Distinguished Prime Minister, Excellences, ladies and gentlemen,

My great fortune is that I come from a country that has lived in peace and harmony for almost seventy years. No war has disturbed our life; no civil strife has interfered with our daily business. Calm, perhaps even a little dull, but safe and sound society. However, this has not always been the case.

At the end of the First World War Finland, a Grand Duchy within the Russian Empire, broke ties with Russia. Soon thereafter, in 1918, the Russian revolution spread over the borders of the country. In many European countries there were incidents of serious civil strife, even civil wars. Our country was one of those where the controversies between the left and the right - the Whites and the Reds, as they were identified then - led to a brief but bloody civil war, which took the lives of almost 37 000 fellow Finnish citizens. Even though the civil war took place in the context of the worldwide power struggle, that wasn´t the only reason for the conflict. It also had very much to do with ordinary people´s social and economic grievances in the society.

After the civil war what was decisively important for the recovery of the country, was a determination for reconciliation between the Whites and the Reds. Only some ten years after the end of the Civil War the Reds, the losing party in the war, was in government, properly elected and widely accepted. They too had modified their stand. They had abandoned their revolutionary ideas and accepted, without reservation, the principals of rule of law and a democratic form of government. All this constituted the basis for a resumption of normalcy in the life of the nation.

Only some twenty years after the Civil War Finland had attained a standard of living comparable with most European countries. That was no small achievement for originally a poor agrarian country. The harmonious political life was a good foundation for basic economic reforms. Even the Second World War, where we were entangled, did not break the new fabric of the society. And after that war steady progress has continued in economic and political terms.

But let´s be frank: the deep wounds that the civil war left in to the minds and hearts of the people, took a lot of time to be healed from. Even during the last 10 years, we still have had a lot discussion and analysis about the war and its reasons and consequences. It is always a different thing to make institutional arrangements and agree on those, than truly reconcile and come into terms with one´s past. But it is possible.
****
Ladies and gentlemen, let me now turn in to some of the key thoughts and lessons learned from my own career when talking about societal change and building peace in fragile societies. I will focus on three different reconciliation processes, namely Namibia, Aceh and Kosovo, which I have been involved in. Even though each one of these reconciliation processes has taken place in different political circumstances and different continents, the main challenges of reconciliation have been the same.

When I started my work as a Special Representative of the Secretary General for Namibia in 1978, some of the observers said that the political challenges in the country were insurmountable. I never bought that argument. For sure, a huge number of things required deep political solutions. Issues such as land ownership, the recognition of liberation movements and territorial control had been debated for years. And now, UN resolution 435, adopted in September 1978, managed to frame the process leading towards ceasefire and nation-wide elections. However, the process was not easy, nor quick. The ceasefire took place 10 years after the resolution and the elections 11 years later, in 1989. 

When talking and preparing for any meaningful reconciliation process, it is always easier to put words and plans on paper than start implementing the actual plans. This was also the case with Namibia. When one´s history is full of mistrust and betrayal, the leaders and citizens of any given country have to face the difficulties of trust building by themselves. This cannot be outsourced. You can always learn from others, listen to the speeches of the experienced ones, but at the end of the day, the responsibility for the future always lies with the people, both leaders and citizens.  

In the case of Namibia´s independence process, it was an assembly of 72 politically selected members that had to face these realities and start working together in a responsible manner. This group had to produce a constitution, which established a genuine multi-party system and a bill of rights. The task wasn´t easy, but the members of the Assembly understood that if they lost their moment, it would be the citizens of Namibia that would pay the price. They did a good work. The constitution defines not only the framework for the political system and legislation, but clear definitions for fundamental human rights and freedoms of the citizens. In this collaborative spirit, the elections were held - with a support of Namibia´s neighboring countries and the international community - and the result was good. Now Namibia is a free country where different peoples and groups have managed to come to their sort of respectful accord with each other. They have a democratic system in place to tackle with every day differences and political rivalries.  

One of the things that I´m particularly happy about is that Namibia´s record in good governance is commendable. According to the Ibrahim Index of African Governance Namibia is currently number 6 in the group of 52 African states. The index - which is a governance data index initiated by Mo Ibrahim Foundation – analyses the performance of African countries and governments annually in four different categories: safety and rule of law; participation and human rights; sustainable economic opportunity and human development. In these categories Namibia is doing relatively well amongst its peer countries.

For sure, good governance is not a challenge only for African or Asian countries. In fact, I would be eager to use the same methodology to assess also the performance of European countries. That would make a very interesting comparison.            
The process leading to Namibian independence was long and required strong commitment and determination from the Namibians and the international community. Today, looking back to those years, it feels almost unbelievable that we managed to get all the key actors - the Western five (US, UK, France, Germany and Canada), the Soviet Union, the Organisation of African Unity, the South-African government and all the political parties in Namibia, including SWAPO - to work towards a shared goal. One of the greatest lessons learned from Namibia clearly indicates that a durable solution can only be found if one is prepared to engage in discussions with his or her political opponents.
It should also be noted that other, unexpected benefits may follow a successful reconciliation process. I believe that Namibia´s experience also encouraged South Africa to expedite their reconciliation process in a successful manner.
***
Dear friends, the peace process in Aceh, Indonesia – not so far away from here – was a bit different from Namibia, but with a lot of similarities. I personally got involved with the Aceh peace process in late 2004. The process started rapidly. Already in January 2005, the newly elected Government of Indonesia and the Free Aceh Movement, GAM, met in Helsinki to talk about the conflict that had lasted for almost 30 years. From the beginning of the talks I had a feeling that I was surrounded by people who realized that they had in their hands the power to stop further suffering of the Acehnese people. I was surrounded by people who had realized what political responsibility and leadership means. During the negotiations trust and confidence were gained gradually. Our starting point of the negotiations was “A peaceful solution with dignity for all.” Not only for the conflicting parties, but for all the people in the province of Aceh. We also had an extremely crucial principle in the Aceh negotiations, which I introduced: “nothing is agreed before everything is agreed”. This meant that neither party could claim any victories during the process and use media to communicate their constituencies how successful they had been in the negotiations in all issues that were important for them. All the agreements were included in the Memorandum of Understanding and published only in the end. This gave peace for the negotiators to work. I admired the discipline of both parties in this regard.

