PRESENTATION BY PRESIDENT MARTTI AHTISAARI TO THE PAASIKIVI SOCIETY ON 27.11.1995

FINLAND IN THE MANAGEMENT OF CHANGE IN EUROPE

The solution achieved in Dayton to end the war in former Yugoslavia has created a new situation in Europe. We have every reason to congratulate those who have brought it about. The solution was based on a broad international united front. What must now be demonstrated is the enduring nature of this cooperation. The result achieved must be implemented in practice.

Although the general security situation in Europe has substantially improved since the Cold War, we know that a period of change and uncertainty that may last for decades lies before us. This change must be managed, uncertainty must be overcome. Dayton confirms our optimism.

Here, we have two main goals: first of all, enlargement and development of the European Union to make it the foundation of our continent's economic and societal stability. And secondly, the achievement of a European security order based on cooperation.

Cooperation has become an essential requirement. Nowadays there is hardly a state or group of countries that would imagine itself capable of solving all its problems alone.

The new security risks and threats in the post- Cold War period - - environmental degradation, crime, uncontrolled movements of population, military conflicts within states - - require more effective international cooperation.

In Europe - - but also more widely - - the end of the Cold War created better preconditions for a shared value base - in principle at least. Nevertheless, we have noticed in concrete terms that declarations and jointly adopted documents do not in themselves engender stable peace. It is born of the consolidation of democracy, the development of societies of citizens, growing prosperity and cooperation.

For Finland, the post- Cold War changes have been for the most part opportunities, not threats. That has made it possible for us to expand cooperation in earnest.

We were taught to know President J.K. Paasikivi, the 125th anniversary of whose birth we are celebrating today, as an understander of history and practitioner of Realpolitik. He had seen that a change in international relations often meant a threat to small states.

However, Paasikivi fervently hoped that circumstances would change over the long term in such a manner that power politics would have to give way for peaceful relations between states. In his opinion, small states would strengthen their position only if the international community was based on law and justice.

During Paasikivi's presidency, Finland's position was consolidated. That position was the basis on which we developed our policy of neutrality, which increased our international room for manoeuvre during the Cold War years of confrontation.

Finland's external relations are still founded to a marked degree on relations with neighbours. That is certainly the case where all countries are concerned. Without talking about the completely new dimension in our relations with neighbours - - I mean the Baltic states - - we have developed both our Nordic relations and our relations with Russia and made them more diverse than they have been in the past.

Since 1992 our relations with Russia have developed into a natural relationship between two states founded on the principles of the OCSE. The time when there were attempts to influence us by means not always in harmony with those principles lies behind us.

Joining the European Union added further clarity to Finland's status. Membership has created new opportunities also for our foreign policy. Membership of the European Union guarantees that we can participate in shaping the future of our continent, and indirectly of our own country, where and when the most central decisions concerning them are being made. That is how a state's independence is strengthened in a world of cooperation.

Thus our foreign policy is determined in particular by an endeavour to strengthen the EU's status as the fundamental factor for stability and security in our continent.

An open and frank discourse on both our country's position and our foreign and security policies is in progress in Finland. Hopefully, all understand that problems will not arise from discussion in the future, either, but from any scarcity of it or superficiality in it.

A more thorough understanding of complicated and changing international relations is important. Thus it is fitting that financial support for foreign- policy research in our country is being improved. In this respect, on the basis of an earlier proposal on my part, a study concerning the establishment of an international research centre to appraise European security questions has been launched.

Foreign- and security- policy decisionmaking rests on seamless cooperation between the central organs of government. Arrangements since we joined the Union have demonstrated their effectiveness.

Members of the Council of State are nowadays required to demonstrate a considerable command of and skill in international relations. That is emphatically the case at all times, but will be even more so towards the end of the decade, when our country holds the EU presidency. There is a major challenge in this also for the entire state administration.

Our aim with our foreign and security policy is ultimately to strengthen the welfare and security of our citizens. Unemployment has not yet been decisively overcome and, unfortunately, economic growth has slowed down in some of our export markets. Efforts to combat unemployment need the support of a more active international strategy.

Finland must operate globally, not merely in Europe. I have wanted to establish new markets for our companies, especially in regions outside Europe. For that purpose, I have led visits intended to promote exports to, among other places, the rapidly developing states of South- East Asia. The feedback that I have received has been encouraging. The work must be continued.

This does not alter the fact that strengthening the political position and competitiveness of the European Union is the best way for us to safeguard our interests in a changing world community.

Strengthening the security- policy role of the European Union accords with Finland's interests. This is done through cooperation between governments, which guarantees that in the final analysis power of decision remains in Helsinki. On the other hand, we must not for reasons of principle prevent at least limited implementation of community- level decision- making also in foreign and security policy. A precondition is that the Union's goals are then clear in each particular case.

This is important also so that the Union does not constitute a security- policy club developing on the terms of three or at best four of the biggest member states.

What is decisive is that the European Union - - integration in general - - be developed through cooperation rather than coercion. The citizens of Europe will only accept the kind of integration that takes place openly, on their terms.

