The author is highly critical of the government’s defense of the DCA and its design, which gives the US access to Swedish territory and a large number of Swedish military bases, and where it is still unclear whether nuclear weapons will be placed on Swedish soil.
“It looks like a surrender document after a lost war. The victorious US gets ‘unhindered access’ to Swedish territorial waters, territory and airspace, as well as 17 important military facilities”, Guillou notes.
The Kristersson cabinet claims that the DCA, which gives the US access to a large number of Swedish military bases, “is a prerequisite for Sweden to be able to receive rapid and well-prepared support from the US in the event of a deteriorating security situation”, and that this is only possible “if the US is able to have military personnel on the ground in Sweden”.
“American units temporarily stationed in Sweden should be able to use certain Swedish bases and facilities together with Swedish units”, write the government parties’ defense spokespersons, saying that Sweden “stands in solidarity with our friends” in NATO.
“By signing the DCA, we are creating concrete conditions for both giving and receiving support, and the agreement is good both for Sweden and for our neighborhood as a whole. It contributes to security and stability”, it continues.
“Above Swedish law”
However, author and writer Jan Guillou is not impressed by this argument, stressing that the agreement binds Sweden to the US – regardless of who is president and regardless of whether Sweden or the US would leave NATO in the future.
“The US has fought one disastrous war after another in modern times, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq. And now we are contract prisoners on board the aircraft carrier, without knowing where we are going and without having any say in the matter”, he writes in the tabloid Aftonbladet.
He finds the DCA agreement “frightening reading” and points out that Sweden is effectively giving up its sovereignty and ceding parts of its territory to the US.
“It looks like a capitulation document after a lost war. The victorious US will have ‘unfettered access’ to Swedish territorial waters, land and airspace, as well as 17 major military installations, air bases, naval ports and army barracks”.
“The United States is also authorized to build closed areas on these bases to which we locals or our authorities have no access… American military personnel, their family members and servants are above Swedish law. Not even Säpo is allowed to inspect their vehicles or homes. Full customs clearance in and out and VAT exemption applies to the entire foreign army. No civil action can be taken against them”, he continues.
“Clever political lie”
He is also highly critical of the government’s defense of the agreement, saying it consists mostly of “babble” and a “middle finger” to the Swedish people – with platitudes about “the agreement being a cornerstone for the defense of Europe”, “a broad consensus in the Riksdag” and the need for “security and stability”.
The author also believes that the government uses “political lies” in its arguments when it says that “the question of nuclear weapons or permanent bases in Sweden is not relevant at the moment”.
“It is one of those clever political lies that looks true. It is clear that it is not ‘topical’. At the moment there is no American base in Sweden, so there is no permanent one. Nuclear weapons are not ‘topical’ either. But our neighbors, in their similar agreements with the US, have banned nuclear weapons on their own territory. Finland has even passed a law banning nuclear weapons. That is before it becomes ‘topical'”.
Guillou goes on to point out that the government is trying to portray critics of the DCA as dangerous traitors, describing them as “actors who want to harm Sweden’s interests”.
“Anyone who criticizes this submission agreement with the US is therefore a criminal”, he notes.
