tiistai 17. kesäkuuta 2025

Calle and Eki's super deception to pass the NATO host nation agreement


Calle and Eki's super deception to pass the NATO host nation agreement

 






























NATO´s so-called  host country agreement  has been pushed through without regard for parliament and public opinion. Without deliberate deception, this would not have been possible. When the agreement actually talks about providing support, the matter was presented to decision-makers as receiving support. Yes. The host country agreement was presented to parliament  exactly upside down .

 At the heart of the deception operation carried out under the leadership of  Foreign Minister  Erkki Tuomioja  (SD) and Defense Minister  Carl Haglund (R) is a two-page memorandum prepared in cooperation between the ministries. The memorandum was submitted to the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Parliament exactly two years ago (April 29, 2014). The title of the obviously misleading (or intentionally misleading)  memorandum  is “Signing of a Memorandum of Understanding on Host Country Support between Finland and NATO”.
Nominally, this memorandum, which is celebrating its second anniversary, fulfilled the right of the Parliamentary Foreign Affairs Committee to receive information on matters concerning foreign and security policy, as referred to in Section 97 of the Constitution. However, in such an important matter, such a brief and misleading statement can mainly be considered a very bad joke.
The text of the memorandum is misleading and untrue in many respects. The basic issue itself has been turned on its head. Host nation support is presented as  support available from NATO  , even though it is  about support given to NATO . This harsh and extremely dangerous distortion is shown to have been used to increase the agreement's approval in both the parliament and other parts of the state administration.
The Ministry of the Interior, the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Employment and the Economy, the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, the Ministry of the Environment, Customs, Trafi, the Finnish Motor Insurance Agency, the State Treasury and the General Staff, who were involved in the preparatory work, have probably been persuaded to support the project precisely through this distortion.
Who would oppose the aid given to Finland now?
Super Deception No. 1 right at the beginning: “THE STATE RECEIVING AID”
Memorandum :  “Host Nation Support refers to measures that  the receiving state implements to ensure the practical operating conditions for external support in situations related to the management of various disasters, disturbances or security threats.  Host nation support arrangements are also an established part of multinational training activities. Finland always decides on host nation support provided in Finland.”
The whole “recipient state” thing is wrong. Host nation support means support given by the host country, not the one received.  In the agreement  , or more accurately,  in the Memorandum of Understanding , host  nation support  means support given by the host country alone   . The drafters of the memorandum must have known this. “Recipient state” is such a big and dangerous misinterpretation that it resembles more treason than any small mistake. The short memorandum talks again and again about “receiving aid.”
The memorandum received by the Parliament as a report therefore gives the completely untrue impression that the agreement is about “receiving host nation support”. Foreign Minister Erkki Tuomioja mentioned the fall of a meteorite on our country’s territory as an example.  The meteorite . In reality, the agreement is about providing very comprehensive support for NATO military operations. Host nation support means not only providing regional and other resources for NATO’s use and command, but also, for example, an obligation to actively support NATO forces, including dental services for the crew.
The agreement itself   defines host country support as follows (Section 1 Definitions 1.11 Host country support):
Agreement: “ 1.11  Host Nation Support. Civilian assistance and military assistance provided by a host nation  in times of peace, emergency, crisis and conflict to NATO forces and organizations located or operating on or through the territory, territorial waters or airspace of the host nation .”
The definition does not mention support received by the host country at all. It is a fictitious addition invented in the memorandum. This starting point for the definition of host country support is further confirmed, for example, in sections 3.4 and 3.5:
Agreement:  “ 3.4  The Host Nation shall provide support to forces deployed for NATO-led military operations to the best of its ability  , subject to availability of support and within the practical limits of the circumstances. Details of the support shall be provided in the implementing documents. ”
Agreement: “ 3.5 The provisions of this Protocol  shall apply in times of peace, emergency, crisis and conflict, or during a state of international tension,  as jointly decided by the relevant authorities of the Host Nation and NATO. ”
