Speech by President of the Republic Tarja Halonen to Dansk Udenrigspolitisk Selskab (Danish International Affairs Society) at Christiansborg on 4 April 2001

(check against delivery) A FINNISH SOLUTION - ACTIVE MEMBERSHIP OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

Finland joined the European Union at the beginning of 1995. It was an important event in the history of our country. Looking back today, I am even more convinced than I was then that our decision was the right one. We have become more prosperous as a nation, increased our wellbeing and achieved a new level of security.

There is a close association between Copenhagen and our accession to membership of the European Union. Our pre-accession negotiations, which had begun in February 1993, received a decisive push forward at the Copenhagen summit in June of the same year. It was then that the heads of state and government decided that the applicant countries already conducting negotiations would be allowed in at the beginning of 1995. That gave the negotiations a whole new momentum, they were concluded by the deadline and accession on schedule became possible.

There is a linkage between Copenhagen and enlargement also in another way, one with implications that are even more far-reaching. It was at the same European Council that the future requirements for membership were determined. These "Copenhagen criteria" are guiding the now-ongoing enlargement negotiations. New member states will be expected to achieve a level of institutional stability that guarantees the implementation of a democracy founded on the rule of law as well as respect for and protection of human rights including the rights of minorities. A well-functioning market economy and an ability to cope with the conditions of competition within the Union will be a priori conditions for membership. A new member will have to be able to assume obligations which include a commitment to political union and to the goals of economic and monetary union.

The Copenhagen criteria are the foundation for enlargement of the European Union. The conditions for accession are demanding, but justified. A democratic, market-economy-based and competitive European Union will add stability and create greater wealth and wellbeing in our continent. Clear demands also make it easier for applicant countries to do their own planning.

Denmark has traditionally had a positive attitude to enlargement of first the European Communities and later the European Union. The support that she gave us was of primary importance in our effort to gain accession. Naturally, we relied on our own work, continually increased our capabilities and carried through the necessary reforms at a rapid pace. But without voices within the European Communities to champion our cause, our membership would never have happened as soon as it did.

Another thing that we learned from Denmark was how important it is to anchor decision making in a parliamentary system. We realised that precisely identifying and prioritising matters is the first precondition for success. We saw how concentrating on the most important things gets results. We even tried to become a little more open and gregarious in our behaviour, like the rest of Europe. That said, however, I would not dare to guarantee that an ability to exchange pleasantries in an apparently easygoing manner has taken root in our Finnish behaviour.

Today we stand together on the threshold of a historic enlargement of the European Union. Thanks to the work of the Nice European Council, the last institutional obstacles in the way of enlargement have been removed. A clear strategy has emerged for the negotiations and there is a road map to show us the way ahead. The Union will be ready for enlargement in late 2002 and new members will in principle be welcome from the beginning of 2003 onwards as they themselves become ready for it. We must now concentrate on vigorously bringing the negotiations to conclusion and endorsing the result achieved. It will also reward us to make sure that the project gains acceptability in both the existing member states and future ones.

After the cold war had ended, the prospect of a new united Europe was a great source of joy in both east and west. Now, a decade later, everyday problems have dimmed the attractiveness of the big picture. In the process of EU enlargement, we must listen to people's concerns, dispel unfounded fears and find solutions to real problems.

It is not just a question of our being able to get the final outcome of the enlargement negotiations accepted in the existing member states and the candidate countries; we must also make certain that this enlargement will be perceived also in retrospect as having been the right solution. In seeking to win legitimacy for the Union, we must pay more attention than we have done in the past to women, young citizens and rural people. Decision makers must concentrate in earnest on questions of everyday life that worry people, such as employment, the environment, food safety and international crime.

The accession of Finland and Sweden meant that many causes which Denmark had already been advocating were brought more emphatically to the fore. The European Union is today somewhat more open, more interested in its environment and perhaps a place of greater equality. We also emphasise effective functioning of markets more than in the past, if only to be able to cope in a globalising world, whilst at the same time promoting employment. All of the things that I have just mentioned were expected of us, but what probably came as a greater surprise was the activity that Finland and Sweden, neither of which participates in military alliances, have shown in foreign and security policy since they joined the Union.

