Prime Minister Matti Vanhanen´s Review of Foreign and Security Policy

Abridged from the Prime Minister’s speech given at Ylihärmä on 4 April 2004

I believe that the news items of recent weeks have perplexed many Finns. Two weeks ago the bomb explosions in Madrid took nearly 200 lives. The senseless spiral of revenge in the Middle East shows no signs of receding. The situation in Iraq worsens by the day; two Finnish businessmen on a business trip were shot dead. There have been reports of bad news almost daily.

How should these events be seen?

I know that many Finns feel that Finland has managed to remain in the periphery, at peace from the threat of terrorism. This could easily lead one to think that it’s best to keep quiet and out of sight, wit-hout attracting anyone’s attention. A famous Finnish writer from my own hometown described life in his poem about a squirrel: “soundly sleeping, the squirrel snuggles in its mossy bed; neither hound’s tooth, nor hunter’s trap, ever reached here”. There’s no need to blame oneself for being swept up in the mentality of “the treacherous world far away”. We ought to make our own country safe; Finns expect us to do that.

But the means for ensuring security involve anything but isolation.

Paasikivi once said that recognising the facts is the beginning of all wisdom. And the fact is that terror-ism and the world’s crises affect us. We couldn’t escape them even if we tried. We must choose whether we want to be part of the problem, or part of its solution. In any case, we are a party to it.

A country that lives on international trade and expertise isn’t outside what happens in the world. Ex-port accounts for 40 per cent of our gross domestic product. If a Finn takes a 10 euro note out of his wallet, four euros of that sum have been earned abroad. It is vital for us to ensure safe trade routes in every direction. If we want to sell Finnish products to the world, Finnish sales people and engineers must be able to travel in peace in the East, in the West, in the North and in the South. It is in our own interest to play an active role in all forums building the preconditions for peaceful interaction. The Eu-ropean Union is our most important channel of influence in this effort.

Alongside work, free time is another suitable example. For a few decades now, ordinary Finns have had the chance to travel south for a break of a week or two during the winter’s darkest days. It’s only a lucky coincidence that there were no Finns on the morning trains in Madrid two weeks ago

Third, we can reflect on the future facing our children and youths. To them, internationality is self-evident. Over information networks, they chat fluently with their peers on all continents. Ever more of them go abroad to study or to work for at least a short period. Rather many members of my generation will have to get used to travelling abroad to Paris, Shanghai or Los Angeles if they want to visit with their grandchildren. It may even be necessary at a wedding to give a speech in English so that the rela-tives of one’s daughter-in-law or son-in-law can understand it. In Finland, too, we can get used to hav-ing others come here to study or to work.

Many bonds thus bind us to world events. So far, the opening of frontiers has for Finland been an op-portunity and a source of prosperity. I believe this will continue to be the case. But at the same time, we must shoulder our responsibility in building and maintaining international stability and security. It’s today’s patriotism. When nearly 200 of our fellow human beings died on their everyday commuter trip, torn apart by bombs, we are affected, too; they were our brothers and sisters, they were killed by a terrorism that wants to destroy freedom, democracy and civil liberties.

There is reason to remember that Finland’s destinies have always been bound up with a wider trend; the situation prevailing in Europe.

In ending the Winter War, our own determined defence was crucial; but so was Stalin’s uncertainty about the nature of France’s and Britain’s aid to Finland. Our soldiers’ heroism in the decisive defen-sive victory drew also on material assistance from Germany. Following successful defensive combat, the Soviet Union was in a hurry to direct its forces elsewhere. Stalin coldly calculated that it was more important to take part in the race to Berlin than to marshal a new offensive grouping on the Finnish front to replace worn-out divisions, and thus the way to peace was opened.

Finland’s endurance in difficult times has been the result of skilfully matching our own resources to the external circumstances. We never arrive at solutions apart from the rest of the outside world. Nor do we make choices between national and international considerations; rather, our security policy is always a combination of these two factors.

The years of the Second World War were followed in Europe by a new situation; the Cold War. The balance of power in place then saw to it that no new, major European war broke out. The imminent threat of war, however, was ever present. The stability of the Cold War period had a high price. Half of Europe was without freedom.

