Etusivu 2013 maaliskuu 2013
15.3.2013

Max Jakobson 1923–2013

Viikonvaihteessa 89-vuotiaana kuolleen ministeri Max Jakobsonin muistotilaisuus järjestettiin tänään säätytalolla.

Puheessani nostin aluksi esiin Jakobsonin merkityksen historian ja kansainvälisen politiikan huippuanalyytikkona. Hänen jo vuonna 1955 ilmestynyt kirjansa Diplomaattien talvisota on edelleen kestävä ja Suomen sodanaikaisten kohtaloiden ymmärtämisessä välttämätön alansa klassikkoteos, joka yksittäisistä historiankirjoista on ollut itselleni merkittävin johdattaja historian tutkimukseen. Jakobsonin laaja myöhempi tuotanto on vain vahvistanut hänen asemaansa historian ja kansainvälisen politiikan huippuanalysoijana.

Toimittajana ja kirjeenvaihtajana uransa aloittaneesta Max Jakobsonista olisi voinut tulla samankaltainen vaikuttaja kuin Walter Lippman, lehtimies joka toimimatta päivääkään julkisessa virassa saattoi kirjoituksillaan ja teoksillaan olla mittaamattoman tärkeä vaikuttaja maansa ulkopolitiikassa.

Jakobsonista tuli kuitenkin paitsi kirjoittaja, myös Henry Kissingerin kaltainen tekijä ja osallistuja. Muulla tavoin Jakobsonia kiistanalaiseen amerikkalaiseen vertaamatta tarkoitan sitä, että molemmat ovat olleet paitsi loistavia kirjoittajia ja analyytikkoja, myös politiikan toteuttajia ensisijaisesti presidenttiensä neuvonantajina.

Max Jakobsonin vuosikymmeniin sijoittuu koko nykyisen Suomen lähihistorian olennaisin narratiivi, tarina sodan runtelemasta kansakunnasta, joka monien vaikeuksien kautta selvisi itse asiassa voittajana.

Hyvän diplomaatin perusominaisuuksiin kuuluu paitsi omien intressien selkeä hahmottaminen myös paneutuminen toisen osapuolen pyrkimyksiin ja käsitykseen todellisuudesta, vaikka tuota käsitystä ei aina voikaan hyväksyä. Diplomatiassa saavutetaan vain ani harvoin ratkaisuja, joissa toinen osapuoli saa 100 prosenttia ja toinen ei mitään. Olennaista on yhteisen alueen löytyminen, vaikka se saattaakin olla tuskallisten kompromissien takana. Tietyistä perusarvoista ei kuitenkaan voi tehdä kompromisseja, mistä Jakobson oli hyvin tarkka.

Kun Jakobsonin diplomaattirooli ajoittui 1960- ja 1970-luvuille, oli selvää, että hänen aktiviteettinsa ytimessä oli Suomen navigointi kylmän sodan maailman myrskyissä tavalla, joka vähin erin saisi uskottavuutta ja eri tahojen luottamusta. Uskottavuutta oli rakennettava joka ikinen päivä.

Asiallisten suhteiden kehittäminen Neuvostoliiton kanssa oli välttämätöntä, jotta Suomi kykeni asteittain integroitumaan meille luonteviin läntisiin kaupan ja taloudellisen yhteistyön rakenteisiin. Tavoitteena oli – tuon ajan kielikuvin – että Suomen puolueettomuuspolitiikasta muodostuisi koko Euroopan turvallisuuden kannalta myönteinen ja pysyvä ainesosa.

Tämän tavoitteen suhteen myös onnistuttiin varsin hyvin. Suomen politiikka ei ehkä voittanut kauneuskilpailuja, eikä se muutoinkaan oikein hyvin soveltunut oppikirjaesimerkiksi. Saman taisi jo Paasikivi todeta lausuessaan, ettei Suomen puolueettomuus hyvästi sopinut vakiintuneisiin raameihin.

Tämä ei aina tuntunut mukavalta, mutta sen kanssa kyettiin elämään. Monet suomalaiset ovat kuulleet Euroopan historiaa hyvintuntevien amerikkalaispoliitikkojen tai korkeiden virkamiesten toteavan, että kylmän sodan kaudella ”you got it perfect”.

