NATO supporters want to kill all debate

Jan Guillou

 

Published: Today 05.37 

 

This is a commentary text. Analysis and positions are the writer's. 

 

 

"Against the arguments that NATO history offers, we were now forced in Sweden to place the Russian dictator Putin in the second scale." Photo: Francois Mori / AP

 

COLUMNISTS 

 

Putin's reckless war of conquest against Ukraine overthrew the Swedish NATO debate within a few days. It's true. It also made me move from the no sayers column to the insecure column. 

 

The main argument against Swedish NATO membership was, and still is, that Sweden would then lose its independent foreign policy and be forced into the ranks behind the undisputed leadership of the United States.And the United States' track record of post-World War II warfare is, to say the least, dubious, in some cases downright catastrophic. 

 

The more than 20-year war in Afghanistan was a NATO war, under US leadership. As far as I know, this is the only time something NATO has invoked the famous article five of the NATO Treaty, "an attack on one is an attack on everyone". The United States considered itself attacked by Afghanistan, perhaps not really but almost, on September 11, 2001. In any case, Osama bin Laden and his terrorist organization al-Qaeda were housed in Afghanistan. 

 

Few NATO members responded to this demand for solidarity, especially in the not-so-unexpected United Kingdom. 

 

Sweden's line-up in that war may seem both cowardly and enigmatic. It probably has to do with the big-haired Göran Persson's vain ambition to, as he boasted, be "George" and "Tony" with the big boys. 

 

In any case, the NATO war in Afghanistan became a protracted political and military catastrophe that led to endless human suffering. 

 

In addition, the unrest will go into military alliance with the regime in Turkey, which uses its military force, NATO's second largest, to oppress its own population and kill Kurds outside its own borders. 

 

Against the arguments that NATO history offers, we were now forced in Sweden to place the Russian dictator Putin in the second scale. He probably would not have attacked Ukraine if the country had been a member of NATO. Therefore, Swedish public opinion swung so that it became a majority for NATO membership. That is completely understandable. The question of what price remains, however. 

 

Among our most dogmatic liberals, there was jubilation at our application for NATO membership. Expressen's editorial page announced triumphantly that now the hated Swedish foreign policy and "anti-Americanism" were over, now "the last remnants of Olof Palme's legacy are being done away with" and "everything that the left is mourning this spring is a source of unbridled joy" ( 15th of May). 

 

Then came the first bill. From the oppressive regime in Turkey. The dictator Erdogan announced that he refused Sweden NATO membership if we did not meet certain requirements, later specified to export weapons to Turkey and cease all support for Kurds in both neighboring countries and Turkey.

 

It can be difficult to digest. But Expressen's management side rose quickly from the blow and claimed that Sweden's foreign policy was ABSOLUTELY NOT affected by a NATO membership. After which, somewhat contradictory, in the same text (June 1) it was suggested that Sweden should "compromise" by reducing support for oppressed Kurds and claimed that it was "reasonable that we at least allow the export of defensive weapons to the country" (Turkey). 

 

"Defensive weapons", so solidary, almost tear-jerking, right? It's about killing its own people, a protracted Turkish offensive. 

 

So quickly our most fanatical NATO supporters were forced to give up "the last remnants of Olof Palme's legacy". 

 

So what will these incurable idealists do next? Behind which wall of defense will they now take refuge in the struggle for us to submit to military and foreign policy? 

 

My tip is that they resume the waltzes of "anti-Americanism" and the not-so-rude accusation against NATO skeptics that we (the "left") are secretly on Russia's side in the war against Ukraine. Expressen's outgoing head of culture, for example, made the heartbreaking statement (May 1) that "the left will be divided" in its stance on Putin's war in Ukraine. The person who writes so is at best only deeply ignorant. From a left-wing perspective, Putin's war is a pure and classic example of imperialism. From the left, that stance is as obvious as it is uncontroversial. 

 

The Liberals can never win that discussion. The last barricade remains: NATO skeptics, that is, the "left" in general, are only challenged by the psychotic state of anti-Americanism. Therefore, what is said from that point of view does not apply. It is almost as if those who criticize Israel's annexation of war-torn lands or oppression of occupied territories are anti-Semites and thus as insignificant as the anti-Americans. The purpose of such, the desperate argument of the last defense fort, is to kill all debate and proclaim victory on the walk over. 

 

There will also be a high price for our possible NATO membership. 

 

By the way, I think that… … 

 

When former revealer Janne Josefsson inspected the May Day demonstrations in Gothenburg, he found what he wanted. No Ukrainian flags. "So the left supports Putin's war." Unlike Expressen's lead writers, he can excuse himself with stupidity.