Alex Stubb's blog

The European Union � from Crisis to Regeneration

Alexander Stubb — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0200

17.11.2011, Bruges

Honourable Rector,

Dear professors and students,

Ladies and gentlemen, dear friends

It is an honour to be given this chance to speak at the College of Europe in Bruges, my old school. This place gave me more than I bargained for - including my wife! I even had a chance to teach here for seven years. I simply love this place.

I remember my early years working with European integration as a time of great optimism, a leap from an economic community to European Union. Now, the EU is in the midst of an unprecedented crisis with the grave problems the euro area is facing. Optimism is no longer the main game in town.

We are living through a global financial crisis and a western debt crisis, already in its fourth year. The problems of the euro area are far from over with added Greek and Italian drama and brinkmanship. Nothing could be further from the festive mood of ten years back when the euro was launched.

However, this is not the first time the Union faces a big challenge. The history of European integration is paved with crises and challenges that have resulted in the Union taking bold new steps, steps forward. Be it with the crisis of the coal and steel industry that resulted in the community approach in the first place. Or the economic stagnation of the 1970s that led to the single market and consequently to monetary union. Or the end of the Cold War that prompted European unification across the old dividing line.

We have to look beyond the crisis into new European horizons. Today, I want to talk to you about the future, not just about next week. I want to talk about European regeneration. Don't blame my government for the positions I am going to outline, these views are strictly personal.

In crisis situations, the clear response has always been more Europe, not less. And so it must be today � the European Union needs to emerge from this crisis stronger than ever. A stronger Europe, a smarter Europe. This is the mood I want to share with you here today.

The European project works on many fronts, and I could talk for hours about its trade or foreign policy agenda, the need for more unity in external action, the multi-annual financial framework or innovation policy, but today I want to focus on economic governance. Namely on three aspects:

i) Growth

ii) Rules

iii) Cohesion

I will make the case for three concrete proposals: i) improve growth by realising the digital single market, ii) make stronger rules for the euro, and iii) provide institutional arrangements that will preserve institutional cohesion.

So let me come to my first point, the European growth agenda.

We all know that financial stabilisation will only produce results if economic growth is strong in Europe at large, not just in the select few, northern export-led economies. If growth does not resume, buying time with rescue packages has no point. It amounts to kicking the can further down the road, but it does nothing to change the end state.

For the time being, dealing with the immediate crisis takes precedence over long-term growth plans. Plugging holes takes priority over destination when ships are in trouble. But we should also start looking beyond the crisis.

A while back Gideon Rachman argued in a Financial Times column that the United States is the military super power, China the economic super power and Europe has opted for being the lifestyle super power. I agree with this choice, but as Gideon pointed out, our lifestyle is dependent on economic dynamism. We need to have world-leading cutting-edge companies in Europe also during the next decade - and the next century.

We talk a lot about growth and competitiveness, but little concrete action is taken. We need more ambition. One dimension is of course firm structural reforms removing obstacles to growth. Another dimension is opening markets to European companies � the EU is remarkably open, but we should make extra efforts to achieve improved market access with our external partners. More efforts are needed with e.g. the United States, Russia and the emerging markets. Yes to free trade and investments, no to all forms of mercantilism and protectionism.

But above all, we should take better care of the internal market, the heart of the European economy, the world�s biggest single market in terms of GDP or trade.

Let me clarify. If you are pro-internal market you are also pro-European. If you are against the internal market, you are in essence anti-EU. This is why Britain � to my mind � is an instinctively pro-EU country, as paradoxical as this may sound to many of you.

The internal market is a major European achievement and it is the foundation for the economic competitiveness of European companies. It should be the hassle-free home arena from where our start-up companies can launch their global success stories. And it should include a fully-functioning European financial market guaranteeing access to finance for promising companies.

One of the biggest gaps missing from the single market is the digital dimension. You cannot believe the amount of red tape our promising digital companies have to deal with when they want to sell in the European market. Usually twenty-seven rule books, instead of unified European rules. The situation is no better for the European consumer � try buying music or applications and you face a wall of national restrictions. And the digital market is where growth is happening, where our promising companies should be thriving.

No wonder American companies rule the web. We have surrendered without even starting. This must change and we have called for the establishment of a Digital Single Market by 2015. A new big bang for the Single Market, like the original 1992 deadline.

So my message is that this aim needs to be taken seriously. We need ambitious harmonising legislative proposals from the Commission designed to make the Digital Single Market a reality. The Digital Single Market � if implemented � can bring even extra 4% of GDP by 2020. The business of making growth actually happen is not about presenting endless Europe 2020 slide-shows but preparing and tabling legislative proposals.

I am encouraged by the fact that the friends of DSM 2015 � a catchy slogan by the way � are not just northern nerds. Our biggest allies in this project have been more southern partners, countries that are serious about growth, like France and Spain.

Dear friends,

My second point is about rules and treaty change. The euro was a fair-weather currency � running smoothly as long as the sun was shining. There were only carrots, no sticks. This has to change. What I propose is firmer sticks with stronger rules, but I also want to remind you about the existing carrots.

First, let me talk about rules.

The Greek debt crisis has very clearly demonstrated the fact that soft coordination is not credible when it comes to economics and financing, things that really matter. I cannot say that Greek problems should have come as a surprise to anyone � even with Greek accounting the numbers were clear enough for everyone to see � but nothing forced us to take the situation seriously. Markets were happy to lend money to Greece at 4%. We had rules to prevent euro area countries from over-borrowing, but these rules became redundant the day that Germany and France decided that they did not need to respect them.

