Joenniemi Presentation

Pertti Joenniemi Presentation at the 20th Baltic Sea Parliamentary ConferenceDIIS Helsinki, 28 August, 2011Two decades ago, the Baltic Sea region was still at its infancy. It existed as a vision rather than stood out as an undisputed reality. However, today it is there as one of the most developed European regions, and is viewed by the EU as an exemplary one. Other European macro-regions are in fact invited to emulate the achievements of the Baltic one.Yet I would like to assert that a kind of post-perspective dominated the coining of Baltic Sea regionalization. What has been left behind has been more important than what lies ahead. With the divisive impact of the Cold War gone, the cooperative constellation amounting to a regional configuration emerged without much effort.But this approach is now insufficient, I would like to claim, and a much more conscious and planned efforts is needed. As a matter of fact, the Baltic Sea area is not just screaming for new visions; it actually calls for a kind of master plan. Such a plan is needed because the situation has changed both as to the possibilities available as well as the problems to be tackled.Whereas the initial steps of cooperation focused primarily on the region itself, the current regionalization unfolds very much within a European if not even a broader context. Region-building has become, particularly with the launching of the EU’s Baltic Sea Strategy, part of Europe-making. In being invited to perform as a ‘forerunner’ and ‘model, Baltic Sea regionalization has been invited to contribute to and stand out as a leader in a Europe where macro-regions have a prominent place. For this option to be fully utilized, much more goal-oriented and pro-active policies are required.As to the new challenges, the growing eminence of the North Sea and Arctic regions stands out quite clearly. An increasing amount of political attention has been traveling north. In a competitive perspective, the Baltic Sea region might stand to lose from the northern areas attracting far more attention than they did previously. There would be far less reasons to view the Baltic Sea region as a ‘forerunner’.The challenge implies, I think, that policies have to be devised which link the Baltic Sea area to the northern areas, the Arctic as well as the North Sea regions. Synergies have to be developed and structures established which allow our region to piggyback on the other regions.Crucially, the growing prominence of the High North also grounds interesting and important visions. Having traditionally stood out as a periphery at the fringes of Europe struggling against its own marginalization, northern Europe may now develop into a hub. It may turn into a link mediating between Europe and Asia. Rather than being doomed to remain at the fringes of Europe, the area may gain considerable weight and centrality in connecting two important continents.True, the idea of a hub is still somewhat visionary, and north is comprehended as something utterly peripheral. As an identity-marker the north has quite negative connotations. However, the new sea lines, flight routes as well as railway connections make the idea of a hub increasingly real. It is in any case profoundly in the interest of the Baltic Sea area to turn the vision into reality, and this aspiration is one of the key issues to be currently discussed in developing a Baltic Sea region master plan.As a final point concerning key challenges, I would like to bring up the issue of security. Civil aspects of security are already on the agenda of Baltic Sea cooperation, albeit security at large has so far been too sensitive and delicate to be touched. In fact, our region has been lagging behind a number of other European regions as security has not been merely discussed with others in a cooperative fashion; it has also been employed as theme directed against others. So, the challenge is one of catching up and reducing radically the divisive impact of security as a constitutive theme.The first step could consist of initiating a report somewhat along the lines of the one carried out by Thorvald Stoltenberg a couple of years ago concerning security cooperation among the Nordic countries. This time the theme explored could consist of the prospects of de-securitization around the Baltic Rim. I bring up the issue and suggest a way of tackling it in a constructive, broadly acceptable and legitimate manner because without sorting out the issue of security, the prospects for formulating a master plan - or perhaps one should still speak of a master vision – regarding a responding to the current challenges and taking stock of the various opportunities that are obviously there remain quite slim.Thus, against the backdrop of two decades of regionalization, it is high time to add security in a comprehensive fashion to the issues in focus of region-wide cooperation.Overall, my claim here has been that governments and decision-makers have enabled change. They have facilitated things rather than proactively pushed for region-building. Now this somewhat passive policy has turned insufficient for a variety of reasons and much more conscious and active efforts are needed. I very much hope that this is also the spirit underlying cooperation among the parliaments and parliamentarians of the region. Turning bold visions into reality was very much on the agenda of the first and initial meeting of the BSPC in Helsinki in January 1991, and the challenge as well as option of success appear to be there again at the outset of a third decade of cooperation.