How can Europe cope with global change?

Sustainable peace and security – Europe’s global role. Key note speech by Martti Ahtisaari

Brussels, 9 November 2009

Commissioner Kallas, Excellencies, Ladies and gentlemen,

Today is the twentieth anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. It was the symbol of the Cold War and of Europe’s division. Nobody expected its fall. In the autumn of 1989, there was no reason to think that the Wall would not still be standing by the end of that month, just as it had for 28 years.

If that one event was unforeseen, then certainly analysts or decision makers did not know to prepare for the subsequent events of 1989. Following in the path of Poland and East Germany, various nations shrugged off their Communist leaders. Less than two years after that these developments led to the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. At the same time the fall created unforeseen and wonderful opportunities for the European unification and integration that were almost beyond imagination during the Cold War years.

The surprise that the fall constituted is a reminder of how limited our capacity is in anticipating major changes in our operating environment and their impact.

In the following I will not even try to cover comprehensively the dimensions of global peace and internal and external security. Instead I would like to discuss some trends and challenges that I am particularly concerned and to which European Union need to find responses.

******

The international security environment has been in flux during the last twenty years. At the same time our security perspectives have undergone a transformation as well. In this time of rapid change the notion of security evolves as do risks and how we perceive them. Many of the risks that were of a military nature are no longer in the forefront. We have expanded our security horizons by moving other threats to the core of our security policy. Comprehensive security is a concept that has moved the individual to a more central place in the sphere of security policy. It has been given a human dimension.

Long gone are the days when the threats that dominated the international security scene were mainly of a military nature. On the other hand, while we redefine our security perspective as we adjust to the changing security environment, we should also note that there are continuities that should not be overlooked.


Phenomena such as financial crises, resource scarcity, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, climate change, political violence by fundamentalists, or pandemic diseases emphasize the interconnectedness and fragility of the global system.

This interdependency underlines also the vulnerability of our modern societies. In the 21st century no nation on its own can be secure and no narrow definition of security will provide a foundation for safety. The idea of security must be broadened to include security against hunger, pollution, ecological degradation, poverty, ignorance, many forms of organized crime and direct physical assaults for everyone.

Anything less will not work for long. Meeting human needs for food, shelter, sustainable livelihood, environmental preservation reduces the sources of conflict and the dissatisfaction that feeds terrorism. Real security will require a larger vision and the development of the capacity, international and local, necessary to solve problems that feed violence, hatred, and fear.

Climate change is a good example of a development that will have serious environmental, socio-economic and security consequences for both developed and developing nations alike. If governments simply respond with traditional attempts to maintain the status quo and control insecurity they will ultimately fail.

The risks of climate change demand a rethink of current approaches to security and the development of sustainable ways of achieving that security, with an emphasis on preventative rather than reactive strategies. Therefore, it is vital that we get an ambitious deal in Copenhagen that really sets the world on a low-carbon trajectory.
In the environmentally constrained but more populous world that can be expected over the course of this century, there will be greater scarcity of three key resources: food, water and energy. Demand for all three resources is already beyond that which can be sustained at current levels. Once population growth and the effects of climate change are factored in, it is clear that greater competition for such resources should be expected, both within and between countries, potentially leading in extreme cases to conflict.

In our global environment the problem with the greatest impact is, in my mind, the growing rich-poor gap. The difference in income between the top fifth and the bottom fifth of the World was 74 to 1 in 1998. The disparity in per capita GDP between the 20 richest and the 20 poorest countries has more than doubled between 1960 and 1995. It has grown even worse. Three billion people now live on less than $2 a day. The physical, political, psychological and moral consequences of this disparity are enormous.

The current global financial crisis has further increased the risk of growing inequality. Many of the regions and countries most affected by the withdrawal of capital from emerging markets are already fragile, with many just emerging from years of conflict. Growing inequality between countries and within society exacerbates existing cleavages. The loss of welfare and employment opportunities easily leads to a loss of hope and faith in the future among the most vulnerable. This in turn fosters the rise of fundamentalism and violence, and creates breeding-grounds for crime, terrorism and war.

If the financial crisis leads to long-term recession, then crime and drug problems will spread even more widely and the tensions that can result from migration will grow. If climate mitigation fails, states and people will take adaptation into their own hands; the results could be even more destabilising.
This financial crisis highlights the importance of maintaining the commitment of the European Union and its Member States to peace building and development cooperation. What is also needed at national and EU levels is "whole-of-government" approaches that link development more clearly to diplomacy and defence, and poverty-reduction to peace and democracy - into coherent practice.

******
Sometimes I think we do not really understand the magnitude of the cost of conflict. According to Mumbai-based think tank, Strategic Foresight Group, Middle East Crises have caused a total of $12 trillion financial losses within last 20 years. This includes, in general costs of declining economy in Israel and Palestine, Lebanon, and Iraq among others. It does not include for example the costs of western military actions and or any value for the individual suffering and general insecurity. It is shocking to think that the pure economical cost of conflict from the last 20 years is many times bigger than losses from the financial crises

Europe should particularly pay attention to the potentially explosive unemployment rates in the Arab countries. Over the next decade, the International Labour Organisation expects 1,2 billion young people to enter the global labour market. By traditional means we can employ only 300 million of them. The inability to support one’s self and care for one’s family, to see a future with prospects and opportunities will prove costly not only for these youths, but for their societies and their entire region as well.

