Opening Speech by President of the Republic Tarja Halonen in NATO’s Seminar on a New Strategic Concept to Comprehensive Crisis Management in Helsinki 4 March 2010

Finland has taken part in international crisis management within the framework of the United Nations since the Suez peacekeeping operation in 1956. We have cooperated with many partners, including NATO and its members and partnership countries. Finland has participated in the Partnership for Peace since the mid-1990s. Much of this cooperation has been concrete action in crisis areas. Finland is presently participating in NATO-led crisis management operations in Kosovo and Afghanistan. Finland's cooperation with NATO involves many sectors, but the core in our partnership has always been crisis management.

The security concept has broadened considerably in the past two decades. Also practical situations have been more and more combinations of military and non-military threats and challenges. This will probably be true in the future as well, so it is important to make a clear analysis of the tools that will be needed.

We can already name a number of potential threats to security that may become worse – for example, extreme poverty, famine and contagious diseases.

Some of the examples of large-scale natural disasters are the tsunami in South East Asia, the hurricane that hit New Orleans, and most recently the earthquakes in Haiti and Chile. With global warming, it is likely that storms and floods will cause disasters much more often than now.

Rescue operations following large-scale natural disasters have included experts in the field, the International Red Cross and the UN, but also equipment and personnel from defence forces of different countries and alliances such as NATO. Immediately after a disaster the greatest need is for humanitarian aid. Rapid action is needed, but it is not the only factor that matters. Mutual trust between donors and the positive attitude of the local population are important for sustainable results in the long run.

* * *

When crises become more and more multidimensional, we must be prepared for action that involves both military and non-military aspects of crisis management. In order to be successful, crisis management operations will require new capabilities, both civilian and military.

But that is not enough. Whether we look at today's Afghanistan, Darfur or Somalia, we see that peace, stability and security require much more. We need a well-planned combination of military and civilian crisis management, development efforts and humanitarian aid to cope with complex crisis situations.

The respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms of all people, including women and girls, should be safeguarded in all crisis management operations. In addition, women need to be more involved than before in finding solutions to conflicts – in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 1325 on Women, Peace and Security.

* * *

In the 1990s, Finland and Sweden made a number of initiatives in the European Union regarding the development of the Union's crisis management policy. Our idea was to use the existing resources efficiently and enhance cooperation between the EU, NATO and, at that time, also the Western European Union. But we should keep in mind the unique role of the United Nations in questions of international peace and security. It has been and continues to be vital.

The responsibilities of international organisations are more and more important today. We must be determined in our efforts to meet these global challenges.

Using NATO standards has proved to be an effective system on the military side. However, NATO's Response Force and the EU's rapid-reaction mechanism are partly overlapping, and for many reasons there is unwillingness to use them in practice. Perhaps rapid action is something that should be rethought. In order to respond to real emergency situations, it could be developed into a "lego system" or "unit system" that would be more flexible and would take into account different political commitments.

In the field of civilian crisis management, coordination is even less developed. I know that this has also been given thought within NATO. I suppose that in these deliberations we should take into consideration the hesitation that many NGOs may feel towards a system based on armed forces. Here in Finland, we have a universal conscription, and therefore it appears to be somewhat easier to create well-functioning military-civilian cooperation. This is a question that we should discuss further.

I welcome NATO's interest in involving the partner countries in the preparation of the new strategic concept. Finland appreciates the openness of the process. Openness and close cooperation in preparing and conducting crisis management operations is important, too.

Last year, Finland approved the latest Government report on security and defence policy, and this report addresses issues related to NATO more comprehensively than before. Our cooperation with NATO will be further developed on the basis of partnership. This is a good way to continue. – And as ever, we are pleased to work together with Sweden in arranging this seminar.