“In its foreign and security policy Finland must prepare for rapid and even unpredictable changes in its operating environment; we do not have the option or desire to isolate ourselves”, said Foreign Minister Timo Soini in a June 17 press conference unveiling his ministry’s foreign and security guidelines for the next few years.
The leaders of Finland’s five major opposition parties cautiously praised the content of the report, but did offer a modicum of criticism. The release date of the report - one week before the crucial Brexit vote on EU membership - was one common source of censure.
“In our view it would have been wiser to postpone approval of the report until we knew the result of the British vote,” commented the newly-elected Left Alliance party chair Li Andersson, pointing out that the foreign affairs parliamentary committee had requested just such a suspension.
Social Democratic Party chair Antti Rinne concurred with his leftist colleague, saying it would have better to bring the matter before parliament in the autumn instead.
“For some reason, the foreign ministry has wanted to speed things up, without due analysis of the Brexit outcome,” he said, noting that if Britain votes to depart the European Union on June 23, the security implications for the rest of Europe would be significant.
Rinne: Ominous tone unnecessary
Rinne also expressed his concern about the tone of the report, which he felt called too much attention to the threat of military attack.
“I would say the Finns needn’t worry. Our defence forces are in good order and we have a good working relationship with all of our partners, especially Sweden, and we plan to develop each of these further,” he said on Friday.
Christian Democrat leader Sari Essayah joined the fresh new leader of the Swedish People’s Party Anna-Maija Henriksson in support of the plan, saying that the proposal for increased cooperation on all fronts was “relatively unsurprising”.
Niinistö: Old-fashioned mindset
Green Party chair Ville Niinistö said that while the main relationship-boosting tenants of the report were a step in the right direction, the concept of what are perceived as foreign and security threats continues to be outdated and too narrowly defined.
“Global environmental crises, our need to nurture the fragile nature of the Arctic and the importance of energy policy in security are all downplayed,” he said.
Experts: Careful wording apparent
Professor Pekka Visuri, a political researcher, told Yle that he wishes the report would have delved deeper into the state of the European Union.
“Specifically, the troubles the EU has encountered and the situation on the Baltic Sea, and what needs to be done to stabilize the area,” he said.
Visuri joined with the Mika Aaltola, Global Security Programme Director at the Finnish Institute of Foreign Affairs, in saying that the report is careful not to paint a scenario in which Russia is perceived as a threat to Finland, despite Russia in effect breaking the ground rules of the European community with its annexation of Crimea and agitation in eastern Ukraine.
Visuri agreed that the report clearly breaks with earlier Finnish security assessments, in that it implicates Russia as a major cause of the increased tension on the Baltic Sea.
“It shies away from painting any horror stories or highlighting any particular threat,” he said.
He nevertheless argued the report still focuses with reasonable proportion on fostering good relations with Finland's eastern neighbour.
NATO option open
The guidelines would continue Finland’s policy of military non-alignment, but would keep the possibility to apply for full NATO membership open as an option. The report clearly presents the North American alliance as a positive, stabilizing force in Europe and the areas near Finland.
“A lot of things have become more concrete in the last four years: cooperation with Sweden, cooperation with NATO and a closer relationship with the US,” said Aaltola.
