(Finnish) Think tank: Nato Membership Would "Annoy" Russia

The political think-tank Finnish Institute of International Affairs (FIIA) says that Finnish membership in NATO would not be a permanent blot on the country's relationship with Russia. Nonetheless Finland should be aware of what would be required if the country joins the alliance.

The Institute published a long-awaited report on NATO's place in Europe, its role in crisis management missions, and what it might mean for Finland to become a member. The report stopped short of making a recommendation on whether to join.

"Finland should only seek NATO membership if it is ready to assist other members if they are attacked, and conversely benefit from receiving assistance from other Alliance members if it is ever attacked," states the report.

The report also downplayed the effect that joining the alliance might have on Russia's attitude towards Finland. FIIA acknowledges the tension between would-be partners NATO and Russia, but says that Russia would be only be temporarily annoyed, and "the relationship is likely in due course to return to normal."

The report says that NATO is a "swear word" to many Finns, but it points out that NATO has changed considerably since its inception and will continue to change. Even NATO members are not in total agreement as to the exact purpose of the military alliance.

"During the time that NATO membership has been discussed in Finland, NATO has changed the focus of its activities from preparing for collective defence to crisis management, emphasizing its security manager role over its military alliance role."

Finland's role in the Partnership for Peace programme has essentially allowed the country to pick and choose which missions it participates in, and to what extent. If NATO's focus shifts even further to crisis management, Finland should be prepared that membership would mean more participation in war zones.

"Irrespective of the status of the European Union?s potential security guarantees, the EU does not have the capabilities required to plan and execute collective defence; nor is it planning to acquire them," states the report.

Speaker of Parliament Sauli Niinistö said discussions about EU military guarantees and alignment should be had with upcoming EU president France, which has expressed interest in shifting NATO in a more European direction.

"It looks as if France is abandoning the building of a European security structure because they have been approaching NATO," said Niinistö.

Niinistö also brought up the question of whether a more "Europeanised" NATO would be a more attractive for Finns.

“not a lot of reason to join an alliance which is currently trying to seek desperately for any reason to exist now that the cold war has ended”

- On the other hand (from the article):

“Speaker of Parliament Sauli Niinistö said discussions about EU military guarantees and alignment should be had with upcoming EU president France, which has expressed interest in shifting NATO in a more European direction.

“It looks as if France is abandoning the building of a European security structure because they have been approaching NATO,” said Niinistö.”

“Niinistö also brought up the question of whether a more “Europeanised” NATO would be a more attractive for Finns.”

After searching the internet, I was able to find both the current version of NATO and the ‘Europeanised’ version of NATO. Here is the current version of NATO Article V:

[The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .]

And here is the ‘Europeanized’ version of NATO Article 5:

[The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, up to and including toothless letters of condemnation, invoking moral relativism to excuse the attack, and calls for dialog and unconditional appeasement.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Arab League, the PLO, and Hezbollah. Such measures shall be terminated when the Arab League, the PLO, and Hezbollah has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.