SPEECH BY PRESIDENT OF
THE REPUBLIC MARTTI AHTISAARI
ON "EUROPE DAY" IN TURKU ON 8.5.1999
In recent weeks Europe has been
experiencing a brutality that had been believed to belong to
history. People are being driven from their homes and made
refugees. Extreme nationalism has brought enormous suffering to
innocent civilians.
Meetings with Albanians who have fled Kosovo put a face on this
suffering. They have been experiencing the same thing that we
evacuees from Karelia endured nearly sixty years ago: the loss of
their own home. For them, reaching a safe place is a welcome
relief, but it does not get rid of the pain caused by injustice,
cruelty and being violently expelled from their homes.
The events in Kosovo pose a serious question to us: how can be
build a common European home if ordinary Europeans have no right
to a home of their own?
The timing of this Europe Day that we are now celebrating is
rooted in the speech that Foreign Minister Robert Schuman of
France made on 9 May 1950. In it he proposed that Franco-German
coal and steel production be placed under a single high
authority. The pooling of strategic production assets thus
achieved had the aim of smoothing the path for the development of
peaceful relations between Germany and France.
The most important goal of European integration is still that of
building and strengthening peace. Nor is it limited any longer to
Franco-German relations. There is no peace in Europe unless human
rights are respected in every part of the continent.
Today, forty-nine years after Schumans declaration, the
importance of the European Union as a force for prosperity and
stability in the whole continent is indisputable. Europe is
integrating and the Union, as the locomotive of this development,
has enlarged.
The benefits of integration have not yet been distributed evenly
throughout Europe. In Western Europe we have been able to enjoy
the fruits of cooperation. In Central and Eastern Europe
democracies are being built now that the restrictions of the Cold
War have been removed. In Russia and many other parts of the
former Soviet Union, the work of restructuring society has only
just begun. In the Balkans we see hatred between neighbours,
violence and massive floods of refugees.
We have gone a good way along the road of integration, but when
we look at the challenges of the new millennium, it seems that we
have taken only the first steps.
The Unions new charter document, the Treaty of Amsterdam,
came into force at the beginning of May. Its importance to us
Finns lies not only in its contents, but also in the principles
that it enshrines. We, too, had a hand in drafting it.
Today the Union faces major challenges, both internal and
external. The resignation of the Commission and the events
leading to it show how important it is for the Union to be able
to develop its administration and institutions. The next
enlargement will increase pressures for reforms. The Kosovo
crisis has shown how important it would be to find the most
effective institutions and methods for preventing and solving
crises that we can.
Finland will have a lot of work to do in the six months that she
holds the EU Presidency for the first time. The Balkans and
Russia are central themes. Negotiations for a new round of
liberalisation in world trade will be commencing in the WTO. In
addition to that, free-trade agreements with several regions will
be at the drafting stage. Implementation of the Treaty of
Amsterdam and reform of EU structures will require a determined
grasp.
The new members of the European Parliament will be chosen in
elections in all member states in the beginning of June. Although
they will represent only their voters, we are entitled to expect
that those from Finland will through their own actions emphasise
and at the same time strengthen our countrys position in
the EU.
The European Union is growing into a significant economic and
political actor everywhere in the world. In particular, the
coming into being of a common currency area will heighten the
expectations focused on the Union.
The Euro is creating concrete demands also with respect to the
Unions external actions. The Euro Zone must speak with a
single voice when questions of significance from the single
currencys perspective are discussed in international fora.
It would be natural for the current holder of the Presidency, the
European Central Bank and the Commission to be entitled to speak
on behalf of the Euro Zone.
In the post-Cold War world, a close partnership and cooperation
relationship has developed between Europe and the United States.
It is not just a dialogue relationship; it would be more
appropriate to speak of a kind of political community that is
taking shape between these two continents.
When I spoke at the summit meeting of the Euro-Atlantic
Partnership Council held in conjunction with the NATO 50th-anniversary
celebrations in late April, I emphasised that NATOs role is
changing. It is concentrating to a growing degree on
crisis-management and political consultation.
Many may ask what the point of the European Union is if it and
its members are incapable of effective intervention in crises
that erupt in adjacent regions, such as the one in Kosovo. The
European Communities were originally created because the
integration that they promoted would make new wars both
unnecessary and impossible.
This does not mean that the Union should not now, in new
circumstances, have the capability to intervene, militarily if
necessary, in crises that erupt in Europe. Finland and Sweden
have jointly emphasised the importance of the Unions
capability to manage crises and made proposals concerning the
matter. The core content of our proposals can be read in the text
of the Treaty of Amsterdam, which empowers the Union to employ
military means of crisis management. This significantly enhances
the credibility of the Union.
From now on it will be up to us to ensure that the Union assumes
the crisis-management role and performs the tasks that it has
defined for itself in the treaty. The treaty provides better
opportunities to conduct humanitarian and rescue operations,
carry out peacekeeping and, ultimately, restore peace.
It is on this basis that we are examining the Franco-British
initiative concerning the development of a defence dimension for
the Union.
It has been decided that the EUs common foreign and defence
policy will continue to be intergovernmental cooperation.
Responsibility for trade policy has been transferred to the
community level. What is most important is to create efficiency
in the existing arrangements. Only when this condition is met
will it be time to go on to new goals.
