Etusivu 2012
27.5.2012

Clinton kävi kylässä

Yhdysvaltain ulkoministeri Hillary Clinton kävi toista vuorokautta kestäneellä vierailulla. Olisimme toki näyttäneet hänelle enemmänkin Suomea kuin mitä aikatauluun mahtui, mutta tärkeintä olivat presidentin, pääministerin ja ulkoministerin hänen kanssaan käymät keskustelut. Keskusteluissa ei ollut tarvetta erityisemmin puhua kahdenvälisistä asioista, koska niissä ei ongelmia ole, mutta keskinäisen riippuvuuden maailmassa niin Yhdysvallat suurvaltana kuin Suomi pienenä maana ovat aivan samojen haasteiden edessä. Näkemyksemme niistä eivät välttämättä aina ole identtisiä, mutta käyvät yhä useammin yksiin, kun puhumme monista kansainvälisisistä kriisipesäkkeistä ja konflikteista, joita laajalla monenkeskisellä yhteistyöllä YK:n johdolla yritetään ratkaista.  Tämä koskee myös Syyriaa, missä tuemme YK:n erityisedustajan Kofi Annanin pyrkimyksiä sellaisen väkivaltaisuuden lopettavan ja Syyrian demokraattisen muutoksen tielle saattavan ratkaisun aikaansaamiseksi, jota kaikki turvallisuusneuvoston pysyvät jäsenet olisvat valmiita tukemaan. Toivomme on, että tällaisesta löytyisi sopu jo ensi viikonvaihteessa Genevessä.

Erityisen luontevaksi ja tärkeäksi yhteistyön kohteeksi Yhdysvaltain ja Suomen välillä on noussut naisten aseman ja oikeuksien vahvistaminen. Pohjoismaan tasa-arvokysymyksissä pitkään profiloituneelle Suomelle tämä on luontevaa ja se on nimenomaan Clintonin ulkoministerikaudella ja presidentti Obaman tuella noussut tärkeäksi prioriteetiksi myös Yhdysvalloissa. Osallistumme siten mielellämme Yhdysvaltain uuteen Equal Futures Partnershipiin ja pidämme Yhdysvaltain Obaman kaudella tekemiä injauksia LGTB-oikeuksien nostamisesta keskeiseksi ihmisoikeuskysymykseksi tervetulleina.

Käytimme ulkoministereinä maittemme puheenvuorot Rio+20 konferenssissa. Molemmat pidämme nyt kokouksen jatkotyötä ja erityisesti vahvojen ja selkeiden kestävän kehityksen tavoitteiden valmistamista ratkaisevana sille, saavutammeko todella ekologisesti, sosiaalisesti ja taloudellisesti kestävän kehityksen tilan maapallollamme.

27.5. 2012

24.5.2012

Suomi Chicagossa

Suomen osallistuminen Naton huippukokouksen yhteydessä pidettyihin Afganistan- ja kumppanikokoukseen ovat herättäneet osin aivan käsittämättömiä kommentteja. Suomi on monta kertaa aikaisemminkin osallistunut täsmälleen samassa Tasavallan presidentti, ulkoministeri ja puolustusministeri kokoonpanossa Naton huippukokouksiin, eikä Chicagossa mukanolo tai mikään mikä siellä käsiteltiin ole muuttamassa Suomen suhdetta sotilaalliseen liittoutumiseen, niin suuresti kuin sitä yhdet toivovat ja toiset pelkäävät.

Chicagossa tärkeätä oli, että kaikki Afganistanin vakauttamiseen ja sen demokratian ja ihmisoikeustilanteen vahvistamiseen eri tavoin osallistuvat maat osoittivat yhdessä Afganistanin johdon kanssa sitoutumisensa Afganistanin tukemiseen myös vuoden 2014 jälkeen. Varsinainen sotilasoperaatio maassa päättyy tuolloin, kun maan oma armeija ja poliisi ottavat täysimääräisen vastuun maan turvallisuudesta. Suomen osalta Afganistania koskevat linjaukset on esitetty eduskunnalle ja siellä vahvistettu Afganistan-selonteossa. Samalla kun Suomen sotilaspanos päättyy, siirtyy painopiste siviilikriisinhallintaan ja kehitysyhteistyöhön, jossa Suomen panos tulee kasvamaan 50 % eli 30 miljoonaan euroon. Suomi tulee myös jatkamaan tukeaan n. 6 miljoonan euron vuositasolla Afganistanin turvallisuussektorille ennen muuta EUPOL-mission kautta, jossa olemme tähänkin saakka olleet huomattava osallistuja. Kaikessa tässä työssä tulee naisten oikeuksien ja aseman vahvistaminen olemaan keskiössä.

