(’Striptease’, Swedish TV2, March 7, 2000)
Swedish TV: Did NATO have motive for making intrusion in Swedish waters?
Weinberger: It would certainly be part of Nato’s activities as a defensive alliance to insure that there were defences in all parts of the area against Soviet submarine attacks. And there were undoubtedly instances where NATO were trying to insure that there were adequate coastal defences maintained as part of the whole alliance defensive line. I noticed the former Prime Minister Carlsson made some statements about NATO preparing for war. This is quite wrong, NATO was preparing to defend against an attack at launch. NATO had no offensive capabilities and no offensive intentions.
Swedish TV: But according to my information NATO tested the Swedish defence?
Weinberger: I think they tested all defences from time to time to see if there were gaps that could encourage the Soviets, particularly after the Soviet submarine intrusion, they would be very likely to test, yes. […]
Swedish TV: But isn’t it a political risk to send NATO submarines into Swedish waters?
Weinberger: Well, I think there were consultations with the Swedish Government. I don’t know of any time when there was an intrusion of which the Swedish Government was not aware.
Swedish TV: So there was an agreement?
Weinberger: Well, I don’t know if there was an agreement, but there were consultations. It was generally understood by the countries, both NATO and Non-NATO members, that the part of the NATO mission was to insure there was capable defence against any kind of attack, primarily from the Soviets, which was the only country at that time that was capable or had any intentions of making an attack. In the course of carrying out that mission, in being sure we did have effective defences in order, it was necessary to test those from time to time. Just like if you want to know if a weapon is effective you have to test that weapon.
Swedish TV: But on what level was this agreement with Sweden?
Weinberger: I don’t know if there was any specific agreement with Sweden. As far as I know there were consultations. I am not aware of any objections on the part of Sweden, or any of the other countries, except Libya where it was an obvious objection to certain claims of freedom of navigation. I don’t recall any formal agreement with Sweden. There may have been some before I took office 1981, and there may have been some agreement before this time. But I know there was a mission of NATO to insure that its defences were in order. […] And indeed the past history demonstrates that enemies of the Alliance would be perfectly capable, and did use the Swedish waters and anything else they found necessary. That was certainly the case in World War II. In the Cold War period, with the NATO alliance including Germany, the situation was obviously different, because we had a different enemy: the Soviet Union with hostile intentions and a huge navy and a very large submarine fleet, which was not only capable of intruding Swedish waters but has done so many times. Obviously, it would be part of Nato’s defensive mission to insure that they have defences against that. Should the Soviet Union have tried to, as part of a general attack against the West, launch any sort of attack against the Swedish area …
Swedish TV: But when NATO submarines made the intrusions into Swedish waters, did they accept the Swedish Navy to put depth charges?
Weinberger: My understanding is that there were consultations and understandings that there were going to be various tests or there were going to be attempts to assure that the defences in the Swedish areas were effective, and it was not to my knowledge any kind of confrontation between Sweden and NATO forces at any point.
Swedish TV: But the Swedes were chasing submarines all the time?
Weinberger: Well, it is normal for a country to assure that its sovereign waters are not intruded, not invaded. And Nato’s job was basically to protect all those waters against an attack, because an attack up there, that had succeeded, would threaten much more directly European sectors of NATO. But to my knowledge, there was no direct intrusion or testing of Swedish waters or defences without consultations with the Swedes. You are speaking of an agreement: I don’t think there was any agreement, but I think there were consultations, which led to an understanding that – for an individual case, for a specific situation, a particular manoeuvre – it would be an agreement that that could be done. It was very much in Sweden’s interest to have their waters protected, and it was certainly widely known that NATO was not going to invade Sweden or anything of that kind so there would be a very obvious interest on the Swedish Government part to make sure that they had all help needed, if they needed any, to protect their waters.
Swedish TV: On what level were these consultations?
Weinberger: Generally, there were Navy to Navy, the US Navy to the Swedish Navy, I believe. The Swedish Navy is part of the Swedish Government and the US Navy is part of the US Government. Responsible officials on both sides would have discussions, consultations and agreements would flow from that, to make sure that they get all help needed to protect their sovereignty of their waters. If for example Sweden would have said that you must not have any intrusions of that area in this month that would certainly have been honoured and respected by NATO.
Swedish TV: But other areas would then be OK?
