We made a historic decision in autumn 1994. By becoming a fully-fledged member of the European Union, Finland chose the road of expanding cooperation.

The choice that we have made strengthens our security in a period of turbulent international transition. Europe must contend with global competition, developing countries like China and India are emerging as major economic powers, crises must be managed through cooperation, not by means of power politics.

The road of cooperation used to be narrower, but now it offers room for manoeuvre and leads in all directions. Our export industry must go wherever there are new markets and opportunities rather than waiting for them to come here. Prosperity is not a bird of passage that flies in from afar to nest here.

Outside the European Union we would only have to accommodate ourselves to the decisions that others make. Now we are part of the community where many central solutions are worked out.

Independence means that others do not decide on our behalf. Today it also means that we can join with others in making decisions.

Finland's development into a nation and subsequently an independent state did not guarantee us peace. We had to redeem peace first by force of arms and later by following the road of cooperation.

Before the Winter War, efforts to build Finland's international status were founded on our policy of cooperation with the Baltic States and Poland and on the League of Nations, a Nordic orientation and neutrality. Those policy lines were supported by a national defence, which for economic reasons was not developed sufficiently. That nearly had fateful consequences for us.

When the Winter War broke out in November 1939, Finland had to face the Soviet Union's assault alone. Our foreign-policy efforts to safeguard our position had come to naught. It was left to the soldiers to find a solution. A unanimous nation repelled the attempt to occupy the country.

The neutrality policy that we pursued during the Cold War enjoyed broad support in Finland. The Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance that we had concluded with the Soviet Union made us the focus of special international scrutiny in the military sense, and our position was not easy for outsiders to grasp. Nonetheless, our defence was planned in such a way that in the event of a crisis or war we would have defended only Finland.

What was decisive from our point of view was that we were able to participate quite extensively in Western economic integration, even though our position as a neighbour of the Soviet Union set political limits which slowed that integration down. We did not consider joining the European Community.

Finland's international position is now good. Three factors feature more prominently than any others in the background to that situation: the end of the Cold War, membership of the European Union and the economic and political integration of our Continent.

Geography has been a permanent factor influencing our international position, but now, as a consequence of international change, its significance ought to be partly reassessed. Geography is no longer as determining a factor as it used to be in assessing our place in the international community.

In this new configuration, Finland's security policy is a totality composed of many factors rather than a doctrine founded on a single factor or goal.

A sense of Nordic affinity is part of our Finnish identity. However, Nordic cooperation has not been a security-policy solution. Traditional Nordic cooperation is being supplemented to a constantly growing degree by interaction with the Baltic Sea region in consequence of the reaffirmation of the Baltic States' independence.

Broadly-based support for the sovereignty of the Baltic States and for their reform programmes and measures to increase their preparedness to participate in integration has become one of the central objectives of Finnish foreign and security policy. I have been trying to have discussions with the presidents of the Baltic States on a regular basis.

As a member of the European Union, we are participating in a community of political solidarity. A threat against one member state is directed against the community as a whole.

This security policy of ours, springing from the militarily nonallied status that we have developed during the present decade and oriented towards cooperation and international common responsibility, has proved effective and fruitful.

There is now a new, but demanding security-policy situation in Europe. Although the threat of a major war has receded, the continent's political and economic foundation is changing and the possibility of local military conflicts must be taken into account. Even the stability that has been achieved could be upset by the wrong solutions.

From the perspective of Europe's political and military development, how Russia's position takes shape in this state of flux is crucial. History teaches us that the security of our continent has been threatened whenever Russia and some or other of Europe's major powers have been at loggerheads. During the Cold War, military tension prevailed between the Soviet Union and the Western alliance.

Russia's economy has been in deep recession for longer than most of the other formerly socialist countries. This has not prevented the process of democratisation there from continuing. Yet it will take a long time for Russia's economy to attain stability. That would require considerable and constant economic growth over the next few years. Although the data for the current year are not cause for optimism, Finland has nevertheless an opportunity to increase economic cooperation with Russia. Growing trade figures indicate that.

As an economic factor, Russia appears to be falling far behind the world's leading economic powers, the European Union, the United States, Japan and China. Nonetheless Russia will remain one of the great powers in Eurasia.

Russia's opportunity will lie in closer integration into the international economy and various arrangements facilitating cooperation. We have wanted to contribute to this development.

President Mitterrand of France noted after the transition in 1989-90 that a situation in which "the same words have the same meaning throughout the whole of Europe had finally arisen. What was formerly only an end, has become the common foundation on which the new Europe should be built." How aptly put! The principles shared by the UN and the OSCE are now the starting points for new forms of cooperation in the field of security policy. The task now is to devise those new ways of working together.

We must now create solutions that address the security concerns of the present period of changes and of the new century that lies ahead. I am setting four tasks for Finland above all others:

- First: We must ensure an independent and credible defence.

- Second: With the purpose of strengthening also our own security, we must shoulder our share of international responsibility in the areas of crisis management and peacekeeping.

- Third: We must participate in developing a common security space in Europe, based mainly on the OSCE and the Council of Europe as well as NATO's Partnership for Peace programme and the crisis-management tasks of the WEU, and

- Fourth: We must work to strengthen the European Union and develop its capability for action in such a way that the forthcoming enlargement can be implemented as envisaged and the external and internal security of the Union can be reinforced.

There are no military threats directed against Finland. Yet the European security order contains uncertainty factors, which in turn argue in favour of preserving our defence capability. That notwithstanding, Finland has no need to reconsider her basic military solution. We take the view that remaining outside military alliances and retaining an independent defence support stability in northern Europe.

