Addressed by President of the Republic Tarja Halonen to the Association for Security Studies at the University of Turku, 5 April 2005

I am happy to have the opportunity to address the Association for Security Studies in Turku today. This Association has been a forum for those interested in security policy for many years, and its meetings have helped promote and spark off debate on security policy in Finland.

The end of the Cold War heralded new potential for cooperation throughout our continent. A heavily polarized situation yielded to a more open and pluralist debate, and to commitments to decisions through which our present cooperation organizations and progressively deepening integration have been created. This has naturally reflected on Finland too, and we have participated actively in this process.

Finland has been a Member State of the European Union for ten years now. We have good relations with all our neighbours, and we are respected in the international community. Active debate on security policy is a natural part of today’s politics.

It is also logical that we should support democratically taken decisions. Just before last Christmas, Parliament approved the Security and Defence Policy Report drafted by the President and the Government.

Finland’s fundamental policies were approved with broad political consensus. There was some discussion about phrasing and emphasis, but I do not consider the differences to be of major significance.

So, how binding is this Report? My feeling is that it constitutes a serious guideline for both present and future decision-makers. The analysis will no doubt continue throughout the forthcoming presidential election, and it is only fair that candidates speak their mind, especially if they disagree with the collectively taken decisions.

* * *

The world is constantly changing, usually without regard to the decisions we take. My aim today is to discuss three topics that are of major interest for Finland’s foreign and security policy: the European Union, Russia and the USA. We are a Member State of the EU, Russia is our largest neighbour, and the USA is significant for every other nation in the world.

My discussing only these three topics today does not mean that there is nothing to talk about regarding the Baltic region, human rights, development cooperation, globalization management, or the Council of Europe. All these play an important role in Finland’s foreign and security policy. However, time does not allow for all topics to be covered in one talk, though I am willing to return to those or other issues if and when they are raised by members of the audience in discussion.

* * *

The word from the wise has always been to look at history if we wish to understand the present. Conceptions of history vary greatly even within the confines of Finland, as we well know, let alone in world history. History tells us not just about events but also about the writers of history and their times.

Because of this inevitable subjective nature, it is often difficult to achieve a consensus on history, and it is pointless to allow disagreements over history to escalate into international disputes. Despite this, or perhaps because of it, international historical research projects are welcome. Politics, however, should be oriented towards the future, not the past.

When I visited President Chirac of France about a month ago, he observed that if after the last war France and Germany had continued to pursue a backward-looking policy instead of deciding to begin building a common future, the present integration process would have been inconceivable.

Finland’s security has always been bound up with the security of Europe as a whole. By managing our own security we can promote the security of the entire continent, and the more influence we can exert on European security, the better for us.

We have always aimed to promote stability in northern Europe. Our main tool in this is our foreign policy, but defence is also an important stability factor. In the context of European security, we have never been freeloaders — not in time of war, nor in time of peace. We have always made a positive contribution to security and stability in Europe.

Finland’s membership in the European Union inaugurated a new era in our security policy. With this membership, we became a member in an alliance. We are politically and economically allied with 24 other countries. Membership in this community of like-minded countries, which is progressively growing closer and enlarging, has significantly contributed to the security and welfare of Finland and its citizens.

The purpose of the European Union is above all to make interaction and cooperation easier between its Member States, its citizens, its businesses and its other organizations. At the same time, the EU is a credible partner for other countries and regional organizations and also a strong actor in international organizations. The EU can thus be described as a broad security alliance. It is not a federation, and not really a confederation either; it is a union of both nations and citizens.

Throughout our membership, we have participated in the activities of the EU thoroughly and with commitment. We have adopted the common currency and helped develop the internal market, the social dimension of the EU, the common foreign policy and the EU’s crisis management capability. We take an active approach in all fields because this promotes our own welfare and security, naturally, but also because we feel we are promoting European welfare and security in general at the same time.

The European Union is considered above all a forum for non-military cooperation. It is thus somewhat confusing that recently the EU has developed rapidly in the field of military crisis management in particular. Could it be that the Lisbon Strategy has proved too difficult to implement and that the coordination of military resources was a more gratifying way of pursuing integration at this juncture? Or has the need for military cooperation actually grown? I believe the answer is a bit of both.

Both Finland and I myself personally have taken the initiative in the development of the EU’s crisis management capability. The qualitative and quantitative development of this capability will improve the EU’s potential for making a positive contribution in the international community.

