SPEECH BY PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC MARTTI AHTISAARI
ON "EUROPE DAY" IN TURKU ON 8.5.1999

In recent weeks Europe has been experiencing a brutality that had been believed to belong to history. People are being driven from their homes and made refugees. Extreme nationalism has brought enormous suffering to innocent civilians.

Meetings with Albanians who have fled Kosovo put a face on this suffering. They have been experiencing the same thing that we evacuees from Karelia endured nearly sixty years ago: the loss of their own home. For them, reaching a safe place is a welcome relief, but it does not get rid of the pain caused by injustice, cruelty and being violently expelled from their homes.

The events in Kosovo pose a serious question to us: how can be build a common European home if ordinary Europeans have no right to a home of their own?

The timing of this Europe Day that we are now celebrating is rooted in the speech that Foreign Minister Robert Schuman of France made on 9 May 1950. In it he proposed that Franco-German coal and steel production be placed under a single high authority. The pooling of strategic production assets thus achieved had the aim of smoothing the path for the development of peaceful relations between Germany and France.

The most important goal of European integration is still that of building and strengthening peace. Nor is it limited any longer to Franco-German relations. There is no peace in Europe unless human rights are respected in every part of the continent.

Today, forty-nine years after Schuman’s declaration, the importance of the European Union as a force for prosperity and stability in the whole continent is indisputable. Europe is integrating and the Union, as the locomotive of this development, has enlarged.

The benefits of integration have not yet been distributed evenly throughout Europe. In Western Europe we have been able to enjoy the fruits of cooperation. In Central and Eastern Europe democracies are being built now that the restrictions of the Cold War have been removed. In Russia and many other parts of the former Soviet Union, the work of restructuring society has only just begun. In the Balkans we see hatred between neighbours, violence and massive floods of refugees.

We have gone a good way along the road of integration, but when we look at the challenges of the new millennium, it seems that we have taken only the first steps.

The Union’s new charter document, the Treaty of Amsterdam, came into force at the beginning of May. Its importance to us Finns lies not only in its contents, but also in the principles that it enshrines. We, too, had a hand in drafting it.

Today the Union faces major challenges, both internal and external. The resignation of the Commission and the events leading to it show how important it is for the Union to be able to develop its administration and institutions. The next enlargement will increase pressures for reforms. The Kosovo crisis has shown how important it would be to find the most effective institutions and methods for preventing and solving crises that we can.

Finland will have a lot of work to do in the six months that she holds the EU Presidency for the first time. The Balkans and Russia are central themes. Negotiations for a new round of liberalisation in world trade will be commencing in the WTO. In addition to that, free-trade agreements with several regions will be at the drafting stage. Implementation of the Treaty of Amsterdam and reform of EU structures will require a determined grasp.

The new members of the European Parliament will be chosen in elections in all member states in the beginning of June. Although they will represent only their voters, we are entitled to expect that those from Finland will through their own actions emphasise and at the same time strengthen our country’s position in the EU.

The European Union is growing into a significant economic and political actor everywhere in the world. In particular, the coming into being of a common currency area will heighten the expectations focused on the Union.

The Euro is creating concrete demands also with respect to the Union’s external actions. The Euro Zone must speak with a single voice when questions of significance from the single currency’s perspective are discussed in international fora. It would be natural for the current holder of the Presidency, the European Central Bank and the Commission to be entitled to speak on behalf of the Euro Zone.

In the post-Cold War world, a close partnership and cooperation relationship has developed between Europe and the United States. It is not just a dialogue relationship; it would be more appropriate to speak of a kind of political community that is taking shape between these two continents.

When I spoke at the summit meeting of the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council held in conjunction with the NATO 50^th-anniversary celebrations in late April, I emphasised that NATO’s role is changing. It is concentrating to a growing degree on crisis-management and political consultation.

Many may ask what the point of the European Union is if it and its members are incapable of effective intervention in crises that erupt in adjacent regions, such as the one in Kosovo. The European Communities were originally created because the integration that they promoted would make new wars both unnecessary and impossible.

This does not mean that the Union should not now, in new circumstances, have the capability to intervene, militarily if necessary, in crises that erupt in Europe. Finland and Sweden have jointly emphasised the importance of the Union’s capability to manage crises and made proposals concerning the matter. The core content of our proposals can be read in the text of the Treaty of Amsterdam, which empowers the Union to employ military means of crisis management. This significantly enhances the credibility of the Union.

From now on it will be up to us to ensure that the Union assumes the crisis-management role and performs the tasks that it has defined for itself in the treaty. The treaty provides better opportunities to conduct humanitarian and rescue operations, carry out peacekeeping and, ultimately, restore peace.

It is on this basis that we are examining the Franco-British initiative concerning the development of a defence dimension for the Union.

It has been decided that the EU’s common foreign and defence policy will continue to be intergovernmental cooperation. Responsibility for trade policy has been transferred to the community level. What is most important is to create efficiency in the existing arrangements. Only when this condition is met will it be time to go on to new goals.

