Sverigedemokraterna’s senior politician Tobias Andersson, who is currently the chair of the parliamentary Committee on Industry and Trade, has opened up about the dynamics behind Sweden’s entry into NATO and the party’s sudden shift on the issue. This was done without any referendum, and he describes it as a matter of a red line. According to Andersson, NATO membership was a demand from the center-right parties for cooperation on governing Sweden to be possible.
In an interview earlier this week, the SD leader, who also sits on the party board, was asked by Riks’ editor-in-chief Jacob Hagnell whether the party has downplayed certain nationalist elements and accepted others in order to become part of a collaboration with the liberal right-wing parties.
Hagnell described a landscape where popular political topics on social media within the political right often revolve around issues such as the EU, NATO, the relationship between Israel and Palestine, and the discussion about focusing on Sweden rather than on conflicts in ‘distant lands.’
– There is a movement emerging there that quite clearly advocates for a more nationalist principle, where the idea is to promote Swedish interests first and foremost, not to take a position on far-away conflicts or to unconditionally commit to them.
READ ALSO: MSB launches propaganda offensive – intends to teach Swedes to love NATO
Hagnell asked whether there is room for self-criticism on the topic.
– Do you see any room for self-criticism here, that some nationalist principles have been abandoned and parts of this program have been accepted to become more part of a collaboration with the center-right? he asked, elaborating further:
– The views on the EU, views on NATO, the Israel-Palestine conflict—at present, you are arguably the most pro-Israel party in parliament. Do you see a need to try to navigate these issues and clarify what Sweden Democrats’ foreign policy truly is?
Andersson then gave a detailed response, indicating among other things that it would hardly be particularly nationalist to be solely focused on foreign policy.
The SD leader emphasized that the party had previously advocated for a referendum on NATO, but opinion polls showing around 80 percent support for membership changed the circumstances and influenced the party’s stance on the issue.
NATO Entry in Order to Govern
But it was decisive that the other Tidö parties simply required NATO membership in order to make cooperation possible.
– It was a clear demand from the other parties we collaborate with that if we are against NATO, or advocate leaving the EU, or are pro-Russian, or whatever their red lines are regarding us, then we won’t be able to govern Sweden together.
– So you could also argue that by accepting NATO membership when the people wanted it, we made it possible for ourselves to be involved in influencing politics in Sweden. It wouldn’t have been very nationalist to get hung up on foreign policy issues and thus undermine our own ability to influence domestic policy.
READ ALSO: Is NATO still a defense alliance after regime changes in Libya and Iraq? Rutte responds
The SD leader repeats that the party’s changed or nuanced stance on certain individual foreign policy issues was a fundamental prerequisite for SD to be able to be part of governing Sweden during these years, and thereby, as he puts it, to make Sweden freer, safer, and to reduce asylum-related immigration since 1980.
– It would have been odd if we had rejected efforts to make Sweden safer, freer, and to reduce immigration, just because our opposition to NATO would outweigh the real political effects we could support in Sweden.
Party Members Too Focused on Foreign Affairs
Furthermore, Andersson’s view is that voters in Sweden do not care as much about foreign policy as the media thinks.
– Yes, we have demonstrations about Palestine-Israel, absolutely, we have demonstrations about Ukraine, absolutely, but to some extent this is self-realization in the sense that if you live in an unsafe area, or cannot afford rent or food, then what happens in the Middle East or Eastern Europe or wherever is not so important.
He offers some criticism of party colleagues who, during this parliamentary term, have devoted too much focus to foreign conflicts.
– I think foreign policy has received too much focus in election debates and even from some party colleagues who have perhaps invested more energy than reasonable into foreign policy. It doesn’t interest me that much; I am a Swedish politician, I sit in Sweden’s parliament and care about Sweden and the Swedish people.
Watch the full interview here, where Andersson also comments on citizenship approvals and other parties such as AFS and Örebropartiet.