Suomi hoiti vaikean asemansa vallan erinomaisesti, aiheuttamatta ongelmia, mutta pitämällä kiinni itsenäisyydestään, kansallisista eduistaan ja oikeusvaltion demokraattisesta arvopohjastaan.

Yksi Max Jakobsonin opetuksista on koskenut tervettä itsetuntoa mutta samalla myös nöyryyttä ja suhteellisuudentajua. Suomen nousu ja murros maatalousyhteiskunnasta teollisen yhteiskunnan kautta palveluyhteiskunnaksi ja edelleen tietoyhteiskunnaksi on tapahtunut historiallisessa katsannossa tavattoman nopeasti.

Max Jakobsonin perintö jatkuu hänen rikkaan ja luettavuudessaan vertaansa vailla olevan kirjallisen tuotantonsa muodossa. Hänen viimeinen teoksensa on Suomen aseman muutosta ja kehitystä kuvaava Kohtalonvuodet (2008), jonka osuva alaotsikko on ”Suomi nousi, taipui ja selvisi”.

15.3. 2013

15.3.2013

Erkki Tuomioja, Héctor Timerman and Enrique Castillo Barrantes: Do not miss this chance for a global arms trade treaty, article published in Financial Times 15.3.2013

Arms Trade Treaty

Conventional arms are the weapons of mass destruction today. They kill innocent civilians every day in conflicts around the world, yet there is no international law to regulate their proliferation. In 2006, Costa Rica, Argentina, and Finland together with Australia, Japan, Kenya and the United Kingdom called on the United Nations to address the irresponsible trade in conventional arms. It was not, however, until 2009 that the international community was prepared to start negotiations on the Arms Trade Treaty.

The General Assembly of the United Nations convened a conference in July 2012, where delegations came very close to agreeing on a legally binding Treaty. Yet the conference could not achieve consensus. We took swift action following the conference to keep negotiations alive. Our determination bore fruit and in December 2012, an overwhelming majority of the General Assembly voted in favour of the final conference on the Arms Trade Treaty. No country voted against.

We must now turn this strong support for continued negotiations into support for a strong treaty. The delegations will convene in New York next week for the March 2013 Conference. This conference will be the final one. The pressure will be on the delegations to achieve a treaty that is long overdue.

We do not seek to belittle the problems our fellow countries have indentified in the text. We need good political will and compromise to solve the problems and to make the treaty effective. Otherwise it will be a dead letter, followed by many innocent dead people as a result of inaction by the International Community.

A successful conclusion of the March conference will be an important achievement for the world and for the United Nations. To make our vision a reality, the treaty must also assist those countries struggling with its implementation.

The biggest achievement of all would be the lessening of human suffering. People die as a result of arms trade and illicit trafficking every day. Armed violence and other human rights violations resulting from arms trade are innumerable.

We remain hopeful and confident that political will and determination will prevail next week. We and other co-authors will continue to be committed to this process and to the Arms Trade Treaty.

Mr. Enrique Castillo Barrantes

Foreign Minister of Costa Rica

Mr. Héctor Timerman

Foreign Minister of Argentina

Mr. Erkki Tuomioja

Foreign Minister of

Finland

12.3.2013

Speech ”Bringing in the Common to European Foreign Policy” Shaping the EU system of diplomacy: The European External Action Service and the future of Foreign Policy, European Policy Centre (EPC), Brussels, 11.3.2013

 

It is a privilege to be here today. I would like to thank the European Policy Centre and the Finnish Institute of International Affairs for organising this important event and giving me the opportunity to address this distinguished audience.

I am a historian by formation and history is also a personal passion. We cannot see into the future without understanding our past. Europe has come a long way. Permanent peace has emerged from the ruins of war, for which the EU was rightly rewarded with the Nobel peace prize.

One important goal of European integration has been to agree to a Common Foreign and Security Policy. Today European external action is perhaps more relevant than ever before. We have global challenges of unprecedented dimensions, such as climate change, population growth, poverty, sustainable development, new cross-border threats to human security, changing patterns of global power and interdependence – all challenging the EU as a global actor. We need to make a solid contribution to resolve these global challenges, to assume our great responsibility.

