British activists join Nuclear Free Local Authorities in supporting Swedish Sami against uranium mining
The UK/Ireland Nuclear Free Local Authorities and Lakes against the Nuclear Dump have been joined by activists from twelve anti-nuclear campaign groups in a letter to organisations representing the Sami people of Sweden offering support in their fight against uranium mining.
A ban on uranium exploration, mining and processing in Sweden came into force on 1 August 2018 but, last month, Swedish Climate Minister Romina Pourmokhtari announced that the ban would be lifted and that ten new nuclear reactors would be built over the next twenty years. In the face of international and domestic criticism, the centre-right government has since reined in the commitment to new nuclear by talking instead of a vague commitment to developing ‘green power’, but there has been no roll-back on uranium mining.
Sweden accounts for 80% of the European Union’s uranium deposits and already extracts uranium as a waste product when mining for other metals. Foreign companies, including Aura Energy and District Metals, have already expressed an interest in exploiting reserves. Even if the new government’s nuclear hopes come to naught, there will still be a ready export market for any output. The ongoing conflict in Ukraine has made the surety of uranium supply from Russia and its allies uncertain and the recent military takeover in uranium-producing Niger has shaken the market; consequently, pro-nuclear European nations will be looking for any stable source from a neighbour.
The correspondents fear that any resumption of uranium mining will come at a heavy price to the traditional lands and lifestyles of the Indigenous Sami People, with a degradation of their natural environment and their health. The Sami (or Saami) inhabit the region of Sápmi, which embodies the most Northern parts of Norway, Sweden and Finland, and North West Russia, and are best known for their reliance upon semi-nomadic reindeer herding.
Councillor Lawrence O’Neill, Chair of the NFLA’s Steering Committee, said: “Sadly the world over, uranium mining has been, and still is, often visited upon Indigenous People in their Traditional Lands by large, profit-hungry corporations. In addition, national governments have chosen their lands to carry out nuclear weapons testing and nuclear waste dumping. The impact has been enormous – the lands of Indigenous People have been poisoned, their health destroyed and their culture and traditional way of life decimated.
“Sweden has signed the UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous People pledging to defend the lands and lifestyle of the Sami, but the decision to resume uranium mining could, if left unchallenged, lead to their destruction. In sending this collective letter, we, the British and Irish local authorities opposed to nuclear power, with British anti-nuclear groups and activists are pledging ourselves as allies in this fight”.
Co-sponsor, Marianne Kirkby, founder of LAND, Lakes against the Nuclear Dump, added: “Here in Cumbria, we feel so much empathy for the Sami people who have had no say whatsoever in the opening-up of Sweden’s wild areas to the devastation of uranium mining.
“In the UK, we have no uranium mining, but plenty of nuclear plants. We are constantly told that nuclear power is ‘clean’ and ‘home-grown’. This blatant lie is the means by which Sami lands are put under pressure for new uranium mining exploitation in areas where it was previously, and quite rightly, banned as being too destructive to the health of people and planet”.
“This lie of ‘clean nuclear’ is the means by which Indigenous people, whether in Cumbria or in Sweden, whether at the waste end or the fuel end of the nuclear industry, are being exploited by the most toxic industry there is without even a ‘by your leave’. We stand in solidarity with the Sami in saying NO – NO MORE!”
Could new nuclear kill one of the world’s most promising offshore windmarkets?
Sweden is slated to host some of the biggest projects at sea
globally but its government is talking up the virtues of atomic power,
writes Bernd Radowitz.
Recharge 5th Sept 2023
Swedish government removes nuclear power promise from website.
Climate minister accused of ‘exceeding her powers’ by announcing need for 10 new reactors.
The Swedish government has quietly walked back an announcement
that it would build at least 10 nuclear reactors by 2040 as part of its
plan to ditch fossil fuels.
Romina Pourmokhtari, Sweden’s climate and
environment minister, announced earlier this month that Sweden needed to
double electricity production in the next two decades in order to meet its
climate goals. An accompanying statement said that “Sweden will need
three times as much nuclear power in 20 years”.
But the statement was
quickly taken down from the government website and replaced with one that
makes no mention of the ten new reactors. Daniel Liljeberg, state secretary
to the minister for energy, business and industry, said there is no
official target matching Ms Pourmokhtari’s statement. Mr Liljeberg told the
Swedish daily Aftonbladet the government has not established targets or
assessments at that level of detail.
