This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 04 HELSINKI 001571 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 12/16/2014 
TAGS: PREL MCAP MARR AF IZ FI NATO RU
SUBJECT: NATO AMBASSADOR BURNS' VISIT TO HELSINKI 
 
REF: HELSINKI 01499 
 
Classified By: Ambassador Earle I. Mack for reasons 1.4(B) and (D) 
 
Summary 
------- 
 
¶1. (U) U.S. Ambassador to NATO R. Nicholas Burns visited 
Helsinki November 29-30.  Following remarks given to the 
Atlantic Council of Finland at a seminar on NATO and small 
nations, Ambassador Burns participated in meetings with 
Minister of Defense Seppo Kaariainen and MFA Under Secretary 
for Political Affairs Jaakko Laajava.  He also addressed NATO 
Ambassadors at the Estonian Embassy and participated in press 
interviews.  End Summary. 
 
Atlantic Council Seminar 
------------------------ 
 
¶2. (U) Ambassador Burns spoke in Helsinki on November 29 in a 
seminar organized by the Atlantic Council of Finland, to an 
audience of 170 leading foreign policy experts and 
commentators.  His audience also included a sizable group of 
students from the National Defense College.  The title of the 
seminar was "Small States and NATO."  Ambassador Burns also 
gave an interview to Finland's leading daily, independent 
Helsingin Sanomat (circulation 440,000) which was published 
on November 30.  The Finnish Broadcasting Company's senior 
diplomatic correspondent also taped an interview with 
Ambassador Burns to air as part of an upcoming Sunday morning 
talk show.  In his speech and in the newspaper interview, 
Ambassador Burns stressed Finland's contributions to NATO-led 
operations as a PfP country, praising Finland's (and 
Sweden's) conceptual leadership role in the PfP program.  He 
noted that NATO membership is an issue for Finns to decide, 
suggested that some Finns' and Swedes' Cold War conception of 
NATO is outdated, and described the new NATO as a democratic, 
stronger, and more flexible alliance.  In the newspaper 
interview, Ambassador Burns discussed the possibility of 
non-allies participating in NATO's Response Force (NRF) and 
praised Finland's participation in peacekeeping in Kosovo, 
Afghanistan and elsewhere. 
 
MFA Meeting 
----------- 
 
¶3. (U) At the Foreign Ministry, Ambassador Burns met with 
Jaakko Laajava, Under Secretary for Political Affairs (and 
Ambassador-designate to the UK); Pilvi-Sisko 
Vierros-Villeneuve, Director of the Arms Control Unit (and 
Political Director-Designate); and Elina Kalkku, Director of 
the Security Policy Unit.  Ambassador Burns was accompanied 
by Ambassador Mack, POL Chief Hall, and Executive Assistant 
Barrett. 
 
¶4. (U) Ambassador Burns began by thanking Finland for what it 
is doing in NATO, particularly in the Balkans and 
Afghanistan.  All non-member nations who contribute troops to 
NATO-led operations now are present at meetings related to 
those operations, which is as it should be. 
 
¶5. (SBU) Ambassador Burns emphasized that President Bush sees 
NATO as "absolutely vital", and is a strong believer in 
giving the Partnership for Peace a greater say in decision 
making.  Burns called Laajava's attention to the President's 
November 19, 2003 Whitehall address, an important speech in 
which the President acknowledged America's commitment to NATO 
and other multilateral institutions.  He also noted that NATO 
SYG de Hoop Scheffer was the first foreign visitor to the 
Oval Office after President Bush won re-election -- another 
sign of U.S. commitment to NATO.  Moreover, the President's 
first official trip abroad after the State of the Union 
Address will be to Brussels for a NATO summit in early 
February; NATO-EU meetings will also take place. 
 
¶6. (U) Burns said that some in Europe assume NATO is a Cold 
War institution.  That characterization is no longer 
accurate.  The transformation of NATO, from an American 
perspective, has been strongly due to the course of events 
after September 11, 2001, and to the evolution in military 
technology, which is far advanced from the Cold War. 
President Bush's multilateral vision for NATO that he laid 
out at the NATO Summit in Istanbul this past June includes 
integrating the two military missions, OEF and ISAF, in 
Afghanistan; collective training conducted by NATO in Iraq; 
and NATO's Istanbul Cooperation Initiative for outreach to 
the Arab world. 
 
