Ville-Pekka Niskanen & Petri Uusikylä
The ”Safer Together” report by former Finnish President Sauli Niinistö to the European Commission suggests a whole-of-society and all-hazards approach for Europe to prepare for various crises, from natural disasters to military conflicts. The idea is that society is better prepared and can withstand more serious blows if all societal actors are better prepared.
The benefits of preparedness by a variety of actors are twofold. First, as individual citizens and the organizations that consist of them are better prepared, the state and entire society are better prepared too. Second, as more citizens are better prepared for potential crises, this saves the authorities’ resources to assist those who are less prepared or otherwise in need.
The Niinistö report suggests broadening the EU mandate to include security and takes a further step in recognizing the importance of civil society and non-military societal functions in societal security. Traditionally, the EU’s mandate has been viewed as extending more to single market-related issues, while NATO has been seen as the EU’s unofficial but close hard security arm.
Indeed, there seems to be a broader push in various European countries towards a more comprehensive view of security, and thus, the Niinistö report can also be viewed as a reflection of ongoing discussions over security in various European contexts.
Insights from the Protecting Our Citizens Conference in Kraków, Poland
Such themes were echoed by participants and speakers of the recent Protecting Our Citizens: Comparative Insights into European Civil Defence Systems conference in Kraków, Poland, on December 5–6, 2024, where the authors of this blog post also participated.
However, the push towards comprehensive security perspectives does not mean that authorities have lost their roles. As Dr. Agata Mazurkiewicz noted in her keynote at the conference, approaches to the role of citizens in producing can be described through two models. Citizens as referent objects refers to the citizens as objects of authorities’ protection actions, while citizens as security contributors views them as active security actors who can contribute to societal security.
The reality is an amalgam of both. However, the openness of democracies emphasises the importance of the latter perspective. Still, in serious crises it is the authorities who bear the final responsibility for ensuring that citizens are kept safe. Thus, ensuring security in an open society requires the inclusion and acknowledgment of citizen agency, bearing in mind the role of authorities as providers of last-resort security.
Towards a General Understanding of Comprehensive Security and Preparedness
The endeavours related to security are inherently complex due to the abstract nature of the concept itself, making it difficult to measure and observe directly. It is, in part, a personal sentiment that becomes evident each day when adverse events are prevented and potential threats do not come to fruition. As stated in the report by President Niinistö, ”We need preparedness and strength not to wage war, but to maintain peace.”
The multiplicity of security-related concepts and different ways of talking about how we should produce security does not assist with a common understanding of security. The Niinistö report introduces yet another security concept: comprehensive preparedness.
Different concepts that describe the comprehensive, systemic, and whole-of-government or whole-of-society approaches to security all describe, in principle, the collaborative nature of producing and ensuring security in democracies. Collaborating and acting together, with all potential conflicts and attempts to reconcile and solve them included, is the approach most suited to open, democratic, and pluralist societies.
We have in our earlier research distinguished between three types of security concepts:
- Comprehensive Security Concepts: Normative concepts describing how security should be a result of various actors’ common actions. Examples include comprehensive security and societal security. The Niinistö report’s comprehensive preparedness concept falls into this category.
- Mid-Level Security Concepts: Describe how broader goals should be achieved through the collaboration or action of more specific actors. Examples include civil preparedness and civil-military collaboration.
- Specific Security Concepts: Point out the roles of specific authorities or other actors in security work, such as border security, civil defence and rescue services.
The classification of concepts is significant for comprehending the diverse concepts employed in the discourse surrounding societal security efforts, as well as for recognising their shared attributes and distinctions. Comprehensive concepts typically outline the organisation or importance of collaborative security work, while more specific concepts address the daily responsibilities and actions of various actors whose primary focus is security.
Finland and the EU: Leadership for Comprehensive Security approaches in a Changing World?
The year 2025 has the potential to serve as a significant juncture in the realm of international relations and discussions surrounding European security.
The anticipated rise in geopolitical tensions, the onset of President Trump’s administration, the ongoing situation in Ukraine, and the evolving positions of Russia and China will once more signify the development of a (another) novel equilibrium in the realm of foreign and security policy.
In this delicate situation, the intelligent judgement of the leadership of Finland and the European Union will be carefully considered. Through consistent, calm, and wise actions, and the promotion of the collaborative comprehensive security model, Finland has the potential to transcend its size in the realm of foreign and security policy.
Still, as Tuomas Iso-Markku and Niklas Helwig have noted, introducing pragmatic ideal models of collaborative security work also requires political will to put the models into action.
References
Mazurkiewicz, Agata (2024). Civilian engagement in deterrence and defence: Contemporary models and their implications for security. Keynote at the Protecting Our Citizens: Comparative Insights into European Civil Defence Systems Conference, Institute for Strategic Studies, December 5, 2024, Kraków, Poland.
Niskanen, Ville-Pekka; Uusikylä, Petri; Lonka, Harriet; Ahonen, Pertti; Laitinen, Kari; Tervo, Vesa-Pekka; Ruoslahti, Harri; Huttunen, Petri (2024). Onko siviilivalmiudelle tarvetta Suomessa? Siviilivalmiuden käsite, käyttö ja lisäarvo osana kansallista varautumista. [Is there a need for civil preparedness in Finland? The concept, use and added value of civil preparedness as a part of national preparedness]. Publications of the Government ́s analysis, assessment and research activities 2024:1. Prime Minister’s Office.
Iso-Markku, Tuomas & Helwig, Niklas (2024). The Niinistö report on preparedness: Finland’s lessons for the EU and their limitations. FIIA Comment, November 2024. Finnish Institute of International Affairs.
Kytömaa, Eero & Niskanen, Ville-Pekka (2024). Critical Infrastructure Resilience as a Shared Policy Response of NATO and the EU. In Petri Uusikylä, Harri Jalonen & Annukka Jokipii (Eds.) Information Resilience and Comprehensive Security: Challenges and Complexities in Wicked Environments (p. 75–108). Palgrave Macmillan Cham.
Niinistö, Sauli (2024). Safer Together Strengthening Europe’s Civilian and Military Preparedness and Readiness. Report by Sauli Niinistö, former President of the Republic of Finland, In his capacity as Special Adviser to the President of the European Commission. European Commission.
Authors
M.Sc. Ville-Pekka Niskanen’s research focuses on national preparedness and security governance. He acted as the main author of a research report on the concept of civil preparedness (2023), issued by the Finnish Government’s Analysis, Assessment and Research Activities. Niskanen is finishing his doctoral dissertation on societal crisis governance in Finland during the COVID-19 pandemic.
