ADDRESS BY
PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC MARTTI AHTISAARI AT A
FUNCTION ON THE EVE OF THE EUROPEAN PRESSE-
UND FUNK-BALL IN BERLIN ON 7.1.2000
I thank you heartily
for your kind invitation to speak at this event.
Berlin is a place that I am always delighted to visit
- especially for the first Europäischer Presse-
und Funk-ball of the new millennium. It is indeed
a pleasure to address such a prestigious audience.
A change of millennium
naturally focuses our thoughts ahead. And Berlin
– where we are in the presence of not only
Germany's and Europe's history, but also of our
continent's future – is the best possible
setting for this kind of examination.
Finland has been
settling into Berlin since we opened our new embassy
in Tiergarten. As many of you know, it is part of a
complex of Nordic diplomatic missions; there, in a
compound enclosed by a copper fence, each of the five
countries in our family has its own chancellery. The
area additionally contains a shared multi-purpose
building with exhibition and public-service
facilities. Berlin is an important metropolis for the
Nordic countries. That is why we were among the first
to relocate to here. We want to preserve and build on
the good relations that we enjoy with our traditional
cooperation partners. And of course we are eager to
cultivate closer ties to everyone in Berlin and its
neighbouring Länder who is interested in the
Nordic region.
For us Finns the
unfolding new millennium is one of growing links and
contacts. If Bertolt Brecht were to re-visit Finland
today, he would no longer describe us as a nation
that is "bilingually silent". On the
contrary, he would wonder what was so important that
everyone walking in the street or sitting in a train
or café felt a need to talk about it on a cellphone
all the time. What would astonish him even more is
that these gadgets are not just urban phenomena;
indeed, they have become essential accessories for
everyone, for example just as important to the
lumberjack as his chain-saw.
Cellphones, the
Internet and information technology in general are
part of a global culture that is asserting itself
everywhere. That borders are opening up and
disappearing is due in part to information
technology. We are no longer tied to time and place
in the same way as we have been for most of our
history to date. Information is easier to come by and
pass on without anyone being able to impede its flow.
Changes are continuing and new opportunities to be
seized and problems to be solved are constantly
presenting themselves.
Nevertheless it would
be a mistake to imagine that as technology develops
our link to history will be severed and completely
new laws will govern our lives. On the contrary, the
central challenges that will continue to face us
relate to how we live in harmony with our neighbours,
how we promote prosperity and equality, and how we
can do all of this sustainably.
When we contemplate
the future of Europe can not overlook Russia. We must
remember that, hopefully, Russia will be an
increasingly more integral part of Europe, with her
people participating more and more intensively in
European cooperation.
The vicissitudes of
development in Russia in the past century made
themselves felt also here in Berlin. Nor will the
effects of progress and setbacks in Russian society
be confined to that country in the future, either.
Russia underwent an
unprecedented opening-up in the 1990s. A superpower
that had carved out its own sphere of influence was
transformed into a Eurasian state that depends on
international interaction. Since the value of the
rouble plunged in 1998, the share of exports has
increased to one-third of gross domestic product. Now
that the European Union has become Russia's number
one trade partner with a 40 per cent share, the
Baltic Sea region's importance as a trade artery has
been further accentuated.
What Russia has
achieved in the development of democracy is
impressive, especially when we consider the lack of
historical experience. Last December saw the
country's third democratic parliamentary elections.
The current flowed towards the centre. All of the
major political forces were prepared to struggle for
power in the Duma rather than against the Duma.
The procedure laid
down in the constitution is likewise being followed
in electing the next President of the country. Nobody
has questioned the right of the people to choose
their leaders through the ballot box. That became
clear when President Yeltsin announced his
resignation. His role in promoting a democratic
development in Russia has been a major one. Russian
history contains hardly any examples of leaders
voluntarily stepping down and their successors being
chosen in free elections. The Yeltsin era saw the
beginning of Russia's development towards mature
democracy, and there is no going back to the past.
Many of the changes
that have taken place in Russia did not result from
conscious planning, but rather from open borders and
greater freedom of speech and action. In many cases
decisions had to be made without any certainty about
what the long-term consequences might be. Let us take
the example of privatisation: it was an essential
prerequisite for the development of a market economy,
but could we have imagined how profoundly it would
affect ownership structures and the economy
generally?
Democratisation and
the evolution of the market economy have transferred
a lot of power from Moscow to the regions and
companies. The most natural of cooperation partners
for Finland are the parts of Russia in our immediate
vicinity: the Murmansk region, the Karelian Republic,
St. Petersburg and the Leningrad Oblast. Most
of the effects of devolution are positive. At its
best, it is leading to greater activity on the part
of citizens and stimulating healthy competition
between different models of reform and development.
Already now, for example, we can see other parts of
the country trying to adapt the methods that have
enabled the Novgorod region to accomplish so much
success in promoting investment. Contrary to what
some fear, devolution is strengthening Russia's
economy and society rather than leading to weakness
and disintegration.
The open wound in the
development of Russia in the 1990s is the Chechen
conflict that has now persisted for nearly a decade.