The EU must face these many tasks and challenges with one voice and a unified message. When we are able to do so – which unfortunately is not always the case – we can make a real difference. I am referring to such issues as climate change, the setting up of the International Criminal Court or the Arms Trade Treaty, which I hope can be finalized with strong EU support at the conference beginning next week in New York.

The lesson is that the only way we can successfully promote and protect our fundamental values and interests, and have a global impact is to act and speak as one. Individual voices will be lost in the wilderness.  

My colleague William Hague has said that the Foreign Office needs to be more foreign and less office. With European external action the answer is more common and less foreign – meaning that we need to have a genuine commitment to working together and a wider scope regarding the definition of foreign policy, which some might even call old fashioned. Nearly all European policies have an external dimension, but we have no comprehensive external policy. There is a reason why the EEAS is being called the European External Action Service and not the European Foreign Policy Service. 

The European Union is an exceptional international actor in its scope – we do trade and aid, climate change and energy. The EU is the world’s biggest market and its internal policies all have major external repercussions. All the tools of external action should be reflected in the work of the EEAS. It should have ample resources in order to assume the necessary coordination of external policies.

We welcome the ongoing work on developing a Joint Communication on Comprehensive Approach as a step into the right direction. It is only through a truly comprehensive approach, using all its instruments from military and civilian crisis management capabilities to political dialogue and from development aid to trade, when the EU can make a difference. 

We should recognise the crucial importance of reshaping a common, and introduce a comprehensive EU foreign policy – a genuinely comprehensive external action transcending the narrow confines of what is sometimes seen as foreign policy.

Dear Friends of Europe, 

International relations is all about influencing outcomes, making a positive impact, doing what really matters in the world. What is our best leverage with our external partners, where are the sticks and the carrots. I would assume that our biggest leverage comes from the fact that the EU carries great weight in many important policy areas – a big trader, huge market, biggest development aid provider, effective in crisis management, influential in climate change policies, and setting attractive norms and standards. To use these tools in an effective way in foreign policy demands coherence and consistence. This is the real test for European foreign policy and the yardstick for its reform.   

The European challenge is made all the more topical by the rise of Asia and other emerging regions in the world, with whom we should interact in a pragmatic and effective fashion. We need to make it clear to everyone what it is we stand for and how we do it.

In this context I want to make it clear, that no one dreams of returning Europe to the global predominance it still had at the beginning of the 20th century. If that was the case others would be right in regarding European aspirations with distrust. But what we are seeing is actually the contrary. There are expectations for the European Union to be a more effective global actor, not only by our own citizens how eurosceptic they otherwise may be, but also from the rest of the world, who would mostly welcome a clearer and more effective role for the EU in many parts of the world.

We represent a way of life based on a social contract of work, education and welfare, all embedded in democracy, peace, cooperation, sustainable growth and solidarity. Our identity and our values continue to be relevant and attractive to the rest of the world.

The EU is the only regional organisation in the world with its own foreign service. Since its inception three years ago, the European External Action Service has proven its strength as a very unique project with great potential. The review of the External Action Service provides an excellent opportunity to assess progress and chart improvements. We need to recognise the great achievements so far – a new foreign service with global reach has been built in the matter of a few years.

Naturally, things can always be improved. We need to develop the interaction between the EEAS and national foreign services. The EU delegations need to work well and share their product with national services. EEAS recruitment needs to make further efforts to promote gender equality.

The diplomats of national services should be strongly urged to work for the EEAS at some point of their career. Give the EEAS our best. Our responsibility is to make sure that this actually is an attractive carrier path worthwhile taking. We do our best in Finland in this regard.

We should remember that the Lisbon Treaty reforms were motivated by clear needs. A sharp division of external action into the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) coordinating member states foreign policies and external relations led by the European Commission was not conducive to effective action. The more divided the action, the less impact we have on the world stage. The Lisbon Treaty and the establishing of the EEAS are a carefully crafted exercise where external relations were brought into a new institutional structure enforcing greater coordination and coherence. This was very much needed.

We have a track record of successful EU leadership from the past years, such as talks on the Iranian nuclear program and the Belgrade-Pristina dialogue between Serbia and Kosovo as well as the enhanced EU role in the Horn of Africa and Sahel.

