SPEECH GIVEN BY PRESIDENT MARTTI AHTISAARI AT THE
URHO KEKKONEN SEMINAR IN PIELAVESI ON SEPTEMBER 3, 1994
FINLAND'S INTERNATIONAL POSITION IN THE '90S
As President of the Republic and an influential figure in
Finnish society, Dr. Urho Kekkonen concentrated his powers
on promoting Finland's international standing and peace in
Europe. Within our policy of neutrality, these objectives
worked together as a coherent entity.
It gives me great pleasure to be able to speak at this
prestigious seminar, dedicated to the memory and
statesmanship of Finland's longtime President.
The means open to Finnish foreign policy may change, but
its objectives remain much the same. As before, we
acknowledge that foreign policy is a whole made up of
geography, history and experience. Geography does
not change, and history has taught us caution, but
experience and international transition have
encouraged us to cooperate more closely with other
nations.
In a radio address almost exactly half a century ago, on
25 September 1944, Dr Kekkonen said:
"The Finnish nation stands at the beginning of the new
political path determined for it. Broad, ready-built roads
are closed to us; we must construct a new national course
through marshland and mountains. Fortunately we are a pioneering nation, whose physical endurance and mental perseverance help it to carry through whatever difficulties the future may have in store for it."
Following the war, our international position certainly called for reassessment. President J.K.Paasikivi
and Prime Minister Urho Kekkonen were realistic enough to
understand that we had come to a crucial turning point
in Finnish policy. They mutually supported each other
in pursuing the aims of a new foreign policy, often
in opposition to public opinion and facing widespread
resistance in Parliament.
The international position of every nation ultimately and
essentially rests on its political and economic vitality. In the past few years, we have lived through the deepest
recession in our post-war history. Unemployment has
divided society and if continued, threatens to isolate
us from the international co-operation.
The current transition of the international community is dramatic and inescapable. The Europe of nation states is emerging from an order that divided it in two. Today, boundaries run more within societies than between countries, particularly as economic integration proceeds in Europe.
The values upon which Europe's civic societies are founded are no longer rigid, in either the religious or the
political sense. Old political ideologies are facing new challenges.
In a European perspective, it is encouraging to witness
the stable progress in economic and political integration. As the Frenchman Jean Monnet underlined in the 1940s, integration offers a course of peaceful interaction towards a Europe free from war. We are now at the door to new opportunities in that process. It is a process affecting the whole of Europe. We are now seeking our own place in that process.
European integration is a challenge to the whole of Finnish
society, and to our democratic institutions. How can we
ensure that it will be a Europe of citizens, not of
bureaucracies, that emerges - and that our voice is heard
clearly at the highest level of decision-making when the
time comes?
It seems to me that Finland's interests will be best served
within the European Union if Parliament, the President of
the Republic and the Government work together in mutual
understanding, respecting the spirit and letter of our
constitution, which has withstood many serious trials.
All reforms require careful consideration. We are unanimous about the need to strengthen Parliament's position in national preparations for decision-making within the European Union. Yet we are also agreed that we need unequivocal procedures for decision-making on foreign and security policy.
Ever since the time of Montesquieu, the division of government into three estates has given the basic functions of state in most Western democracies consistency. These functions are usually divided into legislation, jurisdiction, and administration. These functions are carried out by legislative bodies chosen by public election; Parliament and the President of the Republic; an independent judiciary; and an administrative system overseen by a Government answerable to Parliament.
Since the earliest years of our independence, this
principle has been - and continues to be - the generally
accepted, undisputed basis for article 2 of our
Form of Government. It has also been applied in practice
without any major problems.
The functions of state have multiplied, however, and it is
increasingly difficult to allocate many of them to any of
the three divisions I just mentioned. Government also has
to compete more and more with other "estates" -
the best known being the mass media, interest organisations, and freer money and capital markets.
Chancellor Kauko Sipponen wrote recently that European
integration is the most recent addition to the official and
unofficial forces at work in society. We could see this already during the EEA negotiations, but the real test will come when we have to evaluate EU membership in terms of our
constitution.
Membership of the European Union will not change Finland's
standing as an independent sovereign state. At the
Edinburgh summit in 1992, the EU Member States emphasized -
acknowledging that integration had been forced through
too quickly and without sufficient backing from citizens -
that the Union involves independent states having freely decided to exercise in common some of their competences.
Independent states have thus joined the Union and have
retained their independence. They have also retained their
constitutions and forms of government, and their societies
have evolved each in its own way.
In terms of successfully embarking upon the eventual Finnish membership of the EU, and the years of later adjustment that will be necessary, the most important thing is to be able to reach a national understanding about our policy objectives in the Union.
This summer, there has been debate about who should
represent Finland at EU summit meetings, i.e. in the European Council. The European Council is the Union's supreme political body, providing the Union with the necessary impetus for its development and defining the general political guidelines. According to the Maastricht Treaty, the European Council defines the general guidelines of the common foreign and security policy. In addition, The European Council discusses the development of the Economic and Monetary Union and the common economic policy of the
Member States. The heads of state or government of the Member States and the President of the Commission meet in the European Council. As a rule, summit meetings are held only twice a year.
