Four things you didn’t want to know

about Swedish arms exports

Sweden is today the world’s eighth largest arms exporter. But maintaining a leading role
in the international arms market is not without its share of consequences. To be precise,
there are four: Swedish arms help fuel wars and conflicts, contribute to violations of
human rights, contribute to poverty and strengthen dictatorships. Consequences of the
arms trade that you may not have been aware of or would have preferred to ignore.
More than 1.000 billion US dollars is spent yearly on military expenditures in the world.
That is the equivalent of $202 for each person on the planet. At the same time, 30.000
children die each day of diseases resulting from shortages of food, water and sanitation.
Were resources distributed more prudently, many lives would be saved.
Military escalation is in itself an important contributing factor to conflicts and in causing
many conflicts to take a violent and destructive turn. Disarmament, on the other hand, has
in many cases been an important factor in processes that have led to lasting peace.
Limiting the global arms trade is therefore a worthy goal in and of itself.

www.amnesty.se www.diakonia.se www.krf.se www.svenskafreds.se

1| Helps fuel wars and conflicts Swedish arms at war
The recoilless rifle Carl Gustaf is manufactured by Saab
Bofors Dynamics and has been sold to more than 40 na-
tions. Carl Gustaf has been used in numerous wars, for
“We will spare no efforts to free our peoples from the scourge of war, whether example in Burma, Cambodia, Sri Lanka, Vietnam, India
and Iraq.
within or between States, which has claimed more than 5 million lives in the Since 1985, the anti-missile rocket-launcher AT4 has
past decade.” That declaration was adopted at the UN Millennium Summit in been sold to, among others, Brazil, Denmark, the Neth-
erlands, France and Venezuela. Additionally, the US has
September 2000. been licensed to fabricate hundreds of AT4s and these
If the nations of the world mean what they say, we must see results. Parts were for example used when the US invaded Panama in
1989. They have also been used by American forces in
of the world are plagued by deep-seated and complex conflicts, often leading Afghanistan and Iraq.
to war and gross human rights violations. The surface-to-air missile Robot 70 is today available
The international arms trade is one of the most important driving forces in at least 18 countries, including Argentina, Bahrain,
Brazil, the United Arab Emirates, Indonesia, Iran, Pakistan,
behind military escalations, and so contributes to wars and armed conflicts. Singapore and Tunisia. In 1999, Robot 70 was used in the
Sweden should therefore work for a radical Swedish and global disarmament Kargil war in Kashmir.

process, and to have resources that are today spent on military preparedness
to be transferred to efforts aimed at preventing wars and conflicts.
Unfortunately, proposals now under consideration in Sweden would take
us in the opposite direction and loosen restrictions on arms exports to nations Indian soldier with the Swedish recoilless rifle Carl Gustaf during the violent conflicts in Ahmadabad
in 2002. Photo: Aman Sharm/Scanpix.
at war. Proposals intended to make it easier to export military equipment to a
number of strategically important nations with which Sweden has substantial
military cooperation.
A consequence of this is to make it easier for Sweden to export war mate-
rial to countries at war, such as the United States and Great Britain. Another
example is that Sweden continues to export arms to both India and Pakistan,
in spite of their long-standing conflicts, so as not to undermine present and
future business contracts.
This position is unacceptable. Since the First World War, Swedish law has
prohibited the export of war materials. It must now be made clear in Swedish
law that such exports really are prohibited and that exceptions are only permit-
ted in cases where it benefits international security and is otherwise consistent
with Swedish foreign policy. Arms exports must not become a goal in itself.
In addition, Sweden should actively support the global grassroots initiative
that aims to control the arms trade through a legally binding international
arms trade convention, a so-called Arms Trade Treaty.

