NATO Expansion

From END Info 32 | DOWNLOAD

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has, quite plainly, boosted the idea that membership of NATO ensures security. In both Sweden and Finland, opinion polling on NATO membership shifted significantly following Russia’s actions. The proposal that NATO is purely a ‘defensive alliance’ has been heavily promoted by NATO itself, by individual NATO member states and by those who wish to see the nuclear alliance expand further. This idea has been amplified by sections of the media in all NATO member states and would-be-member states - including by some who offer caveats about the need to reform the organisation.

The decision of both Sweden and Norway to apply for NATO membership should be registered and accounted for honestly: it is a major set-back for the idea of peace itself. These two countries maintained policies of non-alignment under significant international pressures over a considerable period of time. More than that, both played an important role in fostering and nurturing disarmament initiatives and wider schemes for alternative, non-militaristic, approaches to security.

Now they intend to join a nuclear-armed, expansionary and militaristic alliance within which the United States plays the dominant role. The governments of these countries will do so whilst telling their peoples and the rest of the world that they want to ensure security.

Whilst there can be no excuse for Russia’s recent actions, there should be no excuse or room for fanciful or magical thinking. The enduring role of NATO and militaristic approaches to ‘security’ all played their part. With an expanded NATO and record-levels of military spending throughout Europe, the situation will be compounded.

For instance, in what way will Finland’s accession to NATO ensure security along the enormous border it shares with Russia? What, do we suppose, will come to characterise that stretch of land? Will it be a slice of peace and harmony or will it degenerate into a flashpoint? How many troops, tanks, missile systems, warplane and drones will be needed to ‘ensure security’ along this border? How many errors, mistakes or unthinking reactions will it take for hostilities to break out there? Regardless of whether Finland or Russia intends to start a war on this border - and it should be assumed neither side wants any such thing - it will become a highly militarised and contentious border because it will represent a faultline between the nuclear-armed NATO and a nuclear-armed Russia.

In the following pages we re-publish a statement from Anna Strandhäll of the Swedish Social Democratic-Women, which makes clear the traditional approach of that country’s ruling political party. We also publish speeches from and proposals by Markus Mustajärvi, which form part of the record of debate and discussion in the Finnish parliament.

Unlike in Sweden, which seems to be pursuing an approach to NATO membership which seeks to exclude nuclear weapons from the territory, Finland has sought no such exclusions so far. As Anna Strandhäll (Sweden) says: “If the application is approved by NATO, unilateral reservations against the deployment of nuclear weapons and permanent bases on Swedish territory must be expressed.” Contrawise, in Finland: “Finland is now making the decision to apply for NATO membership without any conditions. The Swedish Social Democrats, on the other hand, are trying to negotiate that NATO should not deploy bases or nuclear weapons in Sweden, at least in peacetime”, according to Markus Mustajärvi.

The peace movements should be encouraged that opposition to NATO endures within Sweden and Finland. We must find ways to engage with and develop this opposition.