First of all I would like to commend the organizers of the symposium on their choice of the topic for this Hanaforum. It is more than timely that we focus on the challenges that extremism in its various forms, among them extreme ideologies, pose to Nordic countries and to our open and liberal societies. 

I have been asked to address the issues related to extremism and extreme ideologies in Finland and in particular how they are seen and dealt with by the government and authorities.

Traditionally Finland has been and has regarded herself as a very safe, stable and homogenous country. This may have led – or rather misled – us to assume that we are immune to the radical ideologies and various isms that have been disseminated in many European countries. Yet rapid social change in our own country as well as free mobility and increasing immigration have made it clear that we have to take special measures to maintain social cohesion and to narrow gaps that are widening in education, wellbeing and employment between different population groups. These measures are needed in order to prevent marginalization – sometimes permanently – of individuals or even specific ethnic groups. If this is allowed to take place, social isolation from the mainstream may be handed down to the next generation and this kind of classification could create a breeding ground for extreme views and even actions. Worse still, socially, ideologically or regionally segregated and marginalized groups may generate opposite views that lead to confrontation and even violence between communities. Vigilance is necessary as attitudes towards immigrants and minorities tend to harden especially during an economic downturn.

The present government recognized the risks that we are facing and set itself the following ambitious internal security goal in the government declaration in June 2011: “The objective of internal security is to make Finland the safest country in Europe, one in which people feel that they live in a fair and equal society regardless of how they identify themselves.”

In line with this objective the government set up a project to prepare the third internal security program and, as a part of this task, appointed an expert group to draw up a Program of Measures to prevent – I repeat “to prevent” – violent extremism. It will be implemented as a part of the Internal Security Program. Last June the group produced an action plan named “Towards a Cohesive Society” that contains 12 measures to prevent violent extremism in Finnish society.

The group chose the concept “extremism” in order to point out that the action plan is addressing all such actions and ideologies that are anti-democratic, intolerant, unlawful and at their worst may lead to terrorism. Extremism differs from radicalism, since radicalism may be an agent for progress and change.

The action plan includes an analysis on extremism in Europe and in the Nordic countries. In its annual report on the threat posed by terrorism for 2012 EUROPOL divides extremist thinking and the terrorism it inspires into five categories: religious, separatist, left-wing extremist and anarchist, right wing extremist and single-issue terrorism. Separatist extremist thinking motivated by nationalism and ethnicity is the most common form of terrorism in the Union. It is of course possible that those who promote extremism and take action do not realize that they are inspired by an ideological approach. For them it may be the only approach they are familiar with.

Sweden, Denmark and Norway have their national action plans against extremism. In these programs reasons and motivations behind joining extremist movements are analyzed and the appeal of radical Islamism is looked into. Clashes between opposing extremist movements, most often radical right and radical left, do take place as well. Recent incidents in neighbouring Nordic countries show that much of the threat is home-grown in the sense that individuals resorting to extremist views and even violence have been born and raised in the Nordic countries.

The situation in Finland differs from our Nordic neighbours in the sense that Finland has not been the target of Islamist hate propaganda – for instance comparable to the cartoon controversies – nor have any major single-issue extremists resorted to action here. The growing Muslim community in Finland is heterogeneous and mainly moderate.

Although we have had two painful school killings where mental health problems and school bullying together with references to extreme ideas and misanthropy could be detected in the background, extremist violence is not at the moment regarded as a threat to state structures.  This should not, however, give reason for complacency as we cannot exclude the possibility of unexpected attacks occurring in our country as well. There are individuals with radical Islamist views and training from the crisis zones who could pose a threat to society in any country.

As I mentioned, the plan “Toward a Cohesive Society” identified 12 measures to prevent violent extremism and stipulates the tasks for their implementation to various authorities. The measures range from creating National cooperation Network for the Prevention of Violent Extremism and  corresponding local networks of preventive activities between the police and  other authorities as well as local cooperation teams monitoring violent-extremism-related phenomena to strengthening young people’s trust in the democratic system, creating operating models for the prevention of violent extremism, improving communication on issues and situations related to violent extremism and hate speech as well as increasing national awareness and knowhow about  extremism and its prevention. We all realize that this is a tall order which implementation will need to be a cross-cutting and ongoing process at different levels from authorities to individuals while involving NGOs, the media, civil society actors and so on.

The methods on how to translate this list of measures into practice are being prepared for government consideration. In this context I would like to mention a couple of encouraging examples. The ministry of the Interior launched a-three-year project to prevent discrimination of persons belonging to visible ethnic minorities (mostly with African background) and to reduce their underrepresentation in governmental occupations. This was intended among other things to provide know-how on anti-discrimination and on how to approach diversity to government agencies. The project has trained minority organizations on media and presentation skills in addressing discrimination and on how to eradicate stereotypes relating tominority groups.

Stereotyping and ignorance are in many cases the root causes of different phobias – be it for example Islamophobia, belief in one’s own superiority or superiority of one’s own religion or belief. Representatives of minorities have indicated an increase in Islamophobia in Finland in recent years, with especially Somalis being affected by racist violence. The authorities make an effort to cooperate with the representatives of the different communities in Finland in order to find and to encourage them to find solutions to specific issues of concern to their communities. It has been encouraging to note that for instance different Muslim minorities have established cooperation networks aiming at promoting dialogue, mutual understanding and respectful attitude between Muslims and other religious groups.  Such contacts will reduce the risk of anti-Muslim or extremist views taking hold in Finland.

