Translation

As a consequence of the changes that took place in 1989-91, the foundation for a new security order has come into being in Europe. The threat of a major war has receded. Democracy has spread to Eastern Europe, far-reaching disarmament agreements have been and are continuing to be reached between the Russian Federation and the United States, and the European Union is becoming the most central factor in the stable development of our continent.

The means to manage change must now be created. The task is not an easy one, because the continent's security-policy configuration is also complex. Security risks are not of the kind that they used to be. New means and solutions are needed to increase cooperation and strengthen security. In particular, the old thinking on security must not make economic integration more difficult.

I shall now go on to examine how we Finns are striving to pursue our foreign- and security-policy interests in the context of this change. Only peace guarantees the possibility of prosperity and building a secure tomorrow. Security grows from social justice. Day-to-day work has to be done for peace and international interaction. The trade-union movement has had and will continue to have an important task in this respect.

I wish to avail of this opportunity to wish KTV, The Trade Union for the Municipal Sector, success in its work for the good of Finnish society and to increase international cooperation.

The ending of the Cold War created the preconditions for an all-round assessment of security. The accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power station in 1986 had shown that the continent faced the threat not only of a nuclear war, but also of a nuclear power catastrophe.

The regaining of independence by the Baltic States and the birth of the new Russia have meant the disappearance of the dividing line from the Baltic Sea. In its place has come expanding cooperation. The change in Europe has brought Finland and Sweden closer together in the security policy of the continent. Cooperation between these countries is increasingly significant with regard both to the development of cooperation in the Baltic Sea region in general and in particular to supporting the Baltic States in their efforts to integrate themselves into the European cooperation structures.

Joining the European Union has strengthened Finland's international position. The debate on the benefits and drawbacks of membership that preceded our accession also added clarity to the security-policy aspects of our decision. In Finland, the Union gained a stable member in the sense of security policy and also a long common border with Russia.

The Russian Federation's predecessor state the Soviet Union strove to spread its ideology globally. The new Russia abandoned this policy and we hope that there will be no returning to it.

Our experience to date of cooperation with the Russian Federation has been encouraging. Trade between our countries is growing, although many practical problems continue to be associated with it. Russia appreciates Finland's membership of the EU, because it helps Russia in developing links with the expanding Union. From Russia's and the whole of Europe's viewpoint, the country's acceptance as a member of the Council of Europe was of major importance.

The European Union is Russia's biggest trade partner and biggest source of aid. Finland's contribution was central when the TACIS decree was being developed at the Madrid meeting of the European Council. It is important that the decree was adopted without delay. The Union's policy on Russia is in the process of takingshape. Russia with its enormous natural resources is a central focus of cooperation, especially for the European Union. Effective international cooperation is also essential to take care of dangerous nuclear installations in the Russian Federation and the CIS countries. We must be prepared for this task involving very considerable costs already over the next decade.

A realistic understanding of Russia's complexity and of the historical development stage in which the country now finds itself is important. In the light of Russia's long history, a unique phase of internal transformation is in progress in the country.

It would be a setback for peace in Europe if the Russian Federation's integration into the global economy and especially into European cooperation arrangements were to fail. Russian society is seeking its way onto a course of democratic development, and hopefully it is thereby becoming a closer neighbour for us.

Finland's foreign and security policy is being developed both in order to safeguard our own national security and to cope with change in Europe. We have left the neutrality of the Cold War era behind us and are striving to implement the goals of the European Union. Our defence has two tasks: to defend our own country and to participate in international assignments. We are strongly involved in cooperative actions by means of which security is enhanced in Europe. It is important to strengthen the European capacity for action.

Our security-policy position and the foundations of our policy have been discussed in a spirit of openness in Finland in recent years. This is important. The complex development of Europe's security architecture is often confusing. That is because political emphases are being reconsidered in the most central states.

The debate has recently related also to NATO's tasks and the question of the alliance's enlargement. I shall now take a slightly closer look at this question.

A broad national consensus on the foreign and security policy pursued by Finland prevails in the country. That is a great resources. It is by no means maintained by limiting discussion, but rather by deepening it.

All institutions that affect the security of Europe must adjust to demands for change in the new Europe. The European Union's status as the cornerstone of the continent's stability has become an undisputed one. The foundations of European security have taken shape in the OSCE. In this situation, it is a foundation that must be availed of. The position of the Council of Europe, in turn, is becoming central in monitoring and strengthening human rights and the principles of the rule of law. The position of NATO has been recognised both as a factor in European stability and as an instrument of a new kind of security-policy cooperation after the Cold War.

The institutions that I have mentioned must find tasks in a way that avoids overlapping and mutual competition. Their goal must be to strengthen security by means of cooperation.

When the Cold War ended, regional and local crises became Europe's security worries. The question that the NATO countries had to ask themselves then was "Out of area, or out of business?". Once the enemy that had been a unifying force had disappeared, it had to be decided whether new tasks and even forms of cooperation could be found for the alliance.

