Speech by President of the Republic of Finland Tarja Halonen at the Royal United Services Institute for Defence And Security Studies (RUSI) on 11 May 2004

It is a great pleasure and honour for me to speak here at the Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies (RUSI). Your Institute and your work are well known around the world. It is difficult to imagine a more respected place than the RUSI. The theme given to me, European security, is a most interesting one. However, I might already confess at this stage that I will be moving freely over a broader area, as Europe is just one part of our common world.

Europeans have discussed the security of private persons and of nations for thousands of years. On our continent, which is splitting into many nations and states, war has seldom just remained a matter between the fighting troops. In many different ways the civilian population has had to share the same burden.

Looking back, the last century has been quite exceptional. There were trends going in many directions. The beginning of the century saw much war. Moreover, the civilian populations’ share in bearing the burden of horrors grew tremendously. At the same time the aim was to conduct armed engagement according to the rules of honourable behaviour. The result came nowhere near to what was hoped for. However, the achievement of the International Criminal Court after many ad hoc courts is a clear step forward.

The gradual strengthening of democracy, human rights and the principles of the constitutionally governed state into our so-called common European heritage guides our behaviour in peacetime, but they cannot disappear from our consciousness during the time of armed conflict. That is why these values steer and force us to a new kind of conflict analysis and crisis management.

European integration is a most interesting process in this respect, too. The European Union is most exceptional in character, containing deepening economic cooperation and clear supranational elements in its structure. I would like to begin, however, with a few comments on the enlargement of the European Union, which has a key influence on promoting security and stability in Europe.

The Community, which was established in 1957 by the Treaty of Rome, has been enlarged five times. Each of these has been a significant step on the road to promote European stability, prosperity and security. The enlargement, which took place at the beginning of May, is historical in a very special way, however. The Iron Curtain of the Cold War has finally been relegated to history. I welcome the new members whole-heartedly into the Union

The negotiation process and meeting the membership criteria has required a great deal of systematic work from the new member countries. The work will also continue during the time of membership. I have said to my colleagues and friends in the new member countries that the European Union is not a rest home for relaxation after difficult times, but a forum where you succeed through hard work. But we also have to remember to help and support the new members for a while yet.

The actual enlargement process is still ongoing. Membership negotiations continue with Bulgaria and Romania, and the goal is for these countries to join the EU at the beginning of 2007. A possible decision regarding the start of membership negotiations with Turkey will be made in December. Turkey has made progress in meeting the membership criteria and I encourage Turkey to continue reforms. I hope to see a Turkey that meets the membership criteria as a constructive member of the European Union.

Every European state, which meets the criteria approved at the Copenhagen summit in 1993, can apply for membership. Croatia and Macedonia have already submitted their applications and many others will do likewise. Not every country will want to join the EU, however, regardless of whether they meet membership conditions. The enlarged EU must take advantage of possibilities to develop good relations with our neighbours in all directions.

* * * *

The Union is just one part of Europe, and Europe is part of the large common world. The goal of the European Union is to strengthen security around the world. Partnership, practical cooperation, and interaction bind together better than solemn promises, although these too play their own important part in reinforcing the rules of cooperation.

The Union's tools form a unique continuum, which reaches from traditional diplomacy to the modern, extensive international cooperation including trade and development cooperation. We have better opportunities for conflict analyses and, based on these, conflict prevention that can be everything possible, from the building of a civilian society to the development of a constitutionally governed state. We can also build preventative military crisis management between the parties involved. We may have to calm down armed conflict that has already begun and participate in the rebuilding of societies.

The usability of the Union's broad range of tools has been limited by a lack of political will. The common denominator in the Union's foreign and security policy is all too often too small. We need more strategic thinking and a clearer definition of common objectives. On this basis we could pursue a more purposeful and effective foreign and security policy.