But let us return for a moment to Nordic cooperation. The Nordic members of the European Union have been cooperating with each other in many sectors for a long time. Already before the EU we had harmonised our legislation and Nordic citizens had many shared benefits that have been implemented in the European Union only recently or are still in the planning stage.

Thus it is no wonder that our stances on many different issues in an EU context largely coincide. In addition to that, we generally know each other's views so well that we have no greater difficulty in guessing what solutions the others might be coming to. So far, however, none of us has seen a need for formal coordination. It must, however, be admitted that at Nordic meetings matters relating to the EU or otherwise of common European concern come up a good deal more often than they used to. Long gone are the days when foreign and security policy was virtually a taboo subject at meetings of the Nordic Council.

We keep in contact a lot in other respects as well, we exchange views when necessary and we often support one another on a variety of issues. But identical we are certainly not, as, for example, our different approaches to economic and monetary union demonstrate.

Indeed, I would dare to say that our sense of affinity is so strong that we can afford to disagree from time to time. After all, that is how things are done also more widely within the Union. There are no permanent alliances; instead, coalitions of countries vary from one issue to the next.

In this conjunction, however, I would like to emphasise that EU cooperation both centres around issues and takes place on a regional basis. That is the case in the Mediterranean region, the Benelux countries or Central Europe. Others see it as natural also in our case, but it is important not to make any effort to exclude others from it. We in Finland are interested in the Barcelona Process and have been pleased to see the corresponding interest that the Northern Dimension has attracted in Mediterranean countries. Cooperation in our region will further increase when Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland have joined the European Union.

One of the greatest results of Nordic cooperation has been free movement of people, which has built a sense of closeness and uncomplicated interaction. That is why it was important to Finland that also Norway and Iceland were included as participants in EU schemes with the same end. Since late March, all of the Nordic countries have been applying the Schengen Agreement. The traditions of the Nordic Passport Union are being carried on.

We felt that development of the Northern Dimension of the Union would be a natural continuation of our historical tradition of cooperation. The progress that our initiative concerning it has been making, first during the Portuguese Presidency and now with Sweden in the chair, has gratified us in Finland.

The great importance to the Union of northern regions is now universally recognised. The Stockholm European Council made it possible for the European Investment Bank to increase its lending to Russia for environmental projects. It really is a significant matter. Modernising the wastewater-treatment system in St. Petersburg and putting Kaliningrad's environmental affairs in order are urgent projects. As an almost landlocked sea, the Baltic is highly vulnerable. We must grasp every means at our disposal to protect it.

The European Commission has begun implementing its action programme for the Northern Dimension and progress in this will be reviewed for the first time in Luxembourg on 9 April [next Monday]. The thinking underlying the Northern Dimension embraces common interests, promoting stability, improving the environment and developing economic cooperation across a broad front. The enlarging European Union and Russia are more dependent on each other than earlier and we must turn this interaction into a force that is as positive as possible and tangibly promotes our common interests.

When Finland joined the European Union in 1995, we became part of a system that had taken shape as a result of decades of integration. Nevertheless we felt pretty much at home right from the beginning. After all, we did share a European heritage, ways of doing things and goals.

The Union of which we are a member today is one that we ourselves have influenced. The Treaty of Amsterdam and the Treaty of Nice now awaiting ratification are the fruits of also our efforts. Today the Union meets the needs and hopes of its citizens a little better. We must continue our work of reform. The phase of discussion ahead of us will be important. The next stage will be in only three years' time, when a new Intergovernmental Conference convenes.

We Finns have taken our membership seriously and we are trying to be active, but constructive in developing the European Union. As people who take a practical approach to matters, we often come to the conclusion that a compromise is better than an impasse and a short step forward is better than getting nowhere. And indeed our country is often seen playing a role in important Union projects. A united Europe is important to us.

We are convinced that the common currency makes sense for both the European Union and ourselves. Accordingly, we sought to be among the countries entering the third stage of economic and monetary union in the first wave.

