Balancing Neutrality in a Changing World: The Swedish Conundrum

Source : https://www.nato.int/

This article suggests that Swedish neutrality has undergone significant evolutions over time. While acknowledging Sweden’s historical neutrality following the Napoleonic Wars, this paper argues that after the Cold War, this neutrality requires careful balance and may be questioned. 

First and foremost, it is essential to recognise Sweden’s longstanding tradition of neutrality. Since the Napoleonic Wars, Sweden has embraced a policy of non-alignment, leading to over 200 years of uninterrupted peace, potentially the longest period experienced by any European nation in modern history. This commitment to neutrality stemmed from the severe consequences of aligning with Napoleon Bonaparte and engaging in conflict with Russia, which resulted in the loss of Finland. While several factors contribute to Sweden’s peaceful tradition, including its geographical location, historical relationships with other states, and cultural and ideological aspects, many argue that its tradition of non-alignment and neutrality is the most significant element. In this context, Sweden has chosen to remain unaligned during peacetime, with a clear commitment to neutrality in the event of war. In international law, neutrality pertains to a state’s status during wartime, indicating that it is not taking part in a conflict between other states. A neutral state in international law has both responsibilities and privileges. However, in broader discourse, neutrality is also used to describe an impartial position between opposing parties, even when they are not engaged in active hostilities but have conflicting interests and strained relations. Interestingly, the strength of Sweden’s commitment to neutrality is demonstrated by the fact that it has never been questioned in official polls regarding defence and security. It is simply assumed, and there appears to be no dissenting voices regarding this approach. 

Sweden’s policy of neutrality requires careful consideration and has undergone evolution. Over time, Sweden has shown a strong commitment to not joining military alliances, but it has also been flexible in how it interprets and applies this policy, allowing its policymakers to adjust to changing circumstances After the Cold War, Sweden strengthened its ties with NATO and the European Union (EU), becoming a member of NATO’s Partnership for Peace (PfP) in 1994 and joining the EU in 1995. Furthermore, the world facing new threats, Sweden participated in various endeavours for short-term security and long-term interests, driven by ideals of equality, democracy, a just international order, and the strengthening of the United Nations. Starting in the 1960s, Swedish foreign policy became more proactive, with the government highlighting the role that neutral states could play internationally in building bridges, mediating, and providing critical perspectives. Accordingly, Swedish forces were deployed in Afghanistan from 2001 to 2014, marking a significant shift in Sweden’s military engagement. Indeed, Sweden has begun to actively use force internationally for purposes beyond national defence. The War on Terror sparked public debate on NATO membership. In November 2002, the Riksdag elevated Sweden’s status in the NATO Parliamentary Assembly from guest observer to associated member. Moreover, it led to deeper security cooperation between Sweden and its EU partners. Regarding NATO operations, Sweden’s involvement started with its participation in the NATO-led Stabilisation Force in Bosnia-Herzegovina. The Swedish decision to engage militarily can be viewed as a response to both domestic and international pressures. Indeed, since the beginning of the 21^st century, challenges such as the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, organised crime and regional conflict, impacted Swedish neutrality. Sweden began to view the prevention of humanitarian crises and crisis management as crucial global duties that enhance security. 

With its accession to NATO on the 7^th of March 2024, Sweden seems more invested on the international scene than ever. This is not insignificant since different major events, especially in the regional area of Sweden, and relationships with international organisations transformed Sweden’s stance on international security. This leads us to question the current neutrality of the country. Sweden, nowadays often called ‘post-neutral’, has become more engaged in the changing European security framework, showing a greater willingness to participate in various forms of security-related collaboration. If Sweden joined the EU, the Nordic country preferred a ‘third way’ for European integration, which involves accepting some supranational structures for more effective foreign policy cooperation. This approach can be referred to as ‘semi-alignment’, indicating a middle ground between full alignment with EU structures and maintaining complete independence. Regarding NATO, the 2014 invasion of Crimea by the Russian Federation had major impacts on Sweden’s operations in international security. In Sweden, this series of events signalled a turning point that prompted the Social Democrats, who were in power in 2015, to increase Sweden’s defence budgets and reinstate conscription in 2017. The Swedish defence strategy, the Hultqvist doctrine emphasizes the importance of international defence cooperation. The analysis of the Hultqvist doctrine suggests that Sweden has responded to global pressures by aligning more closely with other countries, relying on their strength for protection, and preparing to address threats alongside them. This shift reflects a strategy of balancing power. Following the Crimean invasion in 2014, the Ukraine aggression by the Russian Federation in 2022, had an even greater impact on Sweden’s neutrality. Such as other Nordic countries, Sweden sent arms and equipment in Ukraine, joined the EU sanctions and increased its defence budget to 2% of the gross domestic product. For decades, the majority of Swedes were against NATO membership. However, just two months into the Ukrainian war, support has surged dramatically, marking a political earthquake. Indeed, in January 2022, only 37% were in favour of joining NATO, but by July 2022, this number had risen to 64%. The swift and decisive Finnish decision influenced Sweden, which also began considering NATO membership. It can be argued that the growing closeness with NATO contradicts Sweden’s traditional self-image of neutrality, non-alignment, and being a global ‘force for good’. However, while support for NATO in Sweden had grown, the public overwhelmingly favoured maintaining military non-alignment. 

On May 18, 2022, Sweden submitted a formal application for NATO membership, but due to Türkiye and Hungary holding up ratification, it had to wait until 2024 to join. With this application, Sweden abandoned its longstanding policy of military non-alignment, a principle that not only shaped its security strategies but also formed a fundamental aspect of its worldview and national identity.