Conscription debate going forward?
Earlier this year, the youth organization for the National Coalition (referred to as "the organization" from now on) gave a statement, saying that conscription needs to be updated for today's society and that the government should start the process during this election cycle. While one organization giving statements like this might not seem like such a big deal, there are a couple of reasons why this might be significant in the future.
For one, making changes to conscription or abolishing it has mostly been an issue talked about by the political left. The National Coalition on the other hand is basically a center-right party, meaning these statements are coming from the other side of the political spectrum. It's also one of the largest parties in the country, currently holding the second highest number of seats in parliament and is one of the three parties forming the governing coalition. Also, this statement is coming from the party's youth organization, essentially meaning the party's future leadership and representatives in all levels of the political system. Keep in mind, this party has in the past been very hesitant on making changes on conscription. For example, their former leader Alexander Stubb, has stated that even though conscription only applies to men, he doesn't see it as discriminatory because it's a "tradition". On the other hand, the man is know as a vocal supporter of LGBT-rights and has claimed to support gender equality. Again, this kinda shows you the hypocrisy surrounding this discussion.
Now, in fairness, I have to point out that there really isn't that much specific information about the proposed model. This is because of the fact the organization simply gave a statement on what they would like for the government to do. In other words, the source material I have for this is the initial statement and some interviews the organizations leader Henrik Vuornos has given, meaning, a lot of this will simply be speculation on possible problems.
That being said, what is the organisation suggesting? Well, essentially their idea is to replace the current men's only mandatory system with a gender neutral selective service. The plans call for about 25 000 conscripts to be trained each year, which would mean a slight increase from the current situation. Those exempt from service would have to pay a compensational tax to pay for some of the hidden costs conscription has. Basically the idea is that by expanding the draft to include women, the number of people theoretically ready to serve would double. From there, the military could choose the best people for specific tasks based on their motivation to serve and other personal aspects. This means that at least theoretically, there would be no need to force somebody into service, because possible conscientious objectors and people who simply aren't motivated to serve for other reasons could be given exemptions before their service starts. In other words, the plan would solve all the human rights problems I've talked about in past posts on this topic, while simultaneously keeping the number of trained troops roughly the same they currently are, plus the compensational tax would limit the negative effects conscription has for the economy. So, everything would be fine, right? No, it wouldn't. And here's why.
I've already mentioned that the whole Finnish national defense is based on reservists. The idea is that conscripts train to perform a specific task during their service, after which, they remain a part of the reserves until the age of 50 or 60 depending on their rank. From there, they can be called up for refreshment training during times of peace or to fight during times of war. The problem here is that while the official plans call for 280 000 reservists to be called up to fight if needed, there are around 900 000 trained reservists in total, who are theoretically ready to be called up. In other words, the system currently in use, roughly trains three times the number of troops than would be needed in any practical situation. Essentially, the military is wasting money to train a massive reserve, even though they don't have any use for 2/3 of them, even if they had to fight. The model proposed would not do anything to solve this clear problem.
Now, I've seen people argue that the military having a massive reserve is not a problem because it acts as a deterrent. The problem with this argument is that apart from not having any use for the majority of their reserves, the military doesn't have necessary resources for the upkeep of this massive force either. Good example of this is the fact that even though reservist can be called up for refreshment training, a large percentage of them will never be called up. Essentially this translates to the military not being able to keep the skills of their soldiers up to date. Keep this in mind, when you realize that people who finished their service 30 years ago are still part of the reserves. How much has military technology developed during that time? Not only that, but in recent years the military has made changes to it's fighting style. Apart from having problems with keeping their soldiers' skills up to date, the military doesn't have enough resources to properly equip them. Pretty much anybody after the initial 280 000, would be given outdated equipment, meaning a drop in their effectiveness. So, how much of a deterrent is it really? Wouldn't it make sense to have a smaller force, which you could more easily train after finishing their initial service? That way you could keep their skills up to date. The military could also more easily equip them with the latest of military technology.
