24 June 2010 - HELSINKI SEMINAR FOCUSES ON BALTIC AND NORDIC PERSPECTIVES ON SECURITY, ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES

The Seminar covered a wide array of topics, including Security Challenges in the High North, Nordic Views on National Defence, Evolving Finnish and Swedish Relations with NATO, the Regional Relationship with the Russian Federation, Economic Prospects for the Nordic-Baltic Region, Nordic and Baltic Regional Integration, and Environmental Challenges.

Seminar participants learned about the profound transformation of the Arctic region as climate change and the shrinking polar ice cap open up Arctic resources and seal lines of communication.  This has led to concerns that these trends, coupled with some unresolved territorial sovereignty issues, might lead to rising tensions in this traditionally peaceful region.

However, the Canadian Ambassador to Finland, Christopher Shapardanov, and others dismissed alarmist speculation, and felt that existing cooperative frameworks could maintain the Arctic tradition as a region of peace and international cooperation in the face of adverse conditions.  He and other speakers ruled out the notion of conventional military threats in the Arctic in the foreseeable future.   They argued against a greater NATO presence in the region, believing that the Alliance had many other – more pressing – priorities. Rather, the nations of the Arctic region should focus on more relevant short to medium term challenges.

In terms of the environment, climate change effects in the Arctic region are extremely complex.   According to Olav Orheim, of The Research Council of Norway, the Arctic environment faces multiple challenges, including greater accessibility for exploitation of fossil fuels, transport, potential over-fishing and the accumulation of pollutants.   These factors will certainly increase search and rescue (SAR) requirements as activities in the region rise.  There has already been a huge increase in the number of cruise ships visiting the Arctic, including poorly charted areas where there are currently no SAR resources, according to Admiral Kaskeala, former Chief of Defence of Finland.

Indigenous Arctic communities are also likely to be greatly affected by climate change according to Suvi Juntunen, advisor to the President of the Sami Parliament.  Factors such as increased economic activity may pose new challenges to the traditional way of life.

Nordic speakers in particular considered the Arctic Council as the premier international institution promoting cooperation in the region.  Foreign Minister of Finland Alexander Stubb suggested strengthening the Arctic Council by establishing a permanent secretariat; extending the Arctic Council's normative role; expanding the number of observers from Europe and Asia; and creating an Arctic information centre as proposed by the EU.  The Minister also proposed an Arctic Summit Meeting at the level of heads of state and governments. 

Although the five Nordic countries (Iceland, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden) have much in common and their foreign policies stress values and multilateralism, they each differ with regard to their mentality, history, geography, economic profiles, and make different strategic choices.  There is little integration among them and no real common ‘Nordic voice’.  “Nordic nations don’t hate or love their neighbours enough to seek deeper integration” said Alyson Bailes, visiting professor at the University of Rejkjavik and former Director of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).  They have a very strong national identity, do not feel they should change their traditional way of life or policies, and therefore they do not integrate easily.  Since they are very democratic, integration deepens only when societies accept it.  However, defence co-operation between Nordic countries has significantly improved over the last couple of years due, among others, to scarce financial resources.

Mounting challenges, such as crime, environmental degradation, proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), migration, climate change, and competition for Arctic resources, may require the Nordic countries to revisit their foreign and security policies to find collective ways to address these problems.

Jyrki Kasvi, Member of the Finish Parliament, discussed a different set of challenges relating to the revolution in information and communication technologies. The profound changes brought by this revolution, including the emergence of global social networks, will affect our values and the nature of conflicts that will be increasingly asymmetrical and will require new responses, he said. The Nordic states, being compact, democratic and technologically advanced, could lead the global effort to minimise security risks of this revolution.

Edward Lucas, correspondent for The Economist, said that the development of NATO defence plans for the Baltic States as well as other manifestations of the Alliance ’s presence in the region should greatly contribute to enhancing the sense of security in the Baltic States.

The seminar also addressed economic and financial issues in the Nordic and Baltic regions.  Hans Tson Söderström of the Stockholm School of Economics noted that Nordic countries were also hit hard by the global financial and economic crisis, although Finland, Sweden and, to a degree, also Denmark were better prepared to cope with it as they had learned their lessons of their severe financial crisis in the early 1990s. Ramunas Vilpisauskas, Director of the Institute of International Relations and Political Science in Lithuania, said that the impact of the global economic downturn and excessive domestic spending were the main reasons behind the extraordinary economic difficulties in the Baltic States. However, the governments of the three countries had made a number of painful but necessary decisions that paved the way for rapid recovery.

