Statement

Mr. Chairman,

Allow me first to thank the Government of Poland for the arrangement of and preparations for this seminar.

We are grateful that Poland, a Baltic maritime neighbour of Finland and a country that has strongly demonstrated its resolve in the fight against terrorism took upon itself this responsibility. Our Polish friends have given important and tangible support and follow-up for the Finnish - Swedish initiative on enhancing the role of the EAPC in the campaign against terrorism. We are grateful to you.

The papers presented to us by the Deputy Assistant Secretary General Speckhard and NATO International Staff have mapped the course for our discussions, given new insights on NATO's internal preparations and thinking, opened new prospects for the EAPC in this field as well as provided the way for possible Partner contributions to strengthen our common fight against terrorism.

The monstrous terrorist acts of 9/11 demonstrated that we had entered a new era as to our understanding of security. Until that date, terrorist acts had been perceived as desperate crimes committed by disturbed individuals and marginal groups. Now, the reality proved entirely different. A well orchestrated and resourceful international network intended to threaten the entire world and intimidate us all with terror and massive destruction.

As a consequence, we have to consider security as an essentially wider concept than what has been the case so far. Important threats to our security continue to be military, of course, but they can also take many other forms. In addition to terrorism, illicit trafficking in drugs, arms and human beings, other forms of international crime, HIV/AIDS and other communicable diseases, even environmental degradation and hazards can have a major impact on our security. The threats to our common existence may no longer primarily be wars and conflicts between states but rather intra-state conflicts as well as failing states and governments that are increasingly incapable to assume their responsibilities towards the international community.

In all these areas, we need improved international collaboration, we need to work together to tackle international problems that concern us all. Many international organisations can find a proper role of their own in combating terrorism. At the same time it is important to avoid duplication. The Security Council of the United Nations of course plays a central role.

While the military dimension is important, fight against terrorism must use all available avenues, civilian and military, investigation and prosecution, economic and diplomatic, to name a few. It is important that we practice what we preach: the rule of law. Ultimately, we must protect the strengths we possess; defend - and not weaken - the values, particularly human rights, that we share. The final goal of course remains to rid the world of the scourge of terror.

The immediate task ahead is to continue to eliminate the threat posed by the al-Qaida network. In the medium term one of the main tasks is to enhance the capacity of the judicial systems - be it legislation, proper administration, prosecutorial methods and special equipment - of those countries that are often in a weak position to counter terrorism.

The spectrum of these countries is broad; at the extreme end we have failed states, Afghanistan being an example of regimes that may become hijacked by terrorist organisations. In the long run, the causes that so easily provide fertile ground for terrorist recruitment, such as persistent regional conflicts and deep social and economic inequalities, must be addressed.

Mr. Chairman,

The decisions taken last December by the two NATO Ministerials are the most important steps to date by NATO as to the role of the Alliance in the long term campaign against terrorism.

But to make this campaign even more effective, we should be able to build on them. Terrorism is an international phenomenon and requires international responses. We should aim at opening the avenue of cooperation to all those partners willing and able to embark upon it.

Members and partners share the same threats and the same concerns. And we shoulder our share of common responsibilities through, e.g., our participation in the same operations in the Balkans.

It is evident that the EAPC cannot play an independent role in the fight against terrorism. Meaningful results can only be achieved when Partners benefit from the Alliance's consultation and working culture, learn from the Alliance's efforts to develop its own strategic concept and thinking regarding asymmetric threats, as well as from the Alliance's preparations on how to counter them.

It is through the extention of common ideas and common working methods between the Alliance and the Partners that the EAPC can bring a value added to our endeavours in this field.

These were the thoughts that inspired the original Finnish - Swedish initiative. We were heartened by the strong support by our Partners. Most of our operative suggestions were incorporated into the EAPC Action Plan.

We see the EAPC as an important vehicle for co-operation with NATO, for partnership in NATO-led non-Article 5 operations. But it is also a political umbrella organisation for PfP, for PARP and for improved interoperability for the purpose of crisis management.

In order to further enhance cooperation between the Alliance and the Partners it should be considered whether the practical approach of the Political-Military Framework could be extended to cover not just operations but other fields of NATO activities as well.

I will not dwell on the preparations and role of NATO in the present campaign against terrorism. It will be explained much better by others.