The assessment in NATO was that the alliance should alter both its strategy and its role if it intended to preserve its credibility in the changed conditions. Thus the North Atlantic Cooperation Council (NACC) came into being, and somewhat later the Partnership for Peace (PfP) programme. Almost all of the OSCE countries have joined up. Under these arrangements NATO and its partnership countries conduct joint exercises to prepare forces for rescue operations, peacekeeping and crisis management. The aim from the beginning has been extensive security cooperation to strengthen the stability of the continent. The Partnership for Peace programme is as significant an initiative from the perspective of developing the European security order as was the Marshall aid programme in the late 1940s.

From the beginning, Finland has seen great opportunities in the Partnership for Peace. Our perception has been receiving growing support in the assessments that have in recent weeks been expressed concerning the significance of this programme in the development of military stability in our continent. Now it must be developed as an important sub-factor in European military cooperation.

The NATO-led IFOR operation set up to implement the Dayton peace accord is more than just a peacekeeping operation. By succeeding it may mean a genuine turning point in post-Cold War dismantling of military confrontation.

Through the NACC and the Partnership for Peace programme Finland has long been engaged in a dialogue with NATO. This dialogue has now been given a natural continuation in the form of bilateral contact. In that way we have been provided with an opportunity to obtain information about enlargement and its effects on both our own security and that of the whole of northern Europe, in addition to which we can present our own point of view. The dialogue supports our goal of pursuing open and effective cooperation with the alliance in order to develop stability and cooperation in our continent. Above all we want to contribute to a positive development of the situation in the Baltic Sea region.

The security of Europe will depend on new, fresh-minded cooperation, efforts to reinforce stability rather than on a new building of dams. President Urho Kekkonen said in 1973: "Security does not come from building fences, but rather from opening doors." We were centrally involved in creating the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, which became one of the factors breaking down confrontation during the Cold War. Now, too, let us use cooperation to smash the prejudices that remain after the Cold War.

I concur with the Foreign Affairs Committee of our Parliament in its assessment, presented last autumn, of the conclusion in the Government's report on security policy: "The Committee emphatically supports the Finnish goal stated in the report, i.e that new political-military dividing lines should not be created in Europe. Enlargement of NATO must be examined also from this perspective." It is important in this sense that Russia and NATO develop their cooperation on the basis of the principles of the OCSE.

Many countries that were members of the former Warsaw Pact have applied for NATO membership. We respect the right of every state to decide its own security arrangements. Likewise, we expect others to respect our solutions.

Also in Finland, opinions to the effect that we should seek to become a member of NATO have been expressed. The Government of Finland has made it clear that in the present conditions we have no cause to abandon our policy of military non-alliance. The reason is that by entering an alliance we would not increase our own security, which rests on an independent, credible defence. Nor would alliance promote stability in our own environment, Northern Europe and the Baltic Sea region.

Finland's security-policy position has strengthened in conditions of change. That would not be the case if we had responded to change passively or indeed fearfully. Our policy rests on healthy national self-esteem. Its foundation was created in the defensive battles of our wars, in post-war national reconstruction and in our actions during the Cold War to promote international interaction.

The European Union has become an important factor in Finland's foreign and security policy. Enlargement of the European Union and the emergence of Economic and Monetary Union are processes that are of growing importance also from the perspective of security policy. Enlargement of the Union will remove the seeds of war from the continent. Democracies do not tend to wage war against each other. The criteria on the basis of which enlargement will take place have now been approved. The first preliminary estimates of the financial costs of enlargement have been made. They indicate that the costs will not prove immoderate.

Finland's point of departure at the Intergovernmental Conference has been set forth thus in the Government's report to Parliament: "Constructing the Common Foreign and Security Policy will strengthen the Union outwardly and reinforce its internal cohesion." At the Conference, accordingly, Finland will support all efforts with the aid of which the achievement of a cooperation-based security order in Europe can be brought closer. Development of the Union's geographical balance is of importance. The Union's northern dimension is strengthening. The Baltic Sea region must be made into a development focus of an importance to the Union comparable to that of the Mediterranean region.

The Member States of the European Union are not in a security-policy-wise indeterminate region. That is understood also by those countries that are seeking membership. The Union's methods of operation must now be developed in order to implement common goals.

The question at this stage is largely one of reinforcing the Europeans' own wherewithal to prevent crises, manage them and bring about peaceful conditions after military conflicts. Here, too, a global responsibility in the work of strengthening international stability will also develop for the Union. It is our view that new methods of operation will be required in order for the Union to be able to handle these tasks. Finland's and Sweden's joint initiative concerning the development of the relationship between the EU and the WEU as well as between the WEU and NATO must be assessed on this basis.

The transatlantic link is permanently important for Europe and the Union: alongside cooperation in the field of security policy, economic cooperation is of growing importance. In the same way, cooperation in both the security-policy and the economic sphere with the Russian Federation and the other CIS countries is of permanent importance to Europe and the Union.

Cooperation in the sphere of security policy to enhance continent-wide stability must be developed between the most central actors, above all. In this sense, I have proposed the holding of summit meetings between the Union, Russia and the United States.

A historic transition is in progress in Europe. It is linked to global development phenomena. Europe can not become isolated, but instead is striving for closer and closer interaction with other continents. A fragmented Europe would not, however, be able to pursue its interests in this transition. Fortunately, we have the opportunity to ensure that the historic process of unification of our continent will not be halted, but rather will develop balancedly.