We need strong rules, strong enforcement of rules and a culture of rules. The strengthening of institutions upholding the rules should be an inseparable part of European regeneration.

I cannot downplay the shock that the Greek debt-crisis has caused with my Finnish electorate that believes in fair play and following the rules. People feel cheated because European rules were not followed and national authorities even gave false information. The EU rarely provokes an emotional reaction among Finns - this time is different. For us this is not really about money, but principles.

The European Union is a deeply integrated system where we are all interdependent. Nothing moves without having an effect on others. We have participated in rescuing Euro members in difficulties. We have felt an obligation to do this because it was in our interest and because we are all responsible for the Euro. However, this responsibility needs to be complemented by firmer obligations on all euro area members to run their economies in a sustainable manner.

If there are rights, there have to be obligations. Freedom cannot mean the freedom to harm others.

We need to restore credibility to the Union as a rules-based institution. This is after all the fundamental mission of the Union � bringing European countries and citizens together in a constitutional civilization built on common rules, not the arbitrary rule of the strong and mighty.

We need a system where irresponsible economic behaviour can be stopped in its tracks. The no bail-out rule is clear, but the markets have until now failed to take its meaning fully into account. The recent six-pack legislative package on economic governance goes a long way. This was an excellent move and I pay my deep respect to the European Parliament for making the six-pack a legislative reality.

However, we should go further. I see no reason why sanctions should not be tougher if a euro area member state deliberately or out of negligence puts the common currency in danger. I understand the Dutch reasoning on a gradual loss of national control if things get out of hand.

The Union needs a budget tsar, the economic affairs commissioner with beefed-up powers to keep member states on the straight and narrow path. And please remember, I am a Finn � I do not speak about tsars lightly.

I am an academic at heart. So let me dissect the institutional steps that can be taken to improve rules and governance. First, there are measures that can be taken in an inter-governmental setting, like agreeing to further reforms in the Euro Plus treaty. Second, many things can be done within the existing treaties by introducing new legislation, the six-pack being an eminent example. Third, there are measures that would need treaty change, for instance political sanctions like revoking voting-rights or curtailing budgetary sovereignty. Fourth, we can also use enhanced cooperation where euro area countries could make rules for themselves.

I am a convinced � some would say enthusiastic - European. But I nevertheless think that we need to approach treaty change with caution. We should do whatever necessary, but no more. If opening the treaties is a necessity for tougher rules, we should have a ring-fenced intergovernmental conference designed to make treaty changes that are relevant for euro area governance, not more. We should not put everything on back on the table so soon after the coming into force of the Lisbon Treaty.

If this limited change to prove politically impossible, we would need to look at enhanced cooperation as a way forward for the euro area. After all, budgetary discipline and fiscal policies are not exclusive union competences.

The big picture is nevertheless clear � we need to balance rights and responsibilities. The majority has had to make major commitments to safeguard the euro area. Now the minority has to recognise its responsibilities towards the area as a whole and make that responsibility as firm as possible. Solidarity is a two-way street.

Carrots for following the rules exist today. And they are market-based, as they should be.

Eurobonds have been busily debated, but I think that we have taken a wrong approach to the whole issue. Joint eurobonds are not a solution to the present crisis. We should not seek means of economic governance that would remove market discipline from the euro area. We need more competition, mobility and capitalism in Europe � not less.

During the debt crisis, the market has started to fully appreciate the differences between euro area countries' competitiveness and sustainability. The Euro has become an essentially Darwinist currency. The market rewards the triple-A countries and punishes those who have been slack about their public finances. Survival of the fittest prevails.

As a consequence the core of the Europe's core is economic, not political. It includes all the AAA-rated euro countries which fulfil the Maastricht criteria. Unfortunately this core is quite small.

The crisis has led to closer economic cooperation among the core countries and provided an additional incentive for all euro members to stick to the rules. All euro members need to strive for a triple-A credit rating.

The re-emergence of market discipline in Europe is definitely painful for many. And I have no doubt that we have during the past two years seen the market overreact as if to make up for past mistakes. Countries with a solid economic base have seen their bond interest rates spike. But eventually the market will calm down and learn. In the long run, raw market pressure is the only really effective tool to ensure the governments pursue sound good economic policy. The market is both the stick and the carrot.

Dear friends,

Last, but not least, let me come to my third point, maintaining institutional cohesion, EU unity, even as the euro area moves forward.

I wrote my thesis at Bruges on the famous Sch�uble-Lamers paper of 1994, which suggested a euro core of founding states minus Italy. Just to prove I am an institutional nerd, I continued on the theme of differentiated integration with my Ph. D. at the London School of Economics and Political Science.

Many debates have been fought over cores: should we have them or not. Every time institutions, enlargement, Schengen, the euro or foreign and security policy are mentioned, cores come up in the debate. So far an institutional core Europe has not really emerged, but this time it may be in the making - by the markets.

I think there is a clear case for deepening integration in the euro area. But a deepening EURO17 may pose risks and question marks for the well being of EU27.

But before I turn to this issue, let me make one additional point about the euro and the union. This may sound strange as the crisis is still brewing, but do remember that all EU members are supposed to join the euro when they meet its conditions. And these conditions must not be fudged.

Only Britain and Denmark have negotiated the right to remain outside. Estonia showed the way quite recently, unafraid of assuming euro obligations. Sweden � and I do say this with deep neighbourly love - is in fact living in sin as it has not joined the euro, in spite of the fact that it has the ability to do so. I have the conviction that the euro area will grow, once the crisis is over. So the division between the 27 and the 17 should only be temporary - at least for a true believer like me.

