This foreign Minister, Pekka Haavisto (Greens) has always been a dodgy character, a slippery eel…
Placing Finnish security at risk in the process.
TO SUM UP, it was the case that an individual official would have had to take responsibility for the repatriation decision alone at Haavisto’s order when no political decision was reached.
Mysterious operation: Pekka Haavisto schemed to bring “Isis-kids” secretly to Finland – denies having pressured an official
Foreign Minister Pekka Haavisto (left) tried to put pressure on the Foreign Ministry’s consular chief Pasi Tuominen to bring the children of the Syrian al-Hol refugee camp to Finland under a consular order.
When Tuominen stated that the minister could not assign political responsibility for the “life and death” issue to an individual official, he was sidelined.
Three weeks ago, Ilta-Sanomat reported on how Foreign Minister Haavisto sidelined the head of the Consular Department for the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, without justification to the public or even to officials.
The case at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs has been a surprise since Tuominen is a respected official and diplomat whose consular post was extended in June until 2022.
According to information provided to IS from several foreign ministry sources, there were two reasons for removing Tuominen: bringing the Finnish visa policy with Russia in line with EU requirements and the fact that Tuominen did not implement Haavisto’s proposal to repatriate Finnish children from al-Hol refugee camp in Syria.
According to IS sources, it was the case of al-Hol that caused Haavisto “to lose it”, meaning he became nervous and removed Tuominen from his duties.
THE SERIES OF EVENTS is special. According to IS sources, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs had developed a plan called “Operation Korpi” to repatriate Finnish children in Al-Hol refugee camp in Syria in the autumn without their mothers.
Politicians have been reluctant about this extremely difficult issue. Haavisto reportedly tried to persuade the Foreign Ministry’s consular chief Tuominen to quickly repatriate the children with the so-called Consular Judge and Tuominen would make the decision in his own name.
When Tuominen declared that as a responsible individual he could not carry out an operation in violation of laws and international treaties, this wasn’t good enough for Haavisto, instead, he said that he was outraged by the refusal.
Thereafter, Tuominen was removed, and a new person is put in his place.
TO SUM UP, it was the case that an individual official would have had to take responsibility for the repatriation decision alone at Haavisto’s order when no political decision was reached.
Haavisto did not give any mandate in his own name.
It would have been a big, surely so-called “life and death” decision.
IS reached Tuominen on Friday. Tuominen has made no comment on his removal, and still maintains his silence.
Did Pekka Haavisto try to get you to bypass your civil servent’s responsibilities in the case of Al Hol and make the repatriation decision in your own name?
– I will not comment in any way, Tuominen acknowledged to the IS.
THE INTENTION was therefore to repatriate only children, not Isis women, who have been the subject of political squabbling in Finland throughout Autumn and which many consider being a potential terrorist threat.
However, according to the Consular Law, children cannot be separated from their mothers, but all mothers should have been repatriated at the same time.
There is also the policy of the Chancellor of Justice, which he made on 10 October following complaints filed on the case. If Tuominen had proceeded according to Haavisto’s will, he would have acted contrary to his civil liability. Several complaints were lodged with the Chancellor of Justice Tuomas Pöysti during Autumn.
They criticized the Finnish Government and the Prime MinisterAntti Rinnetta (sd), Foreign Minister Haavisto and Interior Minister Maria Ohisalo (Green) and the Ministry for Foreign Affairs for not taking the measures required by Finnish law or international obligations binding on Finland and the Consular Services Act to repatriate Finns.
According to Pöysti, the repatriation of children alone entails legally difficult aspects.
According to the Chancellor of Justice, IF THE FINNISH authorities were only able to help children out of the camp, they would have to ask what legislation could be used to separate the children from their guardians.
Finnish law defines the conditions and procedures for taking care of children under the Child Welfare Act.
Another issue is the importance attached to possible care in the conditions of the camp with the consent of the guardian.
– In this situation, a legally clear policy would be to try to repatriate both children and their parents. After repatriation, any measures required by Finnish law, such as custody, would be taken, the Chancellor said.
ON THE OTHER HAND, according to Pöysti, given the difficult conditions in the camp and the security threat to adults, it is possible that the Finnish authorities would try to repatriate the child on the basis of a “case-by-case assessment” to secure his or her life.
However, with regard to importation and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the question is whether such a decision can be retained under the responsibility of an individual official if the Chancellor’s Policy can be interpreted in two directions.
Thus, Tuominen refused to accept that responsibility.
