försvar Archives • SwedeInternational

20 sep. – another collaborative effort

Sweden joined another defense initiative today. If you’re starting to wonder if you only dreamed that Sweden had a policy of not allying itself militarily with anyone, it’s understandable. After all, that is the rhetoric. But the reality has always been a little more hidden. Well, subtle. Maybe just more complicated.

Today’s announcement was that Sweden is signing on to the French initiative called EI2, European Intervention Initiative. EII was the first go around, EI2 is the second incarnation. Svenska Dagbladet boned it out for its readers ():

This was all originally Macron’s idea. His proposal was a common strategic culture, working towards a common defense budget, a common rapid response task force and a common action policy, including a humanitarian one. “To face new threats, Europe needs a strong defense,” the French Defense Ministry tweeted. “With the European Intervention Initiative, 10 European countries are committed to its protection” (). Sweden and Norway make 12.

As Norway’s inclusion hints at, the initiative lies outside of EU, and it is not meant to affect NATO in any way. Minister for Defense Peter Hultqvist adds that EI2 is a collaboration on risk assessment and threat analysis, experiences, and analysis of possible scenarios. “We want to use this as a platform with which to avoid crises in Europe and in the countries who participate” (http://bit.ly/SvDEI2). In other words, no Swedish forces are committed anywhere with EI2. We’re only just talking.

As SvD notes, the list of countries with whom Sweden cooperates tangent with the military isn’t that short. Finland and Great Britain were both recent defense cooperation signatories, and Sweden is signed up to materially support the UN and the EU. Sweden cooperates with NATO and is a member of Nordefco, a defense collaboration between us and Denmark, Finland, Iceland and Norway.

Yes, Sweden is officially militarily alliance-free. But we talk to people. We collaborate and we cooperate. We act in solidarity with people, and have promised to help people around us. And if the rubber hits the road here in Sweden, we hope that other countries will cooperate, collaborate, act in solidarity, and help us out too.

31 aug. – bankrolling the army

Ever wonder where your taxes go? Sweden’s expenses run to about 990 billion kronor a year (this, and following numbers, are courtesy of the Finance Department at regeringen.se). The largest expense, 111 billion, goes out to the municipalities who use it for their expenses. Economic help for families and children, people who are sick and people with disabilities together comes to about 194 billion kronor. As far as expense posts go, defense comes in 8th at about 54 billion kronor, just after (and less than) Communications and telecommunications. It’s sobering at this moment to consider the state of Sweden’s train infrastructure, or the security of our digital networks, the main components of Communications, and then think that Sweden’s armed forces receive less.

The additional 20 billion kronor going to the Department for Defence, that the government and its support parties have agreed upon, is a welcome shot in the arm. But it is not exactly clear where the money is going to come from. The hot rumour is a new bank tax, something the Left Party has been pushing for quite a while – they wanted the revenue to go to health care not the military, but apparently “whatever”. Left Party economic spokesperson Ulla Andersson was openly amused that “their” tax was now going to become reality thanks to the traditionally tax-unfriendly Center and Liberal parties.

The Moderate party spokesperson, Elisabeth Svantesson, was more critical, meaning that higher taxes, on banks or otherwise, shouldn’t be the very first measure taken when expenses rise. Instead, she says, the Green Party’s “free year” and/or the Social Democrat’s “family week” could be cut instead. The Christian Democrats, on the other hand, are reserving judgement. They have previously even suggested a bank tax, but one that is based on taxing banks’ risk-taking products and ventures and not just taxing the entire business ().

What they mean by that and how that would actually work is anyone’s guess. What is certain, although no one in the government is saying it, is that however the tax is formed, banks will pass on the expense to their customers (. Banks made approximately 100 billion kronor last year (compare to budget numbers in first paragraph) which makes them an easy target for ire and jealousy. Although one could hope for a more cool-headed approach from our elected representatives, a bank tax sells well to many people. The check, though, will likely eventually land in fewer bank hires, reduced hours, and fewer free bank services, trends that are already in the making.

Taxes are all about paying, whether or not the bank does it first or whether we all do it in a lump sum every May. If it’s going to contribute to making Sweden’s defense more reliable than say, the trains running on time, it could be worth it.

Tues. 6/8 – say cheese

A man from Göteborg was on trial today for having taken photos of various access-restricted and prohibited objects and areas throughout Sweden, and for collecting information on military-related complexes and facilities. Why? Curiosity and interest, he says. Not a chance, says the prosecutor.

The man is being charged with trespassing – not the mild variety, like if you accidentally wandered over onto military grounds while picking blueberries-kind of trespassing, but the serious kind – like sneaking under fences and taking pictures of military sites on behalf of foreign states-kind of trespassing.

There is no evidence that he actually passed on any photos or information to foreign states, but it appears that the prosecution is taking no chances.

In many instances, politicians are charged with what is called signalpolitik, or, sending a political signal – usually a new regulation or law that means to impart a message. One example might be plane tax (flygskatt) or subsidising the purchase of an electric bicycle: “We take the environment seriously” is the message, even if the method is of questionable validity. In this case, the message might be “Hey. We might not have a huge defensive capability, but what we do have, we want people to know that we take it seriously.”

No word yet on the outcome of the trial.