Published 22 April 2024 at 07.03
Domestic. Jan Guillou directs harsh criticism against the so-called DCA agreement, which opens up Sweden to a permanent American military presence and possible nuclear weapons.
Share the article
TwittraShare
After reading the agreement, Jan Guillou states that it “looks like a capitulation document after a lost war”.
“The victorious power the USA gets 'unhindered access' to Swedish territorial waters, territory and airspace as well as 17 important military facilities, air bases, naval ports and army installations,” he writes in a column in Aftonbladet.
Guillou gives more examples:
“The US also gets the right to build closed areas on these bases to which we natives or our authorities do not have access. In addition, the US gets, upon request, access to private land, roads, ports and airports and the right to build its own areas for leisure purposes with both hamburger joints and VAT-exempt alcohol service American soldiers, their family members, are above the Swedish law. Not even Säpo is allowed to inspect their vehicles or homes. The entire foreign army is exempt from customs duties.”
The government has recently defended the agreement in a debate article in Svenska Dagbladet. Jan Guillou is ironic about the content of this article and notes that it is full of meaningless platitudes such as “The agreement is a cornerstone for the defense of Northern Europe”, “broad political support in the Riksdag”, “we stand in solidarity with our friends”, “security and stability “, “broad consensus regarding how we in Sweden view nuclear weapons”, “Russia is prepared to take major political and military risks”.“Not current” with nuclear weapons
He also reacts to the formulation that “nuclear weapons or permanent bases are not relevant in Sweden”.
“It is such a clever political lie that looks true. It is clear that it is not 'current'. There is no American base in Sweden either. Nuclear weapons are not 'current' at the moment. But our neighboring countries have banned nuclear weapons on their own territory and with legislation on nuclear weapons bans. That is, before it becomes 'topical',” writes Jan Guillou.
He also notes that the debate article threatens those who speak out through the wording: “Actors who want to harm Sweden's interests may distort The intent and content of the DCA agreement.”
“Anyone who criticizes this subjugation agreement with the US is therefore a criminal, 'an actor who wants to harm Sweden',” writes Jan Guillou.