Olli Rehn Interview: Conversations with History; Institute of International Studies, UC Berkeley
Page 3 of 7
I would imagine that in today's politics, and especially for a country like Finland, you have to look toward the world and the larger regional and other groupings to define your niche?
That's correct. I would say that for a small state like Finland, that has always been the case. Finnish fate has been decided by bigger powers very many times in their history. For instance, 1807, by Tsar Alexander I and Emperor Napoleon, the Russian and French leaders, respectively; and in 1939 by Soviet Foreign Minister Molotov and his German counterpart, Ribbentrop, who made a pact and divided the Baltic area and Eastern Europe between themselves. Therefore, it's extremely valuable for Finland to be a member of the European Union, so that you can influence preemptively. You are at those tables where negotiations are held on key security matters in Europe.
You have been very much involved in this process of linking Finland to the European Union, shaping a new identity for these new times. What were the circumstances under which you first went to the European Union and what offices did you hold?
I actually started to participate in that debate already when I was at the university, and I was quite active in debating for Finland's new membership.
And that would have been what year?
In 1989 to 1990. Then I was policy advisor for the chief of staff for the Finnish prime minister in 1992-93 during the access negotiations. Therefore, I participated first in the entry of Finland into the Union, and later on, after Finland had become a member, I became a member of the European Parliament, and I went "inside the machinery" in Brussels, in a sense.
You were chief of staff to one of the commissioners, also?
That is correct. After I lost my seat in the European Parliament, I was asked to join staff and I worked for four years as a chief of staff for the Finnish commissioner, Eric Leiberman. Originally, he was responsible for the budget and administration. For the last couple of years he has held the portfolio of enterprise policy and the information society.
Let's go back to that original debate in Finland about entering the Union. Tell us a little about those choices and the arguments, pro and con, for doing that. That must have been a big decision for your country.
I would say that there were two key dimensions. The first one was the economic one. Finland faced a very severe economic recession. The Soviet trade disappeared in one night, basically, in 1990. There was a recession in the Western markets and Nokia had not yet risen to its stardom in the telecommunications industry. Therefore, there was significant pressure to join the European Union for market access and participation in the broader economic union. The other dimension is the security policy dimension. One can say that the end of the Cold War and collapse of the Soviet Union facilitated Finland's entry to the European Union, because Finland practiced the policy of neutrality for several decades after the Second World War. Of course, membership in the European Union was a clear break from that neutrality policy.
What situated Finland to be responsive to these new opportunities that the European Union represented?
I would say that there were several factors. First of all, Finland was a member of the European Free Trade Association, EFTA, which was originally founded by the United Kingdom and several other countries as a counterpart to the then European Economic Community, which is currently the European Union. More and more members of the EFTA started to disappear from its ranks and join the European Union. Therefore, it was an economic, and I'd say, also, a technological necessity for Finland to join the Union. But, fundamentally, it was a question of national security and being part of a broader community of nations that has similar values and beliefs in liberty, democracy, and market economy.
You said you started out working for your own president as the country was negotiating these changes, but then you went on to the European Union and served in the Parliament and then in the Commission. I'm curious what that experience was like, because you are suddenly thrust into a situation where you're seeing the broader picture and a different set of tradeoffs. Talk a little about that experience, first as a parliamentarian and then as a member of the staff.
I would say that the European Parliament has the virtue of having, naturally, a common European view, or as we call it, a Community position. That's why the European Parliament is an essential player in the European policymaking scene and, in many ways, a counterpart of the nation states who often tend to defend their own national interests. In fact, in a similar way, the European Commission inside Europe works for common European interests. For instance, it is most often defending smaller member states against the directorate over larger member states. In that sense, working in the Parliament or being a member of the Parliament and working in the Commission had a very similar common European dimension, compared to the service in the national administration.
Next page: Politics in Finnish Democracy
© Copyright 2003, Regents of the University of California