<TITLE: Security in Europe
ACADEMIC DOMAIN: social sciences
DISCIPLINE: political history
EVENT TYPE: seminar discussion
FILE ID: USEMD020
NOTES: seminar includes presentation USEMP020

RECORDING DURATION: 82 min 27 sec

RECORDING DATE: 19.4.2002

NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS: 8

NUMBER OF SPEAKERS: 8

S1: NATIVE-SPEAKER STATUS: Finnish; ACADEMIC ROLE: senior staff; GENDER: male; AGE: 51-over

S2: NATIVE-SPEAKER STATUS: Polish; ACADEMIC ROLE: masters student; GENDER: female; AGE: 17-23

S3: NATIVE-SPEAKER STATUS: Slovakian; ACADEMIC ROLE: masters student; GENDER: male; AGE: 17-23

S4: NATIVE-SPEAKER STATUS: Polish; ACADEMIC ROLE: masters student; GENDER: male; AGE: 24-30

S5: NATIVE-SPEAKER STATUS: Lithuanian; ACADEMIC ROLE: masters student; GENDER: female; AGE: 17-23

S6: NATIVE-SPEAKER STATUS: Somali; ACADEMIC ROLE: unknown; GENDER: male; AGE: 31-50

NS7: NATIVE-SPEAKER STATUS: English; ACADEMIC ROLE: undergraduate; GENDER: male; AGE: 24-30

NS8: NATIVE-SPEAKER STATUS: English; ACADEMIC ROLE: undergraduate; GENDER: female; AGE: 17-23

SU: unidentified speaker>


<S1> we may still get some new participants so once again i will like to circulate this . and er , then i have one announcement which i also circulate and er this concerns that if er some of you are interested about disciplinary history of international relations there will be a course er by er professor helena rytövuori-apunen beginning er sixth of may so there is an opportunity to er gather some credits from in a very concise form i think so you can read it and if you haven't see- i i suppose it's also in the ISSS er -S ISSS notice board maybe , er . then er the main , theme today is as i er i presented concerns enhancing security community board consolidating the european superpower and we have er three presentations er actually we have only two presentations it's er <NAME> informed that he's not able to continue for some more important cause of some more important , er things so er we have two presentations and then i use some time depending on how how this discussion continues i will use some time for a more specific topic of of mine which i hope gives s- sh- gives some more light on the on the main theme , so we have two presentations first <NAME S2> is NATO in crisis because of its eastern enlar- enlargement was the original title but it seems to be that er , that it is er now more about NATO's transformation and future threats and chances is the exact title so floor is yours please </S1>