Launching a military crisis management operation implies a situation that should have been addressed earlier with other means. Military crisis management is the last resort for defusing a crisis, and the power to be used must be scaled accordingly. Furthermore, any military crisis management operation should immediately be followed by a civilian crisis management operation to repair material damage and to launch processes to address the shortcomings that led to the crisis in the first place.

The European Union is creating a rapid-response crisis management capability. Finland is participating in the setting up of two of these rapid-response forces — with Sweden, Norway and Estonia in one, and with Germany and the Netherlands in the other. Once again, we are taking full responsibility for our common security and its promotion.

There has been some debate in Finland about whether Finnish troops would have time to muster for a military crisis management operation within the required five-day response time. Earlier experiences lead me to believe that they would. We make a habit of sticking to our commitments, and Finland has always been able to take decisions quickly and to act efficiently. The EU’s rapid-response crisis management operations will never be bogged down because of Finland.

Experience has also shown that a quick start is only part of the picture. Unfortunately, in many cases crisis management operations drag on into years or even decades. Maintaining a presence for many years requires far more commitment than a rapid response. In such cases too, Finland has shown dependability and commitment, as witness the western Balkans and the Middle East.

Military crisis management can only be a part of the EU’s contribution to international stability. The major components of this contribution are foreign policy, trade policy and development policy measures. These can be used to prevent crises, and they are also vital in managing a return to normal life.

Developing the European Union’s civilian crisis management capability is actually a broader and more demanding process than its military counterpart, even though it has not attracted as much attention and heat in the media and in public debate. There is not as much experience within the EU of such operations, and it requires other actors besides governments.

The development of resources for civilian crisis management is progressing in accordance with the EU security strategy and the overall goals approved at the European Councils. The focus areas here are police work, promoting the rule of law, developing civilian administration, rescue services, and monitoring. Civilian crisis management operations can be launched independently of military ones, together with them or in close cooperation with them. This dovetails well with Finland’s position, since Finnish peacekeepers are used to helping local citizens in their everyday lives.

In civilian crisis management too, the aim is to launch an operation as soon as possible, no later than five days after a decision to the effect is taken by the Council of Ministers.

* * *

Russia is the largest and in many ways the most important of Finland’s neighbours. Russia is an important regional and global actor. Russia has considerable military power, including nuclear weaponry, and it is a permanent member of the Security Council of the UN. Russia has also taken a major role as one of the four countries involved in the Middle East peace process and in the six-country talks concerning nuclear disarmament in North Korea. Furthermore, Russia is a major supplier of energy products to Finland and the EU as a whole, and the energy dependency of Europe on Russia is by no means decreasing.

Trade between Finland and Russia has been growing at a rate of 25% per year, and Russia is fast becoming Finland’s principal trading partner once again. The Russian economy has great growth potential, and it is an attractive market area for Finnish and other European products and services.

Obviously, Finland has a special relationship with Russia, as indeed with all our neighbours. This special relationship is based not only on a shared border but on common interests related largely to economic cooperation and also to other human interaction. Obstacles to such interaction should be dismantled methodically, by degrees and in a controlled manner.

Finland has clear interests in the development of Russia. We want to see Russia embracing democracy, the rule of law and a market economy. We want to see stability and welfare in Russia.

After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Russia has progressed very rapidly from a historical perspective on the road towards democracy and a market economy. The Russian leadership has affirmed its commitment to democracy and European values.

However, there is still much to do in Russia regarding the improvement of human rights, the rule of law and the market economy. The party political system is underdeveloped, the plurality of the media leaves something to be desired, the predictability of the administration could be improved, and businesses should be guaranteed a more equitable environment. The list could go on, but we should remember that other countries have things to improve too.

To paraphrase President Mauno Koivisto, the main thing is the direction of the movement. Russia has by and large been moving in the right direction. Progressing towards a ‘Western’ democracy is not without its problems. However, I not only hope, but also believe, that positive developments in Russia will continue.

* * *

Joining the European Union has diversified our relationship with Russia. Many of the matters that were managed bilaterally earlier are now managed in part or completely by the EU. Our competence and relationship with Russia enriches the EU’s relationship with Russia. However, we are not the only Russia experts in the EU.

Having said that, it is worth pointing out that the EU should act as coherently as possible in its relations with Russia. The EU should be more coordinated and more logical in all sectors. The EU’s joint and several responses to Russia should always be the same. This would improve the effectiveness of the EU and make it easier for Russia to interact with the EU, too.

