Re: GEOPOLÍTICA
Enviado: Sex Nov 06, 2009 1:18 am
Fonte: http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i= ... =FEA&s=INTGen. Sverker Goranson
Sweden's Chief of Defense Staff
Published: 2 November 2009
Print Print | Print Email
For decades, Sweden's military was essentially two forces: one, a conscript homeland defense force, and the other, a professional force able to deploy worldwide on peacekeeping operations.
Gen. Sverker Goranson is Swedish Chief of Defense Staff. (COLIN KELLY / STAFF)
In the most sweeping change in decades, Sweden's parliament - the Riksdag - ended conscription in favor of a smaller, all-volunteer military capable of sustained global operations.
Implementing this change will be Gen. Sverker Göranson, who in March assumed his six-year tenure as Sweden's chief of staff. Given Sweden holds the European Union's presidency through the end of the year, Göranson, who started his career as a tank officer and served operational tours in Bosnia, ranks as one of Europe's senior-most military leaders.
Q. You're the latest high-ranking Swedish official to visit Washington since the Obama administration took office. Why?
A. Since we are running a number of operations together, and have done so over time, it's crucial to discuss how we are running operations in northern Afghanistan, share information and get information from the U.S. side as well.
We are very focused on our operations in Afghanistan, but the other side of the coin is where we will be in the future when it comes to training, equipment and so forth.
Q. Have you discussed your transformation process as well?
A. On the military side, most are aware of it because we talked about it when I was here a year ago, but now it's been confirmed with the bill to parliament in June, which is why my minister of defense was here as well.
The transformation we are conducting is a huge turnaround, and as I told Adm. [Michael] Mullen [U.S. Joint Chiefs chairman], we know where we are going, but it will not be finished when I leave my tenure as chief of defense in six years. It will take longer than that, but the important piece is that we know what we want to achieve and have started moving toward it.
Q. What's driving your transformation?
A. The major shift is globalization and the fact that most of the things we are dealing with aren't necessarily about national boundaries.
What turned Sweden around is not focusing on national defense, but being a part of this globalized world and solving issues together, because wherever conflicts are, whether in the Balkans or Afghanistan, over the long run, they will have an impact on the world and life in Sweden as well. So we need to do things together to prepare and prevent, but also to conduct operations to solve the issues that come up.
Dealing with piracy off Somalia is our way to have an impact on the free flow of goods over the oceans. So instead of just looking on, we are taking part.
To do that, you need an armed force comprised differently and much more easily available and deployable. We have had during the last 50 years a parallel organization, units for home use and specific units to deploy, and now we are making one organization.
We do not foresee at the moment anybody around us will mount a unique armed attack on Sweden. But we do see potential tensions. A number of countries are interested in what we are moving on the seas, where we are moving, climate change and looking at finding new energy resources.
That is where the High North comes in and why we would prefer to solve issues through communication among the nations involved. But there will also be competition. That is basically the foundation, and there is a big discussion regarding the High North. Climate change is one of the bigger things we people on the globe have to deal with.
Q. Are there tensions in the Arctic? Russia has claimed the region as its own.
A. There are no tensions up there, but there are energy resources that will be available, and we need to discuss who are the owners of those and what impact that will have on our and others' behavior. There is an intention by our close neighbors, Norway and Denmark, to have a dialogue to find and solve issues that are currently up there, as you are doing between the United States and Canada.
My sense on Russia is that they are thinking and doing stuff with a much more long-term view. In Sweden, we look a year at a time when it comes to our budgets. Their view is much further out, and what we need to recognize is that they are an important player in the region and we need to allow them to be on the scene and not push them into the bleachers. They ultimately want to sit at the table. So in the relationship, you have to have a working conversation between NATO and Russia. Where that leads, that too is up to the politicians.
Q. Could the Arctic become a flashpoint?
A. Yes, but that is why, for example, my counterparts in Norway and Denmark are already pushing the idea of dialogue before it becomes a problem. If we start discussions between the United States, Norway, Denmark and Canada about what are the borders and how we deal with energy resources, and let all the players sit at the same table at the same time, we might defuse some of the tensions that might be created.
