Erkki Tuomioja: Presentation of the Helsinki Process on Globalisation and Democracy

Minister for Foreign Affairs, Co-chair of the Helsinki Group Erkki Tuomioja's presentation at the first meeting of the Helsinki Group in Helsinki on 29 January.

It gives me great pleasure to welcome all of you to the first meeting of the Helsinki Group. I understand that for most of you – if not all of you – it is something of a sacrifice to dedicate these days to our meeting given the fact that you all are living under many different pressures and demands on your time. The initiators of this process, the governments of Tanzania and Finland – are grateful to you for your support and your contribution. As we launched this process more than a year ago, we decided that we should approach the issues of globalisation with an open mind. We are not seeking your endorsement to our own ideas in matters related to the many various aspects of globalisation. What we are seeking is your ideas and your initiatives so that we could together find solutions to some of the pressing problems presented by globalisation.

It is the hope of the organizers that the Helsinki Group would be a high-level international body that aims to produce pluralistic and innovative proposals for solutions to the key problems of globalization and its effective, democratic governance. As you can see from the list participants in this group members come from different backgrounds and constituencies, but they are – I am sure - committed to seek peaceful and cooperative solutions to global challenges. These challenges include both tangible economic and political issues and the need to reform international institutions to be better able to address these problems.

We would hope that the Helsinki Process would favor multilateral approaches over the unilateral exercise of power. Obviously, these two approaches are intertwined, but multilateralism tends to be more effective, because it is more legitimate in the eyes of most governments and recognizes the relevance of non-state actors and processes. Of course, multilateralism is not an ideology, but a mode of cooperation. Therefore, it has to be given substance and rooted in common goals and values. These global values can be derived, first and foremost, from already existing widely accepted documents. Such are the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the Millennium Declaration. In fact, the Millennium Declaration and the Plan of Action provide the most recent coherent statement on the values and goals that need to be pursued by the international community.

In other words it is our hope that the Helsinki Process would build on a broad community of values that consists of participation, cooperation, inclusiveness, and non-discrimination. Disagreements concerning the preferred modes of globalization and of global governance are real and they do not reflect only divergent values. They arise also from different positions of the national economies and social groups in the international economic division of labor; i.e. disagreements also reflect divergent interests.

Thus, one of main the challenges facing the Helsinki Group is whether there is a zone of political agreement where divergent values and interests can be reconciled in a meaningful and productive manner. The emphasis on the tools of politics is important; the attainment of present objectives by more effective tools is at least equally important as the promulgation of new goals and values.

We have planned the work of the Helsinki Group so that it will be assisted in its work by the three Track Groups of the Helsinki Process dealing, respectively, with the methods of global problem-solving, economic issues, and human security. As we see it the Tracks are autonomous bodies with their own membership, meetings, and final reports. However, they are also expected to contribute closely, by their ideas and initiatives, to the work of the Helsinki Group. To facilitate this contribution, the conveners of the Tracks are ex officio participants in the Helsinki Group meetings.

It is important that the Tracks have a common framework and that they have enough connectivity among themselves and with the Helsinki Group. The overarching goal of the Helsinki Process is to reduce poverty and improve the position of the most vulnerable sections of the world population. In concrete terms, I believe that this can best happen by focusing the work on the implementation of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). It has to be asked whether the current efforts are adequate in this regard. Often the answer is that they are not. For this reason, it is vital to ask what new policies and means are needed, in the spirit of positive scenarios, to bring the attainment of MDGs closer to reality.

Given the limited time and amount of resources available, it is not reasonable to expect the Helsinki Group to cover the entire range of global problems. Rather its hallmark should be selectivity in choosing the topics and innovativeness in finding answers to these problems. The same principles also apply to its final report; instead of being a lengthy document, to be adopted by consensus by the Group members, it could – as we see it - contain several types of elements. Thus, the contents could include proposals for reforms prepared by members and a brief common statement on desirable reforms.

