Speaker of the Parliament,
Members of the Parliament,
Let me begin by thanking you for the opportunity to be here today.
For me personally, this is a significant moment. There is no greater honour for a Head of State than to be invited on a State Visit and have the opportunity to address the Parliament.
Today, I will talk about three things which are close to my heart. The first one is the relationship between Finland and Latvia. Secondly, I will talk a briefly about world affairs, because it is something that we all are grappling with right now. Thirdly, I will say a few words about what we in Finland think about the regional security situation.
But first, allow me to say a few words about the strong and historic partnership between our two countries.
I want to start with the word ‘laiva’. The Latvian word for ‘boat’ is almost exactly the same name as in Finnish. I think this shows that we are nations of seafarers. We believe in shipping. Finland is very much an island, since 90% of our trade passes through the Baltic Sea. And the Baltic Sea has actually brought us together all the way back since the Viking Age.
However, our interactions were not limited to the sea. The river Daugava actually has a Finnish name: ‘Väinäjoki’. Finns used to sail the river deep into the inland to trade. ‘Väinäjoki’ is not just a geographical name, it also connects with Finnish history, culture and mythology.
Now, thinking about our common history, I’m also reminded that Finland and Latvia were once under Swedish rule. What most people do not recall is that the biggest city in that realm was not Stockholm, but Riga.
Our common history is also one of cooperation on security. Tomorrow, I will be visiting Liepāja, which holds a special place in the history of Finland. In February 1918, just months after we had declared independence on 6 December 1917, the Finnish Jägers pledged their allegiance to the government of Finland in the Holy Trinity Cathedral in Liepāja. After that, the main element of the Jäger battalion took off to Finland, helping to secure the very fresh and fragile independence of Finland.
The period after the Second World War and the Soviet occupation of Latvia is actually the only exception in our shared history. However, it is but an aberration in our common journey and our cooperation through the centuries.
As we approach today, we see the growing engagement and contacts between our countries after Latvia regained its independence. The bonds we have built over these decades help ensure that together we are prepared for whatever lies ahead.
Had I been here talking to you four years ago, I would not have expected us to be NATO members. As a new member state, we look up to Latvia, not only because of your experience in the past, but also because of your experience as members of the Alliance.
Now, before I move on to my second point, world affairs, let me warn you of one thing: we human beings, quite often, have a tendency to make two mistakes. One, we over-rationalise the past. We look for some rational, historical event and see that things happen exactly as the history books tell us. Second, we over-dramatise the present. We think that we are living in the most complex era in the history of mankind, because it is our identity, it is our life.
When we make these two mistakes – over-rationalising the past and over-dramatising the present – we fall into the most dangerous trap of all: underestimating the future. It is fine to reflect on the past, and it is okay to be a little bit emotional about the present. But do not lose sight of the bigger picture. It is all about what we do next and how we can do it best.
So, what’s the world like right now? We always use these kinds of catchwords to describe historical eras, don’t we? In the 19th century, there was the Concert of Europe that Henry Kissinger would later tell us about. After World War II, it was all about the Cold War and Détente. But undoubtedly, we’re now living in a period with far-reaching consequences.
So, what expression is the best one to describe where we are right now? The world is becoming increasingly multipolar. So there are more different types of waves. The Cold War was bipolar. The post-Cold War era was unipolar. Now, it is multipolar.
I think it is quite fair to say that we’re living in a period of history where we know that the order, the balance, and the dynamics of the world are changing. It is a bit like after World War I, a little bit like after World War II, and certainly after the Cold War. This is the moment of our generation.
I was born in 1968. I studied in the US from 1989 to 1993. At that time, it was all about hope. It was all about democracy. It was all about freedom. I made my first trip to Riga in 1992 as a student. I could sense how things were changing and how Latvia was going to prosper.
I guess we do live in a world of disorder. To be honest, I have not found a term for the period that we’re living in right now. I think this change will take between 5 to 10 years. And it can go in all kinds of directions.
But all I’m trying to say to you, the parliamentarians, and then to everyone in Latvia, is that we all have agency in this. We decide what the future will look like. I can tell you that I certainly feel much more comfortable being part of NATO, the European Union and what we nowadays call the NB8, the Nordic and Baltic states.
When we analyse foreign policy, I think we can usually base it on three things: values, interests, and power. I think it is safe to say that countries like Finland and Latvia, we share the same values. Democracy, human rights, fundamental rights, freedoms, the rule of law, equality and justice.
We also have interests. We want to defend our independence, our sovereignty and our territorial integrity. You do not have to defend yourselves from Finland, and we do not have to defend ourselves from Latvia. We have to defend ourselves, most probably, from Russia.
So our values and our interests are the same. But, at the same time, we are small countries. We do not have the third element of foreign policy: power. Power is usually in the hands of large states. This can be either soft or hard power.
