LM Report 2004

Finland

Key developments since May 2003: On 10 September 2004, Finland announced that it would not join the Mine Ban Treaty until 2012, six years later than its previously stated goal. In 2003, Finland provided €5.57 million ($6.3 million) in mine action funding, an increase from funding in 2002.

Key developments since 1999: Finland has put back adherence to the Mine Ban Treaty until 2012. The goal of joining the treaty by 2006 was first stated in December 1997, reiterated in December 1999 and December 2000, and confirmed by a governmental report approved by Parliament in December 2001. The Ministry of Defense will not reveal any details of Finland’s stockpile of antipersonnel mines. Finland claims that all mines are in storage and none are deployed in minefields. Finland carried out destruction of some non-detectable mines, and adapted others, in accordance with CCW Amended Protocol II. From 1999 to 2003, Finland provided more than $25 million in mine action funding.

Mine Ban Policy

Since the expansion of the European Union in May 2004, Finland and Latvia are the only countries in the EU that have not signed, ratified or acceded to the Mine Ban Treaty.^[1] In 2003 and 2004, the government backed away from its long-stated goal of joining the treaty by 2006. This goal was first stated in December 1997, reiterated in December 1999 and December 2000, and confirmed by a governmental report on foreign and security policy approved by Parliament in December 2001.^[2]

On 10 September 2004, Finland announced that it would instead join the treaty in 2012 and destroy all its antipersonnel mines four years later. Finnish Prime Minister, Matti Vanhanen, was quoted as saying the state would spend €200 million (approx. $243.7 million) in 2009–2016 to replace the mines.^[3] This announcement came after a government report published in February 2004 cited reasons for postponing the target date of 2006 for Finland’s accession. This was presented as an interim report, by the interministerial working group established in 2001 to make recommendations on security and defense issues, including landmines. The report withheld any recommendations on replacing antipersonnel mines until a final report originally scheduled for “Spring 2004,” which has since been postponed.^[4]

The President of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) responded to the news of this delay with an editorial in a Finnish weekly magazine, appealing to the government to accept the conscience of humanity because, “When States anywhere in the world remain outside of this norm, they provide a justification for the continued use of anti-personnel mines everywhere.”^[5]

The interim report stated that “antipersonnel mines are cost-efficient and suitable for use by a conscription army,” and that Finland has no alternative weapons systems at present.^[6] It estimated the cost of replacing antipersonnel mines in Finland’s defense capability as €184 to €597.5 million.^[7] An option was also put forward whereby: “If the antipersonnel mines are allowed to become obsolete [in the mid-2020s], these expenses will be spread over a long period of time. This will not necessitate additional funding.”^[8] The report added, “If Finland decided to accede to the Ottawa Convention as outlined in the Government report 2001 there would have to be readiness either to partially weaken defense or to make considerable financial investments.”^[9]

The interim report acknowledged that, by not joining the Mine Ban Treaty, Finland had given up its usually active role in disarmament and humanitarian issues and had separated itself from its traditional peer group of other governments.^[10] But, for Finland, antipersonnel mines used jointly with other mines “have special significance in repelling a large-scale attack.”^[11] This decreases “if the threat scenario of a large-scale attack is no longer valid” and “assessments of the value of antipersonnel landmines should take into account that they will become obsolete by the mid-2020s.”^[12]

Publication of the interim report on 10 February prompted much public and political discussion. President Tarja Halonen told political journalists that Finland’s international credibility had been weakened by not joining the Mine Ban Treaty: “While we are otherwise in good company, we are alone in this.... If we have been part of all declarations calling for the implementation of the Ottawa Treaty for years, it is naturally a bit hypocritical to have mines ourselves.”^[13]

The main daily newspaper Helsingin Sanomat headlined the report as, “Anti-personnel mines have become a political problem for Finland.” It reported that the Defense Minister was not interested in following “the Estonian model of joining NATO,”^[14] and included comments by the Finnish Campaign to Ban Landmines that, internationally, it seemed odd that Finland could not reach a firm, final decision after so many years.^[15] Another newspaper quoted Defense Minister Seppo Kääriäinen referring to the cost of replacing antipersonnel mines and the difficulty of increasing defense spending. He said that Finland’s image had not been much damaged. According to the chair of the working group, Brigadier-General Hannu Herranen, something had to be done because antipersonnel mines would expire in the mid-2020s.^[16] A regional newspaper quoted Minister of Foreign Affairs Erkki Tuomioja as thinking it is possible for Finland to give up antipersonnel mines by 2010, and reminded readers that Finland is in a small group of countries with Russia, China and the United States.^[17]

