(Phnom Penh): Sweden’s decision to sign a contract on 25 August 2025 to sell four additional Gripen E/F fighter jets to Thailand could not have come at a more troubling moment. Only weeks earlier, Thai forces had deployed Gripen aircraft in active combat against Cambodia, conducting airstrikes that intensified border hostilities and placed civilians at grave risk. By pressing ahead with this deal despite such a context, there has been questions raising about Sweden’s credibility, its commitment to human rights value, and its adherence to international law.

The Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) and Sweden’s Obligations
Sweden is a state party to the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) in 2014, a landmark legal instrument regulating the international trade in conventional arms. The treaty sets out clear obligations that exporting states must abide. Under Article 6, states are prohibited from authorizing arms transfers if they know the weapons would be used in genocide, crimes against humanity, grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, or other war crimes. Article 7 further requires states to conduct rigorous risk assessments before approving arms exports and to deny transfers when there is an overriding risk the weapons could be used to commit or facilitate violations of international humanitarian law or human rights law, or to undermine peace and security. Moreover, Article 11 places an additional responsibility on states to prevent the diversion of arms to unauthorized uses, including those that might destabilize peace or fuel conflicts.

Applied to the present case, these provisions take on sharp relevance. Thailand had already used Gripen fighter jets in July 2025 during the Cambodia–Thailand border clashes, reportedly targeting not only Cambodian military positions but also striking civilian areas. The risk that such weapons would be used again in ways that violate international humanitarian law was therefore not theoretical; it was demonstrated in practice. By moving forward with the sale on August 25, Sweden appears to have disregarded its ATT obligations under Articles 6, 7, and 11. At the very least, this decision represents a failure of due diligence in conducting a cautious risk assessment.

Beyond the ATT: Wider International Legal Framework
The ATT does not stand alone. Other pillars of international law reinforce the principle that arms exporters must not enable aggression or undermine peace. The UN Charter, under Article 2(4), prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. Supplying offensive weaponry to one side in an active border dispute risks indirectly facilitating breaches of this fundamental rule of international law. Customary international law on state responsibility also prohibits states from aiding or assisting another state in committing internationally wrongful acts, including aggression or violations of sovereignty. By knowingly strengthening Thailand’s military capacity during an ongoing border conflict, Sweden risks being perceived as complicit in escalation.

International humanitarian law, particularly the Geneva Conventions, obliges all parties to conflict to distinguish between combatants and civilians and to refrain from targeting the latter. Supplying weapons that are already known to have been used against civilian populations raises Sweden’s potential complicity in possible breaches of international humanitarian law. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has also reinforced these principles. In its landmark Nicaragua judgment (1986), the Court made clear that providing material support to states engaged in unlawful uses of force may attract international responsibility for the aiding state. Against this legal backdrop, Sweden’s arms export decision cannot be viewed as a neutral commercial transaction. It risks making Sweden not just a bystander, but a silent enabler of aggression.

Reputational Damage
This contradiction is where the issue becomes most glaring. Sweden has long positioned itself as a global champion of human rights and humanitarian values. It is vocal in international forums about human dignity, peace, and democracy. Yet its actions in this case stand in sharp contrast. To lecture others about human rights while profiting from the sale of tools of war is not leadership; it is hypocrisy. The Gripen deal with Thailand has, in effect, undermined Sweden’s credibility as a humanitarian actor. Instead of reinforcing peace, the sale risks tipping the balance in a fragile border dispute and eroding the moral authority Sweden has carefully built over decades.

The escalation of this case demands urgent scrutiny and monitoring by the United Nations, in particular the Office for Disarmament Affairs (UNODA), ATT Secretariat, and Amnesty International. These institutions have a responsibility to investigate whether Sweden’s export risk assessment was conducted in line with its ATT obligations and with broader international legal framework. If found deficient, Sweden’s decision risks setting a dangerous precedent in the international arms trade, where commercial interest trumps humanitarian responsibility.

If Sweden wishes to maintain its moral standing, it must reckon honestly with the implications of this decision. That means reviewing the Gripen deal with Thailand in light of its treaty commitments, acknowledging the risks it has chosen to ignore, and ensuring that future arms trade policies reflect a genuine commitment to human rights and peace rather than short-term commercial gain. Anything less would not only erode Sweden’s credibility, but also weaken the international arms control regime itself. For a nation that has long presented itself as a champion of humanitarian values, this is a moment of reckoning: will Sweden choose profit, or will it honor peace?

Samath Chansomanith, President of VOHAR-Strategic Sight Center
=FRESH NEWS

Photo from Reuters