You must log in or # to comment.
Why another defense deal with the US, when Sweden just joined NATO?
Because this deal gives US access to military based starting now. And can place soldiers there.
Just because Sweden is in NATO doesn’t mean other NATO countries can place soldiers in Sweden during peacetime
Germany and other countries have soldiers stationed in Lithuania on a NATO initiative. Where‘s the difference?
It’s all done on a case-by-case basis. Joining NATO isn’t like Civ’s “your armies can travel in my territories” negotiation perk that applies to all of NATO. It needs to be a bilateral agreement. NATO is a mutual defense alliance, but it is absolutely not intended to undermine any member’s sovereignty.
Very difficult for me to tell you the difference because we are not privy to that type of information. Seeing as it is incredibly sensitive. I didn’t strike the deal with Lituania. And I didn’t strike the deal with Sweden and USA. (Sorry)
But the similarity, is that Lithuania agreed to it.
you find it weird that I asked that question?
Is that relevant to anything?
to our conversation, yes. I ask a question, not necessarily to you, you know, and you derail the conversation with: how should I know, I didn‘t make the deal with Lithuania? yeah it‘s relevant to my appreciation of you, I guess.
Yes it does.
This NATO treaty already lays out the rights of troops and host countries:
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_17265.htm
There are plenty of provisions in NATO for stationing troops on each others’ territory that don’t require massive, far-reaching agreements. This DCA treaty goes above and beyond NATO standards, to the detriment to Swedish security and rule of law.
Ok let me clarify. It does not mean they can place soldiers however and wherever they want.
This deal gives US access to specific bases and they can put soldiers there and work alongside Swedish military.
If that was already included in NATO. They obviously wouldn’t have made a separate deal about it.
Why you think it’s to Swedens detriment is something only known to you. I strongly disagree.
Just gonna point out that this treaty now makes this legal in sweden:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_Okinawa_rape_incident
If you thought drunk tourists cause too much trouble, just wait for drunk 18 year old soldiers with diplomatic immunity.
From the link you posted:
The offenders were tried and convicted in Japanese court by Japanese law, in accordance with the U.S.–Japan Status of Forces Agreement.
So:
- not legal
- Criminals gonna crime
The US military protected heinous criminals in their ranks, and refused to hand them over for nearly an entire month. Consider the scale of the crime needed for Sweden to have any legal recourse here. Do you really think Ulf Kristersson is going to risk an international incident over some violent drunk soldier getting into a bar fight? No, that soldier will get arrested, flash his ID, and go home free.
The NATO SOFA treaty is sufficient for giving soldiers access to military bases, and it’s what every other country in NATO has accepted. The US wants special privileges and exemption from Swedish law, and we just gave it to them.
The beauty here is that the courts are separate from the government. The government can not in any way shape or form. Influence the courts in who or what they prosecute.
If they prosecuted a US soldier. There is nothing the Swedish government could do.
There is no special exemption. A deal was made. It includes no get out of jail free card for soldiers who brake the law.
Military Service Members do not have diplomatic immunity nor are they exempt from host nation laws and ordinances.
This treaty exempts US soldiers from Swedish law, unless the case is of “special importance”, and the Swedish government explicitly requests the US to drop the exemption. Basically unless the soldier violently kills someone or worse, the Swedish police will have no authority. The legal grey area opened for violent crime is obvious.
It looks like it’s not a case of Sweden asking the US to drop the exemption, rather Sweden can simply decide that there is no exemption for that case and only have to tell the Americans that they are doing so.
In specific cases of particular importance to Sweden, Swedish authorities may withdraw the waiver by providing a statement in writing to the competent U.S. forces authorities not later than thirty (30) days after receipt of the notification described in Paragraph 2 of this Article.
Paragraph 2 says that America has a duty to notify Sweden about anything relevant
Just gonna point out that this treaty now makes this legal in sweden:
Make what legal? Prosecuting rapists? Pretty sure they already have that in Sweden.
No, it doesn’t. And you know it doesn’t. Goodbye trollbot.
I’m pointing out the very real risk that exempting US soldiers from Swedish law has, and pointing out the international crises that the same policy has caused in Japan.
You can’t just call everyone you disagree with a “trollbot”.
deleted by creator
