Participation in international crisis management has been an instrumental part of Finland’s foreign and security policy since it first sent peacekeeping troops to the Suez Canal in 1956.(1) Specifically, international crisis management has served as a means to bridge Finland’s diverse and, at times, competing foreign and security policy aims and needs, connected to its state identity as a benevolent contributor to the international rules-based order on the one hand and its pragmatic national interests and objectives on the other hand.(2) During the Cold War, UN peacekeeping offered a pathway to manifest and strengthen Finland’s self-perception as a neutral peacekeeper and an active contributor to international peace and security. Finland saw – and still sees – itself as a physician rather than a judge.(3) Since the end of the Cold War, after joining the EU and fostering partnerships with NATO, international crisis management has served as a critical avenue to strengthen international foreign and security policy partnerships while remaining formally militarily non-aligned.(4) Simultaneously, crisis management has contributed to interoperability and the armed forces’ peace-time capability and practice accumulation, which is seen to ultimately serve national defence readiness.(5)
As a NATO member, Finland’s contribution to the Alliance’s security practices and international crisis management efforts is best viewed through the lens of instrumental value. Participation in crisis management serves to both reconstruct and reflect Finland’s international identity, as well as gradually introduce necessary adjustments (to it) amid shifts in the strategic environment. This can generate added value for the Alliance in the form of a committed and constructive ally to whom participation in joint efforts serves a valuable purpose as a small (allied) state.
