Kanerva: Finland faces foreign policy challenges
In his talk at the national defence association Maanpuolustuskurssiyhdistys ry, Foreign Minister Ilkka Kanerva gave an overview of the current challenges facing Finland’s foreign policy. The aim of the separate NATO report linked with preparation of the Security and Defence Policy Report under preparation is to provide information about the effects of membership that is as truthful as possible, to serve as a springboard for public debate.
The Foreign Minister also shed light on prospects for foreign and security policy cooperation between Finland, Sweden and Norway in the field of crisis management, and discussed relations between Finland and Russia.
Unofficial translation of the speech
Current challenges in Finland's foreign policy
Minister for Foreign Affairs Ilkka Kanerva addressed the National Defence Association at the University of Helsinki on 1 November 2007
Distinguished war veterans,
Members of the National Defence Association,
Ladies and gentlemen,
I want to thank you for giving me the opportunity to address this august audience in one of the most valued fora in Finland, the auditorium of the University of Helsinki. Here there is room for cherishing the spirit of free and critical discussion that lends wings to fresh thoughts, this is not a place just for the upkeep of dogma. I intend to keep my speech shorter than professors use to do - and to avoid unnecessary murmuring!
The past decades have made globalisation an everyday issue. The phenomenon has inched its way to the mainstream, it has become a reality. It is too late to consider if the clock could be turned back or stopped for a while. Fortunately, Finland's principal perspective has not been what globalisation does to us but what we do to globalisation. We have not stayed put agonising about what has been lost but have seized new opportunities. This policy has helped Finland succeed and rise among the top league of the countries of the world. We will need the same attitude also in future to be able to face both familiar and new challenges. We also need to appreciate history to get the required understanding and sense of proportion that change calls for.
It may appear paradoxical that our world, which has become more global than ever, is marked by a return to national foreign policy. The big boys in world political arena, the Great Powers, and their mutual relations are undergoing a phase of change. The G8 countries and the BRICs economies are acronyms of our time. People talk of the emergence of a multipolar world. For Russia and China, this is an explicit goal; Russia is reassuming the former dimensions of its foreign political muscle while China is now not only the giant workshop of the world economy but also gaining strength as a political actor in conflict resolution and global governance. India and Brazil also want to have their say in conformity with their new size. While the USA's lead is not under threat, it has to reallocate its powers.
Nevertheless, I do not think that these developments will lead to a new kind of cold war or a world governed by the Great Powers. But safeguarding of interests is becoming more important in international relations. Competition for positions in security policy, the benefits of globalisation and for strategic commodities - above all energy - is more intense than ever before. There is an effort to fulfil the societies' changing needs through external achievements and benefits. This has ramifications in geopolitical areas and in their cooperation and security arrangements. As always after change, different expectations, insecurity and strain are on the increase.
This foreign political metamorphosis is accelerated by the fact that multilateral cooperation has remained unsatisfactory. The rules and values of this cooperation are currently being debated. The reform of international institutions would require political will and leadership. Even more so as the need for multilateral cooperation has not disappeared; it has rather gained in importance. Security is indivisible and cooperation indispensable in today's world of mutual dependencies. If we fail to develop an effective multilateral order, it is possible that we face what President Paasikivi used to worry about, that the winner is staatsraison which is not restrained by moral norms.
Ladies and gentlemen,
The European Union is getting tuned to a new shape at an opportune time. The Reform Treaty recently adopted will enhance the operational foreign policy capacity of the Union that has been called for. And if ever, it is needed today.
The European Union should not become a paper tiger. The Union is needed to pursue the interests of Europe and to develop partnerships with other actors of international policy. It is needed to promote effective multilateral cooperation, of which the Union itself is an example. The EU's strength lies in its economic power and stability, broad range of means at its disposal and, consequently, a wide approach. However, without solid performance the EU will not be capable of undertaking this task.
