Esko

Aho

Prime Minister of Finland

Speech made to the Assembly

Monday, 24 January 1994

All speechesQuestions and answers

I thank you very much, Mr President, for your cordial words of welcome. I feel both honoured and privileged to address the oldest European forum for parliamentarians.

I feel particular personal pleasure about speaking today in front of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. As you mentioned, Mr President, I was one of the first Finnish MPs who came here to represent Finland after our accession.

I still recall my first journey from Helsinki to Strasbourg in May 1989. Going through newspapers during the flight, I saw a striking picture on the front page of the International Herald Tribune. Hungarian soldiers were cutting barbed wire at the border of Hungary and Austria. The dismantling of the iron curtain had begun.

Since that time – the summer of 1989 – the Council of Europe has expanded rapidly eastwards. In less than four years, it has become an organisation spanning Europe. Accession to the Council has in many cases been the first step for the new democracies in their integration into Europe. Pluralistic democracy, respect for human rights and the rule of law are, indeed, the solid cornerstones for the reforms carried out by countries in transition.

Finland fully supports that development. We have an historic opportunity to overcome old divisions and to construct a new, unified Europe.

Russia’s accession is one of the most topical issues on the Council’s agenda. Russia’s development influences the destinies of the whole continent. It is vital for Russia itself and for the rest of Europe that Russia is a fully–fledged participant in the European process. We must not isolate Russia or let it drift into isolation.

We all made miscalculations in trying to foresee the development of Russia. We first believed that Russia could turn overnight into a functioning democracy and market economy. We overlooked the sheer size of the country, and even more its history and traditions.

Opinions swung to the other extreme after the December elections. Some concluded that the election results marked the end of reforms in Russia. The success of extremist political forces in the elections was, they argued, a fatal blow to reform policies.

There are, however, other ways of looking at the results of the Russian elections. To begin with, the country held its first free and fair parliamentary elections. No major irregularities were registered by international monitors. That alone is enough to describe the elections as a milestone. Besides, a new constitution was approved. Its importance for continued reforms should not be underestimated.

One might ask whether the success of extremist forces in the elections was such a big surprise at all. Ordinary Russians are facing serious social and economic problems and distress. In such circumstances, an expression of disappointment and protest is not unknown even in the west. After all, people vote with their stomachs.

Russians, it needs to be emphasised, have clearly opted for democracy. Russia’s accession to the Council of Europe will be an important step in that process. Russia and other applicants should become members as soon as the conditions are met. Only membership would entail a commitment to the principles of the Council and accession to the European Convention on Human Rights.

During the cold war, our concept of security was dominated by its military dimension. It has been difficult to free ourselves from the mould of a Europe divided into two military blocs. In the new Europe, security must be understood in a much broader sense. I see it as having four dimensions – military, social and economic, ecological and democratic.

The structures of military security are still evolving and seeking to take shape. When the first hole was cut through the iron curtain by the Hungarians, nothing followed automatically. The construction of a new security order in this continent only began with that event. The task is not yet accomplished. We still have much to do.

The eastern half of the continent has not been able to overcome the problems inherited from the cold war period. These countries actively seek new security arrangements.

The western alliance, for its part, is seeking ways of responding to that call. The “Partnership for Peace” plan is a positive reflection of that effort and we believe that Finland can contribute, above all, in the field of peacekeeping.

The social and economic aspects of security concern all Europe. The transformation of the economies of central and eastern Europe has proved slower and much more difficult than expected, and will be a burden on and liability for Europe for years to come. Supporting that transformation is an indispensable long-term investment for western Europe. It is also an investment in our common security.

The western part of the continent has its own share of economic problems. Top of our agenda is unemployment, reaching the post–war record of almost 20 million people. In particular, the consequences of long-term unemployment can be dramatic for individual citizens. High unemployment can destabilise whole societies. Meeting that challenge requires urgent national and joint European action.

The third, ecological, dimension of security has become a major topic in our discussions. It is now recognised by all that environmental problems cannot be addressed without concerted international efforts – also at European level.

Finally, there is a fourth component in security. Pluralistic democracy, respect for human rights, rule of law and tolerance are also crucial and fundamental elements of a wider concept of security. Most of the activities of the Council of Europe fall into this category. In this forum, we often speak of “democratic security”.

All four dimensions of security are relevant when we seek to support the new democracies. A prosperous state which is democratic and where human rights are respected is not a threat to others or to itself. In contrast, oppression, persecution and distress have throughout history been the breeding ground of war and conflict. Democratic security is a lofty goal. It calls for innovative thinking and a sense of purpose.

A good example of pioneering work done here in Strasbourg is the inclusion of women and the gender perspective in the Council’s work – an item to which the President referred, and I totally agree with him. It is significant that a new body has been set up by the Assembly to work on equality between women and men. In different forums, my government has actively stressed the importance of heeding the female perspective and experience in all decision-making. We must bring the wit and will of women to bear on building our society.

Protection of national minorities is crucial for the success of the new Europe. The Council of Europe and your Assembly have focused much attention on this issue. The Finnish record with regard to national minorities is considerable. The constitutionally-based innovative and generous arrangements established for our Swedish–speaking population, the autonomy granted to the Aland Islands and the rights extended to our Sami minority in Lapland speak for themselves. Especially in today’s world, these Finnish examples attract broad international attention.

The primary goal of a nation state is to secure the freedom and well-being of its citizens. This is legitimate but in a world of independence, no nation can survive in isolation. The smaller the state, the truer this notion is. Integration of economies and convergence of policies are necessary prerequisites for overcoming many of the new challenges to which I have already referred.

Europeans – men and women – are the driving force in everything we do. They and their children should be the focal point of our policies. Excessive centralisation of decision-making will only turn people against the idea of joint European action. Joining forces at European level does not pre-empt the importance of national policies.

Negotiations on Finland’s accession to the European Union are entering a crucial phase these very weeks. The timetable is very tight, as we strive to conclude the negotiations by the beginning of March. A few critical chapters still remain open, but I am confident that all parties to these negotiations will spare no efforts to settle the outstanding issues in time and in a mutually satisfactory manner.

I have often been asked to give my prediction whether and when Finland will become a member of the European Union. I am reminded of the great Finnish composer, Jean Sibelius, who was said to have spent much time in the restaurants of Helsinki at the beginning of this century. Once, after several days of absence from home, his wife called in desperation asking for at least a tentative forecast of when Mr Sibelius was likely to come home. He replied: “My dear, I am a composer. My vocation is to compose, not to make forecasts.”

For me, our membership of the European Union is not a matter of forecasting or of timetables but of substance and negotiations. For the people of Finland, it will be decisive that our fundamental interests are secured and specific circumstances are taken into account in our country, too. If that proves to be the case, Finland will join the European Union.

I started with a personal recollection and I wish to conclude in a similar way. European co-operation has deep historical roots in the north. I was reminded of this during a recent visit to St Petersburg and the old Karelian town of Viipuri, which was part of Finland until 1944. In Viipuri, I visited the manor and park of Monrepos, which was built 200 years ago by Ludwig von Nicolay, former professor of international law at the University of Strasbourg. He wanted to build a splendid European garden in the Viipuri region and he made that dream come true.

Monrepos was created not by him, but by Austrian, Danish, English, Finnish, French, German, Italian, Russian and Swedish architects and land scape designers and over the decades it became the most remarkable northern landscape garden in the world. Strolling in the Monrepos park, I felt that the circle, in a way, is closing. I recognised the simple historic truth: Europe is one. Thank you, Mr President.