I am very happy to be here today to share with you some thoughts on the importance of the values we share as Europeans. Your generation is growing up in a time when European integration has already made big strides. For young Europeans, the entire European Union with its 28 member states is your home territory. Programs like Erasmus makes it very easy for you to study in any European country you like, and the internal market enables you to work and live in any other EU member state. I encourage you to make full use of all these opportunities. In Europe we are lucky to have a great diversity and richness of people, languages, history and culture to learn from. This is a lesson also for our external relations: we do not want to see a Fortress Europe closing its borders from the rest of the world either. The challenging times we are going through in and outside of the EU highlight the need to espouse and strengthen the common values on which our Union is founded. I would like to talk to you today about what these values are and how they have benefited the Union and its members; how they are challenged today and what we can do to counter these challenges.
Europe: a project of peace, prosperity and shared values

The European Union has been successful as a peace project. The original aim was to ensure that never again would wars start from conflict between European countries which have led to two world wars and countless smaller ones. In this respect we can regard the European Union as the most successful peace project in history, as the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to the EU underlined. This should not be forgotten now that popular disappointment with Europe for example concerning the handling of the Eurocrisis is growing. The European Union has been from the start open to all European countries and peoples who wish to join it and fulfill the criteria. EU enlargement has been a key factor in increasing Europe’s political and social stability. Greece, Spain and Portugal were able to join the European Community in the 1980s, after breaking with their undemocratic pasts. The end of the Cold War enabled countries liberated from their undemocratic systems – the Baltic States, and Eastern European and Balkan countries – to seek membership of the European Union. It is also very important to note the effect on peace and stability that the union has had and continues to have on the region as a whole. For prospective member countries, the membership process itself encourages countries to remain on the path to democracy, respect for fundamental rights and the rule of law. The Western Balkans is a good example of this. Without our enlarged European Union, Europe would look decidedly different today. The EU has also been successful in terms of economic integration. This integration is commonly understood as resting on four basic freedoms: the free movement of persons, goods, services and capital. These freedoms, to be fully beneficial to all people in Europe, need to be completed with a social dimension that sees to it that the benefits of economic growth are distributed fairly and that the underprivileged are not left behind. The European Union remains the world’s most important economic area and trade bloc, despite its current challenges. The European internal market offers businesses unrestricted access to the world’s largest economic area. However, for Finland, membership in the EU is much more than an economic issue. This brings me to my final point, and the main focus of today. For us, EU membership is a choice based on a particular set of values and politics, which we as a Nordic country have always shared. But what are these shared values and what do they signify? In the Treaties establishing the European Union, its fundamental values are defined as respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, rule of law and respect for human rights, including rights of persons belonging to minorities. Member States and institutions are committed to respecting and promoting these. All EU Member States should be characterized by a plurality of values, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men. An integral part of the EU’s common values are also fundamental social rights, such as the right to employment and the right to exercise a profession. Democratic societies guarantee the realization of fundamental rights, and as the union is based on representative democracy, these values need to be safeguarded also on the Union level. The legitimacy of the European Union will be undermined, if we do not live up to these fundamental values and maintain democratic, open and efficient institutions. Further, the union has also to be seen as achieving results for its citizens – citizens should feel that the EU protects and advances their rights, and works in their best interest. However much we have already done to build on these values, we cannot just rely on past achievements. As you are well aware, Europe is today facing a wide array of both old and new challenges to security, democracy and to well-being.  And these threats do not only manifest themselves in far-away countries. They are appearing in our immediate vicinity – in Europe through the crisis in Ukraine and in our southern neighborhood through the crisis in Syria and Iraq. Also within the Union there has been increasing skepticism and discontent, which is manifested in the growing support for Eurosceptic, nationalist and radical parties, as well as in social unrest and popular protests in many European countries. These challenges require a robust response and new solutions. The question is how can we can respond to them.
How are these values challenged today?

