SPEECH BY MR MARTTI AHTISAARI,

THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF FINLAND

AT THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE, STRASBOURG,

24 JANUARY, 1996

I would like to thank you and your predecessor for your invitation to come here to the parliament of the Council of Europe. I consider it a great honour to be able to appear before this body, the first Parliamentary Assembly in the process of European integration.

The Charter accords the Parliamentary Assembly an advisory role only. Yet, I have noticed that, with the ability characteristic of parliamentarians, you have assumed a considerably more important role, which has manifested itself above all in the skill with which you have piloted the Council towards true pan-Europeanism.

More than 50 years ago, with the Second World War still in progress, Winston Churchill spoke of a council that should be created once the war had ended and which, as he put it, "must eventually embrace the whole of Europe, and all the main branches of the European family must some day be partners in it." Today, we are already close to that goal.

When Finland joined the Council of Europe just over six years ago - after nearly three decades of close cooperation with it - we became its 23rd member country. Today, the membership is already 38, and by the time this session of parliament ends it will hopefully de facto be up to 39.

This enormous change in the membership has naturally meant new challenges for the Council. It has stretched resources to the limit, but it has also given the Council the opportunity to perform its original task - that of spreading the European values of democracy, the rule of law and human rights to every part of our continent.

Tomorrow, when the Council deals with Russia's application for membership, it will be - I am certain - conscious of the historic significance of the decision.

We all have followed with dismay the drama in Pervomaiskoye and the resulting tragic loss of lives. There is no justification for hostage-taking and terrorism. But innocent civilians must be protected in all circumstances and excessive force must be avoided. The crisis in Chechnya can only be resolved through peaceful means. It needs a political solution, not a military one.

We know that Russia's civic societies were to a large extent destroyed during the communist era. It is evident that the democratic process needs time to take root. Russia is undergoing a wrenching change. The recent elections attracted a fair participation and reinforced the democratic process.

In its post-Cold War form the Council of Europe has become an important part of European security structure. The membership of Russia in the Council of Europe will advance democracy in Russia and stability in Europe. Exclusion of Russia will not advance these aims.

May I welcome the interest which the United States has shown towards the Council of Europe. It is important that the United States has become an observer in the Council of Europe. We expect a lot of this arrangement.

Europe has changed and change continues.

The traditional perception of security emphasized military factors. Today we should consider security in broad terms which includes also democratic aspects and the individual rights dimension. First of all, security should be based on cooperation not confrontation.

The revolutionary political development in Europe has opened up a new channel for preventive action. No longer must we necessarily be confined to solving crises after they have erupted; instead, we can consciously try to prevent them from coming into existence.

The concept of democratic security, adopted at the Vienna summit as the Council's guiding principle, is not an empty phrase, but rather a reality that should be given additional contents. The Council's programmes, by means of which democracy, the principle of the rule of law and implementation of human rights are supported in member countries, are the best possible form of preventive diplomacy.

By creating an area where the values represented by the Council prevail, we shall build a stable and predictable Europe.

In this building work, the so called Halonen order developed within the framework of the Parliamentary Assembly has its own central function. And when I commend you for your initiative, I do so by recognising that this activity has been a central inspiration to the Committee of Ministers to create its own monitoring system.

The monitoring systems created under the auspices of the Council are internationally unique. They provide an opportunity for the development of a real dialogue with member countries, a dialogue through which development can be influenced and real changes accomplished.

Rather than shying away from this opportunity to develop monitoring systems into genuine instruments of change, we should grasp it.

We now have a unique opportunity to build a European area of common values. It may be that we shall not be offered that opportunity a second time.

By that I do not want to say that we should create a single common culture, but rather an area where democracy and human rights prevail, where we respect difference and understand each other. An area that all, both minorities and majorities, find a good place to live.

