Urho Kekkonen lecture by President of the Republic Tarja Halonen to the Paasikivi Society on 31.8.2000

Urho Kaleva Kekkonen, who was born a century ago almost to the day, left a richly-diverse legacy. He was in many respects both a radical and a wise person. His work in the field of foreign policy took place in practice during the period when the Soviet Union became the leading European power and Finland adapted to living with this fact.

The matter is also of broader international relevance - how a small country can manage to look after its interests despite the constricting pressures of superpower politics. The line chosen by Kekkonen and Finland did not always gain full understanding in other countries, but today there is no longer any talk of Finlandisation; instead, we are more likely to hear our country’s success story being discussed. The position that Finland has built for herself in international politics is a stronger one and has contributed to strengthening the stability of the whole of Europe.

Like his predecessor President Paasikivi, Urho Kekkonen understood that Finland herself had to take care of her relations with her superpower neighbour. At the same time, however, he had the insight that only by making our own security an intrinsic part of that of the entire continent, and even of the whole world, would Finland be able to increase the room for manoeuvre that our independent development called for. As his method he chose cooperation and an unrelenting effort to remove menacing pictures from Europe, especially its northern part. And, where possible, from the broader world as well.

When Urho Kekkonen opened, in summer 1973, the event that would be the crowning moment of his lifework, the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, he included already in his address of greeting a quote by a Finnish author that shocked many people then: "Security is not a matter of erecting a fence, but rather of opening a door." In this he sensed what would historically come to be the greatest significance of the CSCE and which would eventually, after his death, lead to the end of the Cold War and the beginning of a growing together of Europe.

Finland has had her own role in this process of growing together. Our country’s contribution to the success of the CSCE process has been discussed many times. Finland joined the Council of Europe fairly late, but has worked visibly and effectively from the very beginning. This activity was important for ourselves, especially to strengthen our own thinking on human rights, and it also reinforced the foundation from which to take the next step, joining the European Union. The Council of Europe and also our work there have encouraged a long-divided continent to commit itself to shared values: democracy, respect for human rights, especially those of minorities, and the rule of law.

Our position changed greatly when we joined the European Union. The effects of membership extend into every sector of society. We Finns have integrated ourselves into this new shared Europe quite quickly. We have not just dined at the common table, either; we have been catering for others as well. Nor have we confined ourselves to taking care of our own wellbeing; we have also opened doors for others to come in.

The foundation for this practical action has been a new and broader concept of security. It is precisely this that sets us apart from the old world of the Cold War era. According to the new concept, peace is more than merely the absence of war. The concept further recognises that security can not be obtained through military means alone. The factors that influence the security of people’s everyday lives are the fundamental democratic structure, respect for human rights and realisation of the rule of law. Economic prosperity and social justice add to this everyday security and social stability. Respecting the environment likewise reduces risk situations.

Human rights are universal in character, for which reason they are something that we all share. Environmental catastrophes do not respect national frontiers. Trade liberalisation and globalisation need to be counterbalanced by international cooperation to protect people and nature. Although, of course, every nation-state still bears the basic responsibility for its affairs, national sovereignty really no longer means erecting fences, but rather opening gates. An open world presupposes cooperation to combat negative matters and support positive development.

Finland has a lot to gain in this development. Both our immediate geographical region and more broadly Europe are in a dynamic phase of development, in which we can play a part by encouraging positive dependence – a process of growing together. I shall now go on to examine only these aspects, which are at their most interesting stage: 1) the EU and its enlargement, 2) the development in Russia and 3) NATO and its enlargement. Naturally, also other models of European cooperation, such as the work being done by the Council of Europe and the OSCE still have an influence on the security of Finland and the whole continent.

Of the factors promoting stability and security in Europe, the one I regard as most important at the moment is enlargement of the European Union. Enlargement can produce stability and security as well as prosperity and social development. It creates the preconditions for comprehensive political and economic cooperation in our continent. It also makes it possible for Europeans to cope better in global competition.

We Finns still remember our own accession negotiations and our referendum well. The most important consideration for many who voted in favour was the Union’s stability-enhancing effect. In the view of a majority of our people, the multidimensional security that EU membership brings was and is more suitable for Finland than the guarantees of military security that NATO, which is based on collective defence, offers.

The European Union is open to all European states which share the same values and principles and are prepared to meet the requirements of membership. The countries that have now applied for membership are also convinced of the benefits of integration. They see joining the Union as a chance to anchor their society in democratic values and as an opportunity to enhance their citizens’ prosperity.