Let me begin by discussing security policy. Europe’s security environment has undergone some very negative changes. Severe conflicts have emerged both in our southern and eastern neighborhood. These are threats that face the entire Union. We have to respond to them collectively, regardless of whether the conflicts are closer to the borders of our Eastern or Southern Member States. In the South, the world has recently witnessed how calls for democracy, justice and reforms have led into a brutal civil war in Syria. The violent conflict has spilled over to the neighboring areas, led to an unprecedented number of refugees and contributed to the creation of one of the most horrendous terrorist organizations of our time, ISIL. The rapid rise and spread of ISIL/Da’esh has taken us by surprise. It poses a severe threat to our partners in the Middle East, to wider international security and to Europe directly. There is a concrete risk that ISIL’s influence spreads also to other conflicts in the region – Libya, Yemen and Palestine to mention the most acute – if we can’t find ways to stop it in its tracks. In the response to the crisis in the region, we welcome the EU High Representative’s regional strategy for Syria and Iraq and the threat by ISIL/Da’esh. The Commission has allocated 1 billion EUR for implementing the strategy, which is a considerable contribution. The fight against ISIL/Da’esh and other terrorist groups must be conducted in parallel with the search for lasting political solutions. An inclusive political transition in Syria and inclusive political governance in Iraq are crucial to sustainable peace and stability in the region. We cannot deal with ISIL with air-strikes alone. We need a common will and a long-term comprehensive approach that tackles the root causes. The unrest in the south has also created unprecedented flows of refugees and other migrants both in the region and in Europe. While the number of migrants that we receive here in Europe indeed has increased drastically, it is important to note that the neighboring countries, particularly Jordan and Lebanon, are bearing the brunt of the Syrian and Iraqi refugees: already close to 4 million. Strong support of the EU to these countries is of utmost importance. The European Union also has to step up its efforts in managing the inflow of migrants in a sustainable way. The number of migrants crossing the Mediterranean into Europe is increasing rapidly, as is also the number of migrants who do not make it across. Last year, 3400 migrants were registered as drowned or missing in the Mediterranean, almost seven times more than in the previous year. This is unacceptable and cannot continue. We must find sustainable solutions to this migration crisis. We also have to live up to our standards, principles and values in safeguarding the human rights of migrants. Our fundamental values need to be applied also to those entering our territory. We also need to see migration as a phenomenon that touches upon all societal areas: economy, employment, health, education, to mention a few. We need coherent and comprehensive policies on EU and international level to maximize positive effects and to address the negative effects of migration on development. Let me now turn to the conflict in our Eastern Neighborhood. We have unfortunately been forced to witness the return of military conflict within the borders of Europe. For us Europeans the conflict in Ukraine has been a wake-up call, something that took many of us by surprise. It will have wide and profound repercussions for the future of our continent. In our response to the conflict, unity within the EU of utmost importance. Finland fully supports EU’s restrictive measures against Russia, aiming at supporting a political solution to the crisis in Ukraine. The possibility of their removal will depend on the implementation of the Minsk agreement. To make this possible we have to be firm with all parties, Ukraine and Russia, that the agreements are fully implemented. The relationship between the EU and Russia has gone through a profound change during the past year. While the deterioration of these relations are mainly a result of Russia’s choices and actions we also need to take a critical look at any mistakes the EU and the West in general may have made in dealing with Post-Soviet Russia. While these mistakes do not in any way provide a justification for the power political course Russia has taken, a self-critical look at for example how we managed the Eastern Partnership is needed to avoid future mistakes and help in finding a path back to less strained relations. The change in Russia’s overall policy is likely to be long-lasting: Previously, the partnership with Russia was supposed to be built on common principles and values. Today’s Russia is however drifting further towards authoritarianism and illiberal values. This means that a new approach is required in our relations to Russia. At the same time, we need to keep the lines of dialogue open to Russia. Russia remains a key partner for the EU in a long range of issues, including our Arctic and Baltic Sea cooperation, the fight against climate change and terrorism and in achieving a lasting solution to the crisis in Iraq and Syria. To summarize, what we need in response to the crises and unrest in our neighborhood is united and coherent action within the EU. This means deepening our Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) to be more effective, coherent and coordinated. We therefore support the drafting of a new security strategy for Europe. We expect the strategy to strengthen and guide the EU’s external policy and to clearly define the principles, objectives and values underpinning our policy. We want the strategy to result in an elevated profile for the union as a global security player, which hopefully is reflected in further development of our crisis management and joint defense capacity. We also hope that the strategy can set out a middle to long term strategy for building our relations to Russia. Another instrument for strengthening our external response is the renewal of our neighborhood policy (ENP). The objective of the ENP remains to promote stability, prosperity and democratic development in the region. As I mentioned earlier, the EU has had a remarkable positive impact on democracy, stability and adherence to the rule of law in its neighborhood. We should stress the ENP’s capability to influence and change lives of millions of people for the better. However, there remains plenty of room for making our neighborhood policy more strategic and effective. It needs to be more flexible and tailor-made, and better take partner’s expectations and interests into account. We should also offer our neighbors more systematic access to our internal markets as well as freer movements for studies and work. Promoting mobility and visa liberalization supports the democratic development of our partners. We need to provide persistent support and co-operation to our partners, including a long term vision of their political and economic association with the Union. I am happy that the consultations related to the review of ENP have already been initiated, and hope we can make headway in the above mentioned and other fields. In our Eastern neighbourhood, we look very much forward to the Riga Summit on Eastern Partnership, where we have high level discussions with Moldova, Ukraine, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Armenia and Belarus. For Finland, apart from encouraging increased mobility, an important objective is to increase support for and participation of civil society in recognition of its importance for change and reforms in partner countries. We also need better communication regarding the objectives of our neighbourhood policy.  The enlargement of the EU towards the East and Baltics, as well as our Eastern partnership, has been seen by Russia as a policy directed against it. Some statements from EU leaders may have fuelled this perception, but this is not and has not been the case. Our neighbourhood policy must be conducted in a manner that makes it clear that it is not a threat against the interests of any other countries or groups. Developing the economy and sstrengthening the rule of law and human rights will bring benefits for all neighbors. However, we there should be a clear awareness of how Russia is trying to influence EU member states through its own strategic communication. Special attention should be paid to how to better communicate EU messages to Russian-speaking audiences. I have mentioned external challenges to the union and what needs to be done in response to them. Let me know turn to our own internal challenges. These internal criticisms and challenges take on many shapes. Due to the social and societal problems caused by the economic crisis, questions about the internal stability of Member States and compliance with the Rule of Law have gained greater urgency. In effect, a growing number of people are questioning the legitimacy of our European project. It is important that we do not ignore this criticism, some of which is very valid. As an example, I would like to mention the adherence to the Rule of Law. Respect for the Rule of Law means safeguarding much of the fundamental values and freedoms our union is built on. If we overlook breaches of the Rule of Law, we undermine our own efforts to build a better Europe, and in the end our own legitimacy. We also cannot act in a unified and credible way in promoting democracy and the Rule of Law outside of our borders if we don’t have our own house in order. Instead of been taken as self-evident, upholding the fundamental values and the level of protection for the human rights requires constant attention also inside the European Union. That is why strengthening the fundamental rights and Rule of Law is one of Finland’s key objectives in all policy areas. The discussion on the need to monitor and enhance the Rule-of-Law within the Union has picked up pace during recent years. The European Parliament, Commission and Council are all developing their own mechanisms for this task. Finland has been very proactive in advancing this discussion and these efforts now seem to bear fruit. Another key issue is also to strengthen the democratic legitimacy of the Union’s decision-making. This is necessary if we are to deepen European integration, while retaining the support of the EU’s citizens. We must ensure openness and transparency, and provide citizens with opportunities to influence and participate. Strengthening these common values puts the focus not only on the EU institutions, which need to work in a more open and engaging way, but also on the national level. Decision making on the national level needs to follow the same common and shared values. European integration means that the Union needs to work in a way that citizens feel represent their own values and interests, and that they feel is their own. This strengthens the democratic justification of the union.
Conclusions: a unified and value-based EU as the way forward 

