Helena Partanen, Head of Defence Policy Unit, Ministry of Defence, Finland Dublin Castle 17 May, 2013

Transcription

1 Helena Partanen, Head of Defence Policy Unit, Ministry of Defence, Finland Dublin Castle 17 May, 2013 Delivering Defence Capacity, Making Defence cooperation work First of all, I would like to thank the Irish Presidency for arranging once again a very timely and important CSDP seminar. This very year, 2013, is an important year for both defence cooperation and CSDP in the EU. The changing security environment and economic challenges have encouraged European states to deepen their cooperation both at European and regional levels. My topic Making Defence Cooperation work is thus very timely. As the representative of the current Chairman of the Nordic Defence Cooperation I will draw my lessons identified and my conclusions from the experience of the Nordic countries. Regarding the topic of this session, every European country faces the same challenge. We all strive to develop military capabilities that efficiently meet our security challenges at home and abroad. At the same time we experience a growing gap between capability requirements and resources available for defence. All this has also encouraged us to deepen our cooperation both at the European and at the regional level. Spending smarter means, in fact, spending together. Operational requirements, rising costs of materiel and technology together with strained defence budgets make an equation, which is hard to solve without multinational cooperation. Several facilitators for multinational cooperation already exist: EU with the initiative on Pooling and Sharing, NATO with Smart Defence and regional initiatives, such as NORDEFCO. There are already examples of good pragmatic cooperation. In the EU, the Maritime Surveillance (MARSUR) has been a success story. In NATO, the Strategic Airlift Capability (SAC) provides us with a capability we as a small

2 2 country would not be able to afford on our own. In Nordic Defence Cooperation, the Cross-Border exercise concept of the air forces with our Swedish and Norwegian neighbours has already proved to be valuable. The current trend seems to emphasise regional cooperation; it is easier to move forward and get results through smaller groups of countries or bilateral initiatives. As we see it, pragmatic and cost-effective capabilities development is the key, regardless of the format. Regional arrangements complement the work undertaken within NATO and the EU. Despite the positive steps taken on the regional level or in smaller groups, the pace to find innovative, multinational solutions together has been slow, although the difficult financial situation should to call for new, multinational solutions. When thinking of today s topic, the European Union and NATO are both actively searching for solutions for capability development; Pooling and Sharing and Smart Defence. However, the political will and attention (beyond rhetoric) has not been enough to drive the progress further. There is some willingness to pool, but sharing is altogether much more problematic. That is why we place a strong emphasis on the European Council meeting in December to provide both the political commitment and also a way forward to build deeper and more structured cooperation. Another set of challenges derives from specialisation. A new mindset is needed as we get used to the idea of not necessarily having it all by ourselves. Specialisation brings up fundamental questions related to national sovereignty and trust between nations. While a country can provide added value for all others by developing a niche capability, it will need to count on others regarding some other capability areas. What if one of the participants chooses to opt out? These are complicated questions especially for small countries. When it comes to countries outside collective defence arrangements, such as Finland, challenges are yet multiplied. It is a fact of life that the countries that are covered by mutual security guarantees have more freedom of action in the development of their defence systems.

3 3 Nevertheless, at least for Finland there is no alternative to enhancing bilateral and multinational cooperation. The Ministry of Defence Strategic Plan 2030 concludes that Finland cannot maintain a truly effective defence capability in the future without engaging in a more wide-ranging and deeper multinational cooperation. Having now described some general challenges of multinational cooperation, I would like to turn to the Nordic defence cooperation. The Nordic cooperation has long traditions starting already in the 1960 s with cooperation in the field of peacekeeping training. Since those times the cooperation developed to cover armaments cooperation and cooperation on building operational capabilities. We aim at cost-effectiveness, but also try to reach operational, financial, technical and industrial benefits. The Nordic cooperation is unique in many respects; not only because of its long history but also because of the exceptional momentum that has been created to boost the cooperation. The deeper and more structured cooperation was first initiated by the Norwegian and Swedish Chiefs of Defence who invited the Finnish Chief of Defence to the negotiating table. In their report of June 2006, these three identified some 140 possible areas for cooperation out of which about 40 could be initiated fairly soon. It is, however, important to note that many of the areas of cooperation included in the so called 40-list already existed at that point of time and were then packed into this cooperation with a new label. Currently we focus our work on some 20 possible areas of cooperation. But the pace has been slow. The NORDEFCO is still very much a work in progress, and it is far too early to tell when we reach and deliver added value compared to the cooperation we have carried on for decades. Many say that NORDEFCO still needs more time to develop and mature in its current form. But one could also note that even more importantly we need concrete examples of the new type of cooperation. No quick wins, but actual progress. So, what are the challenges we have faced and may face? It is my guess that these challenges to cooperation we have identified in the Nordic context are the same for cooperation between any groups of countries.