Much of the coverage backed the policy of retaining antipersonnel mines. Editorials in several newspapers praised Finland’s “courage in defending its landmine policy,” described as an “illusion” the idea that Finland suffered much embarrassment internationally, and rejected spending large amounts of money on alternative weapons systems.^[18] A three-part series on the mine issue, by the Finnish Broadcasting Company, included a comment by EU representative Javier Solana that the mine issue is Finland’s own business and does not affect its position in the EU. The series also included comment by the Finnish Campaign to Ban Landmines, that Finland was isolated in the EU on this issue, and Finland limits the EU’s effectiveness in encouraging other countries from joining the mine ban.^[19] The President-designate of the Mine Ban Treaty Review Conference, Wolfgang Petritsch, wrote a column in Helsingin Sanomat saying that the EU suffers a credibility deficit on the mine issue if not all of its members have given up antipersonnel mines.^[20]

After publication of the interim report, an opinion poll showed that half the population was willing to give up mines, including 18 percent that would require Russia to do the same, while 32 percent would keep them. Women were markedly more in favor of giving up antipersonnel mines.^[21]

The mine issue was also widely discussed during 2003, prompted by statements by the new government in June 2003 that already suggested a reduced commitment to the 2006 date.^[22] Launch of the Landmine Monitor Report 2003 in the Finnish Parliament in September also generated wide media coverage, especially the accompanying photographic exhibition and visit by deminer and mine victim, Zlatko Vezilic. The Chair of the parliamentary Foreign Policy Committee had then rebutted claims by the new Prime Minister (previously Defense Minister) that Finland was not committed to the 2006 accession date. Pilvi-Sisko Vierros-Villeneuve from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs also affirmed that Finland was still working to the 2006 date and was under international pressure in this respect.^[23] In July 2003, President Tarja Halonen said that “though Finland is not part of humanitarian problem caused by antipersonnel landmines, we know that by accepting this international norm, we are part of the solution.”^[24] However, many editorials and press reports in favor of Finland retaining its antipersonnel mines continued to appear.

During the Ottawa Process in 1996 and 1997, Finland attended many preparatory meetings as an observer, but stated its clear opposition to the Mine Ban Treaty being developed by other countries. Instead, it supported discussions within the Conference on Disarmament of a transfer ban on antipersonnel mines.^[25] Since the Mine Ban Treaty entered into force, Finland has regularly attended the annual Meetings of States Parties, as an observer, as well as the intersessional meetings in Geneva.

Finland attended the Fifth Meeting of States Parties in September 2003, as an observer, where it supported the statement made on behalf of the EU by Italy and confirmed that “its objective is to accede to the Convention in 2006...without compromising Finland’s credible defence capability.” The delegation referred to Finland’s funding of international mine action, but acknowledged that Finland also has “the responsibility in reinforcing the universal norm ban [sic] landmines which is often forgotten in our domestic circumstances.”^[26] Finland has made many similar statements recognizing the value of the Mine Ban Treaty in the past. In December 2003, Finland voted in favor of UN General Assembly Resolution 58/53, which calls for universalization and implementation of the Mine Ban Treaty. Finland has voted for similar General Assembly resolutions each year since 1997.

Finland is party to the Convention on Conventional Weapons (CCW) and its Amended Protocol II, and participated in the Fifth Conference of States Parties to the Protocol in November 2003. Finland submitted its annual report as required by Article 13 of the Protocol in October 2003. It has attended annual conferences and submitted annual reports in previous years. In other CCW work, Finland has supported proposals on “mines other than antipersonnel mines” and the negotiation of a new protocol on explosive remnants of war.^[27]

NGO Activity

In 2003–2004, the level of campaigning by Finnish nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) increased, and contributed to the higher level of public debate on the mine issue in Finland.^[28] The Finnish Campaign to Ban Landmines and the ICBL made media comments on the new Prime Minister’s suggestions in June that Finland is not committed to the 2006 accession date.^[29]

In September 2003, publicity material and background information was produced and distributed at the launch of the Landmine Monitor Report 2003 in Parliament. The Finnish Campaign, represented by the Peace Union of Finland, the Peace Committee, Red Cross and UNICEF, participated in a parliamentary discussion of the mine issue on 9 September 2003, making statements calling on the government to respect the 2006 timetable. This was followed by several weeks of campaigning in major cities during February–March 2004, with local events based on a photographic exhibition, public debates, youth events and petitions. There was significant media coverage of the local events.^[30]

In 2004, the Finnish Campaign focused its work increasingly on parliamentarians, and increased its cooperation with other regional campaigns in northeast Europe. In June 2004, a regional seminar was held in Vilnius, Lithuania, which the Finnish campaign and representatives of the Polish Ministry of Defense and Ministry of Foreign Affairs attended.