The Indian army used the made-in-Bofors 155 mm cannons in the Kargil war in Kashmir, 1999.
Photo: Mustafa Tauseef/Scanpix.
Swedish arms exports and human rights violations
Nine countries accused of human rights violations were
permitted to purchase Swedish war material from 2000
to 2005.
Bahrain: Torture and other cruel and inhumane pun-
ishments and widespread impunity for abusers. Arms
exports: anti-tank weapons worth more than 32 million
Swedish kronor (US$4 million).
Pakistan: Grave, systematic human rights violations:
deaths of prison inmates, extrajudicial executions, mur-
der and other abuses targeting minority groups. Torture
and other cruel and inhuman treatment, arbitrary arrests
in the “war on terrorism” and impunity for abusers. Arms
exports: parts for torpedoes and bombs worth more than
84 million Swedish kronor (US$10 million).
Thailand: Extrajudicial executions, death penalty, sys-
tematic discrimination of ethnic minorities and migrant
workers, gross human rights violations in the conflict
in southern Thailand. Arms exports: missiles, anti-tank
weapons, torpedoes and more to the amount of 324 mil-
lion Swedish kronor (US$38 million).
The other six countries were Brazil, India, Malaysia,
Mexico, Tunis and Venezuela.
2 | Contributes to human rights violations
One of the primary guidelines for arms exports in Sweden is a 1971 parlia-
mentary decision that recipient nations must respect international human
rights. In reality, arms exports are permitted to several nations that commit
human rights violations.
The ban on exports to nations that violate human rights is not purely mo-
tivated by humanitarian concern. It is also in keeping with important national
security considerations. It is a long recognized fact that there is a connection
between respect for human rights and peaceful social development. Substan-
tial and gross violations of human rights may pose a threat to both national
and international stability.
The guidelines for arms exports hold that respect for human rights is “a
prerequisite” before such export can be permitted. It is irrelevant whether the
arms will themselves directly contribute to the violations or not, it is enough
that such violations “occur” in the nation for the arms export to become
illegitimate.
Both the Swedish parliament and government have increasingly emphasized
the importance of a foreign policy that supports respect for human rights.
Such strict guidelines notwithstanding, the reality of Swedish foreign policy
differs quite a lot from its rhetoric. It is now clear that parliamentary guide-
lines for arms exports are systematically being ignored. Sweden exports large
amounts of war material to several countries that have been responsible for
human rights violations, increasing such regimes’ legitimacy as well as directly
strengthening them by boosting their military capabilities. During the first half
of the decade (2000–2005), large amounts of war material have been exported
to nine countries where human rights violations occur. These arms exports
have been worth four billion Swedish kronor (US$0.5 billion).
3 | Contributes to poverty and
underdevelopment
Military projects undermine social development
In its 2006 report, the UN’s global development network
Swedish arms are sold to nations with widespread poverty where the arms (UNDP) emphasizes the problem that military investments
in poor countries often come at the expense of life-sav-
purchases may directly counteract efforts at poverty-reduction. It is a serious ing investments in clean water and sanitation. Pakistan is
problem that the world chooses to prioritize military expenditures instead of given particular attention since it spends 47 times more
on its military than it does on water and sanitation, with
tackling poverty. For each dollar spent on various aid measures, fifteen are 118 000 people in Pakistan dying each year of diarrhea.
spent on military equipment. In 2006, one of Sweden’s largest arms exports ever
was given the go-ahead: the airborne early warning and
Eradicating poverty is the world’s greatest moral, political and economical control system Erieye to Pakistan. The deal costs Pakistan
challenge and a prerequisite for peace, stability and sustainable development. 8.3 billion Swedish kronor (US$10 billion), an amount
The challenge becomes even greater when we look at the problems the 12 times Pakistan’s yearly budget for water and sanitation.

world faces. More than a billion people live in extreme poverty and tens of
thousands of children die each day from preventable illnesses. Each day, thou-
sands of people are infected with HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases. In 1999, South Africa purchased war material for approximately six billion dollars. This arms
In December 2003, the Swedish Parliament declared that on matters of purchase included battle ships, submarines, helicopters and 28 Swedish JAS warplanes. Spent
differently, that money could have provided medication and treatment for all AIDS-infected people in
global policy development, Swedish policy must be unanimous and consist- the country for two years.
ent: “How Sweden acts and speaks in one policy area must correspond with
Swedish actions in other areas.” This means that the needs and interests of
impoverished people must be the starting point in efforts at achieving just and
sustainable development.
If Swedish actions are to match its rhetoric, arms exports must in each case
be preceded by a skeptical evaluation as to whether the exports risk undermin-
ing sustainable development. A cautionary principle should prevail in matters
of arms exports, so that if there is any risk of a conflict of interest, the goals
of poverty reduction take precedence.

