02

Unto Vesa FINNISH FOREIGN POLICY PAPERS 02, October 2012

FINLAND IN THE

Consistent and Credible Constructivism

ULKOPOLIITTINEN INSTITUUTTI UTRIKESPOLITISKA INSTITUTET THE FINNISH INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS IN THE UNITED NATIONS

Consistent and Credible Constructivism by Unto Vesa

Unto Vesa is an Emeritus Research Fellow in the Tampere Peace Research Institute at the University of Tampere.

The Finnish Institute of International Affairs Kruunuvuorenkatu 4 FI-00160 tel. +358 9 432 7000 fax. +358 9 432 7799 www.fiia.fi

ISBN: 978-951-769-358-5 ISSN: 1799-9553

The Finnish Institute of International Affairs is an independent research institute that produces high-level research to support political decision- making and public debate both nationally and internationally.

The Institute undertakes quality control in editing publications but the responsibility for the views expressed ultimately rests with the authors.

The copyright to the text resides with the author. TABLE OF CONTENTS

I Entré: Commitment promised, continuity claimed 4 II Neutrality: Limits and merits 7 III “Physician rather than judge” 9 IV Small state perspective 12 V Priorities in focus 14 VI Finland in the Security Council 21 VII Summing up: Continuity, consistency, credibility, and constructivism 26 Photo: Paulo Filgueiras / UN Photo

I

Entré: commitment promised, continuity claimed inland was ready, willing, able and le- The popular uprising in Hungary and the gally qualified to join the United Nations Soviet intervention to suppress it swiftly Fright after the Peace Treaty in 1947, but turned into an East-West confrontation. The was refused entry for several years due to the use of veto had blocked the settlement of the deadlock in the Security Council. issue in the Security Council, so it was placed Thus Finland did not attain membership until on the General Assembly agenda, first at the mid-December 1955. The government reiter- request of the Nagy government, but after it ated in this context its earlier commitments to had been toppled, the crisis remained on the the UN Charter obligations, and Prime Min- agenda in spite of opposition by the Soviet Un- ister Urho Kekkonen stated that although the ion and its East European allies. The General UN could not be expected to achieve instant Assembly adopted a total of eleven resolutions comprehensive solutions, it nevertheless rep- on the conflict in the Emergency Session and resents valuable and important goals and is in the 11th GA Session, and there were several therefore of special importance to small states separate votes on individual paragraphs in the and nations.1 The organization had already resolutions. been on the world stage for a decade, so its Finland, like all members, had to define weaknesses during the Cold War had already its position on all those votes, and conse- become obvious, as Kekkonen’s assessment quently voted in favour of five resolutions implies. Yet, he also expressed the belief that and abstained in five. The basic solution was the ultimately achieved membership of the to abstain in cases where the resolution or a organization would strengthen Finland’s in- paragraph contained strong condemnations ternational position and prestige. because these were not seen as appropriate President J. K. Paasikivi offered his reflec- for a to vote in favour of. On tions on the membership – as the third foreign the other hand, Finland voted in favour of the policy achievement of the year – a fortnight resolutions dealing with humanitarian sup- later in his New Year’s speech by referring to port and aid for refugees, and also voted in historical continuity: “We have always sup- favour of paragraphs which stated that the ported the idea of an international peace or- events expressed the desire of the Hungar- ganization”. Paasikivi mentioned two Finnish ian people to enjoy freedom and independ- statesmen of the nineteenth century who were ence; that the withdrawal of Soviet troops engaged in such efforts, wishing that “in such was indispensable; and that there should be a way small nations would achieve security free elections in Hungary as soon as possible and international law would get strength”. so that the Hungarian people could decide for “It is our most pious wish”, stated Paasikivi, themselves about their government.3 In its “that the United Nations would succeed, bet- own statement, the Finnish delegation ex- ter than its predecessor, in its vital and most pressed “the fervent hope that Hungary and important task, the maintenance of peace and the Soviet Union will be able to agree on the security and the maintenance of justice be- withdrawal of the Soviet troops in Hungary tween nations”.2 and on the safeguarding of the fundamen- So the opening phase was characterized by tal human rights of the Hungarian people in pious wishes and realistic assessments, but a way that would correspond to their many the first real test cases for Finland, and for the centuries-old traditions of freedom”.4 organization, came in the following autumn: These positions aptly illustrate the balanc- the Hungarian and the Suez crises. In the con- ing acts Finland’s delegation had to perform. text of those two crises Finland outlined two There was strong domestic support and sym- basic features of its foreign policy in the Unit- ed Nations: caution and bold constructivism. 3 See Törnudd, op.cit., pp. 66-69 and Unto Vesa, Determining Finland’s position in international crises, Yearbook of Finnish Foreign Policy 1979, 1 Quoted in Klaus Törnudd, Suomi ja Yhdistyneet Helsinki: Finnish Institute of International Affairs Kansakunnat, Helsinki: Tammi 1967, p. 33. 1980, p. 6. 2 J.K. Paasikivi, Paasikiven linja. Puheita vuosilta 4 Yhdistyneiden Kansakuntien 11. yleiskokous. 1944-1956, Porvoo: WSOY 1966, p. 238. Helsinki: Ulkoasiainministeriö 1957, p. 71. 5 pathy in Finland for the Hungarian people, general. Moreover, participation in peace- and the government naturally wanted to keeping was considered to strengthen Fin- express its support for the withdrawal of So- land’s neutrality and its status in the Nordic viet troops and for Hungarian independence group. No wonder then that Finland’s par- as well as humanitarian support, but also ticipation in peacekeeping – and later under wanted to avoid measures that would dam- the title crisis management – has continued age its good relations with the Soviet Union. to this day. Finland has sent personnel to “Finland, sticking to its neutral foreign pol- several UN peace operations in Africa, the icy and strong commitment to peace, wants Middle East and Asia, and the total number of carefully to avoid any such measures that Finnish personnel that have served in these according to its view may cause or maintain missions is close to 50,000.5 international tensions”, declared the gov- One can argue that of the two elements ernment to the Parliament. Thus, the policy manifested in the crucial decisions in 1956, of neutrality expressed its dualism: caution caution and bold constructivism, the first in the form of abstentions, and constructive prevailed in clear Cold War issues until the support when considered feasible. end of the Cold War, whereas the other, the In the Suez Crisis of 1956 a similar basic constructive approach through pragmatic pattern emerged, but now with the more and concrete measures, has continued ever concrete constructive approach which was since and characterizes Finland’s foreign to characterize Finland’s UN policies for policy in the UN even today. decades. Again, the Security Council was not able to act due to the use of veto, but this time the United States and the Soviet Union were “on the same side” in agreeing that France, Great Britain and Israel had to halt their mili- tary operation. When the General Assembly dealt with the crisis, Finland, together with other Nordic countries, abstained in some controversial votes, but was in favour of concrete measures to resolve the crisis. These concerned the fresh idea of peacekeeping. Once Secretary-General Dag Ham- marskjöld had introduced the idea of peace- keeping troops and had sent an inquiry to several small and medium countries about their readiness to provide troops, the Finn- ish government sent a positive response the following day – in fact, Finland was the first country to respond! It was a quick and bold response because peacekeeping was an unknown field, not even mentioned in the Charter, and of course, there was no domes- tic legislation on peacekeeping either. Fin- land was subsequently one of ten countries providing troops to the UNEF I operation, together with three other Nordic countries. The original principles of UN peacekeep- ing suited Finland’s foreign policy well from the very beginning: through them it was pos- 5 For a more detailed analysis of Finland’s sible to express concrete support for the UN, peacekeeping policy, see Unto Vesa, Continuity for the Secretary-General, for the promotion and Change in the Finnish Debate on of peaceful means in conflict resolution, for Peacekeeping, International Peacekeeping, Vol. 14, international law and for multilateralism in Number 4, August 2007, pp. 524-537. 6 Photo: UN Photo

