Unfortunately, power politics is still a feature of the security landscape today.

In the cases of these security concerns that I have mentioned, our position is clear. First of all, continued progress must be made in arms-control and disarmament measures. We must not drift out to a new nuclear arms race. Secondly, international military cooperation must be increased so that ethnically-based crises like that in Kosovo can be prevented or, if they do erupt, are quickly defused and stability is restored.

I shall now concentrate on the development of international military cooperation in crisis management as seen from a Finnish perspective. The main emphasis is on Europe, but the issue concerns military cooperation also more broadly. International crisis management or peace-stabilisation measures with supporting military arrangements are part of the development and maintenance of a post-Cold War security order. However, an adequate capability to do this work does not exist. We have seen operations in which a lot of mistakes have been made; either force has been used excessively or else its timing has been wrong. Often, too, there has been a failure to win the confidence of the civilian population.


Now that the threat of a major war has receded and the division into military blocs has crumbled, all of the OSCE states have accepted collective security in Europe as their goal. Military cooperation has become an instrument in the creation of security in Europe and part of a profound change within societies and between states.

Political changes in Central and Eastern Europe have likewise initiated military reforms, which have gained further momentum from the efforts of several countries to gain membership of the European Union and NATO. Democratic control of armed forces as well as internalisation of the norms of international law are both among the prerequisites for collective security.

Military reform in Russia is important. The country’s participation in international cooperation is promoting reform. Russia’s contributions to the IFOR and SFOR operations in the former Yugoslavia are appreciated.

The Baltic States are building up their defence forces. Finland, in common with the other Nordic countries, has supported them in this work, which strengthens their sovereignty.

Developing a capability to undertake international peacekeeping tasks is an important part of the Baltic States’ work of building up defence forces. The three countries have created a joint peacekeeping battalion, which is planned to be able to accept independent responsibility in the near future. Collective security will have been achieved when all states are reinforcers of security and make their contributions to joint measures.

The UN and its Security Council bear the main responsibility for international peace and security. The UN has developed its capabilities in the fields of peacekeeping and crisis management. At the same time, both in UN circles and on the European side, there has been a strengthening view that the primary aim should be to resolve regional disputes and crises among the states of the regions and their organisations, as provided for in Article VIII of the Charter.

The member states of the UN have accepted the challenge. International cooperation with the goal of peacekeeping and comprehensive crisis management has become an increasingly important part of the development of member states’ armed forces and of the adjustment of the military organisations NATO and the WEU to the new security environment. The OSCE has defined its role in peacekeeping and has a status, in the same manner as the UN, as a mandator of operations.

The UN has created an extensive standby system to ensure that operations to manage crises can be gotten under way with the requisite promptness. So far, a total of 71 countries have announced their willingness to contribute forces. All in all, nearly a hundred thousand soldiers have been registered within the system. To improve its capacity to act quickly, the UN has also taken a decision-in-principle to establish an operative staff that can be transferred from the UN secretariat to the field at very short notice.

The UN has been constantly developing its peacekeeping function in order to be able to react rapidly to crisis situations in which military peacekeepers are needed. Finland has tried to respond to this development within the UN by signing, on 30.3.1998, a memorandum of intent to participate in the United Nations Stand-by Arrangements System (UNSAS). We are also trying to develop our ability to participate in the multinational UN Stand-by Forces High Readiness Brigade (SHIRBRIG), which will provide the UN with peacekeeping forces if the Secretary-General requests them. So far, six countries (Denmark, Canada, Austria, Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands) have contributed to SHIRBRIG. Finland has joined as an observer and is represented on the SHIRBRIG steering group.

It is important in Finland’s view that the European Union is being strengthened as an actor in the field of security policy. Under the Treaty of Amsterdam, military crisis-management tasks come within the scope of the common foreign and security policy. The Union can decide on operations which would be implemented with the aid of the WEU. The work of creating the cooperation mechanism has commenced.

The amendment to the treaty shows that the Union is not remaining in the role of bystander. It is a central political actor when the international community is making decisions concerning political or military intervention. A factor that strengthens the Union’s position is its capacity for economic and political support measures, something that is an inseparable part of modern crisis management.

In the 1990s NATO’s peacekeeping has become the form of activity on which the future of the alliance is founded. NATO has reshaped its structures, its planning system and its capabilities and created rapidly-deployable multinational forces trained for new kinds of tasks.

The transformation of NATO is made all the more far-reaching by the opening up of the alliance for cooperation with partnership countries. In practice, the aim is to have all European countries prepared to take part in joint operations.