One of the greatest lessons learned one can ever realize when building societies and trust anywhere in the world became evident in Aceh. Words are never enough. Trust can only be created if one party sees the others keeping its promises and to do as was agreed.
In Aceh peace process I made it clear to both parties that if genuine peace is the goal, both sides have to be prepared to make concessions and compromises.  Even though some of the concessions might have felt painful during the talks, it is evident that both sides eventually gained much more than they had to give up. The process also showed how important it is that a country’s political leadership is committed to finding a solution. We all bear a responsibility in fragile societies, but it is clear that the leaders´ responsibility is even bigger. Social and economic reforms - hand in hand with justice and equity – can only progress if all political parties are committed to them in the long term.
***
Ladies and gentlemen, let me now briefly look at the case in Kosovo. Today, there is much that Kosovo can be proud of. With the passing of legislation and adoption of a Constitution, addressing concerns of all communities as well as establishing state institutions, remarkable progress has been made. I especially welcome the setting up of the Constitutional Court, the ultimate guardian of Kosovo’s constitutionality. It represents the launch of the most important body in the institutional architecture of this country.

As was the case with Namibia and Aceh, the road leading to the current political stability hasn´t been easy in Kosovo. Some 13 000 lost their lives in Kosovo conflict before the start of the Kosovo status process in 2005. So a lot has been achieved in terms of peace, in terms of absence of violence.
But now Kosovo is also facing a serious reconciliation phase, how to root the culture of peace in the society, between the citizens of Kosovo and between Kosovo and Serbia. Peace in Kosovo has to mean a new tone in rhetoric, in chambers of power – but also in classrooms.  It means that one has to acknowledge that the past was destructive, but now we must do better. Kosovo tells us that reconciliation means that it is not about forgetting our past, but recognizing that the future can and must be different. Kosovo also tells us that any reconciliation work needs a lot of support from friends, small and big ones.  

***
Ladies and gentlemen, all three experiences that I have been sharing with you today, underscore the fact that in reconciliation, and nation building, trust is everything. But it requires time, patience and work. As the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Thailand also rightly points out in its recommendations, peace is not only an outcome, it is a process.

It is important to realize that trust can also be fostered by giving people the tools to be architects of their own future. National leaders in government have to create political space for local leaders, both from powerful and marginalized groups, to shape the national agenda and the evolution of institutions.

If any nation is about to build trust, it has to choose an open and wide road to walk together with anyone interested. Negotiation chambers can do only a part of the job. The true reconciliation can only be found in the behavior of all people, whether they are ministers, officials, activists, teachers or neighbors alike.
National reconciliation also has to be supported by political actions and egalitarian principles. Societies that have been conflict-prone for decades, or even hundreds of years, need to pay especially careful attention to the policies they promote and implement in their respective societies. During the difficult times it is pivotal to assure that proper education, decent living and health care are available to all the citizens, in an egalitarian manner. This is a precondition for any society to live in peace in the 20th century.

We also need to find ways how to deal with the past injustices and grievances. There has to be space and time to address them. We have to understand the meaning of social memory – the ways we tell different stories from our past. At the same time we must tolerate and respect these different stories. This is where we need reconciliation, open dialogue between conflicting memories.

But in order to move on, we also have to find ways to think and teach differently. After the collapse of Soviet Union much has been invested on teacher education and curriculum-development in Post-Soviet societies, with the aim of including the ethnic minority views in history text books. Official truth about the past must acknowledge the complexities, but it also has to be able to create a new future.  

***
Dear friends, in the beginning of my speech I shared with you some experiences from my own country and reflected some of the deep wounds we also have had in our past. But by emphasizing good practices and lessons I am not at all claiming that all problems have been solved. Surely not. In Finland, like in so many European countries, we face serious economic problems at the moment. Our savings rate is too low to fund our needs of capital. Financing the future for the aging populations is a problem we need to solve soon – together with the fact that youth unemployment has been on the rise already for some time. We also have to improve our performance by streamlining an overly bureaucratic apparatus of administration. These are politically demanding and sensitive tasks, which can only be met with political leadership and determination. I have no doubt that we will find the necessary solutions.

Being able to solve emerging conflicts and political tensions in a peaceful manner tells us that even very serious domestic problems need not – and cannot - split the nation fatally. It tells us that open and genuine reconciliation effort can lead to success. It tells us that even after decades of mistrust and political rivalry, reconciliation can make a difference. It tells us that if only we have the political will and genuine commitment for peace, we can create a better future. And, ladies and gentlemen, it clearly tells us that a new beginning is always possible.
I thank you.