¶7. (U) Burns explained that there is strong bipartisan 
support for NATO in the U.S.  While nations still believe the 
U.S. is using NATO as a "tool box," the U.S. has been the 
prime proponent of NATO reform and for greater NATO roles in 
Iraq and Afghanistan.  As the Alliance focuses on its 2005 
agenda, we want to put Trans-Atlantic differences behind us 
and move forward. 
 
¶8. (C) Asked by Under Secretary Laajava whether the U.S. is 
pleased with the condition of the Alliance, Ambassador Burns 
said that on the political side the right decisions are being 
made -- new members are being taken in and NATO is reforming 
its relations with Russia.  But on the military side the gap 
is wide, particularly in the area of capabilities.  The U.S. 
defense budget is more than twice that of the other Allies 
put together.  NATO members' defense spending should be 
around two percent of GDP, yet many countries (Canada, Spain, 
Germany, the Netherlands, and others) are below this level. 
Eleven members spend more than 60 percent of their defense 
budgets on personnel costs alone.  And Lord Robertson 
estimated that of the 2.4 million men and women in uniform in 
Europe, only three-five percent can be deployed beyond their 
borders.  As a result, more and more of the burden is borne 
by the U.S., UK, France, Norway, and others.  With the U.S. 
deeply committed to Iraq, other nations have had to take up 
more of the burden in Afghanistan -- where the European 
allies have been slow to deploy.  Laajava agreed, recalling 
the difficulty in finding the helicopters to deploy Finnish 
troops to the PRT in Meymaneh, Afghanistan. 
 
¶9. (SBU) Ambassador Mack raised the point of the current 
legislation under consideration in the Finnish Parliament to 
amend the peacekeeping law to permit troop deployment based 
on an EU mandate.  Political Director-designate 
Vierros-Villeneuve said Parliament seems to favor changing 
the legislation in regards to an EU mandate.  Burns said we 
applaud the formation of EU battlegroups, if they allow 
Europe to be more proficient.  But if they begin to undercut 
the NATO Response Force -- the largest NATO reform in recent 
years -- then there will be problems.  Security Policy 
Director Kalkku said it will be necessary to ensure that the 
same unit does not serve standby duty for a battlegroup and 
for the NRF consecutively. 
 
¶10. (C) In discussing the NATO-EU relationship, Ambassador 
Burns described it as a symbiotic relationship in some ways, 
where 19 of the 25 EU nations are also NATO members.  He said 
the U.S. strongly supports EU giving ESDP greater identity, 
"and if it leads to greater capabilities, we'll be 
delighted."  Problems arise when some in Europe, such as 
French President Chirac, would like to turn the EU into a 
strategic counterweight to the U.S.  These attempts to make 
the EU and NATO competitive make the relationship difficult 
and would be resisted by Europeans like Denmark, Norway, the 
UK, and Italy. 
 
¶11. (C) Laajava remarked that he had encountered "quite 
strong sentiments" in Congress on this issue when he was 
Ambassador to the U.S.  He affirmed that it is important to 
shift attention to focus on the world's real problems instead 
of criticizing institutions.  Burns said that NATO has to 
remain the pre-eminent Trans-Atlantic security institution, 
which will lead it to even greater capabilities.  Laajava was 
supportive to say that Finland's way is to generate and 
gather positive identification with the EU.  During the Cold 
War, identification was close to home for Finland.  Now, 
Finland finds that identification and political capital are 
with the EU. 
 
¶12. (C) Afghanistan: Burns said he did not think the NATO 
mission has deployed as fast and strong as we had hoped. NATO 
has not succeeded in raising troops for an expansion to 
western Afghanistan.  Its shortfalls make clear that without 
a U.S. lead ISAF has been severely hampered.  But he hoped to 
see improvements in 2005.  The upcoming NATO Defense 
Ministers' meeting in Nice in February will be a forum where 
these issues will begin to be addressed, with the goal of 
unifying the OEF and ISAF operations under a single NATO 
command by the summer.  Kalkku asked about operational 
procedures for combining the operations.  Burns said one 
option was to create two task forces under one mission.  This 
will make matters easier for Germany.  "And for us," said 
Kalkku. 
 