Another example from the historical perspective is the successful integration of the Tatar community in Finland. The Tatars are a 800 people strong Muslim minority of Turkish origin that has lived in Finland for 140 years. They are well integrated, have a higher level of education than the majority population on the average and have been able to preserve their language, culture and religion.

Finnish authorities monitor closely the situation as concerns Islamophobia in Finland in order to take swift action to counter any such manifestations whenever necessary. In general the more information, education, understanding, mutual respect, tolerance and willingness to live together we all have the easier it is to combat intolerance, discrimination and extremism. 

In our view freedom of opinion and expression are fundamental values of any democratic society. They are also internationally recognized, legally binding human rights that apply to everyone in all countries and communities.

Lately the realization of freedom of opinion and expression and other human rights issues on the internet has emerged as a key issue on the international agenda. Finland considers it important to ensure that all human rights enjoy the same respect and protection on the internet as they do elsewhere.

Finland supports openness and transparency online, and equal access to the internet. Therefore particular attention should be paid to the challenges faced by disadvantaged persons and groups. They usually face higher barriers to internet access.

At the same time it is clear that these rights are not absolute. The responsible use of any human right always entails respecting the human rights of others, including e.g. freedom of religion and opinion, and refraining from intentionally hurting others. Human rights can never be used to incite violence or hate speech.

International dialogue and exchange of views between governments as well as NGOs, media representatives and other civil society groups is needed to promote understanding and disseminate dispassionate views on this challenging subject.  

The key word in modern society is integration of different ethnic groups and cultures instead of trying to assimilate them into one dominant mold.

Mr Chairman, Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen,

I am delighted to be invited to speak on behalf of Finland at this 19th OSCE Ministerial Council. At the outset, let me congratulate the Irish Chairperson-in-Office, H.E. Eamon Gilmore and his team, for successfully guiding our work this year. You can trust on our continued support also in the final stages of your Chairmanship.

Let me also congratulate Mongolia as a new OSCE participating State. We look forward to co-operating with Mongolia both in promoting OSCE principles and commitments as well as in all the related practical work.

Mr Chairman,

The OSCE is a unique composition of participating States, a comprehensive concept of security, and a strong set of principles, commitments and practical tools. At its very core is also the understanding that security is built through co-operation, not confrontation. Today this concept is as timely as ever. Today’s challenges highlight the importance of broad concept of security, where human rights, rule of law, democracy, economic and environmental welfare, security and stability are all closely interrelated.

Yet, I would share sentiments that the OSCE is undergoing challenging times. The self-examination that started some years ago should be continued. Assessments among the participating States may differ as regards the challenges that need to be discussed, the proposals to strengthen the OSCE, and how the process and the organization could best serve to promote security and stability. The need for self-reflection and concrete results is out there, and this should not be overlooked.

We do face serious challenges. How can we strengthen trust and spirit of co-operation among the participating States? What more could be done to ensure that our joint principles, values and commitments are fully implemented? What could be done to unlock the situation regarding arms control regimes? We will also be facing questions stemming from the current financial crisis – what are its consequences in the OSCE context?

Mr Chairman,

The Astana Summit in 2010 was an important moment of stock-taking. The Summit Declaration gave clear guidance for further work. Finland welcomes the efforts of Ireland as the Chairmanship to launch the Helsinki +40 process, as an objective to further strengthen the OSCE.

It is no news that Finland greatly values the OSCE. I hope that the Dublin Ministerial meeting will launch an intensive and structured preparatory process to find answers that we can all share, and which will strengthen co-operation among the participating States, as well as will provide forward-looking perspectives for the OSCE.

Further work should cover all the dimensions of the OSCE, as well as the so called transnational threats. We support OSCE’s involvement in promoting cyber security, including through adoption of a set of confidence building measures. It is important to modernize arms control, confidence and security building measures in the OSCE framework, and to promote security and stability through military transparency. It would be useful to update work on economic and environmental co-operation in order to review where the OSCE can provide added value.  

More could be done in human dimension, through full implementation of commitments and consideration of further undertakings. In particular, I would like to underline the important role that civil society has to play to this effect. We could also do more to support human rights defenders.

Last year, in Vilnius, we endorsed some practical measures to improve OSCE tools regarding conflict cycle. These efforts should be continued also in the context of Helsinki +40. In my view, early warning, conflict prevention and effective mediation support, are areas where we should try to further improve conflict cycle tools. It is also clear that some positive, concrete steps on so called protracted conflicts – even small steps at this point – towards resolution of these conflicts would be of great value.

Finland offers support to OSCE’s valuable project work and field missions. In this context, I would like to highlight the importance of performance assessment, evaluation procedures, good co-operation with the host countries and prioritization on areas and activities where support is most needed.

Gender issues, as a key cross-cutting and cross-dimensional theme, should continue to be high on the OSCE agenda. Finland has presented together with Austria,Turkey and Kazakhstan a proposal for an OSCE Wide Action Plan for the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1325. This would strengthen 1325 goals within the OSCE activities and support national implementation measures. We are thankful for the wide support received so far, and stand ready to continue the work in Vienna.

Let me conclude by underlining Finland’s support to the vision established in Astana. In essence, that vision is what the OSCE is all about, and has always been – shared values and commitments and security built on co-operation. That is the famous Helsinki spirit, and it is needed also today.

Once again, I wish to thank you the Irish Chairmanship for its excellent hospitality and look forward to working with the incoming Chairman-in-Office Ukraine, as well as next Chairmen-in-Office, Switzerland and Serbia.

Thank you.