In previous years, Finland’s strong peace movement did not focus on the mine ban issue. Interest increased in 2001, with the setting-up of the interministerial working group and greater international attention being given to the position of Finland. In September 2002, the Swedish Peace and Arbitration Society gained publicity for the mine issue and launch of that year’s Landmine Monitor Report by writing to Helsingin Sanomat. This prompted a public response from the Ministry of Defense

Production, Transfer and Stockpiling

Production of antipersonnel mines in Finland ceased in the early 1970s, and Finland has not acquired any antipersonnel mines since then, according to the interim security and defense report published in February 2004. The report points out that the EU Joint Action obliges Finland not to procure more antipersonnel mines.^[31]

Previously, production was said to have ceased by 1981.^[32] Several companies produced components that the army assembled into basic blast and fragmentation mines, and some directional fragmentation mines. Import was limited, mainly Claymore-type directional fragmentation mines from Austria. These have been re-labeled “charges” or “weapons” and are said to be for command-detonation only, although they are not modified to prevent victim-activation. Finland has no mine-delivery systems.^[33]

Entry into force in Finland of CCW Amended Protocol II in December 1998 prohibited export of antipersonnel mines and technology to non-CCW States Parties. Prior to this, there was some export of mine components.^[34]

The Ministry of Defense will not reveal any details of Finland’s stockpile of antipersonnel mines, other than to say that all mines are in storage and none are deployed in minefields. Finland has declined invitations to submit a Mine Ban Treaty Article 7 report on a voluntary, pre-accession basis.^[35] Following entry into force of the CCW Amended Protocol II, Finland destroyed some types of antipersonnel mine (Sakaramiina 57 and 61), adapted others (SM-65), and destroyed some antivehicle mines (Pohjamiina 76). The result of these changes on the size of Finland’s stockpile of antipersonnel mines is not known.^[36]

Mine Action Funding and Assistance

In 2003, Finland provided a total of €5,573,779 ($6,306,731)^[37] in mine action funding, which represents an increase from €4,793,356 in 2002.^[38]

Funding was allocated in 2003 to nine countries/regions and three organizations:

Countries/Regions:

• Afghanistan: €1 million ($1,131,500) to the mine action program by UNMAS and UNOCHA
• Angola: €1 million ($1,131,500) including €450,000 to Finnish Church Aid (FCA) for mine clearance in Luena, €450,000 to Finnish Red Cross and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) for mine risk education (MRE) and mine clearance, and €150,000 to the HALO Trust for mine clearance in Maninga
• Bosnia and Herzegovina: €170,000 ($192,355)
• Cambodia: €1,686,061 ($1,907,778) including €670,000 to HALO for mine clearance, €252,282 to FCA for mine clearance, and €100,000 to Handicap International for its mine incident database project, €90,000 to Finnish Red Cross and ICRC for mine risk education, and (transferred from 2001) €573,779 to UNDP for mechanical mine clearance
• Ethiopia: €147,718 ($167,142) to Norwegian People’s Aid for mine clearance
• Laos: €300,000 ($339,450) to UNDP and UXO Lao for clearance
• Northern Caucasus: €170,000 ($192,355) to Finnish Red Cross and ICRC for mine risk education and victim assistance
• Somalia: €137,726 ($155,837) to HALO for mine clearance in Somaliland and Puntland
• Sri Lanka: €162,274 ($183,613) including €62,274 to HALO for mine clearance, and €100,000 to the Mines Advisory Group for mine clearance

Organizations:

• Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining: €100,000 ($113,150) to support studies of manual demining and mine detection dogs
• UNICEF: €200,000 ($226,300) for mine risk education in Africa
• UNMAS: €500,000 ($565,750) for national mine action reports.^[39]

Included in 2003 funding was €4,454 ($5,040), representing the value of mine action training carried out by the Finnish Defense Forces. Most of these mine action projects are multi-year. For 2004, mine action expenditure of €4.9 million was budgeted.^[40] Finland’s annual contribution to mine action funding has been set at approximately €5 million per year.^[41]

From 1999 to 2003, Finland contributed about $25.8 million in mine action funding (1999: $5.7 million, 2000: $4.8 million, 2001: $4.5 million, 2002: $4.5 million, and 2003: $6.3 million).^[42] In 1991–1998, about $14.4 million was donated.^[43] Finland has also provided funding for Croatia and Kosovo, in addition to those countries funded in 2003.

