Dr. Seppo Kääriäinen, Minister Of Defence Of Finland, Speech at the National Defence Course 175, The House of the Estates, Helsinki

Is the foundation of our defence solution solid? Honoured Chief of Defence and participants of the 175th National Defence Course, ladies and gentlemen, When the National Defence Courses first began over four decades ago, no one would have guessed how significant and popular, as a national institution, they would eventually become.

Today, the courses offer an opportunity for key personnel from various fields to acquaint them-selves with how our national defence is organized and to study the inter-authority cooperation required to facilitate it. Due to the high-quality curriculum, the course provides participants with the wherewithal that can be utilized in many ways in their everyday work. Therefore, the National Defence Courses have developed into an integral part of the Finnish defence solution.

The Finnish defence solution, the fundamental elements of which are general conscription, de-fence of the entire territory of the nation, military non-alignment and close international cooperation, is based on the wide support of the citizens. This support, according to various polls, has remained high during the entire post-Second World War era. Not even the re-evaluation of the international system and of its inherent security threats focusing on Finland has altered the situation. We have always enjoyed a wide consensus on the foundation of our defence policy.

Dear Course participants,

When deliberating the 2004 Security and Defence Policy Report, the Parliament committed to maintaining the basic principles of our defence solution as they stand today. This, however, does not imply the deterring of all changes nor even the excluding of the possibility of change. It is important that the option to change be maintained, should it become appropriate for one reason or another. The defence establishment must live in the present and it must be ready to respond to new challenges and to altered conditions.

When it comes to the new threats, nobody has seriously called the tasks of our national de-fence into question. The citizens' will to defend the country remains high. Can we, however, count on this in the future as well? Is the foundation of our defence solution solid? If asked, we must be able to provide clear and convincing answers as to why we maintain a national de-fence to begin with and why, in contrast to some other model, it is implemented the way it is. The Chief of Defence touched on this question in his speech as he opened the previous National Defence Courses a month and a half ago. He reminded us that we simply cannot afford to run down our own defence capability. Notwithstanding the considerably longer time needed to re-establish the capability compared to what it would take to run it down, it is imperative for us to operate in such a fashion that our nation will never become the focus of military speculation.

Is the foundation solid? The tasks of our defence establishment can be divided into three baskets. The first and biggest basket, even in the future, contains all tasks relating to the military defence of our country. By far the most important task for our Defence Forces is to see to it that also in the future we will have the required means to repel any military threats, which are presently unlikely although not inconceivable.

The second basket contains the defence establishment's international tasks which have significantly increased since Finland joined the European Union in the beginning of 1995. Next year we celebrate a special anniversary for Finnish peacekeeping activities because in December 1956, Finland deployed its first military contingent to a UN operation in the Suez. Today, 50 years later, almost 50 000 Finns have served in international operations in various parts of the globe. Finland participates in UN, EU and NATO-led operations in the Balkans, Asia and Africa.

The end of the Cold War almost entirely lifted the threat of a major war in Europe. The biggest threats to our continent now are, by their nature, the so-called spillover threats. Our Nordic neighbours Sweden, Norway and Denmark have come to the conclusion that they can even guarantee their national safety by investing heavily in international tasks and by simultaneously reducing their traditional national defence capability.

The model chosen by our neighbours, however, is not the way for Finland. Historically, the level of our investment in national defence has always clearly remained below the European aver-age. For instance, even after Sweden completes its transformation programme, its GDP share for defence will by and large remain almost at its present level, i.e. significantly higher than that of Finland's. In other words, the Swedish cutbacks are not primarily focused on the defence budget, but rather, units are going to be closed and equipment parted with so that the overall focus can be shifted to international tasks.

As first class Europeans, we have always taken care of our international responsibilities. We are regarded as a peacekeeping superpower. It is perfectly possible to see to our international responsibilities without compromising on national defence as, after all, we have indeed been successfully doing so up to now. For example, by participating in two European Union battle groups, with Germany and the Netherlands in 2007 and with Sweden, Norway and Estonia in 2008, we simultaneously support international stability and peace as well as our own national defence.

The third basket contains the defence establishment's tasks reinforcing inter-authority cooperation in order to secure the functions vital to society. The Government adopted a strategy related to this in March 2003. It is presently being updated. The Defence Forces implement the strategic tasks for which they are responsible. Additionally, they support other security authorities by providing them executive assistance upon request.

Dear audience,

The defence establishment is fully capable of executing its national defence task with its pre-sent resources. For a number of years already, the Defence Forces have implemented various efficiency-increasing and rationalization measures and they have also relocated functions. This line of action will vigorously continue as per the 2004 Government Report, which also happens to be the productivity programme of the defence establishment. As for increasing productivity, we can justifiably say that the defence establishment has been a trailblazer within the entire public administration.

