The importance of high-quality intelligence has never been as widely acknowledged in the public domain as it is today. Intelligence services traditionally operate discreetly, with much of their work being necessarily concealed.
While this fundamental characteristic remains, intelligence agencies have in recent years adopted a more open posture. In Finland, both the Security and Intelligence Service, SUPO, and the Defence Intelligence Agency now publish a public National Security Overview and a Military Intelligence Review.
Two years ago, despite the discussion being held under Chatham House rules, Norway and Estonia participated with the head of SUPO in an open discussion at the Helsinki Security Forum. In London, the heads of MI6 and the CIA took part—for the first time ever—in a publicly broadcast conversation arranged by the Financial Times.
Perhaps the most consequential instance of transparency was the decision by the United States and the United Kingdom to issue public warnings and disclose intelligence information regarding Russia’s preparations for a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022.
Greater openness by official state actors contributes to strengthening situational awareness within society at large. This is particularly important in an era of rapidly expanding open-source intelligence, exemplified by Bellingcat’s exposure of Russia’s responsibility for the downing of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 over Ukraine. At the same time, open-source channels are also exploited to disseminate disinformation and create confusion. In this context, a measured degree of transparency from our intelligence community is both justified and beneficial.
Beyond their traditional mandates, collecting information for political and military decision-makers, countering foreign intelligence activities, anti-terrorism activities and now defending against hybrid threats, intelligence services also play a vital role in building societal resilience in today’s complex world. Crucially, they should be able to provide early warning of military threats, enabling states to take preparatory measures, as Ukraine did follow the warnings it received prior to Russia’s invasion.
The war in Ukraine has brought into sharp public focus the indispensable role of intelligence in both defensive and offensive operations. Ukraine’s partnership with Western intelligence communities has been of decisive importance.
International cooperation is likewise fundamental to Finland’s intelligence activities. With Finland and Sweden now full members of NATO, intelligence cooperation among Allies has intensified. Finland seeks to be a net contributor to security within the Alliance, including in the intelligence domain. Finland’s intelligence community is a highly respected actor by international partners and is perceived to have strong capabilities. Our closest partnerships remain with the Nordic countries, which collectively enhance stability and security throughout the Baltic Sea region.
The United States is also a key partner for Finland, possessing the world’s strongest intelligence capabilities. In October, the Finnish Parliament’s Intelligence Oversight Committee therefore visited Washington to engage with representatives of the US intelligence community, to have a historic meeting with the US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and meeting ten US senators.
International cooperation has also broadened in the sphere of oversight. All democratic societies require effective oversight mechanisms. While intelligence is indispensable, particularly in the current security environment, oversight plays an important role in ensuring that activities are conducted lawfully and appropriately.
Its purpose is not to constrain intelligence agencies, but to safeguard legality, accountability, and public trust. Should legal adjustments be required, responsibility rests with Parliament. As strong advocates of the rules-based international order, we recognize that oversight is essential to its integrity.
Since the reform of Finland’s intelligence legislation, the national oversight system has functioned effectively. The oversight committee and ombudsman maintain structured dialogue with the agencies, its members hold the necessary security clearances, and meetings are conducted in secure facilities. Finland’s model for oversight has also served as a reference in other countries, in for example Lithuania.
This year in September, Parliament of Finland will host—for the first time—the Nordic Conference on Intelligence Oversight, which convenes biennially. Together with our Nordic partners, we have decided to invite the Baltic states as participants for the first time. This reflects our shared commitment to strengthening cooperation across the Baltic Sea region, where intelligence plays a pivotal role in ensuring safety and stability.
Mats Löfström
Chairman
Intelligence Oversight Committee