The Partnership for Peace (PfP) programme has shown itself to be a project that is fundamentally reshaping the European politico-military landscape. The IFOR and SFOR operations in Bosnia have demonstrated that the partnership for peace model works in practice, even though they did not in the formal sense come into being as PfP operations. They have provided experience for use in future operations in addition to sharing knowledge and creating military interaction transcending former dividing lines.

The PfP model is not technically complete, nor indeed without problems in the political sense. For the NATO countries PfP is part of the alliance’s adaptation, a matter on which there are different views. For the countries aspiring to join it is a channel to fulfilment of the conditions of membership. For others, like Finland, it is a channel for practical cooperation and influence in crisis management. I hope that Russia will become an active participant in partnership functions.

It is important for European security that partnership for peace gains strength and also that the Euroatlantic Partnership Council (EAPC) becomes an effective cooperation forum.


Finland and the other countries that are not participating in military alliances have revised their defence thinking and systems in order to be able to honour their international obligations. These require new kinds of capabilities, not only military, but also cooperation between military and civil authorities or, for example, making civilian police forces available. Alongside UN tasks, participation in the Partnership for Peace is a main strand in Finland’s international contributions. Our experience has been positive and shows that we must continue to develop our peacekeeping-related expertise; the main emphasis in this work of development is on the training required for new operations, especially in developing cooperation between military and civilian bodies. Gaining the trust of the civilian society is central. Openly providing information can make a decisive contribution to bringing this about.

The Niinisalo training centre has been in operation for nearly three decades. Both Finnish and foreign peacekeepers have been trained there. The most visible international form of work has been the arrangement of courses for military observers. Niinisalo has also been part of the Nordic UN peacekeeping training system, in which a division of labour between the various Nordic countries has been observed.

The training centre was developed specifically to meet the needs of traditional UN peacekeeping operations and it has served this purpose well. In the conditions of the Cold War, however, crisis management was long restricted to consolidating whatever the parties to the conflict were able to agree among themselves. Development of Niinisalo to suit the requirements of changed peacekeeping and crisis-management tasks must be commenced. Possibilities of Nordic cooperation in this respect must be studied.

Peacekeeping and crisis-management work is never without danger. I know it from personal experience. The peacekeeping soldier transferring to international tasks must be fully aware of this.

Participating in cooperation concerning peacekeeping and crisis management accords with our interests. In the final analysis, the aim of cooperation is to achieve a preventive effect, which strengthens as international cooperation becomes closer. When violent crises threaten or erupt, international intervention can serve to prevent a conflict from spreading and create the conditions necessary for a political solution and reconstruction.

Our Peacekeeping Act defines the conditions on which Finland can participate and make forces available for international tasks. The existing upper limit of 2,000 soldiers corresponds well to our possibilities. We now have eleven hundred soldiers serving as peacekeepers and observers. The Act permits Finland to participate in operations mandated by the UN or the OSCE and which have the goals of achieving military security or providing humanitarian assistance. Examples of broadly-based peacekeeping operations include IFOR/SFOR, in which Finland has been able, thanks to cooperation between the Government and Parliament, to participate with success in a Nordic-Polish brigade.

Finland must have the preparedness and ability to participate adequately. However, she cannot be expected to bear responsibility for the most demanding military operations, nor, under the terms of the Act, do we participate in actual military coercion with the aim of forcing the parties to the conflict into a solution. The operation in the Gulf is a recent example of the international community undertaking military coercion even at the risk of a full-scale war.

It is obvious that Finland should have an adequate opportunity to participate in planning and decision making concerning those operations to which Finns are sent. Where the Partnership for Peace is concerned, this is being developed. By contrast, NATO reserves decision making concerning the use of its resources and forces for its member states. Together with Sweden, we have now received the right to participate on a basis of equality in any operations that the WEU may conduct under a mandate from the Union.

It is equally important to remember that in the final analysis it is we who decide, separately in each case, whether or not to send our forces. Despatching Finnish soldiers will be on a voluntary basis. When we announce that we have placed forces at the disposal of the UN standby system or included them in a kind of resources bank set up for purposes of NATO or WEU crisis-management planning, it does not place us under an obligation to participate in any operation, but rather is an effective form of international cooperation, contingency preparation and conflict prevention.


The war waged on the territory of the former Yugoslavia was a major catastrophe not only for the inhabitants of the region, but also for the whole of Europe. Its outbreak also attested to the incompleteness and inadequacy of the European security order. Neither the UN nor European organisations were able to tackle the conflict effectively and early enough. For a long time, limited humanitarian intervention remained the only task that could be performed. In ending the war and monitoring the peace agreement, above all ensuring that its military provisions are complied with, the international community, with NATO bearing the principal responsibility, has displayed determination, preparedness and capability.