So the deepening of the euro should not happen in a way that endangers the Union. We cannot introduce elements that would for instance harm the internal market. We need to find ways to make the development of the euro area compatible with our daily life at 27. I think that the key for this harmony lies in the way we construct new institutions for the euro area.

The general rule in developing EU institutions should be streamlining: more simplicity, more continuity, and more stability. This was in fact a guiding light in the constitutional process leading to the Lisbon treaty. But now the evolution of the euro area seems to be taking a new turn with the possibility of electing a separate president for the euro area summits. We need fewer presidents, but are in fact opening the door to more.

There is something of an Iron law in European organisation - every time you create a new functionary, you create a new dimension of bureaucratic competition. We all recognise this. You only have to read the daily papers to witness it. And bureaucratic games are not conducive to decisive leadership in times of crisis.

I am convinced that entrenching the euro area with its own president would deepen the divide between the 17 and the 27. And just imagine future decision making: President of the Commission, President of the European Council, President of the Euro Area, President of the European Parliament, President of the European Central Bank, President of the Eurogroup, President of the Council. I am sure that I have forgotten someone, but this is already decision-making at seven presidents. You need a new building to house just the presidents.

We need to make a different choice � fewer presidents, not more. I think we should streamline decision-making in the euro area and at the same time ensure that the institutional set up leads to more coherence, not entrenchment and infighting.

My solution would be to combine the functions of the Presidents of the Commission, the European Council and Euro Area Summits into one high post. In effect, not double-hatting, but triple-hatting the holder of office. As we have seen, combining the presidency of the European Council and Euro Area Summits works.

You can just select the same person to all three posts. It does not require treaty change. But making this permanent and doing so in a clear and unequivocal manner - paying careful attention to procedures and structures - would require treaty change. It is worth exploring. My conviction is that this solution would be of great benefit to the Commission and the community method � the Commission would naturally take centre-stage. Let�s be frank, the financial crisis has not been good to the community method.

Careful attention should be given to how this European President would be elected and how he or she would work. And I do not pretend that I have a ready and detailed blue print in my back pocket.

The exercise is worthwhile only if it brings more order and more harmony. Command, control and communication all need to be crystal clear. The President would in effect be Commission based, but would need a strong administration bringing together the preparations of the European Council, the Eurogroup and the leadership of the Commission.

I am not proposing institutional innovations just for the fun of it, but we need to remember that form follows function. There is a need for more leadership in Europe and I would rather have this leadership in the hands of a joint � perhaps elected - trustee, than self-anointed member states. I would rather choose an open rostrum than a smoke-filled backroom.

Dear friends,

As we are in College, we need to keep academic standards and mind pedagogical method. So let me recapitulate my message. The EU faces an unprecedented crisis, but the way is forward. And this way consists of three steps: one - pay attention to growth, two � make rules work, and three � upgrade institutions in a way that are conducive to improved leadership. Sometimes less is more.

I thank you for your attention and the opportunity to address you.

A day in Moldova

Alexander Stubb — Wed, 7 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0300

A couple of hours� flight right in the morning took me to my first visit to Moldova. On the plane, I spent time carefully studying my papers and preparing for the meetings together with a delegation of senior officials from the Ministry, Nina Vaskunlahti, Mikko Hautala and Harri K�m�r�inen.

In the capital of Moldova, Chisinau, I first met with my colleague Iurie Leancan. Iurie is a competent and motivated Minister, who is full of enthusiasm.

Our discussions focused on the relations between Moldova and the EU, the frozen Transdnistrian conflict and Moldova�s foreign policy.

Press conference in Moldova.

Moldova�s coalition Government, which came into power last year, has committed to seeking convergence with the EU. Results have already been reached within a few months. Moldova is negotiating an association agreement. The policy of exemption from the visa requirement is also being phased in. The ultimate goal is a free trade agreement.

Moldova thus wants to integrate into Europe, because it is where it feels at home. Iurie told me bluntly that they want to become a normal and boring country. I was pleased to note that Moldova is not only asking for help but also demonstrating commitment to hard work and reforms.

We talked about the current situation of Transdnistrian at length. The frozen conflict is discussed in the so-called 5+2 format, comprising Moldova, Trans-Dniester, the OSCE, Russia, Ukraine, the EU and the USA.

This format continues to play a key role and it deserves a strong support. Meetings at official level have been at an impasse for several years already. Germany and Russia have recently proposed that the discussions could also be pursued in a special Russia-EU committee. This could be a good way to promote and support the process as a whole.

We also touched upon many other aspects of Moldova�s foreign policy. The discussions were very fruitful and I learned a lot.

The relations between Finland and Moldova are excellent but thin. The volume of trade is at a modest level of EUR 10 million. However, we are now working on strengthening the relations; Finland has launched concrete projects in the country and a special trade seminar will be arranged in the autumn to support fledgling business ideas.

Meeting with the Prime Minister.

The flood alert in the south of Moldova brought some drama to the day. The meeting with the President was cancelled because he had to dash to the disaster area. I also met the Prime Minister only in passing.

My visit ended with a walk with Iurie around the city of Chisinau. That was a welcome breather.

I have now moved to the neighbouring Ukraine and tomorrow will be a hard day in Kiev ...

Walking with the Foreign Minister. (Photos: Pekka Mustonen)

A year from the eruption of the Georgian war

Alexander Stubb — Sat, 8 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0300

Last year I had to cut short my holiday by a couple of days but this year my fortnight's holiday will end in time, which means today. A short situation report is in order on the first anniversary of the Russia-Georgia war.

