"People Judge the EU on Practical Results"

Finland takes over the presidency of the European Union on July 1. It aims to regain the EU's loss of legitimacy, in part by focusing on increased transparency and effectiveness. DW-WORLD.DE talked with Foreign Minister Erkki Tuomioja, who presented Finland's plans for the presidency in Brussels on Thursday.

DW-WORLD.DE: Erkki Tuomioja, you will be turning 60 on July 1, the first day of the Finnish European Union presidency. Is the presidency a good birthday present for a Finnish foreign minister?

Erkki Tuomioja: Well, I could think of a few less serious birthday presents. But for Finland, the presidency is a great opportunity to show itself. Our last European Union presidency was seven years ago. Finland, and especially the European Union, has changed a lot since then.

How have they changed?

We now have 25 member states, soon 27, and that definitely has an impact on all the practical details. The competencies and responsibilities have grown. The EU has become a global player, especially in my area of foreign and security policies. Solutions are expected from the EU for literally all the world's problems. So, taking on the presidency is certainly a huge challenge for a country as small as Finland.

A central topic during the presidency will be relations with a somewhat larger country -- namely, Russia. How can Finland support negotiations with its neighbor to the east? Which experiences of its own can it share with the other European countries?

For the most part, we have had positive experiences with Russia -- even in energy matters, which have become very important to the European-Russian relationship. We have never had problems with delivery. We are for an open and transparent price policy and normal market prices. Dependence is always two-sided: While we want to import natural gas from Russia, Russia also needs investment and technology from Europe to support and expand its own energy production.

Finland is the first West European country to have constructed a nuclear power plant since the Chernobyl disaster. Will Finland propagate the use of nuclear energy in Europe?

Individual politicians might want to do that, but it's not part of our European policy. Nuclear energy has been controversial in Finland too and it still is. Each country has to decide for itself if it wants to allow nuclear energy and to what extent it's going to be used. There's no possibility -- and no reason -- to strive for a common policy in this matter. Nuclear security is an area where all EU members should strictly maintain the international standards.

Pollsters say the Finns are among the biggest Europe-critics in the EU. Is this a good time for the Finnish presidency, considering the current crisis with the European constitutional treaty?

Perhaps yes, in that we have a pragmatic relationship to the EU. Even though we have always had many Europe-critics, it's never been a political problem. We've been able to carry out EU policy in the national parliament and in the government without great divisiveness. Our EU presidency will run the same way. As for the Finns' Euro-skepticism -- I think it's a reflection of development in other countries. For example, some Finns think about the constitution issue: Why should we say 'yes' when the French and the Dutch have said 'no'? But that doesn't necessarily mean that the Finns reject the proposal. Parliament decided at the beginning of June to begin the ratification process.

How strongly can Finland pursue its own interests during the presidency, and the interests of the smaller countries -- or does it want to?

I think it is a strength of the EU that the decision-making process adheres to common guidelines -- and that the smaller countries are just as much a part of it as the big ones. Population is not necessarily a separating criterion. It only comes up sometimes in certain institutional issues like negotiating the constitution -- where we emphatically advocated for the smaller countries. I don't think that Finland has particular national interests and goals that will come into conflict with EU goals. But the presidency gives us the chance to bring issues to the forefront that are important to us and don't contradict joint EU policy.

What needs to happen in the next few months so that you will be able to say "Our presidency was a success"?

It's the things we don't know yet that will be crucial. There are constant surprises along the way and critical situations or even crises may arise. The EU presidency also means crisis management.

The conflict around Iran's nuclear program could escalate, for example. Is it possible to prepare for something like that?

You have to know what the possibilities are. And then you have to think about what the next step would be if dialogue based on the current offer doesn't succeed. At the moment, we have to focus all our energy on getting that offer through.

There has been much discussion in your country about the competencies of the European Union. Could you give us a concrete example of an area that the EU should stay out of in the future?

The subsidiarity principle hasn't been taken seriously enough yet. People try to deal with things at the European level that really don't belong there. For example, the issue of how many wolves should be in Finland. Is that really a decision for Brussels? Or the controversy over using pitch as a building material, which is a tradition in Finland -- the EU deemed it harmful to people's health. Every country has these kinds of seemingly small issues that can become terribly big nuisances. If we could get rid of just a few of them, the EU would immediately enhance its recognition, even if these things don't have anything to do with the EU's broader tasks.

And that would help the citizens like the European Union again?

Yes. Advertising campaigns and explanations don't help. People judge the EU based on practical results.