The European Union must now answer fundamental questions in many respects. To move forward successfully, the European Union must reform. Finland’s policy in this regard is clear: we support closer integration as long as it can be achieved in a manner that the Member States and citizens find necessary, fair and just. Both economically and socially, the EU must be a balanced community of values. A stronger, more unified and fairer Union would best serve the interests of its citizens. In many respects, the EU is a global super power. As a partner in trade, politics and development, the union and its member states are the preferred choice for a large number of countries in the world. The success the Union has achieved in building peace and promoting stability for its members is admired worldwide. Its strong value foundation makes it a trustworthy, predictable and fair partner across the globe. I wish you fruitful and interesting discussions during your conference week here in Helsinki. Thank you very much.

Ladies and Gentlemen, Let me warmly welcome you all to this seminar.

The topic of the day is important, and as you may know, these issues are also high on my personal agenda. Arms control and arms trade touches millions of people. It is responsible business, needed also for national security purposes. At the same time, we face illegal arms trade, trade that may end up being used for repressive purposes or prolonging conflicts, or violence against innocent civilians, including women and children. Especially in fragile contexts like Horn of Africa the matter is all too familiar. I am particularly delighted that we are here today also in a Nordic context. As you all know, Nordic cooperation is strong in many fields, and not least in security policy. During the past years, the Nordic countries have enhanced their cooperation also in arms control and disarmament issues. The Nordic countries and the Baltic states, as well as EU experts exchange information on a regular basis about their practices in export control. Arms control and disarmament is part of the broader foreign and security policy picture. It also impacts trade and development policy.  Some may argue that today there is less room for advancing the arms control and disarmament agenda. If true in the current security environment with all the global challenges, I take it as a call for working harder for more cooperation in the field of arms control. Especially now we need to maintain our existing commitments and to pursue for more.

