Swedish MPs green-light controversial US defense deal (www.lemonde.fr)

submitted 3 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

20 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 21 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago

Why another defense deal with the US, when Sweden just joined NATO?

[-] [email protected] 7 points 3 months ago

Because this deal gives US access to military based starting now. And can place soldiers there.

Just because Sweden is in NATO doesn't mean other NATO countries can place soldiers in Sweden during peacetime

[-] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago

Germany and other countries have soldiers stationed in Lithuania on a NATO initiative. Where‘s the difference?

[-] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago

It’s all done on a case-by-case basis. Joining NATO isn’t like Civ’s “your armies can travel in my territories” negotiation perk that applies to all of NATO. It needs to be a bilateral agreement. NATO is a mutual defense alliance, but it is absolutely not intended to undermine any member’s sovereignty.

[-] [email protected] -1 points 3 months ago

Very difficult for me to tell you the difference because we are not privy to that type of information. Seeing as it is incredibly sensitive. I didn't strike the deal with Lituania. And I didn't strike the deal with Sweden and USA. (Sorry)

But the similarity, is that Lithuania agreed to it.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago

you find it weird that I asked that question?

[-] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago

Is that relevant to anything?

[-] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

to our conversation, yes. I ask a question, not necessarily to you, you know, and you derail the conversation with: how should I know, I didn‘t make the deal with Lithuania? yeah it‘s relevant to my appreciation of you, I guess.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago

Yes it does.

This NATO treaty already lays out the rights of troops and host countries:

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_17265.htm

There are plenty of provisions in NATO for stationing troops on each others' territory that don't require massive, far-reaching agreements. This DCA treaty goes above and beyond NATO standards, to the detriment to Swedish security and rule of law.

[-] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago

Ok let me clarify. It does not mean they can place soldiers however and wherever they want.

This deal gives US access to specific bases and they can put soldiers there and work alongside Swedish military.

If that was already included in NATO. They obviously wouldn't have made a separate deal about it.

Why you think it's to Swedens detriment is something only known to you. I strongly disagree.

[+] [email protected] -19 points 3 months ago

Just gonna point out that this treaty now makes this legal in sweden:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_Okinawa_rape_incident

If you thought drunk tourists cause too much trouble, just wait for drunk 18 year old soldiers with diplomatic immunity.

[-] [email protected] 29 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

From the link you posted:

The offenders were tried and convicted in Japanese court by Japanese law, in accordance with the U.S.–Japan Status of Forces Agreement.

So:

not legal
Criminals gonna crime

[-] [email protected] 23 points 3 months ago

Military Service Members do not have diplomatic immunity nor are they exempt from host nation laws and ordinances.

[-] [email protected] -5 points 3 months ago

This treaty exempts US soldiers from Swedish law, unless the case is of "special importance", and the Swedish government explicitly requests the US to drop the exemption. Basically unless the soldier violently kills someone or worse, the Swedish police will have no authority. The legal grey area opened for violent crime is obvious.

[-] [email protected] 7 points 3 months ago

It looks like it's not a case of Sweden asking the US to drop the exemption, rather Sweden can simply decide that there is no exemption for that case and only have to tell the Americans that they are doing so.

In specific cases of particular importance to Sweden, Swedish authorities may withdraw the waiver by providing a statement in writing to the competent U.S. forces authorities not later than thirty (30) days after receipt of the notification described in Paragraph 2 of this Article.

Paragraph 2 says that America has a duty to notify Sweden about anything relevant

[-] [email protected] 15 points 3 months ago

Just gonna point out that this treaty now makes this legal in sweden:

Make what legal? Prosecuting rapists? Pretty sure they already have that in Sweden.

[-] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago

No, it doesn't. And you know it doesn't. Goodbye trollbot.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

I'm pointing out the very real risk that exempting US soldiers from Swedish law has, and pointing out the international crises that the same policy has caused in Japan.

You can't just call everyone you disagree with a "trollbot".

this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2024

42 points (100.0% liked)

Europe

8485 readers

3 users here now

News/Interesting Stories/Beautiful Pictures from Europe 🇪🇺

(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, 🇩🇪 ) Feel free to post submissions for banner pictures

Rules

(This list is obviously incomplete, but it will get expanded when necessary)

Be nice to each other (e.g. No direct insults against each other);
No racism, antisemitism, dehumanisation of minorities or glorification of National Socialism allowed;
No posts linking to mis-information funded by foreign states or billionaires.

Also check out [email protected]

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]