A year has passed since the eruption of the war in Georgia. The crisis heated the frozen conflicts in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, which belong to Georgia, to boiling point. Fortunately, the war was ended rapidly but, at the same time, the conflicts were deep-frozen. There is no solution of the conflicts on the horizon neither is there consensus about the interpretation of the cease-fire.

A refugee woman in Gori on the road from South Ossetia, August 2008 (Photo: OSCE)

The war in Georgia shattered the European security policy configuration also at a more general level. It created tensions and persistent insecurity. On the other hand, the impacts of the war have been overshadowed by the global economic crisis, which naturally has even more far-reaching consequences.

The Refugee Center in Tbilisi, August 2008 (Photo: OSCE)

For me, the war was a particularly challenging time because of Finland' OSCE Chairmanship. We worked hard and reached two things. Firstly, the OSCE managed to contribute to the ending of the war. Secondly, the organisation played a major role in monitoring the cease-fire. We managed to get military observers to the field quickly, which helped calm down the situation. The OSCE proved again to be a brisk actor. Of course, I am not in a position to assess our activities, but we received an equal number of praising and disparaging comments from various parties. I consider this a sort of indication of credibility.

What does the situation in Georgia look like now on 080809?

Firstly, domestic turmoil in the country is continuing. Demonstrations that lasted for four months have now subsided but they are expected to resume momentum in the autumn. The opposition requires President Saakashvili's resignation and early presidential and parliamentary elections. Saakashvili does not agree to the requirements but has promised the opposition that he will carry out constitutional reforms. The opposition is still disunited and the President does not have a clear challenger. Irakli Alasania is the most popular candidate after Saakashvili, with an estimated support of 17 per cent of votes.

Secondly, the security situation in the conflict regions is alarming. This is the case especially after the OSCE and UNOMIG observers had to withdraw from the conflict zone in early summer. The only international operation in Georgia is the EU Monitoring Mission (EUMM), which has been established to monitor the cease-fire. It has done good - and essential - work there. Finland has contributed 14 staff to the mission. The problem is that the observers have not been granted access to Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

At any rate, the peace process that was launched last autumn is in progress. The Geneva discussions are continuing under the UN, OSCE and EU leadership. Even if any major breakthrough is not likely in the near future, Geneva is the only forum that keeps the dialogue between Russia and Georgia alive. The most significant step forward to date is the joint incident prevention and response mechanism, which involves regular meetings at local level to discuss incidents and their prevention. However, there have been stumbling blocks in its implementation.

In the past few days, the possibility of renewed escalation of the crisis has caused concern. Like last year, I have followed disturbing reports about incidents also while on holiday. The optimist would say that the anniversary heightens tension and incidents have therefore become heated. In any case, the situation does not look quite as bad as a year ago. Nevertheless, the EU, for example, has commented the recent events with concern. It is essential to prevent re-escalation of the conflict. As always, a war would produce no winners but only losers of different kinds.

What should the EU then do to preserve stability and help Georgia out of the woods at some phase?

I see that political intervention can take place on three tracks. 1) The cease-fire must be monitored effectively and reinforced by international presence in the entire territory of Georgia. 2) The peace process must be supported and preconditions must be sought for a gradual restoration of confidence and concrete steps forward. 3) The EU must strengthen its overall support for Georgia. This will take place in the framework of the policy of the Eastern Partnership.

And "last but not least" - Georgia has to be required responsible policy and continued democratic reforms. Here the EU must take assertive action.

The Frankfurt Ironman Experience

Alexander Stubb — Tue, 7 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0300

At home. Still high from finishing the Frankfurt Ironman on Sunday. Rewarding myself with a beer.

I can still feel the race in my whole body...literally. I go over the experience once more.

We get to Frankfurt on Friday. Christian Haep is there to greet us. A great guy who helps us throughout the weekend.

I feel nervous before the start. I know I have trained well, but will I be able to cope with the full distance of an Ironman - a 3,8 km swim, a 180 km bike ride and a 42.2 km marathon?

(Photo: Juan Martinez)

I know I have to pace myself. I can't go flat out. Patience is not a virtue that I possess. Think diesel, think diesel.

I sleep relatively well before the race. Especially a few days before. I know that is important. I feel rested. Good.

I eat well on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday. My body feels loaded with carbs. On Saturday I go back to normal food.

The day before the race I go for a short swim with Tiina Boman, one of the top female triathletes of the world. Her husband, Antti Hagqvist, gives us last minute instructions. He has been my coach throughout training.

The lake feels good. The water is relatively clear.

In the afternoon we get a briefing from race director Kai Walter. Helps to settle the nerves. Now I know what to put in the blue, red and white bags which await me at the different transition areas.

I get my gear ready - towel, wetsuit, goggles, swimming cap, bike, helmet, biking shoes, drinking bottles, sunglasses, socks, running shoes, energy gels and a running cap.

My alarm goes off at 4.15 a.m. on race day. The family is asleep. I go down to have breakfast. I don't feel especially hungry, but I need my morning coffee.

I get to the lake at 5.30 a.m. I fiddle with my gear, pump the tires and give a few interviews. Tiina and I enter the water together. Time to warm up. I feel good.

There is an eerie atmosphere. Quiet. All the athletes are focused.

I can hear the starter talking about "Der Finnische Aussenminister", the Finnish Foreign Minister. Kind of him.

