3.3.2003 Assesment and challenges of national activities of defence aministration, Minister of Defence Mr. Jan-Erik Enestam

Chief of Defence, Distinguished participants of the 167th National Defence Course, Ladies and Gentlemen, It is a great honour for me to pass on the views of the Government on Finland’s military defence and challenges of the future to a starting National Defence Course, for the last time in the capacity of defence minister.

Although it is more and more difficult to draw lines between national and international defence, I am going to focus on the national dimension of our defence. With the general elections in the imminent future and thus the office of the current Government soon ending, it is justified to make an assessment of the past four years from the point of view of defence administration.

The Government Report to Parliament on the European Security Development and Finnish Defence was submitted in 1997, two years prior to the start of the second Cabinet of Mr Paavo Lipponen in spring 1999. At that point the measures outlined in the 1997 Report were being implemented. The guidelines then agreed upon for developing Finland’s defence are for the main part still valid. These guidelines were fine-tuned in 2001 when the evaluation of security and defence policy was made.

Based to a large extent on the two Reports on Security and Defence Policy, defence administration has established a procedure for guidance and work methods, which crosses frontiers between organisations. As a result, the work to develop our national defence is now carried out with necessary perseverance and depth. During the past four years the procedure has become a well-established practice and the work has been highly appreciated by Parliament, Government and defence administration.

The fact that this procedure has been established as a tool for guiding security and defence policy in Finland does not provide the sole explanation for the increased significance of defence administration in recent years. The revised Constitution, which entered into force as of the beginning of 2000, also contributed to this development. According to the revised Constitution, the defence minister and the ministry under his leadership were given a more significant role in guiding the development of security and defence policy and also the Defence Forces.

In addition, the role of defence ministers in the common security and foreign policy of the EU has become more and more important, which also reflects on the situation in Finland.



Distinguished audience,

The work to develop our military defence system, which is based on the two documents, the Security and Defence Policy Reports of 1997 and 2001, is characterised, on the one hand, by constant change and, on the other hand, by certain cornerstones of our national defence. Since the Report of 1997, the starting point in developing the Defence Forces has been to create a credible capability to prevent and repel a strategic strike. This approach was chosen to strengthen the credibility of Finland's independent defence and also to respond to the overall change in the nature of crises and warfare. In the evaluation of the 2001 Report, the following were set as the main objectives in developing the Defence Forces: the command, control and communications system, the striking capability of the Army, the international peace support capability and the war economy system in the information era.

Apart from developing national defence, we have determinedly improved our capability to participate in international crisis-management co-operation and maintained the capability to act as required by preventing and repelling a large-scale attack. Our goal in developing military national defence has been both a credible national defence and international interoperability with our co-operation partners.

At the same time as we have revised the threat scenarios underlying national contingency planning and have improved the readiness and performance of military national defence, we have had to carry out structural changes affecting the entire administrative branch, both in the Ministry of Defence and the Defence Staff.

Some of these rationalisation measures have not been easy. The goals have been to lighten the command and control and administrative systems, to reduce the wartime overall strength of the Defence Forces, to revise the training and education of conscripts and officers and to streamline the training and depot organisations of the Defence Forces; the purpose of these changes is to make the performance of our wartime armed forces meet the requirements of the new millennium.

In developing the Defence Forces we have focused on the key functions of military national defence. In addition, it is considered necessary to transfer supporting functions from the Defence Forces to specialised suppliers of services. The aim is to develop supporting functions on the basis of strategic partnership principles.

A case in point here is the revised management of the defence administration's property in 2002; as part of the new policy, land property was taken over by the Finnish Forest and Park Service. This development was strengthened by the Ministry of Defence's decision to launch the Partnership Programme of Defence Administration in April 2001 and to extend it to new areas in October 2002.

The new organisation of the Ministry of Defence was introduced as of the beginning of 2002. The main principle was that the organisation should not expand; on the contrary, the aim is to better meet the current and future challenges with existing personnel. It has been vitally important in this process that the Ministry of Defence's personnel have committed themselves to supporting the purposeful guidance of the administrative branch.



Distinguished audience,

It gives me a great pleasure to note that despite the above-mentioned large-scale changes in defence administration in the past four years it has been possible to build national defence on a number of cornerstones.

First of all, the national leadership has maintained the stability of Finland's status in security policy despite many changes in our security environment. Finland's military non-alliance, a credible national defence and international co-operation, in particular our membership in the EU, form the basis of Finland's security policy, which continues to function well. Also Finland's active participation in Nato's partnership programmes has strengthened our position.

General conscription and the territorial defence system, which are the backbone of Finland's national defence solution, have maintained and will maintain their significance in the military defence of the sparsely populated country. Even in the turmoil of security policy changes it is not justified to alter the tenets of Finland's national defence.

A recently published study by the Research Institute of the Finnish Economy shows that although the proportion of the GNP in Finland's defence expenditure is one of the lowest in Europe, we have however been able to focus on procuring materiel. This is possible because of general conscription, which means moderate pay costs. Contrary to some recent views, we should aim at further complementing general conscription through voluntary national defence training and the well-established women's national service on a voluntary basis.