Another problems is with the compensational tax. Similar system is currently in place in Switzerland. In 2009, the European Court of Human Rights made a decision regarding a Swiss man who was exempt from service due to medical reason despite willingness to serve. You see, in Switzerland some handicapped people are exempt from paying the tax or only pay reduced tax. The man in question filed a complaint to the court on discrimination, over the criteria upon which decides whether or not you have to pay the competional tax. The court ruled in favor of the man, calling the criteria discriminatory. This could be the case in Finland if the proposed model is put to use. To be fair, I don't know what criteria the proposed model would use to decide who would have to pay the tax. There is a possibility that everything will be done correctly and there would be no discrimination here. The problem is that there is nothing specific on this.
Now, while the proposed system would theoretically solve the problems the current system has with the treatment of conscientious objectors, there are still some problems with this. In an interview the organizations leader Henrik Vuornos gave to Helsingin Sanomat, the largest news paper in the country, heated that unlike some thought, the compensational tax would not be a way to buy your way out service. He also said that you could not refuse service if you were called up. Problem here is that even with this system, you would have to make sure the rights of conscientious objectors are respected. As I've mentioned in past posts, the right to conscientious objection is based on freedom of conscience. Countries like Norway and Sweden both have similar systems to the proposed one in place. The main difference here is the number of troops trained every year. For example, Sweden only trains around 4000 troops every year, meaning it's very unlikely for somebody to be forced into service against their will. Norway trains around the same number, plus, they don't have any kind of alternative service or punishments for refusing service. As I mentioned before, the proposed system would train about 25 000 troops a year. Basically, this means that the possibility of somebody who might want to refuse service on moral grounds to be forced into service is much higher than in Sweden and Norway. So, how will the proposed system deal with this? Will they keep some kind of an alternative service we have now? Will everybody who declare moral objection for serving be automatically exempt? At the moment there is no specific proposals on how to deal with this.
Even though the proposed system would be better than the current one in many ways, I still don't see it as good enough to fully support it. While it would practically solve the current systems human rights violations, it's doesn't address other problems the current system has. The blatantly excessive training of troops would still continue. This means a continued waste of resources on training three times the number of troops than realistically needed. While the compensational tax would help reduce the negative economic effects conscription has, it could turn into a another form of discrimination based on the criteria used to apply the tax on specific people.
Follow me on Twitter
My other posts on conscription.
Part one: General information
Part two: Discussion and some proposed alternatives
Part three: Recruitment
Part four: Reserve objectors
Conscription and the recent election
Butthurt responses to my comments
For one, making changes to conscription or abolishing it has mostly been an issue talked about by the political left. The National Coalition on the other hand is basically a center-right party, meaning these statements are coming from the other side of the political spectrum. It's also one of the largest parties in the country, currently holding the second highest number of seats in parliament and is one of the three parties forming the governing coalition. Also, this statement is coming from the party's youth organization, essentially meaning the party's future leadership and representatives in all levels of the political system. Keep in mind, this party has in the past been very hesitant on making changes on conscription. For example, their former leader Alexander Stubb, has stated that even though conscription only applies to men, he doesn't see it as discriminatory because it's a "tradition". On the other hand, the man is know as a vocal supporter of LGBT-rights and has claimed to support gender equality. Again, this kinda shows you the hypocrisy surrounding this discussion.
Now, in fairness, I have to point out that there really isn't that much specific information about the proposed model. This is because of the fact the organization simply gave a statement on what they would like for the government to do. In other words, the source material I have for this is the initial statement and some interviews the organizations leader Henrik Vuornos has given, meaning, a lot of this will simply be speculation on possible problems.
That being said, what is the organisation suggesting? Well, essentially their idea is to replace the current men's only mandatory system with a gender neutral selective service. The plans call for about 25 000 conscripts to be trained each year, which would mean a slight increase from the current situation. Those exempt from service would have to pay a compensational tax to pay for some of the hidden costs conscription has. Basically the idea is that by expanding the draft to include women, the number of people theoretically ready to serve would double. From there, the military could choose the best people for specific tasks based on their motivation to serve and other personal aspects. This means that at least theoretically, there would be no need to force somebody into service, because possible conscientious objectors and people who simply aren't motivated to serve for other reasons could be given exemptions before their service starts. In other words, the plan would solve all the human rights problems I've talked about in past posts on this topic, while simultaneously keeping the number of trained troops roughly the same they currently are, plus the compensational tax would limit the negative effects conscription has for the economy. So, everything would be fine, right? No, it wouldn't. And here's why.
