It gives me great pleasure to have the opportunity to address this prestigious assembly. As the theme for my presentation I have chosen questions of peace and security and will also examine international cooperation from the Finnish perspective. The development of bilateral relations between Finland and Chile has been the subject of discussion, in relation to both politics and economics, on numerous occasions during my state visit. We are working together in a search for ways to increase our dealings with each other.

Finland and Chile are small states that believe in the power of cooperation and are seeking international partnerships in both the political sphere and trade. I am aware that the Chileans, like ourselves, are patriotic, self-respecting people determined to defend their country. However, we also share the feature that we believe above all in dialogue, exchanging views and solving problems through collective effort. That certainly explains why at the United Nations and also in other contexts Chile has been prepared to support Finnish candidates and proposals, and vice versa.

Our good relations with Chile are of long standing. You gave us diplomatic recognition in 1919, two years after our declaration of independence. Diplomatic relations between us were established in the 1930s. From 1973 to 1990, Finland together with other democratic states and pro-democracy forces in Chile worked for the restoration of civilian rule in your country. Finnish members of parliament and ministers, politicians, the trade-union movement and civic organisations have maintained relations with their Chilean counterparts for over twenty years. Especially the present decade has seen very dynamic development in our economic relations.

When Finland became a member of the European Union at the beginning of 1995, the Union's cooperation with Chile and other Latin American states provided a new foundation on which to expand bilateral cooperation. As early as the beginning of the 1990s, the EU was seeking to create new tools that would enable it gradually to increase its cooperation with South America. The first achievement was the charter, adopted in 1994, setting forth the European Union's relations with the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean. The next major step was the adoption at the EU summit in December 1995 of a set of guidelines for the development of cooperation with Latin American countries over the period 1996-2000. In the same month, the EU and Mercado Común del Sur (MERCOSUR) concluded an outline agreement on cooperation. Soon afterwards, Chile and the EU issued a joint declaration announcing the commencement of a dialogue leading to an agreement to work together towards economic and political union. The agreement has subsequently been signed and Finland was the first country to ratify it.

The natural foundation for cooperation between Finland and the EU, Chile and the countries of Latin America is a common cultural background and shared values, including our conception of the position of the individual and of social order. I believe that you also embrace the principles, important to Finland, of security based on cooperation, which includes building mutual trust and resolving disputes by peaceful means.

In talking to you about how I view questions of peace and security in the present international order, I am naturally looking at them from a Finnish and European perspective. However, my own international career has had more to do with the affairs of the rest of the world than with those of Europe. What unites us all today is the concern that we feel for global security.

The ending of the Cold War has affected what we understand by peace and security. Overshadowing Europe throughout the Cold War period was the threat of a war that would cause total devastation, in other words a nuclear conflict, but in fact the continent managed to live for more than four decades more or less in a state of peace. It is paradoxical and tragic that the collapse of coercive power in the East and a relaxation of confrontation between military alliances brought war back onto European soil. I am, of course, referring to the conflict in former Yugoslavia. The collapse of the Soviet Union likewise led to bloody conflicts in Central Asia and the Caucasus region.

The war in Afghanistan was, in a way, an omen of those conflicts, and it is still being reflected in the instability and Islamic militancy that is affecting the southern parts of the former Soviet Union.

In addition to people becoming victims of ethnic cleansing and having to flee as refugees, disorder is also increasing the technological threats to security that exist in such forms as nuclear power stations and atomic weapons. Environmental destruction and its attendant dangers were brought to our awareness in a new way when the indifference with which the rulers of Eastern Europe had regarded such matters was revealed for all to see. The new Europe found itself in a different kind of uncertainty, which forced us to view security from a broader perspective.

A broad concept of security was introduced into our diplomacy by the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (or CSCE). The signing of its Final Act (also called the Helsinki Accords) in our capital city in 1975 marked the beginning of a further political process. Measures to improve military security and build confidence, along with economic cooperation and promoting human rights and facilitating contacts between people together constituted one totality of the CSCE process.

Today we can say that -differences in interpretations notwithstanding - the approach chosen then helped us to overcome the division of Europe. The "Charter for a New Europe" adopted in Paris in 1990 clarified the principles on which the new community of values is founded. The CSCE eventually became the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (or OSCE) and is now first and foremost an instrument of conflict prevention and post-conflict stabilisation. Although its resources were not sufficient to prevent all of the conflicts that erupted during the recent European period of upheaval, the OSCE is still regarded as fulfilling an important function in the development of a common European security area.

