[Search for users] [Overall Top Noters] [List of all Conferences] [Download this site]

Conference turris::scandia

Title:All about Scandinavia
Moderator:TLE::SAVAGE
Created:Wed Dec 11 1985
Last Modified:Tue Jun 03 1997
Last Successful Update:Fri Jun 06 1997
Number of topics:603
Total number of notes:4325

102.0. "Sweden's neutrality policy" by TLE::SAVAGE (Neil, @Spit Brook) Thu May 22 1986 13:20

    The following article appeared in the Opinion section of the Christian
    Science Monitor, May 21, 1986.  It was written by Mats Wiklund, a
    Swedish citizen and member of the Roosevelt Center for American Policy
    Studies.  Mr. Wiklund was formerly on the foreign desk of Expressen, a
    Stockholm daily newspaper. 

                        Redirect Swedish 'neutrality'

                               By Mats Wiklund

    Swedes are not easy to upset. Nor is their conduct of foreign policy
    easily altered. The Soviet mismanagement of its nuclear disaster in
    Chernobyl, however, did both. 

    Sweden had to find out for itself why there was a sudden large increase
    of nuclear radiation in parts of its territory. When consulting the
    Soviet Union, it encountered a mix of lies and paucity of information
    -- certainly enough to infuriate the most committed proponents of
    Swedish neutrality. Even they must be asking: Is Swedish neutrality no
    longer working? Can it be reconstructed? To both questions, I would
    answer yes. 

    The disturbing Soviet behavior must not have surprised the Swedes. It
    fits a pattern of consistent harassment in the last five years. 

    The grounding of a Soviet submarine on the southern coast of Sweden in
    1982 brought home the first lesson of Soviet disrespect for its
    sovereignty. Other incidents soon followed, and with the same lies and
    icy silence. Thus, the emergence of a political consensus that Sweden
    today faces serious threats to its national security from the Soviet
    Union. 

    For Sweden, the Chernobyl meltdown came at a crucial time. In his last
    year as prime minister, Olof Palme faced severe criticism from the
    military and opposition. He was accused of playing down Soviet
    violations for fear of worsening relations. His assassination ended
    that, but the Social Democratic government will have to choose between
    the politics of the past and drawing new policy conclusions from the
    latest Soviet lesson. 

    The new prime minister, Ingvar Carlsson, relatively inexperienced in
    international affairs, must not just declare business as usual and hope
    for the best. If he does, he will miss an opportunity to redirect
    Swedish neutrality policy. As the country's leader, Mr. Carlsson is
    more likely than any of his predecessors to achieve such a goal. 

    There has been a tendency is Sweden to regard its neutrality as
    sacrosanct. When evidence shows that this does not work, the reaction
    has been not to change the policy but to hope that the outside world
    will change. With the support of a number of Swedes, Mr. Carlsson now
    has the chance to break the long period of passiveness and rigidity.
    The humiliation from Chernobyl has provided him with the perfect
    political timing. What shall he do? 

    The most important thing is to start a nationwide debate.  All Swedes
    should engage in active discussions and workshops on what is right and
    wrong with Sweden's history of neutrality. What can neutrality do? What
    should it do? How is Swedish national security defined today? 

    The Swedish way of citizen engagement is through political parties,
    trade unions, and religious and other independent groups. The huge and
    superbly well-organized Social Democratic Party has made several of its
    most important decisions by involving its members, with other parties
    automatically following suit. To Mr. Carlsson, this could be a tempting
    and promising way of coming to grips with the issue. 

    When Swedes are asked to think things through, they support the final
    decision, happily reassured it was the best because all options were
    presented. Swedish neutrality, whatever it was meant to do, has not
    been allowed to follow this process. For Sweden's domestic and
    international credibility, it now must. 
T.RTitleUserPersonal
Name
DateLines
102.1Baltic connectionNEILS::SAVAGEMon Mar 26 1990 10:152
    For discussion on the influence of 1990 events on Swedish neutrality,
    see Note 381.
102.2Neutrality as Social Democratic dogma?TLE::SAVAGEThu Jul 08 1993 09:384
    Now that the 'face' of Europe has changed so drastically, does Sweden
    still need to maintain its policy of neutrality?  
    
    What say you Swedes?  It the time ripe for Sweden to join NATO?
102.3RANGER::BACKSTROMbwk,pjp;SwTools;pg2;lines23-24Thu Jul 08 1993 14:474
Now that the 'face' of the world has changed so drastically, is the time
ripe for getting rid of NATO?