¶13. (C) Burns reassured Laajava that NATO will have a full 
set of options by the Nice meeting, and encouraged the Finns 
to get involved in the debate.  It will be important for 
contributing countries such as Finland, Sweden, New Zealand, 
and Japan to be at the table in the larger troop-contributing 
country meetings as we discuss this in 2005.  Laajava thanked 
Burns and underscored the importance that public perception 
be shaped the right way. 
 
¶14. (C) Kosovo: In answer to a question from Kalkku, Burns 
highlighted the U.S. commitment to KFOR.  The upcoming spring 
periodic mission review will decide whether to break down the 
four quadrants.  The allies do not want to see significant 
troop reductions, although some support personnel could be 
moved over the horizon to improve KFOR's tooth-to-tail ratio. 
 Burns said the Allied commanders had been very disappointed 
in the way some nations' troops had performed in March, and 
this has led to a focus on national caveats.  But the 
commanders had also praised the Finnish, Swedish, U.S., and 
Norwegian troops, who did not hesitate to act. 
 
¶15. (C) Iraq: Ambassador Burns said the U.S. is "absolutely 
determined" to stay the course.  The President is committed 
and there is strong public support for the war against 
terrorism.  Ambassador Burns asked Laajava what the 
benchmarks would be for Finland to make additional 
contributions to Iraq -- either humanitarian, financial, or 
military assistance.  Laajava hesitated to respond and said 
that they will wait to see what Iraqi elections delivered. 
Ambassador Mack recalled that Finland had been one of the 
first countries to contribute to the UN Protection Force, 
pledging one million euros this past September.  Kalkku said 
the EU is considering a civilian mission, and the GoF might 
contribute civilian rule-of-law experts to that. 
 
¶16. (C) The U.S. is committed to a NATO role in Iraq.  NATO 
has begun training Iraqi officers in Baghdad, said Burns. 
After elections in Iraq, the U.S. hopes more countries will 
join this effort to train senior Iraqi officers.  Partnership 
for Peace countries are welcome to participate. 
 
¶17. (U) Partnership for Peace (PfP): Ambassador Burns 
stressed that the future of PfP is promising, with countries 
like Finland and Sweden as the intellectual driving force, 
and he thanked Laajava for the joint paper on PfP options 
that the two countries had contributed.  NATO is looking to 
Central Asia, the Caucasus, and the Middle East as new areas 
for an expanded partnership.  This conceptual, intellectual 
leadership of Finland is instrumental to developing PfP 
leadership. 
 
¶18. (U) NATO-Russia: Ambassador Burns said the U.S. is 
convinced that we must keep working with Russia, including 
within NATO at the NATO-Russian Council.  The NATO-Russia 
agenda has focused so far on Russia's Istanbul Commitments in 
Georgia and Moldova, and lately on Ukraine.  There is ongoing 
cooperation on issues of common concern such as theater 
missile defense and protecting civilian populations against 
chemical attack. 
 
MoD Meeting 
----------- 
 
¶19. (SBU) At the Ministry of Defense, Ambassador Burns first 
participated in a roundtable discussion with senior MoD 
officials, then met with the Minister.  Finnish participants 
in the roundtable included: 
Lt. General (ret.) Matti Ahola, MoD Permanent Secretary; 
Pauli Jarvenpaa, Director General for Policy; Jyrkki Iivonen, 
MoD Public Affairs Director; Colonel Sakari Honkamaa, Finnish 
Defense Staff; Colonel Arto Raty, Director of the National 
Defense Course; and Karolina Honkanen, MoD Researcher and 
author of a study on small states in NATO. 
 
¶20. (C) The Finns began the roundtable by asking Ambassador 
Burns how the second Bush Administration would approach NATO, 
and in general what would be the Administration's posture 
toward Europe.  The Ambassador replied by first thanking the 
Finns for their contributions to NATO in Bosnia, Kosovo, and 
Afghanistan.  He said that it was important to think about 
how PfP countries could be "at the table" more to inform NATO 
decision-making.  Burns said that the past two years had been 
rocky ones for NATO and for Trans-Atlantic relations. 
However, he believed that the debate was turning away from 
one about the action in Iraq to one over how best to 
stabilize the situation there and help the Iraqi people.  The 
Administration was interested in moving forward, not dwelling 
on the past two years, and the Ambassador opined that 2005 
should be a much better year and renew the close 
Trans-Atlantic ties that were valued by all.  Pointing to the 
President's trip to Brussels in February, he said that the 
President was serious about reaching out to friends and 
allies, and that the U.S. was not interested in "going it 
alone."  Dr. Jarvenpaa replied that these were "encouraging 
words." 
 
