Translation

SPEECH BY PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC MARTTI AHTISAARI
TO THE PAASIKIVI SOCIETY ON 27.11.1998

FINLAND’S EUROPEAN TASKS IN THE FIELD OF SECURITY POLICY

The arguments that President J.K. Paasikivi presented in support of Finland’s policy after the Second World War were drawn from geography and historical experience. This has led to the perception that he was emphasising, on the one hand, the immutability of Finland’s position and, on the other, the dominance of power politics. Paasikivi did, however, believe in the history of evolution and emphasised the importance of culture and economics. He also hoped that legality would gain strength in international relations. Paasikivi used to quote the historian Yrjö-Koskinen, according to whom the status of legality had strengthened in the course of history, thereby enhancing the security of weaker nations.

During the Cold War, Finland’s position was constrained by the Soviet Union’s constant preparedness for a military trial of strength with the West, and it was this that dictated the emergence of the Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance. Finland was compelled to limit her own freedom of movement in a way that precluded the Soviet Union being, as it were, given the opportunity to show its dissatisfaction. Professor Juhani Suomi demonstrates in his book Liennytyksen akanvirrassa ("In the Counter-Current of Détente") how the Soviet Union was taken into account in our central foreign-policy decisions. We were shielding our inviolability.

Competition between nation-states is softened within the structures of integration. Collectively-agreed principles guide our actions. Small states are the special beneficiaries of this. Our responsibility has increased, but at the same time our security is strengthening.

The latter half of next year will be Finland’s first term in the Presidency of the European Union. Our work in the Troika begins in just over a month from now. The international situation is demanding and the internal development of the Union requires an enormous amount of work.

The EU Presidency must lead Europe. A new century lies ahead. The number of matters awaiting resolution is huge.

The European Union is a community of economically developed and democratic states. Its future character is the focus of debate. The EU is not a substitute for member states, but rather their joint instrument for furthering European interests. Regional communities of the EU kind are taking shape also elsewhere.

The lesson that history teaches us is clear: without increasing cooperation and integration, the peoples of Europe will be at the mercy of power politics.

The European Union can become a wielder of economic influence comparable to the United States only if the common currency succeeds in giving the economy here a dynamism similar to what one finds on the other side of the Atlantic. The decisions concerning external representation of the euro area that are due in the near future will also involve assessing the credibility of the Economic and Monetary Union. It is important that a single voice for the euro can be found. That the euro area remains in accord in all circumstances is of central importance.

A pointed question often asked is: "Why is the Union an economic giant, but a political dwarf?" Such thinking overlooks history and the character of the European Union. In the sector of foreign and security policy, what is involved is inter-governmental cooperation. It can and must be made more effective when the Treaty of Amsterdam comes into force next year. The crisis in Kosovo was the most recent demonstration of a specific need for collective EU action.

The European Union still lacks a genuinely common foreign and security policy. For Finland as a new member, this has been a disappointment. In fact, it had been predicted that we, as a country not participating in military alliances, would have difficulty adjusting to the common policy of the old member states. As it happens, adjustment has not been a problem. On the contrary, we would have liked the EU to react more swiftly to problems and crises as they arose.

The Union is developing its external relations quite successfully in matters in which the perspective has been set far enough into the future, such as those to do with external economic relations, when it is building cooperation with regional organisations, when it decides on its common strategies with respect to important states or groups of states as well as in its pre-accession negotiations with Central and Southern European countries. It is, however, obvious that success in even these external relations will be jeopardised unless the Union members, and especially the large ones, are prepared to respond in greater unison also to crises as they erupt.

Enlargement of the European Union is a key question of peace and security in our continent and also essential for its vitality. Membership is open to all European applicants who meet the requirements. For us, the accession of the Baltic States to membership is an absolutely central goal. Enlargement must not be rendered difficult artificially nor on spurious grounds. We have every prospect of carrying through the next round of enlargement soon after the turn of the millennium.

Exclusion and unemployment are an everyday reality in all member states. A second and even a third generation of jobless have come into being. At the same time as we in Europe have jealously defended old structure and opposed new ones, we have prevented the creation of new jobs. Global economic competition is a harsh challenge, and the European countries’ capacity for innovation can not be safeguarded without constant renewal. One of the problems of the EU is associated with an ageing population. It is a problem that we must take on board. The immigration policy pursued by the Union and its members has an important task. Prosperity is not shielded by withdrawing into one’s shell, but rather by opening up.