There are two positive developments that I want to highlight. One is the dismantling of the Syrian chemical weapons program, where also Finland played an active role. The other one, and the one I want to focus on today is ATT, the Arms Trade Treaty that came into force last Christmas eve, the 24^th of December 2014. I guess that for those who participated actively in the ATT process, Christmas will never be the same. Many of us present in this room worked hard for making the ATT become true. And we succeeded in relatively short a time. I want to commend especially the role of the NGOs during the process. I also want to thank our own team at the Ministry for their dedicated, professional work. It was also important that we had industry representatives in our delegation when negotiating the ATT. At the end of the day, the ATT is a trade treaty, and not so much an arms control treaty. The philosophy behind the ATT is fairly simple: that all play by the same rules.  This is of course easier said than done, which is why we need this treaty and more countries to join it. The main aim of the Treaty is to regulate international, legal arms trade and to reduce illegal trade and diversion. The ATT is expected to enhance arms embargoes and sanctions, peace building and peace keeping operations, improve human rights, living conditions of men, women and children. Especially fragile areas like Horn of Africa, can benefit a lot from the universality and effective implementation of the ATT. As the ATT aims at reducing illegal trade in arms and their diversion to other than legal end-users, it also forms a tool to fight against terrorist groups like Isil/Isis. Dear colleagues Let me elaborate first briefly how we came here, second what is the situation at the moment and third, and most importantly, how do we take the ATT forward.

1. A few words about the history

The ATT process originally begun with the initiative by several Nobel Price Laureats and became more concrete in 2010 with the establishment of the UN Group of Governmental Experts who studied the feasibility of the Treaty. Finland was active in this group and, subsequently, Finland became also one of the seven original co-authors of the Treaty. The group of co-authors pushed the process forward by frequently consulting and meeting with the chairs of the Preparatory Committee and other stakeholders. Having played an essential role in the creation of the Treaty, Finland together with the other co-authors, is now working for its effective implementation and universalization. Also the NGOs were very supportive to the Treaty from the very beginning whereas some of the big players and major arms producers like the US doubted its merits, however later the Obama administration decided to support the negotiations. The US now continues to be active in the implementation process, even though the Treaty has not been officially ratified by the Senate. Some other big producers like China, India and the Russian Federation are still reflecting whether to join or not. The process went on under the very skillful guidance by Ambassador Moritán from Argentina. A draft Treaty was prepared but not accepted in 2012, which was a disappointment for many, including us. The most disappointed man in New York at the time was, however, Ambassador Moritàn. Many countries, Nordic and others, refused to take this as a final word and failure. A second negotiating conference was organized in New York early 2013. This time the very able chairman was Ambassador Peter Woolcott from Australia. The conference presented a Treaty text, much better in quality than expected, but failed to get the document accepted. Three countries North-Korea, Syria and Iran voted against. But yet another effort was made by states that wanted the Treaty. An extraordinary UN General Assembly Session was organized in April 2013 where the landmark Treaty was finally accepted with an overwhelming majority. Finland and other Nordic countries were amongst the first ones to sign and later ratify the Treaty. The ATT entered into force in a record time.

2. The state of play today

There are now 65 States Parties and 130 signatory states in the ATT. The numbers are growing, but major challenges remain, especially as regards the big producers and smaller arms importers.

At present our work is focused on the implementation of the Treaty. Such issues as rules of procedure, the rights and responsibilities of the signatory states, the participation possibilities for the NGOs, financing and reporting mechanisms are being negotiated. The first Conference of State Parties will convene in Mexico at the end of August. The preparations are proceeding all in all quite well. The aim is to create an effective and transparent system that would allow states parties, signatories, non-signatories, international and regional organizations, NGOs, industry and academia to participate in the State Parties’ Conferences. The big question is where the Treaty’s permanent secretariat should be located and who should head it. I hope that the next time we meet there will be answers to these questions. All the three candidates for the location – Geneva, Port of Spain in Trinidad and Tobago, and Vienna, as well as all the three candidates to lead the Secretariat have their merits. And more candidates may arise. We would not like to politicize the issue, but to agree on an effective Secretariat to support the implementation of the Treaty.