Finland actively seeks to strengthen the EU's international role. That is in our interest. The EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy must be developed without prejudices. The crisis management capability must be further improved. However, these efforts will remain empty shells if the EU fails to maintain its unity in demanding situations. The determination of the future status of Kosovo that is ahead in the coming months will be a test for the EU's team spirit.
President Sarkozy has presented important proposals for the development of the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP). France, which has traditionally emphasized Europe's role, is trying to find new momentum to the policy. Above all, this aims to strengthen the EU's military capability. France hopes to reform the EU's security strategy during the forthcoming EU Presidency. The objective is to strengthen the Union as a security policy actor.
A well equipped toolbox for the EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy (CSFP) gives the Union the possibility to pursue comprehensive crisis management. However, it is true that the EU is today not capable of crisis management operations of a similar size than NATO is. Therefore, Finland has supported the thought of strengthening the EU's planning capacity. The need for this is obvious, especially in respect of independent operations. Finland and Sweden have also called for the updating of the EU's security strategy. Such updating could also contribute to the renewal of the cooperation arrangements between the EU and NATO.
In Finland, discussion about the EU's security policy often focuses on the EU's security guarantees. We may be the only EU Member State where the significance of the article on security guarantees in the Reform Treaty is being debated. Such debate is natural as this kind of a commitment is new for us. Also the Finnish mentality explains why such a new commitment is taken seriously. In most other Member States, the article has understandably not given rise to similar interest, as a corresponding commitment has been in place already in the obligations under NATO and the Western European Union (WEU).
What are the EU's security guarantees? Their nature can only be understood in the light of the EU's Security Strategy, adopted in 2003. The threats identified in the Strategy are proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, terrorism and regional conflicts. According to the Strategy, today there is no threat of a large scale military aggression against the Union or its Member States. The EU contributes to security through common policies that extend to several sectors. This influence will be evident if there is external pressure against one of the Member States. The added value for security that is an indispensable part of the whole Union will be further reinforced by the Reform Treaty, in the articles on solidarity and security guarantees concerning mutual assistance.
It is opportune to briefly address the general development of the EU and Finland's policy line. Despite the fact that the Reform Treaty which was under preparation for quite some time has now finally been concluded, it must be noted that we cannot blow our trumpets and say that everything is fine. Lately, national foreign policy and the safeguarding of interests have proven to be stronger than ever - and often in a manner that puts in the shade the overall interests of the Union. It appears as if the Union would have become more an instrument than the goal of policy. A good friend of mine, Esko Antola, has spoken about the spirit of the time that reflects a concern for separation and disintegration in the Union.
Finland has for long underscored that work should take place with common rules and with a view to the interest of the whole Union. We have considered that also our own interests will best be served through such an approach. I believe that such policy is the most sustainable choice in the long term. However, I realize that this is not a question of faith. Our EU policy cannot just be ideologically correct, it also has to deliver in practice and serve our interests in a concrete manner. In an enlarged and increasingly competitive Union, Finland needs to add pragmatic edge to its action.
The most topical issue is the 141 negotiations with the Commission. This is a national question, which concerns the whole Government and calls for broad-based national unity. If required, we need to drive top speed. That said, there is no danger of Finland becoming untrustworthy, reckless actor in the EU policy, whose undertakings would be a subject of concern elsewhere. Finns are not prone to fooling around.
Ladies and gentlemen,
Discussion about Finland's membership of NATO seems to have passed "the comb ceramic era", "the bronze age" is on the horizon, but there is still a way to the information society.
Finland has co-operated with NATO already for fifteen years. Much has happened during this time. After the Cold War, NATO started cooperation with its former adversaries. Many of the then neutral countries in Europe embarked on the development. "Europe free and a whole" was one of the slogans of the time. In the mid-90s, NATO was drawn to military action in the Western Balkans, although its own area was not under military threat. It was considered that stepping outside one's own territory was necessary to avoid becoming left aside from important activity.
