The Paradox of the Swedish War Materiel Industry

Major changes have occurred within the Swedish War Materiel Industry over the past decade. Sweden has transformed from being a truly neutral country, with uniquely restrictive war materiel exportation laws and policies, into being one of the ten largest exporters of war materiel in the world. Most of the manufactured war materiel in Sweden is now used for export. An increasing trend of export has made the Swedish War Materiel Trade Industry flourish.

On the front stage, towards the public, Sweden is upholding its image of being a neutral country. Its doctrine is the same as it has been since the beginning of the 1990s: that Sweden has restrictive arms trade politics. It is true that Sweden has strict laws and guidelines concerning war material trade; according to these, export of war materiel is not allowed to countries where extensive human rights violations occur. Neither is it allowed to countries in armed conflict, where there is a fear that an armed conflict will occur nor to a State with domestic armed disturbances/conflicts. Also, Swedish war materiel trade should never be in conflict with its foreign policy goals, which are enhancing Sweden’s contribution to freedom, security, democracy, prosperity, and sustainable development in the world.

Despite this, Swedish war materiel export has now reached the highest amount in Swedish history. Backstage, the view of export has changed and an export-oriented custom has taken hold. In the 1990s, Swedish war materiel production increased with an average of 5.5 percent every year. But over the past 4 years, the trend has increased drastically, especially due to the Iraq War. Since it broke out, the total export of war materiel has almost doubled. In 2006 it exceeded ten billion SEK, which means that during the past ten years, the Swedish arms trade industry has more than tripled – from three billion SEK per year to over ten billion SEK. Not only has Sweden increased its export of war materiel to the USA - in times of war - but also to countries where extensive violations of human rights occurs, for example India, Pakistan, Malaysia, Mexico, Thailand and Bahrain.

The front stage behaviour and the backstage action contradict each other. There is a difference in rhetoric and practice. It is a paradox to appear neutral front stage when exporting war materiel to ‘critical States’ backstage. Somehow Sweden has come to facilitate a climate that allows this to happen.

The reason for an increasing number of permissions of war materiel export being passed to countries that violate human rights or are engaged in armed conflicts is that there has been a shift of governmental responsibility and accountability regarding war trade. The many freedoms from historically stringent materiel export regulation were in 1996 given from the Parliament to an independent arms trade authority, called Inspection of Strategic Products (ISP). This authority is subject to neither the same restrictions nor accountability that the Parliament used to be. Since the Parliament is no longer held accountable to enforce war materiel trade and export laws, it is able to hide behind this new, separate authority. Because, when ISP violates the Swedish laws and guidelines about war materiel, and when it ignores and acts out of accordance with Swedish foreign policy goals – the Parliament claims that it cannot do anything about it, simply because it does not handle the issue. And once the decisions by ISP have been made, the Parliament is unable to change them. If ISP decides upon critical matters on their own – even if is it not supposed to - no one can be held responsible if unlawful decisions are made, because ISP’s decisions cannot be tried in court. Members of the cabinet cannot be responsible for them - not even ISP themselves. No decisions are made in EKR (where the director-general of ISP is the chairman); it only gives advice to ISP – which means that they can not be held responsible either. This has made it possible for open disputable war trade to take place in Sweden today - without any accountability or consequence.

It seems almost impossible for the Parliament to eliminate this backstage practice concerning increased export of war materiel to critical countries. Even if it is stated in §1a in Law (1992:1300) about War Materiel that the Parliament may submit regulations about handing over matters from the ISP to the Parliament - because of neutrality political aspects - any possible matter of this kind, which is already being processed at the authority, would not be encompassed by these regulations because the Swedish constitution does not allow the Parliament to interfere in decisions of authorities in separate matters (SOU 2005:9). During the critical time period of 2000-2003, ISP did not forward a single case to the Parliament. Since ISP did not make use of its contingency to hand over decisions to the Parliament, and since the Parliament is not allowed to “interfere in decisions of authorities in separate matters” according to the Swedish constitution – the Parliament has to really be on its toes to submit regulations about taking over matters from ISP before they are being processed.

So what does the future hold for Swedish War Materiel Trade? As shown, Sweden has been taking certain measures in making its politics regarding arms trade less restrictive over time, despite its very clear current and historic laws, guidelines, and foreign policy goals. It has created an authority which has made it easier for war materiel to be exported, despite earlier restrictions. It has engaged in international agreements with the other largest exporters of weapons in order to make this industry grow. Also, the Parliament has appointed a group (KRUT) to review the current laws and guidelines regarding war materiel, who suggests that the human rights aspect could be overlooked when decisions about exporting weapons are made, that the demand for democracy in recipient countries should be dismissed, that deeper military cooperation with the USA should be promoted, and that the general prohibition of export should be abolished.

If the Government agrees upon the newly suggested guidelines this year, it will obtain a less restrictive approach. It does not seem to be a new trend that the Parliament will use its possibility to intervene in ‘critical matters’. Instead, it is on the verge of creating a new precedent by developing the war materiel politics in a way that facilitates export to critical States. The incongruence between theory and practice – between the front and backstage – might not be able to uphold much longer. There are two options for Sweden. Either Sweden will loosen its export regulations to agree with the practice today – with the backstage behaviour – and adjust its policies to commercial needs and to our new partners of cooperation. Or it will embrace its foreign policy and make the War Materiel Industry agree with the goals of enhancing human rights, democracy, security, and sustainable development in the world.