HELSINKI-Finland is chairing the EU for the second time since it joined the European Union. The special nature of this second presidency lies in the fact that Finland has to look for ways out of the EU’s constitutional crisis and prepare a summit to study EU expansion possibilities. How is Finland coping with its responsibilities? Has the goal set at the beginning of its six-month presidency been reached? What should Ukraine expect from the EU-Ukraine summit scheduled for next week? What is Finland’s attitude to Kyiv’s request that Ukraine’s prospects for EU membership be added to the provisos of the future EU-Ukraine partnership and cooperation agreement? These issues are the subject of an [abridged version] of an interview that Finnish President Tarja HALONEN gave to journalists of The Day, Dzerkalo Tyzhnia, and National Television Channel UT-1.
Has Finland succeeded in reaching the targets designated at the outset of its EU presidency, in particular, the resolution of two problems: weak legitimacy and ineffective decision-making procedures in the EU?
T.H.: No, it hasn’t. This is a lengthy process. The presidency of one country cannot be expected to solve such important EU questions as legitimacy and effective performance. In previous years the EU evolved in a manner in which it took turns expanding and deepening its activities. In recent years there have been simultaneous EU expansions and the deepening of cooperation among EU countries. I watched this expansion process when I was Finland’s foreign minister, beginning in 1996. There was a great deal of expansion at the time. This was a necessary expansion, and the project was carried out without a hitch. Now it is Bulgaria and Romania’s turn.
This is also a great task and great challenge for us, so of course we must improve the EU’s performance in this realm, too. Most likely the constitutional reform will not be adopted in its current form. We all know why France and Holland refused to adopt this constitutional agreement. But in my opinion, we will return to this issue and EU reform before the end of Germany’s presidency. The meetings being held by the European Union, including the future EU-Ukraine summit, are proof that the EU is an important international partner.
Will the agreements on simplified visa and readmission procedures be signed during the summit? Have both sides, Brussels and Kyiv, succeeded in reaching a compromise on this issue?
T.H.: I know that there are certain expectations, including those in regard to a visa-free regime. However, certain issues have to be resolved. Of course, economic cooperation in the energy sphere will be among the main themes raised at the summit. We have mutual interests here.
Similar arguments are often presented by EU officials. Since Ukraine actually has the right to apply for EU membership, in accordance with the agreement on the creation of the EU, why are European politicians so adamantly against repeating this clause in the new EU-Ukraine document? The current cooperation agreement will expire next year.
T.H.: It is true that the agreement will expire next year, but it can be prolonged for another year. The prolongation mechanism shows that the signatories are prepared to sign a new agreement. As for mentioning the possibility of membership in the agreement, we have the unpleasant experience of mentioning such things. If we all focus our efforts and attention on having the possibility of EU membership in this agreement, this will distract our attention from the main thing, namely, the things that Ukraine must accomplish to become a member of the European Union.
As for unpleasant experiences, I have Turkey in mind. This country applied for membership before Finland and Sweden, which have been EU members for a decade. By way of comparison, there is a saying in some countries that an early engagement does not necessarily mean a quick wedding. Therefore, we would be better off building a common base for our interrelationships. Of course, it would be a shame to fail to make the best use of the advantages of the agreements that we already have. We must have a firm basis on which to build a new Ukraine.
Ukraine is certainly enjoying political support from the EU. We have interests in common. Everyone is interested in the development of economic and energy relations, as well as in Ukraine’s success in combating corruption.
All new EU member countries emphasize that their membership opportunities were facilitated on the one hand by the consolidation of their societies; that they were made to work harder; and that it served as a strong stimulus for pushing these countries forward. On the other hand, it was a signal for Western investors to make monetary injections into their economies. This helped those countries make an economic breakthrough. Perhaps the reason is not “early engagement” but the so-called absorptive capacity, a topic that has been discussed so often in the EU, where a new document on this is being prepared. Is it possible that this document will put a cap on EU expansion simply because the European Union is unable to absorb or “digest” new countries?
