Tuesday, March 22, 2016

Brussels - scary but hardly unexpected

Brussels - scary (at least 35 dead, can be more) but hardly unexpected. We are all in a remarkable state of war where the enemy is hidden, as they so often been when we talk about guerrilla warfare. But now we must part once again see the consequences of the disastrous US invasion of Iraq (see the emergence of IS/Daesh) and with branches in Syrian civil war with IS Caliphate suicide entrepreneurs. These opponents are armed with perhaps the most effective weapons platform imaginable - fellows who turn themselves into deadly missiles. Against such help no known radar - possibly one could have artificial "dog sniffs" deployed as did the smell of explosives, and who then alerted immediately. But we'll have more details when this network possible. rolled up. On one level, I become a little puzzled puzzled by all the security tightening taking after an attack. Certainly there got that technique where the first blast and then waits so that the curious characters will flock around the attack site and then look to the shooting of a bomb, but the time span between the teams is not the day, much less weeks ... it usually up to a half hour. How likely is it - as so often - quiet now after Brussels attacks go there knowing that the risk of Brussels is not bigger than the one in Stockholm - perhaps rather the opposite because those who were in Brussels now fulfilled their mission. It is a paradox of many of the now-terrible in Brussels. We'll see if this had happened favor or disadvantage Donald Trump in the US election campaign. Maybe maybe not. Trump has no clue about the roots of this type of activities and his respons is just stupid. He is a dangerous man for the World. The sad part is probably that we will have to live with such violence like this now i Brussels for a generation I suspect. And the endless disaster of war in the Middle East mainly because of Bush and Cheney. We should also not forget that most victims harvests terrorism, however, in poor and fragile states and in the context of military conflicts. In a world growing together we must preven threats of this kind with even more intensive international cooperation. An effective intelligence and police cooperation is essential, but it is not enough. In order to prevent violent extremism, we must also fight against discrimination and inequality. That is our only option two build a better and safer World. /Robert Björkenwall in Stockholm PS. By the way, have you read this?About Trump his thinking. Soon standing against Clinton in November: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/03/21/a-transcript-of-donald-trumps-meeting-with-the-washington-post-editorial-board/?tid=pm_opinions_pop_b