II

NEUTRALITY: Limits and merits hroughout the Cold War, Finland want- from taking sides in the disputes between the ed to gain recognition for its neutrality great powers, enables us to maintain good T– although it was not particularly easy relations with all states across the divid- in the early years – and the United Nations ing lines of ideology of military alignments, was very important for Finland in this ef- and thus to work wherever possible for the fort. First, it provided a forum for pursuing cause of conciliation, peaceful settlement of this recognition, and made it clear to all that disputes, and international cooperation. In Finland belonged to the Nordic group and to times of tension and conflict, such as these, the Western regional group. But at the same when the very fabric of international rela- time, the policy of neutrality had to prove its tions is damaged and many governments find credibility and usefulness in a world where themselves unable even to communicate with some regarded neutrality as weak or im- each other, neutral states have, we believe, a moral. Therefore neutrality was to serve as special obligation, not only to themselves but an instrument not only for Finland’s own in- to the international community as a whole, terests but for the wider international com- to conduct themselves with objectivity and munity if possible. restraint, so as to retain the confidence of all This dual endeavour is well illustrated parties and thus their ability to perform such by the guidelines issued by the President to peaceful services as may be required, includ- Finland’s delegation to the 1956 General As- ing the modest yet indispensable service sembly session: the delegation had to pursue of maintaining contact between states that Finland’s effort to stay outside of great power have broken diplomatic relations. This is an conflicts. Accordingly, it had to try to pro- obligation which the Finnish Government is mote solutions which seemed to be able to accustomed to assume.”7 command the support of all the great pow- Ambassador Jakobson’s eloquent and ers; it had to avoid any measures that might powerful description of the obligations and have caused, maintained or accentuated merits of neutrality thus includes the no- conflicts; and it was to abstain from making tions of objectivity and restraint, and the any statements, if the said effort could not be claim that, when strictly applied in conflict realized.6 situations, neutrality establishes a credible Because this was the defined basis of Fin- basis for conflict resolution, conciliation and land’s foreign policy – and therefore also in peaceful settlement. Therefore it is evident the UN – a strict line of neutrality was ap- that although Finland, since joining the Eu- plied by Finland’s delegation in any conflict ropean Union in 1995, no longer character- situation which according to Finland’s own izes its foreign policy as neutrality in the legal perception was somehow related to great sense, those positive features of the foreign power conflicts. But of course it was pos- policy tradition are still connected to its im- sible to extend the demands and merits of age in the United Nations. neutrality – such as a balanced approach and the avoidance of taking sides – beyond great power confrontations to other conflicts as well. Thus, Finland’s UN Ambassador, Mr Max Jakobson, outlined Finland’s view of neutrality in the emergency special session on the Middle East conflict in 1967: “We believe that Finland can best con- tribute to such efforts (the preservation and strengthening of peace) through strict and consistent adherence to our policy of neu- trality which, while it enjoins us to refrain

6 See Max Jakobson, Veteen piirretty viiva. Havaintoja ja merkintöjä vuosilta 1953-1965. 7 Ulkopoliittisia lausuntoja ja asiakirjoja (ULA), Keuruu: Otava 1980, p. 97. Helsinki: Ulkoasiainministeriö 1968, p. 270. 8 Photo: UN Photo

