Sverige behöver inte följa Finland in i Nato
Carl Tham: Låt inte valtaktik styra, socialdemokrater
Detta är en debattartikel. Det är skribenten som står för åsikterna som förs fram i texten, inte Aftonbladet.
DEBATE. The Russian war of aggression is terrible, almost a war of annihilation of the same kind as the Germans once waged.
It creates sadness and dismay in the outside world but also anxiety. The security situation in Europe has been shaken and generally deteriorated, to some extent returning to the many hot days of the Cold War with its crises and military threats.
But has the Swedish - and Finnish - security situation specifically and acutely drastically deteriorated with the Russian war in Ukraine? Has the risk of war against Sweden really increased? There is nothing to support that fear.
It hardly needs to be said that Russia's war against Ukraine has its own history, geopolitical and based on Russian lies without any similarities with Sweden or Finland.
A Russian attack on Sweden is still very unlikely, and so is Finland: there is nothing concrete in the Finnish security report that contradicts that thesis.
That Sweden is drawn into war can really only be imagined in a European context. That the Ukraine war would lead to a major European war, that is, a world war or even to low-intensity confrontations is admittedly not ruled out but very unlikely.
The Swedish government made a mistake when it was so strongly emphasized that Sweden has a completely new, serious security policy situation that requires not only a violent rearmament but also perhaps membership in NATO.
In my opinion, it is irresponsible to now decide on such a fundamental change in Swedish security policy, without further reflection and analysis, in a situation naturally agitated by the war and the Russian abominations.
However, it now seems as if the government and the opposition are more or less committed to following Finland, which will obviously apply for membership.
It is unfortunate that Finns, who otherwise usually keep a cool head, rush away. A kind of NATO hysteria has arisen in Finland, encouraged by the media.
But the situation is now as it is and everyone seems to take it for granted that if Finland joins NATO, so will Sweden.
The Prime Minister claims that Sweden makes independent decisions. But that's just a rhetorical phrase. It is the Finnish decision to apply for membership that drives a Swedish process. But why does Sweden have to follow a Finnish agenda?
The Prime Minister should instead clarify that time is needed to think about the situation, there are no urgent threats to Sweden that require a quick decision and that a Swedish membership in NATO is not a given at all.
Sweden may well be outside, and that, as Carl Bildt puts it, be "surrounded by NATO states". Is it worse than being "circled" by NATO and the Warsaw Pact with Finland in a much more diffuse situation?
Neutral Austria is also "surrounded" by NATO countries, with the exception of the western border with Switzerland.
Why is it so urgent? It is more than likely that the urgency is controlled by electoral tactical reasons. The election must not be a NATO election, the S leadership believes.
The party will now carry out a "dialogue" with the members, which actually seems to be a kind of information campaign - to give the party members real influence is out of the question, not even before this undeniably historic decision.
The background should then be clarified, among other things. A membership in NATO means a drastic change in Swedish foreign policy and the security situation in northern Europe.
As members, we must in practice leave much of what characterized Swedish security and disarmament policy: the idea of common security, the fight against nuclear weapons and, not least, to minimize the tension between the blocs in the Baltic Sea region.
If we do not formally become, in practice, more bound to US policy, for example if - or when - the US enters a new war or fixes a new coup, ie a familiar policy.
What happens if Trump - or someone close to him - returns to power in the United States, something that is unfortunately not entirely unlikely? Do we really want to be tied to the United States in such a situation? Does it strengthen our security?
It is certain that a Swedish and Finnish membership in NATO will increase the political and military tension in our immediate area.
Through its Finnish-Swedish membership, NATO would be located right next to Russia's core areas: Petersburg and Murmansk, areas of completely different Russian dignity than, for example, the border with Ukraine or Georgia. It is clear that Russia will react to that.
Even if we have reservations in the agreement with NATO (no NATO troops or bases in Sweden), it is not difficult to imagine that such demands from the USA can still come and be difficult to resist.
Against this background, it cannot be assumed that NATO membership protects us from war. The opposite cannot be ruled out. It is certain that a decision on membership abruptly breaks Sweden's long striving to promote relaxation and peace.
The Social Democrats sometimes claim that it is a state-supporting party. It is superior, even if in some sense it used to be.
But the party can now show that it can live up to this ambition. Do not follow the media flow, instead follow the reflection and judgment: say no to NATO membership now.
Let Sweden think about it and let it be an election question if the opposition so wishes. Is it not reasonable to give voters a chance to influence a historic decision about Sweden's future? After all, is that not the point of democracy?
Carl Tham, f.d. Ambassador to Germany, f.d. Minister (S)
Inga kommentarer:
Skicka en kommentar