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

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 HELSINKI 000988 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PREL PGOV MARR FI NATO
SUBJECT: FINLAND'S PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES SPAR OVER 
SECURITY ISSUES 
 
REF: HELSINKI 920 
 
SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED - PLEASE PROTECT ACCORDINGLY. 
 
 ¶1. (SBU) Summary: The unofficial opening rounds of 
Finland's presidential campaign appear to indicate that 
European and trans-Atlantic security issues could become 
central themes.  Conservative Party candidate Niinisto 
has advocated that Finland embrace European security 
guarantee mechanisms and downplayed NATO membership, 
although his remarks may represent mere rhetoric designed 
to spark debate, and not deeply held views.  Center Party 
presidential candidate (and PM) Vanhanen has 
emphasized that the U.S. remains crucial to European 
security, but has stopped short of advocating NATO 
membership for Finland.  President Halonen -- whose status 
as incumbent and a lead of nearly 40 points in the polls 
have allowed her to remain largely above the fray -- has 
stated that Finland's current security posture requires no 
realignment.  The views of outside commentators vary 
widely.  However, most share our opinion that the major 
candidates' positions differ only slightly, and that any 
real action on security policy will emerge not from 
January's presidential election, but rather from the 
parliamentary election scheduled for March 2007.  End 
Summary. 
 
Niinisto's Working Vacation 
--------------------------- 
¶2. (U) Although Finland's presidential campaign does not 
begin officially until November, an unofficial "pre- 
campaign" appeared to begin in August and brought with it 
several notable exchanges on European and trans-Atlantic 
security issues.  The early start to the political season 
was prompted in large part by Conservative Party (Cons) 
Candidate Sauli Niinisto, who used his two months of summer 
vacation from his current post as vice-president of the 
European Investment Bank in Luxemburg to return home, 
launch his campaign, and begin delineating how his platform 
will differ from his major rivals.  In addition to being 
resident in Luxembourg, Niinisto is the only one of the 
three major-party candidates who does not currently hold 
elected office.  This lack of a bully pulpit leaves him at 
a disadvantage vis-a-vis his two principle rivals, 
incumbent President Tarja Halonen, a Social Democrat (SDP), 
and Prime Minister Matti Vanhanen, the Center Party's 
presidential candidate. 
 
¶3. (SBU) According to his aides, Niinisto sought to open an 
early debate on security issues because he believed that 
neither Halonen nor Vanhanen was taking a leadership role. 
He has publicly advocated that Finland embrace the European 
security guarantees as outlined in the now-stalled EU 
Constitution Treaty.  In addition, Niinisto has accused the 
Vanhanen government of a sort of flip-flop -- that is, 
first opposing the European guarantees, then embracing them 
when they became part of the EU Constitution Treaty, then 
once again abandoning them after the French and Dutch "non" 
votes.  As for NATO, Niinisto has downplayed Finnish 
membership in public, recognizing that voters strongly 
favor maintaining Finland's traditional policy of 
nonalignment.  When pressed in private, Niinisto remained 
noncommittal, even to the suggestion of European security 
guarantees possibly being a step toward NATO membership 
(see reftel).  His stance puts him somewhat at odds with 
many others in the Conservative Party, which is not of one 
mind on NATO but historically has tended to favor Finland's 
membership.  For example, the Conservative Party Chairman, 
Jyrki Katainen, has been a steady proponent of eventual 
Finnish accession.  Indeed, many observers -- including 
some Conservatives -- contend that Niinisto's public views 
represent rhetoric designed to spark debate and distinguish 
himself from other candidates, rather than deeply held 
personal beliefs. 
 
Vanhanen Responds 
----------------- 
¶4. (U) Candidate Vanhanen has responded publicly by 
emphasizing the importance of the United States to European 
security.  In a recent speech to Center Party activists and 
Parliamentarians, Vanhanen highlighted the "historic 
commitment of North America" to European defense and said 
that Finland should do its part to "make sure that U.S. 
interest in Europe and its defense survives."  He argued 
that seeking to turn the EU into a military alliance is " 
not on the horizon" and that "no overlapping or competing 
security solutions should be built between Europe and the 
United States."  The PM stopped short of advocating 
that Finland join NATO, but did note his government 
supported keeping "the option of NATO membership" open for 
discussion. 
 
