FINNISH FOREIGN POLICY AND THE DEFENCE FORCES

Speech given in Kouvola, Finland, 28 December 1961

Security considerations are of decisive importance for foreign policy. Every country tries in its relations with neighbouring countries and other foreign powers to pursue the policy that will give it the best protection for its independence. Many states have old traditions in foreign policy and some countries have retained for centuries the same guiding principles which they have applied to all events affecting them. This has been the European policy of England and, later, the Monroe doctrine of the USA, to mention two examples.

When newly-independent Finland had to choose a foreign policy line that would best support her security requirements, she had in theory two alternatives: to join the anti-Russian front, or to try to achieve neutrality in her relations with her Eastern neighbours. Finland chose the former. The reason was -- to quote Paasikivi -- the self-esteem created by the newly-won independence. No heed was paid to the fact that the state of weakness of the Soviet Union, which continued right up to the end of the 1930s, was an exceptional and passing phenomenon in the history of Russia as a great power. We were, it is true, not the only ones to misjudge the importance of the Soviet Union, for the world-famous German economist, Werner Sombart, wrote in 1924: `If we do not want to be stupid, we must presume that every piece of information that states something favourable about Soviet Russia is false.`

Finland had not, however, bound herself by any pact and was thus able to look for another solution to the security question. A hesitant, indecisive beginning was made from the end of the 1920s to achieve better co-operation with the Soviet Union. Finland`s Nordic orientation, which was adopted in 1935, is an example of the aim for neutrality in relations with the Soviet Union.

But the foundation on which this neutral policy of ours rested was very fragile, as later events were to show. It lacked two factors of decisive importance: Finnish public opinion had not understood its significance, and the Soviet Union had no confidence in it. The attitude of regarding the Soviet Union as a hereditary enemy, which prevailed among citizens, and the neutral line adopted by the leaders of the country had no common meeting point. As the Soviet Union obviously did not feel the least confidence in even the Finnish leaders` will to be neutral in relations with the Eastern neighbour, the position was that when it came to the point not even the most sincerely neutral aspiration could be implemented. The Winter War broke out.

It would be futile for us to revive the argument about our policy in the 1930s. We were a young nation, we did not understand at all the importance of foreign policy and its requirements. The achievement of independence had raised our self-esteem very high, there was a spirit of intolerance and chauvinism in the air. Emotional views reigned. The right-wing radical slogans of the National Patriotic Movement (IKL) had gained a foothold, especially among the young intelligentsia. All these factors together made up the 1930s. Some Social Democrats were sharply critical of the ultra-national, narrow-minded phenomena of the 1930s, but that was not enough. The non-socialist camp lacked authoritative leaders who might have been able to set political development along the right lines in this decade of decisive importance in our history. Liberal views gained the ascendancy in the Red-Green Government^1 at the end of the 1930S, but too late. It was the eve of World War II.

Even if we do not take issue with the past, we must study it without prejudice. It has often seemed since the war that to try and explain what actually happened in the past in our country is regarded as nothing short of being unpatriotic. Yet this attitude is in a way an expression of the same intolerance and fanaticism that ruled in the 1930s. How can we lead the fortunes of our country in a happier direction if we fail to study its past and see what was wrong with it?

I have made this review in order to be able to study the possibilities of our neutral policy today in the light of the experiences of the 1930s. What is the situation today?

In the first place, our policy of neutrality has a contractual basis. There is a provision in the 1948 Pact of Friendship, Co-operation and Mutual Assistance between Finland and the Soviet Union concerning Finland`s right to remain outside conflicts between the great powers. It is as such an important starting point for our neutral policy, but not an essential one. For instance, Sweden`s neutral policy is not based on any bilateral treaty. Our neutral line has also been accepted by the Western world, as evidenced by the communiques issued jointly with England and the USA in the course of this year.

1 The coalition cabinet of Social Democrats and Agrarians.

No state can stay neutral if its will for neutrality and capacity to remain neutral are not trusted. Confidence is the alpha and omega of a policy of neutrality. The more critical the situation along the boundaries of the country, the more important -- and the more difficult -- it is to preserve confidence. We can be very pleased that the Soviet Union has announced that it trusts in the neutral line pursued by Finland, and so much so that it considered itself able to postpone the military consultations that it had proposed under the Pact of Friendship and Mutual Assistance. The speech by Prime Minister Khrushchev in Novosibirsk on November 24, 1961, contained a very important sentence, one that is of great value for us: `Finland`s neutrality is one of the most important guarantees of the preservation of peace and stability in Northern Europe and the Baltic area.`

It must be said, finally, that our people back the policy of neutrality. They understand the national importance of our neutral policy and give it their full support. A frivolous and derisive attitude to strengthening our neutral policy is the exception to the rule, but a highly regrettable one.

Our policy of neutrality can be considered to rest on four supports: (1) its recognition by foreign powers; (2) the confidence of foreign powers in it; (3) the backing of our own people; and (4) the readiness and capability of the country to repel violations of neutrality. The fourth point brings us to national defence issues.

Foreign policy events of recent years have brought to the fore the issue of national defence and the tasks and importance of our Defence Forces which are essentially associated with it. One hears that-national defence is in a state of decay and that our defence forces have been so badly neglected by the authorities that they lack practical significance. Others have expressed views on the needlessness of our defence forces. Perhaps I may be permitted to touch upon this question to remove misconceptions and give an idea of how the authorities see the present-day issue of the defence forces and what they expect of them.

