According to Kjølv Egeland, who holds a doctorate in international relations at Oxford and researches disarmament, it is important to distinguish between NATO as an actor and as an arena for politics.
– It is not that NATO itself decides so much. Rather, it is the dialogue between member states that produces policy. That being said, it is clear that individual states have more power than others. The US is very tone-setting.
For Sweden, he does not think that membership changes that much. It has already participated in military exercises, been an official NATO partner and stood up behind NATO in negotiations.
Whether it is good or bad to join fully, he does not want to comment.
– It is up to you Swedes. But in general I want to say that the neutral countries in Europe have played an important role in the peace process.
He describes that Sweden, together with Austria and Ireland, have been important voices in finding solutions in disarmament policy, but admits that Sweden has been significantly less activist in the last decade. Ireland and Austria, on the other hand, are still active in “most areas”:
– Increasingly together with the global south, which points to Western double standards in several areas. That you follow international law when it suits you.
“Perhaps contributed to peace”
On the whole, it is difficult to draw conclusions about whether NATO has been positive for world peace, says Egeland.
– NATO may have contributed to peace and stability – but in some cases to the opposite. After all, NATO has been involved in wars, even outside the North Atlantic area.
He describes that NATO has officially participated in only one war: the Invasion of Afghanistan.
– But NATO as a network has been involved in other wars, for example in Libya, which many have been critical of.
He also addresses the criticism from the peace movement:
– Many peace activists would certainly like to point out that NATO is based on a militaristic culture that should be dealt with.