2011
Minister Wallin talade om Europas gemensamma säkerhets- och försvarspolitik för de ambassadörer som är ackrediterade i Finland
I samarbete med utrikesministeriet verkställer försvarskurserna den 7 – 8 december 2011 Försvarets 40:nde specialkurs för de ambassadörer som är ackrediterade i Finland. Syftet är att ge deltagarna en uppfattning om hur det finska samhällets vitala funktioner tryggas under normala förhållanden, i störningssituationer och i undantagsförhållanden.
Försvarsminister Stefan Wallin höll den 8 december 2012 ett tal om Europas gemensamma säkerhets- och försvarspolitik för kursdeltagarna.
First of all I would like to thank you for the opportunity to give a speech to this distinguished audience on the security and defence policy in Europe and the European Union.
Today, I shall look at the challenges caused by the economic crisis and the impact on defence forces across Europe. Secondly, I shall look at the Common Security and Defence Policy of the European Union and its prospects in a wider context.
The current economic crisis forces the European defence forces to deal with the same challenges as all the sectors of the government. These challenges are well portrayed in the Europe 2020 strategy drawn by the European Commission. The Strategy states, among other things, that:
“2010 marks a new beginning: Europe shall strive at emerging stronger from the economic and financial crisis. Economic realities have changed faster than political realities and interdependence between states has grown. How Europe responds will determine our future. The crisis is a wake-up call, the moment where we recognise that the "business as usual" approach would consign us to a gradual decline. In the short term the goal is to emerge from the crisis and, at the same time, we shall have to reflect on solutions for the long term as well as new modes of action.”
Although the Europe 2020 strategy does not cover CSDP we should not draw the conclusion that the defence forces of the EU member states do not meet the same challenges. The economic crisis does not recognise borders between states or the delineation of competencies between the EU institutions. The impact of the economic and financial crisis has reached Finland, too. In 2012 we have to borrow seven billion euros. The interest of the public debt will be 2.36 billion euros, in other words 4500 euros a minute. We are facing a big task in balancing the national economy. The defence sector has to participate in this task, too.
In Finland, the need for a national defence reform had been recognised already before the economic crisis. The need for reform lies deeper than the current economic crisis: we have been well aware of personnel and real estate costs and the increasing cost of defence materiel over a number of years. Because of the economic crisis we need to carry out reforms within a reducing financial framework. This calls for prioritisation, abolition and reallocation. It is necessary to look into the possibility of saving or gaining benefits from multinational co-operation. All European nations are facing the same challenge. At the same time we receive calls for Europe to take a greater role in world politics.
From the beginning of the 21st century the European Union has strengthened its role as a global actor. The entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty and the establishment of the European External Action Service will contribute to the Union’s capability to exert influence despite the challenges and recent inward focus while the new structures have been built.
When the challenges related to the establishment of our new structures have been solved we can expect the European Union to become a more effective and comprehensive global actor. This is also in Finland’s interests. We can exert more influence as a member state of the European Union than on our own.
Alongside the strengthening of the role of the European Union also the Common Security and Defence Policy has strengthened. CSDP activities can be incorporated more effectively into the Union’s comprehensive action. In addition to trade policy, development policy and traditional diplomacy, the crisis-management operations of the European Union are also an instrument of our external action.
The debate in Finland on the Common Security and Defence Policy of the European Union resembles at times shadow discussion about NATO. The discussion focuses on collective defence. I feel that in Europe the development of CSDP is seen, first, as part of increasing the global role of the European Union and, secondly, as a forum to deepen cooperation between our defence forces. NATO remains the forum for collective defence. Both organisations have clear roles as far as defence cooperation is concerned.
I shall next attempt to clarify the two dimensions of the common security and defence policy through some examples.
Let’s first take the European Union as a global actor. The citizens of the member states, our strategic partners such as the United Nations and third countries such as the United States expect the European Union to take on a more important role in world politics. We have gained experience from CSDP operations only for the past ten years but we can gradually witness a change. Although the first CSDP operations did have impact on promoting stability they also served as exercises to see whether we are able to work together. Today the CSDP operations are more effectively incorporated into the external action of the Union. A good example of this is the measures taken by the European union in the Horn of Africa.
The recent strategy for the Horn of Africa guides the Union’s external action in the region. The goal of the strategy is to stabilise the situation particularly in Somalia and also offer counter-piracy measures. At the same time the strategy looks at the problems in the area from a wider perspective. The aim is to ensure the compatibility of the Union’s measures regarding a wide range of issues from trade relations to terrorism and from climate issues to immigration.
The most visible contribution of the CSDP sector is the EUNAVFOR ATALANTA. Another CSDP action in the area is the EUTM SOMALIA. The Training Mission has been carried out in cooperation between the UN, the African Union, Uganda and the United States. The next CSDP element has already been outlined and in the near future the European Union will engage in the development of maritime capabilities and state administration in the states of the region, including the judicial system, the police, border management and coastguards.
The example of the Horn of Africa indicates that it is possible to set comprehensive objectives to the external action of the European Union. In addition, comprehensiveness should be made part of the everyday work of the Union. As for the common security and defence policy sector, this means the establishment of an autonomous and permanent planning and conduct capability for the European Union.
The current planning and conduct arrangement is based on a political compromise which was reached in 2003. At the time it was assumed that the European Union would not conduct military operations or, if it did, it would rely on the planning and conduct capability of NATO, the Berlin Plus arrangement. However, within the past ten years the European Union has launched 24 civilian and military operations. It is important to be able to adjust our operations to the other EU instruments and measures in a crisis area. This is difficult to implement if the European Union has to rely on NATO structures.