Russia plays a pivotal role in the stability and security of the Nordic and Arctic regions.  Russian participants, including the head of the Duma delegation to the NATO PA Ms Lubov Sliska, stressed that Russia pursues a consistent, peaceful foreign policy in the Arctic and has historically conducted a positive, pragmatic relationship with Nordic countries.  Several other seminar participants said they regretted the Cold War rhetoric from Moscow, although Independent Russian Military Analyst Aleksander Golts suggested that these statements amount to nothing.    Indeed, he noted Russia had not been alone in raising concerns about potential instability and confrontation in the high North.

Russia too is facing severe challenges, particularly with regard to its economic and financial situation as well as its demographic trends.  Independent Russia expert Arkady Moshes of the Finnish Institute of International Affairs, said that Russia needs to modernise, not only technologically, but also in converging with the rules that exist in the EU.  Independent Russia observers agreed that the fight against corruption was the key in the necessary modernisation of Russia, though Russian legislators did not necessarily agree with this.

Russia’s importance as an energy provider was repeatedly stressed in the exchanges and some participants pointed out that this would provide Moscow with substantial economic and political leverage, particularly vis-à-vis other CIS countries.   Sandor Liive, CEO of Eesti Energia, and some other speakers stressed that the development of a common European energy market and construction of additional gas and electricity interconnectors would greatly increase energy security of the continent.

Boris Nemtsov, Co-Chair of the Solidarnosc Movement and former Deputy Prime Minister of Russia, warned that the Russian gas industry will face significant challenges in the near future, primarily due to insufficient investments in new gas fields, the lack of strong competition in the gas market, and corruption.  Nemtsov called for a liberalisation of Russia ’s domestic market to overcome the gas crisis to avert a difficult choice between providing sufficient gas for Russian consumers or selling gas to Europe.   Economic changes would have to go hand-in-hand with political ones, Nemtsov said.  While he did not anticipate significant political changes in the short term, he was guardedly optimistic that they would occur over the long-term, as a growing gap between rich and poor would slowly increase the pressure on the country’s political leadership. 

As new challenges will have significant consequences for the Nordic and Arctic landscapes, NATO’s political attention is shifting there as well, not least because two of three long-term security challenges, i.e. demographic changes, resource scarcity and climate change, are related to the region. 

General (ret.) Klaus Naumann, former Chairman of NATO’s Military Committee envisioned that, in practical terms, NATO might consider a standing NATO fleet and contingency planning.  He stressed that an increased profile for NATO in the region would not be directed against Russia.  On the contrary, co-operation with Russia is important.  In particular, High North security and nuclear non-proliferation are the two areas where NATO will not achieve progress without co-operation with Russia.  More generally, areas where the Alliance and Russia could work together to strengthen their co-operation include devising a common threat perception, particularly with regard to Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), missile defence, Afghanistan, and terrorism.

Mr Seppo Kääriäinen, First Deputy Speaker of the Finnish Parliament underlined his country’s close collaboration with the Alliance in many areas as well as its contribution to NATO-led operations.  While cooperation between the Nordic non-NATO countries with the Alliance is deepening, membership is currently not on the agenda, Finnish Foreign Minister Stubb and Göran Lennmarker, Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Swedish Parliament noted.  There is no clear consensus among the main political players nor is a majority of the population in Sweden and Finland for NATO membership.   

Mr Kääriäinen concluded that the challenges that the countries of the region are facing do not respect national boundaries.  Compared to the Cold War reality there is now a real chance for intensive collaboration.  Only through close bilateral and multinational co-operation can these challenges be solved - it is a win-win situation for all players and not a zero-sum game where one side wins at the expense of the other.

Seminar participants greatly benefited from the wealth of information provided and the open, frank discussions.  Parliamentarians from Associate countries and from the Assembly’s Mediterranean and Middle East Special Group expressed high appreciation for the valuable lessons to be learnt from the way Nordic countries address the controversial issues, including those relating to territorial conflicts. 

A complete seminar report will be available on the NATO PA website shortly.