Insiders say Ms Pourmokhtari
“exceeded her powers” when she announced publicly that the government’s
aim was to put at least ten conventional reactors into operation during the
2030s and 2040s, Aftonbladet reported. Environmental experts had criticised
the government announcement, saying the new reactors would be too expensive
and not meet needs fast enough. The plans marked a dramatic change from the
country’s current capacity for nuclear power, where six reactors currently
account for around 30 per cent of its electricity production. In June,
Sweden’s coalition government adopted a new energy target, changing it to
“100 per cent fossil-free” electricity from “100 per cent
renewable”, giving the green light to push forward a new energy strategy
relying on expanding its nuclear power network.
Telegraph 26th Aug 2023
Sweden’s “Energiforsk” should remove misleading reports on nuclear power”.
Do you want an energy policy based on opinions and misleading information
or should we demand an energy policy based on research and facts?
Basing our energy policy on opinions without factual basis is bad, but even worse
is that the research company Energiforsks is currently providing Sweden’s
politicians with incorrect and misleading information about the
possibilities of nuclear power, writes energy consultant Hugo Franzén in a
debate post on SMB.
Some time ago I met a politician who claimed that we
must invest in nuclear power if we want a sustainable energy supply. The
politician was adamant in his conviction and referred to a “research report
from the UN where the authors concluded that nuclear power is an
indispensable tool for achieving the global sustainability goals formulated
in Agenda 2030″.
I work as an energy consultant and know that the UN does
not take such positions and was then curious about the source. I searched
and found the mentioned report on Energiforsk’s website, see further on
this link. On the website, Energiforsk highlights the report and writes,
among other things, “The 155-page long report states that nuclear power is
an indispensable tool for achieving the global sustainability goals
formulated in Agenda 2030″.
I emailed Energiforsk’s CEO, Markus Vråke, and
asked if it was a fact-based conclusion that was presented on the website
and that Energiforsk stood behind. Markus then replied “We do not stand
behind other people’s messages”. Now that Energiforsk’s CEO admits that it
is not a conclusion that can be drawn from the report but rather an
opinion, or a message from the report authors, I suggested that they should
remove the report from the website, or alternatively be clear that the
report is misleading and has no scientific support . Markus Vråke did not
respond to my email but continues to mislead by highlighting the report on
the website as a credible source of knowledge.
Supermiljobloggen 12th Aug 2023
Sweden criticised over plan to build at least 10 new nuclear reactors
Environmental experts say proposals are too expensive and will come too late to meet energy needs
Miranda Bryant in Stockholm, Fri 11 Aug 2023 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/aug/10/sweden-criticised-over-plan-to-build-at-least-10-new-nuclear-reactors
Environmental experts have criticised the Swedish government’s plan to build at least 10 nuclear reactors in the next 20 years, more than doubling the current number, saying it will be too expensive and will come too late to meet energy needs.
The climate minister, Romina Pourmokhtari, announced on Wednesday that in order to meet its climate goals Sweden needed to double electricity production in the next two decades.
The plan for 10 new reactors would mark a dramatic change from the country’s current capacity for nuclear power, with six reactors in operation in Forsmark, Oskarshamn and Ringhals accounting for about 30% of its electricity production.
Lars J Nilsson, a professor at Lund University and a member of the European climate advisory board, said he disputed the government’s claim that the new reactors were needed and dismissed the move as “symbolic”.
“You cannot certainly say that we need 10 new reactors. Right now the expansion of electricity production in Sweden is through wind power,” he told the Guardian. “I don’t expect any new nuclear power in Sweden, unless the government provides quite far-reaching guarantees similar to what you have at Hinkley Point [in the UK].”
The move was more about posturing than action, he said, claiming the government wanted to show it was taking action on meeting its climate goals. “I see it more as symbolic than actually creating any real change.”
If the reactors were built the costs were likely to fall heavily on the Swedish taxpayer, said Nilsson. Having been a hotly debated issue in the past, this latest announcement had had a “lukewarm response”.
Sweden’s reputation as a green leader on the global stage was shifting, he said. “Sweden will partly lose that profile. Now the momentum and progressiveness is coming from the EU and Brussels.”
The EU’s Fit for 55 plan legally requires member states to reduce emissions by at least 55% by 2030 and become “climate neutral” by 2050.
Sweden’s Moderates agreed when they formed a coalition government with the Christian Democrats, Liberals and the far-right Sweden Democrats that more reactors would be permitted and that investments in nuclear power would be made profitable through credit guarantees and changes to pricing.
This week was the first time the government had given an anticipated number of new reactors.skip past newsletter promotion
Sweden to clear obstacles for new nuclear reactors
ZAWYA, August 9, 2023
ALTERNATIVE ENERGYSWEDENEUROPENUCLEAR
Sweden’s government said Wednesday it would remove limits on the number of nuclear reactors allowed in Sweden and simplify the permit process for new reactors.
“The climate transition requires a doubling of the electricity production in the coming 20 years,” Climate Minister Romina Pourmokhtari told a press conference.