Chicagossa pidettiin myös Naton ja 13 kumppanimaan yhteiskokous. Tätä formaattia ei ole tarkoitus pysyväistää, mutta kertaluonteisena se oli Naton arvostuksen osoitus niille maille, joiden kanssa yhteistyö on ollut merkityksellistä. Suomi ja Ruotsi, jotka ovat olleet aloitteellisia kumppanuuden kehittämisessä, saivat erityistä huomiota, mutta osallistuneiden kumppaneiden kirjo on laaja käsittäen myös sellaiset maat kuin Australia, Jordania ja Sveitsi, joita vannoutuneinkaan Nato-hengen haistelija ei voi epäillä pyrkimyksistä hakeutua Naton jäsenyyteen. Kumppanuushankkeet ovat sellaisia, joihin Suomi harkintansa mukaan voi osallistua, jos näemme niiden olevan perusteltuja ratkottaessa konflikteja kansainvälistä oikeusjärjestystä kunnioittaen ja vahvistaen tai hyödyksi Suomen aseman vahvistamiselle ja omalle puolustukselle.

Chicagossa ei käsitelty Islannin ilmavalvontaa, vaikka se kotimaan mediassa nousiksin hallitsevaksi asiaksi. Pohjoismaista yhteistyötä Islannin ilmavalvonnan merkeissä ehdotettiin jo Stoltenbergin raportissa kolme vuotta sitten. Siihen ei vielä silloin otettu kantaa. Sen jälkeen pohjoismainen yhteistyö puolustuksen alalla on koko ajan edennyt mm. yhteisten harjoitusten, koulutuksen, hankintojen, kansainvälisen kriisinhallinnan ja valvontatehtävien merkeissä. Tällainen yhteistyö on hyvin käytännönläheistä eikä sillä tähdätä mihinkään uusiin kattavaiin sopimuksiin, jostain puolustusliitosta puhumattakaan. Kun Islanti on nyt kohdistanut Suomelle ja Ruotsille pyynnön osallistumisesta pohjoismaisena yhteistyökohteena ilmatilansa valvontaan on luonnollista, että Suomi ja Ruotsi ovat valmiit selvittämään mahdollisuudet yhdessä osallistua tällaiseen yhteistyöhön ilman että se seikka, että täysin armeijaton Islanti on myös Naton jäsen, voi muodostua ratkaisevaksi esteeksi, jos tämä muutoin nähdään selvitysten jälkeen perustelluksi ja hyödylliseksi hankkeeksi.

24.5. 2012

23.5.2012

Let’s Get Europe’s Crisis Back in Perspective, article published in the summer issue of Europe’s World

The good news is that the European Union is not about to fall apart because of the debt crisis, or for any other reason. If that were the case, why would a dozen or so countries still be queuing up to join? The EU is arguably the most successful peace project in world history and has brought stability and democracy as well as some prosperity to its members. This makes it more than attractive enough for others to want to be part of it. That said, the EU could and should be doing much better than is the case. To begin with, the Eurozone crisis, despite the cautious optimism now being shown, it is still too early to declare victory. We Europeans will be paying for a long time for mistakes committed first of all in the setting up of the euro and then in dealing with the sovereign debt crisis. Even if other Eurozone countries don’t succumb to the pressures that Greece is being subjected to, we in the EU will surely have to pay for many a long year the price for having failed to do the right thing and arrange an orderly debt restructuring for Greece at a much earlier point.

The euro’s crisis has generated a long list of both temporary and permanent legislation, along with  mechanisms aimed at dealing with it now and preventing a repetition in years to come. Some, like the six-pack of legislation to strengthen economic policy co-ordination and set up the European Stability Mechanism permanently, are eminently reasonable and necessary measures. But, worryingly, they have also given an impetus for many more questionable measures like the Treaty on Economic Union, which is at best irrelevant for dealing with the present crisis and at worst has the potential to impose unworkable

austerity policies while delegitimizing perfectly sensible Keynesian policies in the future at a huge cost to growth and employment.