In its report on foreign and security policy, the Government proposes the creation within the Defence Forces of special standby forces to be used for international crisis- management tasks. Through this project and by amending our legislation covering participation in peacekeeping operations, we are creating extra credibility for our security policy. At the same time, we are placing ourselves in a better position to participate constructively in the development of the EU's common foreign and security policy at the intergovernmental conference beginning next year.

Where the security of Europe is concerned, it is of central importance gradually to create mechanisms that guarantee common security. Under such arrangements, the use of force is possible only on the basis of commonly- approved principles and international law. Thus there is no question of power politics. There is a change compared with the past here, something that has not been sufficiently emphasised in the discourse in this country.

We are bitterly aware of the fact that the market has confidence only in an actor whose situation is expected to improve. The ability to cope in the face of competition with the United States and Asia is a vital necessity for Europe. Although development of the eastern half of the continent is still swallowing enormous amounts of Europe's resources, this investment is essential with future competitiveness in mind. Here, an input by the whole of Europe is required.

Finland has consistently supported eastward enlargement of the Union. We consider it essential from the point of view of the continent's stability and security. Detailed studies of the costs and other effects of enlargement are under preparation at the EU Commission. It should be noted that implementation of European Monetary Union is in reality, if not a prerequisite, at least one important starting point for eastward enlargement of the Union. If one supports only eastward enlargement, but not EMU, one may ultimately be supporting neither goal.

The Finnish Government has also launched preparations for enlargement studies of its own. It is certain that a very demanding process lies before us. Only its success will create the preconditions for stable peace in our continent. As I pointed out at the EU Commission last week, the Union needs a clear enlargement strategy. I added: "Eastward expansion of the European Union is a fateful question for the security of Europe, neither more nor less than that."

From Finland's perspective, what happens in the Baltic Sea region is of growing importance. Baltic cooperation has not made progress at the hoped- for pace. The northern EU countries have a special duty to create a new dynamic for Baltic cooperation, above all by availing of the financing facilities provided by the EU. The EU must accordingly create a goal- focused Baltic programme. The three Baltic states and Poland must have a clear EU- membership perspective in this.

The development of a European security system is now in the melting pot. Unfortunately, also old fears are being fed, even though there are no real grounds for them.

In the development of the European security system, agreement has failed to be reached on, especially, its military foundation. The main focus of attention in discussion in recent months has been expansion of NATO, in relation to which the organisation's foreign ministers took a decision- in- principle in December 1994. The first study phase of the expansionprocess has just been completed. There is no timetable for the expansion process.

The OSCE, which has assumed organisation form around the same time, has concentrated on crisis prevention and is discussing a security model covering the whole of Europe. The Council of Europe, for its part, has markedly expanded its membership and created cooperation programmes to consolidate the rule of law in the new member countries.

The launch of NATO's Partnership for Peace programme marked an important step. I am convinced that this programme offers a good foundation on which to develop solutions satisfactory for all parties in order to improve military stability in our continent.

Within the WEU - - in the work of which Finland participates as an observer - - a discussion has been in progress in relation to developing the organisation's role at the intergovernmental conference. We have considered it important that in this phase the relationship between the WEU and the EU be made closer so that we are able to strengthen effective implementation of the crisis- management tasks being considered by the EU. States with observer status in the WEU should be able to participate in this work.

The military non- alignment that we embrace contributes to strengthening military stability in northern Europe. We are participating to a growing degree in joint European crisis- prevention and - management tasks. In that way, we are strengthening the foundation for collective security in Europe.

Europe's arsenals are still unduly large and an impediment to healthy growth of our economies. The treaty limiting conventional weaponry in Europe is an essential part of the continent's security. It is obvious that disarmament must continue. We cannot build a lasting peace by means of overdimensioned armament.

The leitmotif in projects relating to the new European security order has been gradual reinforcement of general stability in the continent while change is shaking both societies internally and relations between states.

The first precondition for success is the creation and maintenance of agreement between the European states and North America on the underlying aims of action. Just as important is agreement with Russia and all of the states that emerged from the former Soviet Union. Responsibility for creating a new Europe is something that all of us share.

In a speech in London just over a month ago, I proposed that a permanent dialogue between the EU, the United States and Russia should be created in order to promote these goals.

Russia's internal transition will take a long time. Nevertheless it is possible to influence, at least indirectly, the psychology of change in Russia. Over- reaction must be avoided: the mistakes of the past must not be repeated. On the other hand, gradual integration into Western systems should produce visible steps forward. Positive experience of cooperation encourages new cooperative steps.

We must see Russia as a Eurasian great power, which has to look after its security interests like other states. On the other hand, we must require that all respect commonly- accepted principles. We cannot approve of attempts to influence either the internal affairs of peaceful neighbours that are striving for cooperation or their politics which accord with international rules of behaviour.

The war in progress in former Yugoslavia since 1991 is now for the first time coming to a stage at which the prerequisites for a lasting peace are beginning to be within reach. That is possible when the great powers are able to agree among themselves on the political starting points for the future of the Balkans.

I express in this connection both my personal and also the Finnish Government's great satisfaction at the emergence of the peace agreement signed in Dayton. I am convinced that the Finns want their country to participate, together with the rest of the international community, in the implementation- and monitoring- related tasks required under the agreement.

Reconstruction of the Balkans will hopefully act as a spur for the achievement of an enduring security system in Europe. This opening window on opportunities must not be closed.