Presentation by President of the Republic Tarja Halonen at the annual gathering of Alumni of the University of Helsinki on Tuesday 6.11.2001

(check against delivery)

IS INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION POSSIBLE?



When we were here at the last annual gathering of alumni a year ago, it is unlikely that any of us could have imagined the security risks that we would face today. It is true we were in agreement that the threat of a traditional war had disappeared from our continent and been replaced by complicated conflicts, in which ethnic, religious, cultural, economic and social questions were intertwined. When these became armed conflicts, features belonging to civil war or terrorism were associated with them. But - dear listeners - it was all supposed to happen somewhere else.

In practise, the terror attacks directed against the United States on 11 September brought the whole world to a halt. The impact of these deeds - the death of thousands of people - is obvious to everyone. But what all of what those terrible acts have caused or will yet cause, that we cannot yet know.

Inherent in the events of 11 September was the risk that the United States would turn in on itself and give less attention than earlier to international interaction. Fortunately that has not happened. President Bush said almost immediately that they cannot eliminate terror solely on their own resources. Successful action against terrorism requires international cooperation. An opinion poll conducted a few weeks ago showed that a clear majority of Americans support this policy of international cooperation.

There are two sectors of action in the effort against terrorism. First, measures to bring those responsible for the September atrocities to account. And second, we have to ponder what must be done to ensure that terrorism is avoided in the future.

On the initiative of the United States, NATO decided already on 12 September that if acts of terrorism are directed from outside, they will be regarded as an attack against all member countries.

On the same day, the UN Security Council adopted a US-proposed resolution (1368) containing a strong condemnation of terrorism and affirming the Security Council's willingness to undertake all actions in accordance with the UN Charter which the terrorist acts required as well as noting the right of all states to defend themselves in accordance with the Charter. This Security Council resolution was then followed by one adopted at the General Assembly and another (1373) by the Security Council. NATO adopted also a second resolution, in which it noted that an attack against one member state really was an attack against all of them.

Demonstrations of support and solidarity followed each other: decisions by the European Union's General Affairs Council and the European Council, the Islamic countries' resolution condemning terrorism as well as countless other statements of position by international communities. In practice, every country in the world - Iraq excepted - condemned the terror attacks against the United States and expressed their willingness to work together against terrorism. Russia's cooperation-oriented policy has been seen as particularly significant. On the whole, it could be said that the United States conspicuously sought international support and solidarity, and its appeal was responded to equally positively and just as visibly.

The United States has, in a way, continued this cooperation by deciding to pay its arrears to the UN. Before the end of this month, a payment of over $500 million will be made to the UN's account. The United States has lifted its sanctions against Pakistan and India and given Indonesia significant trade benefits. Of course, the United States has a duty to pay its debts to the UN and is not even paying all of the arrears. But everyone knows how difficult this matter has been in past years and how important a gesture this is to both the UN and the international community in general. I personally hope that this will be followed up also where policy on treaties is concerned. After all, any number of important matters are pending. The only examples that I shall mention now are the Kyoto Protocol, the Convention of the Rights of the Child and the project to establish an international war crimes tribunal.

But what about the results of measures against terrorism itself? The military action taken by the USA and the UK in Afghanistan have been the focus of most public attention. Understandably, people's feelings are very mixed. On the one hand, there is concern that those responsible for the terror strikes have not been caught, whilst on the other great sorrow and pity is felt for the civilian victims in Afghanistan. Not even warehouses belonging to international aid organisations have escaped the bombs. The demand for a ceasefire reveals the awkwardness of the situation. Getting humanitarian aid into Afghanistan before winter will require a longish ceasefire. A ceasefire would also greatly help the Taliban to regroup and thereby prolong the war.

Under the UN Charter and Security Council resolutions, the USA has the right to defend itself, which the military strikes against Afghanistan accordingly are, because the actual guilty parties and those who started the conflict are al-Qaida and its protectors the Taliban. Naturally, the United States must observe international law, including the provisions applicable to war, and avoid, for example, civilian targets.

Even a lawful war produces a lot of grief and destruction and it will not be sufficient in itself to bring terrorism under control. Over the longer term, what is emphatically important is cooperation in the police and justice sectors as well as all the political measures that will enable us to deprive terrorism of a substrate in which to grow.

The heading that I was given for this presentation contains a question: "Is international cooperation possible?" My answer is yes. There is an even greater need for international cooperation than there was before. Pollution of the environment, international crime, the drugs trade, trafficking in women and children, food safety … the list could go on and on. No country can solve these problems alone; instead, we need the cooperation of all. Terrorism is one challenge more on this list. It does not abolish the list.