While the memorandum distributed to Parliament refers to host country support  as support received by Finland  , in reality it is clearly about  the support given by Finland  to NATO forces.
Deception No. 2
Secondly, the memorandum implies that "Host nation support arrangements are also an established part of multinational training activities," meaning that  it only talks about training activities  without mentioning actual  military operations , which the agreement essentially also applies to.
Agreement:  “ 1.2 NATO military activity. Military activity, including exercises, training, operational trials and similar activities, or any strategic, tactical, service or training or administrative  military task performed by forces; the execution of countermeasures necessary to achieve the objectives of a combat or military operation, including attack , movement, maintenance and combat training.
The two-page memorandum mentions “training” ten times. “Operation” is not mentioned once. In the 14-page agreement, training is mentioned only seven times, while operation appears 25 times. The text of the agreement was not freely available for the MPs to read.  According to information from the White House  , they had been given the opportunity to read the English text in a closed room.
Deception No. 3
Third, it is claimed that “Finland always decides on host country support provided in Finland.” Such an unambiguous statement is not found in the agreement text.
Memorandum : “ The application of the Memorandum of Understanding on Host Nation Support to practical situations on a case-by-case basis is always decided jointly between Finland and NATO, and the support is agreed upon in separate technical documents .”
In each case (for example, an attack on Russia), decisions are made jointly  on technical documents . As will be seen below, the application of the agreement is negotiated at the lowest possible level, i.e. at the civil service level, and therefore  completely lacks the possibility of political consideration .
Deception No. 4
Parties to the Agreement and Dispute Resolution
Memorandum:  “ On behalf of Finland, the document would be signed by the Commander of the Defence Forces and on behalf of NATO, by the Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR). ”
This text also gives a misleading picture of the parties to the agreement. The preamble to the agreement itself states the following on the matter:
Agreement :  “The Government of the Republic of Finland, represented by the Ministry of Defence, and the Headquarters of the Commander of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (SACT) and the Headquarters of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (SHAPE), hereinafter referred to as the ‘Participants’”
In reality  , there are three  (3) parties to the agreement, one from Finland and two from NATO, namely the Transformation Headquarters and the NATO European Command Headquarters.
Agreement : “ 11.2 Any apparent dispute concerning the interpretation and application of this Protocol shall be resolved  through negotiations between the Participants at the lowest possible level and shall not be referred to a national or international court or a third party for resolution. ”
This would mean that when, according to the text of the agreement, disputes in the agreement must be resolved at the lowest possible level (= civil servant level), NATO is in the saddle, meaning that solutions are approved in the "Negotiations of the Parties" in accordance with NATO's position by at least a 2–1 vote. And if there are any scoundrels from the Finnish side involved, the solutions are approved by a 3–0 vote.
And according to the agreement, processing cannot be subjected to evaluation or decision by third parties (including legal entities).
These peculiarities of the agreement are not presented at all in the memorandum.
The text of the agreement was translated into Finnish by the state with a delay of about six months. The translation was not yet available when the Parliament was officially informed about the matter with this announcement (memorandum). Misleading the Parliament in the manner presented above would seem like a strong candidate for the category  of treason and treason .
Author and approvers of the MFA memorandum text
The memorandum sent to Parliament reads: The author distributes. And when the distributor is identified as  Mikko Kinnunen, Head of the Security Policy and Crisis Management Unit at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs , he has apparently drafted the memorandum (or led its drafting).
Kinnun also has the dubious honor of being the official who represented Finland at NATO's Assured Resolve exercise in Washington in February. During the exercise, officials promised that Finland would provide military assistance to the Baltics. The Finnish government has not made such a promise. This contradiction is analyzed  in Risto Volanen's  article  "Finnishes in Washington with Two Chairs..."
The memorandum has been distributed in the name of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and it states that “The memorandum has been prepared in cooperation with the Ministry of Defense.”