I believe that it accords with the interests of both applicants and ourselves to support this enlargement. I know that fear of possible risks is associated with enlargement both here in Finland and in the other member states. These concerns should be taken seriously, but at the same time remembering the benefits that can be achieved and the fact that the negotiations are being conducted carefully. It is true that in addition to meeting the aquis requirements in the negotiations we must also pay special attention to social development in the applicant countries. The negotiations are concentrating on guaranteeing the effective functioning of the single market and often presuppose socially-difficult decisions on the part of the applicants. To ensure sustainability economic development must be accompanied by social justice. There are many more nuances than legal elections to a modern democracy and welfare society.

The matters that it would be best for governments to take care of through bilateral and multilateral cooperation have remained outside the official negotiations. In order to achieve the desired result it would additionally pay to use all of the resources of civil society to strengthen democracy in our own region.

With enlargement the EU will become a more significant actor in the Baltic Sea Region. We have foreseen that in the Union’s programmes for action – perhaps most visibly in our initiative concerning the Northern Dimension. Finland’s aim is to promote strengthening of the Baltic Sea countries’ international position by involving them more closely in both Nordic and European cooperation. It accords also with Finland’s interests that Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are admitted to the EU as soon as they are ready to accede.

Successful enlargement does not conceal the fact that the EU is not and will not in the foreseeable future be the whole of Europe. We must also develop forms of cooperation with those countries for which membership is not yet possible or which may not even aspire to it. We must, however, avoid unfounded promises. It is not in anyone’s interest to maintain expectations that are unrealistic.

Russia’s importance for the security of our entire continent is of a magnitude all its own. The Soviet Union’s transformation into Russia and the opening of its borders have affected the whole of Europe, but especially us Finns. We have been able to considerably broaden and diversify our cooperation. In addition to representatives of the public authorities and economic life, the whole broad diversity of our civil societies can freely build their links.

Russia has retained her importance as an important partner of Finland. Lively exchange of high-level visits has continued. The new conditions presuppose broader contacts between government administrations than we have had in the past. Russia’s democratisation and a strengthening of civil society there have supported cooperation on the grassroots level. The dizzying pace at which traffic and passenger flows have grown oblige the authorities to be able to constantly develop and improve frontier crossing points, procedures for issuing visas, and transport channels. The will for cooperation has been good, but it must be admitted that at the same time Russia’s administrative machinery has had difficulties where both resources and legal security are concerned.

In the very early days of the new Russia, Finland immediately succeeded in expanding her direct contacts with the country’s various regions, which had been quite scanty until then. The Adjacent Areas Agreement that we signed in 1992 has worked well. It has opened direct relations with Russian provinces close to our border. I believe that there could be a future for arrangements of this kind also elsewhere along Russia’s borders, especially with the Baltic States.

In place of a Soviet Union that aspired to autarky has come a Russia that relies on foreign trade. Russia’s overwhelmingly most important trade partner is the EU. Europe is likely to remain the most important market for Russian gas, oil, timber and other export commodities for a long time to come.

Recent times have seen a discussion in Finland, partly in a nostalgic tone, on the theme of whether a special relationship exists between Finland and Russia and some have even voiced concern that Finland may nowadays lack a national policy on Russia.

Times have changed from when Kekkonen was alive. In the final analysis, we knew less in general about the Soviet Union than we know about Russia today. But we believed we knew more about the future development of the Soviet Union than we now dare to predict Russia’s future.

Besides that, written history tends to oversimplify matters. For example, interaction with the Soviet Union unfolded very slowly after the Second World War and a lot later than we often remember. Even at its liveliest in the 1970s and 80s, there was much less interaction than there is today and it was closely regulated by agreements. The flow of tourism was one-sided.

It may be that Finland’s national strategy on Russia has become so self-evident over the years that it does not actually seem to exist at all. Nevertheless we have resolutely pursued it. Supporting Russia as a country that shares European values and which is part of the active totality of our continent is our shared goal. We can be pleased that we are no longer alone in the world in this thinking. It has now been accepted and is also part of, for example, the operational model for implementing the EU’s strategy on Russia. Multilateral action forums are important to us, but they do not obviate the need for national actions by Finland. Therefore we have expanded our political ties, created the preconditions for trade and cultural contacts as well as for extensive cooperation on the level of civil society. The geographical coverage of our relations has been expanded through cooperation with regions close to our frontier.

