Post a Comment Print Share on Facebook
Featured Jackson Pentagon Japan Matt Gaetz NASA

reads.

We welcome the defence minister's clarification

We expressed in our article concern to Sweden by a number, was the excitement, the decision has been a close depending by the Nato kärnvapenbeväpning. We build our argument on a careful reading of the armed forces ' responses on a kärnvapenförbud, and a certain knowledge of how the Nato cooperation developed over twenty-five years. Defense minister Peter Hultqvist (S) have replikerat on our article. We have three comments:

1 the minister of defence confirms in strong and clear terms, that the Swedish position regarding disarmament and non-proliferation is firm, as well as our military non-alignment. This is an important selection, because Hultqvists well-known objections (see below) against förbudsavtalet by many commentators taken to mean that disarmament is impossible and alliansfriheten in practice been abandoned.

2 next, Hultqvist determined that none of the Swedish military alliances involving nuclear weapons. , the Claim that we have a ”close dependence of the Nato kärnvapenbeväpning” is, according to him, incorrectly. We are not looking to ”win” a debate. On the contrary: of course we welcome this clarification.

How it in turn relates to what the armed Forces actually writing may well be sorted out directly between the agency and its responsible minister. What we can say is that the exercises, equipment, training, etc., in many years have been prepared and implemented in an environment where – as the armed Forces puts it – there is an ”implicit nuclear dimension” and ”nuclear issues are an integral part of activities and abilities”.

It is a very good score for them that represented Sweden in the countless meetings and thousands of hours of meetings that they apparently won success and respect for the Swedish position. Secretary of defense now with the full weight of his office to assure us, the riksdag and the Swedish people ”no collaborations” includes nuclear weapons.

3 armed Forces claim that the military cooperation would ”strongly deteriorate” or face a ”strong negative impact” if Sweden joins the förbudskonventionen. This is difficult to understand. The defence minister's clear assurance about the samarbetenas nature snatches away the basis for such drastic conclusions.

the Swedish negotiators integrity and clarity must have made a huge impression on the partners ' representatives. For many years it has been confirmed that Sweden keeps a distance to the kärnvapenbeväpning. Förbudskonventionen will not in any decisive way to change this.

on the other hand can, as several of the bodies consulted have pointed out, some of the formulations, for example, if ”dual use” need to be adjusted: this has been the case with other conventions. The minister of defence, struck in the autumn of 2017 fixed to förbudskonventionens impact on our defence and security cooperation must be clarified.

Now, this appears to have been, paradoxically, partly by the observations we made in our article and the review that the secretary of defense should have conducted during the past week. It now seems clear that he accedes to the position that the government took before the hearing, 2017, and which came to expression in the Swedish yes-vote to förbudskonventionen on July 7, 2017.

Avatar
Your Name
Post a Comment
Characters Left:
Your comment has been forwarded to the administrator for approval.×
Warning! Will constitute a criminal offense, illegal, threatening, offensive, insulting and swearing, derogatory, defamatory, vulgar, pornographic, indecent, personality rights, damaging or similar nature in the nature of all kinds of financial content, legal, criminal and administrative responsibility for the content of the sender member / members are belong.