The Finnish Vergangenheitsbewältigung is a bit like the day after an university undergraduate’s party. There’s an incoherent babbling taking place on who went to sauna with whom and what they might have done together.
Lately the main role in this debate has been given to possible connections in the 1980′s between Finnish politicians and the East German security organisation Stasi. The right-wingers are undoubtedly eager to trace the possible Stasi-connections of some mainstream Finnish socialists. While doing so, they pride themselves on being on the “right side of the history” as the capitalist system still seems to breath on its own lungs. (Although a respirator is already being warmed up).
Well, what is the role of the archives in this game? The Finnish media, Finnish security police (Supo) and the judiciary have been playing a sort of cat and mouse game for the last decade or so. There is a certain list of names kept tightly in the archive of Supo. This list was given to Supo in the early 1990′s by the West German intelligence service and it contains the names of Finnish citizens who were suspected by the West Germans of keeping contact with the East Germans .
Finnish legislation states that the material of Supo is to be kept secret for 60 years unless it is evident, that the public use of this information will not endanger the security of the state (the law on freedom of information, 621/1999 24§ 9.). Now, it has been decided that the revelation of a document concerning connections with a nowadays non-existent state does not cause any harm to the general security of the Finns. According to this, the document should be published.
On the other hand is the question of the legal protection of those individuals whose names appear on the list. Quite recently in a seminar concerning archives and the history of Finnish foreign ministry former minister of foreign affairs Dr. Erkki Tuomioja stressed the fact that no names with significant political importance are on the list. He had gotten the information from a senior civil servant who was aware of the content of the list. Tuomioja argued that individuals included on the list would have to face a devastating pressure from the media because of something they may never have been involved with. After all, the list itself doesn’t prove any wrong-doings on anyones behalf.
The score of “to publish or not to publish” is now one to one. Supo has an ace up on its sleeve, though. The already mentioned law on freedom of information states also, that “documents concerning the relationship between the state of Finland or the citizens of Finland and a public agency or citizens of a foreign state are to be kept secret if their publication would cause damage to the foreign relations of the state of Finland or to the capability to work within the international community” (621/1999 24§ 2.). There is a common law within international intelligence services, which states that all information given by intelligence service to another should be kept secret. If Supo were to reveal the content of the list it would break this common law and thus its capability to work internationally would diminish significantly. And THAT would endanger the security of the state (remember 24§ 9.).
The game is still on. A recent copy of Finnish newspaper Helsingin Sanomat states that Supreme Administrative Court (KHO) will make a decision next summer whether the list should be published or not. Already in 2003 KHO decided in favor of Supo, that the revelation of the list might endanger the national security and thus the list should be kept secret. However, in 2008 same KHO made a new statement, according which Supo is obliged to publish the list. A new verdict is needed, as Supo decided to appeal against the verdict of 2008.
The head of Supo, mr. Ilkka Salmi has told the media that Supo will reveal the list if KHO’s upcoming verdict so states. The whole issue has swelled into such unreasonably large scale, so whatever the verdict is, some unneccessary stir will be arisen. There are more important issues in Finnish history which need clarification and are in a danger of being buried under the fuzz about twenty people who may or may have not have met someone or someone else and may or may have not discussed about something or something else.
What is my opinion on the publication of the list, you may ask. Supo has a strong legislative power to decide on the public use of its documents and they have all the right to use that power. But I also believe in the words of secrecy studies’ grand old woman, Dr. Sissela Bok: “When a government develops secret police powers or control over censorship, the risks are even greater. Secrecy can then become an end in itself, creating subtle changes in those who exercise it, in how they see themselves, and in their willingness to manipulate and coerce in order to uphold the secrecy and thus shield themselves.” (Bok: Secrets – On the Ethics of Concealment and Revelation, p.178)
Posted by Antti Halonen 