The damage done to democracy in Europe is no less than the harm being caused by poor economic governance. Even by the EU’s modest standards for respecting its own rules and the democratic elements they contain, the EU’s answer to the crisis has been dismal. The reality is that all the normal procedures for preparing and taking decisions at EU level have been put to one side.

The European Commission has been shunted to the sidelines and the permanent president of the European Council has become no more than a front man for decisions prepared in a very opaque manner and public debate by the ’duopoly’ of Berlin and Paris that seeks to impose its own solutions on everyone else. In short, other EU governments are today expected to come to European Council and euro group meetings

with little if any advance knowledge of what it is they are expected to sign up to. It can be argued, of course, that Berlin and Paris have merely fi lled the leadership vacuum left by others. This is true

to a degree, but cannot excuse the high-handed way it has been done. The best illustration of this is the new agreement on Economic Union, which was sprung on the European Council with the backing

of the leaders of the centre-right European People’s Party but with no previous debate or critical analysis, despite the fact that it adds to the confusion that increasingly surrounds the EU’s institutional framework.

The larger framework for the way the sovereign debt crisis has been managed within the EU has also contributed to the Union’s crisis of democracy. The Finnish Parliament has through its Grand Committee been among the best informed of national parliaments in the EU, meeting when necessary at 7.30 AM on Monday mornings to go through the proposals for the second Greek rescue package. But even if our own national system of parliamentary scrutiny of EU affairs has functioned between government and parliament more or less as our constitution requires, it has on occasion meant that the government has had to openly share with parliament its own ignorance and information of what would be proposed to

our prime minister or finance minister at a forthcoming Council meeting.

The role of Europe’s national parliaments in the EU decision making process cannot be stressed too much. With all due respect to the European Parliament, it does not enjoy the same democratic legitimacy as does a national parliament, and clearly can have no say at all in how national budgetary resources should be used to deal with the debt crisis. Not, I should add, that the EP has itself been adequately informed or consulted on those issues where under the treaties it has real powers and responsibilities.

As for democracy in Greece one must seriously question whether the EU is now engaged in trying to turn the cradle of democracy into its graveyard, even though some of the most outrageous proposals for limiting Greece’s democratic sovereignty have been rejected.

It is important however, to move ahead from what has happened and what has gone wrong to focus instead on what needs to be done at a global level to rectify past mistakes and avoid future crises. Meeting during the depths of the 2008 financial crisis when the world’s financial markets and architecture seemed threatened with meltdown, international leaders adopted a far-reaching statement on reforming of the international financial system. Looking back at what has been achieved since then, one must sadly conclude that most of that fi ne-sounding programme has either been watered down or is still awaiting implementation.

To be fair, the EU has done more than most to introduce more orderly regulation and transparency to chaotic financial markets. The European Commission has adopted a more proactive role in trying to close tax havens, some of which are to be found within the EU. The Commission has even proposed the introduction of a Financial Transaction Tax, whose title is more impressive than its contents but

which can and should be improved. At least the Eurozone governments should stand ready to adopt it, since the UK government’s opposition makes it so far impossible to do so at EU level.

What grounds are there, then, for common external action by the EU as a whole? The euro crisis has obviously weakened the EU as a credible global actor. And with European leaders preoccupied with

the economic crisis, and with no Foreign Ministers in attendance at European Council meetings, foreign policy issues have of late received very little attention. Notwithstanding the new Lisbon treaty

instruments for improving its external action, the actual performance and influence of the EU is weaker than just a few years ago.

This is not because of the Lisbon treaty’s shortcomings or of the

High Representative’s work. It is a consequence of member states’ weaker commitment to working together through the EU. Many have chosen to use the EU only when it suits their immediate interests,

and otherwise do their own thing. But without common positions and policies entailing compromises that all the member states can adhere to, we cannot expect others around the world to take us seriously as

partners and we certainly won’t be able to influence events.

23.5.2012

Speech ”The Role of Member States in Mediation” Informal High-Level Meeting on Mediation, New York, 23.5.2012

 

Mr. President, Mr. Secretary-General, Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen

I wish to thank you, Mr. President,   for organizing this informal High Level Meeting  of the General Assembly on the role of Member States in mediation. Your leadership in advancing mediation during the 66th session is commendable. This high-level meeting is an important occasion to further share knowledge and visions on how to use mediation more effectively for conflict prevention, management and resolution. As a co-chair of the Group of Friends of Mediation I am glad to present you some Finnish experiences in mediation.