T.H.: The European Union does not intend to terminate anything, not under any circumstances. We do not practice the last-train approach. However, I would say that it is not worthwhile insisting too much on this issue because the European Union has already experienced such an expansion period. Perhaps part of this problem is connected to its absorptive capacity. Be that as it may, matters pertaining to expansion should be handled with the utmost care. After all, work with the newly admitted EU member countries has not been completed. There is a kind of fatigue among EU countries. Some of them are tired of expansion and the attendant processes. Still, we have our Copenhagen criteria and we must adhere to them. It is also important to view the stages being experienced by the EU in the course of expansion from the correct psychological angle.
I should also mention that EU membership is not the only option of progress. There are countries in northern Europe, like Norway, Iceland, and Switzerland. They are not members of the EU. Of course, it is possible to live outside the EU, but I would say that EU membership is a good means of developing a country. Of course, it is good that Ukraine is taking an interest in the EU, just as Brussels is taking an interest in Kyiv. This means that we have interests in common. However, advancing a country’s competitiveness and business success does not depend on this alone. The existing agreement could be used as an instrument to further this competitiveness and success in the economy. Basically, everything depends on you. Also, it would be a shame to fail to use the possibilities offered by the existing agreement. No matter what the final text reads, we must move forward together.
We know that Finland is taking a cautious position on the Northern gas pipeline project because laying this pipeline on the bottom of the Baltic Sea may harm the environment. It has been reported that your country intends to carry out an expert investigation to ascertain possible consequences of this pipeline project. What stand Finland will take if the findings turn out to be negative?
T.H.: First of all, I can say that Finland has a positive attitude to this project in terms of economic cooperation. We understand the interest in this project from the Russian and German sides. Right now Finland is receiving adequate amounts of natural gas through different channels, so we are not directly interested in this project. We are examining the project from the standpoint of its conformity to high ecological standards and environmental protection. Here our stand differs from those of the three Baltic countries that have a more critical attitude to this project. Nevertheless, we are proceeding from the assumption that all the project participants must ensure high ecological standards.
Do you know the results of the expert examinations?
T.H.: No, I am not familiar with the details of this question. Let me say again: if we are not directly involved in this project, then we are not a party to this ecological expert examination. We believe that the participants in this project should conduct this examination in terms of the project’s impact on the environment. Of course, if we receive requests for assistance with this process, we will certainly take them into account, and, as a rule, will offer our services. This is a joint task aimed at protecting the Baltic Sea.
Ukrainian supporters of our country’s non-aligned status frequently point to Finland as an example. But we know that some 40 percent of Finns have a positive attitude to Finland joining NATO someday. Would you care to comment on how Finland is planning to guarantee its national security in the presence of new threats, particularly terrorism? Can these new threats lead the Finnish people to change their minds and opt for NATO membership?
T.H.: Finland is a NATO partner, but it is not interested in becoming a member of the alliance. We have not expressed any interest in joining this organization, and I do not anticipate big changes in the nearest future. The same is true of Ireland, Austria, and Sweden. Therefore, when planning security projects within the EU framework, as we have done and are still doing, we wanted to bear in mind that even among the members of the old EU, before the great expansion, there were NATO member countries and those that did not want to join this organization. Therefore, when we deal with the security policy within the EU framework, we are doing so for these reasons: EU membership ensures each country a full opportunity to take part in these processes within the framework of the European community.
However, most EU countries are also NATO members, so we are interested in well-organized cooperation between the EU and NATO. As for the EU’s quick deployment forces, Finland will be on duty next year, on par with Holland and Germany, both of which are NATO members. The discussion of security policy questions, including NATO, will of course continue. Recently the editors of Finland’s largest newspapers were polled. The results show that most of them are in favor of Finland joining NATO. Therefore, one can say that the media’s interest in this question is guaranteed. Meanwhile, the bulk of the Finnish population has a different view.
