A Study of Swedish War Materiel Export; the Paradox between Rhetoric, Law, and Practice of the Swedish Government

Abstract: Major changes have occurred within the Swedish War Materiel Industry over the past decade. Sweden has transformed from being a truly neutral country, with uniquely restrictive war materiel exportation laws and policies, into being one of the ten largest exporters of war materiel in the world. Most of the manufactured war materiel in Sweden is now used for export. An increasing trend of export has made the Swedish War Materiel Trade Industry flourish. On the front stage, towards the public, Sweden is upholding its image of being a neutral country. Its doctrine is the same as it has been since the beginning of the 1990s: that Sweden has restrictive arms trade politics. It is true that Sweden has strict laws and guidelines concerning war material trade; according to these, export of war materiel is not allowed to countries where extensive human rights violations occur. Neither is it allowed to countries in armed conflict, where there is a fear that an armed conflict will occur nor to a State with domestic armed disturbances/conflicts. Also, Swedish war materiel trade should never be in conflict with its foreign policy goals, which are enhancing Sweden’s contribution to freedom, security, democracy, prosperity, and sustainable development in the world. Despite this, Swedish war materiel export has now reached the highest amount in Swedish history. Backstage, the view of export has changed and an export-oriented custom has taken hold. In the 1990s, Swedish war materiel production increased with an average of 5.5 percent every year. But over the past 4 years, the trend has increased drastically, especially due to the Iraq War. Since it broke out, the total export of war materiel has almost doubled. In 2006 it exceeded ten billion SEK, which means that during the past ten years, the Swedish arms trade industry has more than tripled – from three billion SEK per year to over ten billion SEK. Not only has Sweden increased its export of war materiel to the USA - in times of war - but also to countries where extensive violations of human rights occurs, for example India, Pakistan, Malaysia, Mexico, Thailand and Bahrain. The front stage behaviour and the backstage action contradict each other. There is a difference in rhetoric and practice. It is a paradox to appear neutral front stage when exporting war materiel to ‘critical States’ backstage. Somehow Sweden has come to facilitate a climate that allows this to happen.