Over decades, Finland has played various different roles in mediation processes.

The most visible part of these efforts have been the high-level mediation assignments carried out by Finnish mediators in various conflict areas around the world. In 2008, the efforts to bring peace in Aceh, Kosovo, Namibia and elsewhere brought the Nobel Peace Prize to the former President of Finland, Mr. Martti Ahtisaari. The first Finn to serve as a UN mediator was appointed as early as in the 1960s in relation to Cyprus. Also, Finnish senior officers in various peacekeeping operations have served peace in different ways. These and other mediation assignments have provided inspiration to several generations of Finns.  In recent years, Finland has been active in supporting peace for instance in Northern Ireland, Georgia, Kyrgystan and the Horn of Africa.

Ever since those days, mediation has been an integral part of the Finnish foreign policy. A few years ago, we decided to reinforce our efforts in this field. Strengthening international mediation structures is our  central goal. Our partnership with Turkey, which led to the establishment of the Group of Friends of Mediation in 2010, has proved to be extremely fruitful.  We have been encouraged by the enthusiasm with which this initiative was received.  The group has already achieved more than most of us dared to hope for.  The resolution “Strengthening the role of mediation in peaceful settlement of disputes, conflict prevention and resolution” that was adopted by consensus in June 2011 has become a living document.  The most tangible follow-up of the resolution is the preparation of the Guidance for more effective mediation. The manner in which the Secretariat is preparing this document with wide consultation rounds, is commendable.

Earlier, I mentioned the work of individual mediators.  It is important to underline that none of these mediators worked alone.  President Ahtisaari has stated that working in isolation is a recipe for failure. As shown by successful mediation efforts such as the case of Namibia, apeace process is largely a matter of cooperation and partnership between different actors: parties to a conflict, other mediators, governments, the civil society and international organizations.

I couldn’t agree more.  Effective mediation requires a multi-stakeholder approach at various levels, each actor bringing their specific expertise to the joint effort. No one can bring all the necessary competences or roles to a mediation process.  For example, a prominent individual can bring the necessary political weight with useful networks and resources to the process, whilst those closer to the conflict  can bring the capacity to create a dialogue and the necessary in-depth expertise to find solutions to the situation. The better we combine our strengths, the stronger the chances are to reach sustainable peace.  If we can rely on cooperation, each of us can focus on deepening our particular competences, instead of trying to master all areas.

This is why networking is a key element in Finland’s mediation strategy. Finland acts very seldom as a mediator itself. Rather, we support the activities of Track Two actors and other partners in reconciliation and peacemaking. Very often, we support efforts based on a partnership between a Finnish and a local actor.

We see Finland’s role very much as a facilitator for peace.  We want to support local actors to build the necessary capacities or platforms to create peace. Local ownership is of key importance.  Finland is currently preparing ways to support the capacity of the local actors in Myanmar to engage in the peace process. There is a strong willingness among various actors in Myanmar to start a genuine national political dialogue, and we, like many others, wish to support it. An International Peace Support Group has been formed to coordinate this effort. This is a very welcome development. An important dimension in our involvement is cooperation with Norway which for a long time has been active in promoting peace in the country and continues to play a key role.  

In Somalia, Finland has since 2008 been supporting the positive role of Somali religious and traditional leaders in mediation. This work has been carried out by civil society actors who have been working in the country for years and thus have the needed trust, access and skills to work jointly with local actors. Through this work several local conflicts in Somalia have been identified and Somali elders have been successfully empowered to carry out their traditional role as mediators.

Achieving sustainable peace in Somalia requires not only grass-roots engagement but also  a functional dialogue on all aspects of peace between local and international actors, Finland has since 2010 supported the efforts of UNPOS (UN Political Office for Somalia) to reach out and benefit from the views and grass-root legitimacy that Somali elders have in peace- and state building. The role of non-state actors in implementing the activities and fostering effective dialogue between the elders, UNPOS and the Transitional Federal Government has been essential. Building bridges between different actors involved in mediation – donors, international actors with clear mandates, Governments, local actors and NGO’s – is not an option but a necessity in effective mediation.

Implementing the Security Council resolution 1325 in all activities relating to peace- and state building as well as mediation is a priority for Finland. We welcome the efforts of the UN Secretariat to advance the implementation of 1325  with regard to mediation and are actively considering to support  a training programme on gender and mediation. 

