Speech by President of the Republic Tarja Halonen at a meeting of ambassadors on 21.8.2002

Life is internationalising, even globalising. The number of different actors involved is growing. Nation-states still bear the principal responsibility in efforts to regulate or guide events in the world, but alongside them international communities, companies, nongovernmental organisations and many other bodies also wield influence in practice. Besides that, in Finland as in other countries - especially Western democracies - we have the diverse array of opinion-moulders, including the media, which one finds in a nation-state alongside the legislature, government or president.

Diplomats have the challenging task of representing their own countries and obtaining reliable information about the situation in another. Every one of us can tell funny or less-amusing anecdotes about how long it took officialdom to notice that a big change was on the way. The collapse of East Germany and the disintegration of the Soviet Union are classic examples, but the events of September 11 and the failure of anyone to anticipate them will probably also join this list of classic tales.

Something that is just as important as being able to notice the diversity of variables is the skill to prioritise and simplify. But description is not enough on its own. In the midst of so many and such varied changes, there should also be an ability to make decisions and implement them.

On countless occasions in the course of their history the Finns have found themselves in awkward situations, in which national unanimity has been demanded. Sometimes that has been achieved by remaining silent in unison. In recent years it has been possible, and also necessary, to have a more open discourse.

In 1995 the Government submitted its first official report on security policy to the Eduskunta, which deliberated the matter at length and thoroughly. The report on security policy was followed in 1997 by one on defence policy and in 2001 by an "interim report". In the course of deliberation of the latter it was decided that the next report would be submitted in 2004. The reports and many events with a bearing on security policy have sustained the discourse and caused changes also in our legislation.

Drafting the 2004 report on security policy will be a task for the government and Eduskunta that the next general election produces. It will be the task of the so-called Kalliomäki security policy follow up working group to at least prevent a break between two governments and parliaments. Time will tell what other role it has to perform. I met the working group for the first time last week and hope our discussions will continue.

All changes and discussion notwithstanding, it seems that we Finns have retained a very strong wish to achieve national unanimity in foreign policy and also more broadly in security policy. I believe this is an excellent thing. An aware and determined nation is the best foundation in this world of changing security risks. We should be able to channel the interest that exists in this society, and to do so wisely to enable it to become a useful force for change more broadly than is now the case.

Crises are a part of life. Democracy, human rights and the rule of law constitute the basic structure of a functioning community. There are certainly other stability-enhancing factors as well: economic security, social justice, environmental security and, for example, good administration. Their absence seems to increase conflicts. There are certainly other factors in addition to these and it would pay to study them.

Effective crisis management is founded on correct analysis of a crisis as well as the right and appropriately timed measures. Inadequate attention is still being paid to preventing crises and managing them in their early stages. For example, the overall annual budget for the work being done by the Council of Europe, which concentrates on prevention, is only about ?169 million, or a fraction of what the Balkans crisis has cost to date. And in any case, the things that should have been resolved before an armed conflict broke out still have to be sorted out after it has ended.

An illustrative fact about costs is that the appropriation which the Ministry of Finance proposes in next year's budget to cover the costs of our KFOR forces is ?53 million. By contrast, the estimate for crisis management is ?7.4 million, our fee for membership of the Council of Europe ?2.5 million and our contribution to the costs of the OSCE's activities ?5 million.

Thus the work being done by the Council of Europe or the OSCE fills a need. Do we or someone else want them to become stronger, or do we or others have a need to integrate their activities into some other organisations? And if so - then why? The ongoing processes of change in the European Union and NATO are very interesting also from this perspective.

I am a supporter of multilateralism on both a global and also a European level. In the existing crisis-management tradition we have many actors. On the global level, the UN still holds an overwhelmingly dominant position. In the European context, we have several other actors in addition. Closer cooperation between actors and clearer coordination are to be desired.

These matters were dealt with already in the 1995 report on security policy, but the actual discourse on human rights, democracy and the rule of law has been conducted since then. I want to say only briefly that with respect to both content and administration, a lot of positive development has taken place both within the state administration and in public opinion. I want to thank you, esteemed diplomats, for the excellent work that you have done for example to improve the status of Europe's Roma or alleviate conflicts in Chechnya and other crisis areas.

However, the work should continue. It is not as "sexy" from the media's perspective as catastrophes or conflicts. But in the long run of history it is probably more important. You would do better to please historians than the evening tabloids.

The European Union's role in the development of our continent is central. Enlargement of the Union is in many respects the most important ongoing process. The interest of the applicant countries is divided between pushing ahead with membership of the EU and of NATO. This autumn's NATO summit in Prague will produce a positive result for several applicants. It will be interesting to see how this is reflected in the ongoing process on the EU side. I hope that both the existing member states and the applicant countries will be able to work to the full to deal with the challenges on the Union side as well. EU membership is intended to affect the everyday life of the entire society from the moment of accession onwards, whereas membership of NATO - although as such it demands constant work - affects a smaller part of the society on a day-to-day basis.

