Sweden's access to certain NATO agreements
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
I move for approval of the proposal that Sweden shall join four Nato agreements, including Nato SOFA, the Paris Protocol, as well as agreements on confidentiality and technical information 1. M argues that membership makes Sweden stronger, safer, and freer 1. M considers a reservation on the death penalty unnecessary because the Instrument of Government prohibits the death penalty and extradition conventions already regulate the issue 1. V moves for approval of a reservation on the death penalty and argues that Sweden must be able to act independently in foreign policy 2. MP moves for approval of the committee's proposal and argues that a reservation on the death penalty is not needed as the prohibition is already clear 3.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Gustaf Göthberg (M)
Madam Speaker! Honored members of the Riksdag! Sweden has been a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Nato, since March 7. It is the defense community of the Western democracies. It was possibly a bit complicated to get there, one might think, but it was a historically fast process to be able to become a member of Nato. Since March 7, we have been full members. This has occurred after an intellectual and geopolitical thaw in this country, where for many years it was difficult to conduct a rational debate on the security policy choices. It is, Madam Speaker, all of Sweden that is in Nato. All of Sweden is in and contributes to Nato, and all of Sweden is covered by Nato's protection.
When the Chamber debates the Committee on Defence's report 10 Sweden's accession to certain NATO agreements today, I want to establish a few things. I also want to initially move for approval of the proposal in the report.
Madam Speaker! It is proposed that the Riksdag approve four NATO agreements, which are directly linked to our membership.
The first is an agreement on the status of forces, Nato SOFA. This agreement regulates legal and practical aspects for Nato forces on Swedish territory. It also includes jurisdiction and liability for damages, as well as the issue of population registration and tax procedures for, for example, allied soldiers who are in Sweden. In order for the agreement to be implemented - as a direct consequence of our membership in Nato - certain constitutional amendments are required.
The second is the protocol on the status of international military headquarters, the so-called Paris Protocol.
The third is an agreement on mutual confidentiality for patent-pending defense-related inventions.
The fourth is NATO's agreement on the transfer of technical information for defense purposes, which, for example, means that patent-pending defense-related inventions are protected against disclosure.
During the committee's deliberations and during the processing of the report, we have noted a reservation from Vänsterpartiet. In the reservation, the need is stated to mark that it shall not be possible to sentence death penalty in Sweden. The request is that this be done through a written reservation from the government. The reason for the reservation is the Nato SOFA's provisions on criminal jurisdiction, which follow from the proposition and the report.
Madam Speaker! This is certainly commendable of the Left Party, but it alludes to an almost religious notion held by the party that in all contexts, whenever possible, at any time of day, one should be against, against, and against Sweden's membership in Nato. It appears very clearly, if one simply reads what is written, that a sending state may not carry out the death penalty in a receiving state unless the laws in the receiving state allow that the death penalty can be imposed in similar cases. Does this apply to Sweden? Yes.
Since 24 October 1961, Sweden has had an extradition convention with the United States, where it is very clearly stated that extradition can be refused if it could result in the death penalty for the crime for which extradition is requested. Does this apply to Sweden? Yes. Since 2003, the European Union has also had an agreement with the United States regarding extradition, which in practice is based on the same thing as the Swedish extradition convention. Does this then apply to Sweden? The answer is yes.
Madam Speaker! I also want, for the sake of form—in this chamber I think it belongs—to inform the members in the chamber and the substitutes in the committee that Chapter 2, Section 4 of the Swedish Instrument of Government prohibits the death penalty in Sweden. Does that paragraph apply to Sweden? The answer is yes.
I can understand the motives for wanting to debate Sweden's NATO accession. There is a desire for a bold security policy debate. But it becomes, to put it mildly, a bit flustered and a bit intellectually flickering when Vänsterpartiet spends hours writing reservations against a proposal that does not exist instead of going directly to the source to establish this.
Sweden benefits from our membership in Nato, and Sweden contributes to Nato. With our enormous military competencies, we can make the alliance stronger but also influence it in directions that we in our country consider important. For our soldiers and sailors out on garrisons in Sweden, this may not be a consideration that will affect daily life or daily security policy capabilities. But for us as a country and for our Armed Forces' opportunities and obligations to be able to both give and receive support, assist allies and keep Sweden free, democratic and secure, these are important pieces of the puzzle and a big step forward.
Sweden's historical accession to Nato makes our country stronger, safer and freer. Together with others, we continue to build upon that link, that alliance, which has stood firm for decades to guard our values. This report is part of being able to establish just this strong capability for our country. Therefore, I move for approval of the proposal in the report.
Tony Haddou (V)
Madam Speaker! On March 7 this year, Sweden became a full member of Nato. Vänsterpartiet is a strong opponent of Sweden's membership in the nuclear weapons alliance. We do not share the view that Swedish membership strengthens our security - on the contrary. It risks, among other things, drawing us into wars and conflicts that we have not chosen ourselves.