¶21. (C) Iivonen asked the Ambassador for his assessment of 
the Russia-NATO and Russia-U.S. relationship.  The Ambassador 
said that the U.S. had a realistic view of Russia and was 
watching recent developments closely.  However, he said that 
the West had to maintain a strategic relationship with Russia 
and that it would be dangerous to ignore or isolate Moscow. 
Burns cited several examples of NATO-Russian cooperation, 
including the theater-missile defense system project, 
counter-terrorism, counter-proliferation, civil emergency 
coordination, and maritime search and rescue cooperation. 
However, the Ambassador said that neither the U.S. nor NATO 
was uncritical of the situations in Chechnya, Georgia, 
Moldova or Ukraine; what was important was to engage the 
Russians on these issues rather than isolate them. 
 
¶22. (C) During the roundtable, Dr. Jarvenpaa noted that the 
capabilities of the EU battlegroups are not very challenging 
-- he called them "light groups, with simple capability."  He 
said Finland wants close cooperation between the battlegroups 
and the NRF.  The Finns indicated some frustration with the 
negotiations on the battlegroups, suggesting that the EU's 
limited military capability meant that the debate over the 
battlegroups was more over process than designing a system 
with real military value.  Ambassador Burns said that the 
U.S. supported the concept of EU battlegroups as long as they 
were consistent with the Berlin Plus agreements and not in 
conflict with NATO resource needs.  The Ambassador cited the 
abortive EU military headquarters planning cell proposal in 
April 2003 as unhelpful.  He said that it should be possible 
to deconflict NATO and EU defense policies, but that it 
wouldn't happen without the two institutions talking about 
problems areas, and that as regards battlegroups, NATO 
couldn't even get the issue on the agenda with the EU because 
of Cypriot objections. 
 
¶23. (SBU) Ahola referred to a statement the previous week by 
the Finnish Parliament's Foreign Affairs Committee which 
recommended that the government should call NATO membership a 
"real option", rather than just a "possibility."  He also 
said that a new official poll had found support by the 
Finnish population for NATO membership had grown to 34 
percent.  He saw this as very good news, noting that the 
all-time low had been 11 percent. 
 
¶24. (C) After the Roundtable, Ambassador Burns had an office 
call with Minister of Defense Seppo Kaariainen.  The Minister 
spoke warmly about his visit to the U.S. in April 2004, and 
noted that he found particularly interesting the briefings on 
transformation he got at the Joint Forces Command and 
Pentagon.  He said he took to heart a quote, "It is not 
enough to make things better, we must make better things." 
Kaariainen said Parliament's review of the Security and 
Defense Policy White Paper will be completed by the third 
week of December.  It is his impression that the White Paper 
is "very European", emphasizing that Finland will participate 
fully in the ESDP.  The EU has made very fast progress on 
many defense issues, including battlegroups, headline goals, 
and Operation ALTHEA.  Finland's aim is to "participate 
fully, without conditions." 
 
¶25. (C) Kaariainen also emphasized the importance Finland 
puts on the Trans-Atlantic link and relations with the U.S. 
-- through NATO, through the EU, and bilaterally.  He said, 
"In some areas, we are natural competitors, but we need to 
work together on crisis management."  He noted that the White 
Paper lists NATO "as an option in the future" and that for 
now Finland has a very practical relationship with NATO, 
particularly with cooperation in the Balkans and Afghanistan. 
 Kaariainen noted that Finland has good relations with 
Russia, especially in the area of trade.  He noted the 
particular economic importance of the St. Petersburg area to 
Finland.  He added there is a need for "clear rules" for Air 
Policing, for example air traffic control procedures, and 
that NATO's new relationship in the Baltics has "stabilized" 
the Baltic Sea region. 
MACK