The special status of the Chechens among the peoples
of Russia was clearly expressed in classical Russian
literature, for example by Lermontov and Tolstoy, and
especially by Solzhenitsyn in The Gulag
Archipelago. The Chechens were one of the peoples
whom Stalin deported from their homelands in the
1940s. The history of Chechnya is strewn with
rebellions against the central power. Thus when the
Soviet Union began breaking up in 1991 the Chechen
leaders tried to create an independent republic.
However, the Soviet constitution allowed only the 15
constituent republics to secede from the union. As an
autonomous republic, Chechnya did not have that
right.
The bloody conflict in
1994-96 thrust the republic into the consciousness of
the world. After a lull in the fighting it returned
to the headlines last autumn. In the months since
then, the Chechen conflict and the human distress
resulting from it have become the most important
theme in the dialogue between the European Union and
Russia.
The European Union has
strongly condemned the disproportionate and random
use of force against the civilian population. The
Union has supported a strengthening of the OSCE's
role in the region. The Helsinki Summit also decided
to examine what conclusions the EU must draw with
respect to our mutual relations as Russia continues
her war operations.
In our view, Russia
wants to be and also is a part of Europe. That being
the case, she must scrupulously adhere to the norms
and ground rules of international humanitarian
justice. That was clearly stated at the European
Council meeting in Helsinki. The European Union is
committed to a long-term partnership with Russia.
This finds expression both in the Union's strategy on
Russia and in its Northern Dimension policy. We are
trying to prevent a situation in which Russia,
through her own policies, drives herself further and
further from Europe and the values that our continent
represents. An essential precondition for success in
this respect is constant work to strengthen civil
society there.
Just under a month
ago, the European Council decided at its meeting in
Helsinki to allow more countries to begin
pre-accession negotiations. The six that were already
candidates have been joined by another half dozen,
including Turkey. EU enlargement still has the same
underlying goal as when the Coal and Steel Community
was founded in the early 1950s: to enhance political
stability and security and increase economic
prosperity.
The ongoing
negotiations and those soon to begin will take
several years – depending on each candidate's
own performance. But what about when the next major
round of EU enlargement has been concluded? Where
will Europe's external frontier ultimately run, and
how shall we cooperate across it?
The sphere of
stability and prosperity must not end at the EU's
external frontier, either now nor in the future.
Already now we must work to ensure that the borders
that hamper cooperation are eliminated and the
prerequisites for closer interaction put in place.
It has given me
pleasure to participate, as one of the patrons, in
the Dialogue of Cultures project launched by
President Roman Herzog and continued by his successor
Johannes Rau. The premises underlying the project
have included Professor Samuel P. Huntington's theory
of a "clash of civilisations" and a belief
in a need to find means of averting the conflict that
this rivalry could lead to.
Although Huntington's
views have been criticised as one-sided, he has
performed a valuable service in focusing attention on
how important for the preservation of world peace it
is to promote harmony between cultures and religions.
It is not enough for us to concentrate on the economy
and redressing shortcomings in it. We must also pay
attention to the positive contributions that
religions and cultures have to offer. In the new
millennium we cannot have sustainable development if
we forget the foundations of our cultures.
Cultural differences
do not automatically lead to rivalry and conflict,
but it would be beneficial to look for and emphasise
the universal and common human values that unite us.
Together we can struggle against inequality, hunger
and want.
Thus cultures need not
become similar to each other; instead, we must
recognise that cultures and religions complement each
other. From this perspective, every culture is of
value and its message worth listening to.
The Dialogue of
Cultures project emphasises educational means of
bringing about this change. Conflicts of values can
serve as alarm signals for more concrete clashes, and
we should practise listening to them. For that we
need open-mindedness and a new kind of ethical
sensitivity.
One of the conflicts
of values between Eastern and Western cultures has to
do with the way we look at the relationship between
rights and duties. The time has come for us to give
some serious thought to Gandhi's comment, when he
read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that
"The Ganges of rights originates in the
Himalayas of duties."
One means of prompting
a sense of common ethical responsibility presents
itself when we are drafting and enacting laws. The
question that we must always ask ourselves then is
how they take account of the ethical principles that
all humankind shares and which are often called
"global ethics". The Global Ethics Group in
the Finnish Parliament is trying to arouse an
awareness of this among our legislators. The group
studies the principles underlying the value choices
enshrined in laws and asks how they relate to our
international ethical responsibilities. Setting up
similar groups in various legislatures could be one
means of promoting a spirit of collective global
responsibility.
Technological
development has brought us global direct contacts and
made us impatient with regard to achieving results.
Just as we can make a direct phone call to virtually
anywhere on Earth, we expect our efforts in pursuit
of goals – even very broad ones – to bear
fruit immediately. When there is no sign of results
at once and we suffer setbacks, we become
disappointed and abandon our efforts.
Striving for immediate
benefits can spur development and bring results in
some spheres of life. But I do not believe it is a
model that suits everything. In a world that pulsates
ever-faster we still need projects that are carried
out at a leisurely pace and within a long-term
framework. I have always admired the conviction and
infinite faith in the future that drove the
construction of Europe's great cathedrals within time
frames centuries long. Those building projects were
suspended now and then. Wars laid realms in ruins.
But even in the midst of scarcity and misery, people
began over and over again to carry on something that
had been started long ago. We need a similar
conviction and long-term outlook as we search for the
values that provide bridges between cultures.
Thank you.