¶5. (SBU) Privately, Vanhanen's camp has been even more 
explicit.  His chief of staff, Riisto Volanen, has 
repeatedly emphasized to us that, of the three major party 
candidates, Vanhanen is the strongest advocate of trans- 
Atlantic cooperation.  Niinisto's recent public remarks on 
EU security cooperation demonstrated that Niinisto viewed 
European guarantees as more important for Finland than the 
trans-Atlantic relationship -- and perhaps even a 
substitute, Volanen added.  He also said that he expected 
the issue to figure prominently in the campaign and, in 
fact, the PM has continued to reiterate the importance of 
trans-Atlantic ties at many of his public engagements. 
Nevertheless, even Volanen would not go so far as to 
suggest that NATO membership itself will become a campaign 
issue.  NATO is a very touchy subject for Finnish 
voters, and Vanhanen -- who may have the most to lose 
politically should he fare poorly in the upcoming 
election -- cannot afford to lose votes over it.  (Vanhanen 
currently trails Niinisto by two percentage points 
in recent polls.) 
 
The President: A Safe Distance 
------------------------------ 
¶6. (SBU) For the most part , President Halonen has appeared 
happy to allow her two main rivals to do most of the 
sparring on security issues.  Halonen enjoys a tremendous 
lead in the polls -- a position of strength which has 
allowed her to weigh on issues when it suits her.  (The 
most recent Finnish Gallup poll indicates that if elections 
were held now, Halonen would take 58 percent, enough for a 
first round win.)  That said, some on the left have quietly 
expressed concerns that Halonen needs to become more vocal 
on security issues and that she cannot afford to allow 
Vanhanen and Niinisto to dictate the tenor of the 
discussion.  Perhaps as a result, Halonen has recently 
begun advocating both continued progress on European 
security guarantees (despite the setbacks on the 
Constitution Treaty) and support for trans-Atlantic 
partnership in a series of characteristically positive 
public comments.  Halonen -- like Vanhanen -- opposes NATO 
membership for Finland in the short term, but has not ruled 
it out as an eventual possibility.  However, unlike the 
Prime Minister, Halonen sees the NATO discussion as largely 
theoretical and clearly favors non-alignment; Vanhanen, on 
the other hand, appears more inclined to believe that, at 
some point, Finland may actually join NATO.  In any case, 
Halonen has sought to de-emphasize the issue altogether, 
emphasizing that "in our current external environment, 
nothing has happened that would call for any new decision" 
on Finland's overall security stance. 
 
Other Comments 
-------------- 
¶7. (SBU) The candidates' sparring has, of course, prompted 
a wide range of other commentators to weigh in on the 
security debate.  Max Jakobson, a former senior diplomat 
and perhaps Finland's most respected foreign 
policy commentator, declared that "the EU cannot be relied 
on as a defense policy player" and that Finland must join 
NATO "before there is an emergency."  (Unfortunately, 
Jakobson's pleas have fallen on deaf ears; only one 
candidate -- Henrik Lax, of the small Swedish Peoples Party 
-- openly advocates NATO membership.)  Others have 
commented on how any changes in Finnish policy might affect 
relations with Russia, the EU or the U.S.; on whether 
Finland suffers a security "deficit" or a security 
"surplus;" and, of course, on the fact that, to most 
voters, the candidates' positions really differ very little 
from one another. 
 
Our Comment 
----------- 
¶8. (SBU) It is valid to question whether or not the 
candidates' positions are ultimately all that different in 
the eyes of a Finnish electorate that still jealously 
defends the notion of Finnish nonalignment and opposes 
NATO membership by an 80 to 20 percent margin.  For U.S. 
observers, the more important question might be whether any 
candidate, once in office, can muster the political 
momentum necessary to effect a real change in Finnish 
security policy.  All acknowledge that the right leader 
with the right message might be able to sell the Finns on 
NATO membership, yet ironies abound:  Halonen, who will 
likely win, would no doubt prefer that NATO membership 
remain an academic discussion for the six years of her 
second term.  However, influential figures within her SDP 
party (including former PM Paavo Lipponen) are beginning to 
quietly suggest that NATO membership must be put on the 
table sooner rather than later.  Niinisto's Conservative 
party is the most inclined of the big three to support NATO 
membership, but the candidate himself has de-emphasized 
NATO in favor of European security guarantees.  And 
Vanhanen, the most open to NATO, faces his own Center 
party, the bulk of which is steadfastly against Finland's 
joining NATO.  In the end, any major security policy 
changes will depend more on what type of coalition enters 
government after the March 2007 parliamentary election -- 
and on whether the new prime minister and the president 
elected this January together can provide the right 
leadership and the right message to counter public 
skepticism. 
MACK