While EU enlargement is not about external action, it shows that the EU is hugely attractive. Enlargement serves as a transformative tool in the Western Balkans and Turkey modernising their societies. An influential member like Turkey can also make a very substantial contribution to the EU as an external actor. We would stand to gain much with Turkey’s membership.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

A central innovation of the Lisbon treaty was the double-hatting of the High Representative as Vice President of the Commission in charge of external relations – HRVP in Brussels jargon. This should bring together all aspects of external action under a single leadership. However, this role remains too modest within the Commission. The EEAS review should enhance the role of the HR in the Commission. In the future the HR/VP should be allowed to fully assume the coordinating role between the EEAS and the Commission by effectively leading the Commissioners dealing with external relations. This would promote a sense of leadership and directly increase coherence and a comprehensive approach in external action.

The EU needs to have a stronger impact in its immediate neighbourhood. How can the EU ever aim to be a credible global player, if it is a political dwarf in its own backyard? The EU has to be an attractive partner for North Africa, a strong actor in the Middle-East, a firm neighbour in the East and a strong partner in the North. An effective policy in Europe’s immediate neighbourhood demands a comprehensive approach – what is the EU to North-Africa if we do not discuss trade and migration. What credibility does an EU foreign policy have with Russia if we do not deal with energy, trade and mobility?

It should be self-evident that the High Representative should take a stronger role in Neighbourhood Policy as the Commission’s Vice-President. We need to put our money where our mouth is.

External action has also a summit level with Presidents Barroso and Van Rompuy taking the lead. The High Representative has a clear role in acting as a bridge to the summits. I believe her role and the weight behind our CFSP would also be enhanced if at least once a year the Foreign Ministers were also to attend European Council meetings.

The High Representative/Vice President has an impossible job in terms of her calendar. She needs to be simultaneously in the field and in Brussels. We have to recognise the fact the HRVP needs an effective deputy, a person with political status. One useful option would be to task commissioners with external portfolios to substitute for the HRVP when the need arises in the field. This would also bring the Commission and the External Action Service closer.

The High representative should also be given a stronger role as President of the Foreign Affairs Council. The High Representative is the Commission’s Vice President and this should also be reflected in the Council by giving her the mandate to represent the Commission’s views.

Careful preparation and planning well ahead of the Foreign Affairs Council meetings are needed in order to promote strategic direction-setting of the EU’s external action. Meetings should focus on few items with clear goal-setting.

Dear friends,

Looking back, I am sometimes tempted to say that I miss ”the old days”. I served as Foreign Minister before the Lisbon reforms and had the privilege to chair the Foreign Affairs Council during the Finnish Presidency. Sometimes I feel that there was more of a common policy before the Lisbon reforms, because there was a stronger political commitment to work together. We need to renew that commitment.

We have wasted time in arguing whether statements can be given in the name of the European Union or its Member States. We have lost great opportunities by looking inward and playing institutional games. It is high time to grow up and assume a strong and responsible role on the global stage.

In closing, I would like to state that promoting the EEAS’s role in achieving greater coordination, complementarity, and cohesion of the EU’s various foreign policy instruments should be the main goal of the upcoming EEAS review. We need to find our way back to a common purpose and a European foreign policy based on our core values of democracy, human rights and the rule of law. 

Above all, we need strategic thinking and clear priorities in our foreign policy. This is a prerequisite if we want the EU to be a credible global actor. Limited resources require prioritization in the foreign policy. The EU should not spread thin its resources if it wants to make a difference. Strategic priorities are necessary if we want the EU to be truly global actor and the EEAS to be more than just the 28th (soon 29th) Foreign Service of the EU.

Thank you very much.

11.3.2013

Venäjän kielen osaamista vahvistettava – Kansainvälistyminen jää torsoksi, jos suomalaiset osaavat vain englantia, ulkoministeri Tuomiojan ja opetusministeri Gustafssonin Näkökulma-kirjoitus, Aamulehti, 9.3.2013

Suomen kodeissa valitaan keväällä ne vieraat kielet, joita lapset tulevat koulussa opiskelemaan.

Englantia on tarjolla lähes aina, mutta kaikkia muita kieliä ei ole mahdollista opiskella omassa lähikoulussa. Kunnan ja koulujen kielivalikoima ohjaa valintoja, mutta myös kysyntä ohjaa tarjontaa.

Laajastakin kielivalikoimasta huolimatta kielten opetusta ei voida toteuttaa, jos riittävän moni ei kieltä valitse.