We have to look after our defence within the constraints that the harsh facts of our state finances impose. Economies have been made also in the Defence Forces, but they have not weakened our will and ability to defend ourselves.

Conflict management has become an important, even central part of the new kind of security policy that is based on common responsibility. The war in Bosnia shaped our perceptions of how we must act to deal with post-Cold War crises. Similar crises may erupt in the future. Managing them will require coordination of the many means and instruments at the disposal of the international community.

NATO is adjusting to altered circumstances. Its command structure is being lightened and adapted to the needs of crisis management. NATO is gaining new members, but at the same time opening the door for partnership countries to participate in its functions.

Russia has announced its willingness to negotiate with NATO concerning a bilateral arrangement as part of the European security order. Enlargement must not create new dividing lines.

In Finland, our attitude to cooperation with NATO has depended on how it increases our own and Europe's security. NATO's evolving Partnership for Peace programme has created an opportunity for increased cooperation between the organisation and also militarily nonallied countries. We are prepared to be involved already in the initial stages of planning NATO-led crisis-management measures. We are also prepared to examine the possibility of assigning Finnish officers to NATO staffs of various levels. We want to develop the EU's role in crisis management and peacekeeping by creating an effective relationship between the EU and the WEU. In this respect, we have been cooperating closely with Sweden.

The importance of the OSCE and the Council of Europe must be increased in the evolving European security architecture. It was on Finland's initiative that the EU summit in Dublin included a discussion of ways of making more effective use of the Council of Europe in strengthening the rule of law, democracy and respect for human rights in Eastern Central Europe, Ukraine and, especially, Russia.

In our changed Europe, economic and political integration forms the foundation for security: a strengthening of democratic societies throughout our continent. EU enlargement is important for Europe. The way things look today, the first new members could be admitted to the EU soon after the turn of the millennium. It is important to us that the Baltic States' eligibility for membership be assessed on the same basis as in the case of the other candidates.

The EU now has a northern dimension. The Dublin summit created good starting points for monitoring developments in the Baltic Sea region. We shall also see to it that Arctic regions receive a growing amount of attention. By promoting the northern dimension we shall improve opportunities for further developing relations between the Union and Russia.

The dividing line that the Cold War created was particularly visible in the Baltic Sea region. Now we can follow the path of integration. Strengthening security in the Baltic Sea region is a multifaceted and demanding task. As a focus of our endeavours, it is of primary importance and one where our inputs are coordinated with those of the other states in the region. Stability in the Baltic Sea region can not be promoted without Russia.

The EU's security role contains two dimensions mainly: reflecting economic and societal stability and strengthening the Union's own and international security.

The ongoing Intergovernmental Conference will have to decide how to make the European Union function more effectively. That will be essential if the enlarging Union is not to be paralysed. Development will have to be done on the basis of the existing balance of powers between the main institutions of the Union - the Council, the Parliament and the Commission.

In itself, strengthening the EU's international role accords with our interests. The EU is a bigger and bigger actor in negotiations concerning liberalisation of world trade, in the OSCE and the Council of Europe, in supporting development in Eastern Europe and Russia and to a growing extent in international crisis management and peacekeeping.

From the perspective of security in post-Cold War Europe, it is of ever-greater importance that the European Union, the United States and Russia improve their mutual cooperation. Our proposal that a summit take place between the EU, Russia and the United States with that purpose in mind has been given a constructive reception in various quarters.

Another important question relates to strengthening the Union's internal security. The refugee problems caused by the war in former Yugoslavia, unrest in the northern part of Africa, stormy change and crime in Eastern Central Europe - less and less safety in the streets - have added to concern in many Union countries, including Finland. Threats that do not respect national frontiers can be thwarted only through international cooperation.

The European Union will enjoy popular support only if concrete results can be achieved in important matters. It is an instrument with which to work for the wellbeing of citizens. In Finland as elsewhere, crime is being perceived as a constantly growing problem. Fortunately, it has actually declined in most categories. The negative aspect is that violent offences have, unfortunately, increased.

The EU's capability for action in the sphere of strengthening internal security is developing in accordance with our hopes. The EUROPOL agreement on police cooperation was adopted last year and hopefully the member states will ratify it as soon as possible. The EU took an important step at the Dublin summit by stepping up its struggle against organised crime, trafficking in human beings, the drug problem and terrorism. Finland has been regarded in the EU as an important partner in the development of relations between the Union and Russia in the area of combatting organised crime.

In addition to my trips to the provinces, I regularly meet representatives of regional associations. Those contacts have made it clear to me that the effects of EU membership have been felt as mainly positive from the perspective of regional development in this country. In so saying, I do not wish to make light of the problems of adjustment that the farming population is having to face in this transitional situation. With the aid of EU subsidies, however, employment schemes have been launched and training places provided.

The EU is not turning into a federal state, nor are we aiming for anything like that. The wealth of Europe lies in the diversity of its regions, districts and states, not in homogenising them. The EU's great task, indeed its raison d'être, is to ensure that the national and cultural differences that exist in our continent do not give rise to conflicts. That is a message with which the history of Europe presents us in such a tragic way.

We are leaving the old Europe behind us. It was a place where power politics too often determined the course of history. As we stand on the threshold to a new millennium, we see before us a vista of a continent founded on cooperation and common responsibility. It is a matter not of optimism nor of pessimism, but of determined practical cooperation.

Starting out from her own traditions and values, Finland has an opportunity to show the way for European cooperation. A peaceful Europe that citizens feel is theirs is emerging. It is still under construction and will require a lot of work on the part of all of us. We now need our ability to act in accord.