Parliamentary Assembly

First, I thank you, Mr President, for your invitation to address this esteemed Assembly. It is an honour and a great pleasure for me to share some views on the future of our continent with you.

This Assembly was the first body in Europe to bring together parliamentarians to work for the noble Ideals enshrined in our Statute: parliamentary democracy, individual freedom, political liberties and the rule of law.

These ideals are deeply rooted in Finnish society. Having been an integral part of Sweden for more than 600 years, and thereafter a non-integrated part of imperial Russia, Finland has cherished the Nordic traditions of liberty and human rights throughout her history. A parliamentary reform in 1906 gave all Finns universal suffrage, irrespective of sex and social status; we were only the second country in the world, after New Zealand, to do this. Our present Constitution, adopted in 1919, is one of the oldest still in force in Europe.

I wish to reaffirm Finland’s commitment to the principles laid down in the Statute.

The first convention adopted by the Council of Europe was the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. That convention and the institutions created through it – the European Commission and the European Court of Human Rights – constitute the most complete international system for protecting human rights.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs of Finland will tomorrow deposit instruments of ratification of the European Convention on Human Rights and its protocols, and make declarations on the right of individual citizens to lodge a complaint and on Finland’s recognition of the jurisdiction of the Court.

Having participated in much of the work of the Council of Europe for nearly three decades and having enjoyed full membership for one year, Finland is committed to promoting and developing the role of the Council in our changing continent.

The decision to span a bridge between the Assembly and parliamentarians in Central and East European countries has been an important step in efforts to overcome the division of Europe. We strongly support it.

I am convinced that, through expanding membership and also through special arrangements appropriate for non-member states, the Council will play a growing role in the evolution of European societies and in promoting co-operation in our continent.

Europe is changing. This change is so swift and fundamental that hardly anyone could have predicted such a chain of events only a year ago. All those who regard themselves as experts on international politics feel incompetent.

Yet even this is not unprecedented. It is possible to predict or at least extrapolate stable development, whilst upheavals are always impossible to foresee.

As a statesman once said:

“Not a single principle in the management of our foreign affairs, accepted by all statesmen for guidance up to six months ago, any longer exists. There is not a diplomatic tradition which has not been swept away.”

Those words were spoken by the British Prime Minister, Benjamin Disraeli, nearly 120 years ago, when the German empire had just been born and the politics of Europe were reshuffled.

Change liberates, but it also brings uncertainty and tension.

We are living in a time when old wrongs are being put right and accusations of new ones are laying the groundwork for future tensions.

When traditional confrontations recede, new ones – or, indeed, old latent ones – may arise. There are signs of that in today’s Europe.

Yet I am confident that the positive elements will prevail in the future. I believe that Europe is maturing to a security that will endure.

Europe is fulfilling the commitment made in Helsinki in 1975. The Final Act laid the groundwork for today’s changes in the political, military, economic and social relations of our continent.

No single factor has contributed to the recent rapid developments more than the change in the Soviet Union and in its international politics. But it is the new spirit of understanding between East and West which has made it possible for us to leave the cold war.

A year ago, this Assembly had the opportunity to hear President Gorbachev’s views on the reconstruction of Europe on a basis of common values and a balance of interests. Politics based on blocs and the traditional balance of forces must be left behind, was his message.

It is in the nature of this process that it will never be completed. A Europe that is one and peaceful, co-operating and progressing to its full potential, can emerge only through consistent work and mutual learning.

Setbacks will lie ahead as well, but they can be overcome if we have a proper sense of priorities.

We have to strengthen common structures in Europe. To continue the process, we must rely on the principles and experiences that have made our gains to date possible. But, to meet the challenges ahead, we shall have to develop our methods of co-operation further.

Even during the unnatural division of Europe, the authors of the Helsinki principles respected European diversity. They safeguarded national identity and self-determination, then and for the future.

As we upheld the ideals of human rights, we also freed the creative power of individual aspirations. We gave individuals the crucial position that they can and must have in the spiritual and material well-being of Europe.

Last month, at the CSCE Conference in Bonn, the participating states recognised the relationship between political pluralism and a market economy. The orderly conduct of political change in Eastern and Central Europe is encouraging.

Multi-party democracy, the rule of law and respect for human dignity foster economic development and facilitate reform. Those things, in turn, create a foundation for just social progress and stable peaceful relations in Europe as a whole.

Political pluralism and the market-place have become the focus of a heavy burden of expectations.

With advancing democracy and improved cooperation, the whole of Europe will be better equipped to meet the challenges of economic restructuring that lie ahead.

As the Bonn document declares, Europe is undergoing a profound and rapid change. In Western Europe, the challenge is economic integration. In Central and Eastern Europe, the goal is, first and foremost, economic recovery.

Europe cannot expect to reap the reward for overcoming political and ideological division if the gap of economic inequality remains or becomes even wider.