The European Union plays, for example, a leading role in the world in both development cooperation and trade policy. Yet our activities in these sectors are partly conflicting. In the worst case we might even nullify development policy achievements with trade policy measures. The goal should be for the Union's external activities to be consistent and coherent. Reaching this goal will take time, but it is worth striving for.

The constitutional treaty, which is being negotiated, is intended to strengthen solidarity among the member states. The Union's crisis management tasks will be supplemented and its ability to act will be improved. I hope that the new constitutional treaty will also strengthen the coherence of the Union's external activities.

Last December the European Union approved a strategy for "A Secure Europe in a Better World". According to this strategy key threats facing our continent are terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, regional conflicts, state failure and organized crime.

These threats are not limited to the European Union but concern all of Europe and the world. These new threats target specifically the civilian population. We must address these threats and tackle them together. In addition to developing its own activities the Union must participate actively in the multilateral system and strengthen it on both the global and European level.

Methods other than traditional military means are of key importance in tackling all these threats. This reflects the change in the world since the Cold War. Broad security defence tasks are well suited to the EU: the Union is above all a civilian organization and its most effective measures to promote stability and security are civilian. The development of these new security measures should continue and they should be used more effectively to achieve a sustainable future.

The Union needs military crisis management, too. Military crisis management activities are often necessary to achieve the stability and security required for civilian activities. However, recent developments and news show the complexity and limitations of use of military might.

I have personally participated in the development of the EU's military crisis management capability since the early stages. Together with the then Swedish Foreign Minister Lena Hjelm-Wallen I was working on the initiative that the Petersburg Tasks of the Amsterdam Treaty were based on. In my opinion development work has proceeded faster than anticipated. The EU has taken on its first “own” crisis management operation. Development continues and a rapid reaction force is being created for the EU.

I have always emphasized the following three principles, which in my opinion are still timely in developing the Union's crisis management capability.

First of all, the issue is the development of a military crisis management capability. It is not about creating a mutual defence pact. That task is up to NATO or to national defence forces and will remain so in the future.

Secondly, the EU's crisis management capability will be developed and used in close cooperation with NATO. Although the membership is slightly different, the EU and NATO complement each other. There is no reason to compete or build overlapping or parallel structures.

Thirdly, the EU's military crisis management operations should have the authorization of the UN Security Council and should at least be in accordance with the principles in the UN Charter. I emphasize the position of the Security Council because all the members of the UN have given it primary responsibility for international peace and security. By complying with international law and its principles, we also strengthen compliance with jointly approved norms elsewhere.

* * * *

The European Union, even in its enlarged form, is only a part of Europe. Our “new and old” neighbour Russia is an important partner for the European Union. We have a marked interest in creating and building a strategic partnership on the basis of positive interdependence. Both partners have something to gain, and both partners must gain.

Russia is the EU's biggest neighbour and after enlargement is now a neighbour of still more member countries. The Union already imports large amounts of energy products from Russia, and in the future their significance will continue to grow.

Russia is a permanent member of the UN Security Council, it has a great influence on many countries and it still has a huge arsenal of nuclear weapons. Although the Russian economy is at present relatively small, the equivalent of Holland, it has great potential for growth and is therefore an interesting market area for European products and services.

It is therefore clear that it is in the EU's interests for Russia to be an open, stable and democratic strategic partner. A partner that respects European values, continues reforms, implements its commitments and takes a constructive attitude towards new independent states. In this respect the extension of the Partnership and Co-operation Agreement between the EU and Russia was a very welcome development.

The development of relations has been hampered by a certain basic difference in attitude towards international agreements. For example, the attitude to the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol may be coloured through other matters under discussion. Environmental protection does not appear to have the same intrinsic value as to the EU. Correspondingly, the EU’s continued assurances that Russia has the Community’s support to become a member of the WTO are not taken seriously when the EU demands, however, that Russia meets the conditions for membership. In Russia the war in Chechnya is firmly regarded as an internal matter for Russia, but at the same time no obstacles are seen to intervening in Estonia’s and Latvia’s affairs.

