Ahtisaari Lecture by President of the Republic Tarja Halonen at the University of Jyväskylä, 13 November 2006

(check against delivery) Finland’s foreign and security policy

I am happy and honoured to be here in Jyväskylä giving a lecture that bears the name of my predecessor, President Martti Ahtisaari. A lecture named after him is a fine tribute to the long and distinguished career of this internationally esteemed politician and diplomat.

I would also like to thank the organizers — the Central Finland intellectual national defence association, the City of Jyväskylä, the University of Jyväskylä and the Keskisuomalainen newspaper — for arranging this lecture, which has become an annual tradition and an interesting forum for addressing international and foreign policy issues.

Finland’s foreign policy environment and hence our policy choices have changed in the course of history. Nevertheless, it has always been a guiding principle in our foreign policy to ensure Finland’s security and to promote the wellbeing of Finns.

The content of Finland’s foreign policy has been given a variety of labels over the years. We have had an ‘active neutrality policy’, the ‘Paasikivi-Kekkonen line’, ‘military non-alignment’, the ‘Ahtisaari-Lipponen line’ and even the ‘Halonen-Tuomioja line’. Some of these labels are perhaps more satisfactory than others. Their purpose has been an illustrative one, but they have partly been used with political expediency, too.

Foreign policy views and principles are slow to shift. We should bear in mind, however, that our own emphasis also relates to changes in the surrounding world – after all, it is foreign policy we are talking about.

After the end of the Cold War, historians have presented differing evaluations of the twists and turns of our foreign policy since the Second World War. The study of history is always interesting. It provides information on the period studied and on the researcher’s own time and values alike. On the whole, our foreign and security policy since the war has been successful. We managed to retain our independence and freedom of action in highly difficult circumstances. At the same time, we have managed to build a well-functioning welfare society, which has contributed to our international standing. I would like to take this opportunity to express my thanks to my predecessors and my respect for their efforts in pursuing a successful foreign and security policy.

So, what kind of a world is it in which we define our position and our foreign and security policy today?

The general conception of war and peace has changed. The concept of peace is now seen as much more than just the absence of war. Peace is understood to involve development, human safety, respect for human rights, democracy, and many other things. At the same time, we can now see more and more clearly what a great obstacle war and other armed conflicts are to development. The threat of a major war has diminished significantly compared with the cold war period in spite of the fact that debate continues on a potential clash of civilizations. Our threats are global in a new way. The majority of armed conflicts occur within countries, and most of their victims are civilians – women and children. These are major tragedies in themselves, but even these internal conflicts are in danger of expanding into a threat not only to neighbouring countries but also to the safety of larger areas. Moreover, increases in armaments and the fact that they are spreading ever more widely are – once more – a serious challenge.

As the threats we face have changed, the means of building security or eliminating insecurity have also changed. Today’s global security problems have to do with climate change and other environmental issues, which have — faster than experts in classic security policies believed — become issues of daily politics, as has happened with energy crises, for instance. Infectious diseases, legal and illegal movements of people from one country to another, and elimination of poverty are issues that are familiar from various conferences. These challenges and problems require multilateral international cooperation, which could be coordinated by the UN and all the various organizations at its centre. It is becoming increasingly urgent to strengthen such cooperation.

Globalization goes on outside conference rooms. Its impacts, however, are now seen more widely than before. Globalization is not just an economic phenomenon; its impact throughout society, in other words its social dimension, is now understood better. This adds pressure towards more uniform international efforts, for instance in trade and development policy.

Great powers continue to be great powers even though the situation has changed since the days of the cold war. The leading status of the United States has become increasingly prominent in spite of the fact that the importance of multilateral politics has increased. The complicated circumstances following the disintegration of the Soviet Union are taking new shape. Russia itself has become stronger both politically and economically. The importance of large developing countries such as China, India or Brazil has increased a great deal. This change is reflected particularly clearly in negotiations carried out by the World Trade Organization.

The status of western Europe has also changed.

There are signs that the European Union and Finland’s policy in relation to it may emerge as an election theme in next spring’s parliamentary election in our country. It will be interesting to compare the opinions of the various parties with the security and defence policy report issued two years ago and approved by a large majority in Parliament.