<PRESENTATION by S2 DELETED: POOR SOUND QUALITY>

<S1> okay thank you very much i think er again we can follow such a course that that first we er have a please please sit down we have a relatively free-floating discussion and then i try to structure it a bit concerning some some points which i i found important here and then maybe we move more on on to a more general or theoretical level so to say or we may postpone that discussion to after the second , second presentation in any case i i just a first comment and this this was very comprehensive i think on the topic on the title which you . have chosen and as such i think this gives a good introduction for for discussion and er thoroughly about about NATO , so please , raise your points and criticisms comments <P:07> or was it too satisfactory so no one @@ <P:11> any questions <P:08> maybe i'll stimulate a bit er or provoke i think , er . i wonder this er , distinction between er having a military organisation and political organisation when you say that the er , NATO , is to be transformed more to be er towards a political organisation even though you put a question mark behind so how do you understand political organisation compared with , something else which NATO obviously is today </S1>
<S2> erm , so what what is the difference er between a military organisation it was at the beginning , it was created as and now , it is </S2>
<S1> i i'll ask this because er this is er this very familiar rhetorics used today all the time we hear someone saying that that NATO is er , being transformed to a more political or political organisation and er i think this is a specific point which er deserves to be open up a bit </S1>
<S2> well er i think that at the beginning er that it was originally created it was er committed on the it was this collec- collective defence idea <S1> [yeah] </S1> [so] they were originally committed into this each other defence and and that was it and now er for example this all this political body these programmes er that NATO has started er , they er there are these er bodies er on which dialogue with different er , with other non-NATO european countries can be er preferred and i i see this as the most important political element in the in the NATO strategy also the situations with russia because er at the beginning russia was just enemy er against which er NATO should protect the members and now er that they are attempts at least attempt to establish this consultation and cooperation with russia </S2>
<S1> okay , what do you think if i asks ask all of you what is er you know what is the idea of having someone some organisation is er is pol- political organisation what is </S1>
<S3> my point is er it's something like a (xx) so i don't know if i should continue now or discuss your question first </S3>
<S1> yeah yeah if you had a question please please er you [ca-] </S1>
<S3> [er you said] that er once the cold war was over and NATO was in a crossroad like er there is some point that continues existing (or not) , and now er i mean then er at the time the member countries of NATO were more or less er you know having this common defensive er you know uniting element now as er the cold war is over this threat is go- gone as we all know the only active elements in NATO are er USA and great britain a little bit and then is germany , france when (only asked they develop) some activity and all these other smaller countries and i'm not even speaking about eastern european countries (new) eastern european countries joining the NATO they're just sitting there and doing nothing so do you really think er that NATO has some sense to continue </S3>
<S1> mhm interesting question </S1>
<S2> but i'm not sure if there is so many difference between the past and the present because er in the past it was small european countries or maybe not not only small but er others er were they (didn't) contribute so [much] </S2>
<S3> [well] er the NATO transform itself from the defensive point or defensive state of things when i would say offensive organisation there is no more the question of defence so so like that important now it's more or less offensive organisation just you know with things (that was) around the world so on <S2> er [er] </S2> [and then] then it then it really matters if some some some of them are active and some are just independent (xx) </S3>
<S2> well er as much (of them) the defence is still <S3> [officially] </S3> [i- important] yeah and it is official and er . erm . so your point is that er they cannot er these country that you mentioned cannot contribute to this newer function </S2>
<S3> they're not only not able able to contribute they are not even expected to contribute they're expected to follow and my question is if it really makes sense to NATO to exist in this stage of things <S2> erm , [er] </S2> [my question] does (of course) what do you think about its (xx) not like how it supposed to go how it (xx) </S3>
<S2> well i i would i would i don't er (xx) into NATO (xx) not as the particular members and er , er NATO as a whole has adopt this this er n- new strategy and new functions so er , i think that for example this er concept of common (xx) it can make (xx) difficult in these countries to contribute because er this first assignment (xx) that is erm if er if for example the crisis in the pacific regio- region i don't know spain and er some other countries er of the of the southern europe can er , they can make a common common effort like i- i i don't know if i ask er understand the question exactly </S2>
<S3> er if you think er that NATO has a future it doesn't [(xx)] </S3>
<NS7> [we need it or don't need] </NS7>
<S3> we need it or don't need thank you </S3>
<NS7> we need it or we don't need , <S2> er </S2> according to your opinion </NS7>
<S2> my country er we became a member of NATO and erm we wanted er to access NATO because er we felt that erm more secure more secure and er i think erm now if it is transforming into this political organisation with with russia and so on i don't think that polish people will approve of it because it was er just we wanted er somehow protection against russia even now er so we m- may not approve this k- this er direction of transformation er but i think that still it is important for us er to have this i don't know common consciousness that er , er this er idea of collective defence is er works still now so i think er it is er it it has left er </S2>
<NS7> sense of security , feel sense of security </NS7>
<S2> yeah but er on the other hand this sense er can be a truly a real a real not only a sense it should be some real er basis for that </S2>
<NS7> good guard guy </NS7>
<SU> @@ </SU>
<S1> so this is i i think this an interesting question because this goes back to er my question about the er nature of of NATO is it a military or political organisation you you say that it is about security and i think you are imply that it is when talking about security is about er military security or or it is that just that that's the core of of security as such and and this er being er transformed to mo- a more political organisation is somehow er counterproductive from that viewpoint did i understand right </S1>
<S2> erm yeah <S1> yeah </S1> from from <S1> yeah </S1> point of view of my country i think it is </S2>