Nevertheless, let it be said that the immediate politically vital decision after 9/11 to invoke Article V and later to deploy NATO assets, AWACS-planes and the Standing Maritime Force in the Mediterranean were important measures that started a process of adaptation that can become comparable to the major changes the Alliance underwent in the early 1990's after the end of the Cold War.

And it seems highly likely that the challenge posed by terrorism will be one of the key points for discussion in Prague in November of this year.

While this and many other issues such as the enlargement of the Alliance as well as developing NATO-Russia relationship will be the main focus of the Prague Summit, so will also be the future of the Partnership: the redefinition of the EAPC and the PfP.

At the moment the likely future of the Partnership seems to point towards a process leading to increased differentiation and individual issue-oriented structures.

The most valuable assets NATO has are political consensus and the unity of purpose. Key areas in a response to terrorism are the adaptation of NATO´s force and command structure and the tools of defence. Force protection, information and intelligence are central. Protection of forces and civilians against the WMD is a challenging issue where the NATO Civilian Emergency Planning structure will be a valuable asset.

Political solidarity and maintaining the capacity to deter and strike back are also assets and values that serve the fight against terrorism, as mentioned in the IS background document presented to this seminar.

What about the EAPC/PfP contribution?

Immediately after the terrorist strikes in New York and Washington the EAPC gave a statement of strong support to the US. This support was reiterated in many ways during the EAPC ministerial last December. The EAPC will continue to be an important forum for generating and maintaining political consensus and support for a prolonged fight against terrorism.

Beyond that the EAPC / PfP is largerly dependent on the willingness of the Alliance to share the substance of its own cooperation with Partners. As the Alliance's own deliberations are still going on only a few tangible ideas are mature to be identified at this stage. Here are some of them:

The idea of a Trust Fund suggested by Sweden and my country in support of Partner countries that are most exposed to terrorism.

To associate Partners with NATO's process of force adaptation to counter asymmetric threats and terrorism. Make the DCI programme more transparent and allow the force structuring and adaptation process to influence PARP and Partnership Goals!

Allow Partner access to the activities of the NATO WMD Center!

Develop jointly civil protection capabilities in regard of which some Partners have advanced standards, skills and infrastructure.

As for the working methods the Pol-Mil framework provides general guidance and practical inspiration. There ought to be a productive interplay between the multilateral forum of the EAPC and the bilateral approach of the PfP while maintaining as much transparency as possible between the two for the benefit of all Partners. Here are some further thoughts:

The EAPC is well suited for building and maintaining coalitions, for consultation, concertation and cooperation and for monitoring the overall process. The aim must be to make the common denominator between Allies and Partners as well as among Partners as big as possible.

The PfP with its down to earth bilateral approach is well adapted to provide for much of the practical activities. PARP and Partnership Goals were already mentioned and Partner access to NATO's own deliberations would of course be welcome. An EAPC ad hoc committee on terrorism would be a good complement.

Mr. Chairman,

In the fight against terrorism - as in promoting security in general - Finland seeks to enhance international cooperation. The determination by which the international community committed itself to combat terrorism together was a very encouraging sign.

But we also need to do our home work. The European Union adopted swiftly after September 11 a comprehensive action plan to combat terrorism. A considerable part of the measures contained in the plan have already been completed. Work on many others is underway. Finland is fully committed to this endeavour.

It is our view that our common fight against international terrorism could also benefit from a closer co-operation between the EU and NATO. The two organisations have a natural complementarity in this field.

The strengths of the EU in fighting terrorism, particularly in the economic and civilian domains, may in the long run become a valuable asset in developing the overall crisis-management relationship of the EU and NATO. One option could be to formalize a dialogue on terrorism on a working level, including relevant Civil Emergency Planning issues.

The EU's strong regional focus on Central Asia could in my opinion in a natural way support NATO's efforts in that region. In more general terms, the outreach efforts by NATO and the EU should support each other.

Mr. Chairman

The working schedule today and tomorrow, with more detailed discussions at the Working Tables, will provide us with a welcome opportunity to exchange ideas and study the possibilities for concrete joint action against terrorism.

Allow me to repeat my gratitude for the Government of Poland for organizing this seminar and wish you all an enjoyable and useful seminar in Warsaw.