III

“Physician rather than judge” hen President Urho Kekkonen ad- of navigation in international waters during dressed the General Assembly for peacetime”.10 Wthe first time in 1961, he expressed As for the war in Indochina, Finland’s Finland’s line in a metaphor that has there- delegation reiterated its “strong opposition after often been used to describe Finland’s to the use of military means of violence in Vi- approach: “We see ourselves as physicians etnam or anywhere else and expressing our rather than judges; it is not for us to pass conviction that all conflicts between nations judgement nor to condemn. It is rather to must be solved by peaceful means”.11 In this diagnose and to try to cure”.8 This metaphor context the Agreements were men- is, of course, another way of expressing the tioned as the basis for a solution, and in 1970 basic line, as described above, namely one when the war spread to Cambodia, Finland of restraint in Cold War issues (where verbal stated that the use of force and threat of force condemnations also prevailed in the UN), conflicted with the Charter, and expressed and a constructive approach to conciliation its serious concern that the territory of a and peace promotion when considered fea- neutral country had been invaded in a con- sible. flict to which it was not a party.12 Restraint and caution did not deter Fin- When the Soviet Union invaded Afghani- land from outlining its principled position stan at the end of 1979, Finland abstained in on various issues, however. On the contrary, the General Assembly vote, but Ambassador Finland has stated its position even with re- Ilkka Pastinen stated Finland’s view very ex- gard to the most difficult issues, including plicitly: the principles of territorial integrity, those which one or more great powers were inviolability of state frontiers and national party to. In such issues Finland has always self-determination must be respected by all; referred to the UN Charter and the principles it was important that “normal conditions are of international law as the basic yardstick. restored in Afghanistan as soon as possible The continuous emphasis on negotiations and that the foreign troops are withdrawn”; and on the peaceful settlement of all conflicts the Government expressed its deep anxiety and the prohibition of the use of force follow about tendencies which seemed to jeopard- logically from those principles. ize the peaceful conduct of relations; it was To illustrate the way in which Finland ap- up to the United Nations and the permanent plied this approach with regard to various members of the Security Council in particular conflicts, let us mention a few examples. In to maintain international peace and security the case of the 1968 Czechoslovakian crisis, and to guide “the evolution towards a more Finland stated immediately that all disputes peaceful world order”.13 between states should be resolved peacefully As the statements cited above illustrate, and by negotiation, and later in the autumn Finland has consistently emphasized the that the developments could not but “weak- central principles of international law in the en confidence in such a development of in- context of every crisis. A negative attitude ternational life as would preclude the use of towards the use of force and the threat of force in the relations among States”.9 force has been regularly expressed and the When it came to the Cuban missile cri- necessity for peaceful solutions stressed. sis, Finland expressed its support to the UN Depending on the character of the conflicts Secretary-General and called for a negoti- concerned, other legal principles have been ated solution. Moreover, with regard to the referred to, such as the territorial integrity US blockade of Cuba, Finland stated that ac- cording to the principles of international law “no restrictions can be placed on freedom 10 ULA 1962, pp. 32-33. 11 ULA 1966, pp. 131-132. For a more detailed analysis of Finland’s Indochina policy, see Osmo Apunen 8 Yhdistyneiden Kansakuntien yleiskokouksen – Unto Vesa, Suomen suhtautuminen Kaakkois- kolmas erityisistunto sekä kuudestoista Aasian sotaan. Tampereen yliopisto. Politiikan istuntokausi ja sen jatkoistunto. Helsinki: tutkimuksen laitos. Tutkimuksia. No. 70, 1982. Ulkoasiainministeriön julkaisuja 1962, pp. 165-166. 12 ULA 1970, pp. 144, 311. 9 ULA 1968, pp. 207, 246-247. 13 Quoted in Vesa 1980, op. cit., pp. 15-16. 10 of states, the inviolability of frontiers, the right of national self-determination, respect for human rights and freedom of navigation. Another common feature in Finland’s posi- tions is the strong support for the UN Char- ter, the Secretary-General and the Security Council, and of course this facet of the policy is firmly linked to international law as well. The strong emphasis on legal principles rather than moral judgments in the Finn- ish approach is conceptualized to open the way to peace promotion. Particularly during the Cold War and in various bitter conflicts, like those in the Middle East, passing moral judgements and taking the side of one con- flict party or another has been considered to undermine the opportunities for construc- tive action, to risk the desired role of the physician, to use Kekkonen’s metaphor.

11 Photo: Yutaka Nagata / UN Photo

IV

Small state perspective trong emphasis on international law, Since 1995, when Finland joined the Eu- international organization and multi- ropean Union, the reference to the policy Slateral cooperation is said to be typical of neutrality has disappeared from the of- of small states, but for Finland the small state ficial vocabulary, but not its merits, such perspective has been a continuous theme as a balanced approach and objectivity, nor ever since the beginning of the country’s UN the small state perspective on global issues. membership. Small states have to put their Suffice it to refer to the address by President efforts into law and cooperation, while great Sauli Niinistö in the General Assembly this powers can rely on their might. As quoted autumn: earlier, President Paasikivi had already ex- “The UN is a genuinely universal forum for pressed the view that through international cooperation. It has unique legitimacy. For us, organization “small nations would achieve it is an indispensable means to promote in- security and international law would get ternational peace and security, development strength”. The role of small states was a con- and human rights. As a small country – and stant concern for President Kekkonen, who there are only some five million of us Finns thought that “small states have little power to – a world order based on respect for the UN influence the course of international events. Charter and international law is a must. It is The Great Powers possessing the means of not an option.”16 destroying the world bear the chief respon- One can of course argue that the emphasis sibility for the maintenance of peace”, but on the small state perspective on global issues “the smaller states can and must constantly and on the value of multilateralism is making remind them of this responsibility”.14 a virtue out of necessity, but that does not Regarding disarmament issues, it has make it any less valid. often been stated that Finland’s interest is quite obvious, because “as a small neutral country which stands non-aligned in its re- lations to military alliances, Finland is basi- cally in the same position as the vast majority of the Member States of the United Nations: reduction of international tension and dis- armament is in the security interest of such countries”.15 This notion of being in the same position as the vast majority of UN member states is of great importance. It serves as an important indicator for Finland that its traditionally closest reference group, the Nordic countries, is not the only one, and that Finland can also identify with the security concerns of other small nations. The small state perspective also underlines the need for cooperation in all global issues, be they security, economic and social development, environment or hu- man rights.

14 See Finnish Disarmament Policy. Helsinki: Ministry for Foreign Affairs 1983, pp. 105-106. 15 Quoted in Unto Vesa, Small State Contribution to Disarmament: The Case of Finland, in Challenges and Responses in European Security. TAPRI 16 http://www.tpk.fi/public/default.aspx?contentid Yearbook 1986 (Ed. by Vilho Harle), Aldershot: =258498&nodeid=44810&contentlan=2&culture= Avebury 1987, p. 243. en-US 13 Photo: Milton Grant / UN Photo