<S1> okay good so er so in that case er , we can again ask what is er is talk about political organisation and er , i think we are here , if we use some let's see if you use if you use some er like er , a social constructivist perspective here . and er , when we er and then we pay attention on how how these er different concepts are really used , i think this er talk about political organisation refers not so much that er that NATO wouldn't be a military organisation in in one sense , but it's it more er , refers to such er , or constructs such an idea that that er NATO can be transformed really out out er to er to cover more different tasks and so so this use of political it's it's a kind of umbrella concept kind of goal for er for NATO er so , to continue with its viability all the time so er , because talking about military is a bit out-fashioned in a way old-fashioned so er i think er , i have tried to think over these questions since er military security is being defined in a new way all the time , and also er the role of military in different er securities different kinds of securities so er and these institutional expressions they er are not out of this problem like NATO european union actually it's just through these institutions how how these redefinitions are done and i think it's er , it's important to note i would say that if we take political just literally or take different let's say conventional definitions of political we can say that of course NATO has always been a political organisation certainly maybe we have to conceptualise it a bit more we have to and we have different options i think we can categorise that that NATO is er and has been all the time an intergovernmental organisation not supranational for instance we can say that that er it has a , military substance military core and and thinking about its different functions there may be some new functions that are have been emerged since the co- since the end of the cold war but but basically everything which revolves over NATO or let's say most of it somehow relates to its military substance so er , so that an interesting interesting question and now we can focus why today so there is so much talk about it as a political organisation any other questions or maybe we can continue about ten minutes after this presentation and then , have a break after that , well maybe i i have some points which i would like to <P:09> the title of yo- of your er first chapter is can NATO perform multilateral peace operations effectively and reliably here again we have a , interesting er expression what it means to perform peace operations effectively and reliably what is your , er what you have thought when you er wrote this , title </S1>
<S2> er so first of all er is NATO able to decide to act in a right moment not after er , er , because er the examples er show show that the decision to act is taken after in the it is er er relatively very last moment and sometimes it is the decision if if it had been taken earlier er it seems that er for example it could have er i don't know saved er lives of of of some (victims) of the country and so on so er i i mean especially this er inter-consensus can be reached in the right moment er and if if their memb- NA- NATO members er has enough political there is enough will to continue this like kind of operation </S2>
<S1> okay so er it's a question of er political will and er here we come to an interesting er comparison we can think that er . political will created among NATO members it's a bit different from from , er EU members for instance and i think er or do you do you find out what is the main difference between NATO and EU </S1>
<S3> it is a er is it directly i think NATO a military political organisation <S1> yes yes </S1> but it's er i would say over-national level </S3>
<S1> y- yes yes [there's there's the possibility at least] </S1>
<S3> [er while the NATO is] more like military and it's still international </S3>
<S1> yes and er what i really er think here is is that NATO is a typical expression of such an intergovernmental organisation where er which is er very dependent on who takes the lead it's a kind of institution of a certain hegemonic order er and ce- and here i'm referring to the uni- to un- to united states , so EU is different in this sense EU doesn't have such er such a hegemony hegemonic power and er er and in NATO this er depends very much how , what are related er er strengths military strengths or related military power of of its member countries and the same doesn't apply so much within the european union at least so far and this supports the er perception that er that er when you talk about , how NATO members might er follow or support US national interest et cetera this is very er typical in in such an organisation er that that er national interests or he- hegemonic power are so important that others try to follow them if if possible within that same institution so er . and i think a bit similar thing is er within the european union is is er , when there has so been so much discussion about er so-called avant-garde group within the EU different layers within the EU and er and r- i think right now er er in this er , in the present situation there is much talk that that big powers within the EU france germany UK would like to cooperate and and go a a bit further i think this is er this could be understood from from the perspective fro- from this realist theory and hegemonic theory er , this could be understood as an er as a similar effort to try to , er take the lead in a way and then we can er we can think is it possible for instance fo- for the EU to do something in crisis management er , if this happens really , so these are interesting interesting questions , maybe there are some others more i just er just to remind that er , when the er you have here several er numbers about er gross domestic products of different countries er how they er what is the share that is spent on on defence this is again a very interesting question since er , when NAT- within NATO there is the er rule that that er , defence budgets should be about two per cent of of gross domestic or gross national product so er , the differences are are very actually very large if we think what is two per cent in estonia compared what is two per cent in germany so it's very different actually but here again we see an interesting question that it's it's not so important what is what is really the money how much it is really in in some hard currency , it's more important to talk about that we all should have some equal some equal er share and , even though it cannot be compared as such , so it's more an expression of unity kind of discursive associative strategy in a way , so . and one question when you say that er , that when european allies prefer to spend money on social welfare at home than on the military confirms the rule that democracies at the time of peace are hardly motivated to spend money on the military do you think that this this applies to the united states for </S1>
<S2> united [states] </S2>
<S1> [it's] a demo- democracy <S2> yeah </S2> and still spends a lot of money on on the mil- </S1>
<S2> yeah but i think erm this is of course an exception and er i think <COUGH> that a super power that (xx) do </S2>
<S1> so someth- it means that , some other point is more important than democracy as such (presented) maybe national interests </S1>
<S2> i i don't [(think we can)] </S2>
<S1> [national] security as it is understood by a super power so here we have we see some trade-offs , certainly the US would like to enhance democracy in the world as as it sees sees the problem , any other points on on this topic . again i will er i will er , think some points which you presented and and try to gather that to the last session . 'cause every every session raises some int- important points which ha- has to be put together , so if we don't have any other , other questions here i i think we can now take a break about 15 minutes will be , okay see you afte- after 15 minutes okay thanks </S1>
<COFFEE BREAK>

