Sweden has voluntarily submitted to the United States. By Jan Guillou

Sweden has voluntarily submitted to the United States

By Jan Guillou, 25.02.2024

A defence agreement between Sweden and the United States establishes American sovereignty.

It looks like Sweden has been at war with the United States and lost. At least when you read the latest defence agreement between our government and the United States. The American sovereignty in Sweden is introduced there.

Swedish Secretary of Defence Pål Jonson and U.S. Secretary of Defence Lloyd Austin

Of course, this is not the image conveyed by the media. From the Report’s coverage, I only remember pictures of the happy little Swedish defence minister and the giant American defence minister as they sign the secret agreement, as if it were just another routine agreement. It’s not. It is unique in our history and incomprehensibly far-reaching. It is about total submission.

Right from the beginning of the agreement, the United States was to be granted ”unhindered access to and use of agreed facilities and areas”.

Well. And what are these agreed facilities and areas? They are listed on Page 37. These are all of Sweden’s air fleets and all major army bases, including 17 listed. Thus, in practice, it is the entire defence of Sweden that the United States should receive ”unhindered”, that is, unlimited power over.

In addition, at unspecified defence facilities, certain areas will be cordoned off to which ”only U.S. forces shall have access and use” and where U.S. jurisdiction shall apply. But that’s not all. ”Upon request,” the United States shall access and use private land and assets, including roads, ports, and airports.

The United States also gets the right to freely build up ”areas and facilities” for storing weapons and defence equipment. There are no exceptions to the type of weapon, not even nuclear weapons (Article 14). The parties “may consult on the above to the extent necessary”.

Subsequently, a large number of pages list the benefits and rights of the American soldier stationed in Sweden. U.S. personnel in Sweden, their family members and civilian employees, shall be exempt from passport- and visa requirements, instead, the U.S. military identification applies, Swedish security police may not control or monitor U.S. personnel, all cars owned by serving Americans must be provided with Swedish license plates that are not traceable, all U.S. personnel are tax-exempt, including VAT on their [private] purchases and shall enjoy full duty-free on all goods they want to export, which even applies to the currency without any limits, American aviation will freely use the Swedish airspace, and the American shipping can make use of Swedish territorial waters.

The American aviation or shipping may not be inspected by Swedish authorities and so on in a very long series of regulations.

Furthermore, “Sweden hereby waives the exercise of criminal jurisdiction” (Article 12) over U.S. military personnel, their family members, and civilian employees. Somewhat contradictorily, the same section (Article 12:3) states that ”if a member of the U.S. forces or relative is prosecuted by Swedish authorities, jurisdiction shall be exercised by a Swedish court”.

Sounds reasonable. But: “may not be prosecuted in absentia (12:4) and if the legal procedure drags on for more than a year, it becomes invalid. Since Swedish police cannot bring in crime-suspected Americans from their bases, this means in practice that the American soldiers, in the unexpected complicity of the Swedish head of state, enjoy punitive immunity.

Civil claims may not be directed against U.S. personnel (Article 15) and so the enumeration goes down to small things such as exemption from any television fees (Article 17), the right to use the American stamps, but the obligation to pay Bridge and ferry fees. And finally, the unsurprising provision that Swedish trade union rules and rights have no effect. On Page 36.

”Upon request,” the United States shall access and use private land and assets, including roads, ports, and airports.

The American authors of the agreements – there is not a trace of Swedish ones – seem to have thought of everything. They have extensive experience from all the countries they have occupied. Perhaps they just took down the agreement on surrender with, for example, Iraq from some shelf and shuffled it a little.

Even the right to have at their disposal their own tax-exempt areas for recreation, shopping, entertainment, hamburger jams and tax-free spirits has been thought of (Article 21).

This Swedish submission to a great power is not entirely historically unique. But you have to go back to the second half of the 18th century to find something similar. At that time, it was Russia that for some time decided over Swedish foreign policy.

However, this new submission is voluntary and has nothing to do with NATO, the contract is only between the United States and Sweden. This fall, it may turn out that the Kristersson government put Sweden’s armed forces in the hands of President Donald Trump, even if he pulls the United States out of NATO.

This is not just any scandal. It is incomprehensible how this could happen in secret without the slightest discussion in the Foreign Affairs Committee with the political opposition. Because that’s how it must have happened. After all, S, V, MP and C (the Swedish political parties) could not have agreed on this and also kept their mouths shut? And what did the government think of? Are the ”nationalists” in the SD really in agreement to sell out Sweden’s independence and are they keeping mum too? Who really wanted to turn Sweden into Russia’s absolutely primary target in Europe in the event of war?

There are about 126 additional questions to ask about this one of the biggest political scandals of my lifetime. I am giving this job to my younger colleagues. Drive on!