NATO HQ, Brussels 7 June 2002

Remarks by Dr. Pauli Järvenpää, Director General, Department of Defence Policy, Ministry of Defence, Finland Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council Meeting in Defence Ministers' Session Esteemed Ministers, Mr. Chairman, NATO is currently undergoing a remarkable reform process, which involves not only the Allies themselves, but after Reykjavik increasingly also the Partners. It is important that cooperation between the Allies and the Partners will be broadened on the conceptual and institutional levels. Even more importantly, cooperation must be deepened on the level of operational Partnership. While maintaining the principles of inclusiveness and transparency of the Partnership, we must enhance self-differentiation where appropriate, in order to make the PfP process more responsive to the wide variety of country or region-specific needs and requirements, as well as to the varying levels of interoperability, including the higher end of it. For a long time to come, the fight against terrorism must and will be on our agenda. For that purpose, we must broaden PfP activities and focus on areas of cooperation. We must also develop more complex scenarios for PfP exercises to account for terrorist threats, to handle challenges to civil-military cooperation, to improve civil emergency planning, to enhance consequence management, and to improve protection of forces as well as training and education of personnel, just to mention some of the potential areas for improvement. Our first priority must be the improvement of capabilities. The past experiences demonstrate and the future challenges will validate the fact that new capabilities are needed both on national and multinational levels. Increased interoperability to counter new risks and threats is of critical importance to all of us. The Planning and Review Process (PARP) will continue to be absolutely instrumental in that effort. It would be useful to have more direct Partner involvement through PARP in setting up the Partnership Goals (PG). It would also be useful for the Partners to get more technical information on the PG's in a timely fashion. As a minimum, Partners need all the documentation necessary for the full implementation of the PG's they have adopted. PARP Ministerial Guidance 2001 is a relevant document here, and it should be fully applied. Finland advocates the employment of Partnership Goals for multinational units. This would give solid structure for their development and infuse even more cohesiveness into efforts like the NORDCAPS (Nordic Co-ordinated Arrangement for Peace Support)-based joint Nordic brigade for possible deployment in NATO-led operations, for example in the Balkans. That brigade should be operationally ready for deployment on 1 July 2003. When eventually deployed, it will validate three key concepts under discussion today, i.e. variable geometry (n+n), pool of forces, and synergy benefits gained from (in this case Nordic) role specialization. It is interesting and highly important that the British have decided to join the development of the NORDCAPS concept in April 2002. PARP is inextricably linked to the DCI. We can only benefit from a healthy, transparent interface between the two as we head towards Prague. The same applies to DCI/PARP and the EU's Headline Goal. The actual work under the DCI and the HG is done in separate working groups, and in NATO also under the CNAD structure. For coordination purposes, it might be a good idea to start widening participation in these groups flexibly, utilizing the 19+n formula. Practicality should be the guiding principle. Another issue I would like to highlight is joint decision-making. The PMF has proven to be a success with its three-step approach to manage operational matters. There is room, however, to broaden its use especially into the early stages of crisis prevention and management. The PMF could also well be used as a model for extending Partner involvement in decision-shaping into areas other than those directly related to on-going operations. One such area of interest might be the enhancement of capabilities, yet another would be that of standardization. When stating this, we fully recognize the significance of decisions at 19. Finally, it is essential that the PfP exercises will be planned to better correspond with the challenges faced in real-life operations. A lot of progress has been made in this field, but there is room for further improvement. We should also keep in mind that this is also an area, where we should strive to make the best use of scarce resources. As after the last two NATO summits in Madrid and Washington, Partnership will look different also after Prague. New Partnership will be marked by a better coordination and cooperation in the fight against terrorism, a novel outreach to the Caucasian and Central Asian states, a wider agenda in varying formats, and a renewed will to continue our fruitful cooperation under the new circumstances. For her part, Finland is prepared to contribute in a way that best serves the whole also in the future.