When I said we need to do things together, the idea behind Nordic cooperation is that we as small nations cannot afford in the long run to keep the quality and quantity of armed forces that we have because everything becomes more expensive, equipmentwise and personnelwise.
We have to find ways to build capabilities, and that also in the long run means to find ways of sharing information and helping each other, whatever mission that needs to be solved, and that will include the High North as well.
As part of the Nordic Battle Group, Sweden, Finland, Norway and Denmark are already sharing the operational picture in the air and on the sea, and that can be extended to the High North. If that is something that is politically decided, we can stretch that out north and northwest, and first provide sensors and then do things in the area like combined patrols with different kinds of vessels.
Q. As you become more deployable, will you draw off U.S., British, French and other more extensive logistics systems?
A. I can always try to do what I want, but a logistician will always tell me what I can do. The more we deploy, the farther away we deploy, the trickier the question becomes.
That is important for us and why we have formed the organization with the C-17 transports in Hungary with 12 NATO nations, Sweden and Finland to have the equipment necessary to move fast and big.
On the other hand, we are conducting international operations now and overlooking the entire process of work regarding logistics. What do we need at home, and how do we organize and make it a working flow to deployed units? That will be a challenge.
It's easy for a big nation like the United States, with many aircraft and other stuff, while we have much less, so we have to find different ways of doing this. We are talking to the Danes and the Norwegians, who have signed contracts with shipping companies to support them when they move. We've already set up a depot where we have the equipment we would need in one central place to move it out quickly.
Q. How do you do this on a flat budget?
A. As a result of the last defense resolution in 2004, the budget was lowered to $5.5 billion annually and will stay on the same level until 2014. We also conducted a study on how we acquire equipment, how we support the force, deploy it and train it, with the aim of moving 20 to 30 percent of the funding there to the operational side, which needs to happen for me to be able to fulfill the task I have. Unless we deal with those issues and solve them, I will have challenges and problems achieving my goals.
Q. Historically, you have bought from Sweden's defense industry. But you recently bought armored vehicles from Finland's Patria instead of Hägglunds on price grounds. How do you maintain Swedish industrial capabilities if you don't buy from your companies?
A. We are lucky that we have a very strong industrial base that has been self-sustaining for the armed forces for a number of years. The quality of the equipment in air, on sea and ground is very high.
What we now have said is that it's a smaller and smaller armed force, and for a small nation, those industries have to be competitive on the international market. We will define the demands that we have, but if we talk vehicles, airplanes and ships, I'll never again be in a position that it has to be Swedish and Swedish-specific.
Q. Won't that hurt your industry and undermine its competitiveness?
A. That's a political question. That is a change in our decision and strategy that we should buy whatever is out there, Swedish or international, so long as it fulfills our requirements.
Q. Even if it hurts your industry?
A. Yes, but if you look back in the last 10 years, that is what you have seen around the world. They have formed coalitions, and how much of the industry in Sweden today are actually Swedish-owned? They are part of a bigger picture. It has always been self-sustaining, but that is their way of being competitive on the international market.
When it comes to funding of the armed forces in Sweden, it's always been one slice defense policy and one slice industrial policy. I think it will continue to be that way but will not necessarily look the same.
Q. Will Sweden become part of NATO?
A. That's something our politicians need to decide after listening to and having a conversation with the Swedish people. The challenge is that we do not have very much of a discussion concerning the issue, and you need that first before you can come to some sort of decision.
We had a defense resolution in 1996 that said the Swedish armed forces should be completely NATO-interoperable, which is the standard we have worked to accordingly, to make sure that wherever we go, as we did to Afghanistan, we can plug in and work with the different nations conducting operations and do it well.
-- By Vago Muradian in Washington
Military Profile
Defense budget: $5.5 billion annually since 2004
Total manpower: 50,000, including Standing Units, Contracted Units and Home Guard
Deployments: Afghanistan, Kosovo,
Ongoing procurements: Include the New-Generation Gripen fighters, NH90 helicopters, Visby corvettes, new submarines.
Source: Defense News research