I've already mentioned that the whole Finnish national defense is based on reservists. The idea is that conscripts train to perform a specific task during their service, after which, they remain a part of the reserves until the age of 50 or 60 depending on their rank. From there, they can be called up for refreshment training during times of peace or to fight during times of war. The problem here is that while the official plans call for 280 000 reservists to be called up to fight if needed, there are around 900 000 trained reservists in total, who are theoretically ready to be called up. In other words, the system currently in use, roughly trains three times the number of troops than would be needed in any practical situation. Essentially, the military is wasting money to train a massive reserve, even though they don't have any use for 2/3 of them, even if they had to fight. The model proposed would not do anything to solve this clear problem.
Now, I've seen people argue that the military having a massive reserve is not a problem because it acts as a deterrent. The problem with this argument is that apart from not having any use for the majority of their reserves, the military doesn't have necessary resources for the upkeep of this massive force either. Good example of this is the fact that even though reservist can be called up for refreshment training, a large percentage of them will never be called up. Essentially this translates to the military not being able to keep the skills of their soldiers up to date. Keep this in mind, when you realize that people who finished their service 30 years ago are still part of the reserves. How much has military technology developed during that time? Not only that, but in recent years the military has made changes to it's fighting style. Apart from having problems with keeping their soldiers' skills up to date, the military doesn't have enough resources to properly equip them. Pretty much anybody after the initial 280 000, would be given outdated equipment, meaning a drop in their effectiveness. So, how much of a deterrent is it really? Wouldn't it make sense to have a smaller force, which you could more easily train after finishing their initial service? That way you could keep their skills up to date. The military could also more easily equip them with the latest of military technology.
Another problems is with the compensational tax. Similar system is currently in place in Switzerland. In 2009, the European Court of Human Rights made a decision regarding a Swiss man who was exempt from service due to medical reason despite willingness to serve. You see, in Switzerland some handicapped people are exempt from paying the tax or only pay reduced tax. The man in question filed a complaint to the court on discrimination, over the criteria upon which decides whether or not you have to pay the competional tax. The court ruled in favor of the man, calling the criteria discriminatory. This could be the case in Finland if the proposed model is put to use. To be fair, I don't know what criteria the proposed model would use to decide who would have to pay the tax. There is a possibility that everything will be done correctly and there would be no discrimination here. The problem is that there is nothing specific on this.
Now, while the proposed system would theoretically solve the problems the current system has with the treatment of conscientious objectors, there are still some problems with this. In an interview the organizations leader Henrik Vuornos gave to Helsingin Sanomat, the largest news paper in the country, heated that unlike some thought, the compensational tax would not be a way to buy your way out service. He also said that you could not refuse service if you were called up. Problem here is that even with this system, you would have to make sure the rights of conscientious objectors are respected. As I've mentioned in past posts, the right to conscientious objection is based on freedom of conscience. Countries like Norway and Sweden both have similar systems to the proposed one in place. The main difference here is the number of troops trained every year. For example, Sweden only trains around 4000 troops every year, meaning it's very unlikely for somebody to be forced into service against their will. Norway trains around the same number, plus, they don't have any kind of alternative service or punishments for refusing service. As I mentioned before, the proposed system would train about 25 000 troops a year. Basically, this means that the possibility of somebody who might want to refuse service on moral grounds to be forced into service is much higher than in Sweden and Norway. So, how will the proposed system deal with this? Will they keep some kind of an alternative service we have now? Will everybody who declare moral objection for serving be automatically exempt? At the moment there is no specific proposals on how to deal with this.
Even though the proposed system would be better than the current one in many ways, I still don't see it as good enough to fully support it. While it would practically solve the current systems human rights violations, it's doesn't address other problems the current system has. The blatantly excessive training of troops would still continue. This means a continued waste of resources on training three times the number of troops than realistically needed. While the compensational tax would help reduce the negative economic effects conscription has, it could turn into a another form of discrimination based on the criteria used to apply the tax on specific people.
Follow me on Twitter
My other posts on conscription.
Part one: General information
Part two: Discussion and some proposed alternatives
Part three: Recruitment
Part four: Reserve objectors
Conscription and the recent election
Butthurt responses to my comments
Kommentit
Lähetä kommentti