Trying to maintain security in a deeply divided world in which marginalised majorities can so easily be radicalised simply cannot be done by keeping the lid on things. This is especially the case in an era of irregular warfare. After all, a few thousand insurgents tied down nearly 200,000 of the world's best equipped troops in Iraq for six years, and the reinvigorated war in Afghanistan entered its ninth year in October 2009.

It is being increasingly realised that to effectively tackle the security problems the world faces, resources must be diverted away from military spending towards diplomacy and development to address the conditions that ferment radicalisation amongst the marginalised.

In order to come to grips with some of Europe’s most pressing domestic and international challenges we need to engage in genuinely inclusive dialogue across multiple cultures and communities, that identifies and amplifies the moral and philosophical backbone for the type society we wish to be. And we will need to use up-to-date means of communication to engage young people in the debate and to inspire a common definition of our shared values that underline our efforts for sustainable security and peace.


******


Ladies and gentlemen,

As Chairman of the Crisis Management Initiative I have been following with interest the FORESEC project and its findings. One of the interesting conclusions of the project is that it is likely that Europe’s ability to shape the international environment will be reduced in the long term. While the future international system will have a greater number of power centres, it is not clear that the emerging system will rest on the foundations of multilateralism and rule-based behaviour of great powers. As the EU and its member states lose material power potential, the way in which they use what remains will become more important. We have to slow down the decline of relative EU power and influence. There is a good deal of potential that we must use so that we will reach our goals. The EU‟s comparative advantage will increasingly be in the realm of soft power.

I think that this is a sobering perspective for all of us that feel that the EU is uniquely positioned to promote peace, stability and development globally.

Here is a key issue: how do we find a common view, how do we develop common policies that will withstand the test of crisis? Today it is only too often so that we in the European Union have too many divergent views on what is good for us collectively. In fact, the common good is often present only in official speeches. If we in the European Union are not capable of achieving more in terms of firm unified positions we cannot be credible and reliable partners. If that is our fate, why should anybody take us seriously as a European Union? We risk political irrelevance as our messages become too obscure to really have any influence on others.

In the future international system, at least as it shapes up based on current projections, closer cooperation and integration among EU Member States emerges as an obvious remedy because it would in theory allow for a more effective use of diminishing resources. In that sense, member governments might have to accept that they need to share sovereignty to a greater extend, even in the sensitive arena of foreign and security policy, in order to safeguard European autonomy on the global scene.
Bringing diverse instruments across civilian and military spheres together into a coherent response is seen as the greatest potential, if yet only partially realized, comparative advantage of the EU. The EU supports conflict prevention and peace building around the world through a wide range of policies and instruments, including crisis management operations, support to peace processes as well as targeted economic and other measures such as relief, rehabilitation, reconstruction operations and development assistance.
However, currently these instruments are spread across the EU pillars and institutions. Bringing diverse instruments across civilian and military spheres together into a coherent response is seen as the greatest potential, if yet only partially realised, comparative advantage of the EU. The ratification of Lisbon Treaty would reinforce EU’s capacity to act.

******

As you know, FORESEC is funded under the European Security Research Programme. I participated in the work of the Group of Personalities in 2003-2004 which work paved the way to the fully fledged Security Research Programme we currently have under the 7th Framework Programme.

Until now security research has been focused almost entirely on internal security missions. In today’s globalised world that might not be enough. The European Security Research should be part of the comprehensive approach for building sustainable peace and security. It should support EU’s global role not only internal security missions.

In light of the challenges and trends I discussed earlier, research and innovation on societal resilience will play a crucial role in preparing Europe for future security challenges. In the light of the numerous drivers of change and uncertainties I see societal resilience absolutely a key for coping with global change. Societal resilience rests on a combination of people and the social structures in which they live and work. Both can be exposed to risk. The resilience of society will depend on the interlinking of the two, on their mutual trust and confidence, and their actual capacity to support one another.

Having been in the positions to make difficult decisions I feel that the knowledge base available for decision making is unavoidably inconclusive, controversial and uncertain. One constant evident in history – the power of contingency and surprise – will continue to dominate our future, which will be influenced by unexpected events, startling surprises, major discontinuities and the pervasive operation of chance.

Therefore I have found the FORESEC process a promising first step in developing a new kind of culture for open and participatory foresight on security in Europe. It is vital for creating a shared understanding on how EU and its Member States could best prepare for the contingencies and uncertainties resulting from the inter-play of future developments in science, technology, economy and society. Also risk management strategies need to better incorporate forward-looking methods, and in particular to evaluate and understand the impact of the driving forces of change. Therefore, I am looking forward to today’s discussions on how to embed foresight better in policy making.

An indeed, from time to time, a more fundamental rethinking of policies is needed: policy-makers occasionally need to ask if current policies can be continued. Do they correctly realise and react to trends, and hence are they blocking or slowing down negative trends and accommodating favourable future developments? Foresight can help in picking up weak signals: weak but very important hints that a fundamental re-assessment and re-alignment of current policies are needed. In other words, foresight can serve as a crucial part of an early warning system.

******

How Europe could then be forging peace and security amidst of all this uncertainty and change? I am afraid I have raised more questions than answered them.

What is clear - we need more common European assessments of what is driving change; how it is affecting our interests and what our options are to respond.

Proactive security policies should be directed towards the causes of instability and conflicts making preventative strategies really work. We should also make better use of economic, social and environmental indicators to assess possible future conflicts, so that in the long term we can plan how to prevent them.

I am convinced that the Lisbon treaty will allow the EU to begin to approach the world and engage with it in more strategic and coherent fashion.

Europe needs foresight, imagination, pragmatism and political commitment, fueled by effective leadership to cope with the global change.