Regardless of the context, an enhanced role for women will result in more sustainable results. While supporting Somali elders (all men), Finland has at the same time consistently emphasized and supported the inclusion of women in decision-making and women’s participation in future democratic structures of Somalia. Often the best results derive not through international pressure, but through genuine local ownership and long-term engagement.  One example is from  June 2011 when as part of the UNPOS work, the Somali elders decided that they want to establish a traditional elders council, Guurti, to South-Central Somalia. Perhaps contrary to expectations of some, the elders announced that at least 25% of the members of the Guurti should be women.

Networking is also useful at the national level. At the beginning of this year, we established anational Mediation Coordination Group in Finland. Led by the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, the group comprises government representatives, civil society organizations, research institutions, universities and others involved in mediation. The group serves as a platform for sharing information and identifying new areas of cooperation in the field of mediation. In its first meeting  the Group identified a number of issues as “trademarks” of Finnish mediation that should be further developed.  The establishment of the coordination group was extremely well received. The participants considered the meeting an historic event. I can warmly recommend the establishment of a similar structure in other countries. Another useful initiative at the national level was the adoption of an Action Plan for Mediation last December that helps to focus on developing those areas where Finland has particular expertise.

One of the key message that we have promoted in different fora is that mediation is highly relevant throughout the conflict cycle.  More attention has to be paid to the role of mediation in conflict prevention. Early identification of conflicts is crucial, and early identification should lead to early action.

It has also become evident that parties to a conflict should not be left alone after the signing of a peace agreement.  There is a high risk of relapse into violence during the fragile period following the conclusion of a peace agreement. These are reasons why we felt so strongly that the GA resolution should adopt a comprehensive approach, underlining the relevance of mediation throughout the conflict cycle.  

An illustrative case in point is Aceh, Indonesia. After the conclusion of the peace agreement  between the Government of Indonesia and the Free Aceh Movement in Helsinki, Finland in 2005, a Monitoring Mission was established to monitor and support the peace process. This EU-led Monitoring Mission completed its mandate successfully at the end of 2006.  In addition, regular political dialogue between the parties to the agreement has been sustained even six years after the conclusion of the peace agreement by the mediator, president Ahtisaari and the CMI.  It should not be forgotten that the peace process must be rooted in the society itself. It is the right and the responsibility of the people themselves to make the best out of the hard won peace. A long way still remains in ensuring that the fruit of peace and development will benefit future generations. All parties, including the international community, continue to support the development of Aceh.

Based on these positive examples, we proposed in our contribution to the Guidance that an authoritative mechanism should be set up to monitor the implementation of peace agreements. The mediator should have a role in this, but the monitoring mechanism may require a bigger and more complex structure than the mediation process. We also proposed that peace agreements should include an arrangement for how disagreements on the implementation of the provisions shall be settled. Possibly the mediator could be called upon again, but the dispute settlement mechanism should be able to function even is the mediator is not able to take part in it.

I would again like to emphasize the importance of civil society actors, especially in preventing violent conflicts form breaking out. The first information of a threat of violence and the underlying causes come usually from the civil society. Early warning mechanisms rely heavily on local civil society actors to receive first-hand information from the ground and to analyze the significance of such information. Moreover, as civil society actors often have the best knowledge about the local situation, they can bring the necessary capacity to the mediation effort to help identify concrete measures to address the root-causes and reduce the tensions permanently. 

Lot of work remains to be done in improving coordination between different actors. I will save my comments on that issue for the afternoon session, when I will discuss the importance of nominating a lead mediator for each crisis situation.

Mr President, Excellencies, 

The United Nations is a key actor in the field of mediation. Through the General Assembly resolution initiated by Finland and Turkey  the normative framework for mediation, based on the UN Charter,  has already been established.  Mediation could deserve more attention also in the work of the Security Council.  Finland is a candidate for a non-permanent seat in the Security Council for 2013-2014. If elected, Finland would be committed to carry on the excellent work already done by others, such as  Burkina Faso, Nigeria, Turkey and Lebanon, to advance mediation also in the Council. For that opportunity we seek your support.

Finally, I would like to pay tribute to the United Nations, particularly to the Department of Political Affairs and its Mediation Support Unit, for their efforts to develop UN’s capacity to better serve and conduct mediation. We are committed to continuing our support to these efforts.