• The way forward

   

1. There are two elements that I want to stress in our future work. One is the role of national implementation and national export control systems, and the other one is the universalization of the treaty. The ATT is already now a major achievement, but if we want to bring additional value, we need more countries to join it. All arms producing states, big and small as well as importers, developed and developing states in all continents should become parties to the ATT. Many states still outside the Treaty first want to see how it is being implemented. Thus we need to show that the Treaty works and that we can agree on all the details related to its implementation. For smaller and developing states, it may also be an issue of capacity. Technical assistance is however available to overcome possible challenges related to the establishment of the licensing system required by the ATT, and to conform with the licensing criteria and reporting. The reporting obligation is important as it is the sole “monitoring mechanism” in the Treaty. Finland is also ready to provide technical assistance. We have decided to allocate four million euros to the Treaty’s Trust Fund to help the implementation of the Treaty. The ATT contains the best possible international standards for various types of arms transfers we could agree on today, which does not exclude the possibility for agreeing on even better standards tomorrow. When considering export licenses, all participating states need to take into account the same criteria. Human rights and international humanitarian law are in a central role. Reducing the risk of diversion is another relevant factor. As I already mentioned, the ATT will be implemented at the national level. For Finland or other Nordic states, the Treaty will not require changes to our national legislation as our arms export system follows the common EU rules and procedures that are already in line with the ATT obligations. But the Treaty is beneficial for our industry as it equals the level playing field with more countries following the same rules.   Ladies and gentlemen, to conclude The consequences of irresponsible, unregulated arms trade are multiple: violence and increase of armed conflicts, breaches of human rights, gender based violence, and hindrance for socio-economic development. The ATT can reverse this trend.

I wish to thank the Academy of Finland and the Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation Tekes for organizing this seminar on Arctic Know-how as Strength, and for including in it a session on the Arctic Policy of the European Union.  The Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland is pleased to co-sponsor today´s event.

A quarter of a century ago, the Arctic region emerged as a new frontier on the world scene. It is remarkable that from the beginning peaceful cooperation and inclusiveness rather than rivalry and conflict were coined as leading principles in the interaction among the Arctic states. Indigenous peoples of the region also joined in this cooperation.

We must keep in mind the principle of peaceful, constructive cooperation and inclusiveness now when international relations are strained. The Arctic region faces many urgent challenges. Addressing them cannot wait for better times.  We need the best possible human and material resources to tackle the issues at hand.

The European Union is an indispensable part of the equation. The EU already has an impressive track record in providing human and material resources, supporting research, formulating policies and raising awareness of Arctic issues.

From Finland´s point of view, the role of the European Union is closely tied to Arctic cooperation and this is emphasized in our own Arctic strategy. Several member countries were among the initiators, when Arctic cooperation became possible in the 1990´s. They were present at the creation.

Three of the EU´s member states, Finland, Sweden and Denmark are members of the Arctic Council, founded in 1996, and participate in circumpolar cooperation. Seven EU member countries are observers to the Council. In addition, the EU gives its significant contribution to the Working Groups of the Arctic Council.

At the subregional level, the European Union is a founding member of the Barents Euro-Arctic Council established in 1993, together with Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Iceland and Russia. The Northern Dimension policy of the EU contributes to important projects in Northern Europe through partnerships.

In spite of this remarkable involvement in Arctic affairs, the European Union has been slow to formulate a coherent policy toward the Arctic. The first Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council was issued in 2008, followed by the second Communication in 2012.

Clearly an effort must be made to bring the EU Arctic policy to a new level and to strengthen the coherence of decision-making on Arctic issues within the Union. It is time that the EU begins to fully use its influence and resources to better focus its policy vis-à-vis the Arctic region. There are great expectations regarding the third Arctic Communication, due in December 2015. Finland, along with other Arctic member countries, is certainly prepared to contribute to this Communication.

There are urgent, compelling reasons to intensify Arctic cooperation as soon as possible. Major developments such as climate change and globalization will profoundly affect the natural habitats and living conditions in the Arctic region in the coming years.

These changes will be dramatic. Scientific evidence of the impact of climate change globally and in the Arctic is abundant. Temperature in the Arctic is expected to rise twice as fast as elsewhere. The ice cover of the Arctic Ocean will shrink rapidly, resulting in open waters absorbing more heat. It is a vicious circle, made worse by the melting of permafrost and increased emissions of carbon dioxide and methane.

