Four things you didn’t want to knowabout Swedish arms exports

Sweden is today the world’s eighth largest arms exporter. But maintaining a leading role in the international arms market is not without its share of consequences. To be precise, there are four: Swedish arms help fuel wars and confl icts, contribute to violations of human rights, contribute to poverty and strengthen dictatorships. Consequences of the arms trade that you may not have been aware of or would have preferred to ignore.

More than 1.000 billion US dollars is spent yearly on military expenditures in the world. That is the equivalent of $202 for each person on the planet. At the same time, 30.000 children die each day of diseases resulting from shortages of food, water and sanitation. Were resources distributed more prudently, many lives would be saved.

Military escalation is in itself an important contributing factor to confl icts and in causing many confl icts to take a violent and destructive turn. Disarmament, on the other hand, has in many cases been an important factor in processes that have led to lasting peace.

Limiting the global arms trade is therefore a worthy goal in and of itself.

www.amnesty.se www.diakonia.se www.krf.se www.svenskafreds.se

1| Helps fuel wars and confl icts

“We will spare no eff orts to free our peoples from the scourge of war, whether within or between States, which has claimed more than 5 million lives in the past decade.” That declaration was adopted at the UN Millennium Summit in September 2000.

If the nations of the world mean what they say, we must see results. Parts of the world are plagued by deep-seated and complex confl icts, often leading to war and gross human rights violations.

The international arms trade is one of the most important driving forces behind military escalations, and so contributes to wars and armed confl icts. Sweden should therefore work for a radical Swedish and global disarmament process, and to have resources that are today spent on military preparedness to be transferred to eff orts aimed at preventing wars and confl icts.

Unfortunately, proposals now under consideration in Sweden would take us in the opposite direction and loosen restrictions on arms exports to nations at war. Proposals intended to make it easier to export military equipment to a number of strategically important nations with which Sweden has substantial military cooperation.

A consequence of this is to make it easier for Sweden to export war mate-rial to countries at war, such as the United States and Great Britain. Another example is that Sweden continues to export arms to both India and Pakistan, in spite of their long-standing confl icts, so as not to undermine present and future business contracts.

This position is unacceptable. Since the First World War, Swedish law has prohibited the export of war materials. It must now be made clear in Swedish law that such exports really are prohibited and that exceptions are only permit-ted in cases where it benefi ts international security and is otherwise consistent with Swedish foreign policy. Arms exports must not become a goal in itself.

In addition, Sweden should actively support the global grassroots initiative that aims to control the arms trade through a legally binding international arms trade convention, a so-called Arms Trade Treaty.

Swedish arms at war

The recoilless rifl e Carl Gustaf is manufactured by Saab Bofors Dynamics and has been sold to more than 40 na-tions. Carl Gustaf has been used in numerous wars, for example in Burma, Cambodia, Sri Lanka, Vietnam, India and Iraq.

Since 1985, the anti-missile rocket-launcher AT4 has been sold to, among others, Brazil, Denmark, the Neth-erlands, France and Venezuela. Additionally, the US has been licensed to fabricate hundreds of AT4s and these were for example used when the US invaded Panama in 1989. They have also been used by American forces in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The surface-to-air missile Robot 70 is today available in at least 18 countries, including Argentina, Bahrain, Brazil, the United Arab Emirates, Indonesia, Iran, Pakistan, Singapore and Tunisia. In 1999, Robot 70 was used in the Kargil war in Kashmir.

Indian soldier with the Swedish recoilless rifl e Carl Gustaf during the violent confl icts in Ahmadabad in 2002. Photo: Aman Sharm/Scanpix.

The Indian army used the made-in-Bofors 155 mm cannons in the Kargil war in Kashmir, 1999. Photo: Mustafa Tauseef/Scanpix.

Swedish arms exports and human rights violations

Nine countries accused of human rights violations were permitted to purchase Swedish war material from 2000 to 2005.

Bahrain: Torture and other cruel and inhumane pun-ishments and widespread impunity for abusers. Arms exports: anti-tank weapons worth more than 32 million Swedish kronor (US$4 million).

Pakistan: Grave, systematic human rights violations: deaths of prison inmates, extrajudicial executions, mur-der and other abuses targeting minority groups. Torture and other cruel and inhuman treatment, arbitrary arrests in the “war on terrorism” and impunity for abusers. Arms exports: parts for torpedoes and bombs worth more than 84 million Swedish kronor (US$10 million).

