Speech by President of the Republic Tarja Halonen at the 40th anniversary celebration of the National Defence Course Association on 21 May 2001

(Check against delivery)



Harsh natural conditions have perhaps from the start taught us Finns to build our survival on our own hard work and solid shared responsibility. This has been the operating model in building security in time of both war and peace. Our Nordic model quite naturally includes broad democracy and the building of security from the welfare society to national defence.

Finns also have personal experience that war is not limited to the front but extends its influence to the entire nation. The same applies to the post-war reconstruction of society.

The first national defence course, which was called the
"total national defence course", was held from 17 April to 6 May 1961. The task of national defence courses has remained practically unchanged during the past four decades. They have dealt with security policy, national defence and preparedness for emergencies. Over the years 6,113 Finns working in different spheres of society and broadly representing different civic circles have participated in 159 courses. The participants in the first national defence course immediately founded the National Defence College Association, which later became the National Defence Course Association.

National and regional defence courses together with the information supplied to servicemen and to participants in reserve refresher courses constitute the most extensive security training provided by the state. In addition different civic organizations - such as the National Defence Course Association - have conducted sometimes brisk and sometimes low-keyed discussion on timely security issues. Finns are interested in security policy and know how to express their opinions and also how to keep quiet at times. The civic discussion which preceded the advisory referendum on whether to join the European Union was quite interesting in this respect.

Security and defence decisions require long-term planning. Predicting and influencing the future are not an easy task in general. In security policy making a mistake can be not only expensive but also fatal. Finding the broadest possible consensus in questions regarding security is therefore prudent. The parliamentary defence committees in 1970-1981 were an attempt to ensure a long-term approach during a period of rapidly changing Governments.

I would say, however, that when Prime Minister Lipponen's Government in June 1995, only a couple of months after it was formed, submitted to Parliament the first white paper on security policy in Finland's history, we entered a new era of openness. The basis of the white paper was provided by Prime Minister Aho's Government, but work was not completed before the general election. The 1997 white paper on defence was built on the defence solution of military non-alignment which was reaffirmed in the white paper on security policy.

Europe has change quite rapidly since the end of the cold war. For good reason, in connection with the 1997 white paper the Council of State proposed the evaluation of a restructuring of defence in 2001. In the same connection the Council of State noted that the long-term planning of defence requires the preparation of a thorough report by 2005 at the latest.

The report which is now being prepared has been produced in this spirit. On the basis of discussion up to now I can say that there is broad agreement on the main lines of foreign and security policy as well as the basic line of defence policy. Question have been asked about the adaptation of national defence to new conditions, and in answering them consideration must be given to available economic resources.

The state budget is of course the business of the Government and Parliament. Having understood that it is not possible to obtain everything the Defence Forces would like, I have been interested in what means are chosen to maintain the credibility of national defence. It is important for us to strive peacefully to achieve broad agreement on matters which have to be decided. I am convinced that this is possible.

National and international security involve various factors which are of a political, economic or military nature or have to do with human rights, the effectiveness of society, public order or environmental questions. Taking care of our nation's security means taking care of all sectors of our society.

For Finland military non-alignment is an issue which is evaluated as part of security policy as a whole, not merely from a military viewpoint.

Finland is not expected to face any specific military treat in the forseeable future. In spite of this Finland must be able to take care of its territorial integrity in all situations. Finland's national defence capacity is aimed at maintaining stability.

Finland's security and defence policy can be summarized in the following basic factors:
1. maintaining and developing a credible defence capacity
2. remaining militarily non-aligned in existing circumstances and
3. participating in international cooperation to strengthen security and stability in the UN, in the OSCE, in the EU and within the framework of NATO's partnership for peace while also emphasizing Nordic cooperation.

Essential changes have taken place in the defence policy of many countries around the Baltic Sea. The other Nordic countries have in practice relinquished the idea of regional defence and are focusing more clearly on international crisis management. The Baltic countries are applying for NATO membership and are implementing security and defence policies on this basis. People have asked why Finland has not followed either or both examples.

The restructuring of defence forces planned and implemented by the other Nordic countries cannot be used by Finland as a model. There are several reasons for this.

Our point of departure in developing our Defence Forces differs from that of the other Nordic countries. We are not developing our Defence Forces as a whole for international preparedness and NATO compatibility. Finland's Defence Forces are still meant to defend Finland, all of Finland.

Secondly, Finland does not have the desire or the need to relinquish compulsory military service. Compulsory military service, in the real sense of the term, is still the firm basis of Finland's defence. Compulsory military service and social preparedness for emergencies link the Defence Forces and the rest of society closely to each other. Compulsory military service will continue to form the basis for maintaining and developing a defence solution which covers the entire nation.

