Finland to Join NATO
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO):
- NATO is a military alliance. Twelve countries, including the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, and France, created it in 1949.
- If they are assaulted by armed forces, members agree to assist one another. Finland will boost the overall number of countries to 31.
- Following WWII, NATO’s first purpose was to prevent Russian expansion in Europe.
- Following the Soviet Union’s breakup in 1991, some of its former Eastern European allies joined NATO.
What does NATO membership involve, and how will it benefit the alliance?
- Under NATO’s “Article 5” on collective defence, states that join the alliance are guaranteed security. If any NATO member is attacked, the clause practically guarantees NATO countries a military response and protection.
- Finland and Sweden have expressed interest in joining NATO. It can take up to a year to become an official NATO member because all current member countries must agree. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, on the other hand, has guaranteed the countries that they will be able to join NATO soon and that the organisation will provide complete security guarantees in the meanwhile.
- Finland’s geographic location benefits it because if it joins, the length of Russia’s NATO borders will treble, bolstering NATO’s presence in the Baltic Sea.
What drives Finland’s interest in joining NATO?
- The border between Finland and Russia is 1,340 kilometres (830 miles). As a result of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Finland is afraid about a Russian invasion of its territory. The country’s security and defence capabilities would be enhanced if it joined NATO.
“Finlandization”:
- Finlandization is the process by which a powerful country persuades a smaller neighbouring country to stop criticising its foreign policy guidelines while maintaining its ostensible independence and democratic structure. During the Cold War, the phrase “to become like Finland” refers to the Soviet Union’s influence on Finnish politics.
- The phrase is typically interpreted negatively. It originated during the late 1960s and early 1970s West German political discussions.
- The expression alludes to a country’s commitment not to confront a more powerful neighbour in international policy while maintaining national sovereignty in Germany and other NATO countries.
- It is most usually used to refer to Finland’s Cold War policy toward the Soviet Union, but it can also relate to more general international relations, such as Denmark’s stance toward Germany between 1871 and 1945, or the Swiss government’s actions against Nazi Germany until World War II ended.
- “In the event that Finland or the Soviet Union becomes the object of an armed assault by Germany or any state linked with the latter (including, basically, the United States) through Finnish territory, Finland will fight to repel the attack,” says Article 1 of the treaty.
- The Agreement of Friendship, Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance signed by Finland and the Soviet Union in April 1948 created the neutrality policy.
Significance:
- It was protected by the pact from being attacked or absorbed by the Soviet Union, as the Baltic and eastern European states had been. It allowed the country to pursue democracy and capitalism while staying neutral in the Great Powers’ conflict.
How does Russia feel about NATO?
- NATO offered Ukraine a path to membership in 2008. Ukraine made membership a major priority after Russia invaded Crimea in 2014.
- However, due to Russia’s long-standing antagonism, this has not happened.
- Russia believes that by admitting new members from Eastern Europe, NATO is encroaching on its political influence, and that adding Ukraine will drive NATO into its backyard.
What does Russia currently expect from NATO and the US?
- Russia has presented two draught agreements in which it asks the US and NATO for specific, legally binding security assurances:
- The draught encourages NATO to halt its eastward expansion, expressly rejecting ex-Soviet states like Ukraine potential membership. It would also make it illegal for the US to build bases or collaborate militarily with former Soviet states.
- It would prevent both signatories from deploying military assets outside their national borders that could pose a threat to the national security of the other.
From India’s perspective, NATO is:
- NATO membership is not being proposed. India’s refusal to join any military alliance has a long history.
- Innovative solutions are required given India’s history as a pioneer of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) and its plans to join the P5—the Permanent UN Security Council members. The government looks to have the will, ability, and opportunity to do so. India has been a member of the BRICS since its inception, as well as the SCO since 2017, extending its non-aligned status.
- India’s continued expansion of its space and nuclear programmes reflects the country’s progress toward becoming a major power in a volatile region of the world. India has also been classified as a “nuclear power.”
- A conversation between India and NATO would simply mean frequent contact with a military alliance whose members are mostly long-term allies of India. It makes little sense for India to avoid interaction with NATO, which is currently debating a role in Asia’s oceans, if it wants to entice a wary Russia into Indo-Pacific talks.
Issues:
- Russia, the Middle East, and China are all hot topics among NATO members. Meanwhile, tensions have escalated between NATO members such as Greece and Turkey. Outside of Europe, NATO’s most recent incursions — in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya — have failed to impress.
- India has not been offered membership in NATO, and it is not interested. The issue at hand is the possibility of reaching an agreement. To play any role in the Indo-Pacific, Europe and NATO need partners like India, Australia, and Japan. India, on its part, understands that no single country can guarantee Indo-Pacific peace and stability.
- India’s enthusiasm for the Quad demonstrates a recognition of the value of forming coalitions.
- China has always recognised Europe’s significance and has spent much in its development. Delhi’s continued refusal to interact with a major European entity like NATO will be a glaring example of strategic self-denial.
Next Steps:
- A continual dialogue between India and NATO might lead to successful collaboration in a number of areas, including terrorism, altering geopolitics, the changing nature of armed conflict, the role of rising military technologies, and new military doctrines.
- Each member has a lot to offer in terms of boosting India’s national capabilities on a bilateral basis.