<PRESENTATION USEMP020 by S5>

<S1> okay thank you very much so <COUGH> it's important , important problem and i i think we er . can have much discussion , on this topics it's it's obviously very , <S6> yeah can i </S6> familiar <FOREIGN> joo </FOREIGN> please sit down and you can already </S1>
<S6> <COUGH> well er it came to my mind to ask er on this issue NATO relations with russia , er through baltic states you raised three points which is absolutely very important er the problem of kaliningrad <S5> [mhm] </S5> [the] minority issue <S5> [mhm] </S5> [the] russian minorities living in baltic states <S5> mhm-hm </S5> and at last you raised border issue <S5> mhm-hm </S5> er but what comes to my mind er in this context is that how , today we talk about er we very much talk about post-modern modern identity people define <S5> [mhm-hm] </S5> [themselves] on the location they are <S5> mhm </S5> er seeking er the identity they belong to so from this context er which model will you give er the er russian minority living in baltic states will you give it er assimilation model integration model <S5> mhm </S5> or er ghetto model , and er what are the overall the role of the baltic states er to improve er the er er relations they have not to al- not to face any possible challenge in the future er for the NATO membership </S6>
<S5> mhm so as a first part of your question is er minorities yes <S6> [mhm-hm] </S6> [about] how do they feel [in this] <S6> [yeah] mhm </S6> er so at first i would like to say that er for instance in lithuania as i mentioned before er minorities feel themself er very good because they were granted for citiz- they were granted citizenship and it wasn't very problematic to have a , to get a citizenship but er in so i think that er it depends on er minority er minority's position in these countries so if the government the local government will er er give er will create er proper conditions for minorities er then it will be no questions er it will be no conflicts between the ethnic people and er minorities russian minorities , so er in lithuania there is no such question about these in erm i about letvi- latvia i'm not sure because i'm not very familiar with the situation but i know that in estonia still exist er a lot of problems between local government and er minorities , and what about a another part of your question er it's er about a general position of balti- general baltic states' er position in world yes in <S6> mhm </S6> just er , as it was er t- , is it okay <S1> yeah </S1> okay @@ as it was told before er that er as you <NAME S3> you told before that er main er roles er the main roles are in erm in france german erm mhm , in NATO i i'm talking about NATO er in france german great britain and another big countries' hands so and and other small countries it's like the baltic states they only can er follow them , because they will er at f- maybe at first they will not have any er eager and any important er er any , they will not be <SIC> allowded </SIC> , to have a big influence to make big influence to all this politic so er and er i'd i mentioned in my presentation that er now , baltic states want to er mhm , erm to define them like er european countries and they want to improve their er , mhm image that is @@ i- image not like not as er a former soviet union's er states but like er independent and european countries so it's my point </S5>
<S6> do you think they fulfil the er <COUGH> overall criteria for becoming NATO membership er in terms of role and risks and those responsibilities benefits (are you sure) there will be er common security and collective defence , do you think they fulfil all those criteria </S6>
<S5> er they are trying to , <S6> mhm </S6> so and they're going to fulfil and er , this protest is a . like </S5>
<S6> it's on </S6>
<S5> yes yes , it's very <SU> important </SU> yes and as i told in lithuania for instance i'm not sure about the government in other baltic states but in lithuania er there was a in er government increased the domestic products for defe- for defence so it's er and i'm not sure here to about this perc- perce- percentage but i think it's er from 1.4 to to er two per cent for , yes of course yes (xx) so it's er a lot of processes and it's not very er , easy to do it because er this er very big package of russia's past , still exists (xx) </S5>
<S3> i have erm i have a question i will go a bit deeper to the minority question and er , as as i got it you were telling that , er in lithuania there is different situation than in latvia and estonia in the sense that er lithuania guaranteed the citizenship also for russian people living there while er latvia and maybe in estonia for sure didn't guarantee it and they have this alien status , do you think this er more or less bureaucra - bureaucratic difference er , makes the situation so different that lithuania doesn't have the problem with the minority while the others countries they do have so you think it's so easy to solve it or </S3>
<S5> mhm . this question for estonia and latvia </S5>
<S3> i mean estonia and latvia they have this problem with russian minority <S5> mhm-hm yes </S5> they do have it , you you told us <S5> yes </S5> lithuania doesn't have it do you think [er that] </S3>
<S5> [it has] but er it's not so er </S5>
<S4> but in latvia and estonia it's russian minorities like one third (xx) one fourth and in lithuania the russian minority </S4>
<S5> [it's only eight it's only eight per cent] </S5>
<S4> [is only small so it's not] so big problem with russian minority </S4>
<S5> mhm it's not very easy to solve to solve it , er , at first . just a minute @@ erm . because of this large amount of russians , large amount russians (xx) russians in these countries er in lithuania it was easier because er it was only eight per cents of all population and in estonia if 28 per cents or i don't remember is really big percentage of this so it's really hard and it depends on local governments what these governments of these countries will would they er will they allow them to become citizens , or not or just to have this paper that er he or she can er c- can stay in a country and give this permission for staying and for </S5>