There is no time to lose. A global, legally binding climate agreement is the aim at the COP 21 Conference in Paris in December. This agreement should limit the rise of global temperature to two percent by reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. This agreement is widely regarded as a last chance to get a grip of global warming before it reaches its tipping point. As President Obama said at the UN Climate Summit last year, we may be the last generation that can do something about climate change.

The European Union has shown strong leadership in efforts to mitigate climate change and to prepare for the necessary measures of adaptation.  The EU has confirmed its commitment to reach the climate agreement in 2015. It has agreed on a climate and energy package and intensified its climate diplomacy with other stakeholders.

It is symbolic that the Climate Conference will be held in Paris. The role of the French Government hosting the Conference will further underline the European effort to finally reach an effective climate deal.

Globalization will reach the Arctic region with full force, propelled by climate change. It is vital that the Arctic countries will agree, in consultation with indigenous peoples and other local inhabitants, on measures for sustainable development in its three dimensions: economic, social and environmental.

Sometimes the Arctic is seen as a new, opening reservoir of resources with its oil and gas deposits, minerals and fisheries. Sustainable development can succeed only if rule of law prevails. We should continue to broaden our common understanding of the application of international law and especially the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea to avoid rivalries and confrontations.

We should not allow the Arctic to turn into a kind of Wild North, where might makes right. All stakeholders, also states and business organizations outside the Arctic region, should work for sustainable development in the region.

Developing Arctic stewardship, a new and stronger model for international governance is what is urgently needed. This is also in the interest of the European Union. On the other hand, the EU is particularly well-placed to contribute to Arctic governance. It is a trustworthy and predictable actor.

Already now, the European Union is a major destination of goods and resources from the Arctic region, and its policies have implications for all those who participate in trade and investments or provide related services. In the area of navigation, transport and logistics the role of the EU and its policies is likely to increase considerably. The expected growth in marine transportation between Europe and Asia via the Northern route is a case in point.

Here again we must ask whether the EU will be fully prepared to participate in discussions concerning the Arctic, including in efforts to strengthen Arctic governance. We should make sure that Arctic issues are coordinated at a high level and that the Union is adequately represented in such discussions.

In May last year, the Foreign Affairs Council underlined the need for better understanding of the developments underway in the Arctic and requested the Commission to consider options for an EU Arctic Information Centre. Finland has made an offer to host the EU Arctic information Center in Rovaniemi, linked to the Arctic Centre of the University of Lapland. That offer is still valid, and I sincerely hope that the decision to establish the Information Centre will be included in the next Arctic Communication.

In the course of the past year, trust has become a scarce commodity in international relations. The old East-West divide has made a strange comeback, and the Arctic role of European Union runs the risk suffering from the strained relations.

At the moment it is still open whether the Russian Federation will agree to implement the decision taken two years ago by the Arctic Council ministerial meeting, inviting the EU to become an observer of the Council. The next ministerial meeting of the Council in April will discuss this question. Russia refers to the membership of Finland, Sweden and Denmark in the Council and says that it wants to avoid a situation where the EU controls the actions of these countries. Unofficially Russia points out that the EU has turned into a geopolitical adversary as a result of the sanctions imposed against Russia.

This is a most unfortunate approach, disregarding the past merits, present involvement and future potential of the Union in Arctic cooperation. Respect for international law must be ensured and the governance of the region needs to be strengthened to tackle the issues that come with advancing climate change and increasing globalization. Thanks to its broad-based policies, wide experience in regional cooperation and its considerable human and material resources, the EU continues to be an ideal partner to all Arctic stakeholders.

Finland hopes that the Union can still be invited as an observer to the Arctic Council. All member countries of the Council have confirmed that constructive cooperation in the region must continue in spite of the present tensions elsewhere. In view of the huge challenges ahead in the Arctic region, this is the only sensible approach to take.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I would like to use the opportunity to thank Ambassador Hannu Halinen for his great work as the Senior Arctic Official of Finland. Ambassador Halinen has been a particularly active diplomat at home and abroad. He has led the preparations of Finland´s Arctic strategy and represented Finland in countless meetings of the Arctic Council and in other Arctic gatherings. One of his main goals has been to involve the European Union as tightly as possible in the Arctic network. So thank you Hannu!

Mr. President, Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen,

I am truly delighted to be able to address the Conference on Disarmament today. Yesterday we celebrated the International Women’s Day. It is a good reminder for us that we need to further strengthen the participation and inclusion of women in all disarmament and arms control work in the spirit of UN Security Council Resolution 1325 on Women, Peace and Security.