Finland is involved in NATO's development. In 1995, we joined the demanding NATO-led crisis management operation in Bosnia. Thereafter, we have contributed personnel to several crisis management tasks of NATO. The overall number of Finnish personnel deployed is more than ten thousand by now. The Finns have also showed their teeth under the NATO flag. This was well demonstrated when Finland as the first NATO partner country was given a lead responsibility for a brigade. Now we are preparing for such an assignment for the third time, in Kosovo.
The terrorist attacks of September 11 against the USA changed not only the world but also NATO. The NATO Council stated that one member country had become a target of an attack, and therefore the common defence commitment of the organisation was considered to be applicable. Even though the USA used its right of self-defence, based on the UN Charter, NATO played an important role in patrolling the Mediterranean region and in dispatching radar planes to control the US territory.
The biggest challenge to NATO today is the ISAF operation in Afghanistan, in which about 40 000 soldiers take part, three fourths of them from Europe. There are about one hundred Finnish peacekeepers in Afganistan. Finland's engagement is strong, but not abundant. Sweden, for example, has more than three times as many, Norway more than six times as many soldiers there. The Government is planning on increasing our support for Afghanistan in various ways. At times, one hears noises in the domestic discussion in favour of rejecting additional contributions. Some even suggest deserting from Afganistan. Some may be longing for traditional peacekeeping, which is usually related to safeguarding peace agreements between states. However, in a world haunted by civil wars there is less need for such peacekeeping. Finland needs to be involved in responding to the challenges of our time also in crisis management. Finland cannot assume the role of Riitaoja, who cannot be relied on by partners when the "fair weather ends".
In this context, it should be borne in mind that modern crises call for a comprehensive approach. Military action must be complemented by civilian crisis management and development cooperation instruments, which support the longer term reconstruction of societies. As with comprehensive national defence which is familiar for us Finns, there is no point in making artificial divisions of the whole.
At the moment, NATO is developing its capabilities to be compatible with the new challenges. The military transformation, as this is called, crystallises in the rapid response concept. NATO's most competent partners, such as Finland and Sweden, have been offered the opportunity to take part in the development of NATO rapid response force and to provide complementary contributions also in the actual operations. We are already training Finnish units to the EU rapid reaction forces in accordance with NATO's rules. Participation in the complementary activities of NRF would serve the development of Finland's crisis management capacity. Decisions to participate in NRF operations would be taken by each participating country in accordance with their own legislation and decisions. This applies to both members and partners. There is not a forced obligation to join an operation.
The political dimension is gaining in importance in the development of NATO. The alliance has concluded new cooperation arrangements with Southern Mediterranean countries, the Gulf countries and also with non-NATO countries such as Australia and Japan, which work together with the alliance. Official cooperative relations have been established with, for example, China, India and Indonesia. NATO's network of cooperation thus covers as many as a third of the UN member states. NATO is intensifying its cooperation with not only the UN but also with the World Bank and the Red Cross. In terms of resources, NATO is the strongest military organisation capable of international action, which partly explains the wide relations of cooperation.
It should be understood that NATO is a part of European integration. The majority of the EU Member States have built their common defence relying on NATO. The EU and NATO are strategic partners, supporting one another in providing security. They cooperate a lot. As concerns military action, both draw from the same national resources. Therefore, closer cooperation between the EU and NATO would be in the interest of the participating countries. Finland has sought to promote this cooperation.
In security policy, NATO is the principal forum of Trans-Atlantic cooperation. In NATO, the European and North American member countries meet on a daily basis. Since most EU countries are members of NATO, European defence is largely based on NATO. As the NATO has assumed a broader role, there is room for not only military defence functions but also wide cooperation covering political, military and civilian actors. NATO has aimed at responding to the challenges of the time; it has not remained perched in the foxholes of the Cold War period.
In Finland, debate is under way on our possible membership of NATO. In accordance with the Government Programme, we have launched the preparation of a new security and defence policy white book. In this context, the Ministry for Foreign Affairs is undertaking a study on the impacts of Finland's possible membership. The intention is to provide as truthful information about these impacts as possible for use in the debate, so as to bring those participating in the discussion roughly into the same wave length. I expect that the report will resemble a duly prepared travel brochure. Such a brochure gives an honest picture of the destination and describes who like to visit the destination. Moreover, it provides information about prices and travel routes. Since this is about group travel, the brochures should be available to all. Only few of us would make travel plans without having adequate basic information and a chance to consider it. In my opinion, the same applies to our relations with NATO.