The security situation in Europe is in constant flux. But the threat of a major war receded already a decade ago. The key variable is development in Russia. The country is in a difficult economic plight, and its capacity to engage in international cooperation is limited, hopefully only briefly. The political development in the country has likewise suffered setbacks. We are shocked at the assassination of Duma-member Galina Starovoitova. Not only Russia, but also the whole of Europe needs defenders of democracy like her.

Europe’s problem today is not military competition between states, but ethnic conflicts and social instability within national frontiers. What is needed is a willingness to draw political conclusions and act in accordance with them. There are military crisis spots, above all in Caucasia and the Balkans. Europe’s arsenals are still large, reflecting the threatening images of the past. European soldiers have not been adequately trained for crisis management. In attending to the military security of Europe, however, it is on crisis management that the emphasis should be clearly placed.

Jean Monnet said: "Nothing is accomplished without people, but nothing is lasting without institutions." The European security order is being strengthened more and more with the aid of institutions. The importance of the OSCE in clearing away the dividing line of the Cold War is recognised everywhere today.. The Helsinki-process became a popular movement defending human rights. It is the task of the Council of Europe to monitor implementation of these rights and the rule of law everywhere in our continent. The role of the OSCE - when it functions as a genuinely transatlantic link - can, in turn, be developed in many ways, above all in the sectors of conflict prevention and crisis management. Neither it nor any other institution can alone fully guarantee security in the new Europe. There is a need for all institutions to cooperate and coordinate their tasks.

It is natural for countries that have opted not to participate in alliances to be actively involved in developing cooperation in military questions within the framework of the EU, because it is not a military alliance. When it comes into force next year, the Treaty of Amsterdam will add clarity to the Union’s tasks and role in crisis management. This is in part the result of Fenno-Swedish cooperation. The relationships between the EU, the WEU and NATO are also being defined as part of this discussion. Appropriate solutions are the goal. We are pleased that also the large member states are joining in the discourse.

When the superpower conflict had ended, the question quite rightly asked was what NATO was needed for. This debate was especially lively in the United States, which is the Alliance’s biggest source of finance and bearer of responsibility. In the same conjunction, speculation arose about the US commitment to the defence of Europe; as to whether there was still the same need for it after the disintegration of the Soviet Union. When the countries of Central Europe expressed a wish to join NATO, the discussion changed. The disintegration of Yugoslavia heightened their sense of insecurity. In that situation, the EU and the OSCE were unable to respond to these security concerns.

Every country is entitled to make its own choices in the area of security policy. Accordingly, we have defended, for example, the right of the Baltic States to seek membership of NATO. It is important that NATO enlargement strengthens security. In March 1997 Finland hosted a summit meeting between Russia and the United States at which contentious issues relating to NATO enlargement were settled.

From the very beginning, the countries not participating in military alliances wished to play an active part in the cooperation arrangements that NATO had launched, such as the Partnership for Peace programme. That made it possible for a crisis-management operation under the Alliance’s leadership to be carried out with success in Bosnia. The interoperability that is a prerequisite for military crisis management is being developed between NATO and its partner countries. The relationship between the EU and NATO is likewise being studied. We are also developing our own capability to act more swiftly and effectively in crisis-management operations within our Nordic reference group. Our experience in Bosnia, where we are contributing to a Nordic-Polish brigade, and in Macedonia, where we are part of a Nordic battalion, has been quite encouraging. I saw that for myself when I made a tour of inspection of our forces in September. Benefits for Finns who participate in international peacekeeping and crisis-management operations must be looked after. The shortcomings that exist must be put right.

The Washington summit in April next year will celebrate the 50^th anniversary of NATO by confirming the framework within which the restructured Alliance will function. Finland is a NATO partner and we shall be attending the Washington summit as a member of the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC).

NATO has decided that the European Security and Defence Identity (ESDI) will be developed within the structures of the Alliance. That means that also cooperation between the EU and NATO will become significant. Here, Finland’s starting point is that crisis management should be performed as rationally as possible, especially in situations where the United States can not be expected to participate, but where the Union has to act.

The basic task of Finland’s Defence Forces remains that of safeguarding our territorial integrity. This goal is permanent. The mobility of the Defence Forces is being increased and modernisation of their equipment is going ahead. Our orientation in matériel-procurement programmes is towards cooperative arrangements whenever they are possible and economically justified. We are following the development of the security situation in Europe and pegging the level of our spending accordingly.

