EFFECTS OF FINLAND'S POSSIBLE NATO MEMBERSHIP 21 December 2007
Translation from Finnish into English EFFECTS OF FINLAND'S POSSIBLE NATO MEMBERSHIP Ambassador Antti Sierla 21 December 2007 2
Contents 1. PREAMBLE...4 2. TASKS AND EVOLUTION OF NATO...6 2.1 THE NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY...6 2.2 FUNDAMENTAL TASKS OF NATO...7 2.3 NATO PARTNERSHIP FOR PEACE AND COOPERATION PROGRAMMES...8 2.4 ENLARGEMENT OF NATO...9 2.5 NATO'S CRISIS MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS...11 2.6 DEVELOPMENT PROSPECTS OF NATO...12 2.7 DECISION-MAKING AND ORGANISATION OF NATO...13 2.8 ROLE OF THE UNITED STATES IN NATO...15 2.9 EUROPEAN MEMBER COUNTRIES OF NATO...16 2.10 COOPERATION BETWEEN THE EU AND NATO...17 2.11 RELATIONS BETWEEN NATO AND RUSSIA...18 3. FINLAND'S COOPERATION WITH NATO...21 4. THE EFFECTS OF FINLAND'S POSSIBLE NATO MEMBERSHIP ON THE COUNTRY'S INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES... 24 4.1 FINLAND IN THE EU...24 4.2 FINLAND'S TRANSATLANTIC RELATIONS...25 4.3 FINLAND'S RELATIONS WITH ITS NEIGHBOURING COUNTRIES...26 4.4 IMAGE OF FINLAND...27 4.4.1 Image of Finland abroad...27 4.4.2 Mediation tasks... 28 4.4.3 Threat of terrorism...28 5. EFFECTS OF FINLAND'S POSSIBLE NATO MEMBERSHIP ON FINLAND'S MILITARY ACTIVITIES...30 5.1 EFFECTS OF FINLAND'S POSSIBLE NATO MEMBERSHIP ON THE DEFENCE OF THE FINNISH TERRITORY...30 5.2 DEFENCE PLANNING...31 5.3 EFFECTS OF FINLAND'S POSSIBLE NATO MEMBERSHIP ON THE QUANTITATIVE LEVEL OF FINNISH MILITARY PARTICIPATION, TROOPS AND CAPABILITIES IN NATO FORCE PLANNING...32 5.4 CONSCRIPTION SYSTEM AND DECISION-MAKING...34 5.5 EFFECTS OF FINLAND'S POSSIBLE NATO MEMBERSHIP ON THE COUNTRY S PARTICIPATION IN NATO CRISIS MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES...35 5.6 ADDITIONAL COSTS CAUSED BY THE MEMBERSHIP...37 5.7 EFFECTS ON SECURITY OF SUPPLY...39 5.8 ARMAMENTS COOPERATION...40 6. CENTRAL PRINCIPLES RELATED TO THE ENLARGEMENT OF NATO...42 6.1 THE ALLIANCE STRIVES TO MAINTAIN ITS EFFICIENCY IN PERFORMING ITS CORE FUNCTIONS AND MEETING NEW CHALLENGES.42 6.2 MILITARY AND DEFENCE-RELATED EFFECTS OF THE ENLARGEMENT...42 6.2.1 Collective defence...42 6.2.2 Command structure...43 6.2.3 Conventional forces - training and exercises...43 6.2.4 Nuclear forces...44 6.2.5 Force structures...44 6.2.6 Intelligence sharing...44 6.3 SECURITY INVESTMENT PROGRAMME...44 6.4 ADMINISTRATION AND BUDGETS...45 7. STAGES AND TIMEFRAME OF THE NATO MEMBERSHIP PROCESS...46 7.1 INTENSIFIED DIALOGUE...46 7.2 MEMBERSHIP ACTION PLAN...46 7.3 INVITING A COUNTRY TO BECOME A MEMBER...46 7.4 RATIFICATION OF THE ACCESSION PROTOCOL...47 8. THE LEGAL EFFECTS OF FINLAND'S POSSIBLE NATO MEMBERSHIP...48 APPENDIX 1...50 3
1. Preamble In the part of the Government Programme of Prime Minister Vanhanen's second Cabinet dealing with foreign, security and defence policy, it is stated that the Government intends to prepare a new Report on Security and Defence Policy based on a comprehensive concept of security. It is also noted that the report will determine the long-term development plans and resources of the Finnish Defence Forces. At the same time, an analysis will be made of the impacts of the security guarantees resulting from Finland's EU membership, as well as the effects of military non-alignment and alignment of Finland on the basis of which the country's military position will be assessed. As a part of this work, the Ministry for Foreign Affairs has completed the present Report on the Effects of Finland's possible NATO membership. The expertise of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Defence, the National Emergency Supply Agency and the Mission of Finland to NATO as well as NATO documents have been used in preparing this report. The Report does not present an assessment of the security environment of NATO or Finland, nor related threat scenarios, and it does not contain recommendations. The goal is to contribute information and perspectives to the discussion on Finland's relations with NATO. The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation is an intergovernmental organisation, which is influenced by both the views of the member countries and developments taking place in the surrounding world. Within NATO, decisions are made based on consensus deriving from political deliberation and consulting. NATO has adapted to changes in its operational environment, a trend, which is likely to continue. A small country can attend to its national interests in NATO, but at the same time, members are expected to take account of the interests of all the others. In this respect, NATO policies could be compared to the Common Foreign and Security Policy of the European Union: in both of them, the working methods are intergovernmental, and decisions require the approval of all the member countries. Individual countries can play an active role. As a member of NATO, it would be up to Finland to determine what kind of member it would become. The longer into the future the assessment spans, the more imprecise the assumptions will become. During the past 20 years, NATO has changed considerably since the Cold War days. Preparing against a threat of a massive attack from the outside has become considerably less important. Today, NATO is first and foremost an organisation for Euro-Atlantic security policy and military cooperation, conducting UN-mandated crisis management operations outside the territory of its member countries, and contributing to security in Europe and its neighbouring regions using a range of military, political 4
and other instruments promoting stability. In the future as well, NATO is expected to adapt to changes in its operational environment in accordance with its own security interests. Many issues related to Finland's possible NATO membership could be fully assessed only in the process leading to membership in case a decision to start such a procedure were made. In respect of the consideration of Finland's possible membership, the opinion of the general public is important. NATO also considers it. Domestic considerations as well as the different stages in the membership application process and the preparation for the membership in NATO would have an impact on the timeframe within which Finland could possibly become a member. Even the most rapid timeframe could not imply a NATO membership until in the next decade at the earliest. The assessments presented in the present Report should therefore be updated in accordance with the circumstances prevailing at that time. 5
