Even the Finnish people themselves could not have expected that the Iraq war would have more rapid and serious domestic political consequences in their own homeland than in Britain or the United States. Yet their new prime minister, Anneli Jäätteenmäki, was forced to resign on 18 June 2003 only two months after taking office following the electoral success of her Centre Party.
Why?
The bare details of the drama are simple. During the electoral campaign, Jäätteenmäki chose to take advantage of widespread anti-war sentiment in Finland and attacked the then prime minister, Paavo Lipponen, for supporting the US-led war.
It appeared that Jäätteenmäki had at her disposal a secret report of confidential discussions between Lipponen and American president, George W. Bush. In public, she denied ever having seen or obtained such a document. However, a leak was so obvious that the police began to investigate – leaking secret government documents is a crime – and Jäätteenmäki , who in the meantime had become the new prime minister, was questioned as a witness.
At this point she chose to tell the truth, and said that she in fact had received the secret document. She then implicated a senior civil servant, number two in the presidential administration, as her source. The poor man was sacked immediately by the president of the republic herself, Tarja Halonen.
Anneli Jäätteenmäki was caught out for engaging in dirty tricks – the most severe of which was lying during the election campaign. This destroyed confidence in her among the public and her coalition partners, and finally also within her own party.
There is nothing wrong or unusual in keeping the leader of the opposition informed of major issues of foreign policy. If Jäätteenmäki had chosen to ask her questions in a proper manner, she probably would have received the answers. But she preferred to rely on a criminal leak, and to use the information in a manner that was perceived as unfair and probably also inaccurate, and then to lie about it. She had to go.
The saga will continue. A new prime minister, Matti Vanhanen, is in place. The civil servant who leaked extracts of a classified document will be prosecuted. He claims that Jäätteenmäki actually asked for the document. If that is the case, Jäätteenmäki may be prosecuted for incitement. And even if it turns out not to be the case, as she claims, she will appear in court as a witness.
An example to the world?
The moral of the story is that in Finland a political leader must take the responsibility for his or her words – even those uttered during a passionate electoral campaign. If you lie, you walk.
Can one draw parallels between the Finnish case and those of the UK and the US? Of course, they are not identical. Finland – unlike the US, UK, France or Germany – did not play a major role in the Iraq crisis. The crisis in the country has combined aspects of a domestic political soap opera with a serious criminal investigation.
However, some parallels may indeed exist. Political leaders of any size – whether Jäätteenmäki, George W. Bush, or Tony Blair - should be held responsible for the words they speak in public; that is a test of democracy. As a Finn I am pleased that my country passed the test. As for Britain and the United States, we must await results – not simply of the investigations into the political rhetoric employed by their leaders before the recent war, but of the actions that follow.