Then, just before the start, I hear one of my favourite bands, Sunrise Avenue. I feel even better. Ready to go.

My start is at 6.45. Bang, and we are off. Not too much pushing and shoving. I am looking for a good draft, but can't find one.

Never mind. My rhythm feels good. One-two-one-two.

After the first 900 metres I tag behind a good swimmer. I follow him to the halfway point where we have to get out of the water and swim in the other direction. I fall behind my draft and consequently slow down.

I come out of the water in 1 hour and 7 minutes. Relatively happy with my time.

I run around to transition, take off my wetsuit and change into biking gear. It all takes 4 minutes.

I start biking relatively easy, trying to get a rhythm. The first 12 km are gentle, a bit downhill.

I begin eating my energy gels. One every half an hour. I stick to the plan until the end, and end up gulping 21 energy gels and some 10 litres of liquids during the journey.

On the bike I stick to my own sports drink and water.

The Frankfurt country side is beatiful...and fortunately not too hilly. Only three bigger hills and "The Hell", a 600 metre cobblestone bit.

The crowds are great. Every little village is packed with cheering spectators. They give me energy. Danke sehr.

The bike ride consists of two loops. I see my family, Finnish flags and all, in downtown Frankfurt. They give me more energy than the energy gels.

I feel comfortable on the bike. It is probably my strongest discipline thanks to my "ice-hockey thighs", but I don't want to push because I know that a marathon awaits.

I keep a steady, conservative pace, and finish the 180 kilometres in 5 hours and 21 minutes. My odometre tells me that my average speed is 34,1 km/h, the official timer gives me slightly slower average.

The transition to the run feels smooth. I have done it countless times in training, but I have never faced a marathon after a long bike ride.

I pace myself. Four loops of 10,5 km. I feel confident.

The crowds are fantastic. Packed along the River Main. Tens of thousands cheering. I hear "Go Alexander Go". And I keep going.

(Photo: M. Yliluoma)

In the beginning the fast runners keep on passing me. No worries. I am focused on my own race. I can't imagine what it would feel like to race against someone else. I am going for my own dream. I want to finish.

There is a service station every 1,5 km. I use everyone of them. The pattern remains the same: ice down my back, water, a sip of pepsi cola or red bull and finally four sponges of ice cold water over my head.

I need all the refreshment I can get. Sunshine and 28 degrees celsius can be treacherous.

(Photo: Sandra B�hncke)

My family, Tiina's family and Antti's family cheer me on. Every time I see them I feel better, my steps feel lighter.

Not once do I contemplate stopping. Not once do I feel like stopping. The only time I have to pull over for a few minutes is when I get my toes patched for blisters. No major problems, just a bit uncomfortable.

Pauli Kiuru, a legendary triathete (once 2nd in Hawaii and twice 3rd) told me before the race that an Ironman is about controlling pain. I decide that blisters are a part of that pain.

The first loop feels good. The second one is a bit tougher. The third one is the worst. That is when I have to take care of the blisters. After that it all feels good. I am able to pick up the pace for the last lap.

Throughout the run I have to stop thinking about the finishing line. I have to do it for two reasons. One, I am not there yet. Two, I get emotional.

I try to stay focused, kilometre after kilometre. I do not allow myself to think about the finish. Stick to the plan! Drink, take a gel, cool down. Keep at it.

I approach the final turning point. I know I only have some 400 metres to go. I can see my dream at the end of the tunnel. I allow myself to see it.

I feel delirious. I don't remember any of it, yet I remember it all.

200 meters to go. The finish line. Thousands of spectators. I see a Finnish flag. I grab it. I throw my running cap into the crowd.

I wave the flag and give "high fives" to the crowd. I don't want it to end.

Then I see my children, Emilie and Oliver, and my wife, Suzanne. The kids jump over the barrier and race me to finish. We embrace. I cry.

I have never experienced anything like it. My marathon time was 4 hours. The whole journey took a total of 10 hours, 35 minutes and 45 seconds. Every second was worth it.

I am escorted to the athlete area together with the other finishers. I jump into a bucket of ice. Feels good on the thighs.

I look around. A bunch of tired smiles.

I see Tiina Boman and Christian Ossig, a friend from my year in Bruges. We hug and congratulate eachother. We know that we are a bit crazy, but at least we are crazy and happy.

After a shower and a gentle massage it is time to eat. There is nothing like a couple of big beers and a juicy steak after a long day at work.

I want to thank the whole Ironman team and all the volunteers in Frankfurt for a fantastic experience. Special thanks to Ben Fertic, Kurt Denk, Kai Walter and Christian Haep for a making the weekend pitch-perfect.

One day I hope that we could organise an "exotic" Ironman event here in Finland. The land of the midnight sun and tens of thousands of lakes would be a great place for an Ironman. We Finns are nuts about sports.

John F. Kennedy said famously that "Ich bin ein Berliner" (sic.). Well, in that case I can say that "Ich bin ein Frankfurter". Vielen Dank Hessen!

PS. We will insert some pictures from the race later. Please feel free to share your Frankfurt Ironman experience or any other comments.

Sommar i P1 och triathlon vid Kuusij�rvi

Alexander Stubb — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0300

Idag har jag �ran att delta i en svensk klassiker, Sommar i P1. Du kan lyssna p� programmet som b�rjar 13.00 svensk tid. Repris p� kv�llen. Du hittar alla sommarpratarna p� Sveriges radio, allts� deras hemsida.

Jag fick m�nga goda r�d om hur det l�nar sig att l�gga upp programmet. L�tt var det inte. Jobbade l�nge p� strukturen och inneh�llet.