2. Tasks and Evolution of NATO 2.1 The North Atlantic Treaty NATO was created through the North Atlantic or Washington Treaty in 1949 1. Article 5 of the Treaty constitutes its very core by virtue of which the member countries commit themselves to the obligation of providing mutual assistance: "The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security." Article 4 of the Treaty states as follows: "The Parties will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened". The Treaty has proved to be strong and flexible. In the Cold War era, NATO was capable of adapting to changing circumstances, but it has also been able to respond to the challenge posed by the changed post-cold War security environment and new threat scenarios. The NATO organisation was established to create collective defence and as a response to a common threat, and it operated successfully for four decades without ever having to resort to military power. The threat posed by the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact was concrete and clear. At that time, the deterrence value of strong defence was the key dimension of NATO's strategy. Later, both threat scenarios and the practical functions of NATO have undergone considerable changes, but the North Atlantic Treaty has remained the cornerstone of NATO. 1 The text of the Treaty is appended. 6
2.2 Fundamental Tasks of NATO According to the North Atlantic Treaty, the fundamental task of NATO is to guarantee the freedom and security of its member countries by political and military means. NATO safeguards and furthers the Allies' common values of democracy, individual freedom, the rule of law, and the peaceful solution of disputes. It provides a forum in which countries from North America and Europe can consult together on security challenges of common concern and take joint action in addressing them. Ever since it was created, NATO has been an organisation for extensive transatlantic political cooperation. The leading principle of the Alliance is the joint commitment and mutual cooperation of sovereign states for the indivisible security of each and every one of them. Solidarity and cohesion within the Alliance ensure, through daily cooperation in the political and military spheres, that no single member country is forced to rely upon its own national efforts alone in addressing fundamental security challenges. NATO membership does not revoke the rights and obligations of the member countries to assume national responsibilities on their security. However, the Alliance strengthens their security by means of cooperation. The fundamental tasks of NATO are defined in the Strategic Concept, which is revised when needed in accordance with the changes taking place in the security environment. The Strategic Concept, revised in 1999, commits the Allies not only to collective defence but also to peace and stability within the framework of a broader Euro-Atlantic area. In accordance with the Strategic Concept, NATO's fundamental task is to serve as a consultation forum for addressing security threats, to prevent them and to defend the Alliance against them. In the Euro- Atlantic area, the tasks also include conflict prevention and crisis management as well as fostering partnership, dialogue and cooperation with the other states of the area. The Strategic Concept emphasises the comprehensive concept of security, encompassing political, economic, social and environmental factors. The Alliance's defence dimension includes factors such as a strong commitment to transatlantic relations, the maintenance of the Alliance's military capabilities to ensure the effectiveness of military operations, and the development of European capabilities within the Alliance. Moreover, the tasks of NATO comprise the maintenance of adequate conflict prevention and crisis management structures and procedures, as well as continuing efforts towards far-reaching arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation agreements. NATO also cooperates effectively with non-member countries, observing a policy of open doors towards potential new members. As a result of the terrorist attacks of 9/11 2001 on American soil, NATO decided for the first time in its history to invoke Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty. An armed attack against one member was 7
considered an armed attack against all. Under these circumstances, the United States invoked its right to self-defence under the Charter of the United Nations, relying mainly on its national resources, with the support of states willing and capable of lending support. For its part, NATO launched its Operation Active Endeavour which at present is still in operation, and sent radar planes to survey the US airspace. Later, the governments of the Alliance member countries have adopted clear principles as regards responding to security challenges after the 9/11 2001 terrorist attacks. They have agreed to stay in readiness to help each other in efforts to prevent and combat terrorism. This may also imply action against terrorists and actors protecting them, as required and whenever the North Atlantic Council adopts such measures by consensus. NATO may also support other organisations by providing them with resources on a case by case basis. This new operational concept requires the constant strengthening and renewal of defence capabilities, taking into account that threats against security and stability do not remain unchanged. NATO's original task, prevention of threats of an attack from the outside, is no longer as central in NATO's daily functions as it used to be. Within NATO, it is estimated that, in the next ten years at least, the Alliance will not face such a military threat which it would not be able to respond to. The Cold War era having ended, NATO has focused its attention to contributing to stability in Europe and to military crisis management. NATO-led military crisis management operations are under way outside the European continent, too, for example in Afghanistan. Indeed, NATO has become an important actor in international crisis management. Nevertheless, Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty and its commitment to collective defence remain the very core of the Alliance and the cohesive force that keeps it together. In its defence planning, NATO still takes account of potential threats against the territories of its members. 