The main task of the first Helsinki Group meeting on January 28-30, 2004 is to chart the global economic and political terrain and choose topics for more detailed scrutiny in the work of the secretariat and the future meetings. In picking up the major global challenges, I would like to suggest that we apply the following criteria; (a) the failure to act upon them would have catastrophic consequences, (b) the problem to be addressed falls between present international institutions and requires new solutions, and (c) there is a real possibility to reconcile conflicting objectives or institutions and, thus, promote policy coherence.

The outline for the agenda is informed by the idea that the most serious substantive problems should be derived from the framework provided by the Millennium Declaration and its goals. In that regard, the main problems faced by the international community concern the risky consequences of the state failure on the one hand and poverty and vulnerability on the other. Moreover, social polarization and political fragmentation obviously interact and reinforce each other.

In a sense, the ongoing transformation hints to the erosion of national states and economies and the emergence of more complex, and often more unstable political and economic formations. It is not far-fetched to suggest that a new type of international society is in the making. This society is not necessarily benevolent in nature; it is characterized by transnational terrorism, local violence, and humanitarian emergencies – it may have even anarchic features.

Against this backdrop many questions arise in ones mind. One has to imagine what consequences will the present negative transformation of the international system have for the institutions and instruments of policy-making? What institutional and policy solutions are needed if there is a serious interest to overcome political fragmentation and violence, and reduce poverty? Will the gradual problem-solving approach be enough or are deeper, structural reforms needed? Where would the impetus for such reforms come from?

While the ongoing global transformation has often domestic roots, its management cannot be left to internal forces alone. To the contrary, there is a major need to develop new forms of international engagement to prevent violence, assure public order, and reduce the adverse effects of poverty and exclusion. This task calls for at least two types of solutions; the institutionalization of appropriate forms of democratic participation and influence in the existing international organizations and the development of new mechanisms of global problem solving.

These mechanisms could include the formation of new kinds of international coalitions and the combination of diverse actors into hybrid forms of global governance. It seems to me that many of the present universal institutions do not work very effectively. They are too diverse and unwieldy to be able to aggregate and augment common interests. In fact, large multilateral bodies may become arenas for the advocacy of particularistic interests of the major powers.

Therefore, new methods of multilateral organization and influence should be developed that link like-minded countries together but also bring together the representatives of various regional and other groups. The Doha round of trade talks provide concrete illustration on how coalition-building can be both a blocking and productive process. Coalition-building is not, however, an objective by itself; it has to contribute to problem-solving and attainment of common goals, particular the poverty reduction.

The restructuring of international institutions and their governance actions does not, of course, take place in a vacuum. In most areas there are under way significant policy processes, such as the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol and the establishment of the International Criminal Court. Often, their progress has been disappointing, however, and the modus operandi of such institutions may have to be rethought. Thus, the environmental and economic burden-sharing in the Kyoto Protocol is – as I see it - hardly sustainable over the long run.

The outcome of the Doha round will have, in turn, a major impact on the future of the international free trade and related economic issues. It is clear that the efforts to find new sources of development finance have not been able find sufficient solutions and, therefore, have not come to an end at all. Some of the ongoing policy processes are quite controversial. Among them are the legitimacy of the humanitarian intervention and its relationship to national sovereignty, not to speak of the pre-emptive use of military force. In effect, a new doctrine of intervention is needed; the international community has the responsibility to protect vulnerable people against various forms of gross mistreatment.

In order to organize the points that the initiators to this process have had in mind I would like to present for your consideration the following five issues


First: Failed states, terrorism, and global governance. The attainment of MDGs is not possible without the control of violence and political failures. The analysis and debate should clarify the conditions in which the public order maintained by the state starts crumbling and ultimately collapses. One aim of the analysis should be to single out the consequences of the state failures, including humanitarian emergencies and terrorism. The Group could explore the domestic strategies and external interventions by which the process of failure can be arrested before its consequences become too catastrophic for the country and its people, and the international community. This approach calls for the analysis of effective preventive strategies and the sustainability of peace processes.