Finland found a suitable road for herself in Europe of the Cold War period. Neutrality was the best so-lution to our difficult position as a Western and democratic neighbour of the Soviet Union. A policy of neutrality was our answer to the security policy environment of the time. This policy has been neither permanent nor unchanging; following the Cold War, Finnish policy has changed in step with the envi-ronment. In future, too, our policy must be pragmatic and adaptable.

Since 1995 Finland has been a Member State of the European Union. This was a fundamental choice with regard both to Finland’s international position and to the nation’s security policy. As a neutral country we had kept our balance between East and West, while membership of the EU constituted a new choice for us. We didn’t join a military organisation. Nonetheless, the EU is a tight political union that practises a far-reaching common policy also in foreign and security policy, and more recently in the field of military activity as well. As a member of the European Union, Finland is neither neutral nor non-aligned; rather, Finland is committed to the Union’s objectives and activities.

Our security policy has a clear purpose; to ensure the independence of Finland and the safety of her citizens. Our ability to defend ourselves has always been an important element of our security policy. A credible capacity for defence will remain a basic pillar of the nation’s security policy in future.

The direction and development of Finland’s security policy are topical issues now that the Government is preparing its Security and Defence Policy Report. This matter should not be dramatised. Assessment of security policy has become a regular exercise for Finland, and I consider it important that our basic policy is presented to Parliament for its evaluation once in an electoral period.

The Report now under preparation is expected, among other things, to take stands as to how our secu-rity policy is conducted in what can be termed this age of new threats.

Terrorism is perhaps the greatest new threat. Terrorism is major crime that strives to kill large groups of people, doing so completely at random. As I pointed out earlier, in no way are we bystanders in this struggle; an attack on Madrid or New York is at the same time an attack against us. It is mere chance that no Finns have died in these attacks.

International cooperation is the only way to combat terrorism. Terrorists use freedom of movement and new technology to advantage in all ways. Only through intense cooperation can we obstruct these networks to prevent their murderous actions. The European Union has its own solidarity principle, its own principle of adhesion, which means help is given to a Member State that has been subjected to terrorism. I see no reason to set limitations on this assistance; all means are plausible. If some EU Member State requests our help in saving its citizens, we shall not hesitate - we shall provide assis-tance as fellow human beings and neighbours, and as a State that if faced with the same situation would expect help from others.

In practice, terrorism is repelled best through persevering police work. We have therefore agreed in the EU to facilitate cross-border police work in all possible ways.

An assessment of the operational environment of Finland’s security policy must be made as a back-drop to the Government’s Security and Defence Policy Report. In my opinion, our situation is quite good. Military tension in adjacent areas has eased appreciably since the days of the Cold War. The Baltic States are members of NATO and soon of the European Union as well. Russia is taking steps - sometimes perhaps faltering steps - towards genuine democracy, a citizens’ society, market economy and prosperity. We want to encourage Russia on this road.

Compilation of the Security and Defence Policy Report has given rise to lively discussion of Finland’s policy. Right now it’s clear that military alignment is not topical from our viewpoint. At the same time, membership of NATO must remain a real and possible option. This requires that our defence for-ces are compatible with NATO, which is essential for crisis management and is also a precondition for giving and receiving assistance. I take it as given that NATO would welcome Finland should we our-selves decide to apply for membership.

The United States continues to play a substantial and constructive role in European security. I highly appreciate the United States’ commitment to security on the continent of Europe. I don’t share the view that strengthening of European security and defence policy would lead to a conflict between the European Union and the United States. It’s a question of Europe improving her ability to bear respon-sibility for stability both in Europe and in neighbouring regions. We must keep in mind how toothless Europe was, for instance, some ten years ago when Yugoslavia collapsed. Without the United States, management of the conflicts in former Yugoslavia would not have been possible.

Former Yugoslavia is still topical today. The Finnish soldiers in the difficult conditions of Kosovo who keep peace - people’s right to live safely - are often in my thoughts. The work done there by Mr. Harri Holkeri, Councillor of State, deserves the esteem and support of all Finns. To become familiar with the situation, I myself visited Kosovo a year ago.