2.3 NATO Partnership for Peace and Cooperation Programmes With the end of the East-West confrontation and the threat of a conventional military attack having receded, NATO set out to create close cooperation relationships with former Warsaw Pact member states and, later on, with other European countries. The North Atlantic Cooperation Council, NACC was founded in 1991, and the Partnership for Peace, PfP, in 1994 to foster cooperation, with almost all of the then OSCE members joining in. In 1997, the NACC was replaced by the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council, EAPC, comprising the NATO member countries and the PfP-countries. The EAPC creates a contractual framework for the cooperation between NATO and its partners. However, it has gradually lost some of its importance as a forum for NATO partnership cooperation, partly because many partners have become members of 8
NATO. At the same time, there has been an increase in the number of meetings between NATO member countries and countries that contribute troops to NATO-led military crisis management operations or support them in other ways. The NATO-Russia Council, founded in 2002, serves as a framework for cooperation between NATO and Russia. It replaced the Permanent Cooperation Council of NATO and Russia, set up in 1997. Ever since 1997, cooperation with Ukraine has been carried out within the framework of the NATO-Ukraine Commission. Both Russia and Ukraine are also members of the EAPC. Furthermore, there is a cooperation forum under the Mediterranean Dialogue between NATO and seven countries in the Middle East and North Africa, and the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative with Persian Gulf countries. In recent years, cooperation has been stepped up with states participating in NATO-led military crisis management operations or those supporting them, including Australia, Japan, New Zealand and the Republic of Korea. NATO is also strengthening its cooperation with the EU and international organisations, including the UN, the OSCE and the World Bank. The preparation of a cooperation arrangement with the UN, which has lasted for a long time, is expected to become finalised in the spring 2008. All in all, more than 40 countries in Europe, Asia, Oceania, Africa and South America are currently included in NATO partnership or cooperation programmes or official bilateral relations. With 26 NATO member countries, NATO cooperation covers over 60 countries, which represents about one third of the UN membership. 2.4 Enlargement of NATO During the Cold War era, NATO underwent three enlargements. Greece and Turkey became members in 1952, West Germany in 1955, and Spain 1982. The aim was to increase stability and security in Europe. After the collapse of the Berlin Wall, NATO has accepted the membership of ten new countries. In 1999, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland joined in and Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, the Slovak Republic and Slovenia become members in 2004. Today, NATO has 26 members, two of them from North America and 24 from Europe. 21 of the European member countries are also members of the EU. Out of the six European Union member states which are not members of NATO, Finland, Sweden, Ireland and Austria are NATO's partner countries. Any European country which promotes the stability of the Euro-Atlantic area and the principles of the North Atlantic Treaty is eligible for applying for membership of NATO. Moreover, applicant states must satisfy certain political, economic and military criteria before being entitled to receive a membership invitation. At the moment, three Western Balkan countries Albania, Croatia and the former Yugoslav 9
Republic of Macedonia, are taking part in the NATO Membership Action Plan. In addition, Georgia and Ukraine have declared NATO membership as their objective. Figure 1: NATO, EU and EAPC countries After the Cold War, countries joining NATO sought support for their independence and made efforts to strengthen their defence relying on the Alliance. For them, permanent U.S. presence in Europe has been crucial. Moreover, military cooperation within the EU relies on NATO in a number of ways either directly or indirectly. NATO plays an important role in European cooperation, in particular through the collective defence and other military and related political cooperation. The majority of the people working for NATO Secretariats and Headquarters are Europeans. NATO has occupied and still has a major role in the reunification of Europe, too. The prerequisites that have to be met by countries willing to become members of NATO, such as the democratic control of armed forces and good relations with neighbouring states, have contributed to the enlargement of the EU, too. The enlargements of NATO and the EU have taken place concurrently and shared parallel goals. Both of them aim to enlarge the area of stability, security and well-being by means of cooperation. Since the Cold War, the enlargements of both the EU and NATO have indeed strengthened stability, also in Finland's neighbouring areas. 10
