Prime Minister Vanhanen, the 85th anniversary of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, 25 August 2003
Ladies and gentlemen,
The Finnish Ministry for Foreign Affairs has been in existence for 85 years. During this time, our country has known peace and war, a Europe divided and a Europe united, a polarised world and now, a world in search of a new order. Throughout, the Ministry has remained a vital player at home and a trusted representative of Finland and its people abroad.
Since gaining independence, Finland has been faced with sometimes massive changes in its environment. Our present prosperity and stability demonstrate that we have been able to cope successfully with change, though several times some of our fundamental rights - and during the war even our very existence as a nation - have been under threat. Looking back over our history, we can see that Finland has not only adapted to these changes; we have always also sought out the tools with which to influence our operating environment.
During the Cold War, our policy was to remain neutral in a polarised world dominated by two superpowers. Neutrality secured and strengthened our position. However, neutrality never meant inactivity. Instead, we took the initiative in contributing to security in Europe. A tangible result of this activity was the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe.
When the Cold War ended and the tension was defused, the foundation of our neutrality policy also changed. In that situation, we were able to find very quickly a new basic approach to defining our position in Europe. Joining the EU in 1995 linked us to a new international entity, and we accordingly revised our defence policy towards military non-alignment and an independent defence.
EU membership represented a clear choice whereby we anchored ourselves even more firmly to western Europe. We joined a political union, and during our membership the EU has considerably enhanced its foreign policy and particularly its crisis management capacity. At the same time we have witnessed how international arguments become part of the internal debate within the EU. As an EU Member State, we are keen to develop the Union s potential in security and defence policy because the EU has to improve its ability to express a common European position in international issues.
EU membership was a natural choice for Finland, and judging by our experiences so far we are pleased with our choice. The EU is an excellent forum for influencing our operating environment. Its importance has continued to grow, and enlargement will make it even stronger.
The European Union represents that positive development in international politics that can be described as acceptance of common ground rules. It is clear that governments continue to pursue their own interests. We have had our share of problems. Nor do I deny the fact that the EU has both large and small Member States, and different kinds of member states in general. Through international organizations, the aspirations of governments are linked to the work of these various institutions, and even large countries have to abide by common rules these days. This is clearly to the advantage of a country such as Finland. In a world characterized by globalization, there is no long-term sustainable alternative to enhancing international cooperation. That is why we will continue to endorse multilateral structures, particularly the United Nations.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
The Cold War is over, but the world did not change overnight into a trouble-free haven. Cooperation and interaction are increasingly important in promoting security and stability. In this sense, Finland takes an active role in increasing bilateral cooperation with neighbouring areas, for example through the Northern Dimension of the EU. The Northern Dimension offers us an excellent opportunity to enhance the cooperation between Russia, an enlarging EU and the Baltic Sea Area.
Our excellent bilateral relationships with the Scandinavian countries, Russia and all the Baltic states continue to be important to us. We have a special relationship with Sweden, that I would consider timeless. To every country, opportunities and risks are always the greatest with its neighbours. Foreign policy is conducted for the benefit of the country and its citizens. Smooth neighbourly relations and the creation of beneficial opportunities are the most important issues for citizens.
At the same time, there is no doubt that the global situation and traditional balance in a wider context is, in the long term, a major factor in Finland s foreign and security policy, too. With this in mind, I would like to raise three points.
Firstly, it is evident today that, ever since the end of the Cold War and particularly since 11 September (9/11), the focus of the problems and interest of the major powers, particularly the United States, has shifted from Europe to the East and the South. The trend in relations between the developed countries and the Third World over the next few decades is an issue that involves all of mankind and thus concerning us too. There may be even more worries in store than seems likely today. Consequently, we Finns should mentally prepare to seek out more forms of participation for both North and South in solving shared development problems.
Secondly, it is well to remember and to say yet again that Finland s position and her wise neutrality policy were founded on a balance between two superpowers. The military presence of the USA in Europe and its northern parts has been an important factor for Finland in this balance. In relation to the change in the global situation, a debate is ongoing on the deployment of US military forces. That is a factor in our operating environment, and we must pay attention to it.
Thirdly, we must read developments in the relationship between Europe and the USA diplomatically and wisely. The ups and downs of international relations have a clear impact on these relations, but in my opinion these fluctuations should not guide the EU's basic choices. Even the choice of words to describe the world situation - unipolarity or multipolarity - today carry a message of one s position on current trans-Atlantic or European issues, particularly in security and defence policy. As it says in our Government Programme, we will continue to be both a good Member State of the EU and a good neighbour across the Atlantic.
Finland s security policy decisions must be based on a clear analysis of developments in our traditional operating environment and the global environment that ultimately affects it. This will form an important part of the white paper on security and defence policy to be issued by the Government in 2004. Drawing up a white paper on security and defence policy once during the term of each Parliament is in my view a good practice, giving Parliament a clear basis for assessing our security policy environment and the decisions that have to be taken in relation to it. I have on several occasions stressed that even not updating our assessments is a choice and policy.
Issues of foreign and security policy also feature in the proposal of the EU Convention on the Future of Europe. This is not a new matter, considering the content of the Treaties founding the EU. A common defence has been a long-term goal for years. In contrast to what some people would say, Finland has been and will continue to be very active in pursuing this aspect of the Union. During Finland s Presidency, important decisions were taken on furthering common security and defence policy. In the Convention too, we have actively supported several projects in the area of common security and defence policy.
I feel that it is the right and duty of the Government to seek carefully considered solutions to certain issues, solutions that take Finland s special features into account. At the Intergovernmental Conference we will need to have formulations that will not exclude the possibility of making choices in the future when it suits us best. Finnish foreign policy has always been guided by a pragmatic principle: foreign policy must seek room for action for Finland and possibilities to choose. You should never end up in a dead end by your own choices.