She added that the government believed that new nuclear power equalling 10 conventional reactors would need to go into service in the 2030s and 2040s.
Pourmokhtari said the government was therefore moving forward with proposed legislation that would remove a ceiling of maximum 10 reactors in the country and a requirement that new reactors be built in the same locations as existing ones.
The climate minister said these limitations were “in the way of a modern view of nuclear power,” adding they would also simplify the process for building new ones.
Pourmokhtari said a bill had been prepared to be considered by parliament during the autumn.
The Scandinavian country voted in a 1980 non-binding referendum to phase out nuclear power.
Since then, Sweden has shut down six of its 12 reactors and the remaining ones, at three nuclear power plants, generate about 30 percent of the electricity used in the country today…………………………………
The reactors were opened in the 1970s and 1980s. Most of them have lifespans of around 40 years and are in need of modernisation.
Sweden’s Social Democrats — which led the previous government — have traditionally been opposed to building new reactors, while the centre-right has been in favour.
Immediately after coming to power in late 2022, Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson’s right-wing coalition government announced it was seeking to build new reactors.
It has also announced a change to Sweden’s energy policy, changing its goal of 100 percent “renewable” energy to 100 percent “fossil-free” energy. https://www.zawya.com/en/world/uk-and-europe/sweden-to-clear-obstacles-for-new-nuclear-reactors-fymh51z0—
Sweden’s Nuclear Power Ambitions Quashed
By Julianne Geiger – Aug 01, 2023,
Sweden’s hope to build out its nuclear power capacity was quashed this week, with German utility Uniper SE saying it had no intention of throwing more money on nuclear power.
Uniper currently operates Sweden’s largest nuclear power reactor Oskarshamn-3, and has partial stakes in Ringhals and Forsmark. But Uniper isn’t interested in spending on additional nuclear power beyond its existing plants. It instead intends to focus on natural gas and renewables, according to Bloomberg, in line with its home country’s recent mothballing of its last remaining nuclear reactor.
The subject of nuclear power in Europe has been at the center of controversy. Germany—Europe’s largest economy—has made a point to back away from nuclear power, and has argued that it has no place in Europe’s green future……….
Oil Price 1st Aug 2023
https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Swedens-Nuclear-Power-Ambitions-Quashed.html
Sweden reverses its long-standing nuclear-free policy
Sweden adopts new fossil-free target, making way for nuclear. Nuclear
generation has increased in Sweden despite a vote 40 years ago to phase-out
nuclear reactors.
Sweden’s parliament adopted a change to its energy
targets on Tuesday, which will see it become 100% fossil fuel-free by 2045.
The country previously sought to transition to 100% renewable energy by
2045. The change means that nuclear generation can count towards the
government’s energy targets.
Sweden’s Government voted to phase-out nuclear
power 40 years ago, but in June 2010 parliament voted to repeal the policy.
The government elected last year seeks to promote nuclear power. Sweden has
set a target to become carbon neutral by 2045. Electricity demand in the
country is expected to reach 300 terawatt-hours by 2040.
Power Technology 22nd June 2023
https://www.power-technology.com/news/sweden-adopts-new-fossil-free-target-making-way-for-nuclear/
Sweden makes regulatory push to allow new nuclear reactors
WHBL, By Syndicated Content, By Niklas Pollard and Anna Ringstrom, 11 Jan 23,
STOCKHOLM (Reuters) -Sweden is preparing legislation to allow the construction of more nuclear power stations to boost electricity production in the Nordic country and bolster energy security, Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson said on Wednesday.
Kristersson has made expanding nuclear power generation a key goal for his right-wing government, seeking to reverse a process of gradual closures of several reactors in the past couple of decades………………
The proposed new legislation, which still needs to be passed by parliament, would allow new reactors to be constructed at additional locations across Sweden and was seen being in place in March next year…………..
The new legislation would scrap existing rules that caps the total number of reactors at ten and prohibits reactor construction in other locations than where they currently exist, opening the door to building smaller reactors that many see as the most cost-effective nuclear option.
Any expansion of nuclear power in Sweden could take many years given the complexity of such projects while energy demand is expected to rise sharply in coming years…………. https://whbl.com/2023/01/11/sweden-makes-regulatory-push-to-allow-new-nuclear-reactors/
2022 Nobel Peace Prize award violates the purpose of the prize
2022: Nobel Committee Gets Peace Prize Wrong Yet Again, https://davidswanson.org/2022-nobel-committee-gets-peace-prize-wrong-yet-again/ 7 Oct 22,
The Nobel Committee has yet again awarded a peace prize that violates the will of Alfred Nobel and the purpose for which the prize was created, selecting recipients who blatantly are not “the person who has done the most or best to advance fellowship among nations, the abolition or reduction of standing armies, and the establishment and promotion of peace congresses.”
