Martti Ahtisaari is a unique individual. A Nobel Peace Prize laureate, he has been at the heart of resolving several of the nastiest and most intractable conflicts of the past few decades. He helped end a bitter war between the Indonesian government and separatists in Aceh, and was a major participant in the negotiations that sought to resolve what to do with Kosovo after the war and genocide of 1999. He was one of the architects of the Namibian independence movement, which made the country independent from South Africa in 1990, worked in Iraq and Northern Ireland, and in between managed to find time to serve a term as President of Finland, during which Finland joined the EU.
He is a tall and broad man, though softly spoken – approachable and imposing in equal measure. Asked what drew him to a career in mediating between groups locked in violent conflict, he is quick to say that he arrived at negotiation only indirectly, after years spent first as a schoolteacher and then as a diplomat. He does admit, however, that his childhood may have left him cut out for the task. The region of Finland into which Ahtisaari was born was annexed by the Soviet Union during World War II, and he spent the first years of his life as a refugee in his own country. He explains, ‘I grew up with the feeling of being a stranger, and I think that allowed me to develop a sensitivity to what people are thinking without even any words. That’s not a bad thing for a peace mediator to have.’ He says that even as a student, he was known among his friends for his willingness to step into disputes and calm things down.
That kind of calmness, he claims, regardless of how gruesome a conflict may become, is vital for third parties if they are ever to help bring about peace. He also stressed the importance of a concerted, international effort in resolving tension: ‘These days, governments don’t want to internationalise their internal problems; they think it’s easier to try to make peace themselves. This is what happened in Indonesia; they tried to make their own ceasefire and it lasted only half a year.’ Indonesia’s Aceh province was wracked by violence between separatists and government troops for decades, with little movement towards peace.
Perversely, it took the destruction inflicted by the tsunami in 2004, which destroyed much of the Aceh region, to bring both parties back to the table. International aid was desperately needed, but could not be brought in while there was still a threat of violence. Ahtisaari emphasises that negotiators cannot step in and initiate a move towards peace: ‘if the two parties are ultimately not interested in solving a conflict, then there is really very little I can do, however brilliant I might be’ he says, with a grim laugh.
Ahtisaari currently works with an organisation called Crisis Management Initiative, an NGO devoted to helping war-torn parts of the globe piece themselves back together. Though he stresses again that third-party groups such as his can never bring belligerents to the negotiating table without the support of national governments, he argues that they do have a useful role to play. ‘Our main advantage from the perspective of governments is to do with blame: if we manage to make peace, then the governments who support us get a piece of the glory; if we fail, then it’s us that takes all the blame.’
It seems like a bleak assessment of his sometimes thankless line of work, but he seems almost pleased to be free of the burdens of political office. I ask what drew him back to run for the Finnish Presidency after so many years spent working on the international stage, and again he is quick to deny any real political ambition. He had never held political office before running for President in 1994, having built his career instead within the diplomatic service. ‘I think that I won in the end because everyone was fed up with traditional politicians, though I doubt anyone with a similar background to me would be able to do it again. I am not pleased with our system, where people start out in politics as a teenager and stay in it till they retire. I would rather see people spend at least some time in another career before they move on to politics.’
In the end, he says, he ran because he was asked to by friends and colleagues, and more importantly because he came top of a surprise poll of potential candidates than included several non-political candidates along with the mainstream party figures. He comes across as perhaps the most reluctant head of state ever to hold office, adding that even after winning his party’s primary, he would have pulled out had the other candidates asked him to. ‘I had my own career and interests,’ he adds.
Ahtisaari is an firm supporter of the EU in a country that had long been sceptical of the organisation, until it joined in 1995 under his leadership. He argues that the EU is better placed than most nation states to help resolve conflicts across the world, not least because it is one step removed from the pressures of national election cycles. More important, and often forgotten in discussions of EU politics which tend to focus on the continents western half, is the diversity of experience in the body. ‘If you look at the Arab Spring, we have countries like Libya and Egypt that are emerging from authoritarian rule, and are trying to reform. A country like Poland that only twenty years ago went through the same process can give much better advice than a more established state like Finland or the United Kingdom.’
Again, he stresses the importance of trust and of good reputation, two qualities that Western states have not always done their best to maintain. Asked what he thinks of more interventionist bodies such as the International Criminal Court, which has come under fire in recent years for focusing almost exclusively on Africa, Ahtisaari seems cautiously optimistic about the organisation’s future. ‘I think we need organisations that can really take to task individuals who have committed crimes against humanity, but they have to deal with all cases in that category, and will face accusations of double standards if they focus on one particular region. But that problem is not unique to the ICC; it’s something that the UN has been dealing with for decades.’ There is still much work to be done. He is annoyed and even ashamed, he says, that the international community has allowed so many wars to become ‘frozen conflicts’ in Africa and Asia, left to smoulder away without any real steps towards resolution. He is throughout the interview a calm, even dour man, but underlying his work and his beliefs is a remarkable degree of optimism, and above all a faith that war is ultimately not necessary. In his own words, ‘all conflicts can be solved’
