By 2008 Swedish imperialism aims to have finished the scrapping of the old “defense system against invasion” in favor of a “defense system for deployment.”

The conservative daily Svenska Dagbladet ran a series of articles, titled “The future of the defense forces,” prior to parliament’s decision. “Up until the mid-90s,” said one of the articles, “Sweden was right between the two alliances, the Warsaw Pact and NATO. We had a strong defense for neutrality and were in reality the superpower of the Nordic area. The fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 and our entry into the EU in 1995 changed the political map. This year [2004] our EU brothers Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland also became members of NATO—and a protection in the east.”

The conclusion of the ruling class is that Sweden’s borders are no longer threatened and so there is no need for a military organized to repel an invasion. Substantial shifts have taken place over the last decades. In 1975, the Swedish military could mobilize 730,000 troops—active and reserves. By 2007 the figure will be down to 31,500, according to Svenska Dagbladet.

The number of military regiments in 1970 was 71. This figure dropped down to 23 in the year 2000. It is projected to fall to 17 by the end of 2007.

Sweden has a conscript army. All males are summoned to a test at the age of 19 and signed up for military service. Women can volunteer, but fewer and fewer actually serve in the military. In 1975 the total number of conscripts was 45,000. By 2003 it was down to 15,000, of whom 450 were women, a 40 percent increase over the previous year. The military’s high command has stated it intends to make service more and more voluntary. In 2007, it is estimated that only 10,000 will actually be called into service through conscription. Six regiments will receive special combat training to serve on international missions. Today Swedish imperialism has 770 soldiers in 16 countries. The largest units are in Kosova under NATO command (320), Liberia under United Nations command (235), Afghanistan under NATO command (89), and Bosnia under EU command (79). The Swedish government is increasing its presence in Afghanistan. Recruitment is going on now for a new airborne division—which includes 20 aircraft—for operations in Afghanistan, from a base in Uzbekistan. The military claims the reason for the new deployment is to monitor upcoming parliamentary elections there.

A new “Nordic Battle Group” is being set up as a “rapid deployment force” for international missions. The government aims to increase its forces trained for such missions to 2,000 troops by 2007. “Sweden assumed the coordinating responsibility in the European Union for one of its rapid deployment forces now being set up,” says the Swedish Armed Forces website. “We have undertaken creating by Jan. 1, 2008 a rapid deployment force of 1,500 troops together with Norway, Finland, and Estonia. Sweden will contribute 1,100 soldiers, Finland 200, and Norway 150. Estonia has yet to define its commitment…. If all plans are finalized, the EU will have 12 such deployment forces. Two of them will always be on active duty…. When the first one starts operating in 2008, recruitment will start for the next one, which is to be all Swedish and ready for action by 2011.”

Urban Ahlin, the chairperson of parliament’s foreign relations commission and a social democrat, has pushed for greater involvement by Sweden in imperialist interventions abroad. “If there is a crisis and the EU must deploy troops, all will be called upon,” he told the press last November. “Any nation that doesn’t have its hand in the air will be seen as a lightweight on other political questions as well.” Last year, Swedish units participated in 14 international training exercises, including in Hungary, Poland, Norway, and Singapore.

Military training inside Sweden is also changing in character, including a greater emphasis on use of the military to quell “riots” or confront “terrorism” at home. At the beginning of March, the army held war games in southern Sweden. Articles posted on the military’s web site describing the exercises included headlines such as: “Military police stop riots,” and “Rebellion in western Götaland.” Götaland is the southern part of Sweden. The articles described how the army was training to handle disturbances in which groups from different nationalities clashed or to impose order in other unstable situations.

Meanwhile, the Swedish police have developed a 60-member national paramilitary unit called the “anti-terrorist group.” Its commander is pushing to increase the unit’s size to 75. The minister of justice says an increase is being discussed, but “this will also depend on what the military can do to support the deployment unit. There are things it cannot do, regardless if it’s 50 or 200. It’s a question of weapons.” Despite drastic cuts in personnel and the number of regiments, total military spending has gone down only marginally since 1985. The military says this is due to the increase in international missions, which are much more expensive than maintaining military matériel depots and regiments inside the country— the backbone of the old “defense system against invasion.” The government has ordered the commander in chief to cut 4 billion Swedish krona (7.1 Swedish krona = 1 U.S. dollar) from the defense budget by 2007. Military spending today is 40 billion krona.

The vote in parliament for the military restructuring was 167-138 in favor. The parties outside the governing coalition, which is led by the social democrats, are not opposed to the restructuring, but said they wanted to postpone the decision to see if they could keep one of the regiments slated to be dissolved. The strongest opposition has come from army officers. In a number of articles in various national dailies, military officers have argued against cutting down their ranks. The reductions are being made by seniority—the last hired is first fired. This leaves the armed forces with an officer corps with a rising average age and which is trained in the defense system of the Cold War period. Many in the ruling class are arguing that this doesn’t fit the objectives of the restructuring.  
 
 
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home