Speech of the President of the Republic Tarja Halonen at Helsinki Conference 2002 - Searching for Global Partnership

(Check against delivery)

Globalisation and especially its social dimension are, as you may know also on my agenda. Last February the International Labour Organisation established a World Commission on the Social Dimension of Globalisation, which I have had the honour of chairing together with President Benjamin Mkapa of Tanzania.

The commission also includes twenty-four appointed members, women and men, who represent different political, economic and cultural viewpoints and outlooks very well, in my opinion.

The goal of the World Commission on the Social Dimension of Globalisation is

a) To change discussion concerning globalisation from confrontation to dialogue. Discussion is presently characterized by polarisation and the presentation of narrow viewpoints. We need a discussion in which globalisation is approached in a comprehensive manner.

b) To present a practical vision of a fair and sustainable globalisation which corresponds to people's needs. The goal is globalisation which has a more human face, promotes development, growth and employment and reduces poverty. In other words the aim is globalisation which promotes a decent life.

c) To present initiatives and recommendations concerning how this vision can be achieved. Recommendations would be aimed at key actors: nation-states, international organisations, businesses, trade unions and other parts of civil society. Some recommendations would be immediate while others would require long-term action.

Our commission has, in my opinion, made good progress in its work. So far we have met three times for mini-seminars lasting for few days and have come a long way from general discussion to more focused, solution-oriented discussion. For this purpose we have arranged dialogues with significant actors such as the Bretton Woods institutions, the World Trade Organisation, multinational corporations and representatives of trade unions and non-governmental organisations.

We have also wanted to collect as much information as possible on local and regional experiences concerning globalisation. The commission has arranged numerous national dialogues on the impact of globalisation and what people can do about it. We arranged what I believe was a very rewarding dialogue in Finland three weeks ago, and the last national dialogue was in China, where I also participated.

National dialogues have sharpened our picture of how globalisation and its impact are experienced in different parts of the world and what expectations people and organisations have with regard to promoting the good aspects of globalisation and reducing related problems.

In discussing globalisation we inevitably come, as you have come on this occasions, to the issue of the relation between globalisation and democratic decision-making. We can say that global governance is a broadly accepted common goal. There are many different opinions about what forms and means this should involve, however, and this is an area in which we should seek a broader consensus through discussion.

Ordinary people feel the impact of globalisation in their own lives here and now, and in this sense the impact is local. The reasons often lie far beyond the community and even national borders, however. Fortunately in the modern world democracy works best at the local and national levels. The elected representatives of the people have a clear mandate. They are also directly responsible to the people who have elected them, which is strengthened by open information. The world is not perfect, however. There are plenty of problems in national and local democracy which cannot be overlooked.

Supranational decision-making is generally joint decision-making on the part of democratically elected national governments and other actors, which has nevertheless become too remote from citizens or voters. A good example is the elections for the European Parliament, in which the voter turnout in 1999 was only 30 per cent or less in some countries even though the turnout in national elections can easily exceed 70 per cent in all 15 member states. The legitimacy of supranational decision-making has remained obviously inadequate.

People clearly want to have a say in matters which influence their own life. This possibility should be ensured. We must find new channels and means to increase democracy in global decision-making. It is perhaps paradoxical that building supranational democracy has to start with strengthening and developing local and national democracy.

The accountability of national representatives in intergovernmental cooperation and international organisations must be opened and if necessary increased so that citizens can understand better the content and forms of decision-making at the supranational level. This naturally creates a need to influence this decision-making democratically, and this opportunity must be provided.

The United Nations and its sub-organisations and special agencies are at the focal point of conducting globalization. The UN system should be used as a gateway to develop globalisation to meet people's needs better. The meetings of the co-ordinating executive board, led by Secretary-General Kofi Annan are a significant step in this respect.

In addition to the UN system, attention should be focused on all international actors. We must also critically evaluate the present political tools with which we have tried to control international development. We must examine existing structures and then see how far we should go in presenting new actors and measures. There is no reason to go overboard or to nail objectives dogmatically.

Major challenges in this respect are economical crises. Although the international community is far from perfect in dealing with political crises, we seem to have some kind of understanding about prevention, acute crisis management and "after care." When dealing with economical crises the international community is more puzzled. This might be partly due to the fact that in the economical field there are so many more private players with private interests. Anyway, I think that there are far too many economical crises, which have shattered lives of millions people. We, the international community, should be able to do better.

A key issue is how to combine encouragement and criticism in different countries and regions in order to promote democracy, human rights and rule of law. Should the results precede support or vice versa? We say sometimes half jokingly in Finland that the country to come closest to meet our conditions for development assistance is Sweden. This situation is certainly familiar also in many other countries.

In my view democracy, respect for human rights and rule of law are basis for a modern state. At the same time improvement of all these values is an essential, but difficult, process. No country is perfect in this respect. So every government who genuinely strive for these values is worth of support and encouragement. Every step backwards is worth of criticism, but never should less than perfect situation as such be a reason for disregard.

This event is a significant addition to a process in which we are all striving to create a better world. In closing I would like to thank the organisers of this event. You have selected a subject, which is of key importance for our future and posed this subject in a very constructive way. You have also obtained the participation of an experienced and knowledgeable group of people from different fields and parts of the world. I know that this event will promote discussion concerning globalisation in a significant way and will bring the possibility of a decent life closer to people.

Helsinki Conference 2002