By this I mean, for instance, the following: The Defence Forces are in the process of reducing the wartime strength to 350 000 troops. By establishing local defence troops, regional defence is intensified and a new venue for voluntary national defence activity is being created. The Helsinki Air Defence Regiment, the Savo Brigade and the Kotka Coastal Command will be disbanded. The size of the Defence Staff will be reduced and its organization will be revamped by establishing the Army Headquarters in Mikkeli. The Naval Headquarters will be transferred to Turku. The number of depots and storage sites is being diminished by more than one half of the present. The number of personnel in the Defence Forces is being reduced, but without having to resort to laying anyone off. All of these measures will be implemented by the end of this decade. In addition, we are committed to doing away with 1 200 jobs and to reassigning 500 positions by the year 2012.

Every minister hopes that the funds allocated to his or her administrative branch would in-crease. However, barring a change for the worse in Finland's military security situation, it is unrealistic to expect an increase in defence funding in any political constellation. On the other hand, I would like to note that the defence establishment must not be punished for having implemented a policy line emphasizing productivity and financial prudence on its own initiative and, even on top of this, for having participated in the Government's joint savings effort.

Should new savings be required, we could no longer succeed at it by merely increasing efficiency and by rationalizing. In such a case the foundation of our national defence would have to be re-examined. Then one would have to select which of the basic principles to abolish with regard to the Parliament's resolution this past December. My position in this regard is crystal-clear: No basic principle can be abandoned without causing long-term repercussions from the viewpoint of the Defence Forces' three main tasks. Therefore, it is important that everyone clearly understands where these kinds of decisions would lead us.

Let us conduct a few mental exercises. Could we save more by altogether abolishing general conscription? Hardly so, because general conscription is a solution well suited to the Finnish conditions, is cost-effective and is supported by the people. Establishing and maintaining fully professional armed forces would significantly increase the Defence Forces' wage costs. Furthermore, abolishing general conscription would result in a situation where the Defence Forces would no longer be able to tap into the nation's best expertise, embodied by reservists.

Could one abandon the defence of the entire territory of the nation? This kind of decision would have a dramatic adverse effect on the citizens' will to defend the nation, not to mention other effects. The presence of the Defence Forces in all parts of the country boosts the citizens' confidence in the fact that the raison d'être of the Defence Forces is to be there for citizens and their security.

Many consider materiel procurements an excellent choice of disbursement to be reduced. The technological sea of change, which has been taking place over the past few years and decades has resulted in a move toward network-based warfare. One cannot even think of modern de-fence forces without adequate C4I competence (command, control, communications, computers and intelligence systems), which, mind you, is one of our strengths. Finland invests approximately 30% of the defence budget in materiel procurement. Abandoning this would adversely affect our defence capability, which would also be observed by those in our environment.

How about the Defence Forces' daily functions then, especially training tasks? After all, we have travelled this route before; the period of national service could either permanently or temporarily be shortened and many wonder whether it would also be possible to reduce the number or refresher exercises. The fact of the matter, however, is that it is impossible to maintain a system based on reserves without conducting adequate basic training and refresher exercises.

Finally, we must talk about allying ourselves militarily. Some seem to believe that we could reduce our defence expenditures by becoming members in an alliance. This is an erroneous belief. A study that was completed at the Ministry of Defence almost two years ago proved that military alignment would neither increase nor decrease defence expenses in any significant manner. In many other ways, though, the change would be remarkable. Furthermore, military alliances would hardly cheer should we officially state that our specific motivation for alignment is the need to save in defence spending. NATO has already come across examples of this kind of poor behaviour. It is, therefore, out of the question.

To simplify the dilemma, we must choose whether to maintain our military capability, are we to participate in international crisis management in the company of other nations, and will we or won't we strengthen the security of our citizens via the Defence Forces' capabilities? All of the above are political choices. If the answer to them is positive, as I hope and believe it is, the rest can always be worked out. It only takes leadership and organization skills.

In the future, the defence establishment will come face-to-face with new kinds of pressures, whether it wants to or not. The Defence Forces operate in a society which increasingly emphasizes transparency. Therefore, it is paramount that the defence establishment and the Defence Forces operate in a manner which fosters trust among its citizens. We must operate convincingly, efficiently and justifiably. For example: Bad investments are unacceptable, overpriced procurements must not be made, real estate disputes must be resolved through negotiating, the budget cannot be exceeded and an absolute zero tolerance on hazing must be followed. Trust is created through a large number of small matters. It is equally important that we can communicate to the general public about our activities in an open manner, truthfully, and correctly timed. Cover-ups and spin control only chip away at trust.

The defence establishment gains trust daily via its own activities. In the final analysis, the De-fence Forces and the national defence gain their most important support from the people, from Finnish women and men of all ages and representing all professions.

Dear National Defence Course participants,

I wish you the best success in the National Defence Course which is about to commence. In the course of the following weeks, you will be provided with a hefty package of information on how Finland operates in crises and in exceptional conditions. I hope that what you learn eventually supports you in your own work and helps you to provide even greater input in our society and in the securing of its vital functions. Please also provide feedback. You occupy various key positions in our society and, hence, you have the capability to assess whether the defence of our country is on the right track with regard to future challenges. I promise that your views will be taken seriously. And, above all, do not forget to enjoy this course and the companionship of your peers.

Return to headlines