With its eyes on the news of the day, there was no question that the Committee would find some way to focus on Ukraine. But it steered clear of anyone seeking to reduce the risk of that thus-far relatively minor war creating a nuclear apocalypse. It avoided anyone opposing both sides of the war, or anyone advocating for a ceasefire or negotiations or disarmament. It did not even make the choice one might have expected of picking an opponent of Russian warmaking in Russia and an opponent of Ukrainian warmaking in Ukraine.
Instead, the Nobel Committee has chosen advocates for human rights and democracy in Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine. But the group in Ukraine is recognized for having “engaged in efforts to identify and document Russian war crimes against the Ukrainian civilian population,” with no mention of war as a crime or of the possibility that the Ukrainian side of the war was committing atrocities. The Nobel Committee may have learned from Amnesty International’s experience of being widely denounced for documenting war crimes by the Ukrainian side.
The fact that all sides of all wars have always failed and always will fail to engage in humane operations is possibly why Alfred Nobel set up a prize to advance the abolition of war. It’s too bad that prize is so misused. Because of its misuse, World BEYOND War has created instead the War Abolisher Awards.
Amid increased threats to military and civilian targets, Sweden increases security around nuclear power stations
Sweden has stepped up security around two nuclear power stations after the
bombing of two subsea gas pipelines in the Baltic. The national security
agency said the threat to military and civilian targets had “broadened
and deepened” and that it was taking additional measures to protect the
reactors at Forsmark, north of Stockholm, and Ringhals, south of
Gothenburg.
Norway promised to make its armed forces “more visible”
around oil and gas installations after the suspected attack on the Nord
Stream 1 and 2 pipelines from Russia to Germany. This morning Nato said the
damage had been caused by “deliberate, reckless and irresponsible acts of
sabotage” after a fourth leak was detected in the waters of Sweden’s
maritime economic zone, meaning that all four pipelines along the Nord
Stream route have been disabled within days.
Times 29th Sept 2022
Swedish and Finnish NATO deal with Turkey triggers fears over Kurdish deportations
Opponents of President Erdoğan in Sweden and Finland worry the deal will bolster efforts by Ankara to extradite them to Turkey, https://www.politico.eu/article/sweden-finland-nato-deal-turkey-trigger-fears-kurdish-deportations/—
BY CHARLIE DUXBURY June 29, 2022,
STOCKHOLM — Relief over Tuesday night’s deal with Turkey unblocking the NATO accession process for Sweden and Finland was palpable on Wednesday, but there were also fears that the two Nordic states could have conceded too much to Ankara over deportations.
Political adversaries of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan based in Sweden were quick to label the deal as a sellout, which could strengthen Turkey’s efforts to secure extraditions of Kurdish rights activists and other opponents.
“This is a black day in Swedish political history,” said Amineh Kakabaveh, an independent Swedish lawmaker and longtime advocate for Kurdish rights. “We are negotiating with a regime which does not respect freedom of expression or the rights of minority groups,” Kakabaveh, a former fighter with Kurdish Peshmerga forces in Iran, told the SVT Nyheter television channel.
Since mid-May, Turkey has threatened to veto the NATO applications from Sweden and Finland unless the two states complied with, among other things, its demands to crack down on groups Ankara regards as terrorists.
This has caused political tension because Stockholm and Helsinki don’t agree that all the groups on Ankara’s list are terrorists. For example, all three regard the PKK as terrorists but only Turkey sees the Syria-based Kurdish groups the YPG and PYD as terrorists.
Over the past two months, officials from the three states, as well as from NATO headquarters, have sought to secure a compromise that would allow Erdoğan to claim a diplomatic victory while not undermining Swedish or Finnish human rights laws.
The 10-point deal published late Tuesday ahead of a key NATO summit in Madrid was that compromise.
The most sensitive element was arguably point eight, which included a commitment by Sweden and Finland “to address Türkiye’s pending deportation or extradition requests of terror suspects expeditiously and thoroughly.”
Loose wording
While loosely worded, and arguably vague enough to be potentially insignificant, that clause rattled some Kurds in Sweden. ………………….
a raft of opposition lawmakers, including from longtime NATO membership opponents the Left Party, weren’t reassured.
Håkan Svenneling, the party’s foreign policy spokesperson, said Sweden had made “shameful concessions.”
“Selling us out to Erdoğan went quickly,” said Ulla Andersson, the Left Party’s former economic policy spokesperson.
In Finland, the reaction to the deal seemed notably more muted with the focus more squarely on the brighter prospects for NATO accession the Turkish deal entailed, rather than any eventual damage to human rights the agreement might cause.
This was in part a reflection of the broader parliamentary consensus in Finland behind applying to join NATO than had been achieved in Sweden.