<S4> and if i read some er articles about it and there is i think not problem to gave them to give them er , status of citizenship but to fulfil er expectation because er for example in estonia , er government . er , can give this status of citizens if the russian minorities for example learn er er (will learn) estonian and there it the problem is that er in past er russian minority russian people , didn't have to er know estonian , and now there they have er to know some estonian some estonian history and that's the problem i think and now is the the things are changing but very slowly </S4>
<S1> so numbers don't count only , it's not only the question of numbers maybe a- at this point i , tell something about my own experience it was in er 1992 ten years ago we had here in tampere er , first nordic-baltic peace research conference and er . and several people from er from the baltic states were there for the first time , and in one group there one in one workshop i er . i raised this question about minority and majority , and one estonian colleague er , he almost attacked me saying that don't talk about russian minority in estonia they are not minority they are occupiers , so i i think this is just a good example how er defining someone being er , some group being a minority or majority it's very much dependent on , on different , different factors and er and er it's er if we go to more to the theoretical level concerning , this difference or identities which er you raised about the the question of a post-modern identities which er in a way transcend er state borders <S6> [yeah yeah] </S6> [concerning this] so , so i i i i think er , this question who are us and who are them , is it's changing these perceptions are changing all the time and so er the status of minority er is er is changing in in this sense and we could say that the er , external er political dimension of er russian minority is very much dependent er , of of these er perceptions and relates to other other relations er between er , the state level or between russia and er one single s- baltic states so er er but on the other hand it's de- dependent on this er intrastate in- societal development where er where these er mutual perceptions of some other group are will be changed and so this model of your three models of assimilation integration and ghetto <S5> mhm-hm </S5> are one good example how to , think how . er we can use these er all these models try to understand what explains in specific case so i my claim today is that because there are so different er , very different factors which can be used in in , situation it's difficult to compare actually that er we can claim that is the minority in lithuania the same , as i- russian minority in estonia for instance just these local , all the local developments and and this construction of er identities in in mutual er mutual <COUGH> interaction , so i i think it's a very important point er this er , and and some er . some facts , effect i i think like er where the minority lives in in estonia we are maybe we have to take , take the map <PREPARING OVERHEAD, P:11> (it's not) very clear clear map in in any case , in in estonia er most of , (can) everyone see <P:06> a big part of russian minority lives here . and er in narva in (xx) and and er then in tallinn but in in several other , places er russian minority may be , very small , so this is also important and this coincides er er this border issue so it can have some , political leverage in that sense er because er , the question of border here is er very sensitive or has been sensitive and it's not s- not so sensitive today than it was about ten years ago at the beginning , since er , as many of you know er , estonia didn't accept its er eastern border which was drawn , during the soviet time . so er , but this is very very central question this , problem of minority majority . and er i think development which has taken place , is a kind of two-way street on the other hand er er all the efforts of the baltic states to er . get into EU and NATO et cetera . has meant that they have considered their policies in this sense because er , EU countries require that these relations are , arranged in a way like they are supposed to be western european states in general , so , but on the other hand it's very understandable that er in estonia latvia and lithuania the burden of the past is very er strong in this sense as i referred to my experience about , hearing that they are occupiers when my er in my mind there was a kind of idea that er that of course when it is now minority it er it should be like let's say swedish speaking people in finland . in a way , but er i think a very er . important , way . everywhere in europe , how to deal with minorities is er , is er , certain tolerance and acceptance i think that's the basis of liberal democracy in in this sense not any kind of majority , who power which doesn't take into consideration for instance er cultural diff- differences the europe is going grow- growing to be a more multicultural all the time , the situation is perhaps so we we have to deal with different groups and to allow them , space to live some er , now i er , bring my example from er , i think a very multicultural er town er , er not in europe but but i visit some time ago in toronto , in canada , er there are about er , 30 different minorities living living in that town and er i think that er town is one of the cities one of best examples how minorities can er live together so i think that is something , that , we have to . hopefully see also in europe , (can see in future) so o- okay we continue <SOMEBODY ENTERS THE ROOM> we are discussing this </S1>
<SU-5> another points </SU-5>
<S1> any other que- </S1>
<NS7> <COMMENT BY NATIVE SPEAKER 4:20> </NS7>
<S1> mhm </S1>
<NS8> but you didn't say that instead of er trying to help these minorities do you just er separate them do you just ignore them </NS8>
<NS7> no i i i my personal opinion is is that somebody has their own ethnical culture rather than try to assimilate forced assimilation let them live their own heritage their own culture let them live their own life er not [what's that] </NS7>
<NS8> [(xx) they can't] do that </NS8>
<NS7> why couldn't [they] </NS7>
<NS8> [like in] this case of russians and i don't know very much about it if they have a russian culture how can they live a russian type culture inside </NS8>