EU summit meetings deal with issues which, in terms of the Finnish practice fall within the competence of both the President of the Republic and the Prime Minister.
This speaks for Finland being represented at summit
meetings by both the President and the Prime Minister, as
chairman of the Council of State, each according to his
competence. This will best ensure a national consensus. In time, we will be able to evaluate this practice.I believe it will function well.
This dualism of competence is not easy to apply to Union affairs, which are interrelated. Close collaboration between the President and the Council of State is therefore vital. As President of the Republic, I intend to follow the finest principles of my predecessors and use my authority jointly with the Council of State. At the same time, I shall ensure that links between the President and Parliament work smoothly.
The most important task facing Parliament and the Government, and indeed all of us, is to develop the
substance of our European policy. In this respect, there are no directives prescribing how we should proceed, we only have our own will and our abilities.
As far as decision-making on foreign and security policy is
concerned, the important thing is that it should be unequivocal and undivided. Finland must pursue a consistent foreign and security policy in different contexts, both within the EU and outside it. For a small country, especially in crisis situations - and these are sure to appear in international politics - it is crucial to have clear decision-making procedures and a constant access to analytical information.
Our foreign and security policy must aim to strengthen
European security in every possible way. Developing structures for European cooperation is the best
means we have of also contributing to the solution of
global security concerns.
Through enlargement, the European Union can best compete with other major economic areas. As a member, we would have a place at the table where the means to peacefully
regulate this competition are elaborated.
The objective of stable and balanced development in
Northern Europe will retain its central importance throughout the 1990s. Russia is going through a period of historic transition, and as a result, its various regions will be developing at increasingly uneven paces both economically and politically. Russia will be a major power within the world community. From Finland's point of view, it is possible that the metropolis of St Petersburg, in particular, will develop into an important
cooperation area for the European Union.
The withdrawal of Russian troops from Estonia and Latvia will greatly enhance stability in Northern Europe. At the same time, the evolution of the Baltic region into a true inland sea within the European integration area seems more and more realistic possibility. The new Europe will thus increasingly be a Europe of cooperation areas.
Within the European Union, it would be Finland's task to
strengthen the Union's northern dimension, part of which is the enhanced cooperation between northwest Russia and the Union. This trend is very much in the Union's own interests. With its neighbours, Finland must study at the earliest opportunity those aspects of Arctic and Baltic cooperation which are of concrete significance to the Union and may thus receive Union resources.
It should be emphasized that relations between the EU and
Russia are moving in the right direction, as indicated by
the agreement on partnership and cooperation signed in
Corfu last June. During our own accession negotiations,
we also did all we could to facilitate the eventual
integration of the Baltic countries into the Union. On
issues concerning the Baltic region, Finland and the other
Nordic countries in the EU are expected to make a strong
contribution.
We must look at the European Union as a whole. Better links than ever before will now open up to us, especially to EU countries in southern Europe and the Mediterranean. Though geography does not change, the south will be brought closer to us through the Union.
Finland's security position is good. We face no military
threat, but we must safeguard our ability to protect
our independence and territorial integrity. We can do this
by continuing to pursue a policy of military non-alignment.
However, the security situation in Europe as a whole
must be continuously reassessed. So must also be the means being considered to strengthen that security. The enlargement of the European Union to Central and Eastern Europe as well as to the Baltics is an important goal. In 1996, the European Union will be launching an intergovernmental conference which will assess not only institutional issues affecting the Union but also foreign and security policy. New measures must be carefully weighed and geared to strengthening common European security and the co-operation structures for European co-operation. We want to participate in this work.
That means a security policy discussion on basic issues
in a free and open climate. It is to be hoped that Parliament will make a major contribution to this debate. Once EU membership is ratified, the Government will take steps to contribute to the debate concerning our security policy as a Union member, and to further the building of lasting national consensus on the issue.
In the process of European integration, Finland is not going to trade its basic values, democracy, equality, respect for nature, and our Nordic character. We want to participate because we believe we can make a valuable contribution to Europe, to the European Union and to European security.
European concept is not finalized, and the European Union
does not offer a solution to all its citizens' concerns.
It has its faults, but it also offers indisputable
opportunities designed to bring the continent's people
together to a common road. This is a road along which
problems will no longer be solved by resorting to violence
and war.
In the vote on Union membership in October, we face a
historic decision. Finns are fully aware of its
importance. Let us show understanding, especially for
those for whom Union membership signifies difficulties of adjustment in the short term.
In distress, we have always been able to close our
ranks. For my own part, I shall do everything to ensure
that the Finnish nation continues to be one capable of
unanimity. In a time of transition, our aim is to ensure
the Finnish nation a stronger and more stable position in Europe and in a constantly changing world.