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.