<NS7> it comes down to educating people and the next generations don't teach your kids how to hate so you see the mistakes our grandparents did let's not make those mistakes so you teach the kids not to hate that other kid because he comes from there it starts with the kids </NS7>
<S6> yes er ot- otherwise the hatred can be transferred from parents to the children </S6>
<NS7> i see it in israel [i lived there for ten years] </NS7>
<S6> [vice versa] erm just comment er the er the issue you raised er to me er comparing united states an- and how it treats er the er minority in US and europe here i mean i found er very much difference er because of the nature er of US of capitalist i mean it has , philosophical background we just don't offer anyone just keep everything everything which worthwhile just keep for yourself but don't offer others anything <NS7> yeah </NS7> that's the basic philosophy that US er and those who enjoy the lifestyle of of united states actually practise on my point of view where here in europe you have er for instance er very friendly environment which they wanna share whatever they have with the minorities so the basic nature is different </S6>
<NS7> no [i i think] </NS7>
<S6> [but now] but now i mean in US the situation is improving er because of the pressure from outside of the world , so er i agree with you i agree but er , still there's long way to go i mean in US er when hatred er , you know ethnic differences race issues , and (that's about it) </S6>
<S1> yeah this (interesting) question is er cultures are really and subcultures there are so many of them and that they are very very different i , i think there are differences between er , american some traits in american culture and er and er if there is such as a , or european culture but er and er i'm not sure if er . if europe will be the same in the , i'm i'm i'm very sceptical about since er culture has always certain continuities which are very strong very differing diff- difficult to , to er . think in terms of some assimilation and and also this er we talked about that (some finnish) are russian my understanding is that these er we have kind of , er different russian cultures developing all the time the russian estonians russian lithuanian culture so it it it goes this process goes all all the time and and in culture some er some points like er , for instance you referred to , religion , let's say er , religious attitudes may be very er different not not only , concerning er , different religions but er but within the same religion so to say for instance er typical er , of course @@ it's a bit dangerous to talk about that something is very typical but but er , let's say going in churches to compare in in in finland and in in some small parishes in in the US where there is a that parish is about 100 members and they have their own church and there is the label that minister by the name that or that will welcome you today and compare with it , like er in finland finland the , evangelical lutheran church and er , which is a kind of state church and and which is a highly institutionalised and not so much about the community like like often it's a kind of small community and in so these differences they are , important but anyway if at this point if we er focus on the question of security we are talking about security er we see that er estonia the ba- case of baltic states is er i think it's a good example of er and in a way from academic viewpoint we could consider it as a test case of a broad security in it's very interesting , since we have all these different levels state er state level state relations , we have er this er , process of european integration how it er , how it can be understood on the regional level we have some regionalising tendencies going on there at the same time and then we have the interdependence of between the state level policies and and like this minority majority er problem highlights we have this this question that er , civic security interdependence between civic security and state security is a , is a delicate case in in in the baltic states , and then we have still one one more thing and referring to theories of er so where is my map again , theories of er . security community for instance and on the ot- other hand if we take a realist perspective and think of the er . possibility that , everything what is er going on in er in european relations inter-european can be explained also from , some power-political perspective , so , the baltic baltic case is er ex- really good example where security community is er enhanced , it's moving to the east and it it's deepened but , we are in an interface and this concerns also also finland and er but er the starting points is er of course very different so . the big question is , can , the security community be en- enhanced so that it also includes , russia in a long run , or is it maybe a better to s- , is is the realist perspective , can we still explain by that that perspective that , that this is now the limit and we have more we have both ingredients here actually . we have both , if we think that er let's think er think about policies of of the baltic states , er . they still often underline and at beginning they underline even more that they want real hard military protection in the new sit- situation , against russia against russians or russia , which er to their understanding , could be only military by nature , that , so there were there were no questions of interdependence in in in some future , but on the oth- on the other hand er er (they need it) and that's why they really underline their military security at the beginning , but now er during their first ten years of regained independence i think they have er changed their perceptions (xx) this military security is still important and this concerns also some other states central eastern european states , military security is still important but er , also this other kinds of security have , drawn , im- im- importance into agenda , and er there seem to be some trade-offs between military security and , non-military securities economic political and social . since er this minority majority er problems typically , they are not much about military security . at the beginning there was of course er for instance in estonia very strong perception that er , that er for instance pensioners from from the former soviet military , they are a kind of fifth column there which would er use the the opportunity and would be kind of spearhead of er , of russia in case the some conservative backlash government get into power so er </S1>