Finland's multi-party system unavoidably leads to taking big decisions by wide consensus. This applies also to our possible NATO membership. In order to build common understanding in the changing conditions, there needs to be a proper knowledge base as well as jointly established building blocks. A common will to proceed will develop - if at all - only based on these ingredients.
Ladies and gentlemen,
Finland, Sweden and Norway have met several times this year at foreign ministerial level. The most recent meeting was a couple of weeks ago in Bodö, in the north of Norway. We had an excellent chance to learn about the situation in the northern region. The importance of these regions has grown rapidly, for example as a result of the use of energy resources.
In addition to other common interests, relationship with Russia is shared by all the three countries. It takes place on a daily basis at the borders, around the Baltic Sea and in the northern sea areas. The experience gained on cooperation with Russia in the northern regions benefits the EU's policy on Russia. We need positive examples on which long-term relations can be built. My Norwegian colleague said: "we do not want confrontation but genuine cooperation."
Russian military aircraft have increased activity in areas close to north Norway. The Norwegians' have assumed a calm attitude towards this activity. They do not consider aircraft outside their national borders a threat even though, in the past years, they have not really missed these aviation exhibitions of the east either. Representatives of Russia's northern fleet and Norway's military authorities meet on a regular basis. The same is true in case of Sweden, which also conducts joint military exercises with Russia. One of the reasons of cooperation is to prevent accidents. A couple of weeks ago, the three Nordic countries and Russia organised a joint rescue exercise in Lapland. This kind of neighbourly cooperation is necessary also in the future - especially in the Baltic Sea region.
Meetings such as the one in Bodö are significant because, not so long ago, broaching security policy issues was a taboo in the Nordic cooperation. I remember a Nordic Council meeting where the chair interrupted me when I expressed my views on foreign and security policy. Today things are different. We can talk about any foreign and security policy issue. Special interest is devoted to the foreign and security policy cooperation between Norway, Sweden and Finland.
This is an important and historic development. It is symptomatic that Finland, Sweden and Norway are finding common ground in matters concerning security and defence policy matters even though our fundamental solutions differ. Finland and Sweden are Member States of the EU while Norway belongs to NATO. This more intense cooperation demonstrates that the barriers between the countries in the Union and the alliance have been lowered when responding to security policy challenges. In the enlarged Union and NATO there is not only room but also need for action in smaller groups. Finland often finds it natural to seek partners from the other Nordic countries and the Baltic States.
One foundation for cooperation is joint action in different operations conducted by the UN, the EU and NATO. In Bodö, Finland, Sweden and Norway agreed to create a "Nordic approach" to crisis management in Afghanistan and Africa. As has been noted, the challenges related to crisis management have changed and the tasks are more demanding than earlier. For example, in the northern parts of Afghanistan, Finland cooperates with Sweden and Norway. We have the same central goal that brings us together: that the local people would have confidence in the international presence and action. The Nordic countries possess valuable know-how in this respect.
Ladies and gentlemen,
Geography is a fact that will not change. Our neighbouring country Russia has much to offer: good neighbourly relations, huge economic opportunities, and cultural horizons.
In the 21s century, Russia has been one of the fastest growing economies, showing six to seven per cent growth year after year. This growth, which is estimated to continue, has been based on income from energy resources, but also on a controlled economic policy. Furthermore, we must not forget that a new kind of dynamism has caught the Russians. The economic growth has made the middle class more powerful. We Finns can see this with our own eyes: the truck traffic on our roads moving slowly towards east is an echo of the growth of the Russian middle class. The dramatic growth of tourism from Russia is a similar signal. The Russians' standard of living has risen and the majority of the citizens are satisfied with the development. This has enhanced stability in the Russian society.