In the work of the Council, the Human Rights Commission and the Court of Human Rights are of central importance by virtue of their defence and promotion of citizens' rights. However, enlargement of the membership is posing completely new challenges for the Council to contend with.

Development of the system, i.e. merging the Commission and the Court to create a new court, will indisputably add to the efficiency of the system. Nevertheless, one can ask whether this will be sufficient in the face of the new challenges.

Just over five years ago, as we were entering a new decade, the combined population of the Council of Europe's member countries was something in excess of 400 millions. With Russia's accession, the total will reach nearly double that figure, or over 750 millions. I find it quite understandable that there is concern in the Commission and the Court. Can one really assume that the system will cope with such a large expansion without special measures?

Should, after all, new means and alternatives be given fresh consideration? Might it be time to revive the question of a Council ombudsman, an ombudsman who would work in close cooperation with the ombudsmen especially in the new member countries. I know that this matter has been discussed by Parliamentary Assembly on several earlier occasions.

The events in Bosnia have certainly not left any of us indifferent. Ethnic cleansing and mass-murders should not belong to Europe of today.

The Council of Europe is an organisation that has striven to solve problems by developing legal instruments for managing them. The organisation's achievements are considerable. There is, nevertheless the minority question, an area in which the results achieved to date are not adequate.

Europe has always been a place where different cultures and peoples meet, a home of creative mind and open debate. The diversity and multiplicity of expression that we encounter in Europe has always been a cause for pride. The same multiplicity of expression can be seen in all of the Council's member countries. There is not a single country in Europe whose culture is not the product of different and colliding influences. And one could hardly find a country that does not have some minority or other.

For that reason I am convinced that we all share the same concern that the importance of resolving minority questions be recognised. I do not believe it is an exaggeration to say that the future of Europe depends on how we are able to solve this problem.

We must be able to show that citizens speaking different languages, belonging to different ethnic groups are capable of living together within the same state.

The Convention on Minority Languages and the Framework Convention on National Minorities, both drafted by the Council, and the principles set forth in relation to minorities by the OSCE are important steps in the creation of a Europe that is secure for all. But they are not enough. They simply do not define, with the requisite clarity and in sufficient detail, minority rights and how those rights should be protected.

We should strive to discharge the task that the heads of state gave the Council in Vienna in 1993, that of drafting a separate protocol on the cultural rights of minorities.

I have taken the liberty of speaking about the minority question at somewhat greater length, because it is my belief that we know something about the matter in Finland.

There have been problems in our country too, but we have been able to solve them. Our country is bilingual. We consider it self-evident that the Swedish-speaking part of the population has the same rights as the Finnish-speaking part, and we are convinced that this is a wealth for us. We have solved the Åland Islands question by guaranteeing the islands an advanced degree of autonomy, which has demonstrated its vitality over the past 75 years. We have guaranteed the Sami population in Lapland the right to use their own language in education and their dealings with the authorities. The Romanies and their culture are constitutionally protected.

All of those solutions speak for themselves and indicate that it is possible to solve questions relating to minorities, and that solving them lies in states' own interests.

Only a minority that feels secure and believes it is accepted as part of a nation can participate wholeheartedly in the work of nation-building.

I know that the Parliamentary Assembly - that all of you - have been concerned about how the Council of Europe will be able to cope with the challenges facing it. The tasks that the Council must deal with are enormous, but the resources available for doing this work are, it must be admitted, modest.

I share your concern. Building a new secure Europe will require resources. I hope that we shall be able to find them in order to implement the mandate approved in Vienna.

Finland has been a member of the European Union since the beginning of last year. The decision to join was preceded in my country by an extensive debate. Nor can it be argued that the outcome was a foregone conclusion, even though I myself was among those who argued for a positive decision.

One thing that was never questioned in the course of the debate was our commitment to building a unified Europe.

The Council has the same goal. We should together strive to build a Europe that is undivided, safe and open, which respects citizens and their rights, and shoulders responsibility for our common future.