...petri
102.4Hot potatoSWECSC::AHLGRENThe elephants are restless again...Fri Jul 09 1993 06:1519
    Sweden's policy has not changed (maybe except when Carl Bildt speaks). 
    
    Sweden's policy is still that we shall stay free of military alliances.
    Our politicians tries to change this policy, since this is otherwise
    going to be maybe the biggest obsticle for a Swedish Membership in the
    EU.
    
    This is a very hot potato that our "beloved" eloctorates hasn't really
    dared to touch yet. To me it seems that they hope that'll go away...
    
    If Sweden will not stay clear from any military alliance within the EU
    it will probably cause me personally to vote NO in the referendum next
    year even though I consider it important that Sweden joins.
    
    ...and I agree with the previous speaker, will NATO really have a role
    in Europe when the EU states will try to get a common defense? There is
    already two nuclear powers within Western Europe.
    
    Paul
102.5Sign Partnership for Peace agreementTLE::SAVAGEMon May 09 1994 14:3234
  From: [email protected] (Reuters)
  Newsgroups: clari.world.europe.northern,clari.world.organizations,
	clari.world.europe.benelux
  Subject: Cold War Neutrals Sign NATO Partnership
  Date: Sun, 8 May 94 0:00:09 PDT
 
	 BRUSSELS, Belgium, (Reuter) - Sweden and Finland break a
tradition of firm neutrality that endured throughout the Cold
War Monday when they forge a formal link with NATO by signing
the alliance's "Partnership for Peace."
	 The partnership, originally designed to provide closer
military links between NATO and its former enemies, will enable
the two countries to take part in joint peacekeeping exercises
and other training with the alliance.
	 Fifteen countries from Eastern Europe and the former Soviet
Union have signed the partnership scheme so far, many of them in
the hope that it will help them become full members of the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
	 While Sweden and Finland have no intention of joining the
16-nation alliance, they plan to join the European Union next
year. The EU is developing a common foreign and security policy.
	 NATO has accepted Sweden and Finland as participants in the
scheme because both countries have long experience in U.N.
peacekeeping operations which could prove useful to the alliance
as it takes on new missions in the post-Cold War world.
	 Finland has already suggested setting up a peacekeeping
college in Helsinki to which NATO countries and others would be
invited to send officers for training, alliance sources say.
	 Swedish Foreign Minister Margaretha af Ugglas and Finnish
Foreign Minister Heikki Haavisto will sign the partnership at
NATO headquarters Monday.
	 Alliance sources said both countries would then present NATO
with a detailed outline of the cooperation they want under the
scheme Tuesday.
102.6Arms export has little to do with 'social' benefitsTLE::SAVAGEMon May 09 1994 14:40149
  Newsgroups: soc.culture.nordic
  From: [email protected] (Yli-Kuha Kari)
  Subject: Sweden comes down off the fence
  Sender: [email protected] (#Kotilo NEWS system )
  Organization: Tampere University of Technology
  Date: Sun, 8 May 1994 15:29:54 GMT
 
    In the weekly European (6-12 May) I saw today an article on page 11
    about Sweden that might interest some of you. I'm quoting only a few
    parts of the article which is written from the European (the weekly)
    point of view. The excerpts are (naturally) selected from a Finnish
    point of view. I'm not trying to start a new thread, this is just FYI.
    The article is about the NATO Partnership for Peace to be signed up on
    9 May.
 
    [start quote]

    TITLE: Sweden comes down off the fence
 
    AUTHOR: Ian Mather, Diplomatic Editor, reports from Stockholm on the
    dramatic  changes of attitude bringing more than 200 years of Swedish
    neutrality to an end.
 
    EXCERPTS:

    Non-swedes are rarely neutral about the Swedes. For a country of only
    eight million people, tucked away on the northern fringe of Europe and
    threatening  nobody, Sweden provokes surprisingly strong feelings.

    It is uncritically admired for having created the ultimate welfare
    state, linked to a tradition of neutrality which has kept it out of
    wars for 200 years. On the other hand, Swedes stand condemned as
    hypocrites for preaching the virtues of a cradle-to-grave caring
    society while spending  disproportionately large sums of manufacturing
    weapons, which they then sell to the rest of the world to subsidise
    their own inflated social benefits.