Uncertainty and disorder with all of its attendant phenomena of disintegrating states is, of course, by no means the whole picture in our Europe of the 1990s. In contrast to those aspects, the European Union has made great strides along the road to integration and serves as an example of stable development and a genuine security space. Indeed, the great challenge facing Europe relates to how the Union will be able to project its own stability onto Eastern Europe and also across the Mediterranean to the southern shore of that sea, where another region is causing great concern.

We in Finland have categorised the EU as a peace project. Although membership bestows no guarantee of military security, we are in broad agreement that our national security has been strengthened since we joined just over two years ago. At the core of European integration are those forms of cooperation that build a foundation for mutual dependence and cooperation between the member states. It is no longer conceivable that any resort to force or even unilateral measures would be made in an attempt to resolve disagreements.

The work of the EU is premised on the principles of cooperation and shared responsibility. The scope of that work is gradually being made more comprehensive so as to make the EU a kind of "voice of Europe" in world politics.

The ending of the Cold War in 1989-91 presented European states like Finland with new opportunities for cooperation. Our traditional policy of neutrality had meant an endeavour to avoid becoming involved in great-power conflicts. The European Union's role in promoting cooperation of a different kind has become the key factor in the development of our continent. The Union is obliterating dividing lines and strengthening stability. A "New Europe" is being born.

Transition on several levels will continue for years in Europe. On the one hand, enlargement of the European Union will create a basis for prosperity, the most central prerequisite for security. Secondly, by working together on the political level, we shall endeavour to arrange military security in a way that rules out the possibility of there ever being a new cold war. On 20 and 21 of this month, the presidents of the United States and Russia will meet in our capital Helsinki with that goal in view.

Finland has not belonged to any military alliance. In the present configuration, however, we have been able to increase our cooperation within both NATO-led crisis-management operations and the alliance's Partnership for Peace programme. We shall continue on this course, with an undivided continent, a common European security space, as our goal.

We consider it very important that Russia, struggling as she is with economic difficulties, find a natural and suitable place in this arrangement. In size and resources, Russia is a global power, and her preparedness for cooperation is important for us all. Europe has a particularly big task in this respect. What is involved in the final analysis is making the relationship between the European Union and Russia more comprehensive and closer. As Russia's neighbour, Finland has a historic opportunity here.

The states of Latin America have experienced many vicissitudes in the development of their mutual relations. Although wars have been waged here, you have been spared global conflicts that have laid almost everything in ruins. The aim in working for integration in Europe is to permanently constrain conflicts and preclude the possibility of a new major war. Here, as a community of states of a completely new kind, the European Union has a key role to play.

One of the goals aspired for in the next few years is the establishment of economic and monetary union (EMU), which would include a common currency, the Euro. Companies and banks are preparing to adopt the new currency. It is essential in all circumstances to strive for a stable economy - which is what EMU is intended to achieve - if Europe is to be able to cope with stiffening economic competition.

A new feature of the post-Cold War world is the completely new form of international military cooperation that has developed alongside the forms traditionally engaged in within military alliances or under the auspices of the UN in its peacekeeping role. In this new form of cooperation, alliances and other countries have found each other with fruitful results. The IFOR force in Bosnia has been seen as a model example of this, likewise its present somewhat scaled-down version SFOR.

What is involved here is an expanded peacekeeping role, in which the participating contingents have the capability to use force and generally show greater military activity than UN peacekeeping forces have traditionally been able to. Due to the inadequacy of the UN's ability to handle command and headquarters operations, it is best to leave implementation and leadership of such operations to a military alliance like NATO, which is well-equipped to handle them. From the political perspective, however, it is essential that also countries not belonging to the alliance can participate, as Russia is doing in Bosnia.

Within the NATO Partnership for Peace framework, virtually all of the states belonging to the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe have been able to take part in planning and executing joint operations of this kind. Finland is participating in both the work of the Partnership for Peace and the IFOR/SFOR operation.

We have long experience of UN peacekeeping tasks. Therefore it is natural for us to participate in the new-type operations as well. We are not, however, willing to take part in actual peace enforcement, in which military measures are employed to compel a recalcitrant state to comply with, for example, a resolution of the UN Security Council, as happened in the Gulf.