The situation in Kosovo shows that the task has not ended, but that the former Yugoslavia remains a security concern for the whole of Europe. It is to be feared that, unless the parties involved change their stances or international intervention takes place, the conflict will become more violent and spread to neighbouring countries.

Europe cannot afford to allow a new war to erupt. A wide range of intervention mechanisms is available and a capacity for joint action has been built up in many contexts. Political will and an ability to make decisions are needed to get action under way. However, the primary responsibility lies with the parties to the conflict and above all with the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and Serbia. A permanent solution will not be achieved without the cooperation of the parties to the conflict. The international community cannot intervene in the dangerous situation without preparation and a clear plan of action.

So far, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has not agreed to international mediation or the other intervention that the European Union has offered, but has instead wished to resolve the conflict as an internal question. The Albanians in Kosovo have not wished to enter negotiations without the presence of the international community and have demanded also that Yugoslavia’s armed forces be withdrawn from the region. Yugoslavia is becoming more distant and isolated from international cooperation as economic sanctions are tightened. Its return to the OSCE or membership of the Council of Europe have not become closer, which in turn has made it more difficult to use these organisations in resolving the conflict.

We have now heard that the central parties to the conflict have, after a prolonged period of persuasion, agreed to meet each other. There is reason to hope that a serious search for a solution to the crisis will begin. The parties know that the international community is ready to give all of its support to the process of negotiations that is hopefully now beginning.

Alongside pressuring the Yugoslav Government, international efforts are being concentrated on preventing the conflict from spreading across borders. Whether or not the mandate of the United Nations Preventive Deployment Force (UNPREDEP) in Macedonia will be extended must be decided in the near future. As a consequence of the crisis in Kosovo, the stability of Macedonia could become threatened owing to the significant Albanian minority there. Albania has requested an international presence to secure its border with Kosovo. Infiltration of weapons and men to the Kosovo side threatens to lead to clashes with the Yugoslav armed forces.

The UN operation must continue in Macedonia. Finland is prepared to continue to participate in it. Since the permanent members of the Security Council are not unanimous on the matter, it is uncertain that there will be a continuation. An EAPC-led operation has been mooted as an alternative.

On the Albanian side of the border, an effort could be made to stabilise the situation through the presence of NATO and its partners. The WEU, for its part, is trying to strengthen its advisory police operation in Albania; Finland is taking part in this operation. The WEU is also ready to support NATO measures in Albania.

The contact group of leading states has not been unanimous on pressuring Yugoslavia; instead, Russia has refrained from participating in the latest economic sanctions decided on. However, clear conditions and demands have been presented to the Yugoslav leadership as prerequisites for defusing military tensions and striving for a negotiated settlement. An acceptable resolution of the Kosovo question could open the way for Yugoslavia’s return to international cooperation.


Cooperation between international organisations must acquire clarity and effectiveness so that all forces can be concentrated on preventing and resolving conflicts and dealing with their after-effects. This is certainly the shared goal of all, one that was set at the CSCE follow-up conference in Helsinki in 1992, just after the Cold War had ended. International organisations and other actors must support and complement each other. Competition between them or striving for unilateral advantage has been collectively rejected and cooperative security put first. Work to create a sensible division of labour and an effective security order is ongoing both within the OSCE and in a working group pondering the position of the Council of Europe.

A clear mandate must be obtained for the operations. As measures, they must not become controversial, but instead should be founded on cooperation. In Finland’s view, the basic model is a UN mandate or an OSCE resolution, although we do not yet have experience of the latter.

The NATO Partnership for Peace programme is, by virtue of its resources, a natural solution, especially for operations requiring the use of military force on a larger scale. To deal with them, interoperability between member and partnership countries is being created. The US commitment to the security of Europe is of essential importance for the credibility of measures. However, we cannot depart from the assumption that the participation of NATO and the United States will always be possible or even necessary or purposeful. Therefore the EU and the WEU must create, on the foundation of the Treaty of Amsterdam, a credible capacity to manage crises. The EU-WEU mechanism must be made ready for use in good time. In any event, broad international cooperation will be needed in all situations.


Reporters have an important role in following international politics and especially international crises. It is often first through the medium of CNN that we, including myself, follow events. Increasing publicity is a factor that strengthens peaceful development. Surveys indicate this. At the same time, journalists have acquired an increasingly important role where the development of crises is concerned. Parties engage in dialogue through the media, and often not with each other first. It is important to concentrate on developing journalists’ professional skill. The Association of Finnish Foreign News Journalists, celebrating its 15^th birthday today, is doing important work in this sector. I wish the Association the very best of success.