The key tasks of the Defence Forces have in practice remained the same and the main part of the resources allocated to military defence are still used to develop national defence and to improve credibility. Finland has been able to retain her position as a reliable peacekeeping country through determined development of her capability to take part in international crisis-management co-operation.

Finland has won international recognition for her defence and capability to participate in demanding international crisis-management operations and I can note with great pleasure that Finland has both assumed and been given responsibility for these tasks. The best example of this is that in May Finland as the first militarily non-allied country is going to take over the duties of commanding a multinational brigade in a Nato-led crisis-management operation in Kosovo.

Perhaps the most important cornerstone of Finland's national defence is the will of the citizens to defend the country, which continues to be on a high level, and the wide support that the Defence Forces enjoy. The significance of these factors cannot be too strongly underlined. They show that the work carried out in defence administration is very well justified. These national assets should be cherished also in the future.



Distinguished audience,

I would now like to draw your attention to a number of challenges that defence administration is going to meet in the next electoral period.

For the security and defence policy of a militarily small country such as Finland to be successful, it is in my view essential that the nation keeps up with the changes in its environment and improves strategic planning that provides the basis for the long-term development of national defence. Only in this way can our defence system be developed to flexibly anticipate the changing requirements of future environment and possible crisis situations.

In the changing security policy environment it is vital to be aware of new kind of threats, which became apparent after the terror attacks of September 11, 2001. Intensifying international co-operation is required to prevent and repel threats of this calibre. It should not be forgotten that increasing co-operation on the international level also means work for national defence.

We may have to address the above-mentioned challenges already in the next Report on Security and Defence Policy to be submitted in 2004; the Report shall have far-reaching effects well into the next decade. In its preparations for submitting the Report, defence administration should aim at a result, which on the basis of political consensus increases parliamentary commitment to the security and defence policy reports of the Government.

The next Report shall deal with a number of still open issues regarding defence administration. First of all, it faces the challenge of securing resources for a credible national defence. To develop the Defence Forces, a sustainable materiel policy programme should be created, based on long-term development programmes, to compensate for the reductions on wartime overall strength, which have already been agreed upon. In addition, we should secure personnel resources for the future.

As far as possible, allocating resources to defence administration shall be carried out regardless of economic fluctuations, following a programme-based development model. Defence administration should also ensure that its functions are cost-efficient. Following a programme-based model would make the role of the Ministry of Defence more concrete as the possessor and initiator of programmes whereas the role of the Defence Forces would be to implement the programmes.

Secondly, linking defence administration already in peacetime more and more closely to the activities of other administrative branches and society is an important challenge. This incorporates the aim that the principles of total defence, created for exceptional conditions, shall not be neglected. In this respect the strategy to ensure vital functions in society plays a significant role: it is being created in co-operation with various administrative branches and shall be accomplished in the current year. The partnership programme in defence administration provides a good example of the two challenges; the experience gained in pilot projects has been highly encouraging.

The already mentioned close linking to society inevitably requires also more openness in the functions of defence administration and the will to promote an open discussion about security and defence policy matters. As I already mentioned, it is vital for the future development of defence administration that the chosen measures do not weaken the citizens’ will to defend the country, which has always been remarkably high in Finland. In addition, in the midst of all changes, we should also remember the legacy of the wars we have fought and the honourable achievements of our veterans.

General conscription has proved highly suitable for Finnish conditions. Armed training of conscripts should be complemented by the voluntary national defence system, for which the Ministry of Defence provides the guidelines and which has parliamentary control. In this way the will of citizens to defend the country and voluntary work could benefit the building of a defence system for the next decade in the best possible way.

Our goal for the short term is to implement the remaining decisions regarding structural changes in defence administration while paying attention to the status of personnel, without disrupting key functions. It is planned to achieve these goals by the end of 2004. In addition, we shall prepare a structural change for the central administration level in defence administration, which has even more far-reaching effects.

The factors having concrete effects on the capabilities of the Defence Forces include the securing of the Army's performance, which entails the so far open issue of procuring escort helicopters. In the coming years we shall also make a decision on joining the Ottawa Convention on landmines; the decision should not undermine the credibility of our national defence. The Army's high performance should not be achieved through neglecting the needs of other Services, on the contrary; we should also ensure that the Navy and the Air Force are developed to respond to the challenges of the future.

Although there are many challenges to be addressed, defence administration has capacity for writing the new Security and Defence Policy Report, making plans for the long-term development of the administrative branch as well as revising the tenets of security policy, if this is found necessary at some point.



Distinguished participants of the National Defence Course,

Many of the challenges I have here referred to are likely to be discussed during your course. I hope that you will have an opportunity to an open and versatile exchange of ideas with your expert lecturers. This will give you the best possible benefit in return for your time.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the organisers, teachers, guest lecturers and all who have given their contribution to the courses for their invaluable work for national defence.

I am certain that you will have a most interesting and rewarding course in national defence and I also wish you every success in your fields to work for Finland's security.

Return to headlines