Thailand: Extrajudicial executions, death penalty, sys-tematic discrimination of ethnic minorities and migrant workers, gross human rights violations in the confl ict in southern Thailand. Arms exports: missiles, anti-tank weapons, torpedoes and more to the amount of 324 mil-lion Swedish kronor (US$38 million).

The other six countries were Brazil, India, Malaysia, Mexico, Tunis and Venezuela.

2 | Contributes to human rights violations

One of the primary guidelines for arms exports in Sweden is a 1971 parlia-mentary decision that recipient nations must respect international human rights. In reality, arms exports are permitted to several nations that commit human rights violations.

The ban on exports to nations that violate human rights is not purely mo-tivated by humanitarian concern. It is also in keeping with important national security considerations. It is a long recognized fact that there is a connection between respect for human rights and peaceful social development. Substan-tial and gross violations of human rights may pose a threat to both national and international stability.

The guidelines for arms exports hold that respect for human rights is “a prerequisite” before such export can be permitted. It is irrelevant whether the arms will themselves directly contribute to the violations or not, it is enough that such violations “occur” in the nation for the arms export to become illegitimate.

Both the Swedish parliament and government have increasingly emphasized the importance of a foreign policy that supports respect for human rights.

Such strict guidelines notwithstanding, the reality of Swedish foreign policy diff ers quite a lot from its rhetoric. It is now clear that parliamentary guide-lines for arms exports are systematically being ignored. Sweden exports large amounts of war material to several countries that have been responsible for human rights violations, increasing such regimes’ legitimacy as well as directly strengthening them by boosting their military capabilities. During the fi rst half of the decade (2000–2005), large amounts of war material have been exported to nine countries where human rights violations occur. These arms exports have been worth four billion Swedish kronor (US$0.5 billion).

3 | Contributes to poverty and underdevelopment

Swedish arms are sold to nations with widespread poverty where the arms purchases may directly counteract eff orts at poverty-reduction. It is a serious problem that the world chooses to prioritize military expenditures instead of tackling poverty. For each dollar spent on various aid measures, fi fteen are spent on military equipment.

Eradicating poverty is the world’s greatest moral, political and economical challenge and a prerequisite for peace, stability and sustainable development.

The challenge becomes even greater when we look at the problems the world faces. More than a billion people live in extreme poverty and tens of thousands of children die each day from preventable illnesses. Each day, thou-sands of people are infected with HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases.

In December 2003, the Swedish Parliament declared that on matters of global policy development, Swedish policy must be unanimous and consist-ent: “How Sweden acts and speaks in one policy area must correspond with Swedish actions in other areas.” This means that the needs and interests of impoverished people must be the starting point in eff orts at achieving just and sustainable development.

If Swedish actions are to match its rhetoric, arms exports must in each case be preceded by a skeptical evaluation as to whether the exports risk undermin-ing sustainable development. A cautionary principle should prevail in matters of arms exports, so that if there is any risk of a confl ict of interest, the goals of poverty reduction take precedence.

Military projects undermine social development

In its 2006 report, the UN’s global development network (UNDP) emphasizes the problem that military investments in poor countries often come at the expense of life-sav-ing investments in clean water and sanitation. Pakistan is given particular attention since it spends 47 times more on its military than it does on water and sanitation, with 118 000 people in Pakistan dying each year of diarrhea.

In 2006, one of Sweden’s largest arms exports ever was given the go-ahead: the airborne early warning and control system Erieye to Pakistan. The deal costs Pakistan 8.3 billion Swedish kronor (US$10 billion), an amount 12 times Pakistan’s yearly budget for water and sanitation.

In 1999, South Africa purchased war material for approximately six billion dollars. This arms purchase included battle ships, submarines, helicopters and 28 Swedish JAS warplanes. Spent diff erently, that money could have provided medication and treatment for all AIDS-infected people in the country for two years.

Deputy Saudi Defense Minister, prince Khaled, and Swedish Defense Minister Leni Björklund (2002–2006) face the press at the state visit in November 2005.