The main function of our defence forces is to prepare to defend the country and protect its neutrality in agreement with the spirit and letter of our constitution. The defence forces are thus a tool of the authorities for supporting our peace-aiming neutral policy. The defence forces support this policy by their mere existence, but the more effective they are, the better they can do it. Their importance becomes decisive, however, only when from our point of view every other means of resolving conflicts has been exhausted. If our country is attacked, the last resort open to us must be to take to arms. It must be remembered that our position in the forward zone of the spheres of interest of East and West is no longer --  with the present development of weapons -- the remote and stable corner that it used to be. There is, therefore, always the danger, perhaps an even greater danger now, of being drawn into power conflicts.

In these circumstances, the condition and development of our defence forces cannot be a matter of indifference to the authorities. Nor has it been a matter of indifference to the Governments formed during my time as president. It is, of course, impossible under our conditions to sacrifice public funds by preparing for armed defence on the same scale as in the big states or in countries which are not having to cope with the same major tasks of building up the economy that we face, but in a quiet way there has been evident progress here in the right direction, progress of which the general public is hardly aware.

Our defence forces have made progress all along the line. Parallel with garrison-building activity, which is part of the work of social reform and fairly considerable for our circumstances, hard work has been done on the procurement of fighting equipment appropriate to our needs. Continuous research and experiments have helped us to develop from our own resources weapons which are excellent for the land forces. Examples are anti-tank weapons and infantry arms. Good progress has been made in the important task of defending our air space by building in recent years a modern radar network and training our pilots in the use of modern fighter aircraft. Our naval defences have been strengthened by modernizing the coastal artillery and buying light vessels suitable for use in our waters.

The task of carrying out the defence forces` basic equipment programme has been in progress since 1955, and approximately 30,000 million Finnish marks have been disbursed on it so far. It is not a big sum, but it is of significance considering the circumstances. Since our situation precluded the trial and development from our own resources of equipment that is important for our defence forces, we have tried to meet the need through foreign procurements. Even then, they have been planned not to disturb the domestic employment situation, and the supplies have been distributed fairly among the countries that have good equipment to offer us at a reasonable price. Recent procurements from the Soviet Union have produced a noteworthy improvement in our defence preparedness. We have been able in this way to equip our defence forces tolerably well with combat equipment. The Finnish soldier is not, indeed never has been, equipped to excess. He has no weapons of mass destruction, but the few tools he has he is familiar with and knows how to use them. Talk of a state of decay in the defence forces, which might have been justified in some respects perhaps around ten years ago, is now groundless. The defence forces of no country are finally and completely equipped. Nor are our defence forces, of course. The authorities are fully aware of the deficiencies from which they still suffer, and they will continue, in co-operation with the defence command, to try and reduce and eliminate these deficiencies.

New equipment has demanded new methods and new and creative training work, with attention paid not only to military training but, in spite of the short term of service, to the correct handling of our young men, the maintenance and improvement of their physical condition and education. The Finnish soldier has shown himself through the ages to be a tough and resourceful fighter. There has been no deterioration in the physical or mental capacity of present-day youth. But the phase of development in the men for which the defence forces are responsible is a very important one. I must, and I believe that many agree with me, give full credit to the corps of instructors in our defence forces for the devoted training and educational work they have done for the benefit of our youth. It is very regrettable that the defence forces are suffering from a serious shortage of instructors, but I hope and believe that this deficiency will also be made good and that enough qualified men to meet the demand will be persuaded to choose a military career now that the failings are being tackled and given a public airing.

It can be said that our defence forces are our people in miniature, but with the considerable difference that they are not weakened by the political dissensions which unfortunately bedevil the nation. They have been and will in the future be kept apart from topical issues in dispute. Only as a non-political, purely professional establishment can it properly maintain its spirit and a high level of fitness and readiness for action.

The defence forces are not a state within a state. Our national defence issues are weighed in the Defence Council, a joint organ of military men and civilians under the chairmanship of the Prime Minister. It is possible in this way to examine the factual needs of the defence forces, alongside the question of the Government`s resources, in good time. Mutual co-operation and understanding of the military and civilian sectors are decisively improved by the courses in total national defence which were started last spring under the direction and on the initiative of the defence forces. Positive results can already be seen.

The authorities do not feel the slightest doubt that the defence forces will accomplish the tasks they are given. They regard them as their own and want to support their work, hoping that sufficient attention will continue to be devoted to the forces in the future and that they will be guaranteed the peace to work in, which is necessary for all successful development.

As I have dwelt at length in my speech on the present state of our defence forces, I would like to complete what I have said by mentioning my view of the growing importance of foreign policy today, especially for small countries. I might repeat, therefore, what I said on May 8, 1960, in my message to the Reserve Officers School:

Securing the independence of the realm and protecting the rights of the country is the fundamental task of the national policy of every state. In no circumstances should raising the cultural standard, adding to material well-being or improving social conditions be forgotten, but before these things comes the responsibility for safeguarding the independence and freedom of the country. Especially now, when the gap between the military power resources of the big and small powers is widening inexorably, there is general understanding of the vital role that has been assumed in the protection of independence and national rights by foreign policy, particularly in small states. We need not argue about priorities. Both the defence forces and the foreign policy of a country have their tasks. Evidence of a country`s will for independence may rightly be seen in the attention paid to the armed forces.