Alexander Stubb (NCP) and Pekka Haavisto (Indpendent/Green) will face each other in a second round run-off on February 11 to decide who Finland's next president will be.
It hasn't been very easy to discern significant differences between the top two candidates' foreign and security policy stances. But there are some areas where the two contrast, particularly concerning Åland's demilitarisation, nuclear weapons on Finnish soil and gender-neutral conscription.
Haavisto provided his election compass responses in English, whereas Stubb's comments are translated from Finnish.
Finland should allow nuclear weapons in its territory.
When it comes to nuclear weapons on Finnish soil, there is a clear difference between the candidates.
Haavisto: No
The alliance has no need to move its nuclear weapons from their permanent storages. As a border country of Nato Finland will not be a placement option for nuclear weapons. The starting point for both the Nato negotiations of Finland and the so called DCA agreement of defense cooperation with the USA is that the current Finnish legislation on nuclear energy is applied. Section 4 of the law states the following: "The importation of nuclear explosives as well as their manufacture, possession and detonation in Finland is prohibited." However, as a full member of Nato, Finland must participate in working groups and exercises concerning Nato's policy on nuclear weapons. Nato's stated goal is also a world free of nuclear weapons, but this can only be achieved in a way where everyone takes simultaneous steps in the right direction. Finland must continue to be an active member of the UN Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which prevents the spread of nuclear weapons.
Stubb: Yes
Nuclear deterrence is a central part of the preventive protection that Nato also offers Finland. In my opinion, we should not preclude any part of it. We didn't issue any conditions when joining Nato. In my opinion, we should be a full and equal member country. The transportiation [of nuclear weapons] through Finland does not imply permanent deployment.
All young people should be liable for conscription, regardless of gender.
Haavisto: Yes
In Finland, all citizens are obligated to defend the country, but only men are obligated to serve in the armed forces. Providing full-scale military training to the entire age group would require considerable additional resources for the Defense Forces. I would consider it a good step to organize a training period for the entire age group through joint invitations, which would include, for example, civil protection and first aid training. We know how important such skills are in conflicts.
Stubb: No
I recognise the need for reforms and wishes related to the conscription system. At the same time, maintaining the current wartime personnel capacity does not require a larger number of conscripts. There are currently no facilities, equipment, or funds for it either. Transitioning to gender-neutral service without other significant changes would actually mean transitioning to selective service. In that case, something valuable would be lost: everyone serves in the same ranks regardless of background. I am open to discussing the development of conscription, but the discussion must progress slowly and calmly, taking into account broader societal needs and impacts. Women's participation in voluntary armed defense could initially be promoted by expanding call-ups to include everyone. This way, the information about the opportunity would reach more and more women, encouraging more to apply. It's about progressing one step at a time.
Finland should station troops in Åland.
Regarding the question of whether Finland should base soldiers in the Åland Islands, Pekka Haavisto said no, while Alexander Stubb did not provide a clear-cut answer.
Haavisto: No
When I led the Finnish delegation at the Nato membership negotiations in Brussels, our delegation also included a representative of Åland. Nato was informed about the international agreements concerning Åland, and they are taken into account in the defense planning of Åland. The defense of Åland must be a central part of Nato's defense planning, and the demilitarization creates its own challenge for this. No security solutions concerning the Åland Islands can be made without discussing with the people in the area. If Åland's status would be changed, the solutions should have local support. President Niinistö has brought up the perspective of international law in the questions concerning Åland. It is important that Finland complies with international agreements in its own operations.
Stubb: -
The matter of demilitarising Åland cannot be simplified into a yes-or-no answer. Demilitarisation is part of an international legal framework, that reaches beyond whether Finland wants to change the current situation at this particular moment in time or not. During our Nato membership process, Åland's status did not pose any problem for our allies, and Finland has no immediate need to make it a problem. Issues like this are not resolved by following current trends, but through careful consideration and in close cooperation with our western partners. Of course, we can discuss removing Åland's demilitarised status, but these debates must be conducted calmly, in collaboration with Åland residents as well as our allies.
This week Yle News' All Points North podcast caught up with both candidates on the campaign trail.
Listen to the episode via this embedded player, on Yle Areena, via Apple, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts.
Users with an Yle ID can leave comments on our news stories. You can create your Yle ID via this link. Our guidelines on commenting and moderation are explained here.