V

Priorities in focus overing Finland’s full range of activi- of the UNTAG operation in Namibia in 1989- ties in the United Nations to any mean- 90, to which Finland provided major compo- Cingful extent is beyond the scope of this nents on both the military and civilian side. paper, simply because the country has been Since the Cold War, the UN approach has also so very active in every field of the organi- changed: instead of mere peacekeeping, the zation: peace and security, economic and notions of peace support operations, crisis social development, human rights, interna- management and even peace enforcement tional law, and so forth. On the other hand, have gained ground, and Finland – together it is evident that in every field Finland has set with other traditional peacekeepers – has some priorities in accordance with its own adapted itself to the new challenges and par- values and capabilities and thus focused its ticipated in several peace operations, both attention and resources on some specific is- UN and those authorized by the UN.17 sues or forms of action. Thus, when it comes While Finland has not participated in all to peace and security issues, for instance, UN operations, it has, ever since the early Finland has contributed to peacekeeping and days, paid special attention to some key disarmament, paying special attention, in UN peacekeeping problems, particularly in terms of the latter, to nuclear disarmament, terms of trying to explore ways of establish- non-proliferation, chemical weapons, and ing a stable financial basis for peacekeeping the arms trade. and of developing capabilities readily availa- Regarding economic and social develop- ble for operations; for too long all operations ment, Finland has worked intensively for suffered from a lack of solid funding and from the achievement of the Millennium Devel- the ad hoc way in which operations were opment Goals and consistently stressed the launched. role of women and the role of education in Finland’s second membership term in the development. In the field of human rights, Security Council in 1989-90 provided a plat- again a strong emphasis on equal rights for form for promoting its views on the princi- women – which is natural for a country that ples of peacekeeping and strengthening UN has had a pioneering role in the struggle for capabilities. Negotiations with the other gender equality for over a century. Yet, al- Council members resulted in a unanimously though one can point to certain priorities, it approved ‘Note of the President’ on peace- is equally important to note that Finland has keeping, the first of its kind. The note stressed consistently stressed that in a globalized and the importance of adequate resources for interdependent world all of these “fields” operations and their secure financial basis, are closely linked to each other: peace and and underlined that “the operations must be security, economic and social development, planned and conducted with maximum effi- democracy and human rights, the rule of law ciency and cost-effectiveness”. It also stated and international law not only depend on that peacekeeping was always intended to be each other, but support each other. a temporary measure, designed to facilitate To illustrate Finland’s priorities for ac- the resolution of conflict and disputes, and tion, let’s briefly describe some of Finland’s “should never be construed as a substitute activities and views on peacekeeping, disar- for the ultimate goal, an early negotiated mament, development and human rights. settlement”.18 As mentioned earlier, Finland was the The last point referred to above, pro- first country in 1956 to respond positively tracted conflicts without any settlement in to the idea of providing peacekeepers for sight, has often been exploited by critics, but UNEF I. Throughout the Cold War period Finland has not shared that criticism. As long Finland was among the leading contributors ago as 1987, the Nordic countries concluded to UN peacekeeping, and also played a major in their statement that: role in UN General Assembly negotiations on peacekeeping, such as those dealing with its financial aspects. Finland’s role was also 17 See Vesa 2007, op.cit. crucial in introducing the new multidimen- 18 Note by the President of the Security Council, sional peacekeeping concept in the context UN doc. S/21323, 30 May 1990. 15 “There are those people who criticize UN United Nations in trying to solve crises all peacekeeping operations because of their over the world.”20 alleged lack of result. The Nordic countries He has also aptly expressed the importance do not concur in this criticism. Those critics of historical and small state perspectives as seem to forget that peacekeeping per se is background factors for Finland’s approach: nothing but an instrument to support peace- “Small countries, and Finland and Sweden making; an instrument to establish and with their background of neutrality, have maintain a cease-fire and tranquillity in an perhaps a greater understanding of working area of conflict and, thus, to create favour- between various partners in situations where able conditions for negotiations. In short: solutions cannot be imposed but have to be peace-keeping is an instrument to give time brought about by working together”. to peace-making efforts… But peace-keeping Finally, one asset in Finland’s peacekeep- cannot replace peace-making. When the po- ing toolkit is the fact that “except for officers, litical will of the parties in the conflict is lack- all Finnish peacekeepers are reservists. Thus, ing, the peacekeeping operation may drag on everyone brings his or her civilian experienc- for a long time without corresponding pro- es and professional skills. We try to make use gress toward a solution of the conflict.”19 of these civilian skills to the fullest extent”, The following year, the Nordic govern- Tuomioja has asserted, and “Finns attempt to ments expressed the hope that the improved build confidence between different groups, international climate and the strengthened solve conflicts peacefully and point out to UN role, together with the political will of groupings that view each other with suspi- the parties concerned, would ensure pro- cion that co-operation brings more benefits gress in the solution of regional conflicts. But and security to everyone than hostilities”.21 as we now know, in most cases UN peace op- Regarding disarmament issues, Minister erations do drag on because no political so- expressed Finland’s line in lutions have been found, and this concerns, 1957 – namely at a time when disarmament of course, most tragically the multitude of was on the UN agenda but no conventions conflicts in the Middle Eastern region. Yet, or agreements had yet been reached – in peacekeepers and peace operations have this way: “We are prepared to support any mostly produced what can reasonably be ex- equitable solution which, at the same time, pected from them: a freeze on situations, the is feasible. But can we regard as feasible pro- prevention of further violence and the crea- posals which do not to seem to be able to tion of space for negotiations. command the support of all the Great Pow- Foreign Minister Erkki Tuomioja summa- ers, on which, in the last analysis, progress in rized the evolution of peacekeeping in his UN the field of disarmament depends?”.22 address as follows: Although phrased as a question, the “The concept of peacekeeping has evolved formula actually summarizes the Finnish considerably during the existence of the view according to which the great powers UN from purely military operations into are mainly responsible for the progress, or versatile, complex and continuous efforts lack thereof, in disarmament negotiations. that extend in some cases to nation build- President Kekkonen evaluated the feasibil- ing. A growing element in them is civilian ity of disarmament proposals with the same crisis management. This should be further yardstick when he addressed the General As- strengthened… Present complex crises are sembly in 1961: “It is our earnest hope that often too demanding for any one organiza- powers principally concerned will deal with tion to deal with. All regional organisations should work closely together and with the

