Translation

ADDRESS BY PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF FINLAND,
MARTTI AHTISAARI TO THE ÜBERSEE-CLUB IN HAMBURG
25.9.1998

EUROPE MUST RENEW ITSELF AS WE MAKE THE TRANSITION TO THE 21^ST CENTURY

The European Union’s capacity for action and its international position must be strengthened

I am pleased to have the opportunity to address the prestigious Übersee-Club. Ties between Finland and the Hanseatic city of Hamburg have traditionally been strong. Today the Baltic is again a sea that unites all of the states around its shores. Hamburg’s importance as these countries’ gateway to the world has been accentuated even further.

In the Europe that lay in ruins after the Second World War, building anew depended on a powerful vision of a uniting continent. The unnatural dividing line of the Cold War, and the division of Germany, prevented this goal from extending to all of Europe. The collapse of command societies a decade ago posed a major challenge for integration. This challenge has been grasped. The most far-reaching visions of the future of the continent and of foundations for a lasting peace that the earliest trail-blazers of integration, such as Chancellor Konrad Adenauer, presented are becoming reality in the historic transition that is now in progress. The European Union has become the anchor of European stability. At the same time, however, the Union is the focus of growing expectations. It must renew itself as Europe changes.

What is at issue today is not a threat of war, but we must again reflect on the goals concerning unification of the continent. Since the end of the Cold War, world-wide expansion of trade and investment, globalisation, has created new, growing markets in the various parts of the globe. Capital flows freely, binding economies to each other and rapidly extending its influence into the everyday lives of citizens. The international economy nowadays behaves in a new way, which individual states are not capable of controlling.

The change that has taken place in the global economy has provided an additional argument in support of European integration. A European Union that is consistent in its foreign relations and stands on the foundation of a common currency is our continent’s weighty response to the challenges of the global era. In the midst of uncertainty, we have become increasingly convinced of that.

President Urho Kekkonen spoke in this same forum in 1979. He emphasised the similarity between our countries’ fundamental goal: a Europe of peace, security and cooperation. In the same conjunction, however, he pointed out that Finland’s road deviated in many ways from that of the Federal Republic of Germany.

Today, two decades later, our roads have come together. From the beginning of next year we shall belong to the same euro area, which the inclusion of Finland will extend into northern Europe. A page of history is turning.

Germany will assume the Presidency of the European Union at the beginning of next year. Six months later, this responsibility will be transferred to Finland for the first time. Our stint in the Presidency will be at a time when the development of the European Union is at a turning point and the post-Cold War change in the world is continuing with unabated ferocity.

There is, however, no shared vision of the development of the European Union. That is something that we must determinedly seek.

When we joined the European Union at the beginning of 1995, we knew that the course it would follow in the next few years had already been staked out. We brought our own contribution to the Inter-governmental Conference that ended in Amsterdam last year. It must be acknowledged that in certain central matters we were unable in Amsterdam to reform the Union with sufficient determination.

Integration is no longer merely a response to the challenges of the past –

a reaction to the hard lessons of the Second World War. Safeguarding peace between the member states and promoting the wellbeing of citizens still constitute the starting point for European integration, but other goals are coming up alongside them.

Closer integration has increased the intrinsic weight of the Union –

and that weight is not restricted to Europe, either. The Union is growing into a significant economic and political actor everywhere in the world. In particular, the coming into being of the common currency area will increase the expectations focused on the Union. The importance of the European Union for the development of the entire continent is now indisputable.

Now the EU must bear greater responsibility as a promoter of security, stability and prosperity. We must be able to work more and more determinedly and consistently for the solution of global problems. This presupposes reform of the Union as well as closer relations with other central actors in world politics.

Related to this is the initiative I presented in 1995, proposing the arrangement of a summit conference between the EU, Russia and the United States. The Union’s prestige can be strengthened in this way. There is a need for cooperation between these actors in many matters, such as combatting crime, protecting the environment and increasing nuclear safety.

*

It has been a shock to see how people in Europe can still take up weapons to solve problems. Many people could ask what the whole point of the European Union is, unless it and its member states are capable of effective intervention in crises of the Bosnia, Kosovo and Albania type that break out in its immediate vicinity.

I believe it is our duty to reply also to this challenge openly and honestly. The Union has not yet been mature enough to perform this task.