On this topic, Finland welcomes the progress made in the Foreign Affairs Council on the 1st of December. The Council Conclusions are a great first step. We believe that the EU Operation Centre (OPCENT) will be well positioned to the support the planning and conduct of EU action in the Horn of Africa. A more effective European Union who is capable of bearing more responsibility than before is in the interests of Finland and EU’s partners.
In addition to the planning and conduct capability, it is important that the European Union has necessary tools at its disposal to conduct operations. So far we have been able to tailor and form a separate multinational task force for each operation. At the same time it has been acknowledged that in some situations a crisis may call for a rapid response even with a small force to prevent the situation from escalating. The EU Battlegroups were formed for this purpose.
By providing a rapid response capability the Battlegroups are an important tool among crisis-management instruments. They also play an important role in developing interoperability and through them the member states have developed and reformed their defence forces.
Finland has gained positive experience from four different stand-by periods in Battlegroups led by Sweden, Germany and The Netherlands. The Nordic Battlegroup has often been portrayed as a good example. The Finnish troops who have participated have been our best trained and equipped troops which have later been deployed in other operations. It is important to note that for our part Finland has ensured that the European Union has necessary crisis-management instruments at its disposal and, when necessary, we meet the obligations of a member state and the responsibility for fulfilling them.
So far the Battlegroups have never been used. Finland has considered it important that they should not be used only as a means of transforming the defence forces; there should also be willingness to deploy them when the Battlegroups are a suitable instrument. This does not mean that the European Union should start operations only for the deployment of battle groups. The question is, can we use available resources as a reserve for an on-going operation or as a bridging force when we launch new operations. If the Battlegroups are never used the willingness of the member states to contribute will suffer.
It is for this reason and partly because of the weakened economic situation that next year, for the first time, there will be a gap in the stand-by roster of the battle groups. Earlier this year we had good discussion on the possible improvements we could do for the stand-by periods. Finland has actively contributed to this debate and will continue to do so when the discussion continues in the beginning of next year. Before that, it will be important to make progress on the Athena mechanism and common funding issues related to the Battlegroups.
I mentioned earlier that CSDP has two dimensions. I already outlined the strengthening of the global role of the European Union through the permanent planning and conduct capability as well as the Battlegroups. I would like to describe next the framework created by the Common Security and Defence Policy as a cooperation forum between defence establishments.
Multinational cooperation to create military capabilities is not a new phenomenon. This kind of work has been carried out in NATO and the European Union for a number of years. Already in 2004 the European Defence Agency was set up to take cooperation further. Finland has participated in many multinational projects such as the so called SAC initiative for strategic lift.
Because of the economic crisis multinational cooperation and the need to develop it has become the number one topic in our ministerial meetings. Calls from our American partners – Defence Ministers Gates and Panetta – have not passed unnoticed either. All member states including Finland recognise the challenge. We must take our cooperation to a new level. There is no return to what was before. It does not matter what forum we use for cooperation: NATO, the European Union or regional cooperation like NORDEFCO. As we see it, projects and cooperation forums do not compete against each other.
In the European Union context the speech held by Germany’s Defence Minister in Ghent about a year ago was seen as a starting point. It was followed by the joint initiative of Germany and Sweden. The initiative is known as Pooling and Sharing.
So far the work and preparations in the European Union have progressed on two tracks. The Chiefs of Defence have responded to two inquiries on the possible areas for multinational cooperation. Over 300 potential areas of cooperation were found. At the same time the Senior Level Expert group (SLE-group) set up by the European Defence Agency interviewed member states to map out, on the one hand, what they see as obstacles to cooperation and, on the other hand, what promotes co-operation. The fear of losing sovereignty and matters related to security of supply were seen as the biggest challenges to cooperation.
Finland has actively contributed to the work. Finland is the lead-nation on Maritime Surveillance and participates in other areas as well. In addition, one of the four experts in the SLE-group was Mr Eero Lavonen from the Finnish Ministry of Defence.
The Council Conclusions reached on the 1st of December were positive. The goal is clear in the short term. We must continue work on two tracks: first, we must proceed to the implementation phase with our potential projects and secondly we must study the findings of the EDA’s SLE group. Beginning of 2012 is a key. In our next Defence Ministers’ meeting in April I hope to see some concrete achievements. These could form the base for a strong EU message that could be delivered in NATO’s summit in Chicago.
It is more difficult to set goals for the long term. It is clear, however, that the “business as usual” approach will lead to Europe’s gradual decline. Wisdom for the future is: “It is better to have a shared sovereignty of some capabilities than have full sovereignty of no capabilities”. Therefore we must pursue the new model of cooperation which is forming around the Pooling and Sharing initiative.
We should also study how the special features of the European Union can be used to build more trust between member states and our defence sectors. The member states are tied together by the single market, common currency and common legislation. This wider framework should be seen and understood when we reflect whether to trust our partners or not.
Ambassadors,
It is clear that in the future cooperation will not always be conducted between all 27 member states; willing and able countries will participate in individual projects according to their own needs. A number of us are likely to participate in several projects and act within the framework of the European Union more actively than others. If a “core group” is going to emerge within the Common Security and Defence Policy it is certain to emerge from these countries. I fell strongly that Finland should belong to this core.
I have attempted to describe current issues in the Common Security and Defence Policy of the European Union and put forward ideas on our next steps. I would now like to take this opportunity to thank you for your attention and wish you an interesting and fruitful meeting. Thank you very much!