As I have understood, you have heard several of my colleagues last week. This year is a special one in disarmament. We will have the NPT Review Conference in May and the First Conference of States Parties of the Arms Trade Treaty in August to start with.

Mr President,

After years of hard work the Arms Trade Treaty finally entered into force in December last year. This is a significant achievement for the international community.

With this historic Treaty we take a major step forward in controlling the use of conventional arms and small arms and light weapons that kill hundreds of thousands of people – men, women and children – every year. The ATT can contribute to creating a more secure and stable environment for everyone, everywhere. In implementing the ATT we enhance principles of human rights and contribute to a more peaceful and just world.

The rapid entry-into-force of the ATT serves as a testament that the international community is ready and willing to regulate trade in arms and to reduce illicit trade in arms. While this is a great achievement our work is far from over.

It is only through effective implementation at the national level that the ATT will make a difference. The preparations for the First Conference of States Parties in Mexico are well under way. It is highly desirable that all decisions supporting the implementation of the Treaty will be duly taken at that particular meeting.

We must not forget that the success of the Treaty and its potential benefits also depend on the universal nature of the Treaty. So far 130 countries have signed and 63 countries have ratified the Treaty. I call on all States that have not yet done so to sign and accede to the Treaty as soon as possible.

Another key event this year is the NPT review conference. The NPT continues to be the cornerstone of the international arms control regime. All NPT members have commitments and shared responsibilities in nuclear disarmament, non-proliferation and peaceful uses. The Review Conference provides an opportunity to reflect how agreed actions and commitments have been fulfilled across three pillars.

We acknowledge the decline in nuclear arsenals since the end of Cold War; mostly through bilateral efforts by the two nuclear powers with the largest arsenals. We encourage the Russian Federation and the United States to seek further reductions in all categories of nuclear weapons, including in non-strategic nuclear arsenals, and place them under a legally binding verifiable international treaty system.

Recently the pace of nuclear disarmament has slowed down. At the same time the urgency of nuclear disarmament is increasing as has been highlighted by the three conferences on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons.

The painful memory of Hiroshima and Nagasaki from 70years ago reminds us of the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons use. The humanitarian initiative reflects the genuine concerns of citizens all over the world that as long as nuclear weapons exist there is a real threat of a terrible catastrophe with immeasurable human and humanitarian costs. The humanitarian underpinning is a fundamental principle of the NPT. Therefore, we believe that the discussion on humanitarian impact will be a natural part of the NPT Review Conference and will contribute to the proceedings of the Review Conference.

I am convinced that security cannot be based on weapons of mass destruction. Finland is committed to a world free of nuclear weapons. Working towards a world free of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction is a responsibility of all nations.

For concrete nuclear disarmament we need substantive and constructive engagement of those states that possess nuclear weapons, as provided by Article VI of the Treaty. To achieve progress we need further transparency and confidence building among all states. Therefore I see value in my Dutch colleague’s proposal, of a mandatory regular reporting requirement in the NPT Review cycle.

Nuclear weapon proliferation poses a serious threat to international peace. All states should respect their commitments under the NPT by adopting and implementing the IAEA Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement together with the Additional Protocol. We continue our efforts to strengthen the IAEA safeguards system and to promote its universalization.

Mr President,

The Conference on the establishment of a Middle East Zone Free of Nuclear and other Weapons of Mass-Destruction was planned to be held before the end of year 2012. This schedule turned out to be too ambitious, as it was not possible to convene the Conference with the participation of all states concerned. Nevertheless, participating states have continued preparations and have taken constructively part in the process through informal consultations.

The Finnish facilitator and the conveners, The Secretary General of the United Nations, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States, have communicated to all states of the region their assessment that significant progress has been made, the remaining key issues can be resolved and the Conference can be convened once the regional states reach agreement on the arrangements of the Conference. The facilitator and the conveners encourage continuation of informal meetings as soon as possible with a view of making as much progress as possible before the NPT review conference. The Government of Finland is committed to hosting the Conference on a short notice once convened.

In times when our common security, cooperation and principles are being tested and challenged we should continue to strengthen the commitments and norms that are vital for the international security and mutual trust. We should focus on what unites us. In this regard, we will support every effort toward an action oriented consensus outcome of the NPT Review Conference.