Germany has been an important developer of the Union’s capacity for crisis management. Also Finland, together with Sweden, has emphasised the importance of the Union’s capability in the sphere of crisis management. We have made proposals, the core content of which can be read in the Amsterdam Treaty. It gives the Union a preparedness for military crisis management, thereby significantly enhancing the Union’s credibility.

From now on we shall have to see to it that when the Amsterdam Treaty enters into force, the Union will accept that role and discharge the crisis-management tasks that it has assigned itself in this treaty. The treaty provides better opportunities for humanitarian aid and rescue operations as well as for peacekeeping in its various forms. There is now a need for the member states to be genuinely of one mind. Internecine military crises are undermining security. This is the reality especially in the Balkans and the Caucasus region.

I shall take the Kosovo crisis as an example. In this conjunction the international community has assumed responsibility through, for example, the contact group. Of the European Union members, only the large ones are represented in the group, in addition to which the state holding the Presidency has been able to participate in discussions. Some EU members have criticised this kind of cooperation, suspecting that it will weaken the internal solidarity of the Union and the position of small member states.

My own view is that we must be realists. Forms of cooperation along these lines have been used in the past and will presumably also be used in the future. In order to deal with crises like the one in Kosovo, it is essential that big states, including Russia and the USA, cooperate with each other. In this sense, the contact group’s raison d’être as such can not be called into question.

The international community ought not to permit violent behaviour anywhere. Defending shared values strengthens international cooperation. For it to be possible to manage and resolve crises like the one in Kosovo, Russia’s support is important when joint measures are decided on at the UN. Fragmentation of the joint front would only help make it possible for ethnic persecution and violations of human rights to continue.

Our aim in the future should be that the Union would speak with a single voice in contexts of this kind. The situation today is that the Union conveys its collective views with the aid of the member states that are involved. What is essentially important is that the Union and then also all of its members can, in advance, formulate their own stance and line on issues.

As the pattern of threats changes, there is a need for responsibility to be shared more broadly between countries and continents. The EU must have a constructive role alongside the United States in many questions, both in the western Balkans and in the Middle East. It must be remembered at the same time that NATO’s revised structures are the central foundation for military cooperation. Only a stronger Union with a greater capacity for action in foreign policy, and which will when necessary also assume responsibility for military measures to manage crises, can be a serious partner for and sharer of responsibility with the United States.

Military crises in our continent are, however, only part of the risks that affect our security today. The content of security is changing and expanding. Flows of refugees, environmental catastrophes, terrorism and international crime are threats against which the fight has to be waged with means different from those of traditional security policy. We can observe at the same time that many of these new risks result from precisely Albania- or Kosovo-type crises, the effects of which extend also to Germany and Finland in many different ways.

The European Union must be able to respond to these new challenges. It is already a central actor in global environmental negotiations, trade-liberalisation projects and as a development aid donor. Thus a positive and constructive role for the Union is already a fact. Now its scope can be strengthened.

A common foreign and security policy within the parameters set out in the Maastricht Treaty has been kept a form of intergovernmental cooperation. The Union’s external relations are, however, a combination of Community policy and intergovernmental cooperation.

External relations must be examined in a manner with a close bearing on practical realities, from the perspective of efficiency and consistency. The strategies agreed on must be implemented effectively. Cooperation must be made closer and the Union must be consistent in its actions.

Likewise in external actions associated with justice and internal affairs, we must strive for greater consistency and efficiency. We are all shocked at the increasingly brutal forms that crime has been assuming. More and more often, children have become the victims of crime. Crime on the streets should not be tolerated. The security of Europe is the security of citizens.

In the Berliner Rede lecture that I gave this spring, I emphasised that the everyday safety of citizens was one of the central goals of the European Union. It would include a strategy for internal security, associated with which would be control of external frontiers, but just as closely also a mechanism for cooperation transcending those borders. I now repeat this proposal of mine concerning a strategy for security.

When Finland was negotiating for membership of the European Union in 1992-1994, the Union showed understanding for northern questions, especially the special circumstances in which our agriculture is practised. The negotiations were difficult, but in the end they produced a satisfactory outcome. Thus one of the special questions that they dealt with was that of extending EU subsidy policy to the northern member states.