2.5 NATO's Crisis Management Functions The dramatic events in the Western Balkans during the past decade led NATO, for the first time in its history, to take on peacekeeping tasks in conflict areas outside the Alliance territory. This opened a route for NATO to become one of the key actors in multinational military crisis management, creating a foundation for large-scale cooperation arrangements with other organisations. Currently, a total of approximately 60,000 soldiers operate in NATO-led, UN-mandated military crisis management operations on three continents. Moreover, NATO countries have a large number of troops serving in other operations. At the moment, the only NATO-led operation in Europe is KFOR (Kosovo Force) in Kosovo. However, NATO has headquarters in Sarajevo and Skopje, too. NATO is committed to continuing its presence in Kosovo even after a solution on the status of the country will have been reached. Thus, NATO is a key contributor to stability and security in the Western Balkans, creating conditions for the development of the region. The majority, or 45,000 of the soldiers assigned to NATO operations, serve in the International Security Assistance Force, ISAF mission in Afghanistan. This is the most challenging operational task ever taken on by NATO so far. The share of European military participation is a little over fifty percent. The new procedures and tools of the Alliance are tested in practice in Afghanistan. The transformation of the Defence Forces of the NATO members has been realised at a concrete level in field operations. In this context, many states participating in the operation have come to realise that the interoperability and performance of their Armed Forces should be further improved. This has become particularly evident in their cooperation with the United States Armed Forces that have sophisticated capabilities. The operation in Afghanistan has had a crucial impact on the development of the comprehensive crisis management concept of NATO, currently applied to all crisis management. The concept aims at promoting cooperation between civilian and military actors since experience has shown that stability and development should be promoted hand in hand, by means of mutual support. This view has accentuated the need for cooperation and coordination between international actors. The application of the comprehensive crisis management concept is based on Denmark's initiative. This proves that even a small country may make a major contribution to the activities of NATO. It has been hard to get the ISAF operation to full strength. Actual fighting in the South of Afghanistan and casualties to NATO forces have led many countries to discuss the acceptability of their participation. The costs of operations in a far-away, sparsely populated country with poor transportation connections are higher than in the missions in the Western Balkans. This has influenced the level of contributions to ISAF. All NATO Allies do not regard the current burden-sharing as equitable, which 11
has increased debate about solidarity. According to NATO estimates, it will take years, perhaps even decades to accomplish the mission in Afghanistan. Due to the rotation of troops, taking part in crisis management operations requires about three times the number of troops actually deployed in the field. Some of the troops are in operations, some in training, some taking time off to rest and some are engaged in other duties. This has become evident both in the difficulty to satisfy all the requests for resources to NATO crisis management operations as well as the implementation of the concept of the NATO Response Force, NRF. Generating the forces and other capabilities required by the NRF has proved to be a bigger challenge than anticipated, in particular to European NATO countries. At the same time, it has been considered improbable that NATO would unexpectedly be compelled to despatch an entire NRF out to an operation. Foreseeable missions requiring rapid response can be performed by considerably smaller forces. Therefore, NATO has taken the decision to temporarily adjust the implementation of the concept by maintaining a considerably smaller force in high readiness. NATO intends to resume the original practice and the strength of 25,000 soldiers as soon as the demand for resources for simultaneous operations in the world has diminished. 2.6 Development Prospects of NATO During recent years, the evolution of NATO has been characterised by the fact that its operational focus has been on crisis management. In addition to this, the importance of civilian emergency and humanitarian tasks has increased alongside with military activities. Operating outside the Alliance area has broadened the scope of security policy dialogue within NATO. NATO has become an increasingly global actor. It does not, however, intend to become a global organisation. With threats against the Euro-Atlantic area occurring further away from the Allied area, NATO has expanded its operational environment further away and established new cooperation relations with countries also affected by these new threats. Meetings with countries participating in operations are important in this respect as well. Nevertheless, NATO still remains essentially an organisation for cooperation between North America and Europe. A study concerning the evolution of some international actors until 2030, commissioned by the Ministry of Defence of Finland, contains estimates regarding NATO, too. Its European member countries are estimated to develop their defence forces so that they will be better capable of assuming crisis management tasks. The current dominant role of NATO in the planning and preparation of crisis management operations will be challenged more strongly. This refers to the EU's reinforced role in crisis management, which is likely in the light of current developments. However, for its European member countries NATO is expected to remain the key actor in the process of transformation of their defence forces as far as the provision of troops, the setting up of operational principles and technical 12