We believe that the advent of the euro will lower costs, simplify people's everyday lives and, over the long term, strengthen the European Union's position in international markets. From the point of view of the individual citizen, going over to a single currency is symbolically significant. Nor should we downplay the influence that it will have on security policy.

Development of the EU Common Security and Defence Policy has been a central endeavour ever since we joined. In my view, it was pointless to argue about far-reaching defence cooperation when what was actually needed was crisis management. Finland and Sweden proposed already in 1996 that crisis management be included in the Union's tasks. My then Swedish counterpart Foreign Minister Lena Hjelm-Wallen and I managed to have a provision to this effect written into the Treaty of Amsterdam.

Development of the European Union's capacity for crisis management gained further momentum when the United Kingdom and France agreed to cooperate more closely in this field. The result of that cooperation can be seen in the St-Malo Declaration. The central goals relating to crisis management were agreed at the Helsinki European Council in December 1999. Military goals were determined at the resources conference last November and the Union is now actively developing this function in cooperation with NATO.

Civilian crisis management is needed after both military conflicts and natural disasters. Yet, less attention has been paid to organising cooperation in this field than in relation to military crisis management. I express my heartfelt thanks to Denmark for having been very active in presenting initiatives to promote civilian crisis management.

The EU's goals in the sector of civilian crisis management were agreed during the Finnish Presidency and explicated by the Feira European Council. Now, with Sweden in the Presidency, stronger progress is again being made in the matter. In the development of civilian crisis management, civilian administration and the rule of law must be strengthened. Often, though, police and rescue services are the most urgent priorities.

It is also important to ensure that the work done on the military and civilian sides is well dovetailed. International organisations have a central role in the implementation of civilian crisis management. This applies especially to the United Nations, the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe and the Council of Europe. In all crises, the emphasis should be on political solutions and defusing the situation through negotiations. Local inhabitants and NGOs must have an active input into creating new development.

The European Union has recently begun paying more and more attention to preventing crises. That is natural. Strengthening democracy, respecting human rights and especially the rights of minorities as well as building a state governed under the rule of law are well-known means of developing a strong society. The same things that have to be expensively rebuilt after armed conflicts could, if implemented in time, prevent a conflict from erupting in the first place.

The European Union has every prospect of becoming a strong international actor. This, too, means that reform must continue. As such, this constant process is nothing new to the Union. The Nice European Council produced a number of important decisions which made it possible for enlargement to proceed according to plan. Therefore its importance could not have been greater.

In the same conjunction it became obvious that the road leading to Nice was one that had also come to its end. From now on, the work of reform must be better anchored in the people. We need broad discussion and to listen sensitively to each other. By acting in this way we can strengthen and develop the European Union to enable it to serve us all better.

It is also good to return to one's roots. The work of building the European Union began from the ruins of the second world war. The goal was to avoid a new conflict by binding together the destinies of former enemies. As a peace project, the European Union has succeeded. There have been no more wars between the member states.

Integration has broadened to include more and more new sectors, and today the European Union touches us all in virtually every sphere of our lives. Indeed, it is sad that the more the EU is present in various sectors of our society, the more remote citizens see it as being.

A substantial majority of Finnish voters endorsed membership of the European Union in a referendum. Support figures are still on a good level, but growing uncertainty can be detected in stances being expressed also in our country. Much good work is being done to bring the Union closer to the people. And that is right. The EU is at the moment the most important European cooperative organisation and its significance will continue to grow.

Yet the European Union is not the whole of Europe. That notwithstanding, building up Europe must be the cause of all Europeans. And we must work for this. It will call for the efforts of everyone, but with the future in mind young people are especially important.

By bringing them up to be active and courageous democratic people we can make them strongly equipped to deal with whatever changes happen in the world. It is important to get back to basic values: democracy, human rights, the rule of law.

By bringing young people from different countries more and more together we shall create a foundation that will not only enable us to reject xenophobia and racism, but from which will grow a better understanding of each other, tolerance and constructive cooperation. And in that work also the European Union has its place.