In Sweden, the Left Party and the Green Party remain vocal critics of the NATO membership application, and Green Party joint-leader Märta Stenevi on Wednesday called on Sweden’s foreign minister to explain to the parliament’s foreign affairs select committee what she called “very worrying” developments regarding extraditions to Turkey.
For her part, Kakabaveh, a former member of the Left Party, said she might launch a vote of no-confidence against Foreign Minister Linde.
It was unclear how much support such a move would command in parliament, but a similar vote targeting Justice Minister Morgan Johansson in early June almost brought down the Swedish government, three months ahead of scheduled general election.
Kakabaveh struck a deal with Prime Minister Andersson’s governing Social Democrats as recently as last November guaranteeing more support for the Syria-based PYD and its military affiliate, the YPG.
But Tuesday’s 10-point deal with Turkey said the Swedish and Finnish governments had agreed not to provide such support leaving the Social Democrats’ deal with Kakabaveh on an unclear footing.
Kakabaveh said she hoped the Left Party and the Green Party would join her in seeking to apply pressure to the Swedish government over its concessions to Turkey.
“This is not just about the Kurds, this is about Sweden not bowing to a regime like Erdoğan’s,” she said.
Will Sweden throw the Kurds under a bus, in order to get Turkey to agree to Sweden joining NATO?
Sweden’s Kurds fear they may pay price for NATO bid as Turkey fumes, https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/swedens-kurds-fear-they-may-pay-price-nato-bid-turkey-fumes-2022-06-28/1 June 28, 2022, By Simon Johnson,
- Turkey says Sweden supports Kurdish militant groups
- Sweden caught between security worries, support for minorities
- Erdogan wants steps to assuage security concerns
STOCKHOLM, June 28 (Reuters) – Kurds in Sweden’s large diaspora are worried they will become a pawn in the negotiations over Stockholm’s ambition to join NATO if the West makes concessions to win Turkish support.
Sweden, along with Finland, applied for NATO membership in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, with their bids warmly welcomed as a “historic moment” by alliance chiefs.
But they have faced opposition from Turkey, which has been angered by what it says is their support for Kurdish militants and arms controls on Ankara over a 2019 incursion into Syria.
“We don’t want the Kurds to be on the negotiating table,” Shiyar Ali, the Scandinavian representative of the mainly Kurdish regions of northern Syria, said.
Any bid to join NATO, which holds a three day summit this week, requires backing from each of its 30 members. Turkey has been a NATO ally for over 70 years.
Sweden’s 100,000-strong Kurdish diaspora and Stockholm’s support for Kurds’ rights has long been points of friction in relations with Ankara.
“Sweden has been a thorn in Turkey’s side, criticising Turkish human rights abuses, there is a strong and vibrant Kurdish diaspora in Sweden, parts of which is sympathetic to the PKK,” Paul Levin, director at the Institute for Turkish Studies at Stockholm University, said.
“All these things fly in the face of the Turkish perspective on these issues that the PKK and their affiliates are an essential national security threat to Turkey.”
The PKK (Kurdistan Workers Party) has been waging an insurgency in Turkey since 1984 in which more than 40,000 people have been killed.
Sweden has long outlawed the PKK and says it only provides humanitarian aid to Syria and refugees in the region, mainly through international organisations.
At the same time as the NATO talks, Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan has threatened a launch a fresh incursion into northern Syria to recapture towns held by the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces, which are backed by Washington. read more
The Kurdish YPG militia are a key part of the SDF that controls large parts of north Syria and is regarded by Washington as an important ally against Islamic State. Ankara sees it as an extension of the militant PKK, branding it a terrorist group, while Western governments do not.
Aside from its anger with the two Nordic countries, Turkey has long been infuriated by other support for the YPG, notably from the United States, France and Germany.
UNCERTAIN ROAD
All that has worried some Kurds, who fear they may pay the price to placate Turkey and secure Sweden’s place in NATO.
Facing a prison sentence, Osman Aytar, an ethnic Kurd, fled Turkey for Sweden in the 1990s.
“Kurds have been betrayed many times in history,” said Aytar, a 62-year-old associate professor in social work at the Malardalen University in eastern Sweden.
“Maybe Erdogan is betting that he can invade new parts of Rojava (the mainly Kurdish regions of northern Syria) and the West will be quiet just because of this NATO membership issue. If the West just shuts its eyes, he will be happy.”
Sweden’s government declined to comment on ongoing talks with Turkey. Ankara’s embassy in Stockholm also declined to comment. NATO has said the security concerns raised by Turkey are legitimate. read more
The complex web of issues has put the Sweden government – admired around the world for its promotion of human rights and support for minorities – in a tough spot.
