Finland THE ARMED FORCES
Figure 20. Organization of National Defense, 1988
Source: Based on information from Ermel Kanninen and Vilho Tervasmäki,
Revue Internationale d'Histoire Militaire, 62, Vassa, Finland, 1985,
271-76.
Authority over national defense rested with the
president as
the supreme commander of the Defense Forces. The president
exercised the highest decision-making responsibility,
including
the power to declare war and to make peace with the
consent of
the Eduskunta (parliament), to order mobilization, and to
issue
orders directly to the commander in chief of the Defense
Forces.
A decree issued in 1957 established a Defense Council with
a dual
function as the supreme planning and coordinating organ
and as
the president's consultative arm in matters affecting the
defense
of the country. The prime minister acted as chairman of
the
Defense Council if the president were not present. Its
other
members were the ministers of defense, foreign affairs,
finance,
interior, and trade and industry; the commander in chief
of the
Defense Forces; and the chief of the General Staff. Other
ministers could be called upon to serve temporarily
(see
fig. 20). The Defense Council reviewed basic defense plans for
wartime, deliberated on the financing of national defense,
and
directed preparations for national security in areas other
than
military readiness.
Parliamentary oversight was exercised through ad hoc
parliamentary defense committees, which had been convened
in
1971, in 1976, and in 1981 to assess basic issues of
strategy,
equipment, and missions. Recommendations of the committees
had an
important bearing on defense policy and on future budget
allocations. Unlike the Defense Council, all parties
represented
in parliament were invited to participate. A parliamentary
defense commission, acting within narrower terms of
reference
than parliamentary defense committees, was convened in
1986. In
1988 the government considered setting up a permanent
parliamentary council on defense, but no action had been
taken by
the year's end. The parliamentary committees had been
useful in
helping to develop a national consensus on security
policies and
on the commitment of resources to defense. The
representatives
sitting on the committees tended to be among those most
sympathetic to the needs of the military. Government
leaders
felt, however, that the committees often plunged too far
into
sensitive strategic matters and threat scenarios. Their
budgetary
recommendations also tended to be generous, leaving the
military
disgruntled when the proposed resources could not be
found. (One
notable exception occurred in 1981, when the procurement
recommendations of the Third Parliamentary Defense
Committee were
largely realized, in part because of the special
circumstances of
a trade imbalance that made possible large arms purchases
from
the Soviet Union.)
The Ministry of Defense supervised the preparation of
legislation affecting national defense, the submission of
the
annual defense budget, the drafting of defense policies in
accordance with principles defined by the national
leadership,
and the implementation of policies approved by the
government and
the parliament. The minister of defense had mainly
administrative
responsibilities, with limited influence over major
military
policy issues. His deputy, customarily a military officer
of
three-star rank, exercised an important role within the
ministry.
Data as of December 1988
|