Halonen wants better flow of information among foreign policy leaders
President says information break at Ministry of Defence endangered political decision on Afghan operation
|
President Tarja Halonen is calling for a constitutional amendment that would improve the sharing of information among Finland’s foreign and security policy leaders.
In an interview with Helsingin Sanomat, Halonen says that the status of the government’s foreign and security policy committee should be clearly defined in the constitution.
“There would be reason to discuss whether or not the position of the committee should be set under the law. We would make sure that we are in contact”, Halonen says, in reference to the government and the President.
The committee, which is convened and chaired by the Prime Minister, prepares matters related to foreign and security policy. The President chairs the meeting when matters related to the President’s jurisdiction are on the agenda.
On Friday the committee will meet to discuss the foreign and security policy controversy that arose from the confusion over when the additional Finnish forces that were sent to Afghanistan to help secure this year’s elections would return to Finland.
In October it was revealed that the additional forces would return home at the end of the month - before the planned (and later cancelled) second round of the Presidential elections. The President and some of the government ministers were not aware of the situation.
Halonen says that the Ministry of Defence had been warned by the Defence Forces that the contracts of the supplementary peacekeepers would run out before the second round of the vote, but the information was not passed on from the Ministry of Defence to the President.
“Perhaps there was a benevolent thought that the President should not be bothered with such technical matters. But the disturbance caused by this technical matter nearly risked the entire substance of our political decision [the securing of the elections]”, Halonen says.
Halonen says that the flow of information must work better in the future. While the confusion in the autumn did not cause problems for crisis management, Halonen points out: “Crises today change rapidly, and can require much more dramatic communication, and a reassessment to decisions.”
Halonen also feels that the contracts of the crisis management forces need to be examined, and the possible need for more flexibility should be considered, so that political decisions do not falter over contractual technicalities.
As Halonen sees it, the policy agreed by Finland in the spring on securing the Afghan elections was clear: a presence in Afghanistan, helping secure the elections, and then coming back.
“It is not a question of who tells me things at what point, but rather that if problems arise, they should be brought to where the decision was originally made”, Halonen says.
“In the final instance, under the constitution, it is the President who signs the decisions, so it is the President, at least, who should be informed.”
Halonen notes that the Afghan operation has been a difficult one for the Finnish crisis management forces, as it deviates significantly from previous Finnish peacekeeping operations.
Other operations involved keeping a peace, which both sides in the conflict wanted to keep. Now there is talk of a “hybrid war”, where the adversary confronted by a peacekeeper can be either a soldier or a civilian.
“Afghanistan is a touchstone for peacekeeping activities.”
Finland first sent forces to Afghanistan in 2002, to take part in operations of the CIMIC unit, which specialised in cooperation between soldiers and civilians. The aim was to assess the humanitarian situation and to coordinate the planning of construction projects.
No Finnish combat forces were deployed in Afghanistan.
Although conditions in Afghanistan and the nature of the crisis management operation under ISAF have turned into de facto warfare, Halonen says that Finland would have participated in the Afghan operation even if it the present conditions had prevailed when the decision was made.
In an interview with Helsingin Sanomat, Halonen says that the status of the government’s foreign and security policy committee should be clearly defined in the constitution.
“There would be reason to discuss whether or not the position of the committee should be set under the law. We would make sure that we are in contact”, Halonen says, in reference to the government and the President.
The committee, which is convened and chaired by the Prime Minister, prepares matters related to foreign and security policy. The President chairs the meeting when matters related to the President’s jurisdiction are on the agenda.
On Friday the committee will meet to discuss the foreign and security policy controversy that arose from the confusion over when the additional Finnish forces that were sent to Afghanistan to help secure this year’s elections would return to Finland.
In October it was revealed that the additional forces would return home at the end of the month - before the planned (and later cancelled) second round of the Presidential elections. The President and some of the government ministers were not aware of the situation.
Halonen says that the Ministry of Defence had been warned by the Defence Forces that the contracts of the supplementary peacekeepers would run out before the second round of the vote, but the information was not passed on from the Ministry of Defence to the President.
“Perhaps there was a benevolent thought that the President should not be bothered with such technical matters. But the disturbance caused by this technical matter nearly risked the entire substance of our political decision [the securing of the elections]”, Halonen says.
Halonen says that the flow of information must work better in the future. While the confusion in the autumn did not cause problems for crisis management, Halonen points out: “Crises today change rapidly, and can require much more dramatic communication, and a reassessment to decisions.”
Halonen also feels that the contracts of the crisis management forces need to be examined, and the possible need for more flexibility should be considered, so that political decisions do not falter over contractual technicalities.
As Halonen sees it, the policy agreed by Finland in the spring on securing the Afghan elections was clear: a presence in Afghanistan, helping secure the elections, and then coming back.
“It is not a question of who tells me things at what point, but rather that if problems arise, they should be brought to where the decision was originally made”, Halonen says.
“In the final instance, under the constitution, it is the President who signs the decisions, so it is the President, at least, who should be informed.”
Halonen notes that the Afghan operation has been a difficult one for the Finnish crisis management forces, as it deviates significantly from previous Finnish peacekeeping operations.
Other operations involved keeping a peace, which both sides in the conflict wanted to keep. Now there is talk of a “hybrid war”, where the adversary confronted by a peacekeeper can be either a soldier or a civilian.
“Afghanistan is a touchstone for peacekeeping activities.”
Finland first sent forces to Afghanistan in 2002, to take part in operations of the CIMIC unit, which specialised in cooperation between soldiers and civilians. The aim was to assess the humanitarian situation and to coordinate the planning of construction projects.
No Finnish combat forces were deployed in Afghanistan.
Although conditions in Afghanistan and the nature of the crisis management operation under ISAF have turned into de facto warfare, Halonen says that Finland would have participated in the Afghan operation even if it the present conditions had prevailed when the decision was made.
Helsingin Sanomat