It is of course essential that the political responsibility for the content of the press release lies with the then responsible ministers of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Defence, namely Foreign Minister Erkki Tuomioja (SD) and Defence Minister Carl Haglund (R). They bear full political responsibility for this misleading memorandum.
So far, taking that responsibility has not had any major consequences. It remains to be seen how political responsibility will be realized now that  the Anti-White Party  exposes the fraud in all its ugliness. Pleading ignorance will be very, very difficult.
Haglund has of course announced that he will step down as chairman of the RKP. Erkki Tuomioja has continued steadfastly as a member of parliament without showing any sign of reassessing his actions. Tuomioja has indeed failed miserably in his attempt to rise to the ranks of statesmen. It seems that his fate is to fall into the ranks of political scoundrels.
What-what agreement?
There has been a lot of debate about the nature of NATO's host nation agreement. A memorandum from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs defines the matter as follows:
Memorandum :  “The HNS MOU is a memorandum of understanding implementing and supplementing these (previous agreements) and is not legally binding.”
What kind of agreement is there that is not legally binding?
Tuomioja told Iltalehti in August 2014  :  “ The protocol is not an international agreement, but rather a political document in nature .”  Tuomioja’s statement is contradicted by, among other things, the fact that the HNS MOU, or NATO Host Nation Agreement, signed in the name of the Finnish government, was  published  immediately after signing in the treaty series of the Collection of Legal Acts among the treaties.
The treaty nature of the HNS MOU has been vigorously denied in public. Carl Haglund and Erkki Tuomioja, who have misled the Parliament and other parts of the state administration with their press releases, have gone to great lengths  to downplay   the agreement and its significance.
Belittling the host country agreement and obscuring its meaning, of course, serves to prevent the matter from being brought to Parliament for a decision. Which in turn is, at the very least, a contempt for democracy.
President Niinistö's foreign policy leadership is as spread out as Lempi's lunch
Many recent events have shown that President  Sauli Niinistö  has an impermissibly weak grip on his constitutionally mandate to lead Finland's foreign policy.
At a NATO mapping exercise held in Washington in February, Finnish officials promised military support for the Baltics. The Finnish government has repeatedly refused to take military responsibility for defending the Baltics.
This implementation of the NATO host nation agreement without parliamentary consideration (which Foreign Minister Tuomioja publicly promised) also raises questions about President Niinistö's role.
President Niinistö's too weak grip on the NATO enthusiasm of the civil service and the NATO hawks of the defense forces does not bode well. Civil servants and soldiers are increasingly turning Finland into a NATO pawn, and political guidance does not seem to be working. Ministers Haglund and Tuomioja's host country support deception plays a decisive role in the dangerous, possibly fatal, drift towards NATO's stepping stone.
Sources
Ministry for Foreign Affairs (29.4.2014): Message/Memorandum “Signing of the Memorandum of Understanding on Host Country Support between Finland and NATO”
https://www.eduskunta.fi/FI/vaski/Documents/UTPJ_15+2014.pdf
Finnish translation prepared by the Ministry for Foreign Affairs: Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of the Republic of Finland and the Executive Staff of the Commander of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Transformation Headquarters and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Operational Headquarters on the provision of host nation support for the implementation of NATO operations/exercises/similar military activities https://www.eduskunta.fi/FI/lakiensaataminen/valiokunnat/ulkoasiainvaliokunta/Documents/HNS%20MoU%20suomi.pdf
Comment.
The first translation of the Host Nation Agreement (HNS MOU) was published by VS-Kustannus. This translation was included in the book This is How Finland is Being Taken , written mainly by activists of the Finnish Independence Party (IPU)  , which  was published  on 15 April 2015. The book can be ordered  here .
The translated text of the agreement was published on the US blog of IPU President  Antti Pesonen   on January 29, 2015.
The Finnish translation prepared by the Ministry for Foreign Affairs was published in the first half of 2015. The publication date is unknown.

Update 29.4.2016 at 20:30
Quite soon after the article was published, the Parliament's website stopped working. At the same time, the links to the documents discussed in the article stopped working. We linked the documents again to the Vastavalkea website.

_
_
eof

klo Ei kommentteja:
Tunnisteet: ,
Tilaa: Kommentit (Atom)

Meet 'PayPal CEO' Alex Chriss - Why Should This Person Be Interesting To You

..funds vanish from user visibility into corporate vaults under the guise of "security reviews" or "processing holds." F...