Only this month, the government survived a no-confidence vote with the help of a former Kurdish peshmerga fighter, who has demanded continued support for Kurds, further angering Ankara. read more
A lengthy and uncertain road to NATO membership would undermine Nordic security and weaken the alliance’s hand in the Baltic. read more
But meeting Turkey’s demands – which remain unclear – would damage Sweden’s reputation and could complicate the fight against Islamic State. read more
“We are worried that the Kurds become victims of the politics,” Ahmed Karamus, the Swedish co-chair of the Kurdistan National Congress, a Kurdish umbrella group, said.
While the Swedish Kurds spoken to by Reuters are confident the government will stand up to Turkey, the negotiations are an uncomfortable reminder of that the security of the autonomous area is dependent on the goodwill of others.
“I hope and I believe that Sweden will not make concessions that we will be ashamed of later,” Aytar said.
What will be the consequences of Finland’s and Sweden’s NATO membership?
The West has no positive vision anymore – its actions are about re-armament, threats, sanctions, demonization, the self-righteous “we-never-did-anything-wrong” and the concomitant projection of its own dark sides upon others, China in particular.
This is not the time to make decisions in a moment of historical hysteria and panic. This is indeed a moment to keep cool.
One can only regret that Sweden and Finland lack the intellectual power to see the larger picture in time and space. NATO has had the time since 1949 to prove that it can make peace. We know now that it can’t. Joining it, therefore, is one big gift to militarism and future warfare.
IT IS FOOLISH FOR FINLAND AND SWEDEN TO JOIN NATO, Popular Resistance By Jan Oberg, The Transnational., May 15, 2022
”……………………………………………………………There are potentially so many – some more likely than others – that they cannot all be listed in a short pointed analysis like this. But let me mention:
- The Swedes and the Finns will become less secure. Why? Because there will be harder confrontation and polarization instead of soft borders and mediating attitudes. In a serious crisis, they will, for all practical purposes, be occupied and told what to do by the US/NATO.
- To the degree that, at some point in the future, the two countries will be asked to host US bases – like Norway and Denmark now – they won’t be able to say ‘No’! Such bases will be Russia’s first-order targets in a war situation.
- From a Russian point of view, of course, their NATO membership is extremely tension-increasing and confrontational. Russia has 8% (US$ 66 billion) of the military expenditures of the 30 NATO members. Now there will be a huge re-armament throughout NATO; Germany alone plans to increase to almost twice as much as Russia’s expenditures. Ukraine will receive about US$ 50 billion. Add a re-armed Sweden and Finland and we shall see Russia rush down to 4% of NATO’s expenditures – and still be called a formidable threat.
- There will be virtually no confidence-building and conflict-resolution mechanisms left in Europe. No discussion will be possible about a new all-European peace and security system. And whether it is understood and respected or not, Russia will feel even more intimidated, isolated and – in a certain situation – become even more desperate. As does, normally, the weaker party in an asymmetric conflict. We are living in very dangerous times and these two countries in NATO will only increase the danger, there is no way it could reduce it.
- If Finland and Sweden so strongly want to be “protected” by the United States and/or NATO, it is completely unnecessary for these two countries to join because, if there is a serious crisis, the US/NATO will under all circumstances come to “protect” or rather use their territories to be closer to the Baltic republics. That’s what the Host Nation Support agreements are about.The only reason to join would be paragraph 5 – but the disadvantage is that paragraph 5 requires that Finland and Sweden will be expected to participate in wars that are not about their defense and perhaps even in future international law-violating wars à la those in Yugoslavia, Iraq and Libya. So, will Finnish and Swedish young people be killed in future NATO-country wars? Are they ready for that?
- It will cost a fortune to convert their military infrastructure to full NATO membership – and when they have joined, they cannot not pay whatever the price will turn out to be. In addition, there will be much less de facto sovereign decision-making possible – here de jure is almost irrelevant. And it was already very self-limited before they joined.
- As NATO members, Finland and Sweden cannot but share the responsibility for nuclear weapons – the deterrence and possible use of them by NATO. It’s also obvious that NATO vessels may bring nuclear weapons into their ports – but they will of course not even ask – they know the arrogant US response is that “we neither confirm nor deny that sort of thing.
- ”This goes against every fibre of the Swedish people – and Sweden’s decision to not develop nuclear weapons dating some 70 years back.
- The days when Sweden and Finland can – in principle, at least – work for alternatives are numbered. That is, for the UN Treaty on nuclear abolition and the UN goals of general and complete disarmament, any alternative policy concepts like common security, human security, a strong UN etc. They won’t be able to serve as mediators – like, say, Austria and Switzerland. No NATO member can pay anything but lip service to such noble goals. NATO is not an organization that encourages alternatives. Instead, it seeks monopoly as well as regional and global dominance.