Det blir 12 l�tar och cirka 12 storyn om allt mellan himmel och jord - om min barndom, om spr�k, om studier, om att vara utrikesminister, om mitt f�rh�llande till Carl Bildt, om idrott, om Finalnds raketlyft, mm. Jag k�rde med fem finska l�tar, tv� svenska och resten blev band och artister fr�n USA och Storbritannien.

L�t mig veta vad du tyckte om programmet. Alltid tacksam f�r feedback.

Ig�r drog jag en kort triathlon vid Kuusij�rvi - 750m simm, 20km cykel och 5,5km l�pning. Det gick kanonbra (som man s�ger p� rikssvenska). F�rb�ttrade f�rra �rets tid med 8 minuter och tiden f�r tv� veckor sedan med 4 minuter. Det blev 1.08,30. Simmade p� c 13 minuter, cyklade med ett snitt p� 39km/h och sprang p� c 22 min. Byten tar alltid sin tid.

Nu t�nkte jag g� till Riksdagen p� ett litet m�te med stora utskottet och sen t�nkte jag njuta av sommaren vid salutorget. Det finns v�l inget som kl�r en varm Nordisk sommar...

Nordic foreign and security policy cooperation

Alexander Stubb — Mon, 9 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0200

Today I met with my Nordic colleagues in Oslo. We discussed further development of Nordic foreign and security policy cooperation.

The meeting received an independent report on the topic compiled by Thorvald Stoltenberg, former defence minister and foreign minister of Norway. In June 2008 we appointed Stoltenberg to investigate the possibilities for Nordic cooperation in the field of foreign and security policy in a 10�15 year perspective.

In compiling the report, Stoltenberg was assisted by a high-level Nordic working group. The group members from Finland were former MP, researcher Ulla Anttila and Professor Tuomas Forsberg.

I consider the report a valuable input in the discussion of further development of Nordic cooperation. The importance of Nordic cooperation in foreign, security and defence policy is also stressed in Finland�s newly released security and defence policy report.

How do you see the 13 proposals in the report (link to the report can be found here)?

The genuine experience

Alexander Stubb — Thu, 5 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0200

A month ago, I invited readers to drop me an email and let me know what they think about Finland. The request formed part of a column called �Branding Finland�, which I wrote for Finnair�s in-flight magazine, Blue Wings. Just a couple weeks after publication, I had already received about 30 replies.

It�s great to hear from people all over the world about how they perceive Finland and the Finns, and heart-warming that our country inspires tourists and business people to make their voices heard. I received messages from as far away as Singapore, Hong Kong and South Africa. North and South America were well represented, as was an array of European nations, from Spain and Italy to Estonia and Sweden.

One letter suggested a slogan for Finland: �Nothing fake, just real flavour.� Another referred glowingly to a Christmas trip in Finland as a �genuine experience�. �We had such an amazing time in Finland that we are VERY sad to leave,� wrote yet another.

And generally, that seems to be the consensus among those who took the time to write: �Finland is reasonable, polite, friendly�everything just works.� �I�m amazed at how efficient, clean and nature-respecting everything is in your country.� �When I arrive in Finland I feel at home, like I can just be myself.�

Yet it�s funny how the same qualities that many enjoy can also be interpreted in a negative light. One letter chastised Finns for being �way too serious, even compared to the Swedes�. Another suggested that Finland is �too modest about touting its own merits�.

And since my column appeared in an in-flight magazine, a couple people noted that they had found the passport officers at the airport less than friendly. However, those writers did add that these were isolated incidents that did not match the rest of their Finnish experiences or the other times they�d flown out of Helsinki.

Out of all the answers I got, the one that made me smile most was this line: �Having returned home, I became a free-of-charge public relations officer for Finland among my friends and business associates.�

Thanks, and I look forward to receiving more comments!

Ten Theses on Europe

Alexander Stubb — Tue, 3 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0200

I was delivering a speech in seminar �Vision for Finland�s EU Policy in the 2010s�. You will find the speech below. I would be happy to hear your comments about the theme!

Seminar �Vision for Finland�s EU Policy in the 2010s�
2 February 2009, Finlandia Hall, Helsinki
Minister for Foreign Affairs of Finland Alexander Stubb

- Check against delivery -

Ten Theses on Europe

Outline of the speech for discussion of �The Internal Strength and Efficiency of the Union�

The internal strength and efficiency of the Union is a fitting heading. In my view, it condenses the basic aim of Finland�s EU policy well. In my presentation, however, I will try first to specify what this aim means in practice. I will then present ten theses on implementation of the aim in the European Union�s internal and external activities. Finally, I will present some general observations on the trend of our EU policy.

� The most important event in Finland�s recent history was accession to membership of the European Union. Membership of the EU has become a cornerstone of Finland�s identity. Finns have a healthy, critical attitude towards the EU, but not many support secession from the Union. In this sense, too, we have become very European � we criticise the EU because we expect so much from it. The European Union is so important to Finland that there is every reason to keep an eye on it constantly.

� Strengthening of the European Union can mean many things. It is therefore important to define in what sense one wants to strengthen the Union. The most essential is to keep the powers of the EU and the use of those powers separate. I think that most of us want to concentrate on more effective use of the Union�s current powers. It makes no sense to increase the powers of the European Union if its current powers cannot be used fully. Thus we are probably more or less in agreement that the most important is to strengthen the operational capacity of the Union, not its powers. This was precisely the aim of the Lisbon Treaty, which was ratified in Finland with a broad political consensus.

