Conscription is a cancer. Defence policy is on Europe’s minds given events in Ukraine, the Middle East and the South China Sea. There is much we need to do – but forced military conscription is not the answer. It represents an appalling and unacceptable abandonment of our most basic civil liberties, for very little strategic military benefit. European nations must resist the urge to impose conscription policies.
Sadly, Finland already has compulsory conscription for men. A new citizens’ initiative in Finland proposes reforming the national defence system to include women in the mandatory draft. If implemented, women would also be required to undergo the same 6- or 12-month army service currently required of men. Otherwise, they would have to participate in an alternative service of almost twice the length of conscription.
While this may appear at first glance a step towards equality, the proposal merely extends the flawed policy of conscription to another innocent group. Such conscription reform would impose additional burdens on even more individuals and further squander scarce military resources on training inexperienced reservists, ultimately making all citizens less safe.
Conscription is a tax on men. Gender is the sole determinant of why half of the population in many European countries has an additional year of their young life to spend in freedom and comfort, while the other half is forced to crawl in the mud, endure gruelling physical training, march for miles with thirty-kilo backpacks, and follow strict military regimens against their will. Conscription is a rare instance of unapologetic, straightforward, institutionalised gender-based discrimination.
Economists universally agree conscription is the worst of the taxes one can suffer. It brings the largest possible distortion to the labour market. Young men are trapped for a year of their existence in a hostile military environment. Their career and personal life are put on hold. The army isolates them away from their loved ones. They are brought to the absolute limits of exertion.
Why not then equalise the military duty, just as Finland might? Force men and women into the military barracks alike? The citizen’s initiative in the Nordic country is titled “kaikkien velvollisuus” – everyone’s duty. If some ethereal obligation to defend the country exists, it cannot possibly pertain to one gender only. Conscription of women seems irresistible from the viewpoint of equal rights.
Yet the problem lies in that very central notion. Conscription is not a duty. Conscription is an assault on the freedom of the young. It is a grim relic of despotic rule masquerading as civic responsibility. The draft robs the youth of their most precious years under the guise of national needs. It twists the relationship between citizen and state, making rights seem like state-given gifts, bought at the cost of young lives. By this distorted reasoning, human rights are seen as conditional. The truth, however, is quite the opposite: the government’s job is to protect these rights, not to demand a life in exchange for them.
Ideally, all young Finns would be excluded from the compulsory draft. But if that’s not possible, it is still better to exclude women. That way, at least we save half from the sacrifice. Anyone saved from conscription is a victory. If I could successfully lobby for the exclusion of the left-handed from obligatory military service, I would.
If, as in Georgia, there were religious exemptions from the draft, where a libertarian party created its own church specifically to allow thousands of men to avoid service, these exemptions should remain, even if they appear unequal. Women should be exempt not because of their gender, but because they are individuals deserving of freedom.
Drafting women into the military would only further worsen the distortions and waste already rampant in conscript armies. A prime example comes from Israel, where both genders are conscripted into the military. Boaz Arad, co-founder of The Israeli Freedom Movement points out mass conscription results in conscripts filling “non-essential positions like entertainment. Young men and women are conscripted into the military and, literally, end up doing magic tricks or singing as part of their military duty.”
Legitimate military training is extremely costly. Firing ammunition rounds, operating expensive equipment, and countless hours of specialised lectures from top military experts is an expensive venture. No wonder conscript armies focus their efforts on instilling the skill of conducting menial tasks such as tightening bed linen, polishing boots, marching in step or orienteering in the wilderness, while they remain unprepared for warfare.
Expanding the conscript ranks would further magnify the problem at hand. Fictional trainings and duties would come to pass, just like in Israel. They would be of little value if war came, but until that day, politicians would be able to boast of expanding on-paper army reserves. The funds available for training a single conscript would dwindle further. The result? Army standards go down the drain, ultimately making Europe less safe.
Women should be free to pursue their lives unburdened by government decrees and the army regiment. They should be paid liveable market wages for spending a year preparing to defend the country. They should be incentivised with good conditions of service, work flexibility and opportunities for career advancement, not threatened with prison sentences. They should voluntarily join the military. Hopefully, one day, all young people will have the same opportunity to live free of conscription.