    The Swedish paradox is summed up by the Nobel peace prize, endowed by
    Alfred Nobel, the inventor of dynamite. Even today, the Swedes continue
    to produce a flow of new weapons for world markets. These include what
    is claimed to be the world's only "homing mortar", a torpedo that can
    detect submarines in shallow water, and a particularly vicious mine
    with "multi-sensors", called Bunny.
 
    [some talk about the changed attitude in Sweden about neutrality...]
 
    Sweden is also to adopt a wait-and-see stance towards the Western
    European  Union, which the EU has said will be developed as the EU's
    defence component.  Swedes will not accept the commitment involved in
    Article Five of the WEU's founding treaty, which stipulates that if one
    member state is attacked the  others will give it all military
    assistance.

    But the Swedish government argues that joining the WEU is not
    obligatory for the members of the EU. Denmark and Ireland are not
    members. "The WEU states declared that states that were members of the
    EU would be invited to  join the WEU. Since this was an invitation it
    did not constitute an  obligation", said a recent foreigh ministry
    report.
 
    [...]
 
    Unlike all other countries in Europe, which are cutting back on defense 
    spending, Sweden is increasing its defense budget to 2.5 per cent of
    GNP, one of the highest in Europe. Most of the extra funds will go on
    buying new tanks for its army, new planes and new missiles for its air
    force.
 
    [...about the self-sufficiency of the Swedish defence...]
 
    So far, no other country is buying the Gripen and Sweden suffered a 
    humiliating blow when Finland decided to buy American F-16s. Finland,
    along with Austria and Denmark, had made substantial contributions to
    to the Swedish coffers by buying an earlier Swedish warplane, the
    Draken.
 
    [...] [end quote]
    
  --
  /Kari

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  From: [email protected] (Ahrvid Engholm)
  Newsgroups: soc.culture.nordic
  Subject: Re: Sweden comes down off the fence
  Date: 8 May 1994 16:58:55 GMT
  Organization: Stacken Computer Club, Stockholm, Sweden
 
    The Swedish weapons export, I dare say, has very little to do with
    paying for social benefits. (I'm a pacifist, BTW, and don't think we
    should pro- duce weapons. But let's go on.)

    The reasons for having an export of weapons is usually explained this
    way:

    1) A neutral state needs its own arms industry in case there's a
    conflict around us and we get cut off. This was exactly what happened
    during WWII.

    2) But an arms industry is expensive to run. If it can get some of its
    incomes from export, it will become cheaper.

    3) So they export. There are some laws governing to who the weapons may
    be sold. Basically they may not be sold to countries with internal
    unrest, or with a probability to go to war. Or more simply: you may
    export weapons to those who don't need them...
 
>   The Swedish paradox is summed up by the Nobel peace prize, endowed by
>Alfred Nobel, the inventor of dynamite. Even today, the Swedes continue to
>produce a flow of new weapons for world markets. These include what is claimed
>to be the world's only "homing mortar", a torpedo that can detect submarines
>in shallow water, and a particularly vicious mine with "multi-sensors",
>called Bunny.

    And the JAS fighter, and the Carl Gustaf grenade launcher, and
    gunpowder,  and...

    By the way, dynamite is an explosive that usually is unfit for military
    purposes. It is to unstable. You can't put dynamite in an artillery
    shell. It will blow up when you fire. The military use other
    explosives. So Alfred Nobel didn't after all invent a potent military
    explosive.
 
    My own opinion is that the politicians are stalling [on the question of
    joining the WEU]. The public opinion might not yet be ready for
    abandoning the traditional policy of neutrality. In a decade or so,
    maybe the public opinion has changed, and the question can be brought
    up again. Meanwhile there is no need to rush ahead and make
    committments.

    An important thing is of course that the political situation in Europe
    has changed drastically. Before there was a point with being neutral in
    case of a conflict between the east and the west. Now, the east side is
    no more. What shall you be neutral against? At the same time, the
    situation in parts of the old east bloc isn't exactly stable, so it is
    sensible to wait and see, and prepare yourself to abandon the policy of
    neutrality, without doing it quite yet.
 
    The present government is lead by the traditionally defence-friendly
    conservatives (and the minister of defence is a conservative). They
    have accused the social democrats of making the defence lag behind, and
    they say they are only correcting the situation. Besides, if there are
    unrest in Russia, Sweden lies very close.
 
    Taiwan is said to be interested in the JAS Gripen. Some German defence
    politicians have said it could replace the increasingly more expensive
    Eurofighter project. A British firm has offered to help the
    international marketing of the JAS fighter. Those who think that we
    should export weapons may yet have a few things to hope for.