solutions are concerned. As far as the development of the Alliance and its duties are concerned, there may be differences in the views of its European members and the United States, with the European views becoming stronger in NATO. The energy production areas in the Middle East and Central Asia are expected to remain unstable and, consequently, to keep attracting the attention of NATO member countries. Civilian activities are assumed to increase in parallel with military operations, and NATO's enlargement is expected to be limited to Europe. As far as NATO's risks are concerned, the study mentions the possibility of weak performance in operations and differing views of member countries about burden-sharing. Western values and the western way of life might lose some of their popularity in the world, which could limit the Alliance's possibilities to operate. Within NATO, the member countries emphasize the duties of the organisation differently depending on how they conceive the threats they may encounter. Some members see security in Europe in an increasingly global context, while others view it from a more traditional perspective linked with their neighbouring area. To some, NATO could be a more broad-based actor than it currently is while others would like NATO to focus on its military core tasks and the EU to become stronger as an international actor with a broad spectrum of capabilities. In the next few years, NATO countries are expected to make an in-depth review of the security environment of the Alliance, of the key duties deriving from it, and of its relations with its key cooperation partners. This is likely to be done in connection with the revision of NATO's Strategic Concept. As stated earlier, the current Strategic Concept dates from 1999, but a comprehensive reassessment of the identity of the Alliance was last carried out at the end of the 1960s in connection with the so-called Harmel Report. The end of the Cold War did not set off a corresponding process since the enlargement, the establishment of partnerships, and the launch of crisis management operations brought a number of new activities to NATO. The most important factor with an impact on the activities of NATO since 1999 is the increased threat of terrorism. 2.7 Decision-making and Organisation of NATO NATO is an inter-governmental organisation in which each member country retains its sovereignty. All NATO decisions are taken jointly by the member countries on the basis of consensus; decision-making requires that none of the members opposes it. NATO's most important decision-making body is the North Atlantic Council, NAC, which consists of representatives of all the Allies at the level of ambassadors, ministers, or heads of state or government. Each member participates fully in the decision-making process on the basis of equality, irrespective of its size or its political, military or economic strength. Thus, the Allies are free to act independently as concerns common decisions or actions. Joint decision-making by the Alliance enables it to pursue 13
coherent and consistent activities reinforced by political solidarity. NATO functions through consultations. Negotiations are pursued until consensus is reached or it is concluded that a common view is not achievable. The North Atlantic Council, the Defence Planning Committee and the Nuclear Planning Group (with fewer meetings) constitute the main bodies of NATO. There are a number of advisory bodies and an International Secretariat. The NATO Military Committee operates under the above-mentioned bodies as a link between the NATO decision-making bodies and the military structure. In addition to the Military Committee, two strategic commands make up the key components of the NATO Military Structure, one for operations (Allied Command Operations) and one for the transformation (Allied Command Transformation), as well as a Military Command Structure and an International Military Staff. Figure 2: NATO's civilian and military structure NATO has no operational forces other than those provided to it by the member countries or designated to it by partner countries for a given mission. The NATO Force Planning and the resource development process lay the foundations for the cooperation of the Alliance, for the political commitments to develop better resources as well as for the military structure. The NATO organisation is responsible for the joint planning of the use of the troops contributed by the member countries, joint military exercises and the assignment of forces to operations under the leadership of NATO strategic commanders within the framework of a jointly agreed force planning procedure. 14
The operation commander is in charge of an operation. The member countries can set caveats for the use of the troops they contribute although this is not preferable from the point of view of operational effectiveness. Contributing troops to a NATO operation is always a national decision taken in accordance with the national legislation of the country in question. The member countries take responsibility for the majority of the costs arising from NATO activities, in particular when they participate in operations. Also the partner countries cover their own expenses in the operations in which they participate. NATO funds jointly only the use of NATO's Airborne Warning and Control System and the acquisition of such systems related to the operations and communications of national Air Forces that cannot be acquired by a member country. Some civilian functions and activities of the Secretariats are also jointly funded. 2.8 Role of the United States in NATO On account of its considerable resources, the USA is the most important NATO member among other countries. Its membership provides NATO with superior military resources. The U.S. defence spending is considerably higher than that of the other Allies put together. Moreover, the U.S. can make a considerably greater part of its defence forces available for operations outside its own territory than the European countries can. The common European defence relies, in many central sectors, on the resources of the United States. Political decisions taken by NATO or the EU have not led to the desired strengthening of military capabilities in most European countries. On the contrary, in some countries defence spending is decreasing. Since the Cold War, European countries have cut their defence spending by about two thirds. Now that Europe has become more stable, also the United States has decreased the number of its forces there. Meanwhile, however, U.S. armed forces have become much more mobile, so that major resources can be projected to distant operational theatres in a short period of time. The overall strength of the U.S. forces stationed in Europe has been announced to be currently about 95,000 with 40,000 of them in ground forces. Part of these forces may at times serve in operations outside Europe. For the United States, Western Europe used to be primarily a partner and an object of security cooperation. Today, more than ever, the United States conceives Europe as a cooperation partner and an ally, also outside Europe. Since the defence of most European NATO member countries builds partly on the involvement of the United States, it is in the interest of these countries to keep the United States motivated to contribute to 15