Finland is not relinquishing its regional defence system. Our geopolitical location and military non-alignment place great demands on our defence capacity. Our Defence Forces, which are among the largest in Europe in terms of men, are also considered a factor which strengthens regional security.

The change in the general picture of war and the development of military technology are reflected in defence requirements. Interest should be focused on the situations for which defence is developed. The probability that Finland will face a specific military threat is quite small. Still we must be prepared to repel a large-scale attack on Finland.

Owing to the change in threat analyses, the 1997 white paper adopted the goal of developing the capacity to repel a surprise strategic strike. Repelling such a strike requires an improvement in the quality and mobility of our armed forces. The decision to form rapid-action brigades which was made four years ago has key significance for developing the capacity to repel a strike. These brigades also provide preconditions for the broad mobilization of the entire armed forces to repel an attack.

We must also be able to repel political, economic and military pressure as well as the repercussions of a crisis elsewhere in the world. This requires a politically, economically and technically strong society. With the growth of international dependence, societies have become increasingly vulnerable to cross-border risks and threats. Today's technicized and networked societies may also be more vulnerable to accidents than to intentional damage.

International cooperation has assumed an increasingly important role in Finland's security and defence policy. We are involved in building cooperation-based security in Europe and the entire world.

The United Nations Security Council has primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security. We support efforts to improve the effectiveness of UN and OSCE peacekeeping activities and are prepared to participate in these organizations' peacekeeping activities in the future as well. Finland has stressed that the EU's crisis management forces must also be available for UN peacekeeping operations. With the EU's growing crisis management capacity, the position of the EU countries in the UN may also be strengthened.

According to our Peacekeeping Act, Finland can have a maximum of 2,000 soldiers in international crisis management tasks authorized by the UN or the OSCE at any given time. Finland will continue to decide what operations it wishes to participate in and in what way. We will of course try at the same time to meet the expectations which the international community places on us. Suitable tasks must be sought through specialization and high-standard expertise - quality, not quantity.

Participation in international crisis management also develops and strengthens national defence. Participation in international crisis management does not take place at the expense of national defence.

In order to be a credible actor in crisis management, the European Union must have military as well as political and economic means to prevent and manage crises. The development of the EU's military crisis management capacity has proceeded at an amazing pace.

Owing to its political-economic nature, the European Union is well suited for civilian crisis management. In the EU we should indeed create capacity and build operating models aimed at preventing, resolving and recovering from crises: promoting democracy and sustainable economic development, respecting human rights and fostering and strengthening the rule of law. Security comes from everyday things: living and income, health care and education, order and courts. No doubt military action will still be needed in the future, but we cannot build a sustainable future on this basis alone.

In developing the EU's crisis management capacity, it is also important to emphasize the coordination of military and civilian crisis management. In spite of its comprehensive nature, the Union should not try to do everything itself but should cooperate more effectively with the UN, the OSCE, the Council of Europe and NATO.

President Kekkonen noted in a speech which he gave in Kouvola nearly 40 years ago that no state can maintain neutrality if no one has faith in its will and ability to defend itself.

The vast majority of Finns in recent years have thought that if there is an attack on Finland, the nation should defend itself militarily in all situations, even if the outcome appears uncertain. Faith in the nation's possibilities in a conventional war has also increased.

These facts in my opinion show that citizens give their clear approval to Finland's foreign and security policy. Our participation in international crisis management in operations directed by the UN and NATO and our efforts to develop the European Union's crisis management capacity have helped increase Finns' security. We have striven to influence the resolution of conflicts which could endanger our own security. Finns' will to defend our nation is high and people have faith in the credibility of our national defence.

In normal circumstances defence capacity is taken into consideration in evaluating nations' relative weight. The credibility of Finland's defence is also evaluated outside our country's borders. In evaluating our defence capacity, consideration is given to Finland's geopolitical position and security environment as well as general military development. The Defence Forces' activity in preventing and limiting international crises is a visible part of the credibility of our defence.

We must constantly evaluate factors which influence our nation's security. The changes which have taken place in recent years in Finland's security policy environment have mainly been favourable. Finland has rapidly established its position as an active and enterprising member of the European Union. Our relations with all our neighbouring countries are excellent. During Finland's independence the Baltic Sea region and northern Europe have never before experienced such stable and cooperative development as now. We must be prepared for the disturbance of this favourable development, however. In a crisis it may be too late to develop the means necessary to repel threats. For this reason we must ensure sufficient resources for Finland's Defence Forces over the long run.

The National Defence Course Association performs valuable work for our security policy. Over the decades it has deepened our nation's key decision-makers' knowledge while serving as a significant forum for security policy discussion. The value of the association's work is highlighted by the fact that its membership includes active participants from different spheres of society and civic circles representing different social viewpoints.

I wish the National Defence Course Association success in its work on behalf of our nation.