<doc.id=1532.b2>
<title> Swedish neutrality-necessary or obsolete? </title>
Sverker Åström, the former Secretary of Cabinet, believes that it is time to modernize the Swedish security policy by abandoning our policy of neutrality. This policy involves that Sweden would be military non-aligned in case of an international crisis or war in the immediate vicinity of the nation. The international situation has changed, it has never been as favorable as now, and such a war will not have to be feared within the next 10-15 years. To consider it as our main task to prepare ourselves for such a situation is absurd. Further on, Åström gives three different examples where Sweden can not be neutral: war between EU members, which he says is out of the question, war between an EU member and a non-EU member which he deems as is highly unlikely, and finally war between two non-EU members, where he considers it to be out of the question that Sweden declares itself as neutral. He states that the main purpose of our neutrality is now obsolete. 

The security policy of the Swedish government was accepted by the parliament in 1992 and is practically identical with the policy that was used during the cold war. The main purpose with this is, and has always been, to minimize the risk of Sweden being forced into a great war in Europe. My opinion is that it is these alliances in the world that increase the risk of war in a greater scale, since a lot of countries automatically get involved. Åstöm argues that there is no reason for Sweden to remain neutral in the world of today. In this essay, I will argue that Sweden should keep its neutrality and for this, I present three main reasons. Firstly, the purpose of EU is not the same today as it was in the 50s, that is, to guarantee peace. Secondly, a European alliance might not have the power to affect as much as one would hope. Thirdly, by remaining neutral, Sweden does not give up the possibility to affect the world either through the UN or by forming an opinion. 
Åström claims that a war situation between two EU members is impossible. He builds this argument on the fact that the main purpose with EU is to make war situations between the members of the union impossible. This was true in 1951, when the European coal and steel union was founded between the war-ravaged countries of France, West-Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg and Italy (Vad Varje Svensk Bör Veta, 1995). Coal and steel were extremely important resources in those days but has not the same significance today. So, the initial peace thought seems to have gotten lost, or at least been placed in the periphery, somewhere along the way. This means no absolute guarantee for peace in a more distant future and no reason to let go of the neutrality. In addition to this, Jörg Haider's successful election in Austria indicates that the stability in Europe may be easier lost than we think, which would also be a strong reason to keep the neutrality.
The second argument I will discuss is that Åström thinks that a war situation between an EU state and a non-EU state is possible but highly unlikely. The counter reactions from EU would be too strong if a non-EU state were to threaten a member of EU. The example he gives as the non-EU state is Russia, which is a very interesting example. With the United States as the leading member, NATO can easily be considered more powerful than any military alliance in Europe. Still, this has not prevented Russia from invading Tjetjenia (I admit that it is not proved that Russian forces committed war crimes but the evidence found so far indicates that) and if potentially invading countries consider the risk of NATO, or the UN for that matter, interfering as small, then the risk of a combined European force to interfere must be negligible. 
Lastly, Åström discusses the case of war between two non-EU members. He considers it out of the question that Sweden can be neutral and believes instead that Sweden will protect its own national interests as far as possible, in consultation with the EU. Yet, it is important to understand that neutrality does not mean to avoid forming an opinion concerning international affairs. Being neutral, Sweden can still condemn actions of other states, recognize new states and even send peacekeeping forces abroad, through the UN. Of course, Åström adds that if Sweden was to join a military alliance, the fact remains that all states have the right to refrain from interfering, even if the rest of the union will. However, no aligned state would gain credibility if it never was to contribute with any assistance when needed, so instead of align itself, risking to lose credibility, Sweden should remain non-aligned.
As we can see, the best thing for Sweden would be to remain neutral. This because the fact that Europe has changed and peace-keeping is now in the periphery and also because it is not clear at the moment what a combined European force would be to reckon with. Besides, neutrality does not mean silence in every international issue, all countries must be allowed to form an opinion, as long as the interference is left to the UN. In short, neutrality is something good, unique and, as far as Sweden is concerned, to recommend for quite some time in the future.

Sources:
Vad Varje Svensk Bör Veta. 1995: Bonnier Alba AB, Borås
Åström, Sverker. Dags att slopa neutraliteten. In: Dagens Nyheter: 2000-02-08
</doc>