Military cooperation with Saudi ArabiaAt an offi cial state visit on November 15, 2005, Sweden signed a long-term military cooperation treaty with Saudi Arabia. The treaty states that the nations “with great satisfaction expresses their desire to further strengthen the strong and friendly relations through direct military cooperation.” The treaty opens the doors for the Swedish arms industry, and Saab also met with the Saudi delega-tion for discussions on future arms deals. Saudi Arabia is one of the world’s most brutal dictator-ships and Sweden’s Foreign Ministry, in its own report, sharply criticizes the country’s lack of respect for human rights. Criticism of Islam and the royal family is not permitted, political parties are forbidden and demon-strations illegal. In accordance with Sharia laws, bodily punishments are administered in the form of fl agellation and amputations. The death penalty is in use, often in the form of decapitation for men and execution by fi ring squad for women.

4 | Strengthens dictatorships

Even though democracy-promotion is an important goal of Swedish foreign policy, Swedish war material is exported to numerous dictatorships. Through aid and political eff orts, Sweden has in various ways tried to promote demo-cratic forces and progress around the world. Democracy is a corner stone of the Swedish policy for global development (PGU). This policy is meant to be informed by the fairness perspective. Both democracy and human rights are part of the fairness perspective. “They strengthen each other and are each other’s prerequisites” the government writes in its proposition.

Even so, arms exports have in fact been permitted to several undemocratic countries. In 2004, the income from arms exports to dictatorships exceeded, for the fi rst time, 100 million and recipient nations included the United Arab Emirates, Kazakhstan, Oman, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Tunisia.

Democracy-promotion is the guiding principle of Swedish foreign policy. If taken seriously this ought to mean that exports to dictatorships should be prohibited. Naturally, arms exports should not be permitted to nations where citizens have no say in the matter and may even be imprisoned if they try to make their voices heard. Exporting war materials to dictatorships legitimizes the dictatorship and undermines eff orts at achieving democratic progress.

Another side of the coin is Swedish arms imports. It is unacceptable for Sweden to maintain military cooperation with dictatorships and human rights-violating nations such as Belarus at the same time as arms exports to these countries are prohibited. In the period 1996–2003, Sweden imported arms from Belarus worth 90 million Swedish kronor (more than US$10 million). During the same period, the Swedish International Development Coopera-tion Agency spent 60 million (US$7.5 million). In other words, more money was given to the authoritative regime than to the promotion of democracy and human rights in the country.

Guidelines should naturally be imposed on arms imports so that due con-sideration must be given to whether the country in question is involved in armed confl ict or responsible for human rights violations.

We are at an important crossroads.The restrictive Swedish policy in arms exports is under threat. Outwardly, for the public,

the doctrine remains the same: Sweden maintains a restrictive policy for arms exports. In practice, however, the outlook on arms exports has changed dramatically and a more export-friendly model has become the norm. This disconnect between theory and practice is too obvious to have any long-term viability.

We have two choices available to us.We either give in to pressures from the corporations and various commercial arguments

and technicalities and permit the rules for arms exports to be undermined and become more compatible with current reality and the wishes of our new European and North American partners.

Or we choose to speak up in defense of moral consistency in our foreign policy and change instead the political reality of arms exports to make it more compatible with the stated foreign policy goals of disarmament, human rights, democracy and global development.

What is your choice?

Shall we be more restrictive when it comes to arms

trade or shall we open up for more extensive arms

exports?

more restrictive

more extensive arms exports

Shall we stop arms exports to countries in armed

confl icts even if it jeopardizes future business deals?

yes

no

Shall we export war material to countries where gross

violations of human rights occur?

yes

no

Shall we allow export of war material if the export is

in obvious confl ict with the endeavour towards the

millennium development goals and the struggle against

poverty in the receiving country?

yes

no

Questions to the politicians; What do you choose?

Amnesty Sweden, Diakonia, Swedish Fellowship of Reconciliation, Swedish Peace and Arbitration SocietyGraphic design: Unna design. Originally published in January 2007. Translated with minor revision in January 2009.

Shall we allow arms trade with dictatorships?

yes

no

Shall we act towards a more extensive set of

regulations in the EU?

yes

no

Shall we act towards a binding international arms trade

treaty?

yes

no

Shall we adopt guidelines for the import of war material

based on the same basic ethical principles as those for

exporting war material?

yes

no