Valinnoissa on katsottava riittävän kauas tulevaisuuteen ja kehitettävä monipuolisesti tietoja ja taitoja. Kansainvälistymisemme jää torsoksi, jos suomalaiset eivät englannin lisäksi tai sen sijaan opiskele muitakin kieliä.

Venäjän kielen osaaminen on Suomessa liian vähäistä. Laajemmalla kielitaidolla voisi pinta-alaltaan maailman suurin ja luonnonvaroiltaan runsas naapurimme olla Suomelle vielä merkittävämpi kaupan, koulutuksen, tieteen ja kulttuurin kumppani.

Yhteistyön vahvistaminen edellyttää, että sekä Venäjällä että Suomessa osataan molempien maiden kieltä ja tunnetaan kulttuuria, yhteiskunnan rakenteita sekä tapaa toimia. Jos näitä tietoja ja taitoja ei ole hankittu yleissivistävässä koulutuksessa, ei silti ole liian myöhäistä aloittaa.

Yksi mahdollisuus on esimerkiksi kielen intensiivikurssi opiskelijavaihdossa. Opiskelu ulkomailla vahvistaa valmiuksia kansainvälisessä ympäristössä ja tuo uudenlaista sisältöä opintoihin. Se laajentaa verkostoja ja tutustuttaa kohdemaahan. Ulkomailla tapahtuva harjoittelu voi myös olla ensimmäinen kosketus tulevaan työnantajaan. Hankittu osaaminen hyödyttää opiskelijan itsensä lisäksi korkeakoulutusta, elinkeinoelämää ja yhteiskuntaa laajemminkin.

Vuonna 2011 suomalaisissa ammattikorkeakouluissa ja yliopistoissa opiskeli yhteensä noin 9 000 ulkomaalaista vaihto-opiskelijaa. Heistä venäläisiä vaihto-opiskelijoita oli noin viisi sataa. Noin 2 100 venäläistä tutkinto-opiskelijaa suoritti kokonaista korkeakoulututkintoa suomalaisessa ammattikorkeakoulussa tai yliopistossa. Vastaavasti noin 10 000 suomalaista korkeakouluopiskelijaa lähti opiskelijavaihtoon ja heistä noin kolmesataa venäläiseen korkeakouluun. Kokonaista korkeakoulututkintoa Venäjällä suoritti vain joitain kymmeniä opiskelijoita.

Opiskelija- ja tutkijaliikkuvuus Suomen ja Venäjän välillä on kuitenkin naapurimaan kokoon ja merkitykseen nähden liian vaatimatonta. Sitä on suurin piirtein yhtä paljon kuin Suomen ja Kiinan välillä.

Opiskelijavaihto Venäjän kanssa painottuu humanistisiin, yhteiskunnallisiin ja kauppatieteen aloihin, vaikka tutkimusyhteistyötä Venäjän kanssa tehdään laajemmankin. Esimerkiksi tutkimus- tai taideprojekteihin pohjautuvan tohtorikoulutettavien liikkuvuuden lisääminen olisi kaikilla aloilla hyvä tapa siirtää tietoa, osaamista, koulutus- ja tutkimusyhteistyötä.

Opiskelijavaihdon tai tutkinnon suorittamisen lisäksi korkeakouluopiskelijoiden harjoittelumahdollisuuksia Venäjällä tulisi lisätä. Tilastotiedot osoittavat, että harjoittelu liikuttaa opiskelijoita vielä harvemmin kuin tutkintokoulutus tai vaihto.

Opiskelijatkin ovat havahtuneet lähialueen tarjoamiin harjoittelumahdollisuuksiin ja olleet itse aktiivisia. Esimerkiksi Aalto-yliopiston opiskelijat järjestävät harjoittelupaikkoja Moskovan alueen pieniin ja keskisuuriin yrityksiin. Harjoittelun ja tutkimusyhteistyön mahdollisuuksia voisi parantaa luomalla yhteyksiä Suomessa toimivien venäläisten yritysten, Venäjällä toimivien suomalaisyritysten ja korkeakoulujen välille.

Opiskelija- ja tutkijavaihto perustuvat paljolti korkeakoulujen välisiin kumppanuuksiin. Korkeakoulut ovat avainasemassa liikkuvuusmahdollisuuksien ja kannustuksen tarjoamisessa opiskelijoille.

