Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su
Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson (M) does not believe that the DCA agreement from 2023, which grants American soldiers access to 17 military bases in Sweden and free entry to the territory, should be revoked. In an interview on TV4’s Nyhetsmorgon (January 24), Kristersson explains:
“The agreement itself is not problematic. And it works exceptionally well. I think it is good to have such close cooperation and to create opportunities for the US to act if the worst should happen.” At the same time, he states in the interview that the remarks about Greenland have damaged trust in the US. However, he argues that Sweden “owns” the DCA agreement and has the mandate to tear it up if necessary.
It is unclear what he means by Sweden “owning” the agreement and being able to “tear it up” if needed. Article 30 of the mutually binding DCA agreement only states the following regarding its validity period:
“This Agreement shall have an initial term of ten (10) years. After the initial term, it shall continue in force, but may be terminated by either Party upon one (1) year’s written notice to the other Party through diplomatic channels.”
The agreement entered into force on August 15, 2024, and thus applies at least until mid-August 2034.
The possibility of any secret additional protocol granting Sweden the right to terminate the agreement early or revoke it with immediate effect under certain circumstances can be ruled out.
It is likely that Kristersson envisions a dramatic scenario where the US threatens Sweden or exploits the agreement in a way that seriously harms Swedish interests. So far, we have only seen threats in the form of enormous punitive tariffs—a threat that was later withdrawn—and criticism that Sweden has not joined Trump’s so-called peace council.
A treaty such as the DCA agreement can, according to the 1969 UN-established Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, be terminated early in certain very serious cases, including material breach of contract. It would go too far to delve into that convention here, but it is worth noting that Denmark’s Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen has stated that Denmark could terminate its DCA agreement with the US under very specific circumstances, such as fundamental changes resulting from actions by either party. It is possible that this is the convention the Prime Minister had in mind. However, it should be noted that the US has not endorsed the convention in its entirety.
There are vague provisions in the Swedish DCA agreement requiring Swedish “consent” in certain cases, adherence to agreed “rules” for specific actions, “consultation” between the parties on certain matters, and regulation of “disputes” in case of disagreement. When defending the DCA agreement, government officials have argued that nothing may happen without Swedish consent and that Sweden’s sovereignty remains intact, citing the following wording in the agreement’s preamble: “All activities under this Agreement shall be conducted with full respect for the sovereignty, laws, and international legal obligations of Sweden … .”
At best, the DCA agreement is ambiguous. A small state should not enter into such agreements with a superpower, as they open the door to US interpretations and dominance. Getting rid of the agreement easily is not possible in the current situation. Terminating it so that it expires in 2034 or 2035 serves no purpose and risks unnecessarily provoking conflict. Instead, the stance should be to keep the US at a proper distance and to minimize activities under the agreement as much as possible.
The Prime Minister should explain in what way Sweden “owns” the agreement and can “tear it up” if necessary!
Original article: alliansfriheten.se