The process of admitting the Nordic members highlighted a broader perspective on the northern dimension, the question of the EU’s northern external relations. I brought this matter up in a speech that I made at Tartu University in Estonia in June 1994, on the eve of our own accession. I presented my assessment of the significance that the then EU enlargement would have for the Baltic Sea region and commented as follows:

"The accession of the Nordic countries to membership of the EU will ensure that the Union acquires a permanently developing northern dimension. In the same conjunction, unprecedented opportunities to link Russia more closely into this integration process will be created. Without Russia’s contribution and participation, the development will inevitably remain incomplete."

 

The Finnish Government officially launched its project concerning a Northern Dimension for the EU in an initiative presented in autumn 1997.

Finland and Germany are the two Union members for whom their relationship with Russia has been exceptionally important throughout history. In the new situation, also this relationship must be viewed from specifically the EU perspective more than has been done in the past.

It is with great satisfaction that we have noted the support Germany has given our initiative. In our view, a comprehensive approach in northern regions is an essential part of strengthening the EU’s outward position and capacity for action. That way, consistency will be created in the EU’s external relations and cooperation in the North.

The situation in Russia is sometimes compared to that in eastern Germany. Great steps forward have been taken in German unification, but it is turning out to be a project that will take at least a generation. Russia’s transition from a command society to a democratically-run market economy is a decisively more difficult process.

A period of political uncertainty is continuing in Russia, because the country lacks a functioning civil society. We must be prepared for the fact that Russia will be a more demanding partner for the EU in the future. It is essential that widespread support for stable national work of construction is secured in Russia and that the positive results of the reform process in recent years are preserved. It is important that the country defines its international role in a changing Europe in a way that strengthens cooperation.

Russian society is in deep crisis. The economic system is undeveloped. The monetary system is not functioning, the system of production is in difficulties and the lack of a decent transport network is putting obstacles in the way of the food supply. The problems of public finances are only adding to the country’s plight.

Long-term work is the only way to escape from the crisis. Russia is now sinking also into an acute crisis, which calls for swift intervention. Information that we have received indicates that humanitarian aid will probably be needed in the country next winter. After receiving a request to this effect, Finland has already decided to send aid to regions in her own immediate vicinity. The European Union must now likewise demonstrate her preparedness to deal with a humanitarian crisis in the event of one erupting for real in Russia. Of course, an even broader international effort will be needed to manage this crisis.

From the perspective of the international community, it is of paramount importance to promote the involvement of Russia so as to prevent the emergence of new lines of division or deepening standard-of-living gulfs in Europe.

The Union’s capacity for external action must be strengthened also with a view to future enlargement. Finland and Germany are the member states that probably see most clearly that eastward enlargement is a prerequisite for European stability. Besides the candidate countries, also the Union must prepare for enlargement. In this respect, one question that demands attention is the Union’s decision-making system in relation to external actions. The challenge is not easy, because an enlarged Union will have to be capable of more effective decision making than the present 15-member one.

When we examine the system of decision making on which the Union’s external actions are based, we must do so from the perspective of consistency and expediency. The decisions made in Maastricht and Amsterdam provide a good foundation for development. They will take us forward. A special responsibility for implementation of the reforms agreed on in Amsterdam will have to be borne by Finland and Germany in their capacity as the next incumbents of the EU Presidency.

In common with all other agreements reached within international cooperation, Maastricht and Amsterdam are products of their own time rather than the end point in a process of development. From now on it must be possible to increase, in a controlled manner, the scope of qualified-majority decision making in questions concerning the common foreign and security policy. Progress in this matter must be made in a way that respects the central national interests of the member states.

The opportunities that the Amsterdam Treaty gives us to make our actions more effective must be availed of. Where trade policy is concerned, not even this is enough. It will have to be included within the scope of Community powers more extensively than is now the case.

To add to those demands that have traditionally been important, the common currency will create new concrete ones with respect to the Union’s outward actions in international fora. The Union must be able to make effective use of its new position. The euro area must speak with one voice when issues of importance from its perspective are discussed on the international scene. It would be consistent and, from the perspective of the Union’s institutional system, rational for authority to speak on behalf of the euro area to be vested in the country holding the Presidency and the European Central Bank.

*

Former Chancellor Helmut Schmidt has said:

"History is not a process that functions according to natural laws and could be interpreted using mathematical formulae. When speaking of the future of Europe, one is inevitably moving in a sphere where everyone depends on intuition, no matter how much predictions might be founded on historical facts."

 

A time of opportunities is now opening up for us.

Ladies and Gentlemen, let us have confidence in our own vision and let us work to achieve it.