พรรคสังคมนิยมประชาธิปไตยละเลยต่อประชาธิปไตยในการตัดสินใจเข้าร่วม NATO, S ignores democracy when the NATO issue is decided

 S ignores democracy when the NATO issue is decided

100 years of social democratic tradition are torn up after a month of summary investigation

Of:

Olle Svenning

PUBLISHED: TODAY 14.55

This is a cultural article that is part of Aftonbladet's opinion journalism.

Photo: COLOURBOX

CULTURE

At crucial historical stages, a political movement, its traditions, its need for renewal and its ability to deal with internal conflicts are tested. Some such elements can be studied within the Social Democrats: the conflict over nuclear weapons, the struggle over nuclear power, membership of the EU and EMU.

Now another such crucial issue is added to the list, NATO accession. Quite reasonable after the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine, which may fundamentally change the world order.

Unfortunately, the NATO discussion is handled fundamentally differently from other system-changing issues. It is not tried party democratically, it finds no meeting place for supporters and opponents. The decision is made centrally.

The idea of ​​a Swedish nuclear weapon was debated in countless study groups. The party's historically intellectually dominant figures Östen Undén and Ernst Wigforss said no, as did the then strong Kvinnoförbundet. A compromise was reached mostly to hide the loss of the opponents of the barbaric weapon.

During both the nuclear issue and those about the EU and EMU, there were in-depth trials within the labor movement, factions were allowed, genuine popular movement work was going on, academic expertise participated.

The Social Democrats lost some votes and members, in return a certain respect was formed between dissidents. Democracy often has the healing effect.

An imaginary NATO membership is essentially decoupled from that tradition. Within a few months, a more than 100-year-old Social Democratic tradition will be torn up. For the right, these kinds of democracy issues are irrelevant. Those parties have been NATO supporters for seventy years.

Coincidence, or something else, made me get the news flash about NATO visiting Geneva. There, Hjalmar Branting was a central figure in the work of the League of Nations to build a new international peace order with arbitration, open diplomacy, sanctions against great powers, disarmament work, support for countries created on the ruins of the empires that killed millions with their wars. Branting was anti-Bolshevik, intensively fighting Lenin. He was also an anti-colonialist. A long strong social democratic conviction.

During the 1970s, Swedish freedom of alliance was of great importance for support for the democratization of Greece, Portugal and Spain.

It has lived on in the attempts to build common security in Europe during the post-war period, but also together with countries that were then summarized in the term "third world". The Eastern policy that was formed in collaboration with Willy Brandt not only provided a certain amount of room for maneuver for the citizen of the GDR; it led to the Helsinki Conference's decision on recognized borders and a measure of freedom of expression and respect for human rights. Security policy is not measured by a primitive calculation that accounts for the sum of billions allocated to military power.

During the 1970s, Swedish freedom of alliance was of great importance for support for the democratization of Greece, Portugal and Spain, then dictatorships and closely linked to NATO. Fascist Portugal was one of the founding members of NATO.

Solidarity work with southern Africa was ongoing while NATO leaders such as Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan supported the apartheid system.

The Swedish solidarity work was quite unique. NATO limits the national sovereignty of each member state. Throughout the post-war period, Italy has also been forced to adapt most of its domestic policy to the demands of NATO and the United States.

Anyone looking for arguments for what NATO has done for decisive efforts for peace or democracy since the fall of the Soviet Empire has no deep sources to draw from. The examples are rather dissuasive: Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq.

NATO's leadership, its Secretary General, cannot match the US security establishment. Among the secretaries are beer sellers, convicted of corruption, one of the leading ideologues and practitioners of colonialism, and an active Nazi.

The desperation that follows Putin's horrific war must also lead to careful reflections on Swedish and European security policy. And how it can become independent, "sovereign" as President Macron says. Not a vassal to the United States

One hundred years of experience can not be changed after a month's summary investigation and then decided by a Riksdag that will be dissolved in a few months.