Monday, March 14, 2016

Värdlandsavtalet med Nato bättre än svenskt medlemskap

I skuggan av utvecklingen i Mellanöstern, flyktingkris, ett allt hårdare nationalistiskt samhällsklimat i Ryssland och stigande spänningar mellan länderna i Europa har debatten om svensk säkerhetspolitik och Sveriges förhållande till omvärlden blivit hetare än på länge. I det sammanhanget har också det så kallade värdlandsavtal som regeringen vill teckna med Nato hamnat i centrum. Medan man från den borgerliga sidan vill se Sverige som medlem i Nato vill regeringen skapa ett samarbete där Sverige står nära Nato men behåller sin alliansfrihet och sitt utrikes- och säkerhetspolitiska självbestämmande. Samtidigt som de borgerliga partierna som vill föra in Sverige i Nato ser värdlandsavtalet som ett bra men ändå lite för kort steg mot fullt medlemskap kritiserar andra avtalet för att det ska öppna Sverige för placering av Natos kärnvapen. Men ingetdera stämmer. Att värdlandsavtalet skulle innebära att Sverige öppnas för placering av kärnvapen avfärdas med bestämdhet från såväl försvarsminister Peter Hultqvist som utrikesminister Margot Wallström. De har båda tydligt förklarat att ett medlemskap i Nato inte är aktuellt och att värdlandsavtalet med Nato aldrig får ta en form som hotar den svenska alliansfriheten och självbestämmandet. I det förslag till avtal som regeringen tagit fram och som inför beslut i riksdagen skickats till lagrådet för granskning framgår tydligt att inga kärnvapen kan tillåtas på svensk mark. På samma vis som Finland i sitt värdlandsavtal värnat om sin militära alliansfrihet värnar det svenska avtalet alliansfriheten. Sverige har sedan länge samarbetet på olika vis med Nato. Det nya är att avtalet gör formerna och gränserna för samarbetet tydliga och gör det lättare att genomföra för det svenska försvaret viktiga övningar gemensamt med Nato. Att det yttersta syftet med värdlandsavtalet är att stärka vår egen militära förmåga, öka säkerheten för Sverige och därmed minska risken för konflikter i vår del av Europa är självklart. För det har också en djupare nordisk samverkan blivit allt viktigare. Därför har vi redan i dag ett utvecklat försvars- och säkerhetspolitiskt samarbete med det militärt alliansfria Finland som dessutom redan har sitt motsvarande beslut om värdlandsavtal klart. Förutom att underlätta för övningar och samarbete i fredstid gör Sverige med värdlandsavtalet också tydligt klart villkoren för samarbetet vid en civil eller militär kris. Försvarsminister Peter Hultqvist slår fast: ”Avtalet ska också underlätta för att ta emot och ge stöd i en militär eller civil krissituation. Ingenting sker på svenskt territorium med mindre än en inbjudan från Sveriges regering. Svensk lagstiftning kan inte sättas ur spel och den militära alliansfriheten rubbas inte. Allt svenskt samarbete med andra länder eller organisationer utgår från en grund av militär alliansfrihet. Avtalet har heller ingen koppling till vare sig utplacering av kärnvapen eller eventuella krav på detta.” Att det tydliga besked avtalet ger för gränserna för samarbetet också innebär en ökad säkerhet för vår del av Europa är tveklöst. De alliansfria Sverige och Finland bygger genom sitt samarbete en stark och mot ingen hotande mur i Nordeuropa. Värdlandsavtalet gör det klart för Nato att landet inte står till förfogande annat än vid en direkt inbjudan från regeringen. Det gör också klart att inga kärnvapen får placeras på svensk mark. För Ryssland står det klart att en aggression mot Norden kan bli mött med av regeringen inbjudna Natostyrkor men också att en konflikt med en Natomedlem i någon annan del av världen inte med automatik innebär att Sverige måste agera enligt Natos artikel 5. Med avtalet och de av regeringen beslutade satsningarna på försvaret kan Sverige, i samverkan med Finland, fortsätta att vara en stark, alliansfri och stabiliserande kraft i Nordeuropa. Robert Björkenwall tillsammans med Jaan Ungerson (Publicerad i bl a Sundsvalls tidning 17/3,Östra Småland 17/3,Arbetarbladet 21/3,Hufvudstadsbladet 23/3, Piteå-tidn 26/3 m fl) PS.Skriver om bl a värdlandsavtalet och andra partnerskapssamarbeten och annat i min översikt om Swedish Defence and Security i nya upplagan av boken Defence & Security (Horn Publish, Oslo) som kommer ut 2 maj 2016/Robert Bj