The same report defined the line of action in Finland’s security and defence policy in the following way: Finland’s line of action is based on a credible national defence, the functioning of society, a consistent foreign policy as well as a strong international position and an active participation as a member of the European Union. It also includes sharing in the responsibility for international security and stability and peaceful change in line with shared values and principles.

I participated in the preparation of this report myself and approved it together with the Government. In my opinion its main outlines are still topical today, and on this basis the new Parliament will have plenty of time to form an opinion about the report planned for 2008. Today, however, I would like to put forward a number of key issues on Finnish foreign and security policy that I will now explore.


Unanimity is strength in foreign, security and defence policy

Finland has traditionally aimed at achieving extensive consensus in foreign, security and defence policy. This has been purely practical wisdom. As a state, Finland can have only one stand. Debate and differing opinions reflect democracy, but external parties will naturally make a careful assessment on how stable our stand appears in view of the future. Wide support means a stronger mandate for Finland’s representatives.

The report procedure has proved to be a good way of outlining Finland’s foreign, security and defence policy. The report procedure highlights the responsibility of the executive branch, that is the President and the Government, in policy preparation, while leaving approval of the policy to Parliament.


Good neighbourly relations will remain the cornerstone of our foreign policy

Finland’s security and welfare have always been linked to the security and welfare of Europe, particularly northern Europe. By managing our own security we can promote security throughout the continent; and the better European security is, the better it will be for us.

In these times of active interaction, it is excellent for society in Finland as a whole that our relations with all our neighbours are good, and by that I mean the entire neighbouring area. This helps in strengthening Finland’s international status.

Being Nordic is an essential part of Finland’s historical past and social identity. Therefore Nordic cooperation continues to play an important role in both the economy and many other sectors of society that help in making the lives of people living in Nordic countries easier. Legislation in the Nordic countries does not differ all that much in the various sectors of life, such as working life, social security, cultural policy and so on. All Nordic countries have their own foreign policies and alliances. In spite of this, we cooperate extensively in peacekeeping activities and in development cooperation, too. Joint Nordic policies can be seen in action in the UN and in the neighbouring Baltic States. This adds another dimension and new opportunities to traditional Nordic cooperation.

Russia is the largest of our neighbours. It is also a significant regional and global player. Only a relatively short time has passed since the Soviet Union disintegrated and Russia took a new road. Russia aims at implementing human rights, democracy and the rule of law and at developing an efficient market economy. Progress has been made, but a lot remains to be done. Development of the rule of law is or primary importance for both citizens and business, but at the same time people themselves must learn to respect each other’s differing opinions.

The development of Russia is up to the Russians; it is also in their interests. We on the outside can support positive developments by engaging in interaction with Russia on as broad a front as possible. Cooperation includes open discussion of problems but also offering cooperation for solving them.

The European Union needs partnership with Russia. Strategic partnership like this involves the environment, energy, cross-border movement, European stability and security, and counter-terrorism efforts.

Developing the strategic partnership between the EU and Russia has been one of the main themes of the Finnish EU Presidency. The discussion on partnership and energy between EU leaders and President Putin in Lahti last month was a great success. Towards the end of next week, President Putin will be visiting Finland. In addition to a bilateral visit, there will be an EU-Russia summit, and the reform of the Northern Dimension programme will be celebrated.


Finland’s membership of the European Union is the most important part of our foreign and security policy

Finland joined the European Union more than ten years ago. This opened a whole new era in Finland’s international relations. The Union is a community of values and security with 27 members at the beginning of 2007. Our membership has improved the security of the country and its citizens as well as enhanced our international status.

Finland has been an active and cooperative member. We have participated in the common currency and developed the functioning of the internal market, economic competitiveness, the Union’s social dimension, the common foreign policy and the Union’s crisis management capacity. Our aim here has been to strengthen well-being and security all over Europe while at the same time advancing our own welfare and security. The added value provided by the Union indeed lies in the community aspect. By acting as a community we will achieve better results than by acting alone as separate countries.