- Finland and Sweden say yes to militarist thinking, to a ‘peace’ paradigm that is imbued with weapons, armament, offensiveness (long-range + large destructive capacity), deterrence and constant threatening: NATO is human history’s most militaristic organization. Its leader, the United States of America, has been at war 225 out of 243 years since 1776. Every idea about nonviolence, the UN Charter provision of making peace by predominantly peaceful means (Article 1 in the Charter) will be out of the window.
- The political attention, as well as funds, will tend to switch to military matters, away from contributing to solving humanity’s most urgent problems. But – we know it now – the excuse will be Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. Is there any huge change that cannot be justified with reference to that?
- While everybody knows that the Arctic is going to be a region of central security and peace concerns in the near future, this issue has hardly been discussed in relation to the two countries’ NATO membership. However, it doesn’t require much expertise to see that US/NATO access to Sweden and Finland is a clear advantage in the future confrontation with Russia and China there.
- As NATO members, Sweden and Finland not only accept but reinforce decades of hate of the Russian people, everything Russia including Russian-European culture. It will say yes to the West’s reckless, knee-jerk collective (illegal) punishment of everything Russia, the cancellation of Russia on all dimensions.Once upon a time, in contrast, Finland’s President Kekkonen stood for policies of active neutrality, a go-between role and initiating the OSCE. Finland was proud that its people felt that neither the East nor the West was an enemy, various kinds of equidistance prevailing. And that was during the height of the First Cold war when the Warsaw Pact was about 10 times stronger vis-a-vis NATO than Russia is today. How and why? One reason was that policies had an intellectual foundation and leaders a consciousness about what war meant. Not so today.
- The prospect that no NATO advocates talk about is this: In all likelihood, we have only seen the hard beginning of an extremely Cold War with an ever-increasing risk of a Hot War too. It is the stated purpose of the US – and that means NATO – to weaken Russia militarily in Ukraine so it can’t rise ever again and to undermine its economy back home through history’s hardest, time-unlimited and unconditional sanctions – that is, sanctions that will not be lifted in a lifetime or more.
- And, finally, by joining NATO, the two countries will be forced to side with the larger West in the future world order change in which China, the Middle East, Africa and South America as well as huge non-Western regional associations will gain strength.The US priority Number One is China. As NATO members, Sweden and Finland will be unable to walk on two legs in the future, a Western and a Non-Western, and will decline and fall with the West – the US Empire and NATO in particular.
- If you think that’s a too daring and pessimistic scenario, you’re not following developments and trends outside the West itself. Also, please consider that a split and problem-torn US, EU and NATO have just come together for one reason: the negative policy of hating Russia and cover-up for its crystal clear co-responsibility for the conflict that brought us where we now are.
- The West has no positive vision anymore – its actions are about re-armament, threats, sanctions, demonization, the self-righteous “we-never-did-anything-wrong” and the concomitant projection of its own dark sides upon others, China in particular.
- For small countries to put all their eggs in one basket when they do have alternatives and acting without a clue about the next five-to-ten years has always been a recipe for disaster, for war.
- Both NATO and the EU act these days as the passengers did in the restaurant of the elegant, luxurious RMS Titanic.
- There were huge problems which should have been solved for humanity to survive: climate, environment, poverty, inequality, militarism, nukes, etc. They are now forgotten. Economic crisis and disruptions followed, and then came the Corona and took a heavy toll on all kinds of resources and energies. And, finally, now this war in Europe with its underlying NATO-created conflict.
This is not the time to make decisions in a moment of historical hysteria and panic. This is indeed a moment to keep cool.
One can only regret that Sweden and Finland lack the intellectual power to see the larger picture in time and space. NATO has had the time since 1949 to prove that it can make peace. We know now that it can’t. Joining it, therefore, is one big gift to militarism and future warfare. …………………………… https://popularresistance.org/it-is-foolish-for-finland-and-sweden-to-join-nato-and-ignore-both-the-real-causes-and-consequences/
IT IS FOOLISH FOR FINLAND AND SWEDEN TO JOIN NATO
- Popular Resistance By Jan Oberg, The Transnational., May 15, 2022
And Ignore Both The Real Causes And Consequences.
Here’s what the West is intellectually unable – in the midst of its boundlessly self-righteous, militarist mood to see:
NATO’s expansion policy created – and is responsible for – the conflict. Russia created – and is responsible for – the war. There exists no violence which is not rooted in underlying conflicts. Conflict and peace literate people, therefore, talk about both.
And if they want peace, they do not increase the symptoms – the war – they address the real cause, the conflict and ask the conflicting parties to tell what they fear and what they want and then move, step-by-step towards a sustainable solution.