20 www.un.int/finland/speech%20Tuomioja%20 GAgeneral%20debate14092002.html 21 Erkki Tuomioja, Demokratia lyömässä läpi 19 Yhdistyneiden Kansakuntien yleiskokous 1987, Afrikassa, interview in Uutispäivä Demari, 5 Nov. Helsinki: Ulkoasiainministeriön julkaisuja 1988; 2003, quoted in Vesa 2007, p. 534. quoted in Vesa 2007. 22 Finnish Disarmament Policy, op. cit. p. 69. 16 the problem of disarmament with all the will in the UN in exploring and seeking a com- to succeed they can muster”.23 mon understanding between the three pow- It is fully consistent with this reasoning ers and the majority of non-aligned nations that later on, after 1963 when the great pow- about the balanced commitments in the NPT. ers – the USA, the UK and the USSR in the first The basic deal in the Treaty was, and is, stage – were able to agree about partial arms that the non-nuclear weapon states commit control measures, Finland has supported all themselves not to acquire nuclear weapons such treaties, conventions and negotiations and the nuclear states commit themselves to aimed at new disarmament agreements. nuclear disarmament. There has always been Of course, Finland, like all small countries, some tension between the nuclear and non- has often expressed its hope for more far- nuclear weapon states because during the reaching agreements, but on the other hand decades that have passed since 1970, when underlined the connection between détente the Treaty entered into force, the nuclear and disarmament and thereby the view that powers have not fulfilled their commitment even minor advances were steps in the right to nuclear disarmament: SALT and START direction. limitations are not sufficient in this regard. Nuclear disarmament has clearly been one However, Finland has not shared the criti- of Finland’s main focal points in the UN. At cism of some states about the discrimina- the beginning of the 1960s, when the nuclear tory character of the Treaty, nor has Finland tests by France and the Soviet Union were shared the view that the security of non-nu- the subject of General Assembly votes, Fin- clear weapon states would have been dimin- land voted in favour of the resolutions, ask- ished by their decision to give up the nuclear ing the powers concerned to give up testing, option. According to the Finnish view, the but at the same time deplored the procedure NPT has been in the security interests of all whereby individual countries were singled states. out in the resolutions; Finland was against Therefore Finland has played a very active all atomic tests regardless of where and by diplomatic role in the General Assembly, in which country they were conducted.24 the NPT Review Conferences and in the IAEA Finland’s support for the Comprehensive to strengthen the Treaty and the non-prolif- Test Ban has, of course, always been self- eration regime as a whole.26 evident because a complete ban on all tests The NPT also had a major positive regional has been conceived as a major step towards impact in Europe from the very beginning. nuclear disarmament. Finland also wanted It paved the way to CSCE and SALT nego- very early on to contribute in a concrete way tiations. The NPT also recognizes the value to the achievement of the CTB by providing of nuclear-weapon-free zones as support- its experts and the capabilities of its seismic ive measures. Finland, as a country that put detection system, so that verification claims forward the idea of a Nordic NWFZ, has also could not be used as an excuse for not joining explored the potential of regional meas- the ban.25 ures in the UN context, and lent its support However, the non-proliferation of nu- to nuclear-weapon-free zones around the clear weapons has undoubtedly been Fin- world as a means of preventing the spread of land’s main priority in disarmament. The nuclear weapons. This support started with prospects of proliferation in the 1960s were the Tlatelolco Treaty, and at present Fin- truly frightening, both globally and in vari- land is providing its good offices in efforts ous regions, and therefore the agreement by to promote and implement a zone free of the US, British and Soviet governments on nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass the Non-Proliferation Treaty was unreserv- destruction in the Middle East. The zone in edly welcomed by Finland as well as by most the Middle East is undoubtedly a most ur- countries in the world. Finland played a role gent and vital regional measure to maintain and strengthen the non-proliferation regime 23 Ibid., p. 71. globally. 24 Törnudd op. cit., pp. 60-61. 25 Finnish Disarmament Policy, op. cit., pp. 97-101. 26 Ibid. pp. 82-97. 17 Although nuclear disarmament has re- its support for both the UN system as a whole ceived the most attention in Finland’s – as and for the role of developing countries in the well as other countries’ – disarmament respective decision-making. policy, other major issues have also been When President Kekkonen addressed the on the agenda. Finland had a major role UN General Assembly in 1970, he voiced his in promoting the prohibition of chemical concerns about development in the strongest weapons because it developed and produced terms. He stated that according to his belief, a verification capability that can be used in the problems of development must be tack- three different activities: verification of the led with the same urgency as those of war destruction of stocks, of non-production of and peace, because “the suffering and mis- chemical weapons and of alleged use. The ery, and the decay and destruction of human rationale for this project was the same as for values caused by the lack of development the seismic network capability, namely re- may in the long run prove to be as vast and as moving the control issue as an obstacle to the terrible as any imaginable future war”, and Treaty.27 “the question is whether there is the will to While the activities described above do use the resources available to meet the urgent not cover the whole range of Finland’s activ- needs of development”.28 ism in the UN and CD in disarmament, (the In fact, the relationship between the is- promotion of confidence-building measures, sues of war and peace and development, re- the action to advance arms trade regulation, ferred to by Kekkonen, is already in the UN and so forth should also be mentioned), they Charter, but in recent years that notion has illustrate the basic and permanent tenets in received increasing attention. In the Millen- Finland’s approach: a strong will to promote nium Declaration and other milestone docu- all disarmament measures, considered to be ments it has been asserted – unanimously “equitable” and “feasible”, through diplo- and convincingly – that in the increasingly macy, good offices and concrete measures. interdependent world, peace and security, Underlying this approach is the understand- economic and social development, environ- ing that disarmament is in the best national mental protection, democracy and human interests of all small states. rights really are interconnected and depend Regarding economic and social develop- on each other. Respectively, the lack of pro- ment, Finland pledged its support to UN gress in any of them hampers progress in development goals as early as the 1960s, and others. also wanted to associate closely with the oth- President Tarja Halonen, who served as er Nordic countries in this field. At that time, the co-chair of the UN Millennium Summit, the other Nordic countries were, and still stated her view in as explicit terms as Presi- are, much further ahead in implementing dent Kekkonen three decades earlier: the UN goals than Finland. In fact, after the “As much as we must protect people from war, Finland was for a long time a net recipi- fear we must protect them from want. We ent of development assistance as it received need to make them feel secure and respected. aid from UNICEF and favourable loans from Human-centred sustainable development is the World Bank. Against this historical back- the best means of long-term crisis preven- ground, Finland’s readiness to commit itself tion. It addresses the structural causes of and to achieve the UN development goals is conflict and thus builds a solid foundation understandable, although it is still lagging for lasting peace. Elimination of poverty, behind. respect for human rights and gender equal- One notable feature in Finland’s develop- ity are crucial elements in this respect. I am ment cooperation has been the significant convinced that there is no peace without share of multilateral aid. In channelling a sustainable development and no develop- large part of its aid through UN organizations, ment without lasting peace. They go hand in like the UNDP, UNICEF and the Population hand in all parts of the world.” Fund UNFPA, Finland has sought to express