There is never too much cause for complacency. It would be good for us to give constant thought to new ways, such as for example creating livelier ties than at present with Russia’s young intelligentsia through a variety of exchange programmes. I believe that young Finnish people themselves are showing a gratifyingly keen interest in this matter.

Another matter is patience. There is no point in expecting miracles. Russia’s journey along the road to becoming a functioning modern state where broadly-based democracy flourishes and full respect for human rights and the rule of law prevail is still to be completed. There is likewise a lot of work to be done to develop economic life there. The future is difficult to predict, but we must work for it today.

When we look at Finland’s and Russia’s history, their status as neighbours and the constantly expanding interaction between them, it is obvious that what is involved is a special relationship. In the same way, Finland has a special relationship also with Sweden and Estonia. In comparison with what we had in the past, our special relationship with Russia is no longer overshadowed by tension stemming from our different social systems and the special arrangements that this caused.

Earlier in this lecture I spoke at some length about the new broad concept that is the foundation for security today. However, a traditional security policy based partly on weapons has not lost its importance. The Common Foreign and Security Policy is an instruments by means of which the European Union – including Finland – influence our own security and contribute to promoting that of the international community as a whole. The CFSR has the goal of safeguarding the Union’s shared values, fundamental interests and independence and promoting the security of member states. It is also intended to reinforce peace and international security in accordance with the principles of the UN and the OSCE as well as to strengthen democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights.

Developing a common foreign and security policy for the European Union accords with Finland’s interests. The core matter is the willingness of member states to arrive at decisions together and also make a genuine commitment to them. The strength of the Union comes from our being able to combine our own national experiences and positive goals into a single policy, thereby increasing many times over the influence that it can exert. A prerequisite for an effective common foreign and security policy is that the various actors – member states, the Commission and the High Representative – all pull together.

A central goal of the Treaty of Amsterdam was to make the common foreign and security policy more effective. The most important thing of all, of course, is to develop common lines. New instruments were presented in the Treaty: the High Representative, the Policy Planning and Early warning Unit, the Common Strategies and the development of a crisis-management capability. The work has made progress in these respects and concrete results have been gradually achieved.

Most work has been done in the development of the EU’s ability to manage crises, especially its military capability in this respect. In accordance with the decisions reached at the Helsinki Summit, the member states have designated forces which could be used in EU crisis-management operations. Finland is provisionally offering to make 1,500 peacekeepers available for operations of this kind.

Military crisis management does not in itself solve crises, but it can at its best be used to support the search for a political resolution. Since the causes of crises are mainly political, the solutions to them should also be political. I want also in this connection to emphasise that the development of civilian crisis management must be accorded priority compared with military crisis management. Crises can be prevented and resolved by promoting democracy, respecting human rights and realising the rule of law. What this means in practice is, for example, an efficient system of schools, a justice system that can be trusted and good police and rescue services. An efficient economy is likewise especially important. These things may not have the high visibility of military operations, but their effect is more lasting and their use is more effective and less expensive than military actions.

Parallel to the EU’s development and enlargement – as a separate process – the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, NATO, has been changing as Europe evolves. The members of NATO have been emphasising the alliance’s crisis-management task as collective defence recedes into a less visible role. It must, however, be remembered that, in accordance with the decisions taken at the Washington summit, collective defence remains NATO’s core function. Understandably, the member states want to keep it so.

I have my doubts about predictions that the Common Foreign and Security Policy together with the development of a crisis-management capability could supplant NATO. The European Union is not developing into a collective security organisation. What is more likely to happen is that the EU and NATO will develop their cooperation in the field of crisis management.

The US commitment to Europe is realised mainly through NATO. From the perspective of our continent’s security and stability, this commitment has been and will remain very important. We must ensure that the transatlantic link remains strong.

The question of the alliance’s further enlargement will come up at the next NATO summit in 2002. Whatever decision is reached, it will affect the whole of Europe and therefore also Finland. I believe that those in NATO will understand the responsibility they bear.

Finland’s security position is better than it has ever been in the past. However, a dynamic development phase and several simultaneous processes are ongoing in Europe. We have to and may continually take stances on numerous issues of foreign and security policy in order to influence the future of Finland and of our continent. In this respect the change compared with the congealed world of the Cold War is obvious.