the defence of Europe. The contribution of many European countries to the fight against terrorism reflects the importance they place on U.S. involvement in European defence. The active and determined contribution of the U.S. to NATO gives the organisation direction and integrity. Representatives of a number of small member countries have stated in discussions that the United States is willing to listen to the concerns of small countries, too, and take them into consideration. On the other hand, the views of the European member countries often serve as a balancing factor in NATO decisions and activities. This has contributed to increasing the interest of some third countries in engaging in cooperation with NATO. The future of the U.S. NATO policy will probably be much influenced by whether international or national issues characterise the political climate of any given time. Both trends have precedents in history. In any case, the United States is likely to remain the only state capable of truly global action in the foreseeable future. The U.S. has had a more permissive attitude towards the use of force and a more selective approach to international law than has prevailed in Europe. NATO is considered a central forum for transatlantic security policy cooperation by all Allies, including the most pro-european countries. The war in Iraq brought about deep controversies within NATO, but they have been overcome. The importance and status of NATO as a key international actor have subsequently been strengthened by its role in Afghanistan. 2.9 European Member Countries of NATO NATO is the foundation and operational environment of the collective defence for its 24 European members of which 21 are Member States of the EU. This cooperation is widely endorsed by the people of the countries participating in it. The idea of renationalising defence is supported neither in NATO nor in the EU. Instead, the aim is to ensure the continuation of collective defence in all circumstances, an aspect which also has an influence on the discussion on the development of the EU defence cooperation. As was stated above, the contribution of the United States to European defence remains significant. NATO provides the organizational framework for this contribution. NATO's European member states hold somewhat diverging views about NATO's tasks. These views fall into three main categories. Each country is a case of its own, so such a classification can be indicative only. The enlargement of NATO has widened the range of differing opinions. 16
The Western and Northern coastal states in particular foster an Atlantist perspective. The strategic interests of Europe and the United States are seen to be parallel to a significant degree and the threats are seen in the global context. This is why they emphasize NATO-cooperation. Several old member countries on the European continent consider that a military threat against them is not probable. Threats exist in the world, but political, economic and civilian crisis management instruments are both essential and needed alongside with military means. Therefore, it is the European Union that is the most obvious channel for European crisis management. NATO is seen in a military role mainly restricted to collective defence and to major crisis management operations. Many of the new member states still see NATO's central task in its traditional role as a collective defence organisation. However, participating in crisis management is important, especially because it contributes to keeping the United States committed to European defence. 2.10 Cooperation between the EU and NATO The cooperation between the EU and NATO in its current form dates from 1998 when the British Prime Minister Tony Blair proposed that the EU assume a military crisis management role in cooperation with NATO. At the end of that year, representatives of Great Britain and France met in St. Malo and proposed that the EU use the possibility of conducting military crisis management operations with recourse to NATO assets or autonomously. NATO made a decision on the principles of close crisis management cooperation with the EU at the Washington Summit in the spring 1999. The European Union was offered the possibility of having recourse to NATO planning and command systems and capabilities in case the Alliance as a whole was not engaged in a given operation. These arrangements are referred to as Berlin plus. The same year, the EU Cologne Summit agreed that the EU could implement military crisis management operations autonomously, too, without recourse to NATO assets. At the same time, the arrangement agreed in Amsterdam, according to which the Western European Union, WEU, would have acted as the implementing organisation, was abandoned. It is obvious that cooperation between the EU and NATO is necessary: 21 of the 27 EU member states are members of NATO and 21 of the 26 NATO countries are members of the EU. The different membership sometimes poses challenges to the cooperation. In the area of European military cooperation, the countries that are members of both NATO and the EU are in the most advantageous position. They have access to all the information made available to members by each organisation and they may contribute to decision-making in both of them. This is important especially when the same issues are simultaneously considered by both organisations. 17