21.5.2012

Puolustusvoimauudistuksella suuria vaikutuksia myös siviilityöpaikkoihin

Hallituksen valmisteleman puolustusvoimauudistuksen toteutus on edennyt puolustushallinnossa sen jälkeen, kun hallitus on sen käsitellyt hallituksen ulko- ja turvallisuuspoliittisessa valiokunnassa yhdessä presidentin kanssa. Suurinta mielenkiintoa ja intohimojakin ovat herättäneet puolustusvoimien tulevalle kustannustehokkaalle toiminnalle välttämättomät päätökset varuskunnista ja niihin liittynyt erillinen valmistelukupru Dragsvikin varuskunnan tulevaisuudesta. Vähemmälle huomiolle ovat jääneet muut sotilasorganisaation muutokset. Tämä sotilaspuolen järjestely vastaa sitä käsitystä, mikä hallitusohjelman mukaisesti laadittavan turvallisuus- ja puolustuspoliitisen selonteon valmistelussa on tähän mennessä todettu. Puolustusvoimia on uudistettava vastaamaan nykypäivän haasteisiin samalla kun ikäluokat pienenevät ja materiaalikustannukset kasvavat.Puolustushallinnossa tapahtuu kuitenkin samaan aikaan paljon sisäistä muutosta, joka osin johtuu puolustusvoimauudistuksesta ja osin on hallinnon sisäisiä järjestelyjä.Jo viime syksynä puolustushallinnon ravitsemuspalvelut yhtiöitettiin perustamalla uusi valtionyhtiö. Tähän uuteen yhtiöön siirtyminen koski 550 ruokahuollon työntekijää ja oli suuri muutos työnantajapuolelta. Muutoksen lieventämiseksi työntekijöiden turvaksi säädettiin neljän vuoden suoja-aika irtisanomisen uhalta. Jatkossa puolustushallinto aikoo avata ruokahuoltonsa avoimelle kilpailulle ja samalla uusi Kuopiosta johdettava Leijona-catering voi alkaa kilpailla itsekin markkinoilla. Kaikki eivät ole olleet vielä vakuuttuneita tällaisen muutoksen tarpeellisuudesta.Tällä hetkellä ajankohtainen järjestely koskee puolustushallinnon palvelukeskusta. Puolustushallinnon henkilöstö- talous- ja tietohallintopalveluja keskitetysti tuottavassa uudessa keskuksessa olisi noin 200 työntekijää. Tällainen suuri palvelukeskus on haluttu työnantaja mihin osaan Suomea tahansa. Kilpailussa ovat nyt olleet mukana Joensuu, Jyväskylä, Kouvola ja Tuusula. Tietääkseni keskustelua käydään lähinnä Joensuun ja Tuusulan sijoitusvaihtoehtojen välillä. Ei ole vaikea nähdä, että erityisesti Joensuussa varuskunnan lakkautuksen vaikutuksia toivotaan korvattavaksi edes osin sillä, että puolustushallinnon palvelukeskus sijoitetaan sinne.Vähemmän julkisuudessa on puhuttu puolustushallinnon kiinteistöhallinnon järjestelyistä. Tämä ehkä siksi, että asia on puolustushallinnon sisäisen työryhmän valmistelussa pitkälle vuoteen 2013 asti ja vielä niin, ettei henkilöstöä ole otettu työryhmään mukaan. Puolustushallinnon kiinteistöhuollossa on noin 800 työntekijää eri puolilla maata. Olen saanut henkilöstöltä paljon yhteydenottoja siitä, että valmisteilla olisi malli, jolla koko armeijan kiinteistöhuolto ulkoistetaan. Tämä tapahtuisi muuttamalla tilojen vuokramallia kokonaisvuokramalliksi, jossa puolustus maksaisi vuokrassa Senaatti-kiinteistöille myös huollosta ja samalla siis luopuisi omasta kiinteistöhuollostaan. Valtionyhtiö Senaatti-kiinteistöillä ei ole huoltotoimintaa, joten muutos tarkoittaisi automaattisesti työn ulkoistamista.Tällaiset yksityistämishankkeet ovat aiemman kokemuksen perusteella kyseenalaisia ja joka tapauksessa sellaisia, että niitä on arvioitava tarkemmin koko hallituksen voimin. Puolustusvoimauudistuksesta ei saa tulla suuri työn yksityistämishanke.21.5. 2012