27 Ibid., pp. 130-137. 28 See ULA 1970. 18 Therefore Finland, like most countries, of children. I emphasise that ‘We the peoples’ emphasizes the view that sustainable devel- is the central element of the UN Charter.”30 opment – a concept to which Finland has lent If we wish to point out some specific fea- its support since it was launched – calls for tures of Finland’s profile in development is- proper attention to be paid to all three ele- sues, two or three emerge from the overall ments: economic, social and environmental picture: firstly, a strong holistic approach sustainability. Finland has, of course, given underlining the mutual linkages between its full support to the UN Millennium Devel- various aspects of development, secondly, a opment Goals, and also in this connection strong emphasis on the importance of educa- committed itself to increasing its develop- tion, and thirdly, a strong focus on the role ment assistance to the 0.7 per cent ODA/GDP of women and gender equality. Each of these level – in keeping with the European Union features is reinforced by Finland’s own de- as a whole. velopment history, where the importance of President Tarja Halonen has played a universal education was understood as early prominent role in advancing the Millennium as the 19th century and where women’s po- Development Goals. In addition to having litical and economic rights were pioneered. co-chaired the Summit, she subsequently According to the Finnish view, the denial of co-chaired the ILO World Commission on the women’s rights not only violates their hu- Social Dimension of Globalization and most man rights, but also ignores the huge human recently the UN High Level Panel on Global resource potential of women for social devel- Sustainability.29 In all these connections she opment. has emphasized that the UN must make a se- Much could be said about Finland’s activi- rious effort to ensure that all countries and all ties for human rights in the UN system. It is people can enjoy the fruits of globalization. self-evident that for Finland the concept of Decent globalization is the catchword of human rights covers all dimensions: politi- the ILO report for a more equitable world or- cal, economic, social and cultural, and Fin- der. It has to be remembered that in the 1970s land has consistently stressed the universal Finland was in the group of ‘like-minded’ nature of human rights. Finland is party to countries, expressing its support for what all important human rights conventions and was then labelled as the New International has worked for decades for their promotion Economic Order, the crux of which was to and implementation. The rights of women, enhance the position of developing countries children, minorities and the disabled have in the world economic and political system. played a special role in Finland’s activities, as Nowadays the NIEO label is no longer in use, described by President Halonen above. but of course the effort to advance the legiti- An interesting new feature in Finnish mate goals of developing countries remains statements in the UN is that, while earlier and has Finland’s support. it was commonplace to describe one’s own Yet another statement by President Halo­ virtues and merits regarding human rights nen outlines an essential element in the issues – and rightly so – recently it has been Finnish approach to the problems of devel- recognized and admitted that every country opment, where a strong linkage to human can do better. Thus, for instance, in the past rights is visible as well. the debate on racism focused on South Af- “The UN has done and needs to continue rica, which was understandable at the time to do good work for those most in need; when apartheid was the officially sanctioned women, children, minorities and the disa- policy of the white regime. Nowadays, the bled. The UN global conferences addressed importance of the struggle against racism many human needs and individuals’ every- everywhere, including one’s own society, is day concerns and we will continue in confer- recognized: “The Finnish government is very ences on racism, HIV/AIDS, and the situation concerned about the persistence of racism

29 See http://www.presidentti.fi/halonen/Public/ 30 http://www.presidentti.fi/halonen/Public/ default655c-2.html?contentid=173489&nodeid=4 default655c-2.html?contentid=173489&nodeid=4 1417&contentlan=2&culture=en-US 1417&contentlan=2&culture=en-US 19 and ethnic intolerance in various parts of the nappings, military coups, torture and the world. This is also true with regard to Europe, death penalty. Only the use of force for na- Finland being no exception”.31 It is possible tional defence and by the UN, in accordance that this kind of approach, where the records with the UN Charter, is excluded from this of all countries are subject to critical evalu- comprehensive negative stand.34 ation by the countries concerned as well as by outsiders, may advance an open and con- structive human rights dialogue rather than the practice of just blaming others. Finally, a specific issue in Finland’s con- sistent human rights policy worth noting is its long-term action for the abolishment of the death penalty worldwide. Finland first voiced its views against the death penalty in the UN as early as 1957.32 Further, as President Halonen has pointed out, Finland’s position is based on its own historical experience: “We have not carried out executions in peacetime since the year 1826 and the last provisions regarding the use of the death penalty under martial law were removed in 1972”. Furthermore, Finland explains its policy with objective legal arguments: The death penalty is an inhuman form of punishment, and there may be the possibility of malprac- tice in trials. It can also discriminate against certain groups in society, and it always car- ries with it the risk of innocent people be- ing executed, after which no remedy exists. Moreover, capital punishment does not act as a deterrent. Finland’s analysis is followed by concrete proposals, for instance that as a first step, governments should refrain from carrying out executions.33 This chain of rea- soning is typical of Finland’s line in the UN: it is action against a phenomenon considered negative, not against the countries where capital punishment is still in use. The last point also underscores the notion about Finland’s negative stance towards all forms of force, war and violence from the individual level to the international system. Finland has stated its negative stance in the UN towards war, terrorism, hijackings, kid-

31 http://www.un.int/finland/speechg.html 32 See Statement by Tyyne Leivo-Larsson at the 12th General Assembly of the United Nations 17.9.-14.12.1957. Ulkoasiainministeriön julkaisuja, Helsinki 1958, pp. 122-123. 33 Finnish Priorities in the United Nations – Human 34 See Vesa 1980, op.cit., p. 19, and Unto Vesa, Rights. The Permanent Mission of Finland to the Finland in the UN as an EU state, in Northern United Nations. http://www.un.int/finland/ Dimensions. Yearbook 2001. Helsinki: The Finnish hrights.html Institute of International Affairs, pp. 59-71. 20 Photo: Teddy Chen / UN Photo