People’s confidence can be gained and kept by making decisions that relate to their everyday lives and offer them real visions of future. The challenges of globalization facing the people and economies in Europe are best met by a competitive Union with a stong social dimension. Here in Finland, we have succeeded in combining competitive edge with welfare society. The same should be achieved at the EU level. It is also important to develop the internal market into a functioning EU home market area. The economy should grow in a sustainable way that promotes employment.

A better world is safer for Europeans, too. Development of the Union’s Common Foreign and Security policy has advanced. We are largely in agreement on values and objectives, but there is plenty of room for improvement in practical cooperation. Our objective during the Finnish Presidency is to intensify the Union’s external activities and improve their consistency. We can indeed express our satisfaction with our efficient action during the Lebanon crisis.

Ever since the beginning of its membership, Finland has made an active contribution to the development of the Union’s Common Foreign and Security Policy. We will employ all our energy in continuing to participate in the development and implementation of this policy. A concrete example of this is our participation in two rapid response units; the German-Dutch-Finnish unit will start its tour of duty in six weeks’ time. The purpose of these troops is to make it possible to deploy international crisis management troops much more quickly than before when necessary. In this respect the situation will be more demanding than previously.

We must not imagine, however, that complex problems could be solved sustainably through such activity alone. Conventional military crisis management continues to be needed. Civilian action is also needed in conflicts and particularly in launching reconstruction. Finland and Sweden have always consistently underlined the link between civilian and military crisis management and have begun successful initiatives in adding civilian crisis management to the Union’s task list. The EU has indeed been a pioneer showing the way to other international actors.

It is possible that in spite of the European Union’s Common Foreign, Security and Defence Policy, future historians will say that the EU’s most effective and significant contribution to advancing peace and stability was its enlargement. It has given stability to our continent and strengthened the Union as an international actor.

Although it might be argued that there is a certain degree of exhaustion relating to extension and integration in Europe, Finland’s stand on further enlargement remains unchanged. The European Union must be open to all European states that meet its criteria. The Union must apply the same principles to all applicants. The membership criteria cover respect for democracy, human rights and the rule of law, but religion is not included.


Finland is not in the process of joining NATO

Finland’s 2004 Security and Defence Policy Report discusses NATO in a number of different contexts. Its most central policy outline is simply this: “Applying for membership will remain a possibility in Finland’s security and defence policy also in the future.” Thus we do not consider applying for membership topical but we do not exclude the possibility in the future.

We have a functioning cooperation relationship with NATO. We take part in NATO-led peacekeeping operations and its Partnership for Peace programme and we are developing our crisis management capacity in accordance with NATO criteria. NATO values Finland’s contribution as a reliable partner.

Our participation in NATO-led crisis management operations, in manoeuvres or partnership for peace programmes does not mean the Finland is being gradually taken into NATO. I consider it important that we make a clear distinction between our current cooperation and membership, or even a relationship resembling membership. This is why I do not consider it possible for Finland to make a general political commitment to participate in the NATO rapid response troops if it were indeed made possible for partnership countries. It is another matter to take part in individual operations involving different troops by separate decision. Such participation will be decided as before.

With reference to recent debate, it may be in order to say that issues relating to Finland’s foreign and security policy will be in the limelight in connection with the 2008 report. It is natural that such issues are discussed both in interior and foreign policy, particularly before elections, but it is also wise to respect decisions that have been taken together.


Relationship with the United States is important for both Finland and the European Union

Our relationship with the United States is important for us and we want to develop our relations actively. As part of our Presidency programme, we have also been active in promoting relations between the EU and the United States. During our Presidency, a political-level conference was arranged on environmental issues after a pause of several years and a joint conference of justice and interior issues will be arranged soon in Washington.

Strengthening of cooperation between Europe and the United States would be extremely welcome to help solve many global challenges. Environmental policy is one example. Cooperation between Europe and the United States is also needed for solving crises.


Carrying responsibility globally is an integral part of Finland’s foreign and security policy

Security and well-being are common issues in today’s world. A more just world is also a more safe world. ‘World improvement’ is both just and in Finland’s interest.

Building a better world requires functioning and effective multilateral institutions and arrangements. This concerns the United Nations in particular, since its status as promoter of peace, human rights and development is unique. Finland will continue its active participation as member of the UN and make its contribution to developing this organization.