Speech by President of the Republic of Finland Tarja Halonen at the 50th annual meeting of the Paasikivi Society at Ritarihuone on 27 November 2008

When he was elected President in 1946, J.K. Paasikivi had decades of experience at the forefront of national politics and economic life behind him. The thread running through his policy was always the priority of foreign policy in light of domestic policy. Experience and foreign policy expertise were particularly important in his last two terms as Prime Minister and during his decade of service as President. Although these years were a time of rebuilding, they were also, to quote Professor Tuomo Polvinen, 'terrible times’.

Under J.K. Paasikivi’s leadership, the terrible times passed and Finland’s relationship with the Soviet Union improved. This gave Finland more latitude in foreign policy, allowing it to integrate with international organisations and establish relations with different countries.

In his introduction to the history of the Paasikivi Society, Osmo Apunen states that the Society was established not only to influence national opinion concerning Finland’s foreign policy but also to serve as Urho Kekkonen’s foreign policy stage. When the Society was established in 1958, the international and domestic situations were intertwined and tense. At that point, the need to support Finland’s foreign policy was obvious.

For many years, Paasikivi was part of the concept used to describe Finland's foreign policy. Finland’s foreign policy has been very stable for decades. Rather than saying that it is at a standstill, I would call it stable, proactive and modern. I would also like to extend the same general thank you to the presidents that followed Paasikivi: Kekkonen, Koivisto and Ahtisaari. Foreign policy should be long-term in nature. The world changes rapidly, but values and principles have to be sufficiently strong.

In a parliamentary democracy, national opinion is the foundation of political leadership and policy content. Citizens’ approval and support for the foreign policy being practiced is an absolute necessity. This also applies to broader international cooperation, as we have noticed with regard to developing the European Union. Extensive agreement on the basic content of foreign policy is a Finnish strength and benefit to our native country.

Stable foreign policy is also supported by the current foreign policy leadership model, in which the Parliament, the President of the Republic and the Government are committed to close cooperation regarding how foreign policy is handled in principle and in practice. Because no one can work alone, important decision-making requires the cooperation and collaboration of all three bodies.

The founding of the Paasikivi Society was a major recognition of the central content of J.K. Paasikivi’s life’s work – foreign policy. I congratulate the Society for the work it has done to promote interest in Finnish foreign policy and matters of international policy, and for embracing the memory of President J.K. Paasikivi and his political legacy.

Another matter is open debate, which should be the political landscape that inspires Finnish foreign policy – the “official line”. Open debate along with the introduction of and focus on various issues are both necessary and welcome.

Development policy matters are the foreign policy of today: the size of development work appropriations, fairer globalisation, the position of women and girls to mention just a few.

Simultaneously we should openly and critically examine the very core of security and defence policy: anti-personnel mines, cluster weapons, nuclear weapons, military alliances and so on. All of these can tolerate and need debate.

The question of how many issues the Paasikivi Society wants to include in its discussion forum is a matter for the Society to decide. However, you deserve credit for your persistent work.

* * *

Finland has been a democratic society throughout its independence. Even during difficult times – and our history includes plenty of them – our country has maintained its democratic system, and the constitutional state has also survived many tests. This is proof of the strong will that Finns have for democratic self-determination regarding its own matters. From humble beginnings, Finns have built a top-class welfare society. We have good reason to be proud of this country and society.

Finland is clearly a society that is based on values. In addition to the above-mentioned democracy, our central values include respect for human rights, respect for individual freedom, freedom of expression, publication and assembly, and collective responsibility. For Finns, emphasising individual freedom has not meant opposing a sense of community. Each individual has their private life, but we take care of everyone.

It is only natural that Finland’s foreign and security policy is also based on values. A central starting point for this is respect for and reinforcement of international justice. International justice means support and security for all countries. It is particularly important for the smallest countries. It is not good if international order is only defined according to strength and size. However, it is realistic to state that these factors influence international relations now and will continue to do so in the future.

Human rights only became an important part of Finland’s foreign policy in the latter half of the 1990s. As Minister for Foreign Affairs, I noticed that the foreign ministries of nearly all European countries had a human rights department. I also wanted to establish such a unit in the Finnish Ministry for Foreign Affairs. Not all experienced diplomats were enthusiastic about this, because many felt that human rights were a difficult and daunting theme in foreign policy. However, the matter was approved anyway.

Finland’s foreign and security policy is based on a broad concept of security. Peace is seen as a much more extensive concept than a mere absence of war. Peace means development, humane security, respect for human rights, democracy and a functional society.

In recent years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has addressed peace and security as a comprehensive entity when deciding on the recipients of its Peace Prize. Of course, so-called traditional peace work is also included in the broad definition of security. I am delighted that the Nobel Peace Prize, the most respected of prizes, was awarded to President Martti Ahtisaari this year. The decision of the Nobel Committee was quite right: Martti Ahtisaari is deserving of his prize, and we should also feel a sense of satisfaction.

Our foreign policy is communal by nature. Inter-country relations do not always lead to an even outcome for all, but it is activity which, at its best, benefits all those involved. For Finland, the starting point is to avoid promoting our security at the expense of others.