VI

Finland in the Security Council inland has served the international either side beforehand. During its SC term community twice in the Security Coun- Finland also took the initiative to re-launch Fcil: in 1969-70 and 1989-90. Ambassa- negotiations on peace in the Middle East, but dor Max Jakobson has described eloquently this initiative failed, due to opposition from and in detail the key events during the first both Egypt and Israel.35 term. That term was launched by his strong Two Finnish achievements during its declaration about Finland’s policy of neu- 1969-70 membership of the Council deserve trality and about how it enables Finland to act special attention because of their pioneering for conciliation and the peaceful resolution of character regarding the working methods of conflicts, and in this way creates the basis for the Council. The first case concerned North- good offices in favour of international peace ern Ireland in August 1970. The foreign min- and security. ister of Ireland wanted to address the Council Finland thus pledged its constructive in- in order to propose that the UN would send put where SC activities were concerned, and peacekeeping troops to Northern Ireland. in the following two years did, in fact, play According to Jakobson, the UK represent- an active role in several important issues. ative had been shocked at first by the mere Most items on the Council’s agenda at that idea of allowing the Irish foreign minister to time dealt with African problems – Namibia, address the Council on that matter, but at Southern Rhodesia, Portuguese colonies Jakobson’s behest the proposal was approved and the apartheid policies of South Africa and the foreign minister had the opportunity – as well as the Middle East. Finland took a to make his statement. In this way neither strong initiative with regard to Namibia, and side – Ireland nor the UK – lost face, which the Council adopted a unanimous resolution was a victory for the UN in diplomatic terms in January 1970, which exerted pressure on and also demonstrated a flexible way for the South Africa, and in the summer introduced Council to listen to all relevant parties in fu- another resolution in which the Security ture conflicts. Council requested the International Court The second major Finnish initiative during of Justice to issue a ruling on Namibia’s legal that term was the idea of launching periodic status. Security Council meetings at the ministerial The Court found in its ruling – as Finland level. There was a basis for this initiative in had expected – that South Africa’s hold over Article 28 of the Charter, but it had long been Namibia was unlawful. This ruling, because it ignored. All previous Secretaries General had recognized Namibia’s right to independence attempted to persuade the great powers to and ordered the South African government hold such meetings, but failed in their at- to change its policy, paved the way for a pro- tempts. Finland’s government perceived that cess – albeit a very long one – which finally the time was ripe for another attempt, and led to Namibia’s independence, and in which started negotiations with the other Council Martti Ahtisaari went on to play a vital role. members and great powers to convene the Finland also played a role in the Southern first such meeting, with the purpose of insti- Rhodesian issue, which strengthened the tutionalizing the practice. sanctions in a way that was acceptable to all The idea behind making such meetings Council members. routine – for instance, twice a year – was that As regards the various aspects of the con- foreign ministers would regularly have the flicts in the Middle East, Finland’s action did opportunity to discuss various issues with- not yield equally positive results. The ab- out the great expectations and great risks of stention by Finland’s delegation in the vote failure associated with all summits during concerning the arson attack on the Al-Aqsa the Cold War. After four months of discus- Mosque – because Finland had proposed an sions and negotiations, Finland’s initiative inquiry into the matter and this route was was approved, and in October 1970 the first not followed – was somewhat controversial, but according to Jakobson it showed that 35 Max Jakobson, 38. kerros. Havaintoja ja Finland had taken its own stand on a fac- muistiinpanoja vuosilta 1965-1971. Keuruu: Otava tual basis without committing its position to 1983, pp. 203-204. 22 Security Council meeting at the govern- versal collective security system provided by ment level was held. Foreign minister Väinö the Charter”, and continued very strongly by Leskinen delivered the first statement, fol- saying: “Collective security implies in actual lowed by the great power representatives. fact that the security of Kuwait is also the After the closed session, the ministers issued security of all other States, in particular of a statement stressing the need to strengthen the smaller Member States”.38 Thus the tra- the Security Council and stated that periodic ditional strong Finnish emphasis on the small meetings of the Council were an important state perspective was in evidence even here, step in this direction. But, as Jakobson states, and very concrete in the context. no periodic meetings followed the first one.36 Apart from Iraq, the Security Council was Finland’s second term twenty years again very busy with several protracted con- later, in 1989-90, naturally took place in a flicts and violent incidents around the world, very different international atmosphere and in the Middle East, Southern Africa and Cen- situation, at the end of the Cold War.37 The tral America. Finland stated its principled improved great power relations created a fa- position with regard to each of them, and vourable basis for the action of the Council. several times on Israel’s policies in the occu- This was crucial, especially after August 1990 pied territories, among other things stating when Iraq invaded and declared its inten- that the Israeli settlements in the occupied tion to annex Kuwait. The Security Council territories were a clear violation of interna- condemned this aggression immediately and tional law. The emphasis on international unanimously. law and the Charter provisions, as well as the During the months that ensued, the fourth Geneva Convention, for example, was Council was constantly preoccupied with a recurring and natural theme in all Finnish the matter, requesting the Iraqi forces to statements, while with regard to every con- withdraw from Kuwait without any condi- flict issue the need for their peaceful resolu- tions. When Iraq failed to do so, the Council tion and the promotion of the peace process adopted a number of resolutions introduc- was obviously an integral part of Finnish ing ever-tighter sanctions to compel Iraq to statements.39 comply. At the end of the process came the As described earlier in the discussion on authorization by the Council to use force to peacekeeping, Finland negotiated and in- restore Kuwait’s independence and, due to troduced a unanimously adopted Security Iraq’s non-compliance, the war to expel the Council position, which was the first of its Iraqi forces followed in early 1991. kind on peacekeeping and very important for Finland took an active part in the nego- Finland due to its long-standing interest in tiations in the Council because the aggres- and input into peacekeeping. sion was a clear violation of the UN Charter Another case of special importance for and because the Council acted under Chapter Finland, also for historical reasons, was Na- VII and in the spirit and letter of collective mibia’s independence. Finland had devoted security. Finland participated in the Council a great deal of attention, diplomacy and po- negotiations and debate with eleven state- litical and economic support to that goal in ments during the autumn. Foreign Minister previous decades; Martti Ahtisaari had a cru- Pertti Paasio – participating in an SC meeting cial role in the negotiations for years, Finnish arranged at the foreign minister level – re- peacekeepers constituted a major element in iterated in this context Finland’s interest in the successful UNTAG operation, and now “promoting the development of a peaceful Namibia was set to become a new member and rational world order based on the uni- of the United Nations during Finland’s Secu- rity Council membership. When welcoming Namibia, Ambassador Klaus Törnudd noted 36 Ibid., pp. 195-214. that admitting new members was a rare oc- 37 Suomi YK:n turvallisuusneuvoston jäsenenä 1989- 90. Helsinki: Ulkoasiainministeriön julkaisuja 11: 1991, provides a full report for this period 38 Ibid., pp. 133-134. and also includes all statements by Finland’s 39 Ibid., pp. 104-105, 108-110, 113-114 119-120, 122, representatives in the Security Council. 137-139 and 148-149. 23 currence and that “it is an even rarer pleas- for its implementation and promotion have ure to do so when the New Member State in paved the way for further action. question is a nation for whose freedom and It is a well-known fact that Finland – like independence this Organization campaigned most, or perhaps even all member states – for so long and so hard”.40 would be in favour of a UN reform that would During the past decade Finland cam- affect the composition of the Security Coun- paigned to attain a seat among the non-per- cil, but it is equally well-known that for the manent members of the Security Council for time being that situation is deadlocked, be- the third time, for 2013-14. Had Finland suc- cause the great powers in particular cannot ceeded, what added value would Finland’s agree on the future size and structure of the membership have brought this time around? Council. But even without such a reform, it In its campaign, Finland stressed its past re- is possible to strengthen the Council, to im- cord as “a good global citizen”, as President prove its working methods and make full use Niinistö described the role, and continued: of its capacity. “We wish to shoulder the responsibility The Security Council is constantly avail- that membership in the Council entails. We able and alert to deal with any emerging cri- believe that we could make a contribution. ses. Many issues on its agenda are related to Finland would approach issues on the Coun- protracted conflicts and frozen situations, so cil’s agenda as an engaged member state. We also in the coming years the Security Council would be ready to look for constructive and will have to tackle the manifold conflicts in even-handed solutions to common prob- the Middle East and Africa. Breakthroughs lems. We believe that as a small and militarily in peace processes are long overdue, and the non-allied member state we have got what it Security Council has the special responsibil- takes.”41 ity to act in accordance with the Charter. Finland has reiterated that peacekeeping However, as is well demonstrated by previ- will remain one of its focal points and con- ous experiences, the Security Council always tributions. In addition to peacekeeping, Fin- has to face the challenge of sudden and unex- land has devoted more and more attention to pected incidents, crises and conflicts and to civilian crisis management, and in this field respond effectively. there is much to be accomplished within the One of the most tragic situations is cur- UN framework as well. Another focal point rently unfolding in Syria, and the UN Se- in Finland’s “programme” is mediation. Fin- curity Council has not been able to take the land also has a long track record in this is- leading role that the Charter prescribes to it. sue – stretching from Sinai and UNEF I and “All members of the Security Council must Cyprus until today – and a strong contribu- cooperate to find a way out of the crisis. The tion to offer, as President Niinistö asserted, authority of the UN will suffer if the efforts to referring especially to President Ahtisaari’s end the crisis will move elsewhere,” argued decades-long career as a successful media- President Niinistö.43 tor in various conflicts.42 At the initiative of As Finland has had good relations with Finland and Turkey, the General Assembly both China and historically, would adopted a resolution in the 66th session aimed it be possible for Finland to explore ways at strengthening the normative basis of me- of constructing a consensus in the Security diation. A related element in Finland’s ap- Council that would speak for the whole in- proach is the emphasis on the role of women ternational community and thus pave the in the peace processes. Security Council way for a solution to the Syrian crisis? Only resolution 1325 and Finland’s own activities by finding a solution acceptable to all per- manent members of the Security Council can the United Nations perform the role assigned to it. 40 Ibid., p. 121. 41 http://www.tpk.fi/public/default.aspx?contentid President Niinistö concluded his speech in =258498&nodeid=44810&contentlan=2&culture= the General Assembly with this pledge: en-US 42 Ibid. 43 Ibid. 24 “Finland will act in the Council in accord- ance with the UN Charter and on the basis of our values. We will work constructively and pragmatically, in order to maintain and strengthen international peace and security to the best of our ability.”44 This constructive and pragmatic approach has characterized Finland’s “physician’s” role throughout its UN membership.