Tämä edellyttää korkeakouluissa strategisia valintoja ja resurssien kohdentamista valittuihin toimenpiteisiin. Lisäksi kansainväliset rahoituslähteet on hyödynnettävä tehokkaasti. Liikkuvuutta ei saada lisättyä pelkästään korkeakoulujen voimin ja julkisin varoin. Myös elinkeinoelämällä, säätiöillä ja yksityishenkilöillä on mahdollisuus tukea suomalaisen yhteiskunnan kannalta välttämätöntä kansainvälistymistä.

Se, miten venäjän osaaminen Suomessa kehittyy ja opiskelijavaihto kasvaa, riippuu ensi sijassa omista toimistamme. Kyse on kuitenkin laajemmin koko maanosamme tulevaisuuteen vaikuttavasta investoinnista Venäjän tavoitteleman modernisoinnin tukemiseksi.

Siksi olemme olleet aloitteellisia sen puolesta, että myös Euroopan Unioni aktiivisesti panostaisi tällaisen opiskelijavaihdon ja yhteistyön kasvattamisen.

8.3.2013

Minister Erkki Tuomioja’s words at the opening of the Peruvian art exhibition marking the 50th Anniversary of the Diplomatic Relations between Finland and Peru, at the Cultural Centre Caisa, 7.3.2013

Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is a great pleasure to open the two exhibitions of Peruvian art today here in Caisa: the exhibition ’Feelings’ that displays sculptures and paintings by artist Maria Elena Rodríguez La-Rosa and the exhibition ’Identity’ that consists of photographs by photographer Manuel Chávez Rodríguez. The exhibitions will be open until 25th of April and I hope that many people will come during the spring to see these greatly colourful and interesting samples of Peruvian contemporary art.

I am very pleased and honoured to be here celebrating the 50th Anniversary of diplomatic relations between Finland and Peru. As a matter of fact, our friendship with Peru is much older than 50 years. It originates from the beginning of Finland’s story as an independent nation, when, in June 1919, Peru officially recognized us as a new republic. Our diplomatic relations started on the 25 January 1963, just a bit more than 50 years ago.

Already in 1965 we signed an agreement on technical and economic cooperation. This cooperation included different infrastructure and social projects via donations and concessional credits.

In 1967, as Vice-president of the Secondary School Students Union in Finland, I was centrally involved in initiating the cooperation project, which was the first development programme between our countries. We participated in the Nordic public fund raising campaign to support several development projects in Peru. I particularly remember that with those funds, a pool of Finnish machinery was provided to SENATI, the main centre of vocational education in Peru. It is a great pleasure for me to see that nowadays Peru is one of the most prosperous countries in Latin America with excellent economic and social potential.

Finnish cooperation projects continue in the Andean region including Peru. Finland has been funding projects e.g. in the fields of energy and the environment, where Finland has ten years ago funded environmental protection in Macchu Pichu.

In the recent years, our traditionally strong relations with Peru have widened and diversified. Our relations are no longer only a matter of governments. Thanks to innovative and horizontal instruments, they run through multiple channels, allowing diverse actors of both sides to directly interact, collaborate and launch joint initiatives. Peruvian exports to Finland are growing. But there still are many unused opportunities for new commercial exchanges and investments of mutual interest.

Peru is one of Finland´s main partners in South America. Peru´s impressive biodiversity and its varied and millenary cultural heritage are well known worldwide. Peru’s political and economic stability, its fast and sustained economical growth, and its current policies of social inclusion are also noteworthy.

I am happy to note that we share the same visions and goals regarding democracy, the rule of law, human rights and security. Accordingly, both countries promote multilateralism and ever deeper integration with their main partners. On the other hand, we face the same global problems, such as climate change.

Finland is happy to continue the collaboration with Peru, supporting its inclusive development, as well as the diversification of its technologic and productive structure upon a sustainable basis. As a matter of fact, Finnish methods for research, innovation and education are already a benchmark in Peru.

During these last fifty years our strong bilateral links and dialogue on international matters have always been mutually beneficial. This is the best possible starting point for a promising future development of the relations between Finland and Peru.

Thank you, Muchas gracias.