Ladies and Gentlemen
I said earlier that we made a fundamental choice in joining the EU. We have nailed our colours to the mast. For this reason too, developing the EU and increasing its effectiveness is important for us.
We are at a historic juncture in the evolution of the EU. The Convention completed its comprehensive proposal for a new Constitution in July. The Convention s draft proposal will form the basis for the work of the Intergovernmental Conference convening in Rome on October 4.
The preparation of the Government s position for the IGC began in July, immediately after the Convention concluded its work. This work is based on an analysis of the Convention s work, on the successes and failures of its proposal and previous coherent Finnish positions. The analysis is being used as the basis for determining Finland s position at the IGC. The analysis of the Convention s work and the Government s view on the IGC are contained in a white paperbeing prepared for submission to Parliament when it reconvenes in September.
Over the summer it has become evident that the Member States have widely differing views on how the suggestions of the Convention should be viewed and how the IGC should be organized. Some Member States consider that the Convention s proposal is a carefully weighed compromise whose balance will be upset if it is reopened for discussion even in part. It is useful to remember that this compromise was devised by the Convention's Praesidium where Finland had no representation. Other Member States consider that the Convention was simply a tool for preparing for the IGC, which will negotiate and make decisions on the founding Treaties. These States feel that the IGC should be able to reopen the Convention s draft proposal for discussion insofar as it is considered necessary.
Finland belongs to this latter group. We feel that the Convention was set up as a new kind of preparatory organ and that it's specific task was to prepare. The forthcoming IGC must be a real conference between EU governments, held in order to negotiate amendments to the founding Treaties - or, more appropriately, to negotiate a completely new treaty. The proposal of the convention is a good basis for the IGC but it can not bind the IGC so as to prevent a consideration of all necessary questions.
Generally speaking, the achievement of the Convention, that is, its draft Constitutional Treaty, is a remarkable achievement. Merely collating all the existing Treaties into a single document represents a huge improvement over the previous situation. The content of the Convention s proposal is also largely successful, or at least acceptable to Finland. To generalize slightly, we might say that the Convention did well in matters that were discussed thoroughly and with good time in working groups open to all. By contrast, the proposal is less good in matters that were only discussed in plenary session, and even there at the last moment. Most of the things we are not happy with in the Convention s final report are such matters.
The representatives of Finland's Government and Parliament made hundreds of motions for amendments in the course of the Convention. It is clear that we cannot bring so many motions to the IGC. The Government is currently considering which issues are important enough to merit being brought up at the IGC. With regard to these issues, we have had and will continue to have contact with other present and future EU Member States in order to establish their positions and to cooperate with them.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
An effective and well functioning EU is in Finland's interest. As a small country, highly dependent on international trade and markets, our interest is to bind the world to common rules. For us, the Union is a strong instrument in this effort. From this interest follows the logical conclusion that Finland should also bind the Union's decision-making to institutions that function with precise rules which emphasize the equality of the member states. In the issues where the EU has been granted competence the use of this competence must be bound to common institutions. Finland's basic aims in the Union's decision-making and distribution of power can be derived from this basic principle.
Institutions were one of the main topics of the Convention, and this is one of the foremost issues that Finland would like to see amended at the forthcoming IGC. Institutional issues were not prepared in the open working groups but in more restrictive circles. The Convention s proposal contains certain problematic items from the point of view of Finland and of some other smaller Member States in this respect. The main point is that these items do not fulfil principles important to us, that is, maintaining the balance between institutions and equality between Member States. The items concerning institutions also have some provisions that are subject to interpretation, and these should be made more specific.
As I mentioned earlier, the government will soon decide on Finnish positions in the form of a white paper to Parliament. Therefore I am not anticipating our positions. It is important to remember that with institutional issues, it is the whole package that counts. This will determine the acceptability of the new treaty. It does not make sense to assess them as single issues, because it is not until they are viewed in context that we can know how the institutions work and how they can serve the interests of Finland and of the Union.
In addition to the institution issues, the topic that is most important and naturally the most interesting to you is the Union s foreign policy and the common security and defence policy, which I referred to earlier. The Convention s proposals represent significant progress on these matters but also include some problematic points.
I consider the Convention s proposals on specifying the crisis management duties of the Union basically useful. In particular, the provisions on civilian crisis management have evolved in the direction we had hoped for, though there is still scope for improvement in the Convention s proposals.
By contrast, I do not consider it desirable that common defence be included in the Constitutional Treaty in a manner differing from the current founding Treaty. The Convention s proposal on structural cooperation for more demanding tasks is problematic. Crisis management and cooperation over resources should primarily be a matter of joint action between Member States, based on jointly agreed objectives. It should in all cases be subject to general provisions on closer cooperation, not tailored provisions, which is where the Convention s proposal of a protocol-based model would seem to be leading.
Alongside a detailed discussion of the EU, the forest should be seen from the trees. This wider perspective includes an important reminder. In spite of our criticism, a new treaty is in Finland's absolute interest as the Union is taking ten new active members.
An effective Union is in Finland's interest. We need a Union that can strengthen European competitiveness and contribute to a consolidation of human rights and peaceful values in the world. This can be done at the same time respecting the member states' national identities, strong national cultures and self-determination.
Ladies and gentlemen,
The Finnish Ministry for Foreign Affairs is 85 years old. I would like to thank the Ministry for a job well done, and a job that is by no means finished. We do not yet live in a perfect world, and the welfare of the Finns requires a strong presence in the world to safeguard our interests.