การตัดสินใจอย่างเร่งรีบกับ NATO เป็นเรื่องไร้สาระ Stressing out a NATO decision is unworthy

 Stressing out a NATO decision is unworthy

What we see now is a sham process instead of the necessary popular support

Of:

Karin Pettersson

PUBLISHED: LESS THAN 3 HOURS AGO

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

American troops in Romania.

American troops in Romania.

Photo: AP

CULTURE

I think a lot about the EMU vote these days. Almost all the experts, at that time it was the economists, were in favor of membership. The professor of economics Lars Calmfors landed in a yes in his large investigation. The Swedish business community lobbied hard for the euro, as did the bourgeoisie as a whole. Rows of books were published for and against, with different starting points. Peace. Trade. Democracy. Solidarity with the rest of the EU.

I voted in favor of EMU. But today I am grateful that the no side won. It was good for Sweden to stand outside. It was a hard and painful debate that time, especially for Swedish social democracy. But it resulted in a popularly rooted decision that was made based on a high level of knowledge.

A Swedish NATO membership will now be rushed forward in a few weeks. It started with Ulf Kristersson giving up the principle that Swedish security policy should be decided in broad agreement in a totally irresponsible way. Top-controlled SD changed feet without anyone caring. In the Social Democrats, a so-called "security policy dialogue" is taking place. On 9, 10 and 11 May, the freedom of alliance will be settled at three zoom meetings with the party members. In parallel, a new analysis is being produced in the Riksdag, which should be ready after the dialogue, and whose conclusions can thus not even be discussed at the mentioned zoom meetings.

The whole thing is a sham process.

There is, in my opinion, only one lasting reason why Sweden should change its footing in the NATO issue at this rate, and that is that the threat to Sweden has increased dramatically in the short term, and that a NATO membership would make Sweden considerably more secure. in the same short term.

So far I have not seen convincing evidence that these conditions are met. And by evidence, I do not mean leadership texts or debate posts from old NATO hawks. If Magdalena Andersson and Peter Hultqvist believe that the situation is so serious that Sweden needs to act in panic, then I would like to hear it from them.

If the conditions are not met, it is in everyone's interest - NATO opponents as well as NATO supporters - that the issue may take more time. The decision Sweden is making now, we will live with for a very long time to come and it needs to be popularly rooted.

In one thing, the convinced NATO supporters are right. It is the Social Democrats who for many years have blocked a debate about what a Swedish membership in the defense alliance would mean.

Now, suddenly, Sweden is going to join and it's in a hurry.

They have done so because they did not want Sweden to join. Swedish freedom of alliance has been a cornerstone of Swedish foreign and security policy and the issue has therefore not been widely discussed. As recently as last autumn, Peter Hultqvist guaranteed at the Social Democrats' party congress that he would never participate in a Swedish NATO membership.

Then Russia invaded Ukraine. Two weeks after that, on March 8, Magdalena Andersson said that a Swedish NATO application was not relevant, as it would destabilize the security situation for Sweden. Since then, just over seven weeks have passed. Now, suddenly, Sweden is going to join and it's in a hurry.

I belong to those who have believed in the Swedish freedom of alliance, and now feel great insecurity. To me, it weighs heavily that we as members should become part of NATO's nuclear doctrine. I do not want that, I do not want Sweden to be protected by nuclear weapons and I want us to be a continued credible voice for nuclear disarmament.

What is best for Sweden in the short and long term? How can we act most in solidarity with other countries? What could a future security system look like, and what role can Sweden play in such a system?

I am not an expert on security policy, but I have long followed the political developments in the United States. I have a dark view of the risks to American democracy and think that this is underestimated in the debate. It is not just the presidential power that is at stake if Trump or any other anti-democrat wins the next presidential election, or the election thereafter. The rot is getting further and further down in the US state apparatus. Institutions are faltering.

From a liberal point of view, in my opinion, dishonest arguments are now being put forward in which a Swedish NATO membership is being sold as an act of solidarity with Ukraine.

What happens if the judiciary continues to weaken, if the US military no longer marks against an authoritarian president with crazy ideas, if Congress is filled with more anti-Democrats? We already have a far-reaching defense cooperation with the United States today, but is it really the right time to deepen it? I would rather see a strategy based on the solidarity clause in the EU, which means that the Member States must help each other if one of them is attacked by an external enemy.

In that case, it is a matter of the EU trying to strengthen its own defenses and gradually becoming less dependent on an increasingly volatile United States. "Those who continue to be against NATO must review their argumentation," Karin Olsson wrote on Sunday, but this actually also applies to the supporters. All alternatives come with risks, and right now the discussion is far too one-sided, hurried, gear-like. That in itself is dangerous.

From a liberal point of view, in my opinion, dishonest arguments are now being put forward in which a Swedish NATO membership is being sold as an act of solidarity with Ukraine. I believe that Sweden has an obvious duty to vigorously support Ukraine in the country's struggle for independence, freedom and democracy. We will do this through arms deliveries, a generous refugee reception and other assistance. The Swedish government should also push for an immediate EU embargo on Russian oil and gas. It is the money from oil and gas that finances the massacres, rapes and killings, and it is incomprehensible to me that - from a solidarity perspective - there is no more focus on this issue rather than on a Swedish NATO membership.

The voices that have always been for NATO are now pushing for a rapid process. Opinion has changed in a short time, which is not strange in this dramatic time. It is possible - perhaps probable - that this change of opinion will last over time.

Why should the stupid citizens be consulted - they still know nothing?

But to take this rapid turnaround as income because there is a stable popular support for a Swedish NATO membership is not serious. On liberal leadership sides, all the citizens who for decades have taken Swedish freedom of alliance for granted are now being mocked. Only in my own environment do I notice a great deal of uncertainty in the face of the urgency of what is happening now.

Among security policy experts on Twitter, however, impatience is noticeable. Why should the stupid citizens be consulted - they still know nothing? It's symptomatic. The NATO issue has not been an issue for election debates, morning sofas, study circles. It has been handled by a small group of experts, with deep knowledge and great interest in the issues.

But a Swedish membership in NATO is no small matter. It is a decision that needs to be discussed widely in circles outside the security policy establishment, and that needs to take time. Because everything else is democratically unreasonable, for it to be right. The process that is now underway is unworthy, and threatens to seriously damage the legitimacy of the decision that now seems to be about to be made.