The cooperation between the EU and NATO has been hampered by the question of how NATO's European members that are not EU member states could participate in military cooperation within the EU. The accession of Cyprus and Malta to the EU has put a strain on the cooperation not only in the EU but also in NATO. At the background, there is the political conflict between Turkey and Cyprus, which directly complicates efforts to intensify the cooperation between the EU and NATO. As Cyprus and Malta are not NATO PfP-countries, they are not involved in the cooperation arrangement in force, enabling the EU to have recourse to NATO assets for military crisis management operations under its command. Political collaboration between the organisations has been very limited whereas cooperation between the Secretariats and in the field has usually worked well. However, the cooperation between NATO and the EU as parallel actors in Kosovo and Afghanistan is hampered by these disputes. Both NATO and the EU have set up civilian disaster relief organisations of their own. In practice, they both rely on national resources. The ideas expressed by the French President Nicolas Sarkozy as concerns the strengthening of the collaboration between France and NATO and the possibility of France rejoining the NATO military command structures could contribute to the cooperation between NATO and the EU, too. But finding solutions to the disputes concerning Turkey, Greece and Cyprus is in any case required. 2.11 Relations between NATO and Russia From NATO's point of view, Russia is the most important non-nato actor in the Euro-Atlantic area with an important nuclear deterrent and the biggest Armed Forces in the area. Ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia has not posed a direct military threat to NATO. However, the actions of Russia have a considerable impact on security in the Euro-Atlantic area through, inter alia, the threat of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and environmental threats. Many NATO countries depend on Russia for energy supplies, a fact that stresses the importance of Russia. Russia is an important regional and global actor, which can influence NATO's activities either positively or negatively in several sectors. As a permanent member of the UN Security Council, Russia participates in the decision-making concerning UN mandates for NATO operations. Russia has considerable weight in many issues relevant to the security of the Alliance in the long run, such as the nuclear programs of North Korea and Iran. The Russian influence in Central Asia and in Northern Afghanistan is an important factor as regards NATO's ISAF operation. Moreover, Russia can influence the possibilities of resolving the so-called frozen conflicts in certain NATO partner countries. NATO has invested a great deal of efforts in building good relations with Russia. The best example of this is the NATO-Russia Permanent Cooperation Council established in 1997 and the NATO-Russia 18
Council, NRC, which replaced it in 2002. All NATO states and Russia are members of the NRC. The Council takes decisions on the basis of unanimity. The NATO-Russia Council is mandated to conduct political and security dialogue and to decide on joint initiatives based thereon, take joint decisions and implement joint actions. NATO has set up an Information Office in Moscow in order to promote cooperation. The key areas of cooperation of the NATO-Russia Council encompass the following: cooperation between the military and development of joint capabilities, counter-terrorist activities, civil protection and emergency response activities, arms control, tactical missile defence, cooperation related to crisis management operations, sharing of recognized air situation picture, and the transformation of defence. Cooperation between NATO and Russia has varied depending on political conditions. During periods of close relations between Russia and the West, also collaboration between NATO and Russia has been good. On the other hand, more strained relations with the West have been reflected in Russia's cooperation with NATO. However, NATO-Russia collaboration is rather diversified, and several concrete cooperation projects continue even in more difficult times. To provide an example, Russia has participated twice in the Operation Active Endeavour, launched under Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty as a response to the terrorist attacks against the United States in 2001. This year, Russia has ratified the Status of Forces Agreement concluded with NATO, opening up the road to possible joint exercises and other joint activities in the future. One of the first concrete joint cooperation initiatives by the NATO-Russia Council concerned the sharing of air situation picture between the NATO countries and Russia. This form of collaboration aims at improving general aviation security including fighting terrorism. The project has moved on from the planning phase to the initiation of its implementation. At the moment, political relations are strained by a number of differences of opinion. These concern specifically the enlargement of NATO to the territory of the former Soviet Union, the possible independence of Kosovo and certain initiatives involving U.S. missile defence in Europe. The Russian decision to suspend the implementation of the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe has complicated the relations between NATO and Russia. On the other hand, the Agreement on Adaptation of the CFE Treaty in Europe has not been ratified by any NATO country so far. However, Russia values the NRC since it provides a forum for discussion on topical security policy issues, including questions related to European security. Russia has felt that it has received more equal treatment in the NATO-Russia Council than, for instance, in the OSCE. According to the Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security between NATO and the Russian Federation, concluded in 1997, "the member States of NATO reiterate that they have no intention, no plan and no reason to deploy nuclear weapons on the territory of new members, nor any need to change any aspect of NATO's nuclear posture or nuclear policy - and do not foresee any future 19
need to do so." The Charter also contains a long, detailed text on the Treaty on the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe. NATO has strived to take the concerns of Russia into consideration in connection with the establishment of its structures and forces in the territories of its new member countries. This has been the case regarding, in particular, nuclear weapons, permanent troop deployments and permanent bases. NATO countries have differing views about the stand the organisation should take regarding Russia and the country's more assertive politics. The question is whether to pursue efforts to engage Russia in political dialogue and practical cooperation or whether to respond more firmly to Russia's actions. All NATO countries have bilateral relations and cooperation with Russia, some more than others. NATO's most recent enlargements have highlighted that joining the Alliance has not prevented a country from continuing its good relations with Russia. 20