At the same time, changes in the political system of Russia have raised questions and justified worries in Finland. Russia has opted for a more authoritarian system, "sovereign democracy", than the western model is. It is too early to foresee if the difference is in the destination or in the choice of route. As a neighbouring country and EU Member State, we hope that Russia will make stable progress, also respecting human rights, the principles of democracy, and its commitments. At this point we need to remind ourselves that Russia is Russia, not the Soviet Union. The present Russia is a much more pluralistic, modern and versatile country than what is claimed in the gloomiest assessments. It remains to be seen whether Russia is on its way towards genuine democracy, rule of law and market economy.
Thanks to its growing self-respect, Russia has also become more powerful in foreign policy. Russia intends to restore its great power position not only regionally but also globally. Moscow is pursuing its interests with determination, at times employing strong tactics, at other times adopting a more pragmatic position. After an era that is considered to represent weakness, Russia wants to boost the spirit of the people. Foreign policy is used to heal the domestic political soul. Russia has returned to small negotiation tables, when it comes to discussing missile defence, the nuclear programme of Iran, Kosovo or frozen conflicts.
I would expect that Russia is now on its way to gradually assuming its position. Whether it has already found it, is another question. Russia sees or wants to see the world with multiple poles and competition with such new powers as China and India on an upturn path. Europe is considered to be incoherent and its values weakening. The threat perceptions are a mix of old and new: terrorism, separatism and NATO. Russia's position is getting stronger but the process is still under way.
For Finland, Russia represents both a challenge and an opportunity that must be and is worth seizing. Finland must remobilise its Russia resources and develop more. We need better "Russia literacy", more informed capacity to react and an unprejudiced attitude in our own initiatives. This is not just about foreign policy and the economy. New Russia is a wider societal issue to Finland. It is linked with immigration, cultural policy, education policy, church policy and health policy, to mention just a few sectors. To be able to respond to these challenges, the Government has launched the preparation of an action plan on Russia, led by the Ministry for Foreign Affairs. The idea is to bring new initiative and capacity to our policy on Russia.
What about the EU's policy on Russia? Also it should be revitalized and given new direction. A common direction is missing. The Union has not managed to agree on a new negotiation mandate for the EU-Russia agreement, which is what we want. The recent EU-Russia Summit in Mafra did not bring much progress. Diverging opinions about Russia within the EU are tangible. It is true that Russia for its part does not make excessive efforts to improve the relations. As things are, it is hard to make headway, even though a closer partnerhship would be in the interest of both the EU and Russia. It is easy to join Commissioner Olli Rehn's recent statement according to which both parties now need strategic thinking and persistence. The Union should build a new kind of consensus in its relations with Russia. Only that will provide a basis on which it is possible to move forward on practical issues. For Finland, development of the EU's policy on Russia is a priority issue and I intend to take a firm grip of the matter.
The open problems in our relations must be solved. Export tariffs on timber and the truck queues are issues that we are working on all the time at various levels. The question is about economic and practical issues to which we are trying to find a satisfactory solution.
In Finnish debate, people often discuss discussion. I am no exception and can't resist the temptation. It is most natural for the Finns to discuss Russia. It should be as natural that the Russians discuss Finland. The debate convenes different actors, whose voices, even discord, become heard. This should be perfectly acceptable without the need to reach for a jar of nitro-glyzerine after every statement. It is high time, isn't it.
Ladies and gentlemen,
I wanted to deal with only a few of the challenges that we are facing in the foreign policy environment. The list is by no means exhaustive but rather a cursory introduction to the theme. Anyway, this presentation should be comprehensive enough to make everybody convinced about the fact that there is plenty of work ahead of us. History has not come to an end, neither is it predetermined. Finland's success in the conduct of its foreign policy has always been conditional upon a good understanding of historical movements and upon realising what our own possibilities are. Also now we need an idea of foreign policy that derives from Finland's interests and a capacity to take initiative globally, in the Union and in our bilateral relations.