|
|
||||||||||||||||
|
Establish a citizen's commission to chart and elucidate the “tyranny of small steps” |
||||||||||||||||
| IN A LETTER TO THE EDITOR of a Swedish newspaper published in February of 2006, Roland Forsgren of Karslkoga raised an exceedingly urgent issue: “Some day, we the people of Sweden, are going to wake up and discover that we have joined NATO, the European Monetary Union and the United States of Europe. I hope that someone can then explain how that happened…… How we -- in the name of democracy-- lost our independence.” |
||||||||||||||||
This deepening involvement has occurred in direct contradiction of Swedish public opinion. According to the latest (2007) survey by the SOM Institute at Göteborg University, 44 per cent were opposed to and 19 per cent were in favour of NATO membership. With small variations, that has been a consistent pattern since the Institute began its annual opinion surveys in 1994. But behind the people's back, there has been a stealthy process of accession to NATO. It has now gone so far that NATO enthusiasts can, with good reason, argue that in point of fact Sweden is already an informal member of NATO to the extent of ca. 90 per cent. It is necessary to acknowledge that fact, it is argued, and take the next small step to formal membership with all the advantages that it is stated to provide -- to “join up and exert influence”. (See for example “We should join NATO even formally”, 7 Nov. 2007 and “Sweden is already in NATO”, 8 Feb. 2008, both in the op-ed section of the national daily, Svenska Dagbladet.) It is unfortunately true that Sweden's co-operation with NATO has been very extensive, and has occurred without public discussion. This obscure process deserves to be thoroughly elucidated. The issue concerns not only our national security policy. It is very much an issue of democracy, as well. The question that ought to be self-evident is this: Given the large and consistent public opinion against NATO membership, plus the fact that only one of the seven parliamentary parties openly advocates full membership, how has it been made possible that Sweden now finds itself so deeply intertwined with NATO? |
||||||||||||||||
"The tyranny of small steps" To that question, the only answer offered to date is that it is the result of “the tyranny of small steps” -- a non-explanation that is often resorted to when no genuine explanation is available. We do not dispute that the process has involved a series of small steps. But it may be assumed that those steps have been taken by living and breathing human beings who clearly comprise a small minority. It is therefore crucial to determine: |
||||||||||||||||
What are the small-- and perhaps even large -- steps that have thus far been taken? |
||||||||||||||||
| The steady approach to NATO membership seems to proceed on the assumption that most citizens already know what NATO is, what that military alliance has previously done, what its future plans are, what role Sweden would play after joining, and who decides according to what decision-making process. But do we know whether or not the Swedish people are willing to accept that our soldiers will die or be permanently injured in wars, including wars of aggression, in which an independent Sweden would never become military involved? What are the implications for our capacity to support future U.N. operations? And not least: What is our position with regard to NATO's nuclear weapons? Other potentially relevant questions: Are there any connections between various events relating to Swedish national security -- for example, the incidents involving suspected encroachments by foreign submarines in the Stockholm archipelago -- and the growing significance of NATO? In what ways can NATO be said to exert influence, both direct and indirect, on Sweden's defence forces and society in general? What is the relationship between NATO and the European Union, and between NATO and the United Nations (crucial because both the EU and the UN are of central importance for Sweden)? Will the current economic problems of the Swedish military increase or diminish the strength of arguments for NATO membership? Chart the furtive process With few exceptions, Swedish media and elected representatives have allowed the furtive process of accession to continue without any significant resistance or attempt to elucidate it. The critical function of journalism has been remarkable for its absence. That has made it easier for a determined minority to create the impression that all resistance is meaningless. But education, debate and resistance are never meaningless. We therefore propose a citizens' inquiry with the task of charting the furtive process and its consequences for our national security and democracy. The first step is to call attention to the issue and shine a spotlight on the entire process -- among other things, by means of this website to which all interested parties are welcome to contribute with viewpoints and suggestions, keep informed about the project's development, etc. Eventually, of course, we must also address the issue of how Sweden shall maintain its national security by other means than membership in NATO. Obviously, the point of departure for that discussion should be that Sweden, in accordance with the U.N. Charter, must first and foremost concentrate on conflict management and dialogue rather than on military power and alliances. We encourage all citizens who wish to preserve the nation's democracy and independence to participate in this crucially important debate for the sake of Sweden's future. Signed by: |
||||||||||||||||
Örjan Appelqvist, economic historian Kerstin Blomberg, information officer Al Burke, editor Curt Carlsson, journalist Drude Dahlerup, political scientist Håkan Danielsson, educator Stefan de Vylder, economist Krister Eduards, business economist Erni Friholt, public debater Ola Friholt, public debater Per Gahrton, MEP (Green Party, ret.) Elisabeth Gerle, Lecturer in Ethics Kerstin Grebäck, Chair of WILPF Sweden Lars H. Gustafsson, paediatrician Jan Hagberg, actuary Bo Å:son Hall, Licentiate of Engineering Birgitta Hambraeus, MP Sweden (Centre Party, ret.) Sven Hamrell, editor Bengt Harling, troubadour Rebwar Hassan, municipal councillor (Green Party) Tom Heyman, MP Sweden (Conservative Party, ret.) Äsa Hjalmers, peace activist Ingvar Hjärtsjö, chair of Men for Gender Equality Erik Hägg, physician Kerstin Hägg, lead teacher Dan Israel, book publisher Jørgen Johansen, peace researcher Annika Johansson, sociologist Kjell-Arne Johansson, editor Jacek Jurkowski, teacher Lena Klevenås, MP Sweden (ret.) Karl Erik Lagerlöf, writer Ingela Kumar Lidvall, teacher David Liljequist, union ombudsman |
Martin Linde, historian Lennart Lindgren, writer Jonas Ljungberg, economic historian Sylvia Ljungdahl, chair of solidarity organization TUFF Ulla Lyttkens, theatre director Eva Moberg, writer Andreas Murray, pscyhoanalyst Ingela Mårtensson, MP Sweden (Liberal Party, ret.) Vilhelm Olsson, municipal councillor (Green Party) Göran Palm, media analyst/researcher Lennart Palm, historian Giuliano Pontara, philosopher Håkan Rudehill, writer Jan Olof Rönn, head teacher Åke Sandin, teacher Monica Schelin, social worker Kerstin Schultz, social worker Gudrun Schyman, freelance feminist Bengt Silfverstrand, MP Sweden (SDP) Ingrid Sjöstrand, writer Martin Smedjeback, non-violence trainer Sören Sommelius, writer Christina Spännar, sociologist Bibbi Steinertz, editor Stefan Svallfors, sociologist Töres Theorell, professor of medicine Maj Britt Theorin, disarmament ambassador (ret.) Gudrun Tiberg, information officer Gunnar Westberg, physician Håkan Wiberg, peace researcher Erik Wijk, writer Stellan Vinthagen, lecturer Ellis Wohlner, actuary Jan Öberg, peace researcher |
|||||||||||||||
| |
||||||||||||||||
|
Return to top of page |
||||||||||||||||
| |
||||||||||||||||