The Bonn Conference showed that European countries see their chance to expand and recognise their responsibility for expanding economic co-operation in an effective and yet balanced way. Markets can perform only in an economic environment of openness and reciprocity.

The transition to a market economy will be facilitated through the gradual creation of a common economic area in the whole of Europe. Co-ordinated support for sustainable economic reform will be a vital component in the coming together of European economies.

Co-operation in the development and introduction of environmentally sound technology is a prime example of what a new Europe, united in its purpose, could achieve. Only through cooperation can the damage be remedied and the environment preserved for future generations.

The arms race has become an economic burden for Europe. The new political opportunity and hard economic necessities speak for a profound reassessment of investment in the military factor and of its role in our security relations.

The historic results in sight in disarmament negotiations will give us a chance to break the endless cycle of arms expansion and modernisation.

Europe is on the threshold of freeing itself from the over-arming that has kept it captive for so many years and decades.

Individually, European countries are drawing their conclusions from the strain that armament puts on their national economies. This is especially true in countries whose economies have been under such excessive strain that they must now make a clear choice between armament and economic reform and recovery.

Just as vital is the fact that the military reality is being changed through disarmament. An emerging new strategic landscape will diminish the danger of military instability and conflict.

The negotiators in Vienna will have a chance to be true to their mandate and abolish the threat of surprise attack and large-scale offensive in the area where military confrontation was the symbol and basis for such fears in a divided Europe.

But what really makes us believe that deep cuts in armaments will give us more security is that they will be associated with effective verification, confidence-building measures and openness. The CSCE military negotiations in Vienna have an important task in this respect.

The more that openness is an integral component of military matters, the more credible disarmament measures and new security arrangements will be.

Judgments need no longer be made on the basis of mistrust or uncertainty. States can also reassure their neighbours and other countries of the peacefulness and sincerity of their policies and intentions.

Europe will then enjoy co-operative security.

Within the military alliances, a search for future roles and new functions seems to be taking place. Such functions may be found in the field of arms control and verification. We welcome this.

We are living in a period of transition which may last for a long time.

Historic steps are in sight, although not completed yet. Growing stability – even if it is the general trend – is not necessarily comprehensive or uninterrupted.

As East-West confrontation recedes, the major military powers continue to bear the greatest responsibility for security relations in Europe.

Regional sources of instability and conflict may assume greater significance for the whole of Europe. Relations between neighbouring states are likely to affect the maintenance of security and stability more than in the past.

Joint security arrangements function if neighbours and rivals are responsible and willing to solve their problems. A common security institution cannot solve our problems for us.

We greet with great satisfaction efforts towards regional co-operation in Central and Eastern Europe, which aim at going beyond old barriers and former practices and grasping both the opportunities and responsibilities that exist for co-operation and resolving conflicts.

One of Finland’s main policy principles is that of maintaining good relations with our neighbours and contributing to security and stability in northern Europe and the Baltic region. That is a vital environment for our national security.

We are following with great concern and sympathy the efforts of the Baltic peoples to find their way to independence, to which the Soviet Constitution also entitles them. Our own experience tells us that, with a great power as a neighbour, one has to reach negotiated solutions that will stand the test of time.

I speak as a representative of a country for which the greater powers projected the same fate as that of the Baltic nations. But we went along another road. This road led first through great difficulties and sacrifices, but later to a stable relationship with our neighbouring great power. The Soviet Union has become a good neighbour.

History cannot be undone, but the new chances that today’s Europe offers for all countries and peoples should be fully utilised.

The foundation of security is evolving together with, and as a result of, European political and economic change. In this way, learning from experience, a new and stable security order can take shape.

When we speak today of a new European security system, it needs to be seen in the light of a comprehensive development.

As Europe changes, more and more security functions will be entrusted to joint arrangements, procedures and institutions. In the long run, such a common system may become vital for national as well as international security.

The CSCE has a central role in the management of the ongoing change. There is a growing consensus that it will also provide the essential framework for future common security arrangements and co-operative regimes.

Finland has long spoken out in favour of strengthening the CSCE follow-up in a measured way.

We concur with the idea of holding periodic meetings of the Foreign Ministers of the CSCE-participating states. This is one of the issues to be considered at the summit meeting of the CSCE countries planned for later this year.

As a neutral country, Finland has been active in the CSCE process from the beginning. We are proud that the process carries the name of our capital, where the first summit took place.

As the CSCE process enters a new phase, we look forward to further opportunities and responsibilities.

The capability of the CSCE to respond to new and growing tasks should be strengthened. Finland is ready to offer her contribution and her services to this process.

As the host country, we look forward to the Helsinki follow-up meeting in 1992 with a sense of great responsibility and, of course, we shall be very pleased to see the summer meeting of the Council of Europe in Helsinki next year. We expect the meeting to find new tasks for the CSCE process and to make decisions on such new principles, institutions and working methods as will be deemed necessary by the participating states.

Helsinki 1992 will give Europe new guidelines to continue the journey begun at Helsinki 1975.