<SU> how did they do </SU>
<S1> they were ac- actually they made agreement between er president yeltsin and er estonia about their status er status of those pensioners and yeah actually they were very young pensioners so and er so they they were er . many of many of them moved out but er but er many of them were allow- allowed to stay and er actually russia paid er continued to pay their pensions and so , and er another thing that is that er today they are not afraid in estonia so much as in the beginning (xx) and it i think this also points to changes in in perceptions , so er , since this civic security question is very much non-military question but on the other hand both EU and NATO countries press on , solving that problem , it also has er had some effect on , on how they understand (military) , having a military security but understandings of military security are ch- are changing also elsewhere not only . in , the baltic states , military security is hardly it is changing from er the tradi- traditional notion that er that it is about defence and offence in some eventuality of er or some major foreign power attacking you and you try to deter it et cetera but it's i- interesting que- case now if we go back to these institutions and er think of er EU and er NATO , the accession of of this countries to these organisations so er it's interesting question how , er . is it really possible that er , that er the perception (xx) perceptions of the baltic states will change when they get into NATO so much that that they will have a same kind of (xx) perceptions like western european states so far we are in in such a situation , that actually er , there are major differences between (xx) perceptions of central and eastern european states and western european states . and now we also come to the question that , and recalling the er first presentation we come to the question that if er NATO will be enlarged to include now maybe in future 28 countries maybe after that ukraine or something maybe even even russia in in some future , er what will be then really the role of NATO . we have already , or at least many many er many scholars today have that opinion that NATO is in a way weak when military security will be less and less important maybe general of course this is very much dependent that you cannot any er rational er arguments construct russia as the military other for NATO and certainly some global terrorism is is not comparable , it's too er global terrorism is is too diverse , for that purpose it's not a such concentrated enemy adversary it's too abstract when you to- talk about some al quaida or some organisation situation is different </S1>
<NS7> it's not a country </NS7>
<S1> yeah yeah if you talk some phenomena like global terrorism it's it's not a a social group which you can construct clearly enough , so er if NATO er in in this way weakens or changes to be a poli- more political organisation as was presented here how much we can anymore think in terms of nuclear guarantees or things like that already much scepticism er has been presented at even these first steps practically mean that if there would be of course these are interdependent question if there would be a major single er threat somewhere , it's very probable that , that er such an enlarged NATO would not be able to decide on , on using er its article five in , in any practical military sense or threaten by nuclear weapons for instance if w- so er , and and this is interesting question right now since there is much talk i i was in a , last monday i was in a seminar in in turku and there was much talk about the er northern dimension of the european union , and also at the same time about NATO developments how how they are , how they relate to each , each other , and certainly there is er much scepticism that er we are already now in in a certain situation where , er . NATO has lost much of its im- importance and er united states for instance in its own strategy er likes to make coalitions or so-called coalitions of the willing , so er , and it has alrea- already been used as an argument that there is no point for for instance for finland to join to NATO since NATO is , will be less and less important in the future compared with EU and this development goes along with the diminishing importance of of military security militarism sense all the time , but er that's only one , one way to think about NATO's future and EU's future and certainly it's er as long as er , of course as long as er , different states er construct er their threats so that they they consider that russia maybe an (evil) threat or something like that it's er very obvious that they would like to get into NATO but then it's not only a question about security , and and that's the other point it's kind of question belonging to a group , belonging to er like-minded so to say , and that is very much i think concerns the baltic states they really want to er <S5> (belong) </S5> yeah yeah kind of yeah . erm this er kaliningrad is er i think it's very central problem , in the whole baltic sea region it will be soon surrounded by EU states NATO states probably , and er , right now we have two very different perceptions i think which effect on european policies , this that perception that er , understands that it is a kind of cold war legacy kind of remnant from from the cold war and and i think in your presentation you also put forward this er , really kind of militarist strategic argument , but that's only one way i er i (xx) this , this picture has been drawn in finnish only but actually this is a ten this is ten years old and this er points to some military strategic factors in in the north and er , it's still very much up-to-date this is about ten years old , in in that sense that er the strategic factors here like sea lines or communication surveillance defence er protection of a base area