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.
“Neutral countries important role”
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 has also to some extent contributed to the opposite, he says.
NATO’s Article 5 has only been activated once, after the attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001.
– If I remember correctly, NATO has officially only been involved in one war, namely the war in Afghanistan. But NATO as a network has obviously become involved to a greater or lesser degree in other wars, for example in Libya, a war that many have been critical of.