Mr President,

The stalemate in the CD remains a serious concern. It is my sincere hope that this historically productive and valuable body would once again begin its work and start negotiating disarmament treaties. There is a real risk of the CD being sidelined and overtaken by developments.  Those of us who value the CD should prove this forum can still produce. In fact, we believe, we would benefit from a modern negotiation forum that would bring us results, i.e. disarmament treaties. A negotiation forum that would be open and inclusive, respecting various views, while at the same time aiming for consensus building. Therefore it is important to review and update where possible the working methods of the CD.  The expansion of the membership of the CD would equally enhance the legitimacy and inclusiveness of this body. In addition, recognizing the beneficial contribution of civil society and academia in today’s world, we should enhance their participation in the proceedings of the CD. In this respect we welcome the idea of a CD – Civil Society Forum to be organized next week.

I am encouraged by the on-going work of the Group of Governmental Experts on the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty. We are pleased to have been able to provide our expertise for the proceedings of the Group. We are hopeful that this work will lay the ground for future efforts on the FMCT and negotiations for this treaty will commence soon. We are looking forward to study the forthcoming proposal of France for a FMCT draft Treaty.

The Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC) is one of the key instruments of multilateral disarmament and non-proliferation. With the Eight Review Conference in 2016 in mind, we should continue exploring constructive ways to strengthen the existing mechanisms of the Convention. With 172 state parties, the BTWC has a wide global reach. However, in order to make the convention fully universal, we still have work to do.

Countering biological threats by enhanced biosecurity is a vital element of global non-proliferation agenda. Biological threats do not recognise national borders and therefore international cooperation is essential. As the Ebola outbreak has shown us, promoting global health security should be an international priority. Cooperation and preparedness is at the core of combating infectious diseases effectively through strengthened biological and health capabilities. Through initiatives such as the Global Health Security Agenda, Finland is looking for means to advance global health and biosecurity by concrete actions.  Finland will chair the Global Health Security Agenda (GHSA) Steering Group this year.

Finland attaches also great importance to combating nuclear terrorism and preventing the risk of nuclear or other radioactive material falling into the hands of terrorists. Finland has the pleasure to host the Plenary of the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism (GICNT) in June.  New partners are warmly welcome to join this initiative and participate in the Plenary in Helsinki.

Finland joined the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention in 2012. We have since then practically destroyed our stocks of anti-personnel mines and our contribution to humanitarian mine action has increased to the level of 6 million euro annually. We are actively supporting mine action in countries like Afghanistan, Angola, Cambodia, Lao PDR, Somalia and South Sudan. With other parties of the Treaty, we are fully committed to the Maputo Review Conference decisions, with the aim of ending the suffering caused by these weapons.

Mr President,

I would like to highlight one of the most concrete international disarmament efforts during recent years. After the horrendous chemical attacks in Gouta, Damascus in August 2013, we witnessed how the OPCW and the international community strongly condemned the use of chemical weapons in Syria and was determined to follow through with the dismantling of the Syrian chemical weapons programme.

Finland, among others, provided its support and expertise in various phases of the destruction of the Syrian chemical weapons programme. For Finland, this was a matter of great importance as we have for years provided our strong support to the Chemical Weapons Convention and its full implementation.

Due to the uniqueness of the CW mission, we  have supported and our experts have participated in UN lessons learned workshops as they provide valuable information for example on how we can further strengthen the Secretary-General’s Mechanism for investigation of alleged use of chemical and biological weapons.

Our work is not finished until the Syrian chemical weapons programme is completely and irreversibly eliminated.  It is essential that prompt destruction of the remaining production facilities is carried out and the discrepancies in the declarations are clarified. The use of toxic chemicals constitutes a breach of the CWC.  Therefore, we have also voiced grave concerns over the findings of the OPCW Fact Finding Mission which has established the facts around allegations on the use of chlorine on the civilian population in Syria. Finland was one of the cosponsors of the recent UN Security Council resolution which condemned any use of any toxic chemicals and supported continuation of the Fact-Finding Mission.

April 22 2015, marks the centenary of the first large-scale use of chemical weapons at Ieper in Belgium during World War I. Events in Gouta 2013 showed us that we need to stay vigilant 100 years later.

Mr President,

The United Nations Disarmament Research Institute UNIDIR has been instrumental for the disarmament community in providing research and expertise in our specific fields. We have always found their contribution beneficial.  This year will be crucial in finding a durable funding structure for UNIDIR. All of our help is needed in this effort. Finland for its part will continue supporting the UNIDIR.

To conclude I wish you and the Conference on Disarmament a productive year.

I thank you Mr President