3. Finland's Cooperation with NATO Finland joined the North Atlantic Cooperation Council, NACC, as an observer in 1992. Finland has participated in the NATO Partnership for Peace Programme ever since the programme was launched in 1994. Finland joined the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council, EAPC, which replaced the NACC when it was founded in 1997. All 26 NATO countries and 23 partner countries participate in the work of the EAPC. The Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council serves as a multilateral political and operational framework for Finland's activities in NATO. The EAPC functions as an organ guiding the work done within the PfP framework and as a forum for security policy dialogue. It convenes at the level of ambassadors every month, at foreign and defence minister level every year and at heads of state or government level usually every two or three years. In parallel with the activities of the EAPC, NATO has started to organise operation-specific meetings with countries contributing troops to its crisis management operations or supporting them in other ways. Such meetings have been organised in particular in the ISAF format, including at the foreign and defence minister level. An ISAF meeting is scheduled to be held at the head of state or government level in the spring 2008. This has increased Finland's access to information and opportunities to exert influence concerning operations in which our country participates. All intelligence information has, however, not been made available to partner countries, even if improvement of the provision of information has been promised. The member countries always conduct the most important discussions and take the key decisions by themselves. Within the framework of the bilateral Partnership for Peace Programme, Finland is free to choose appropriate practical forms and sectors of cooperation in accordance with its own priorities. Our partnership cooperation with NATO is broad-based. Finland participates in NATO-led military crisis management, improves the country's military capabilities and participates in cooperation in the sector of defence materiel and civilian emergency preparedness activities. Moreover, together with NATO, Finland has supported NATO's activities intended to strengthen stability through the reform of the security and defence sectors in countries and regions where NATO operates. Finland has lent support to the disposal of small arms and light weapons, anti-personnel mines, ammunition and toxic fuels through NATO Partnership for Peace Trust Funds. Finnish civil servants have been assigned to several types of partnership missions in NATO Secretariat. The tools provided through the PfP cooperation serve to enhance the international interoperability and qualitative capabilities of the Finnish Defence Forces as well as the ability to participate in international 21
crisis management operations. These activities are carried out in the framework of the PfP programme in particular by means of the partnership goals related to the Planning and Review Process, PARP, and the Operational Capabilities Concept, OCC. The partnership goals designed to improve the interoperability of crisis management troops declared for PARP are always concrete matters to be developed, and they may range from simple to extremely demanding. Through the PfP cooperation, Finland receives valuable know-how and experience that it can use to develop the national defence capabilities. Finland aims at improving its capabilities to participate in international crisis management operations also by taking part in crisis management exercises organised within the framework of the NATO Partnership for Peace Programme and in bilateral and multilateral exercises arranged in the spirit of the programme. Within the framework of the Partnership for Peace Programme, Finland has also hosted exercises and organised training events. Finland has participated in NATO-led military crisis management mandated by the UN since the start of the activities in 1995. At present, around 500 Finns are serving in NATO-led operations. Finns have accomplished more than 10,000 tours of duty in NATO-led military crisis management operations. Moreover, a Finnish general has commanded a brigade in a NATO-led crisis management operation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Finland was the first non-nato country to have commanded a multinational brigade in a NATO crisis management operation in Kosovo. When an assessment is made concerning the relationship between international activities and national defence, it must be born in mind that Finland has had up to almost 1,000 peacekeepers in NATO operations simultaneously; at that time Finland was one of the countries (the member countries included) with the greatest per capita number of land force troops. The Finnish conscription system provides for a reserve, which is an advantage: recruiting can be broad-based. At the same time, national defence benefits from valuable experience of demanding tasks. NATO is developing not only its own activities but also its cooperation with partner countries. Together with Sweden, Finland has participated actively in the development of the PfP cooperation. Decisions have been made further to improve opportunities of cooperation between countries taking part in operations. The PfP programme is so extensive that for the time being, Finland is not engaged in all the activities open to partner countries. The Operation Active Endeavour and reinforcing participation in the NATO Response Force are examples of activities open to partners, in which Finland is not involved. In addition to the Army Land Forces, the Air Force could contribute aircraft and the Navy could provide vessels to crisis management operations. More troops could be contributed to operations and more officers sent on missions to NATO Headquarters. This would require more resources to be allocated to international activities. 22