For the EU, Russia is a strategic partner with which broad and comprehensive cooperation is pursued. Such cooperation is particularly justified for the EU in areas such as the environment, energy, cross-border movement, national health, crime prevention and research, and also other areas related to European security, stability and general welfare.

Russia, for its part, has many expectations vested in the increasing economic interdependence between Russia and the EU and in the development of the EU’s common foreign, security and defence policy.

In recent years, the relationship between the EU and Russia has shown positive developments. The Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (PCA) was extended to the new Member States; the EU and Russia have signed a bilateral protocol concerning Russia’s membership in the WTO; and Russia acceded to the Kyoto Protocol. Also, the EU and Russia have begun negotiations on mutual relaxation of visa protocols.

Negotiations on the development of four shared areas represent an important step in the development of relations between the EU and Russia. The aim is to achieve closer cooperation in economic matters, in justice and internal affairs, in external security and in research and training. We in the EU are optimistic about achieving a positive conclusion to these negotiations by the time of the Russia-EU summit in May.

The EU encourages and supports Russia in finding a political solution to the situation in Chechnya. At the same time, the EU is concerned about violations of human rights and the use of excessive force in the region. Resolving this conflict, which is a burden on Russian society, would be in the interests of all parties.

Developing relations between the EU and Russia is one of the focus areas of Finland’s forthcoming Presidency. The Northern Dimension plans of action and the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement also happen to be up for renewal during our Presidency.

* * *

George W. Bush and the Republican Party gained a clear victory in the elections in the USA last November. Now, in President Bush’s second term, his party has a majority in both houses of Congress. This reinforces the President’s position and gives him wider scope for managing American domestic and foreign policy.

The victory was particularly important for President Bush personally. He now has a mandate from a clear majority of voters, and the confusion of the vote-counting of the previous election has been consigned to history.

In terms of foreign policy, President Bush’s second term has begun promisingly. He has said that he will make the promotion of democracy the cornerstone of his foreign policy, and he has demonstrated his willingness to improve cooperation with the EU.

The EU-USA summit in Brussels in late February displayed a strong sense of cooperation and may be a herald of new joint efforts.

The EU and the USA make natural partners in a great many international affairs. Our mutual dependence in the areas of security and economics is considerable.

When we act together, we can achieve our goals, whether in the Middle East, in terrorism prevention, in the global promotion of human rights, in the prevention of climate change or in many other areas. If we act in disagreement, we may fail in crucial matters.

In order to solve problems and crises, we must also have cooperation in mundane matters to make it easier for people, businesses and organizations to interact.

Improving cooperation requires steps to be taken on both sides. We Europeans hope that the USA will commit itself more closely to the multilateral system and to the achievement of sustainable results through it. On the other hand, we must be prepared to acknowledge the weaknesses of the multilateral system and to undertake corrective action.

* * *

Finland has an excellent relationship with the USA and interacts politically with it in a lively way.

We participate in international crisis management led by the USA, for example in Afghanistan and in the western Balkans. We are also contributing to the stabilization and social reconstruction of Iraq through civilian crisis management and through contribution of resources.

However, the main reason why Finland is respected in the USA is that our foreign and security policy promotes security and stability in our neck of the woods, in northern Europe and in Europe in general.

Finland and the USA have a stable trade relationship, totalling some EUR 5 billion last year. Although our exports to the USA decreased by some 17% on the previous year, our exports exceeded our imports by EUR 1.25 billion. Companies from both countries are active on the other country’s markets.

Like many other countries, we are dependent on American high technology, but we also have a great deal of competence in this area ourselves. We must also remember that economic developments in the USA have a considerable impact on the global economy and on Finland’s economy, too.

Finland will continue to pursue active bilateral relations with the USA. We are also active in the development of transatlantic relations in the EU, and our forthcoming Presidency will be an especially good opportunity for this.

* * *

The world is round. The EU, Russia and the USA cooperated not only with each other, but with others, too. China, India and Pakistan are important for all of us. Latin America is important for the USA and the EU alike. The development of the multilateral system for global governance is a recurring theme.

Because of this, developing the UN is of crucial importance. The report made by General Secretary Kofi Annan to the General Assembly is a good starting point. I can already say that Finland is largely in favour of the proposals in the General Secretary’s report, although our detailed position has not yet been formulated.

The world is full of opportunities and challenges. Finding the right alternatives is not always easy. National consensus in foreign and security policy is not an end in itself, but it does help us cope with this complicated world of ours.