Military stability in our immediate region is of paramount importance to Finland. We are pleased that our frontier authorities’ cooperation with their Russian counterparts is first-class. We also appreciate the reductions that Russia has announced in the level of armed forces maintained by her in the north-west of the country. Efforts are being made to strengthen the security position of the Baltic States in a variety of ways. Alongside the other Nordic countries, Finland is helping to develop defence forces and frontier guards in the Baltic States. The main focus of our support is on Estonia. Where border controls are concerned, the emphasis has shifted to Latvia and Lithuania.

Alongside military crises, the things that threaten the safety of our continent and its citizens are above all new kinds of security risks. On a global scale, the major disturbances that climate change is causing seriously jeopardise the safety of citizens and thereby implementation of their fundamental rights. The Baltic Sea is ailing. The Chernobyl accident finally opened our eyes to the ecological catastrophe that was brewing in a disintegrating Soviet Union and throughout Eastern Europe. The threat to security posed by the nuclear power stations in north-west Russia and the nuclear wastes on the Kola Peninsula is real, even if not necessarily immediate. International cooperative projects to deal with these risks have been slow to get under way. The resources that nuclear safety demands are enormous and the criticism levelled at the aid measures implemented is at times severe. Finland and the EU have, nevertheless, achieved results in improving nuclear safety in our own immediate region.

Finland has proposed that the European Union adopt a Northern Dimension programme, with the goal of getting the Union to concentrate its attention on Russia, with which it shares a border, and to make cooperation between Russia and Europe more effective. The starting point for the Northern Dimension is the strong interdependence that exists in the sectors of the environment, energy and transport between the EU, Russia and the candidate countries Poland and the Baltic States. The EU is overwhelmingly Russia’s biggest trade partner and, as it enlarges, the importance of the Baltic as a trade artery will grow. The EU Commission’s report on the Northern Dimension will probably be approved at the European Council meeting in Vienna. After that, the Northern Dimension will be a policy of the entire Union. Getting the Northern Dimension concretely under way will be one of the main tasks for the Finnish Presidency. It complements the strategy in relation to Russia that the EU is now working on. It is important that all of the countries of the region take part in the Northern Dimension project. Iceland and Norway, which belong to the European Economic Area, have been active in relation to the initiative. Thus the Northern Dimension contains a strong charge and background of Nordic cooperation. Through the Northern Dimension, new means and consistency will become available to deal with the environmental hazards in north-west Russia. Here, of course, the Russians’ own contribution is important. Environmental awareness on the part of citizens is intrinsic to the safety solution everywhere.

The problems that growing international interaction and lowering of borders have caused are many. They must be mastered, because there is no going back to closed systems. The most difficult of these problems is international crime in its various forms. From Finland’s perspective, making the European Union’s work more effective in order to strengthen internal security is of increasingly central importance also in this matter. Indeed, many important decisions have already been made within the Union. In a speech that I made in Berlin in April, I proposed the development of an EU strategy for internal security. An extraordinary EU summit on internal security is to take place in Tampere in autumn 1999. The entire international community must be brought within the sphere of cooperation. In this respect, the project that I proposed in London in 1995 and which would involve developing high-level cooperation between the European Union, the United States and Russia, has become the focus of growing interest. The goals in this cooperation would include, in addition to environmental protection, implementing measures against crime and international terrorism.

The tasks of Finnish foreign and security policy are changing as the international community changes. The goal remains the same: looking after the security and prosperity of citizens. Today, solutions that serve our country’s interests can not be read from recipe books nor found by looking into the rear-view mirror, even though we are proud of our history.

In December it will have been fifty years since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations. World-wide implementation of human rights is a permanent goal of the UN’s member states. I am very pleased that just on the eve of the golden anniversary of the Declaration, Minister for Foreign Affairs Tarja Halonen has issued a report on human rights in the Government’s foreign and security policy. That will help make our actions in these questions more effective.

The leader of the South African liberation movement Nelson Mandela was once asked what Westerners could do to promote human rights. His reply was that the best way would be to see that those rights were implemented also in their own countries. We must begin with ourselves, on our home turf.

As part of the celebrations marking the golden anniversary of the Declaration, the Finnish UN Association has this autumn arranged a petition campaign until the heading "My Finland ". The challenge that we face in an internationalising Finland is that of accepting the diversity of people openly and considering it a wealth.The "My Finland " petition emphasises the responsibility that all of us share for Finland being a safe place to live, for all who are here. I urge all Finns to sign this appeal.

In an open society there is room for tolerance - and only a tolerant society is safe for all of its members.