Deputy Saudi Defense Minister, prince Khaled, and Swedish Defense Minister Leni Björklund
(2002–2006) face the press at the state visit in November 2005.
Military cooperation with Saudi Arabia
At an official state visit on November 15, 2005, Sweden
signed a long-term military cooperation treaty with Saudi
Arabia. The treaty states that the nations “with great
satisfaction expresses their desire to further strengthen
the strong and friendly relations through direct military
cooperation.” The treaty opens the doors for the Swedish
arms industry, and Saab also met with the Saudi delega-
tion for discussions on future arms deals.
Saudi Arabia is one of the world’s most brutal dictator-
ships and Sweden’s Foreign Ministry, in its own report,
sharply criticizes the country’s lack of respect for human
rights. Criticism of Islam and the royal family is not
permitted, political parties are forbidden and demon-
strations illegal. In accordance with Sharia laws, bodily
punishments are administered in the form of flagellation
and amputations. The death penalty is in use, often in
the form of decapitation for men and execution by firing
squad for women.
4 | Strengthens dictatorships
Even though democracy-promotion is an important goal of Swedish foreign
policy, Swedish war material is exported to numerous dictatorships. Through
aid and political efforts, Sweden has in various ways tried to promote demo-
cratic forces and progress around the world. Democracy is a corner stone of
the Swedish policy for global development (PGU). This policy is meant to be
informed by the fairness perspective. Both democracy and human rights are
part of the fairness perspective. “They strengthen each other and are each
other’s prerequisites” the government writes in its proposition.
Even so, arms exports have in fact been permitted to several undemocratic
countries. In 2004, the income from arms exports to dictatorships exceeded,
for the first time, 100 million and recipient nations included the United Arab
Emirates, Kazakhstan, Oman, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Tunisia.
Democracy-promotion is the guiding principle of Swedish foreign policy.
If taken seriously this ought to mean that exports to dictatorships should be
prohibited. Naturally, arms exports should not be permitted to nations where
citizens have no say in the matter and may even be imprisoned if they try to
make their voices heard. Exporting war materials to dictatorships legitimizes
the dictatorship and undermines efforts at achieving democratic progress.
Another side of the coin is Swedish arms imports. It is unacceptable for
Sweden to maintain military cooperation with dictatorships and human rights-
violating nations such as Belarus at the same time as arms exports to these
countries are prohibited. In the period 1996–2003, Sweden imported arms
from Belarus worth 90 million Swedish kronor (more than US$10 million).
During the same period, the Swedish International Development Coopera-
tion Agency spent 60 million (US$7.5 million). In other words, more money
was given to the authoritative regime than to the promotion of democracy and
human rights in the country.
Guidelines should naturally be imposed on arms imports so that due con-
sideration must be given to whether the country in question is involved in
armed conflict or responsible for human rights violations.
We are at an important crossroads.
The restrictive Swedish policy in arms exports is under threat. Outwardly, for the public,
the doctrine remains the same: Sweden maintains a restrictive policy for arms exports.
In practice, however, the outlook on arms exports has changed dramatically and a more
export-friendly model has become the norm. This disconnect between theory and practice
is too obvious to have any long-term viability.
We have two choices available to us.
We either give in to pressures from the corporations and various commercial arguments
and technicalities and permit the rules for arms exports to be undermined and become
more compatible with current reality and the wishes of our new European and North
American partners.
Or we choose to speak up in defense of moral consistency in our foreign policy and
change instead the political reality of arms exports to make it more compatible with
the stated foreign policy goals of disarmament, human rights, democracy and global
development.
What is your choice?
 rship s?
ms s tr ad e with dictato
ct iv e w h en it comes to ar Shall we allo
w ar m
more rest ri arms
Shall we be en up fo r m ore extensive yes
l we op
trade or shal no
exports?
sive set of
more restrict
ive
t to w ard s a more exten
ve arms exp
orts Shall we ac
more extensi in the EU ?
regulations
ed
ntries in arm yes
o p ar m s ex ports to cou u si n ess deals ?
Shall we st o p ar d iz es future b no
if it je arms trade
conflicts even ternational
t to w ard s a binding in
yes Shall we ac
no treaty ?
ere gross yes
m at er ia l to countries wh
ort war
Shall we exp occur? no l
human rights f war materia
violations o f
el in es fo r the import o o se fo r
pt guid rinciples as
th
yes Shall we ado e b asic ethical p
th e sa m
based on
no ar material?
e export is exporting w
o f w ar material if th
w exp o rt wards the yes
Shall we allo e endeavour to
nflic t w it h th ggle against
in obvious co p m en t g o al s and the stru no
develo
millennium untry ?
in th e receiving co
poverty
yes
no

Questions to the politicians; What do you choose?

Amnesty Sweden, Diakonia, Swedish Fellowship of Reconciliation, Swedish Peace and Arbitration Society
Graphic design: Unna design. Originally published in January 2007. Translated with minor revision in January 2009.