Finland best promotes its own interests and security in international cooperation. Building security does not begin with barricading borders, but through foreign policy in bilateral and international organisations and arrangements.

Foreign policy is target-oriented activity. At its simplest, we could say that the goal of Finland’s foreign policy is to promote the security and welfare of Finland and Finnish people. If we want to further describe target orientation, the words used could well be: assuring independence and promoting fundamental values.

I would like to leave enough time for discussion in this event, so I will only touch on a few policy guidelines.

* * *

One of the key targets of Finland’s foreign policy is to promote the stability of Northern Europe. Sweden and Norway are particularly close partners for Finland. However, the importance of all Nordic cooperation should be emphasised, as should cooperation with Russia and the Baltic countries. ’Good neighbourly relations’, as Mauno Koivisto stated when he was asked in the early 1980s to define Finland’s foreign policy in three words.

Finland is currently studying the possibilities for security policy cooperation with Sweden and Norway. This is primarily a matter of finding practical methods of cooperation and increasing the effectiveness of existing methods. In the defence sector, the question involves extremely practical issues, such as arranging exercises.

Of course it is clear that closer cooperation with Sweden and Norway, rather than replacing, complements cooperation conducted in the European Union or with NATO.

The Baltic Sea is Finland’s lifeline. For us, maintaining and strengthening the stability of the Baltic Sea region is a matter of utmost importance. Finland is doing its best to develop political, economic and environmental cooperation throughout the Baltic Sea region.

* * *

The European Union is our new family. An internationally strong and operational union strengthens Finland’s security. Deepening the integration and enlargement of the European Union, and well-managed neighbourly and other international relations strengthen the security of Finland Europe. With time this will also provide a stronger approach to global policy. Inside the European Union, Finland supports a comprehensive approach in which domestic and foreign security are linked to each other.

The continued development of Union and European integration is important to all of us. The problems involved in reforming the Union’s Treaty illustrate how people have become estranged from Union activities in many countries. The support of the nations is a prerequisite for the success and development of the European Union.

The Union’s strength lies in its ability to promote security via a diverse range of methods, such as enlargement, political dialogue, crisis management activity, and human rights, development and trade policy.

I have often emphasised the importance of cooperation between the European Union and NATO. The actors in crisis management are complementary rather than competitive bodies. However, illogical overlaps still exist in, for example, guaranteeing rapid response crisis management.

Of course, the European Union does not mean all of Europe, and Finland also works actively in other European organisations, such as the European Council and the OSCE.

* * *

The majority of today’s security challenges are such that no country can handle them alone. Controlling climate change, preventing the spread of infectious diseases, refugeeism, extreme poverty, food crisis or a global economic crisis are all challenges for which finding a solution requires broad international cooperation.

The United Nations is still the only truly global forum for international issues, creator of international norms and implementer of joint decisions.

Finland works to strengthen multilateral cooperation, the United Nations and international justice. The UN Security Council is the most important actor with regard to maintaining international peace and security. Although the UN requires reform, we have to focus our strengths on strengthening rather than merely criticising it.

Finland is attempting to become a non-permanent member of the Security Council for 2013-2014. The election will be held in autumn 2012 – four years from now. For us, Security Council membership is both a means and an intrinsic value. Membership would strengthen Finland’s international position and provide the opportunity to have a positive impact on promoting international security throughout the world.

In addition to us, Luxembourg and Australia are seeking the two places reserved for the Western European and Others Group. The competition is tough and there is no certainty about the outcome. However, I am confident about our possibilities in the Security Council election. Finland’s basic profile in the UN is strong and based on consistent action to promote security, development and human rights.

* * *

Crisis management is a key foreign and security policy method used by Finland in its attempts to promote stability in conflict regions. Finland participates in international crisis management in order to promote peace and security, development and respect for human rights. Participation in crisis management is part of Finland’s security building and bearing of international responsibility, and simultaneously strengthens our national defence capability.

With regard to international crisis management, Finland’s strengths are a high level of competence and our comprehensive view of crisis management. Our soldiers have always supported the development of the civilian society in the operational region. Finland should continue to strengthen this comprehensive view in crisis management and post-crisis situations. It is important to coordinate military and civilian crisis management and development cooperation and humanitarian aid in order to attain the best possible joint impact and sustainable results.

As a result of more challenging operating environments, Finland is expected to provide increasingly specialised troops and performance, which is reflected in material and maintenance costs. Development of civilian crisis management and maintaining the current participation level in military crisis management may require additional resources.

* * *

I originally planned to introduce our new security and defence policy report at this 50th anniversary celebration. Although the schedule for the report has been extended, I have addressed some of the same issues to a certain extent. The Parliamentary monitoring group issued its report in the summer, long before the actual report. Thus, I allowed myself the opportunity to exchange opinions with all of you concerning this topic.

The Paasikivi Society is celebrating today, and I would like to thank the Society for its activity as a forum for discussing foreign policy and, in particular, for offering many international guests a prestigious arena for speechmaking. I would be happy to take your questions.