A World without Nuclear Weapons

As one of the few European countries, Sweden has supported the draft agreement. US Defense Minister Mattis threatens the country from a possible ratification

In summer 2016, only 120 states signed a treaty prohibiting nuclear weapons. The states with nuclear weapons have not participated, the five members of the Security Council, who are permanent because of their nuclear weapons, have also renounced this, and thus made it clear that they do not wish to comply with their obligations which they have entered into with the nuclear arms treaty. Not rhetorical, as Barack Obama did. On the other hand, an atomic contest has long been used.

In addition to France and Great Britain, most European states and all NATO countries did not support the prohibition treaty, including Germany, which holds a “Nuclear Participation” agreement with the United States. In Germany, US nuclear weapons are stored in Büchel and German tornado bombers are held ready for the war to use them under American control. There is also “nuclear participation” with Belgium, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey (where between 50 and 90 atomic bombs are to be stored at the Incirlik Air Base).

In addition to Austria, Cyprus, Ireland, Malta and Switzerland, Sweden has also voted in favor of the Nuclear Ban Treaty, which can be ratified from 20 September. Making the 50 states, he enters into force. This would not change a lot, but the nuclear states might come a little more under legitimation. In addition, military alliances between nuclear and signatory states could become difficult. Thus, not only the storage but also the stationing of nuclear weapons for signatory states would be prohibited as well as the support or the search for the help of states that are developing, storing or deploying nuclear weapons.

It seems that Sweden, not yet a member of the NATO, was now the target of the United States. The US government is putting pressure on the country not to ratify the agreement. Defense Minister Jim Mattis has written a letter to his Swedish counterpart Peter Hultqvist, threatening that ratification could endanger military cooperation, as reported last week by the newspaper Dagens Nyheterin. Moreover, NATO’s Gold Card program, which grants privileged rights to Sweden, and the possibility of joining NATO in the future. This means being a member of NATO also means accepting nuclear weapons as military means or not wanting to prevent them.

USA could no longer support Sweden militarily in a conflict

A deeper warning is that the US, Mattis said, could no longer help Sweden in a crisis. Mattis probably responded to a statement by Swedish Foreign Minister Margot Wallström on 25 August that Sweden was likely to sign the agreement. Nuclear weapons are the greatest threat to humanity, and all other weapons of mass destruction are already prohibited.

The nuclear arms treaty would have hindered the spread of nuclear weapons and would bring about a reduction of nuclear weapons. According to Wallström, the nuclear states would “modernize” their nuclear weapons, which had strengthened support for a ban. Sweden’s agreement to the prohibition agreement fully agrees “with our disarmament policy as part of a larger security policy”. “Under our interpretation of ‘support’, our nuclear cooperation agreement is not affected by the agreement because it does not include nuclear weapons. … Our commitment to disarmament can go hand in hand with a responsible one security cooperation. ”

Mattis is also threatened by the dismissal, and the Swedish position can no longer be called hypocritical. One would like to embrace a moral cloak, because one advocates a nuclear-weapon-free world, but this is not supposed to change in real-policy terms. This is not seen in the Pentagon. Spokesman Johnny Michael said the US had a big problem with the nuclear bans agreement. States would be urged not to sign the agreement. This would ultimately also undermine the nuclear arms treaty. A claim that is, of course, absurd.

Sweden plans to increase armament spending by 11 percent by 2020. Because in the transition to a purely professional army no longer sufficiently young people can be recruited, from January 1, compulsory military service will be introduced – equally for men and women.

by alfons

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s