Democracy and respect for human rights are also a guarantee that security and peace have been ensured within a nation. When they have, there are established political ways of dealing with conflicts and those who hold dissenting views need not fear for their freedom.

I believe that when I speak of human rights and civic freedoms I am touching on matters whose importance you Chileans know well from your own experience. In the same conjunction, I would like to express my delight at the process of democratisation in progress throughout Latin America; it has been one of the most significant phenomena on the international scene in recent years.

For many years, Central America was a region of conflicts that caused great suffering. Nicaragua has now embarked on the road of democratic power transfers and, most recently, a peace that one hopes will be a lasting one has been achieved in Guatemala. Let us hope that recent events in Peru will prove to have been a unique deviation from a trend of positive development. There can be no justification for terrorist acts against foreign diplomats nor for terror at all, irrespective of what goals are hoped to be achieved by means of it.

Recent years have seen big steps forward in economic integration in Latin America. Regional trade is often on a healthier footing than traditional North-South relations. MERCOSUR has become a dialogue partner for the European Union. Europe, in turn, has a lot of experience of developing integration. Considering how much you have in common in the cultural and linguistic senses, Latin America would seem to have excellent prerequisites for successful integration. That, of course, is the view from Finland, and it must be admitted that from such a distance national differences and special features tend to be obscured.

An aspect of North-South relations that we consider important is the development of so-called South-South links. The EU emphasises that aspect in its relations with countries on the southern shore of the Mediterranean. It is important that they do not just look separately to the North, but instead try to promote mutual economic relations as well.

In this hemisphere, the North usually means the United States. There is NAFTA, in which Chile is interested, but also here it is surely of paramount importance that MERCOSUR and other regional cooperation structures are strengthened at the same time. Chile also has the perspective of a country on the Pacific Rim, which after all is the most dynamic growth area in the world economy. Thus one can see that Chile's place on the world map is within an excellent global network of links.

However, I did not come here to speak to you as an expert on Latin America nor to give you advice; I am here to outline to you the Finnish and European perspective on international peace and security.

I have extensive experience of the United Nations. The Charter states specifically that the Security Council is responsible for the maintenance of international peace and security. Agreement between its permanent members plays a key role in determining the success of international crisis management.

The UN needs both a higher level of resources and more efficient working methods. There is a need on the decision-making level of the Security Council for more members with the resources to assume responsibility and to stand by their decisions. For that reason it is important that countries like Germany and Japan are not merely expected to foot the bill, but will also be given their rightful places as decision-makers. Naturally, in reforming the structure of the Security Council, geographical balance will also have to be borne in mind.

The United Nations needs reforms in other sectors as well. Some time ago, the Nordic countries gave the Secretary-General their views on how the organisation's financial and social sectors should be reformed. Overlapping of functions must be eliminated, the unclear division of labour between different agencies redressed, and the administration streamlined.

When we speak of a broad concept of security on the global level, the UN has a key role also in respects other than authorising and organising peacekeeping operations. It is precisely in its social and economic sector that the UN is globally carrying out the kind of work that creates the basic conditions for building a more secure world. The major conferences arranged by the UN in the present decade to deliberate burning questions of global importance have served to awaken public awareness and engaged a great number of civic organisations in addressing those questions. I attended the World Summit for Social Development (WSSD) in Copenhagen in March 1995, an event in the arrangement of which Chile and her UN Ambassador Somavia played a central role.

From the perspective of the long-term security of humankind, combining recognition of the environment's limited carrying capacity with a prudent approach to economic activity, thereby creating the concept of sustainable development, is one of the most important insights ever gained. The global climate change forecast to occur in the new century that will soon begin could lead to a massive and unpredictable transformation of agricultural patterns and living conditions. That could bear the seeds of major conflicts. Movies and science fiction literature have described the desperate vistas of decline and violence to which a failure of sustainable development could lead. What we need now is the political will to think several generations ahead.

We stand on the threshold to a new millennium. Concern for the survival of the globe unites humankind. The threat hanging over us now is not that of a major war, but rather one of population growth, scarcity of food, epidemics and ecological catastrophes.

We must strengthen global cooperation by every means possible. The prospects for that have improved with the advances that democracy has made on every continent, also here in Latin America.

Thank you.