Weinberger: Well, it depends entirely on the response of the officials in charge of the negotiations. What I am saying is that at no time, to my knowledge, did NATO simply send a submarine directly into Swedish waters without consultations and prior discussions and agreements that that could be done. Under those circumstances, it was not a pressing problem. It was part of a routine regular scheduled series of defence testing that NATO did and indeed had to do to be responsible and liable. [It would have been irresponsible] if they hadn’t done it.
Swedish TV: Were midget submarines included in this tests?
Weinberger: I don’t know the level. I don’t know the particular instruments used – whatever was discussed and consulted about. We had all different kind of submarines. We also had to know where all the Soviet submarines were at any time, and we also had the capability of doing that. But that required that our large submarines being mobile and moving around and they did. But we did not intrude upon the sovereignty of any NATO member or any other country. What was done was done [on?] the idea that this was part of the defence preparations that had to be made and had to be checked and brought up to date, to be kept up to date, and it was very much to Sweden’s advantage and very much to NATO’s advantage that this was done. My understanding is that this is what these consultations was all about, and I am not aware that Sweden at any time protested or that there was any intrusion that had not been earlier discussed and agreed upon, and what is agreed upon is not an intrusion.
Swedish TV: Have you discussed this with the Swedish Defence Minister or Prime Minister?
Weinberger: Did I? No, I did not. But I am sure there were standing instructions, and the Navy would not go into areas where they were … The general instructions to the Navy were; first, they were under NATO command – the units that were assigned to NATO (We had other units, of course). The procedure was that NATO would make the arrangements and permissions and other things that were necessary in order to perform the kind of testing that NATO had to do to assure that NATO could carry out their mission, which was to defend against the Soviet attack.
Swedish TV: When this ’Whiskey on the rock’ submarine was in the middle of restricted area it took 12 hours for the Swedish Navy to notice it.
Weinberger: Well, it was a clear violation, and submarines can get in where they are not wanted, and that is exactly why we made this defensive testing and these defensive manoeuvres to assure that they would not be able to do that without being detected. That particular submarine was in Swedish waters. It went aground in an area where it could not be denied that it was in Swedish waters. It was quite visible to everybody, and it was exactly the kind of thing that NATO was trying to test the defences to not permit it to happen. It was very much in Sweden’s interest that that would not happen.
Swedish TV: All people in Sweden believe that there were only Soviet submarines that made the intrusions into Swedish waters?
Weinberger: I think it was quite obvious that the submarines that came in that were not Soviet submarines, my understanding is, came in after consultations and understandings that they would do particular tests that the Swedish Government agreed they should do. I would not call that intrusions.
Swedish TV: What kind of cooperation was it between Sweden and NATO during these years?
Weinberger: Satisfactory. The mission of NATO was to not permit Soviet invasion or attacks. The consultations and discussions we had were designed – with all countries not just Sweden – to assure that NATO was able to perform this mission and had ample opportunities to test through manoeuvres and other activities as to whether the defences were adequate and whether or not the Soviets were requiring any new capabilities that would require any changes in their defences or anything of that kind. So, the result of all that I think was very satisfactory. Besides from that, one intrusion of the Whiskey class submarine, there were no violations, no capabilities of the Soviets to make an attack that could not be defended against, and that was the mission of NATO, and it required cooperation of many countries, which we had, and I would say it was completely satisfactory.
Swedish TV: What you are saying is that you are not denying that US midget submarines went deep into Swedish archipelago areas?
Weinberger: It is not a matter of admitting or denying. It is a matter of discussing the preparations that were taken to make sure defences were adequate against Soviet attack. I have no idea whether midget submarines were used or large submarines or attack submarines or nuclear or whatever. The point was that it was necessary to test frequently the capabilities of all countries, not only in the Baltic [Sea] – which is very strategic, of course – but in the Mediterranean and Asiatic waters and all the rest … defences against the Soviet capabilities and Soviet intentions. We had to know what their intentions were. We had to gather intelligence. We had to test from time to time to make sure that our defensive planning was adequate and up to date and capable of resisting any changes in Soviet strength and Soviet capabilities, and that was done on a regular basis. And it was not just done in the sea. It was done on air defences and on land defences, and it was done to protect possible landing areas. The whole thing was done satisfactory, and when I say satisfactory I mean there was no Soviet invasion. That was the test.
Swedish TV: How frequently was it done in Sweden?
Weinberger: I don’t know. Enough to comply to the military requirements for making sure that they were up to date. We would know when the Soviets required a new kind of submarine. We would then have to see if our defences were adequate against that. And all this was done on a regular basis, and on an agreed upon basis.