Agenda Profile: Ants Frosch
Inquiry Regarding the Confiscation of the Estonian Soldier Memorial (no 642)
2024-10-21
15th Riigikogu, 4th session, plenary sitting
Political Position
The political focus centers on the lack of control exercised by the Government of the Republic and the Ministry of the Interior over security institutions (the Police and the Internal Security Service), which has led to a series of botched operations. Strong, performance-based criticism is being leveled against the government’s decision to remove the memorial stone, while simultaneously avoiding the broader issue of commemorating the Estonian men who fell in 1944. The political position is that the government is sheltering behind the security structures and is in need of a comprehensive audit.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Topic Expertise
High expertise in the control of internal security, police, and the activities of the Security Police (KAPO), as well as in the field of surveillance. Technical terms such as "call data records" and "monitoring of communication devices" are employed, and reference is made to specific historical events (the 2004 pressure, the 2014 kidnapping of a KAPO official) and the Tartu court case, to support arguments regarding the absence of oversight.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Rhetorical Style
The style is analytical, critical, and concerned, emphasizing institutional and historical failures. Logical argumentation is employed, citing specific past events and court cases to demonstrate the consequences of a lack of control. The tone is accusatory, particularly regarding the government's actions, which are described as "shooting a sparrow with a cannon."
3 Speeches Analyzed
Activity Patterns
He/She is speaking before the Riigikogu during an interpellation, focusing on the activities of the ministry and the security agencies. He/She repeatedly references discussions held in the Special Committee for the Supervision of Security Agencies, where certain promised steps have failed to materialize.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Opposition Stance
Strong opposition is directed at the Government of the Republic and the Ministry of the Interior, who are criticized for the lack of institutional oversight and for avoiding responsibility. The criticism is both procedural and political, accusing the government of allowing security agencies to spin out of control and thereby damaging the procedures for ensuring national security.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Collaboration Style
It refers to the question posed by colleague Leo Kunnas, which supports the criticism raised during the debate, thereby highlighting shared concerns. There is no information available regarding cooperation or readiness to compromise with other political parties.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Regional Focus
It focuses on national security and the activities of the ministries. The regional focus is mentioned in the context of the Tartu court case, which has a national impact on evidentiary procedures.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Economic Views
Insufficient data
3 Speeches Analyzed
Social Issues
The primary social issue revolves around historical memory and the commemoration of Estonian soldiers who fell in 1944, a question for which the government has yet to provide a response. Furthermore, the issue of balancing the activities of security agencies (surveillance) and the principles of the rule of law (the collection of evidence and the use of call detail records) is also being raised.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Legislative Focus
It requires a thorough audit and review regarding the oversight of security agencies in order to restore ministerial control. It notes that the Ministry of the Interior has promised draft bills and necessary steps but has failed to implement them over the course of the year.
3 Speeches Analyzed