Second: Poverty and the most vulnerable people. A major aim of the Helsinki Process should be – as I see it - to draw attention to the desperate position of the two billion most vulnerable people in the world and means to reduce their poverty and exposure to economic and violent risks. Vulnerability and poverty are often associated with discrimination and exclusion of various minorities and indigenous people and is thus an aspect of human insecurity. The Helsinki Group could aim to define and distinguish various types of vulnerabilities in the global scale. It might consider those national and international means by which the problems of different vulnerable groups can be addressed. These means can range from the expansion of the ODA and debt relief to the protection of communities living in violent environments. The larger goal of this effort would be to assess the extent to which globalization has been, on the one hand, a cause of vulnerability and a remedy to ameliorate the problem on the other.

Third New security risks. In the post-cold war, era the sources of security threats have become diverse and, for instance, economic and environmental risks have become more and more decoupled from military threats. As a result, threats do not emanate only from other states. They come increasingly from subnational and transnational sources, including terrorism and environmental destruction, whose disturbances are disseminated through multiple channels. On the other hand, states have remained the primary respondents to security threats which means that national authorities face a more complex and less tractable security environment. The Helsinki Group might consider the political implications of these changes in the global and local security environments, and international opportunities to cope with the new security threats. For instance, what kinds of actions are legitimate and effective means to tackle these threats within and between nations.

Fourth. The challenge of democratic governance in global issues. In recent times, it has become obvious that the state-centric international institutions cannot be the sole solution to the governance of the global problems. Some very ambitious reform proposals, such as the establishment of the People’s Assembly in the UN, have only limited support. There are, however, multiple other ways to enhance access to and influence by weak states and non-state actors in international institutions. The answers may include networks and hybrid organizations of governance in which several types of actors participate. The challenge of democratic governance can be explored further in the context of various policy processes. As such I see international trade talks, global environmental burden-sharing, and efforts to overcome hiv/aids crisis. In the last case, a critical issue concerns the availability of international funding to provide appropriate medical treatment for the victims and strengthen the national infrastructures of public health.

Fifth New strategies of international cooperation. The present system of international cooperation is neither particularly reliable nor innovative. There is no lack of reform proposals by research and policy institutes, and NGOs, but many of them do not offer any new mode of thinking. In fact, I know of only few governments which have been ready to think globally and put comprehensive policy reforms on the international agenda. Business has been usually concerned only with the promotion of its own interests. Most international organizations are more fora for their members than actors in their own right. It seems to me, though, that time has come to explore the validity of current international institutional structures. There are good prospects for new coalition building among governments bridging the North-South divides, cooperation between different types of actors, and new methods of agenda setting. The aim would be to develop new governance strategies in an international system that is much more complex and diverse than the old system. In a sense, the idea of multilateral cooperation might be complemented by various methods of plurilateral cooperation.

Now I would like to touch on the way how this group might see its work progressing. The methodology of the Group’s deliberations could be based on a counterfactual approach in spotting for the opportunities of change. The first question could run as follows; what would happen for various global problems if governments and other actors continue politics as usual. The second question is; to what extent trends could change if governments would start to implement major political and legal commitments they have made in the past. The third approach asks the real counterfactual question; what kind of an alternative, positive scenario is desirable and what should be done to realize it. Such scenarios should also be able to illustrate those entry points in political processes in which interventions of various kinds would be most effective. To achieve such an outcome, the scenarios should also point to instruments that are most needed in effective interventions and empower actors that are committed to change.

It is the hope of the organizers that the Helsinki Group will work both in its four meetings and in-between them. The expectation is that its members remain actively committed to the Helsinki Process and are prepared to participate in the dialogue also between the meetings. For the success of the Process, it would be most desirable for the Group members engage also their own constituencies in the dialogue.

