The ongoing process of NATO's transformation and the Alliance's ambitions to go global are closely watched in Finland, a member of the EU and of NATO's Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC). With NATO soon to enlarge by seven new members, questions arise as to the continued relevance of the Council, and over the role Finland can play in an increasingly less crowded EAPC. The election of a new government in March 2003 also raised speculations whether there would be any changes in Finland's policy towards NATO. Does military non-alignment still make sense in what could be called a 'post-post-Cold War' security environment?

Common perceptions

During the Cold War, Finland followed a policy of 'neutrality' between the two major blocs. When it joined the EU in 1995, the country changed the name of its policy of 'neutrality' to that of 'non-aligned'. As Heli Santala pointed out, 'there has always been widespread support among the Finnish population for the basic tenets of government foreign policy. International crises like Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq have increased the population's support for non-alignment'. In a recent survey by the Finnish Advisory Board for Defence Information, 70% of the people interviewed supported military non-alignment. In this regard, Risto E.J. Penttilä added that, in his interpretation, for the Finnish people 'EU membership was already a major step'. The Finnish attitude towards NATO is still generally negative. As one member of the Finnish Parliament put it, 'in Finland the old perception of NATO as an aggressive military alliance is still alive'.

Finland and NATO: Any change in sight?

During the political elections this spring, the NATO issue was largely glossed over while the EU Convention grabbed most of the attention. After a narrow victory, the Centre Party formed a government in coalition with the Social Democrats and the Swedish People's Party. Some sources have pointed out the lack of experience of the new political leadership in foreign affairs (the Centre Party had been in opposition for the past eight years) and its history of support for the notion of self-reliance in defence matters. Dr Penttilä opined that 'the situation is evolving towards a "neo-neutralism" ' and that 'Finland is moving away from NATO membership'. Others commented that this new government is less interested than the previous one in keeping NATO's door open.

The government will look at its security policy in a 2004 White Paper. There is widespread agreement that the Paper will not contain any major changes. Dr Penttilä expects 'no NATO recommendations', while a member of the Finnish Parliament declared that 'in the White Paper there will probably be a positive stand on EU co-operation on defence matters but no clear standpoint on NATO membership'. As far as the former is concerned, the official line is that Finland is reluctant to increase defence co-operation in the EU, but that it would not oppose other EU members engaging in enhanced co-operation in this field. Additionally, official sources emphasised that 'as NATO and the EU are becoming more intertwined [following the agreement for the EU access to NATO assets], relations between the two institutions are a major factor in Finland's considerations'. Increased co-operation with NATO via the EU might in fact be the best way for Finland to keep close ties with the Alliance without paying the price of full membership.

EAPC: Finland's link to the Alliance

As NATO membership seems rather distant, Finland considers the Partnership as 'key' in its co-operation with the Alliance. The country is in the process of assessing what could be realistically achieved from the EAPC agenda set out at the NATO Prague Summit in November 2002, where, inter alia, it was decided to have the Partners involved at an early stage of the decision-making process and to engage in more effective joint exercises. As the focus of the Partnership is shifting to the Central Asian countries, one official source said that Finland could act as a 'mentor' for these countries and assist them on specific issues. Finland's recent command of the KFOR Multinational Brigade Centre in Kosovo was defined as an 'important step' in its co-operation with NATO.

Non-alignment: to be or not to be?

Finland seems still to be struggling with what its appropriate role should be in the post-post-Cold War security environment. It is torn between its strong commitments to the, until recently purely civilian, European Union, while realising it must also respond to regional changes. Having most of its neighbours in a larger and 'new' NATO must certainly weigh heavily as it considers where its alliances lie. Should Finland assuage its national population and remain committed primarily to the EU and its new, rather limited military tasks? Or should it follow the Baltic trend and sign up with the big player in the region, NATO?

Dr Penttilä, for one, expressed some concerns over the geopolitical implications, 'the sea lanes in the Baltic Sea (an important route for oil exports) will be the hotspot in any crisis between the EU and Russia'. He seems to imply that in such a scenario Finland would be safer as a member of NATO. Finland will also soon have its neighbour Estonia sitting in the NATO-Russia Council (NRC) with decision-making power-while Finland will be doing PfP exercises and helping the Central Asian countries. The reasons for keeping non-alignment appear compelling: Finland faces no immediate threat; co-operation between the West and Russia through the NRC is evolving; and, enlargement to the Baltic states will further stabilise the region. Moreover, NATO's ambitions to go global through its nascent Response Force (perhaps acting pre-emptively) were reported to be 'problematic' for Finland. For this country to change the rationale of its security policy there will either be the 'need' to do so or 'something will have to change in the security environment', as officials put it. Circumstances suggest that neither condition is yet present.

FAI CLICK SU QUESTO LINK ED ESPRIMI LE TUE IDEE NEL FORUM