One Foreign Policy or Two? Finland’s New Constitution and European Policies of Tarja Halonen and Paavo Lipponen TUOMAS FORSBERG Finland’s new constitution that entered into force in March 2000 attempted to parliamentarise foreign policy decision-making and reduce the autonomous powers of the president. It divided foreign policy issues into two spheres: traditional foreign policy and European affairs, the former being the domain of the president and the latter that of the government. Moreover, even in the first sphere the president should act in co-operation with the government. Yet, there was no agreement among the political observers of how a potential clash between the prime minister and the president would be solved in practice. It was also evident that President Halonen and Prime Minister Lipponen, though both social democrats, held different views on foreign policy in general, and European integration in particular. This article looks into foreign policy decision-making under the new constitution and argues that although clear differences in opinion existed the president and the prime minister have been able to pull together when important issues have been at stake. n March 1st 2000, two important personal factors caused fears that major events took place in Finland. Ms. clashes might emerge. Firstly, the new consti- Tarja Halonen started her term as tution divided foreign policy issues into two the 11th President of the Republic spheres: traditional foreign policy and Euro- Oof Finland. At the same time, Finland’s new pean affairs, the former being the domain of constitution entered into force. Both changes the president and the latter that of the govern- indicated a shift in the Finnish foreign policy ment but it was deemed difficult to draw a decision-making. Although the President re- clear boundary between them. Secondly, al- mained the leader in the field of foreign though Tarja Halonen had been a loyal for- policy and Halonen represented the social eign minister in Lipponen’s government and democrats likewise as her predecessor, the although both were social democrats, it was moment seemed to mark a beginning of a new widely understood that their worldviews and era. political preferences were largely different. Finland has traditionally been a country Halonen, as well as her successor as foreign where a strong consensus in the questions of minister, Erkki Tuomioja, represented more a foreign policy has prevailed. The post-war “leftist Nordic social democracy” whereas presidents were regarded as undisputed for- Lipponen felt affinity with “rightist German eign policy leaders. Now, both structural and social democracy”. In essence, the question TUOMAS FORSBERG is Director of the Finnish Institute for International Affairs. Northern Dimensions 2001 •3 One Foreign Policy or Two? was whether this new composition would EU. The novelty was an addendum to the change Finland’s European policy oriented paragraph on the president’s role as the leader towards “the core” that had been driven by of foreign policy. The addendum separated Lipponen and the former president Ahtisaari. EU matters from the president’s general man- date and stipulated that the Government is responsible for Finland’s EU policy (includ- ing foreign and security policy). These The New Constitution amendments were not, however, regarded as sufficient and the Parliament obliged the Gov- Finland’s old constitution of 1919 stipulated ernment to carry on with the constitutional that “the relations of Finland with foreign reform “for the parliamentarisation of the powers shall be determined by the President”. powers of the President of the Republic”. Af- Originally the presidential constitution was a ter a general debate and a number of prepara- compromise between bourgeois republicans tory rounds by a committee of experts the con- and monarchists, and the President’s strong stitution bill passed the handling in the par- position reflected the idea that he or she liament in 1999 in a practically unanimous would be able to define the national interest vote. It was decided that the new constitution in a non-partisan way. Yet, the constitution would enter into force at the same time as the was flexible when applied to practice and it next president started his or her term. allowed for a significant degree of variation. The constitution aimed at tying the presi- Although the paragraph on president’s power dent to parliamentarily controlled decision- in the field of foreign policy gave a general making. Although the president still re- mandate, foreign policy decision-making did mained the leader in the field of foreign not develop as president-centric before the policy, the new constitution reduced the au- Second World War. Of the post-war presi- tonomous powers of the president, and cre- dents, Urho Kekkonen in particular concen- ated a dualistic leadership structure for for- trated all power in foreign policy onto him- eign policy: traditional bilateral foreign self, so that the Government, including the policy being the domain of the president foreign minister, unless he was Kekkonen’s while European policy belongs to the prime trusted man, let alone the Parliament, were minister. According to the constitution, “the not able to influence foreign policy decision- foreign policy of Finland is directed by the making. Although Kekkonen’s foreign policy President of the Republic in co-operation is still regarded as a success, and the lack of with the Government”. “The Government”, democracy as a necessity of the Cold War cir- in turn, “is responsible for the national prepa- cumstances, the most deeply felt problem was ration of the decisions to be made in the Euro- that too much power in domestic politics was pean Union”.2 also allocated to the president.1 A trend towards parliamentarism had al- The debate about parliamentarising for- ready appeared in practice. President eign policy decision-making was launched in Kekkonen’s successor Koivisto wanted to re- the 1970s by young leftist radicals but it was frain from interfering in domestic political af- halted by Kekkonen. The debate reemerged fairs in normal times and during Ahtisaari’s only at the beginning of 1990s. In 1991, the term as president, the centrality of the presi- constitution was modified so that the dent was seen to be further in decline – president’s powers in domestic politics were Ahtisaari made his most impressive achieve- significantly reduced. In 1994, further ment as a mediator in the international arena changes in the old constitution were intro- during the Kosovo conflict and not as a figure- duced due to Finland’s membership in the head of Finnish foreign policy. Instead, the 4• Northern Dimensions 2001 One Foreign Policy or Two? prime minister had risen as a more powerful ister Lipponen, emphasised that the new con- figure than was the case during the Cold War.3 stitution still gave the president the final say One reason why the prime minister gained in matters of foreign policy. The Government more power was Finland’s membership in the had actually modified the wording of the EU. As it was natural that Prime Minister rep- draft into a looser direction so that president resented Finland vis-à-vis his colleagues, then did not need to direct foreign policy “to- it was also necessary that he had a respective gether” but only “in co-operation” with the mandate to appear as a trustworthy partner.4 government. Ahtisaari was of the opinion that Yet, when the President still remained in “actually very little was changed”.6 In one charge of foreign and security policy, a dis- way, the constitution was seen as a codifica- pute over Finland’s representation at Euro- tion of the changes that had already taken pean Council meetings emerged. Had the place in practice. Some other politicians who President abstained from the Council meet- had been drafting the constitution in the par- ings, his power position would have been se- liament as well as political and legal experts riously eroded. The solution that was in- wanted to see a more significant change tak- vented in 1994 was “a policy of two plates”, ing place. In view of Professor Teija namely that both the president and the prime Tiilikainen, for example, the role of the presi- minister would attend the EU summit meet- dent as an independent decision-maker had ings if the president so wished. come to an end.7 Professor Antero Jyränki con- The prime example of the development to- tended before Halonen had started her term wards prime minister’s foreign policy leader- that under the new constitution the ship already under the old constitution was president’s role is to do with supervision and the decision to participate in the measures di- slowing down rather than leading,8 but ob- rected towards Austria in spring 2000. Prime served towards the end of the year that Minister Lipponen made the decision on his Halonen had taken a more powerful role than own and President Ahtisaari accepted it only that.9 Professor Esko Antola anticipated that afterwards when he was informed about it. Finland would have two different kinds of The decision was made when the old consti- foreign policies. The president’s foreign tution was still in force and the action was not policy would be based more on contacts with an EU matter, but coordinated bilateral policy the great powers and personal diplomacy. of fourteen EU countries. The obvious consti- The prime minister’s foreign policy, in turn, tutional contradiction led to public debate would focus on institutions and European over the legality of Lipponen’s decision and integration.10 Yet, it was also remarked that a even attempts to raise a lawsuit against him in constitution will always be formed in practice the Parliament.