The development of European crisis management has been a success story. Our present readiness has improved considerably during the past ten years. Finland has been known for her peacekeepers. Dur-ing the Cold War, Finland was even spoken of as a major peacekeeping nation. It’s clear that so-called ‘traditional’ peacekeeping still has a role to play. Finland is currently participating in this sort of opera-tion, monitoring the ceasefire between Ethiopia and Eritrea.

Peacekeeping, however, isn’t a value in itself, nor is it more noble than other crisis management work. During the Cold War, it just wasn’t possible to go beyond traditional peacekeeping; peace could be kept but not restored. During the war following the collapse of former Yugoslavia, the massacre at Srebrenica - a situation where UN forces became bystanders watching the murder of innocent civilians - is a sore reminder of what can happen when the resources and authority of crisis management are in-adequate; when the shoulders of the international community are too narrow. There are situations when use of force is the only ethically correct way to proceed. In the case of crises, intervention should be swift. The international community has been developing this operational capacity. Watching by the wayside is not a virtue; it’s a sin.

The European Union is in the process of developing fast reaction forces. The idea is for the EU to have at its disposal under ten divisions of one thousand five hundred people that could be sent at very short notice -at best in five days - to hotspots the world over. We’re not speaking of world conquest here; we’re talking about fewer than 15,000 soldiers. The task of these armed forces would be to calm the situation down so that international aid can be got through. Finland, too, is preparing to take part in these fast reaction forces. We shall not shrink from our responsibilities in this sector, either. We have been able to meet the EU objective of contributing to common forces at 60 days’ notice; now a much more ambitious goal has been set.

It goes of course without saying that we shall continue to participate in crisis management on a volun-tary basis. Finland herself decides the uses to which our forces are put. Everyone leaving for opera-tions - whether traditional peacekeeping operations or crisis management in difficult circumstances -naturally does so as a volunteer. The wording of the military oath will not be changed; conscription applies to our own national defence. It’s important to note that in creating the readiness for crisis man-agement, at the same time we improve defence of our own territory; this readiness and materials will always be the first available for defending our own country. These days it is of utmost importance that the defence forces are able to carry out international cooperation - to speak the same language with our partners both technologically and organisationally. The capacity to act together is an important factor in the deterrent on which security is based - the aggressor must take into account that Finland is able to receive assistance and to act together with other nations.

Our system of general conscription in itself is a good base for crisis management readiness. Conscripts make up the extensive recruitment base from which we draw well-rounded, skilled people for different tasks. In contrast, our personnel committed to the fast reaction forces would most likely be profession-als, as this would ensure a sufficient state of readiness.

Crisis management should also be comprehensive. Crises call for much more in addition to soldiers. Finland has wanted to develop readiness of this type, and we have worked vigorously to develop civil crisis management. In many of today’s conflicts, this is already part of everyday routines - the police, judges and daily technical services engineers work alongside soldiers. Finland and the European Union still have much to offer here. We are just beginning to introduce civil crisis management; it is my hope that the Security and Defence Policy Report will be ambitious as concerns development of civil crisis management.

International crisis management builds a more secure world. We shall not stand aside when peace is threatened. Through crisis management, Finland also supports her own national defence capacity.

Crisis management underlines a new trend. The key to activities isn’t necessarily membership of an organisation or agreements that have been signed. Each crisis management mission is always individu-ally tailored and brings together nations to cooperate on a voluntary basis. Finland, for instance, is ac-customed to working in close cooperation with NATO, e.g. in Kosovo. As far as security policy is concerned, partnership rather than alignment is indispensable. The pivotal factors are the ability to work together, a joint goal and a sense of political adhesion.

Seventy years ago, Urho Kekkonen wrote a book about the self-defence of democracy. Then both Fin-nish and European democracy were threatened by extreme right-wing movements. Finland overcame this challenge better than many other nations of Europe. In essence, the current world situation is a re-petition of that setting. Now, democracy is threatened by international terrorism.

I have already described the cooperation practised by democratic European States with the aim of in-creased security. All actions are decided jointly and can only be carried out if the nationally elected parliament gives its support in each country. This system sometimes seems slow and inefficient, even helpless, but no one has come up with a better one. Cooperation and the necessary actions must be backed by strong support from citizens.