I would argue that the world is changing in this respect as well. The question is, what can we small players do? I believe we can have an impact.
I think the most important things in our toolbox are values and interests. Therefore, with our actions, we must always maximize the attachment of our values to our interests, and therefore, to influence.
But what about interests? In this day and age, the interests of great powers are increasingly bare and narrower than before. We are faced with very basic realities: war or peace, security or well-being, cooperation or confrontation.
To simplify things, you could say that the United States will always be a dominant power, which is good for us, because they are our close ally. They are perhaps moving a little more into the core of our interests right now, without forgetting our values. China, on the other hand, has different values to us and is shifting from interests to power. It is now the second biggest power in the world, after the United States. Then there is Russia, a country with which we do not share values, which is moving more and more from power, which it used to have, to interests. In other words, there is a major shift happening among the worlds key powers.
Power is now determined by how it is wielded, and this determines who will lead, who will fall, and who will oppose. As we know, power essentially means the ability to make others act in a certain way, either by using hard power or soft power, by basically influencing people’s attitudes.
As a small nation, our power, the hard one in particular, is limited, albeit, Finland does have one of the largest militaries in Europe. But as part of the European Union, NATO and other groups, our power increases. For us small players, it is extremely important that we share sovereignty and power within multilateral or regional organizations.
In terms of foreign policy, I think there are three key issues that both Finland and Latvia are currently dealing with. The first one is Ukraine. This is where our values, interests and efforts converge.
It is in our valued judgment that Ukraine should have the right to independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity. We believe that Russia’s war of aggression is not only illegal, but also unethical, brutal and inhumane.
Over the past few weeks, Finland and Latvia have continued to work with Ukraine to find a lasting and just peace. At the same time, the Finnish experience tells us that there are never any perfect solutions to wars. After World War II, Finland lost its sovereignty and territorial integrity, but retained its independence. Unfortunately, your path was different. However, one thing that unites us right now is our belief that Ukraine should always retain and have the right to fight for its independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity. There is absolutely no reason for Ukraine to give up the fight.
Many people are asking what the solution to this war is. We think that it is a two-phase solution.
First, we need an unconditional ceasefire. Only then can negotiations for a peace settlement begin. This is very difficult in the current situation. You cannot put the cart before the horse if you want to make progress.
But in my experience, peace mediation also takes patience. So quite often, it is about two steps forward and one step back. And I do believe that no matter how hard the situation seems, and I was in Kyiv on Thursday and on Friday, we are moving towards a ceasefire and a peace settlement.
The second example before policy after Ukraine is, of course, the Middle East. There, I believe that a country like Finland has values and has an interest, but our influence is a little bit limited. It is our war, as all wars are on the globe. But at the same time, it is the one where our impact is not as great as it can be in Russia’s war aggression in Ukraine.
Now, in the Middle East, and I know this is a sensitive issue, we support the two-state solution and contribute to achieving it. Israel’s actions and the increasingly desolate conditions in Gaza and the continuing rule of Hamas and the faith of the hostages have made many people ask, what would be the best way of achieving a solution and allowing peaceful and safe coexistence of two independent states? In other words, which decisions would take us closer to reaching our goals?
Now, implementing a two-state solution requires not only that the state of Palestine is recognized, but also that the state of Israel is recognized by those who have not done so. Efforts must be made towards this end as well. A positive step in the matter was the international declaration given in New York in June. In the declaration, the Arab countries in the region jointly committed for the first time to Israel’s security, calling for Hamas to release all hostages and end its rules of the Gaza Strip and hand over its weapons to the Palestinian administration.
Now, as always in foreign policy, this is not an easy question. It is not black and white. Foreign policy is a choice every day. It is a choice of values, and it is a choice of interests. And sometimes the two are in tension.
All I can say is that in the Middle East crisis, war and suffering in the region cannot be ended with decisions made by us. Still, we must ask what can we do? The Global South in particular is observing whether Europe will act according to its words and values.
My third and final example is to highlight our relationship with the two superpowers, the US and China. Here, I think we have values, we have interests, and if we play our part right, we might have a little bit of influence as well.
With the United States, we have shared a traditional Western value base. It is our major trading partner and a staunch ally for both of our countries. It is in our interest that we at all times maintain solid and direct relations with the United States.
In recent years, Finland has enhanced its cooperation with the United States in many key sectors and made agreements that will last over time. The Defence Cooperation Agreement, DCA, is an example thereof. We have strengthened our cooperation at the state level and established connections with the U.S. Congress. I’ve personally kept in close contact with the President of the United States, Donald Trump. And for the past 18 months, I have met almost 60 U.S. senators and members of Congress. I think many Americans understand how important North-Eastern Europe is for overall security in Europe. So I encourage each and every one of you to engage also with American senators and congressmen and congresswomen. It is crucial. Keep travelling to the United States. You need to get involved. It is extremely important that democracies engage with each other and exchange information.
