Speech by President of the Republic Tarja Halonen at the opening of the 2008 session of Parliament, 5 February 2008

(check against delivery)

Mr Speaker,
Members of Parliament,

Every day we see evidence of insecurity of our fellow human beings in today’s rapidly changing world. The strenght of the Finnish society is and has been a sense of community – a sense of caring for one another. It is something we have been building for generations, and it has carried us through troubled times. It has also made Finland a front runner in global competition.

This model, commonly known as the welfare society, is a useful blueprint for the more equitable distribution of the benefits and disadvantages of globalisation, both within and between countries. Everyone shares responsibility for this development. Businesses too have a corporate social responsibility for environmentally and socially just sustainable development.

In recent months, there has been heated debate in Finland and elsewhere on this very issue: What exactly is corporate social responsibility? Its goals are set by legislation enacted, resolutions made and international treaties signed. But this is not enough: we must abide by these too.

The public is interested in the ownership policy of the central government and of the local authorities. After all, this is power being wielded by the people’s chosen representatives, and it involves public money. The Government Resolution on government ownership issued last year is a very important statement.

The Government stated that central government ownership in Stora Enso, for instance, is a financial investment which does not entail employment or regional development responsibilities beyond the scope of normal corporate social responsibility. And I believe that this is exactly what many people want to know: Is this normal corporate social responsibility, then?

The situation in Kemijärvi has been debated in Parliament and will probably continue to be debated. There are no easy answers now, nor will there be in similar situations in the future. Ultimately, however, it is up to Parliament to decide what the central government does and what its ownership policy is. Power comes with responsibility. I wish Parliament wisdom in taking decisions.

* * *

Peace is much more than just the absence of war. Our conception of international peace and security has evolved hugely since the Second World War. Relationships between countries have become more complex, and human security has emerged as an increasingly important factor alongside national security.

Millions of people suffer from hunger, deprivation, contagious diseases and the inability of weak societies and disintegrating governments to secure a safe life for their citizens. However, we should note that, unfortunately, all-out war, arms races and border disputes between countries remain a fact of life in various parts of the world. Those who suffer the most from conflicts are the civilian population, usually the most vulnerable groups in society: women and children.

Today’s security challenges are global by nature and cannot be combated with national action alone; we need regional and worldwide international cooperation. We simply must work together to curb climate change and to promote a fairer globalisation.

This year, Finland will be in a special role in promoting human security and cooperation, as we are holding the chairmanship of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). In this challenging task, we stress the upholding of common values and principles.

* * *

The security and defence policy report currently being prepared is a description of the current situation and marks out long-term prospects for Finland’s security policy and for the development of our Defence Forces.

Preparations for the security and defence policy report are well under way. Government preparations and the parliamentary monitoring committee are both working well. Public debate has also become livelier. All this is good, because after all we are aiming to achieve as broad a consensus as possible. Unanimity is the strength of a small nation.

The purpose of our security policy is to promote the security and welfare of Finland and of its citizens. We seek to promote international stability, both in our neighbouring areas and further afield. In accordance with the principles of the OSCE, we cannot promote our security at the expense of others. Finland is a producer, not a consumer, of security.

Finland must be prepared to carry an independent nation’s responsibility for military defence of the country. This is true under all circumstances, whichever union or alliance we may belong to. We may receive help in an eventual emergency from others, as we have helped and will help others. But we must not imagine that someone else would manage the national defence of Finland for us. This is not a realistic notion. Instead, cooperation in various forms should be promoted everywhere.

It is only natural that we engage in extensive military cooperation with countries with whom we have close connections otherwise. For Finland, the obvious forms of military cooperation are crisis management, materiel acquisitions and manoeuvres. This cooperation serves to strengthen our national defence, even if its primary purpose is not to build a joint defence system.

This applies to civilian crisis management too. It is important to develop civilian crisis management, and we are pursuing this principally in cooperation with other EU Member States.

We currently hold the responsibility for the EU’s rapid response crisis management function together with Sweden, Norway, Estonia and Ireland. These countries are natural partners for us, not only because of geographical proximity but because we share a similar approach to crisis management even if we differ in our defence policies. Our other two partners in the EU’s rapid response crisis management function are Germany and the Netherlands.

In addition to cooperation within the European Union, we are currently participating in two NATO-led operations, in Kosovo and Afghanistan. This lends a strong trans-Atlantic connection to our crisis management cooperation, further strengthened by our considerable contribution to worldwide crisis management development.

We shoulder our burden well in international crisis management. We are currently operating at the upper limit of our resources, and we need to consider carefully before taking on any additional duties. But it would be a good thing if we could be more closely involved in UN crisis management operations.

I consider it necessary that our Defence Forces continue to be based on general conscription. This is a safeguard not only for our national defence but for our expertise in international crisis management.

* * *

Our new Constitution entered into force about eight years ago. Eight years is a relatively short time to evaluate the application of a constitution. However, there is political will for reviewing the Constitution, as can be seen in the wording of the Government Programme of Prime Minister Matti Vanhanen’s second Government and the lively public debate on the matter.

As I said myself at the closing of the last Parliament, we must embrace sincere constitutional debate. The powers of the President, and particularly the conducting of foreign policy, have emerged at least in my view as an important component in evaluating how well the Constitution functions. For myself, I can say that cooperation between the highest organs of government in the area of foreign policy has been very smooth. The Foreign Affairs Committee of Parliament came to the same conclusion in its report published in late 2006.

Finnish foreign policy is conducted jointly by the President and the Government, particularly the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister, and this cooperation has worked well. Such broad-based representation in Finland’s international relations has been a strength. It is advantageous for decision-making that the highest organs of government are bound by law to cooperate. The more important the issue, the greater the consensus should be. In my view, the principal aims of constitutional reform have come true as far as the balance of power between the highest organs of government is concerned.

The people, from whom the power is derived, seem reasonably satisfied with the Constitution, as indeed with the procedure of choosing their head of state by direct popular vote. To enact significant changes to this so soon would require pressing reasons for doing so and widespread public approval.

Now that we are discussing, the Constitution, I consider it important that the implementation of the fundamental rights entered in the Constitution should be evaluated too. The Parliamentary Ombudsman, for instance, has pointed out problems in health care services and access to social security. The European Court of Human Rights, on the other hand, has ruled against Finland on several occasions regarding the fairness of trials.

Mr Speaker,
Members of Parliament,

I would like to congratulate you, the Speakers, for the support you have received, to thank you for your cooperation and to wish you success and wisdom in your demanding task.

I hereby declare the 2008 session of Parliament open.