But neither the mainstream media nor politicians have the civil courage to address the conflict. It’s only about the war and only about Russia/Putin who must be punished, no matter the price to be paid by future generations. If we survive.
It’s a banality to point out that it takes at least two to conflict. But that’s the intellectual and moral level decision-makers, media and much of academia operate in these dark times.
This approach has no future and can never bring peace. Period.
Decisions taken with this irrational approach and emotionalism will only make things worse. Such as Sweden and Finland joining NATO based on the hysteric panic of the moment: There simply exists no credible, realistic scenario that would lead to an isolated, out-of-the-blue Russian attack on either of them if they remained non-aligned as they’ve been for decades.
That some less knowledgeable people – or people who speak for NATO membership – have been talking about even an isolated, out-of-the-blue attack on the Swedish island of Gotland is Monty Python politics.
Why will Sweden and Finland join?
So why will Finland and Sweden now make a disastrous, tension-increasing decision to join NATO? Here are some of the possible reasons:
Both have been under heavy pressure by NATO and the US in particular. Sweden’s prime minister, Olof Palme, was murdered – a man who stood for the UN goal of international disarmament, nuclear abolition and the intelligent concept of common security. US ambassadors have held secret meetings with Swedish MP, there are many channels, demands and rewards.
Sweden’s single worst security challenge was the Russian submarine, U 137 Whisky on the Rocks. It was Russian, yes, but the operation was an American PSYOP – Psychological Operation – conducted by the “Navigation Expert” on board who was the only one never interviewed in Sweden and who soon after disappeared……………………………….
Both countries have moved to be wooed by the US and NATO. They have, over the last 20 years, become engaged with NATO in all kinds of ways – so, as the saying goes, why not marry now? In other words, Finland and Sweden now join because they have – incrementally – made one wrong decision after the other, painted themselves into a “no-choice-but-NATO” corner and abdicated every ounce of their historical, independent-minded creative foreign policy thinking. And stopped criticism of warfare and militarism………………………………….
Further, Sweden and Finland are now joining because elites related to the Military-Industrial-Media-Academic Complex, MIMAC, in both countries – rather than the people – decide security and foreign policy matters. Of course, there was extremely little open public discussion; it wasn’t wanted. Decision-makers knew that NATO’s nuclear weapons foundation and its members’ contact wars, particular in the Middle East were seen as basically evil among the citizenry.- Liberal media suggest that there cannot be a referendum because there is such a time pressure – presumably before that Russian invasion of Sweden and Finland – and, so, just make the most important foreign and security political decision since 1945 in a hurry now there is popular outrage at Russia – the beloved, necessary enemy.
- The Swedish decision-makers of course know that there will never be a 75% or so majority for NATO – which is what there should be to make such a fundamental, fateful decision. So much, you may say, for democracy – but no new NATO member has held a referendum where NATO and other alternatives were freely discussed and a 75% majority came out in favor. ………………………….
A further reason to join is the intellectual disarmament that decision-makers have unified around one alternative, forgotten to leave other doors open and deliberately quelled alternatives. The discourse of peace – in media, politics and research – has been disappeared. Peace has come to mean weapons, deterrence, more and more of it coupled to blind loyalty with every US/NATO war. …………………
- An institute such as SIPRI – Stockholm International Peace Research Institute – has decayed intellectually into something that should rather be named Stockholm International Military Security Research, SIMSI – as I have suggested years ago.
- In other words, the political creativity that was needed to run an independent policy of neutrality, non-alignment and global disarmament coupled with a strong belief in international law vanished years ago.
- It’s easier to follow the flock – particularly when, as it seems, the Social Democratic party today exists only by name.
- Without exhausting all those – tragic – reasons, one final reason to mention is the role of the media. Like everywhere else, media from left to right have unified around a pro-Western, non-neutral policy. The present pro-NATO propaganda, not the least in the liberal Dagens Nyheter, is pervasive. Critical voices are marginalized and public information “explainers” are reduced to some high school-like basic facts coupled with FOSI, Fake + Omission + Source Ignorance. Sweden is able to have televised panel discussions where, de facto, all the participants are more or less pro-NATO thus leaving out a large part of public opinion. )…………………………… https://popularresistance.org/it-is-foolish-for-finland-and-sweden-to-join-nato-and-ignore-both-the-real-causes-and-consequences/
 |
1 This Month
of the week – Hiroshima Nagasaki Day Coalition – Working together for the abolition of n\nuclear weapons – https://www.hiroshimadaycoalition.ca/
No Nuclear in Cwm Llynfi! Stop the nuclear power station near Maesteg.
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- August 2026 (112)
- July 2026 (355)
- June 2026 (287)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (267)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (375)
- September 2025 (257)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 