P 031230Z FEB 09
FM AMEMBASSY HELSINKI
TO SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 4787

C O N F I D E N T I A L HELSINKI 000039 
 
 
STATE FOR EUR, CA/P/IP, CA/VO, L/CA, EUR/NB 
 
C O R R E C T E D COPY (CHANGING SUBJECT LINE 
AND TEXT TORD AS SHOWN) 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 2 FEB 2019 
TAGS: CVIS ASEC PREL KHLS PTER PGOV PREL FI
SUBJECT: HSPD - 6 FURTHUR DISCUSSIONS WITH FINLAND 
 
REF: (A) STATE 095086 (B) HELSINKI 430 
 
CLASSIFIED BY CHARGE MICHAEL BUTLER REASON: 1.5b 
 
¶1. (C) Summary:  On January 26, 2009, Charge, POL chief and 
Consul met with Ministry of the Interior State Secretary 
Antti Peltari, who wanted to follow up on an earlier 
meeting with the Embassy when he received model language 
for an HSPD-6 agreement. (REF B)  (Peltari has been 
promoted from Director General to State Secretary since our 
initial meeting.)  Peltari stated that any agreement 
related to HSPD-6 will have to be ratified by the Finnish 
Parliament because of strict limitations on the exchange of 
personal data contained in the Finnish Constitution. 
Pointing to prior difficulties between the government and 
Parliament on the question of data privacy, Peltari warned 
that an HSPD-6 agreement could be the subject of very 
public parliamentary debate and might not be ratified.  He 
also expressed his government?s satisfaction with current 
data sharing with the U.S.  Charge inquired if a less 
formal agreement would be possible without Parliamentary 
ratification, and offered to supply additional language for 
the Finns to consider.  Peltari said the government would 
consider additional language, but doubted seriously that a 
less formal agreement would avoid the need for 
Parliamentary approval. He did not commit to the visit of a 
Washington-based team at this time. End Summary. 
 
¶2. (C) At the start of the discussion, Charge reemphasized 
to Pelttari that the exchange of terrorist screening 
information (TSI) between Finland the US will enhance our 
mutual security while also meeting the legal requirement 
for such exchanges for current VWP countries.  Peltari 
stated that the government, including the National Police, 
is quite satisfied with ongoing data sharing.  Consul asked 
for Peltari's view on using the TSDB system as an added 
tool for protecting their borders as there is currently no 
consolidated national Finnish database containing 
information on individuals who may support, facilitate or 
engage in terrorist activities.  Peltari reiterated that 
existing mechanisms work well. 
 
¶3. (C) Peltari stated that various ministries examined the 
draft language provided in the September meeting.  The 
government's position is that an agreement such as one 
required by HSPD-6 would need parliamentary approval. 
According to Peltari, the Finnish Constitution places 
strict conditions on the handling and exchange of personal 
data.  Peltari said that if the U.S. and Finland agree to 
pursue an HSPD-6 Treaty, they would encounter sensitivities 
within the Parliament regarding privacy and data sharing, 
and dissatisfaction with how the government has engaged the 
Parliament on this matter in the past. He warned that 
taking this route has political ramifications that could 
lead to non-ratification. 
 
¶4. (C) Charge emphasized that the U.S. is flexible 
regarding the type of arrangement between the two countries 
and asked whether a less formal one such as an aide-memoire 
might avoid the need for a treaty.  Peltari indicated that 
as long as personal data is exchanged, the Constitutional 
conditions would apply.  However, he expressed a 
willingness to examine additional language provided by the 
Embassy, drawn from existing agreements with other 
(unnamed) VWP countries.  Consul stated that the actual 
agreements that have already been reached are similar to 
the sample copies already distributed but that he would 
check with Washington to see if country specific 
information could be blocked out. 
 
¶5. (C) Charge suggested that having a team visit from the 
U.S. would be helpful to explore these questions.  Peltari 
agreed that a visit might be useful, but preferred that his 
government receive and examine additional language first. 
 
¶6. (C)Comment.  The major impediment here is not policy- 
based but legal. It will be an uphill battle to get this 
approved due to legal and political challenges.  We detect 
in Peltari a concern about a public debate in Parliament 
regarding a particular form of data sharing that will 
highlight broader ongoing cooperation.  We will provide 
additional language to Peltari and pursue how 
Constitutional requirements might be satisfied without 
parliamentary approval. 
 
 
BUTLER