In-kind assistance to mine action has included three mechanical mine clearance teams working in Kosovo (concluded in August 2001), Cambodia (concluded in February 2002) and Mozambique (concluded in September 2002). The mechanical flails have been withdrawn from service, due to wear and tear. In 2002, Finland also contributed to the WEUDAM mission in Croatia.^[44]

Finnish policy for the funding of mine action is unchanged from 2001, when it was described as based on humanitarian need and prioritized on countries with the most mines and mine victims.^[45] Humanitarian mine action is financed from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ development cooperation budget; there is not a separate budget line for mine action.^[46]

[1] Latvia has stated its intention to accede in the very near future. New EU members Estonia, Lithuania, and Cyprus adhered to the Mine Ban Treaty in 2003–2004. Other new EU members are already States Parties. Poland is a signatory to the treaty.
[2] “Suomen ja turvallisuus- ja puolustuspolitiikka 2001, Valtioneuvoston selonteko eduskunnalle 13.6.2001” (“Finland’s Foreign and Security Policy 2001, Government Report to Parliament 13.6.2001”), section 1, part 2: Finland’s Security and Defense Policy, available at www.puolustusministerio.fi . See Landmine Monitor Report 2000, pp. 812–815, Landmine Monitor Report 2001, pp. 872–873, and Landmine Monitor Report 2002, pp. 650–651.
[3] “Finland to join Ottawa mine ban treaty in 2012,” Reuters (Helsinki), 10 September 2004.
[4] Email from Laura Kansikas-Debraise, Counselor, Arms Control Unit, Disarmament and Non-proliferation Department, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 25 May 2004.
[5] Jakob Kellenberger, “Jalkaväkimiinojen aikakausi päätökseen” (“Ending the Era of Anti-personnel Mines”), Suomen Kuvalehti (weekly news magazine), 10 September 2004.
[6] “Puolustusministeriön Jalkaväkimiinaselvitystyöryhmän Väliraportti” (“Interim report of Ministry of Defence working group on infantry landmines”), 19 December 2003, published 10 February 2004, p. 33. Hereafter referred to as “Interim Report.” The working group includes a technical group responsible for investigating alternatives to antipersonnel mines.
[7] In June 2003, the Ministry of Defense estimated the cost of replacing antipersonnel mines as €840 million. “Jalkaväkimiinojen kohtaloon vuoden lisäaika” (“More time for antipersonnel landmines’ fate”), Uutispäivä Demari (daily newspaper), 5 June 2003.
[8] Interim report, 10 February 2004, pp. 34–35.
[9] Ibid, p. 34.
[10] Ibid, p. 3.
[11] Ibid, p. 33.
[12] Ibid, p. 34.
[13] “Jalkaväkimiinat murentavat Suomen uskottavuutta” (“Infantry land mines undermine Finland’s credibility”), Helsingin Sanomat (English edition), 28 February 2004; “President Halonen irks Swedes with defence policy comments, laments Finnish land mines,” Helsingin Sanomat, 1 March 2004.
[14] “Jalkaväkimiinoista on tullut Suomelle poliittinen ongelma” (”Antipersonnel mines have become a political problem for Finland”), Helsingin Sanomat, 11 February 2004.
[15] “Rauhanliitto: Kummallista, ettei päätöstä saada aikaan” (“Peace Union of Finland: Odd that decision cannot be made”), Helsingin Sanomat, 11 February 2004. The Peace Union includes the Finnish Campaign to Ban Landmines.
[16] “Työryhmä: Suomi erottuu viiteryhmästään, Kääriäinen nihkeä miinakiellolle” (“Working group: Finland differs from its peer group, Kääriäinen not in favor of mine ban”), Kansan Uutiset (daily newspaper), 11 February 2004; “Kääriäinen kallellaan aikalisään, Tuomiojan mielestä miinoista mahdollista luopua sovitussa aikataulussa” (“Kääriäinen leans towards additional time, Tuomioja says mines can be given up in agreed time frame”), Kaleva (regional daily newspaper), 11 February 2004.
[17] “Jalkaväkimiinat voivat vielä räjähtää poliitikkojen käsiin” (“Anti-personnel mines may explode in politicians’ hands”), Aamulehti (regional daily newspaper), 11 February 2004.
[18] “Suomen on uskallettava puolustaa miinapolitiikkaansa” (“Finland has to have courage to defend its mine policy”), Helsingin Sanomat, 12 February 2004; “Maanpuolustuksen etu tärkeä jalkaväkimiinojen harkinnassa” (“Defense interests of the country very important when thinking about antipersonnel landmines”), Uutispäivä Demari, 12 February 2004; Olli Kivinen, “Clearing landmines is primary goal,” Helsingin Sanomat, 2 March 2004, first published in Finnish, 26 February 2004.
