Page:The Effects of Finland's Possible NATO Membership - An Assessment.pdf/10

 the North after the mid-1960s did the Finnish defence posture acquire a stabilising regional role in Northern Europe, thus extending territorial defence over the entire country. The move to the North was accompanied by a deliberate policy of not building East-West roads in Finnish Lapland.

Unlike Sweden, which secretly enjoyed military guarantees from the US, Finland pursued a cautious policy towards the West. Despite intensive diplomatic contacts with leading NATO members, Finland did not establish official contacts with NATO before the end of the Cold War. The same characterised military co-operation with Sweden. Despite military diplomacy, including visits by top commanders and personal relations, intensive military co-operation between Finland and Sweden is a recent phenomenon. The mere existence of Sweden was of immense significance for post-war Finland as a neighbour, trade partner and a social model.

By unilaterally declaring the military clauses of the Paris Peace Treaty null and void in September 1990, the Finnish Government lifted the last restrictions on its sovereignty. Although the stipulations of the Peace Treaty had not prevented Finland from developing its defence forces, the restrictions were a liability and a reminder of an existing droit de regard. The abrogation of the Friendship Treaty in 1992 lifted the stigma that had cast a long shadow and restricted Finland’s freedom of action. Joining the European Union in 1995 marked the end of neutrality and the beginning of a policy of military non-alignment. The expression non-aligned was dropped in 2007 and calibrated as “no membership in military alliances”.

The restoration of independence of the Baltic States in 1990 brought about a fundamental change to the geopolitical situation around the Baltic Sea. Control of the Southern shore of the Gulf of Finland and the Eastern shore of the Baltic Sea reverted to the Baltic States.

Differences in the assessment of risk and military threats in the early 2000s led to diametrically different defence orientations in Finland and Sweden. Finland, a traditional force contributor to the UN since the beginning of blue-helmet operations in 1956 (UNEF Sinai), intensified its participation in NATO and EU operations, which provide additional training and even combat experience for the reserve force. But unlike Sweden, which placed a premium on developing an expeditionary capability forsaking territorial defence and suspending conscription from 2009 onwards, Finland neither gave up territorial defence nor contemplated abandoning conscription. Nor were the Border Guards turned into a police force. 10