44 Ibid. 25 Photo: Eskinder Debebe / UN Photo

VII

Summing up: continuity, consistency, credibility, and constructivism inland’s record in the UN is one of con- cil for 2013-2014, but it will continue to work tinuity and consistency. Many features in the same way and for the same goals in the Fthat characterized its approach more United Nations as it has done in the past and than fifty years ago are still visible in its pro- as it would have done in the Security Council. file today. This is self-evident to some extent, of course, because Finland has been and will continue to be a small state. The emphasis on international law and the UN Charter natu- rally follow on from this. However, certain features are explicit pol- icy choices like the focus on and contribution to peacekeeping and disarmament. Continu- ity can thus be observed as a general policy line and in ways of reacting to emerging is- sues and changes in the international secu- rity environment. In fact, the degree of con- tinuity in the basic philosophy or approach is even more remarkable when we consider the transition from the Cold War system to the post-Cold War system. After the end of the Cold War, the opportunity for the UN and its Security Council to act in the way envisaged, when the Charter was drafted, has increased considerably and it would be important to safeguard that opportunity and make full use of the UN system as a whole. At the same time it has to be underlined that consistency in the Finnish approach has not meant and cannot imply stasis. Every country has to react all the time to new and changing events and situations. As early as the 1960s Finland adopted a more active role in the UN than the one it had in the begin- ning, and when the conditions were consid- ered to be ripe for bolder, yet feasible initia- tives, Finland seized the day and expanded its activities. It is obvious that the space for suc- cessful small state activism is more favour- able in a relaxed international situation than at times of tension. In this sense the opportu- nities for Finland to act constructively in the United Nations have also improved since the Cold War and the country’s accession to the European Union. Credibility is one of Finland’s strongest assets in the United Nations and in the inter- national community as a whole. Finland has no hidden agenda or special interests in the United Nations, but endeavours to serve the interests of the whole international commu- nity – now and in the future with concrete, feasible and pragmatic contributions. Fin- land did not win a seat in the Security Coun- 27