Tuesday, March 01, 2016

Swedish defence and security - challenges and possibilities

Swedish defence and security – challenges and possibilities The world has probably never faced so many crisis at the same time as we have now in 2016 and had during 2015. We are up against different types of terror treats from Daesh/IS, states than are in the brink of collapse or already in practice have done so (Syria, Iraq, Libya, Jemen etc) and an refugee flow from Syria, Afghanistan etc which European Union and the individual EU-countries until now have been unable to tackle and even less have workable solutions to. So far. All this urgent threats and crisis take place at the same time as when the European security order is rather shaky and the relations between The West and Russia are worse than in 20 to 25 years. Russia´s illegal annexation of Crimea – since two years back - and the Russian involvement in eastern Ukraine is just now maybe the greatest challenge to the European security order. We cannot and should not accept what Russia has done. It should also not be forgotten because of the very brutal war in Syria. How the outside world – the Nordic countries and others – should respond to Russia’s new and tougher military policy has become a hot topic of debate in many countries. This has been especially the case since 2011 when Russia gradually began to implement an extensive modernisation programme, with increased activity in the Arctic, ever more intrusive and aggressive exercises, the annexation of the Crimea in 2014, support for separatists in, and destabilization of, eastern Ukraine and violations of neighbouring states’ airspace and waters; the latter also affecting Sweden and Finland in 2014. All this made the Nordic countries and Europe realise that we are all going through perhaps the most serious security crisis in 25 years. How all this will end – especially in Ukraine – no one can tell. But it is obvious that the need for enhanced Nordic cooperation on security policy, and a comprehensive European counter-force, is urgent, more so than for a very long time. The requirement to have an in-depth understanding of the world has increased, writes Musts (Military Intelligence and Security Service in the Armed Forces) in its 2014 Annual Report. The Swedish Defence political context – and especially in the wake of the submarine violations (Russia, but not confirmed) in Swedish waters in autumn 2014 and disturbing military air activities during 2015 in the Baltic Sea close to island Gotland etc – led during 2015 to increased activity and discussion among Swedish Defence politicians about the necessaty to upgrade and reinforce our military capacity to step up against the Russian´s large scale military activities and provocative bahavior, as Defece Minister Peter Hultqvist said in his speech at Munich Security Conference on the 13 of February 2016. The defence agreement in April 2015 between the Swedish government and three parties from the opposition and the by parliament adopted governmental bill to start to increase the defence budget from 2016 to 2020 with a total of 10.2 billion Sw. Croner for this period will mean an increase of 12 pre cent. This is regarded as a necessaty after many years of cuts. During 2016 the practical implementation process on ground level has started on what is necessary to focus on and solve first. One important priority is training and personnal materiel to have all battle groups combat fit, as Defence Minister Peter Hultqvist said in his speech in the annual Society and Defence – Folk och Försvar – conference in Sälen in Dalarna on 11th of January 2016. Important in this context is also – as already was said in the report of 17 February 2015 and the joint press conference between the Swedish and Finnish Defence Ministers (Peter Hultqvist, Sweden and Carl Haglund, Finland) – to deepen the efforts of closer, long-term cooperation between Sweden’s and Finland’s defence forces – air, sea and ground – are relevant here.That includes the possibilities to act together in crisis or war. In the same context, due to an agreement on 14th of January 2016, there is a similar but less extensive cooperation between Denmark and Sweden for access to each other’s air and naval bases and the exchange of confidential information. More on this later. From 1920s to 2010s – armament and disarmament From a historical perspective, what is now taking place is unique in several ways. When in the 1920s, Sweden ran down its defence, this was done while the country’s leadership – not least the former Socialist prime minister and Nobel Peace Prize Hjalmar Branting – worked actively to match this rundown with vigorous activity for international disarmament and conflict resolution. During the Cold War, Sweden continued working for international disarmament, this time in parallel with an extensive renovation of its weak World War II military defence. Something similar has occurred in recent years. In the 2000s, Sweden disarmed its defences but at the same time became rather passive on international disarmament and mutual security, according to many scholars such as Professor Bo Huldt and others with extensive experience in this area. From the Peace Research Institute SIPRI Yearbook 2014, it is clear that, during the years 2009–2013, Sweden – with Fredrik Reinfeldt of the centre-right Moderat party, as prime minister – invested $ 6.4 billion per year on average on military defence, which was a decrease of seven per cent compared with the period 2004–2008 when the annual military expenditure stood at $ 6.9 billion. This took place while no Swedish initiative whatsoever was taken to promote international disarmament, according to the SIPRI Yearbook. For comparison, we can look at neighbouring Norway which did the opposite, increasing its military spending by eleven percent over the two periods, from an average of $ 6.6 billion per year (2004–2008) to $ 7.3 billion per year during 2009–2013. At the same time, Norway was internationally more active than Sweden – with a driving role, according to SIPRI Yearbook, in the agreement on the international arms trade, on various mediation efforts (the Colombian conflict, etc.), for an international conference on nuclear weapons’ humanitarian effects and on the transport of toxic biochemical products from Syria. But following the change of government in Sweden in October 2014, the submarine violations of Swedish waters in autumn 2014, and a general change in the climate of debate on defence in Sweden, a different and new order is being established. This is already clearly noticeable from