� Division between the Union�s external and internal operational capacity is a thin line. The Union has only one institutional system, which it uses to handle both external and internal affairs. The aims and values recorded in treaties concern both external and internal activities. Finland should be in the forefront that strives to strengthen the Union�s operational capacity across the board. The European Union should effectively exercise all the powers granted to it. That is the best way to serve the Union�s citizens. I will now present ten ways in which this can be achieved. Following the structure of this seminar, I will first deal with the Union�s internal activities and then with its external activities.

***

The Union�s internal activities have been developed in many stages and for many purposes. An area of freedom, justice and security has been built up around the internal market. The Union�s internal operational capacity, however, cannot be considered anything near satisfactory. I will now present goals for reform concerning the EU�s energy and climate policy, economic policy, use of funds, justice and home affairs, and the Baltic Sea.

1. The EU�s energy and climate policy has rapidly risen to the top of the list in opinion polls asking citizens what they want the priorities of the Union�s activities to be. To me, this indicates how well informed EU citizens on average are. They don�t need to be told what this generation�s pivotal issue is: it is the building of a sustainable energy and climate policy. Realisation of this goal is not promoted by concentrating on drawing lines to determine which issues may, or may not, be decided by the EU. Creation of a common energy and climate policy for the EU is completely possible on the basis of the current powers. It only requires a clear common vision, broken down into sector-specific goals with timetables. A common energy market is only the first step towards an integrated energy supply, which must be the ultimate goal.

2. In economic policy, the situation in my view is largely the same as for energy and climate policy: environmental changes force deeper integration of the EU, which is completely possible with the powers now available. A common economic policy does not mean that money is transferred from one Member State to another. It means an economic policy that is decided and reconciled together, the ultimate goal being a new upswing for the European economy. Here, too, EU citizens turn their gaze to the Union, and justifiably so. If the European Union has succeeded in establishing an internal market and a common currency, how can it watch passively while the world economy collapses?

3. The use of funds in the European Union must be reformed. It is already clear that the Union cannot continue its use of funds up to the year 2013 without change, as if nothing has happened. Finland must boldly support the discussion of new priorities for the Union�s use of funds, to be launched this year. On the whole, we did not get our way when the current financial framework was decided, so we are fully entitled to speak when it is discussed. The yield from euros invested into the European Union is not optimal. The Union�s funding must be redirected so that it yields additional growth. I don�t understand why this fact may not be said aloud. It doesn�t mean that the Union�s agricultural and regional policies should be dismantled. It means that these policies must be revised. The competitive ability of the European Union must be improved.

4. The changes needed in justice and home affairs are more technical. In one way or another, justice and home affairs must switch to a model where legislation arises from the logic of the internal market. This means that the guiding star is the citizen�s interests � not the special legal features of each Member State. Finland, too, should gradually get accustomed to the idea that our legislation is European � not in any way characteristically Finnish or Nordic.

5. The Baltic Sea, in my opinion, is a completely logical special project in which Finland could wholeheartedly pursue national interests. There is nothing wrong if the Member States of a particular geographical area raise issues they share because of their geographical location. As has often been said, we can do nothing about geography. Finland will always be on the coast of the Baltic Sea, so we have good reason to demand that the European Union has a coherent policy for this area. In the end, no country on the Baltic rim benefits from bilateral agreements on what is done to the Baltic Sea. The Baltic Sea, if any area, is an area where the European Union can generate added value.

***

The external affairs of the European Union have developed quickly in the last few years. EU external relations have received new content, new instruments and additional funds. For this reason, one often forgets that the European Union has had external powers throughout its entire history. I would like to point out that already in 1957, the Treaty of Rome established a common trade policy, which among other things included the European Economic Community�s right to make commitments binding all Member States and the obligation that all Members States should act uniformly in international contexts. These principles are still the cornerstone on which the EU�s external activities should be built. My theses concern the unity, funding, preparation, visibility and defence dimension of the EU�s external affairs.

1. The European Union is no foreign policy dwarf, but it must be made a stronger giant. The EU�s foreign policy is still weakened by its fragmentation into endless different sectors, institutions, agreement arrangements, budget lines and instruments. These fragments make up a tremendous volume, but that volume trickles out to the world in thousands of brooks that must be directed into one channel.

2. The European Union must put its money where its mouth is. This is the first responsibility of a foreign policy giant. As a taxpayer I wonder that the bulk of the Union�s foreign policy funds is spent on issues that the EU foreign ministers seldom if ever mention in concerned statements when concluding their meetings. The European Union must increase the funding and capacity for solving urgent crises. Without genuine operational capacity, our condolences are shouts in the wind.

3. A common policy and funding require joint preparation. To me, the External Relations Council of the European Union bears too much resemblance to international conferences where participating states complain about their own worries. We need a much more uniform and effective preparatory machinery that brings more specifically selected and better thought-out proposals to the negotiations. The quarrelsome and dispersed actors of Brussels must be forced, once and for all, to work in better cooperation. The EU foreign ministers should be able to concentrate on major policy lines rather than tinkering with minute details.

4. Strong and steady external representation by the EU is to Finland�s advantage. Finland has perhaps given too much weight to the unity of the EU Member States. This nearly always means that the various Member States speak about an issue in the same way. This is naturally a good thing, but by no means is it an adequate goal. It would be best if EU unity were also visible as a united front. It is therefore to Finland�s advantage that the EU would be represented by a President or Foreign Minister and not by a fragmented five-person delegation, as was the case just recently in the Middle East. That is the only way to attract real attention in Washington, Moscow or Beijing.