Strong relations can also stand not being in agreement about everything. As an example, I mentioned multilateralism. Finland believes very strongly in international institutions, rules, and in other words, in multilateralism. But it is an important value of ours and of course in our key interests. So we defend the multilateralism in the international system even when the US sometimes seems to question its value and withdraws from organisations and agreements that generate a common good. That’s just a disagreement.
Our relations with China are different. China’s actions are guided by values that differ from our own. The lack of democracy and the single-party hegemony are difficult for us to understand, but they also remind us that democracy is not a given. It is something that you have to work for every day. Human rights violations on the other hand, are impossible to accept. However, it is in our interest to maintain a working relationship with China, and to enhance it further in certain sectors, both within the EU framework and bilaterally. After all, who in this room believes that we can solve the climate crisis without China? Or that we can solve the biggest technological issues of mankind related to biotechnology or artificial intelligence without cooperation with China. We must continue to work with the major players.
Now, strategic competition between China and the United States is at the core of international politics today. It will define the direction of the ongoing decade. It would be in our common interest that China and the U.S. get along. In an ideal world, I would hope that their cooperation would strengthen international institutions and a rules-based system. That is the goal we’re working for, but I must admit that right now, I would not put my money on it.
Influence is often also about building your foreign policy for the world that is, not the world you wish it was. Hope is a nice thing, but it is not a strategy. And that’s why I always try to base Finnish foreign policy on a world that exists, not a world that I wish that would exist.
Members of Parliament, dear friends,
My third and final point, concerns the security environment in our neighbourhood. Of course, we share it. More importantly, we share the analysis of it. We have made efforts both separately and jointly to strengthen security in our region and across Europe. We have never lowered our guard. We continue to invest in security and defence together.
Our neighbour Russia has shown blatant disregard for human lives and the sovereignty of neighbouring countries. Last week, we witnessed a further escalation of its malign activities. I sincerely hope that one day Russia will be able to live in peace with itself and with others. Until that day comes, we will protect our countries and our way of life, and support our friends in doing the same.
Ukraine’s security is also our security. So, to those who see supporting Ukraine as a zero-sum game, I say that it is not. The Ukrainians are fighting for our shared values. They are fighting for our democracy. They are fighting for our freedom. They are also fighting for Europe.
We recognise that there is only so much a small country can achieve alone, and that security is built together. That is why I always emphasise our involvement in various formations in the Baltic Sea region, such as NB8, JEF, NATO and the EU. Only by working together can we deter and defend against the threats, whether they are military or non-military.
Yet this is the historical shift I mentioned earlier. The security of our continent, which has long been based on the United States’ security umbrella, must be forged anew. When it comes to the transatlantic bond, we Europeans are not the ones to break it.
Remember what Putin’s strategic goal was. It was to deny Ukraine its independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity. But it was also to divide Europe. It was also to divide NATO, certainly not to increase the size of NATO by having Finland and Sweden to join the Alliance.
As I said, the security of our continent must be forged anew. At the same time, we cannot go back to the world as it was. If hope is not a strategy, trust me, nostalgia is not one either. Instead, we must start taking action. Finland and Latvia are leading the way in building Europe into a coherent and capable geopolitical actor. It will be a long and arduous road, but the time to start is now.
I do see a change taking place in the capitals, including Brussels. Defence spending is high and defence industrial production is growing at a rate unseen since the Cold War. This is good, even if the pace could be faster. We need to spend smartly, cooperating more closely and avoiding duplication of efforts.
Wars may be fought on the battlefields, but they are decided on the home front. Comprehensive security is the key. We need educated, motivated, innovative people that can be mobilised to build and defend the society. Hardened supply chains and critical infrastructure. Increased international cooperation. These are the tenets that countries like ours need to adhere to.
I would like to return to the changes in world politics and their implications for diplomacy. I do not think we should change who we are, but we must play this game in a new way. This means that diplomacy is practised is practised differently than before. The change has been rapid, and it is being further accelerated by the change of administration in the United States.
I also believe the change to be permanent. We must not live in a world that no longer exists, nor get overly nostalgic about the past. The pace of events is fast, and information is often incomplete. As parliamentarians, I know you see this every day when you are contacted by your electorate. We must tolerate uncertainty and be willing to enter situations where outcomes are uncertain. If we do not seize the opportunity to influence matters, someone else will. Like it or not, personal relations are becoming increasingly important in international affairs, and we must invest in them at all levels.
Small countries, ladies and gentlemen, are agile. Finland and Latvia are great examples of this. We can make a difference without compromising our values. We have a voice, let us use it wisely.
Thank you very much for this opportunity to speak here today, and for the friendship that your country has extended to us – both now and over the past. It is a great privilege and honour to be here. Thank you.