I believe these to be more in the nature of teething troubles than permanent problems. Russia has a European future if it so wants. And I believe that President Putin wants that. There is a lot of work to do and ultimately it’s the task of the Russians themselves. The EU too must increase coordination and consistency in every sphere of EU activity. Together and separately we must give Russia the same clear and unambiguous answers.

The EU can promote the development of a completely workable and rule-based system in Russia only through dealings in which the EU's combined negotiating power is used to full advantage. This requires linking the EU's own objectives to issues which are important for Russia. We must replace the negative list of criticisms with a clearly more positive agenda.

One such issue is facilitating cross-border travel. Closer economic relations and increased dealings in every sphere of life require reciprocal measures to make travel easier. Attention was focused on this issue at the EU-Russia Summit in St. Petersburg a year ago, which set the goal of creating a common space of freedom, security and justice. Since then the issue has been discussed in all contacts between the EU and Russia.

The EU and Russia must actively seek reciprocal means to facilitate travel, before the long-term goal of visa-free travel between the EU and Russia can be achieved. The first step could be to make it easier to issue multiple-entry visas to businessmen and students who travel a lot. Russia's proposal concerning reciprocal visa-free travel for diplomatic passport holders is interesting and worth studying.

* * * *

European stability, prosperity and security have a long and historical connection with the United States, in political, economic and cultural areas. Our broad and deep relationship has produced excellent results and offers many possibilities. The best example of achievements is naturally the establishment of peace in Europe after the two world wars of the last century. On the other hand our close relationship also includes various problems. In recent years the clearest problems have concerned international agreements in new subject areas such as the Kyoto protocol or the International Criminal Court.

In building their own European cooperation the EU countries have perhaps learned multilateral cooperation and view supranational structures more favourably than the United States.

In evaluating the transatlantic relationship and its possibilities and problems, we must distinguish between our bilateral relationship and cooperation on a global scale.

In our bilateral relationship the emphasis is on economic relations. The European Union and the United States are each other's main cooperation partners, but also main competitors. Both are among the world's most developed economies, have a high level of technology and are competitive. Both the EU and the United States vigorously defend their own interests and do not hesitate to take protective measures if the situation demands.

New pain points in recent years have concerned the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's policies and measures in the fight against terrorism. These measures, such as the requirement that airlines share information on passengers and allow air marshals on planes, may have been in conflict with EU regulations or practices and therefore caused irritation and disagreement.

Correspondingly the EU's effort to develop its crisis management capability is sometimes seen in the United States as an effort to create competing structures. On the other hand Americans also stress that Europe should bear greater responsibility for its own and global security.

The war in Iraq has been an enormous challenge for the transatlantic relationship, although opinions on the military action are also divided within the EU, as you here in Britain well know. The situation before the war plainly showed deficiencies in the ability and will of the EU and the USA to act together. On the subject of the situation in Iraq, various analyses and conclusions have their impact on the present and on the future. In addition to all the domestic problems we should also try, however, to remember the building of a better future for the Iraqis. This requires commitment on the part of the whole world community and a key role for the UN in building Iraq's future.

The expanding transatlantic agenda and problems in cooperation require both sides to act in a responsible way and engage in a closer political dialogue concerning objectives and the means to achieve them. There is no shortcut to happiness. The transatlantic relationship requires constant work and commitment on both sides of the Atlantic.

* * * *

I have talked for some time about European security challenges and our cooperation with the United States and Russia. I could also have talked about the EU’s relationship with China or India. Next month I shall be going once again to the EU and Latin America summit.

Environmental issues have opened our eyes to the necessity to cooperate. I hope that globalisation will wake us up to an awareness of our interdependence. In its cooperation in building the world the EU has a unique opportunity. It is a far better vision for security than the creation of a new super-state. We can overcome threats only through international cooperation. In today’s globalising world, security and prosperity are inseparable.