4 4 Above all, it is important to understand that it takes not only political will, but also time for the multinational cooperation to be efficient and to overcome friction. For the Nordic countries, and despite the unique momentum we have had, it has in fact taken much more time than expected. Why friction? The five Nordic countries do have similarities but at the same time they are different. Finland and Sweden are EU members and NATO partners. Norway and Iceland belong to NATO, but not the EU. Denmark belongs to both NATO and the EU; but does not participate in the EU s common security and defence policy. This is often considered to be our strength. But it is obvious that for the cooperation especially in the field of defence it poses some challenges. Secondly, even if our legislation is quite similar, there are national rules and regulations that may slow down the process. There are also reasons of cultural differences and bureaucracy. Examples of bureaucracy and different rules include the following: the safety instructions differ, the possibility to use each other s vehicles during training and exercises is not clearly defined, shared facilities and common courses would require easy border crossing and exchange of personnel, etc. The third factor we have found that creates friction is different industrial solutions, and as always there is the organisational resistance against change. As regards the lessons learned, one of the most important traits of NORDEFCO is its flexibility. Each country can choose which projects and activities to participate in, and it is also possible to proceed bilaterally and trilaterally. Another thing I would like to point out is the structure that enables identifying new opportunities for cooperation both at the political level (top-down) and between the Defence Forces (bottom-up). The NORDEFCO is based on policy and military level coordination but does not have permanent structures or personnel. Next, I would like to say a few points about Finland s NORDEFCO chairmanship Our focus is on capability cooperation. We put special emphasis on ensuring that the work on capabilities development is truly taken forward. Here we need both political guidance to continue with the already identified cooperation but also initiatives and proposals for new areas of cooperation.

5 5 Another important goal is to discuss where we want to take our cooperation? How deep can we go? What are the possibilities? Are there any limits? Where do we see ourselves in 5, 10 or 20 years from now? These are issues we need to discuss. At the same time this will help us focus our efforts towards the common goal. European defence cooperation will never be easy. This is due to a combination of political will, trust, national interests and desires. However, economic austerity could speed things up. At the same time we know that new efforts mean new investments. And during these austere times this is challenging. Practically all European countries have to make reductions in their defence, but the lack of coordination amplifies the effects of these reductions, creating capability gaps. At the same time there are national surpluses which could be used elsewhere if the information would only flow better. Ladies and Gentlemen, This brings me to my final remarks and one of the questions most relevant for this audience. How to link the regional and European levels of cooperation? As said, in our view they complement each other. Regional cooperation is among other things a bridge between the national and European level. Yet there is a need to make the most out of this bridge. The starting point must be transparency. The more there are regional groupings or activities, the more there is also need for transparency and coordination. We have been happy to speak about NORDEFCO in various fora and have invited EDA and ACT to participate in our December Defence Ministerial. By increasing transparency between the levels we create a common understanding of the situation, exchange best practices and make it easier to find common solutions also between regional groupings. Second point: regional cooperation cannot replace the European framework for cooperation. For instance, regional groups will not develop their own interoperability or standards. They depend on and benefit from the ground rules that are set at the European level. This includes for instance different enablers

6 6 such as standards, certificates and Codes of Conduct but also the directives concerning acquisitions, transfers and so on. Furthermore, there are capabilities that are best developed at the European level. These could include dual-use capabilities where we can leverage the Commission s assets and funding but also major project such as air-to-air refuelling, strategic transport and space-related capabilities. Looking at the regional cooperation, the benefits to the European level are equally clear. After all, the capabilities we develop in NORDEFCO can be used in the EU, NATO or the UN led operations. This is to underline that each level has a role to play and the benefits flow in all directions. Ladies and Gentlemen, we have already taken steps in the right direction. The European Council meeting in December is the next opportunity to further enhance our commitment to the process. +++ BIOGRAPHY Helena Partanen is Director, Defence Policy at the Finnish Ministry of Defence. Before taking up her current position in early 2000 s she worked mainly with crisis management and peace support related issues. She currently leads the Defence Policy Unit which is responsible for Finland s cooperation with the EU, NATO and the Nordic countries as well as for other multinational and bilateral defence cooperation. The unit also deals with crisis management and arms control issues. Helena Partanen is also the Deputy Director General for Defence Policy. Director, Defence Councellor Partanen joined the Ministry of Defence already in 1980 and has since held various positions at the MOD. She has contributed to numerous studies and reports and development programmes for the defence administration. She has been stationed abroad twice. She worked as the Defence Councellor at the Finnish Embassy in Washington D.C. in and as the assistant to the Defence Attaché at the Finnish Embassy in Oslo in She has also lived with her family in Sweden in Helena Partanen has attended the Ministry for Foreign Affairs Course on International Affairs for New Diplomatic Recruits. However, she never applied for a post at the Foreign Service. During her career in the Ministry of Defence, she has attended several courses organised by the Defence Forces. She has also attended several Governmental Leadership programmes, including the Public Management Strategies Programme and the Government Future Leaders Programme. Helena Partanen graduated from the Helsinki University Faculty of Law in She passed the Court training only later, after first serving several years for the Finnish government. She is married to Dr. Timo Partanen and they have two adult sons, Hannu and Tommi.