the declaration in October by the new government (led by Stefan Löfven), in various media statements by Defence Minister Peter Hultqvist, from the annual Folk och Försvar (Society and Defence) conference in January 2015 at the Mountain Hotel in Sälen, Dalarna, and in the context of the major Swedish–Finnish defence cooperation agreement published on 17 February 2015. The process of upgrade of Swedish military, combat capacity has started As Sweden’s Defence Minister Peter Hultqvist said already at a seminar on 5 March 2015 in Stockholm, “Russia’s military build-up and increased exercise and intelligence activities in our region requires as a minimum that Sweden now increases its military capability.” This he has since then repeated even stronger on the annual Society and Defence – Folk and Försvar – conference in Sälen in Dalarna on 11th and 14th of January 2016 as well as when in different sessions in the Swedish parliament when the Defence budget and frame agreement for the period 2016-2020 was debated in April and June 2015. An agreement that in short means an increase from 43.4 billion year 2016 to 50.1 billion in 2020. A total increase of 12 per cent on a upgraded Swedish defence. Sweden’s Armed Forces must now “be restored to give priority to our own national defence; any international operations will be decided on a case by case basis” (Peter Hultqvist). We are now in “the beginning of a process to build up our military, combat ability; make every battle group combat fit, invest in new and upgraded equipment – combat materiel for soldiers as well as mor advanced weapons, upgrade old versions, our logistical capacity and against cyper warfare”, said Peter Hultqvist in a speech in Stockholm on 10th of Februay 2016. It is also important to now focus on and start a process to upgrade Sweden`s civil defence, neglected as it has been for too many years now. – Defence Cooperation is also being expanded with Finland, and partly also with Norway and Denmark. The EU solidarity clause requiring interpretations and special government decisions in each case is important. And we cannot leave the Baltic countries in the lurch, according to Peter Hultqvist (5 March 2015). Here, as Hultqvist said in his speech in Munich on 13th of February 2016, “Nato has a key role to ensure stability and to deter threats in the Baltic Sea.” - - “Sweden, as a Nato-partner (but not member of Nato), welcomes the increased defence measures taken by Nato in the Baltic Sea Region”, Hultqvist also stated in his Munich-speech. “As for the NATO question, the Socialist government line is a cooperative approach, but a rejection of membership. We do not participate in NATO’s collective defence with mutual obligations,” Defence Minister Hultqvist has said several times in the parliament and also in Sälen in January 2016. The rising political tensions around Europe and the new arms race in the Swedish neighbourhood increase the need to have modern and efficient Armed Forces with the ability to protect and ward off both the military and the IT threats across the whole country. According to the defence agreement of 17 April 2015, it is clear that Sweden will step by step will increase it`s defence spending from 43.4 billion 2016 to 50.1 billion by year 2020, starting with an increase with 1.3 billion to a total of 43.4 billion 2016, increase with another 1.9 billion in 2017, 2.2 billion in 2018, 2.3 billion in 2019 and then 2.5 billion in 2020. . In the near future – beyond the current steps taken in this defence agreement between the Swedish government and three of the opposition parties – there is the need to progressively increase efforts to strengthen also the civil defence and to supplement Sweden`s military cooperation with Finland building on the intention that we both have the possibility to act together in case of crisis or war, as Defence Minister Peter Hultqvist said both in Sälen on the annual Society and Defence conference in Jauary 11th and on the Munich MSC-conference on 13th of February 2016. On 14th of January 2016 Defence Minister Peter Hultqvist signed an agreement with his Danish Defence Minister Peter Christensen about a deeper cooperation on defence – exchange of information, safe communication, defence training etc – and at the same time handed over the chairmanship in Nordefco, the Nordic defence cooperation. This agreement with Denmark - little less far reaching than the agreement with Finland – is another practical example of a even more and tighter cooperation between the Nordic countries on defence and security and has good possibilities in the future to be implemented with other countries, as Defence Minister Peter Hultqvist said at Arlanda airport when meeting with his Danish partner Peter Christensen. Island is also now a partner in the Cross Border Training agreement, which in practice now means that all Nordic countries and territories now are possible to use in air training cooperation. North European Testrange, NEAT, in Sweden, is now the biggest war training area in Europe with 24 000 square kilometre. Nato has since several years had gradually bigger military combat training with - since this Cold Response started in 2006 – around 16 000 soldiers involved. The different challenges we face in the Swedish and European neighbourhood – especially the bad consequences of Daesh/IS in Iraq and Syria and the large flow of refugees – clearly indicates that we will have a long term of destabilization. We need to tackle the causes of this – both with military, diplomatic and other means – and step by step restore confidence, stability and peace in Europe and gradually so also in Middle East to be able to tackle the causes of millions of people fleeing and become refugees in poor conditions. Russia`s illegal annexation of Crimea and the Russian involvement in eastern Ukraine is, as Defence Minister Hultqvist said in Munich (13th of February 2016), another great challenge to the European security order and can and should not be accepted. In order to be better prepared for challenges now and in the years to come Sweden now is in a process of step by step upgrading and reinforcing our military and civil capacity. That includes deepening of Sweden´s ties and cooperation with partners in other Nordic countries and with Nato from the platform of non-military alignment in the way which have been reported here. 2016-02-28,Stockholm Robert Björkenwall, freelance journalist and researcher robert.bjorken@telia.com (A more complete servey about Swedish Defence and Security will be published in Defence & Security, Horn Publishing, Oslo, Maj 2016)