The return of military conscription in Europe: understanding the political decision of bringing back the draft in Sweden An in-depth case study of the policy change in Sweden’s defence strategy through the theoretical lens of securitisation Author: Jet Marres Number: 11024968 Date: June 23rd, 2017 Supervisor: Rocco Bellanova Second Reader: Beste Isleyen Thesis group: European Security Politics Program: MSc International Relations Graduate School of Social Science University of Amsterdam Abstract On march 2nd 2017, the Swedish government formally announced it will reinstate a conscription model to realise military readiness of the Swedish Armed Forces. This century old military institution for the mobilisation of manpower through compulsory military service, was abolished by the Swedish government in 2010 when the military transformed into an all-volunteer professionalised force. Most European countries have demilitarised the armed forces since the end of the Cold War, yet a debate on bringing back conscription models to remilitarise national defences is being held in numerous European national governments. The Swedish government debated bringing back conscription over the last four years and the government maintained the power to reinstate the draft only if the national defence would be in a state of emergency which requires a high level of military preparedness. As such, bringing back conscription shows a policy rotation of the Swedish defence strategy and a change in the political discourse of the Swedish government. The political discourse justifies this defence policy change with clear interconnected statements on the ‘deteriorating security environment in Europe’ and ‘Russia’s assertive posture’ in Sweden’s vicinity. Herewith, a mutual attraction between the securitisation theory and the case of Sweden’s remilitarising its defence policy transpires. Securitisation constitutes a process of articulating an issue as an urgent security matter through which extraordinary measures are legitimated. Thereupon, this thesis critically examines the political discourse in Sweden’s governmental speeches, reports, parliamentary proposals and debates through the lens of securitisation in order to identify a securitised move in Sweden’s stark policy turn and a possible connection to Russia’s so-called ‘assertive posture’. The analysis of the language uttered by governmental actors identifies a securitising move in the speeches and public statements. The securitising move is connected to Russia’s assertive posture and the importance of countering that threat by strengthening national defence capabilities through conscription in order to be ready for multilateral military cooperative endeavours. Keywords: securitisation theory, speech act, conscription, Swedish Armed Forces, militarisation, European security, defence policy, military preparedness. word count: 18.708 1 University of Amsterdam Acknowledgement First and foremost, I would like to mention that the process of researching a fairly unstudied and new topic has been challenging, though rewarding. Hereby, I would like to express my gratitude to my supervisor, dhr. R. Bellanova, from whom I have received guidance and encouragement throughout the research process. I want to thank all the people that have helped me find my way in the search for the relevant documents in the Swedish government data. Furthermore, I would like to acknowledge the positive atmosphere in the course group of European Security Politics specialisation. This has made the writing process an upbeat experience. Amsterdam, June 2017 2 University of Amsterdam Table of content List of Acronyms ...................................................................................................................... 5 List of Tables ............................................................................................................................ 5 1. Introduction: Bringing back the draft ................................................................................ 6 1.1 Contextual background of Sweden’s defence policy ................................................................. 8 1.2 State of the art ........................................................................................................................ 10 1.3 The Research ......................................................................................................................... 12 1.4 Objectives & Relevance ......................................................................................................... 13 1.5 Disposition ............................................................................................................................. 14 2. Theoretical Frameworm: from politicastion to securitisation .......................... ………..16 2.1 The concept of Security .......................................................................................................... 16 2.2 The Copenhagen School of Security Studies ........................................................................... 18 2.3 Securitisation and desecuritiation ........................................................................................... 19 2.4 The speech Act ...................................................................................................................... 23 2.5 The state of the (de-)securitisation debate ............................................................................... 24 2.6 Securitisation and the case of Sweden .................................................................................... 26 3. Methodology ........................................................................................................................ 28 3.1 Critical Discourse Analysis .................................................................................................... 28 3.2 Case Selection ........................................................................................................................ 30 3.3 Data Collection and materials ................................................................................................. 31 3.4 Analytic Procedure ................................................................................................................. 33 3.5 Limitations and considerations ............................................................................................... 34 4. Analysis ................................................................................................................................ 36 4.1 The Defence Commission reports ........................................................................................... 36 3 University of Amsterdam 4.2 Discussions within the parliament .......................................................................................... 42 4.3 Public statements and political speeches ................................................................................. 48 4.4 The results ............................................................................................................................. 52 5. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 53 5.1 Results ................................................................................................................................... 53 5.2 Discussion ............................................................................................................................. 56 5.3 Further Research .................................................................................................................... 57 Bibliography ............................................................................................................................. 58 Appendix ................................................................................................................................... 71 4 University of Amsterdam List of Acronyms AVF All-volunteer force CDA Critical Discourse Analysis EU European Union NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organisation SAF Swedish Armed Forces List of Tables Table 1: The securitising process Table 2: Timeline of the selected data Table 3: Operationalising the securitisation theory Table 4: Operationalising the speech act theory 5 University of Amsterdam 1. Introduction: Bringing back conscription “The security environment in Europe and in Sweden's vicinity has deteriorated and the all-volunteer recruitment hasn't provided the Armed Forces with enough trained personnel. The re-activating of the conscription is needed for military readiness”, a public statement cited by the government of Sweden on March 2nd , 2017 (Radebo, 2017). With this public statement, the Swedish government formally announced it has decided to reinstate a conscription model to realise military preparedness. The statement ads that the conscription, also called drafting, is based on a gender-neutral recruitment and will include both men and women (Radebo, 2017). Herewith, the Swedish Armed Forces (SAF) will recruit four thousand young men and women annually to undergo basic military training with compulsory service, starting no later than the first of January 2018 (Armed Forces, 2016b). In 2010, Sweden’s then centre-right government eliminated the conscription model after more than hundred years of using the draft. The elimination decision argued an all-volunteer force (AVF) with targeted recruitment that would increase the quality