Even without enlargement, it would be important to strengthen and add clarity to the structure of the European Union. A larger membership will increase pressure to do this. However, I do not see the same dramatics in this as many other EU speakers. Speaking for myself, I want to reiterate that it is important for Europeans themselves to feel that the development of the Union makes sense.

The result of the Irish referendum on Nice or the rise of right-wing populism in many member states will probably not be remedied by choosing a president for the Union, but rather by pondering how cooperation between the EU and the member states can be rationalised. A more important role for the EU in international politics can add balance to the development, but achieving a stronger role only by using majority rules to facilitate decision making may pile up more internal difficulties and increase alienation in the EU. In my view, we should be moderate in the pace of change and concentrate on the tasks that best suit Europeans.

I see Europe as being better at development work than at using force. It is better at managing crises than at waging wars. In the course of their history, the countries of Europe have waged countless wars on their own soil. Europeans have suffered immeasurably in those years of violence. But we also have the experience to sort out and agree differences. To build and not just to destroy.

Joining the European Union was an important change for Finnish foreign policy. We are part of a political and economic union. We are actively participating in the development of a common foreign and security policy. I do not see any need to develop the EU into a defence alliance. The EU has neither a need nor real resources to project military power around the world. Crisis-management tasks suit and are enough for the EU. In reality, independently taking care of crisis management in Europe is already a very demanding task for the EU and its European partners, by which I mean also Russia. The situation in the Balkans is a good example of this.

Finland has been active, both alone and together with Sweden and other countries which are not members of military alliances, in the development of European security policy. I am pleased the Swedish foreign minister Anna Lindh is a guest here this year. That certainly adds new perspectives to the discussion. Finland and Sweden have been constructive and effective members, especially in the development of the EU's capacity to manage crises. Our joint initiative to discharge the so-called Petersberg tasks was in many ways important in the development of a European profile.

Since the events of September 11 also crisis management has acquired a new content. Cooperation between armed peacekeepers and civilian sectors has always been important to the Finns. Civil-military cooperation has established itself on the agenda of others as well. Resisting terrorism and warding off its attacks as well as helping those who have become its targets is a different - and in part much broader and longer-lasting - task than military measures alone.

Defending democracy is an important issue with many aspects. As such, I do not believe the argument of some experts that specifically Western democracy is democracy's weakest link. When we are defending democracy and the rule of law from terrorism, we must remain true to our values. Were we to descend to using undemocratic means or violating fundamental rights, it would be a victory for the terrorists and a defeat for our own values.

Foreign Minister Tuomioja has already made a valuable contribution on the subject of globalisation and managing it. I would like to mention briefly in this context that early last spring the International Labour Organisation appointed a commission to examine the social dimension of globalisation. I have the honour to co-chair the commission together with President Benjamin Mkapa of Tanzania. Our task is to recommend ways of ensuring that as many individuals, peoples and countries as possible can share the benefits of globalisation, whilst at the same time minimising the number who suffer from its adverse effects.

Closer cooperation in the field of international trade is a prerequisite for better management of globalisation. The rules governing the markets for both goods and services and finance must be strengthened. For people to be able to feel that their lives are better secured and companies to be able to function stably, we also need to strengthen democracy and human rights in addition to developing the rule of law. A strengthening of democracy in working life is also among the demands that people are making.

Our commission has held two meetings to date. It will probably come as no surprise to you to hear that the issues brought up have included matters relating to migration, Third World debt and the fairness of the rules governing international trade. International financial institutions and their imagined or actual demands have likewise featured in the discussion to date. Our work will not be easy, but we have received support from a variety of quarters and I am optimistic that we shall succeed.

The World Summit on Sustainable Development, which begins in Johannesburg next week, has meant that the functioning of the international system has become and will remain the focus of considerable attention. Will we be able to agree on matters which are of decisive importance to us and also future generations?

We share one world and the threats and opportunities that present themselves to it are common to all of the world's population and all of the countries in it. Combating threats and availing of opportunities call for common measures. Measures of this kind are often compromises. Agreements are not perfect. Nevertheless, even international agreements with shortcomings are often preferable to a situation in which no agreement at all exists.

No organisation or system is perfect. Not even the United Nations. Nevertheless, it is currently the only and best forum for global discussion and decision making. The results that the UN's work yields depend entirely on the will of the member states.

Supporting the multilateral system and the UN will continue to have a prominent place in Finland's foreign and security policy.

The environment in which the Ministry for Foreign Affairs operates is changing, and the Ministry with it. The Ministry has demonstrated its capacity to renew itself and its willingness to manage change by drafting a report on the challenges facing the external affairs administration in the 21st century. The report received a good reception in the Eduskunta.

As a follow on to the report, the Ministry is now undergoing a strong process of restructuring. I consider it important that the tasks of the external affairs administration are ranked by priority and the organisation made suitable to meet the challenges of today. The administration also needs sufficient resources to achieve its goals. An efficient external affairs administration that gets results lies in the best interests of the whole of Finland in this globalising world.

Distinguished ambassadors, ladies and gentlemen, now I am ready to answer country-specific or other questions.