5. Finland must learn to speak about the EU defence naturally and from a wide angle. In EU circles, defence does not mean only wars, armies and military alliances. The EU defence encompasses a comprehensive sphere that includes military and civilian resources, military and civilian operations and all the capacity associated with crisis management, understood in a very broad sense. The strict distinction made in Finland between crisis management and defence does not promote our participation in development of the EU�s defence. We must therefore rid ourselves of this distinction. Finland must support the EU defence unreservedly.

***

Finally, the more general conclusions about Finland�s EU policy I promised:

� A strong point in Finland�s EU policy is its coherence. The basic lines of our EU policy have remained similar in direction through five different-coloured Governments. For just this reason, some individual divergences from these basic policy lines have attracted so much attention.

� In my opinion, our EU policy does not need a major overhaul. It may be, however, that it needs some revving up; this seminar has given some indications of such a need. It isn�t enough that we want the right things � we must also do the right things. The government report on the EU should pay particular attention to the implementation of EU policy. Who does what, with whom and at what stage should be clear to all EU actors. Perhaps in this specific aspect � the style of EC policy � there has been more variation during Finland�s membership. The offensive game on the entire playing field, characteristic of the early stage of membership, has gradually given way to a sort of defensive game. We try to keep others� game in check and to defend our own half of the playing field. Herein lies one of the greatest dilemmas of our EU policy: How can we get the initiative back into our own hands? Talk of the core of the European Union, or the lack of a core, which is so persistent in Finland, is linked with this. Instead of seeking cores, it would be worthwhile for us to concentrate our energy on being in the forefront that determines the direction of the EU�s development. This aim is even written into the programme of the present Government, and to me it is the core of our entire EU policy.

� It is thus important that EU policy is not considered a collection of phrases. Demands for EU efficiency or unity do not carry issues forward unless at the same time the person making those demands says how these good goals are achieved. For this reason, my own theses are so concrete.

� I have worked in all EU institutions. My uppermost observation of the strategies used by the Member States for exerting influence in the EU is that all of them have room for improvement. From Finland�s perspective, it is comforting that different Member States make different mistakes and no one has total control of the whole field. The best results are achieved by combining different approaches. We should strive to exert influence in all EU institutions at all levels. It is essential to be active at the right level and at the right time. In addition, the message should be suitable for each level of influence. In my opinion, all of this can be recorded in the government report.

� Finally, I would like to point out a basic fact that we hit upon even before Finland�s first Presidency of the European Union, about ten years ago: EU policy should be fun. The EU shouldn�t be approached gritting one�s teeth; excessive effort unfortunately doesn�t help get the message across. Perhaps our EU policy would benefit from a somewhat more cheerful approach.

Ahtisaari and Nobel Peace prize

Alexander Stubb — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0300

This is a historic day for Finland. Today all of us, each and every Finn, are surely proud and happy for President Ahtisaari.

The Nobel Peace Prize awarded to President Ahtisaari is magnificent recognition for his life�s work in conflict solving and peace promotion. Ahtisaari�s efforts during the Namibian independence process and the Kosovo peace negotiations and in bringing the violence in Aceh, Indonesia to a halt have also helped to make Finland known internationally.

Through his own life�s work, Ahtisaari has shown how an influential person with a determined and unbending attitude can bring about concrete results and can give people hope of a better future.

In Martti Ahtisaari we have a true statesman and a world policy actor.

Back to Tbilisi (4)

Alexander Stubb — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0300

12.05

Landed in Tbilisi with the first two Military monitors. Our aim is to get the operation up and running. All OSCE members have been very generous in their pledges. Lots of APCs (armoured vehicles) and monitors in the pipeline.

Our programme is a bit up in the air, but we will start with a briefing at the OSCE mission. I will then talk to the Chief Military Observer, Stephen Young. We will also visit a refugee centre and possibly Gori. Will be updating the blog as things develope.

Briefing in the OSCE mission

14.15

In the car on the way to Gori. We are sitting in a convoy of 10 OSCE cars. The aim is to go Gori to assess the situation on the ground. We will be visiting a Red Cross distribution centre, among other things.

Just finished a briefing on the military, humanitarian and security situation. The briefing was useful. On the military side the withdrawal of troops is slow. The refugee situation is not good, but improving. The security situation is not ideal.

Visit to the refugee center

16.15

On our way out from Gori. On our way in we went through four Russian military check points. In Gori we met with the Red Cross, World Food Programme and the Governor of Gori. We also had a surprise visit from Major General Borisov who is the Commander of the 76th airborn division.

On the way to Gori

One piece of good news and two pieces of bad news. The good news first: humanitarian aid gets through unhindered with minor delays only. The Red Cross had been to Tshinvali today.

Bad news 1: on the roads and in the city there is very little evidence of the withdrawal of troops. I cannot assess what is going on in margins.

Bad news 2: civilian protection is shaky. We saw Russian Emergency Ministry troops bringing in Georgians from villages in South-Ossetia. These were old people from the village of Heiti. They carried all of their belongings. They were crying. The face of war is cruel, bloody cruel.

19.30

About to start a working dinner with the OSCE staff. Went directly from Gori to a refugee centre in Tblisi. Not a pretty sight.

Met with President Saakashvili, Speaker of the Parliament Bakradze, Prime Minister Gurgenidze, Europe Minister Baramidze and Minister Yakobashvili. We discussed the state of play.

I still feel that the ceasefire is frail. The crisis is not over. Important to keep up the international efforts to stabilize the situation.