This is something that even the terrorists have unwittingly demonstrated. Fortunately for humankind, the political will to cooperate has grown in the face of new threats and by no means vanished.

Global problems need to be resolved in a global forum. The most important forum for international cooperation and also for joint action against terrorism is the United Nations. The UN is the place where a genuinely international dialogue can be conducted and decisions that concern all of us made together. However, the organisation's capacity for action depends on the will of the member states. All of us must do our best to ensure that the willingness for cooperation demonstrated last autumn continues. The Nobel Committee's decision to award the Peace Prize this year to UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan and the organisation's entire personnel is a splendid recognition.

Finding a common will is not always easy, as we saw for example at the anti-racism conference in Durban last September. The situation is familiar also in the UN Security Council, which has a key role in the development of world peace and security. Both decisions concerning individual conflicts and reform of the Security Council's own work have been agonisingly slow.

Now, better cooperation in the UN has been achieved. Both the Security Council and the General Assembly have taken action to oppose terrorism. Security Council resolution 1373/28.9.2001 imposes concrete obligations on member states to undertake anti-terrorism measures and requires them to give the Security Council a report on these measures within 90 days. In the same conjunction, member states are offered support and guidance in implementing the resolution.

This is, I believe, is just the kind of international cooperation that has been needed. The world organisation is imposing obligations on its members, overseeing compliance with them and expressing its willingness to help and support them in carrying out their tasks.

A second hope-inspiring thing is the role envisaged for the UN in rebuilding Afghan society. This process is likely to need further negotiations, because the task is certainly difficult. Everyone will probably remember the difficulties in Kampuchea and East Timor, and this will certainly not be any easier.

And what, then, about the World Trade Organisation? Its ministerial conference begins in Doha in a few days' time. Dare one be optimistic also in this respect? New faith could be created there as well. The items on the agenda include patent protection for medicines. The developing countries have been demanding for a long time that they should have the right to violate patents in situations where public health is seriously threatened. The industrial countries have strongly opposed this. However, the United States and Canada were a few weeks ago seriously considering violating a patent to be able to ensure an adequate supply of antibiotics to protect their citizens from anthrax. They eventually reached an agreement in the matter with the patent holder.

Hopefully this will increase our own understanding for the demands that the developing countries are making. In many of those countries public health is threatened or even catastrophic for a variety of reasons. Of course we all understand that the development of medicines could grind to a halt if pharmaceutical companies did not have the opportunity to earn money. These companies also have a realistic fear that compulsorily licensed pharmaceuticals could be criminally distributed also in industrial countries. Nevertheless I hope that all parties involved will find an understanding of each other's concerns and that a solution that satisfies everyone will be found in the matter.

Cooperation has been rediscovered also on the European level. Opposing terrorism has become the number one item of business for both the Council of Europe and the European Union. Indeed, very many matters with a bearing on the everyday security of citizens belong more to the remits of home affairs and justice ministries than to the responsibility of defence forces. And if cooperation to counter terrorism is now achieved, it can also contribute to helping in the fight against international crime in general. The EU summit in Tampere during the Finnish Presidency produced agreement-in-principle on the measures that are needed. Taking the decisions forward on the practical level has proved very difficult. It was only this autumn that, by dint of necessity, there has been movement in the matter.

But the matter remains difficult. We are not talking namely about cooperation within a limited time span, but something that we will have to be able to sustain from now on. At the same time as we reject terrorism and the violence, intolerance, hate and fanaticism that it represents, we must take care not to become infected ourselves. We must support democracy, freedom, tolerance, justice and equality. Combating terrorism by curtailing the fundamental rights of citizens can not be the right way. Effective and well-functioning solutions must be found in other ways. At the Tampere summit we talked of "an area of freedom and security". Freedom is the cornerstone in building a more secure Europe.

For Finland, participation in international cooperation is a natural choice. We take part in the work of international organisations and we have a strong network of bilateral relations. It will pay us to continue to invest in them - even though it costs money.

Democracy, human rights and the rule of law begin at home. Likewise tolerance. That is not just a matter for the President, the Government or Parliament. It is everyone's business. It is just for that reason that the candlelight demonstration arranged by various religious denominations right away in September or many other civic happenings since then are important. After all, tolerance can not be delegated.

International cooperation is not only possible, but also essential. And it is something that all of us must do.