defence of of st st petersburg and er and defence of these er (straights) here , and these er circles they er present areas which are strategically important for example an effect on policies so the er military strategic argument goes so that er if there would be still a confrontation between er let's say call it the west and russians (xx) er now that the baltic seas will be the future i- it's a kind of NATO sea , formerly it was a soviet sea in in military terms er and here is the kaliningrad exclave in the changed situation it would mean that these er sea lines of communication will be more important to russia , so that er it would try to er keep kaliningrad and try to keep its er influence , and , in theory , and it this also underlines er let's say some military strategic points like who has the åland islands , demilitarised åland islands which belong to finland but finland is er according to international agreements obliged to be there first if necessary militarily and er , russia is certainly very much interest about also this er how it can reach kaliningrad from belarus to lithuania but this is purely military thinking but but this has still some effect , and these question marks points to these uncertainties who controls these areas who controls baltic sea who controls actually er the areas of the baltic states will NATO be there more effectively enough but that perception is er . is only only secondary to to the second perception in the it is the question , how the kaliningrad area is will be viably integrated to regional or or european economies , now what is its er economic importance possibly to its neighbours , and how it could be developed , will it be taken to er common development of of the whole baltic sea region or is it left out as an exclave where lot of social security and other problems exist as there are actually today which will would be more beneficial to let's say to lithuania poland et cetera . i think the- these er two perceptions they contradict somewhat each other all the time still even though this is not such a military base anymore like it used to be in the cold war time , so it's very understandable that er the approach has been er to the kaliningrad problem has been more non-military than military , it means that er for instance er in in such a political programme like the northern dimension of the EU kaliningrad is is one of the most important points , this has been addressed in in the action plan for instance (xx) , the current action plan of northern dimension </S1>
<NS7> what do you see happening there from your experience </NS7>
<S1> certainly it's very difficult to predict but er and it will certain- it will take time but er , if there would be if the- if there would be no let's say any er major . backlashes between er russian and er EU relations in the future if er , at the poi- at present it's very much a question of will putin survive so to say @@ in since there's the situation er is is that actually putin's new er european oriented policy doesn't have a very strong support , and and that's the question but if er if the development there would would be like this so my understanding is that kaliningrad has several opportunities to develop , more rapidly economically than many other parts of russia , certainly the st petersburg area is is a strong one in this sense it has a lot of potential but compared with many other parts of russia and i think this very much relates to . to these er , sub-regional opportunities today , okay er any other questions or points you like to discuss here </S1>
<S6> yes er <S1> [yeah] </S1> [sir] <COUGH> do you do you think that baltic states will change their mind er because putin's er new european oriented policy and the er weakening of military er from NATO for instance er the structure and policies so do you think from that respect they will change their policy of seeking member NATO membership to neutrality for instance </S6>
<S1> no i don't i i think that er <COUGH> , their efforts to <S6> mhm-hm </S6> get into NATO is er they are so strong and al- already so deeply rooted in their policies that er in spite that NATO is changing all the time to be a less about military security i think they will continue beca- to get that membership because it's kind of er , it's a kind of image image problem for them all the time for the baltic states , much more than er for instance to finland finland i think er the resistance of NATO membership is in finland is also an much an image question <S6> mhm </S6> @in in@ (some) but but it it's very much related to , certainly to political culture and traditions er the same as partly the same as in in in sweden in this sense but er , but on the other hand er since er finland er of course er having different history must be very self-reliant on on its own defence and also er the experience of the second world war in finland was very much that finland can or that finland has to be er sceptical of any outside help so i i think many finns would like to continue to ta- talk about independent defence and maintain er certain military structures even in case that they somehow would er <S6> try </S6> get into NATO <S6> yeah yeah </S6> that's interesting it is a question of political culture . but er it's very difficult to predict er when the baltic states for instance would be at present NATO members i my understanding is that central and eastern european states in general there is much er optimism that it will happen soon but , we will see it's a difficult question all the time when some organisation takes new members er . since someone some some countries obviously will be usually left out , and then there is the next group of countries waiting and it's all all the time er the divis- division to those who have and to tho- those who don't have to so it's a , it's a problem . well any other from this , i think we again come back i i have some er points about regionalism in general and er northern dimension which i like to present during the last session , but er , the next i think we can take a short break if you are not totally tired to continue and er then i i'll like to continue about 20 25 minutes i have one , small program which i like to , use this point . okay let's have a short break and , and then </S1>