[19] “Finland reconsiders its position on landmines,” 18 March 2004; “Finland plays two cards,” 18 March 2004; “Security over image,” 22 March 2004, Finnish Broadcasting Company, accessed at www.yle24.fi.
[20] Wolfgang Petritsch, “Suomen on aika luopua henkilömiinoista” (“It is time for Finland to give up landmines”), Helsingin Sanomat, 11 June 2004.
[21] “Kansa lupuisi miinoista yhdessä Venäjän kanssa” (“The public would give up landmines along with Russia”), Aamulehti, 21 February 2004. The opinion poll was carried out by the Taloustutkimus Research Institute.
[22] See Landmine Monitor Report 2003, p. 581.
[23] “Henkilömiinoja tuhottu jo 52 miljoonaa, Suomi on edelleen EU:n musta lammas” (“52 million antipersonnel landmines destroyed already, Finland is still black sheep of EU”), Kansan Uutiset, 10 September 2003. Pilvi-Sisko Vierros-Villeneuve was speaking at a parliamentary discussion on 9 September 2003. She is a member of the interministerial working group.
[24] “Finland is still black sheep of EU,” Kansan Uutiset, 10 September 2003.
[25] See Landmine Monitor Report 1999, p. 780–785.
[26] Statement by Finland, Fifth Meeting of States Parties, Bangkok, 15–19 September 2003.
[27] Interview with Markku Reimaa, Ambassador to the UN Conference on Disarmament, 9 June 2004.
[28] Information supplied by Sanna Rummakko, Finnish Campaign to Ban Landmines and Peace Union of Finland, 8 April and 7 June 2004.
[29] For NGO activity in early 2003, see Landmine Monitor Report 2003, p. 582.
[30] Campaigning events were held in Helsinki, Jyväskylä, Joensuu and Mikkeli.
[31] Interim report, 10 February 2004, p. 21.
[32] Interview with Lt. Col. Jaakko Mastikainen, Defense Staff, 5 February 1999; Finland response to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) questionnaire, 2 December 1999, p. 2.
[33] Telephone interview with Col. Arto Mikkonen, Defense Staff, 18 February 1999; telephone interview with Cdr. Nysten, Defense Staff, 4 May 2000. See also Landmine Monitor Report 2000, pp. 817–818.
[34] See Landmine Monitor Report 2000, p. 816.
[35] States that have submitted voluntary reports include Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and Cameroon. Email from Taina Susiluoto, Senior Defense Policy Adviser, Ministry of Defense, 13 April 2004; statement by Ambassador Markku Reimaa, Fourth Meeting of States Parties, Geneva, 16–20 September 2002. See also Landmine Monitor Report 2003, p. 582.
[36] CCW Amended Protocol II Article 13 Report, Form C, 4 December 2000.
[37] Exchange rate for 2003 of €1 = $1.1315, used throughout this report. US Federal Reserve, “List of Exchange Rates (Annual),” 2 January 2004.
[38] “Humanitarian mine action,” in: “Humanitarian assistance country by country during year 2003,” Unit for Humanitarian Assistance, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 31 December 2003. The 2003 funding included €578,233 transferred from the 2001 budget. Data for 2002 taken from Landmine Monitor Report 2003, p. 582, at exchange rate used in that report.
[39] “Humanitarian mine action,” in: “Humanitarian assistance country by country during year 2003,” Unit for Humanitarian Assistance, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 31 December 2003, and “Current and Planned Donor Activity for Finland,” Mine Action Investments database, www.mineaction.org , accessed on 8 June 2004.
[40] Email from Paula Sirkiä, Unit for Humanitarian Assistance, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 7 April 2004.
[41] Ibid.; Interview with Olli Sotamaa, Counselor, Unit for Humanitarian Assistance, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Helsinki, 25 April 2003.
[42] Data taken from previous editions of the Landmine Monitor Report, at US$ exchange rate used in each year, and from “Multi-year Donor Report: Finland,” Mine Action Investments database, www.mineaction.org , accessed on 8 June 2004. Confirmed in email from Paula Sirkiä, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 8 April 2004.
[43] “Finnish assistance in mine action 1991–1998,” Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 25 January 1999.
[44] CCW Amended Protocol II Article 13 Report, Form E, 29 October 2003; Statement by Ambassador Markku Reimaa, Fourth Meeting of States Parties, Geneva, 16–20 September 2002.
[45] Interviews with Olli Sotamaa, Counselor, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 24 January 2002, 25 April 2003.
[46] Email from Paula Sirkiä, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 7 June 2004.