NATO and Sweden: old partners, new outlooks?

NATO & Sweden:

Old partners, new outlooks?

We have different angles of interest.

We have a high role in international

security and defence policy.

We have a defence industry.

So, it is very important

to assure

that the interoperability works

and NATO being

the key organisation in that respect.

That has been

sort of one driving motive.

And then, NATO has been a leading

crisis management organisation.

So, yes, from Bosnia to KFOR,

Kosovo to ISAF now, of course.

Since we have, since Sweden

traditionally has been very active

in crisis management operations

on the EU side,

Sweden has participated

in all ESDP missions,

the civilian or military missions,

it has been natural to be associated,

when there has been a resolution,

as the basis for our involvement,

to take active part

in those international commitments

which were basically given to NATO.

So, the partnership

allows us to do quite a lot

and therefore

we're focusing on what we can do,

how much further

we can get in terms of remaining,

and further focusing on certain areas,

but remaining an active partner.

And also NATO's global partnerships

is also a message

that shows NATO is

not only focusing on itself, Article 5,

its own defence,

but opens up to the world.

And that message of openness

and transparency is welcome.

How does Sweden

view NATO's changes?

I must also say NATO has taken

very big steps only very recently.

The Strategic Concept

gives a whole new image,

a whole new view of NATO,

it's a new NATO.

I think it has been quite amazing

to see how closely NATO did consult,

not only

through Secretary of State Albright,

the experts' groups work

that consulted

not only partner countries,

but quite largely civil society.

A large and deep consultation

process, which we welcomed

as non-members

and as partner countries.

Many of the issues we highlighted

as a partner during that process

we then recognised

in the Strategic Concept.

So, most of what

we’ve heard and what we’ve seen

in the government,

in parliament, among the public,

as far as they managed

to follow that debate,

is a very positive

message from NATO.

What changes

interested Sweden most?

Given that we see

a political agenda growing,

new threats and challenges

that have to be addressed,

it has been important to try to work

towards a stronger political dialogue.

So, political dialogue has been

a key concern on our behalf,

strengthening our role

as a troop contributing country

to crisis management operations.

Not only on the military side,

but we take Afghanistan

as a very concrete example,

the whole transition process, which

is linked to civil-military issues.

And the way we work

on a national basis,

we promote and try to work according

to a comprehensive approach,

having the links between civilian,

political and military activities.

Since that has also now become

a leading way of working for NATO,

we also wanted

to be part of the political aspects

that concern an operation.

Where does Sweden see

room for improvement?

The last issue has been

improving EU-NATO relations.

Improving relations

with national organisations.

UN, we see… There has been

progress on that cooperation.

EU-NATO, we continue

to try to push for that,

because we need

a good working relationship

between those organisations.

Where in EU-NATO relations progress

is needed on the dialogue side.

Now that we have a crisis

such as the Libya crisis,

it would be natural that

both organisations would sit down,

the leaderships

and the organisations,

and jointly discuss

what is going on on the ground.

How can we be helpful,

not in competition with each other,

but in close cooperation

and avoiding duplication.

Both organisations are needed.

The EU has instruments

that NATO does

not have in the longer run,

looking at the civilian side,

economic development, trade...

All instruments that will be

necessary beyond the crisis phase,

but which you want to address now

to define your priorities.

So, for us it makes no sense

and we deplore that

that dialogue does not take place.

Is Sweden interested

in NATO membership?

We have not decided

to become members.

There is no... At the present stage

as we talk right now,

there is no national consensus

on membership to NATO.

So, that is not an issue

the government is actively involved,

is actively discussing,

nor is parliament.

Why would Sweden want anything

more than partnership with NATO?

We can now be an active partner

and it might even

be more interesting as a partner

than if we were

one of 29 in the NATO context.

I would... I get that question

from the Swedish audience,

including Swedish

parliamentarians saying:

Well, as you were saying: Why

do we have to become members?

We can have a political dialogue,

we can contribute to operations,

we have the interoperability work

with part of the experts group

in the NATO context.

My main personal line,

seeing how the alliance is working,

is that, or you're a member,

you're part of the decision taking

at every level, or you're not.

And we can pick

and choose a little bit,

but when it comes

to the major decisions,

to the sort of core of the cooperation

between the members,

we're not at the table,

we're not in the NAC.

That's where issues and preparations

for interventions will be discussed.

They cannot draw on our contribution

in terms of influencing,

shaping the process.

So, I will

always see a clear difference

between membership

and not membership.