I see the general goals of the individual meetings of the Helsinki Group as follows:

The first meeting gives an opportunity for the members to express in the general debate their own policy preferences both with regard to the global problems and the methods of their improvement. A consolidated agenda for the Group’s work should emerge from this dialogue. The Group should also decide what kind of outside expertise it needs in the future work. One important issue is how the Tracks will be integrated in this work, and what kinds of contributions the Group members are themselves prepared to make. The first meeting could also touch upon the outreach strategies and the potential involvement of the members in these activities both in their own work and in the Helsinki Process context (international meetings, media appearances, embassy seminars, etc.). We are open minded as it comes to the eventual need to discuss and revise the mandate and the terms of reference of the Group.

The second meeting should have in its front an annotated list of contents of the final report. The meeting should also have access to relevant background material on key agenda items, including the members’ own contributions. The meeting should end up with a reasonable consensus on the nature and objectives of the final report. Due to its venue, the meeting could have a particular look at the African problems. The Group could also issue individual policy proposals from this and the third meeting.

The third meeting and its discussions ought to be based on a full, though tentative draft of the final report that is made available to the Group members well in advance. The meeting should focus on a substantive discussion and exchange of views on the contents of the report.

The fourth meeting will finalize the Group’s work on the final report by focusing especially on its conclusions and proposals. Some of these conclusions can be converted into separate policy proposals that can be communicated to relevant constituencies even before the 2005 Helsinki Conference. The Group should devise a strategy by which its work can be effectively communicated to various international constituencies to prepare way to the Helsinki Conference.

Ladies and gentlemen. friends,


What I have just outlined reflects our preliminary thinking on issues and working methods that we believe should constitute our work program. Although many things I have just said might sound as an effort to steer the process with a firm hand I would like to stress that these thoughts are meant to facilitate our work, not to railroad it. We – the initiators – have invited you to take part in this process not in order to preach to you how we think matters should be organized but to offer for you deliberations a starting point. Given the limited time available and the limits of resources available some preplanning has – in my view – been both unavoidable and even desirable. But what we ultimately will propose as our findings and conclusion, our policy recommendations and proposals is in your hands.

Before concluding my opening remarks, I wish to convey my personal greetings from the World Social Forum in Mumbai that I had the pleasure of attending last week, and share a few thoughts with you on the basis of that experience. My task was to make the Helsinki Process known to at least a part of the vast number of civil society activists gathered in Mumbai, to get some hunch of where the thinking amongst these movements is heading, and to find out to what extent there is common ground with our approach. Given the magnitude of the whole event this was certainly a kind of "mission impossible". Quite many of the views and ideas where things I had heard before. But there were also new ideas, and at least some voices that are usually not heard and not part of ordinary international gatherings. Therefore I definitely found it worthwhile going there, and we should continue with this dialogue. Also in other directions, with other stakeholders. We need different means and channels for that, besides the regular meetings of the Helsinki Group and the Tracks. One idea would be to establish a publication series of the Helsinki Group, open for very different interventions and views from the different stakeholders that we are engaging with through this process.

In his message for new year 2004 the Secretary General of the United Nations. Mr Kofi Annan said among other things:

“Just three years ago , at the Millennium Summit, leaders of all nations pledged to provide hope. They set themselves precise, time-bound targets – the Millennium Development Goals.To meet these goals would cost only a fraction of what our world spends on weapons of war. Yet it would bring hope billions, and greater security for all of us. “ And he ended his greeting: “We don´t need any more promises. We need to start keeping the promises we already made.”

The Secretary General has reminded us of the fact that much has been promised, but only little has been delivered. It is my hope that in the course of the work of the Helsinki Process we could focus on proposals and initiatives which, while ambitious and far reaching also would be within the world of realities and that they could influence those realities so that the accepted goals could be achieved.