Vänsterpartiet has repeatedly proposed that Sweden should set reservations on nuclear weapons and foreign bases and sign the UN convention on a ban on nuclear weapons, but this is something that has been rejected by both the Social Democratic government and the Moderate-led government that has the support of the Sverigedemokraterna.
It is of the utmost importance that Sweden, even in the future, despite membership in Nato, shall be able to act independently in foreign and security policy, decide for itself on the development of its own defense, and make its own analyses and positions.
This bill concerns four agreements entered into as a result of Sweden's membership in Nato. The Government argues that these agreements do not require any Swedish legislative changes, but they give the state that sends soldiers to Sweden for exercises or basing the right to exercise jurisdiction in Sweden.
Madam Speaker! The Faculty of Law at Stockholm University, in its capacity as a referral body, has highlighted the issue of the death penalty and argues that Sweden should "make a reservation or at least issue an interpretive declaration clarifying that it is prohibited to sentence and execute a death penalty on Swedish territory as well as to extradite anyone to a country where he or she risks such a penalty." Of the NATO countries, only the USA currently applies the death penalty, something that Sweden, of course, considers the country should abolish immediately. The death penalty does not belong in a modern and civilized legal system.
Madam Speaker! There is an expectation that Sweden should accede to various agreements within Nato without reservations. Vänsterpartiet argues instead that Sweden must have reservations in matters that are important to us. We have, for example, demanded that Sweden adopt legislation against nuclear weapons. Vänsterpartiet demands that Sweden is an independent voice within Nato and has an independent foreign policy even in the future. The government's actions unfortunately suggest that we can expect the opposite. It is against this background that I move for approval of the reservation.
Emma Berginger (MP)
Madam Speaker! This matter concerns Sweden's accession to certain NATO agreements, primarily the NATO SOFA status agreement which regulates the status of the members of the North Atlantic Treaty's armed forces when they are in another country. The agreements themselves do not give foreign forces the right to be in the country but regulate what applies, for example, when it comes to jurisdiction and taxes when they are here. It is important to clarify these types of questions in advance, and there is an advantage in the parties having identical rules.
Since Sweden already joined the NATO cooperation Partnership for Peace in 1996, and thereby entered into the status agreement PFF SOFA, Swedish legislation has already been adapted in several ways in a manner that is in line with the new contractual obligations.
Miljöpartiet voted no to the Nato membership, but has also made a decision to respect the decision made by a broad majority in the Riksdag that Sweden shall be a Nato member. We are not pushing for Sweden to leave Nato. We therefore also stand behind Sweden joining these agreements, which are a prerequisite for Nato membership and the defense cooperation within Nato.
Vänsterpartiet has submitted a follow-up motion that Sweden should issue a clarifying reservation regarding the death penalty. The death penalty is a horrific and irreversible punishment that is prohibited in Sweden, as stated in our constitution. The prohibition applies without exception, and also in times of war.
Sweden is also internationally bound by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the so-called European Convention. Through the legal developments that have occurred through additional protocols to the convention, the death penalty has been abolished both in peacetime and in wartime. No one may be sentenced to such a punishment.
The prohibition of the death penalty has in the European Court of Human Rights' case law also been interpreted as a prohibition to deport someone to a country where he or she risks being sentenced to such a penalty. A law or other regulation may not be issued in conflict with Sweden's obligations under the European Convention.
Sweden does not differ in the issue of the ban on the death penalty from the majority of other Nato countries which, just like Sweden, are bound by the European Convention. Just like Sweden, all EU member states that are also Nato countries are bound by both bilateral extradition agreements with the USA and the EU-wide agreement in which the issue of the death penalty is specifically regulated. None of these countries have made any reservation against the application of the jurisdiction rule in the Nato SOFA or issued an interpretive declaration against the background of a national ban on the death penalty.
We can observe that the death penalty is prohibited in both Sweden and in other EU countries that are members of Nato. We therefore mean that it is clear that the death penalty may neither be sentenced nor executed in Sweden, and that Sweden may also not allow a person to be extradited to a country where the person risks such a penalty. Consequently, we do not also consider that such a reservation is needed when it concerns Nato SOFA.
Miljöpartiet acts as constructive critics of Nato. We want Sweden to have an independent and clear foreign policy voice for democracy, human rights and the principles of the rule of law both within and outside Nato.
We are clear that we want Sweden to prohibit the import of nuclear weapons onto Swedish territory by law. Therefore, we will vote no to the DCA agreement which is to be voted on in the Riksdag in less than a month. The agreement we are debating here today is, therefore, a different agreement.
Madam Speaker! With that, I move for the approval of the committee's proposal in the report.
The deliberation was hereby concluded.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.