A particularly good example of the importance of consistency in external actions can be found in places where the Union functions primarily as a provider of aid. If the Union’s trade policy with respect to the African, Caribbean and Pacific states differs greatly from the development-cooperation or foreign policy that it pursues in their cases, then the EU is simply undermining its own credibility. The same applies if the actions taken by the Union and individual members run counter to each other.

With the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam, the Union’s common foreign and security policy will be developed by creating the post of High Representative for the common foreign and security policy as well as a policy planning and early warning unit. Finland will demand much of the High Representative, who will be chosen in Cologne next June. His or her work is the focus of high expectations.

During the Amsterdam negotiations the member states failed to reach agreement on developing the work of the Commission, increasing the use of qualified-majority voting and adjusting vote weightings. Discussion of these themes is continuing.

The resignation of the Commission has brought the need for administrative changes more sharply into focus. I know from my own experience at the UN that they are always difficult to carry through. The guiding principles that will have to be adopted in implementing administrative changes within a strong and independent Commission are simple regulations, transparency of administrative structures, a clear division of responsibility, better coordination and efficient operation.

In the present situation, the Commission’s work should be made more effective especially where external relations and resource management are concerned. The portfolios and directorates-general should be reorganised. I would propose a system in which the President of the Commission is assisted by two vice-presidents responsible for broader totalities, i.e. external relations and management of resources. They and the Commission members responsible for the appropriate sectors would constitute a distinct team. Where external relations are concerned, changes of this kind would facilitate cooperation between the new Council’s High Representative and the Commission, as well as between the Commission and the member states.

One of the items on the agenda for the next inter-governmental conference is the question of increasing the use of qualified-majority voting. Decisions based on voting of this kind should make it easier to arrive at fair compromises. They must also be one guarantee of policies amenable to cooperation.

The last institutional question that remained open in Amsterdam relates to the weighting of votes in the Council. The present system, in which Finland for example has three votes and Germany ten, functions as a kind of safety net for all of the member states. Big-against-small coalitions are not formed in the EU. As far as I know, there has never been a situation in which the big member states have steamrolled small ones or vice-versa.

The European Council meeting in the beginning of June will decide when the next inter-governmental conference dealing with these questions is to take place. It is quite possible that the decisions concerning the commencement of the conference will emerge during the Finnish Presidency.

The work of the Union must be subject to constant critical scrutiny. The Union can develop in a balanced manner only if it is able to respond to citizens’ expectations. One central goal during the Finnish Presidency will be that of improving the safety and legal safeguards of citizens. The heads of state and government will gather in Tampere on 15-16.10 to add momentum to cooperation in legal and home affairs. The Tampere meeting of the European Council is expected to issue a clear political message, oriented towards the 21^st century, on issues that closely concern citizens.

Enlargement of the Union is both a political inescapability and a historic opportunity to increase stability and prosperity in Europe. However, the Union itself must be able to restructure in a way that enables enlargement to succeed in line with expectations.

The development in Russia is at a very critical turning point. In principle, an era of political democracy has begun in the country. Censorship has been abolished and the organs of both state and regional government are chosen in free elections. However, there is no getting around history: the civil society tradition is weak, there is widespread corruption and hardly any foundation of shared values.

Russia is also a European country. Finland and the EU are its neighbours. The relationship between the Union and Russia is becoming a central challenge to the security of our continent.

Finnish initiatives are aimed at promoting the development of civil societies in Russia and deepening interaction both between them and between Russia and the EU. Not much progress has been made, but the work has begun.

As I have already noted, the grave crisis in Kosovo is rocking the security of Europe. I came to this function straight from Hanover, where I discussed the situation in Kosovo with Federal Chancellor Schröder. The international community has made it clear to the Yugoslav leadership in various ways what it must do to achieve a negotiated settlement of the conflict. Next week will be very critical. Finland will have a position of growing responsibility in these consultations. The European Union, the United States and Russia, NATO, the OSCE, the UN - the entire international community - must now do everything in its power to bring about an end to the conflict through negotiation.

The Balkans have been in a maelstrom of violence for nearly a decade. The Kosovo crisis has had extensive effects on economic and social conditions in the other states in the region. Reconstruction will be an enormous task and take a long time. European integration is going through a rough period, but it must not end. Far from it!

Right now, Europe must be able to shoulder central responsibility for taking care of the massive refugee problem. The Finns have shown a commendable sense of responsibility. A lack of coordination between international organisations and instances of downright negligence were contributory factors in the delay in getting effective relief work under way in the region.

There has been a proposal in EU circles that a stabilisation conference for south-east Europe should be arranged. The various parties participating would draft a comprehensive long-term plan to strengthen peace, human rights and democracy in the region. That would make it possible to begin a development that would give the countries of the region and their citizens an opportunity to participate in European cooperation and share its fruits.

Finland supports the idea of a stabilisation conference and is prepared to promote it strongly during her Presidency.

Over the long term, integration and enlargement of the European Union are the best guarantees of peace. They likewise help create the conditions that are essential for broad cooperation encompassing the entire continent.