A particularly good example of the importance of consistency in
external actions can be found in places where the Union functions
primarily as a provider of aid. If the Unions trade policy
with respect to the African, Caribbean and Pacific states differs
greatly from the development-cooperation or foreign policy that
it pursues in their cases, then the EU is simply undermining its
own credibility. The same applies if the actions taken by the
Union and individual members run counter to each other.
With the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam, the
Unions common foreign and security policy will be developed
by creating the post of High Representative for the common
foreign and security policy as well as a policy planning and
early warning unit. Finland will demand much of the High
Representative, who will be chosen in Cologne next June. His or
her work is the focus of high expectations.
During the Amsterdam negotiations the member states failed to
reach agreement on developing the work of the Commission,
increasing the use of qualified-majority voting and adjusting
vote weightings. Discussion of these themes is continuing.
The resignation of the Commission has brought the need for
administrative changes more sharply into focus. I know from my
own experience at the UN that they are always difficult to carry
through. The guiding principles that will have to be adopted in
implementing administrative changes within a strong and
independent Commission are simple regulations, transparency of
administrative structures, a clear division of responsibility,
better coordination and efficient operation.
In the present situation, the Commissions work should be
made more effective especially where external relations and
resource management are concerned. The portfolios and
directorates-general should be reorganised. I would propose a
system in which the President of the Commission is assisted by
two vice-presidents responsible for broader totalities, i.e.
external relations and management of resources. They and the
Commission members responsible for the appropriate sectors would
constitute a distinct team. Where external relations are
concerned, changes of this kind would facilitate cooperation
between the new Councils High Representative and the
Commission, as well as between the Commission and the member
states.
One of the items on the agenda for the next inter-governmental
conference is the question of increasing the use of
qualified-majority voting. Decisions based on voting of this kind
should make it easier to arrive at fair compromises. They must
also be one guarantee of policies amenable to cooperation.
The last institutional question that remained open in Amsterdam
relates to the weighting of votes in the Council. The present
system, in which Finland for example has three votes and Germany
ten, functions as a kind of safety net for all of the member
states. Big-against-small coalitions are not formed in the EU. As
far as I know, there has never been a situation in which the big
member states have steamrolled small ones or vice-versa.
The European Council meeting in the beginning of June will decide
when the next inter-governmental conference dealing with these
questions is to take place. It is quite possible that the
decisions concerning the commencement of the conference will
emerge during the Finnish Presidency.
The work of the Union must be subject to constant critical
scrutiny. The Union can develop in a balanced manner only if it
is able to respond to citizens expectations. One central
goal during the Finnish Presidency will be that of improving the
safety and legal safeguards of citizens. The heads of state and
government will gather in Tampere on 15-16.10 to add momentum to
cooperation in legal and home affairs. The Tampere meeting of the
European Council is expected to issue a clear political message,
oriented towards the 21st century, on issues that
closely concern citizens.
Enlargement of the Union is both a political inescapability and a
historic opportunity to increase stability and prosperity in
Europe. However, the Union itself must be able to restructure in
a way that enables enlargement to succeed in line with
expectations.
The development in Russia is at a very critical turning point. In
principle, an era of political democracy has begun in the
country. Censorship has been abolished and the organs of both
state and regional government are chosen in free elections.
However, there is no getting around history: the civil society
tradition is weak, there is widespread corruption and hardly any
foundation of shared values.
Russia is also a European country. Finland and the EU are its
neighbours. The relationship between the Union and Russia is
becoming a central challenge to the security of our continent.
Finnish initiatives are aimed at promoting the development of
civil societies in Russia and deepening interaction both between
them and between Russia and the EU. Not much progress has been
made, but the work has begun.
As I have already noted, the grave crisis in Kosovo is rocking
the security of Europe. I came to this function straight from
Hanover, where I discussed the situation in Kosovo with Federal
Chancellor Schröder. The international community has made it
clear to the Yugoslav leadership in various ways what it must do
to achieve a negotiated settlement of the conflict. Next week
will be very critical. Finland will have a position of growing
responsibility in these consultations. The European Union, the
United States and Russia, NATO, the OSCE, the UN - the entire
international community - must now do everything in its power to
bring about an end to the conflict through negotiation.
The Balkans have been in a maelstrom of violence for nearly a
decade. The Kosovo crisis has had extensive effects on economic
and social conditions in the other states in the region.
Reconstruction will be an enormous task and take a long time.
European integration is going through a rough period, but it must
not end. Far from it!
Right now, Europe must be able to shoulder central responsibility
for taking care of the massive refugee problem. The Finns have
shown a commendable sense of responsibility. A lack of
coordination between international organisations and instances of
downright negligence were contributory factors in the delay in
getting effective relief work under way in the region.
There has been a proposal in EU circles that a stabilisation
conference for south-east Europe should be arranged. The various
parties participating would draft a comprehensive long-term plan
to strengthen peace, human rights and democracy in the region.
That would make it possible to begin a development that would
give the countries of the region and their citizens an
opportunity to participate in European cooperation and share its
fruits.
Finland supports the idea of a stabilisation conference and is
prepared to promote it strongly during her Presidency.
Over the long term, integration and enlargement of the European
Union are the best guarantees of peace. They likewise help create
the conditions that are essential for broad cooperation
encompassing the entire continent.