LSE student Love-Lis Liljeström presents her campaign proposal for our Masters module in Advocacy, Campaigns and Grassroots Activism. She aims to ban Sweden from exporting arms to human rights violators. To do so means understanding the system that leads to the arms sales, the stakeholders who can influence such decisions, and finding the right combination of narrative and tactics to build a powerful advocacy coalition.

Sweden set a new record in 2024: 29 billion Swedish kronor (£2.26bn) in arms exports, the highest figure in my country’s history. More than a third of these arms went to countries with alarming human rights records, despite existing regulations meant to prevent this.

Last year, as part of an LSE activism course, I designed a campaign to expose this contradiction and advocate for a total ban on arms exports to states that violate human rights. I learned that the system behind the arms exports was political and partly hidden, which is why I had to go beyond illustrative statistics and debate articles. I needed a clear strategy, a creative coalition, and an understanding of power dynamics.

Understanding the System

To plan an effective campaign, I had to understand why Sweden continues to be one of the largest arms exporters per capita and why regulations fail to stop sales to regimes with troubling human rights records. Using an Ishikawa (fishbone) diagram, I identified different factors.

Sweden’s policy of armed neutrality and non-alignment historically required a self-sufficient military and a strong defence industry, largely financed by arms exports. Today, as a member of the EU and NATO, Sweden has abandoned the principles of neutrality and non-alignment, but the government’s dual role in promoting and regulating arms exports persists, as does the expansive arms industry.

There is a mismatch between Sweden’s self-perception as a peace-promoting nation and its actual arms trade practices. While regulations prohibit arms sales to states that violate human rights and international law, loopholes allow political and security interests to override these concerns.

Finding the Right Entry Points for Change

I identified three points of entry (POEs) for my campaign:

1. Regulatory reform – closing loopholes in existing policies.
2. Political pressure – mobilising decision-makers to support a total ban.
3. Public awareness-building – shaping narratives to shift public opinion and create pressure on politicians.

I realised that a direct push for regulatory change would be difficult without first building political momentum and public support. My understanding was also that past efforts to tighten regulations had failed due to the political nature of the Swedish arms export system. Realising that only a political decision could enforce a total ban, the two latter POEs became the focus of the campaign.

Mapping Power and Building Coalitions

Understanding power was crucial. Who makes the decisions? Who influences them? Who can block change? Who benefits?

Using the Power Cube, I analysed both the visible and hidden power structures behind Sweden’s arms exports. The Power Map helped me identify key actors: political allies, potential messengers, and industry players who might resist change. I found informal ties between civil society actors, members within the political system, decision-making bodies, weapons manufacturers, banks, and shareholders.

In previous campaigns against arms sales, focus was often on specific cases (e.g. arms sales to Israel or Saudi Arabia) or for different causes (climate activism, disarmament, anti-war movements) rather than taking a system approach. Inspired by Crisis Action’s brilliant Handbook for Change, I realised that a successful influencing strategy would require a creative coalition.

By selecting the most well-positioned actors and individuals from my power map, I sought to unite several civil society actors, grassroots movements, and political allies to build a critical mass with a shared goal. Svenska Freds, Sweden’s leading peace organisation specialising in arms export policy, emerged as the ideal strategic convenor for the diverse set of actors to harness their expertise and coordinate efforts.

Tactics: Balancing Insider and Outsider Strategies

I created three bespoke coalitions to pursue different tracks combining sets of insider and outsider tactics. The idea was to group coalition actors based on their expertise and where they could have most influence or hold most legitimacy in the eyes of our targets, which had been made clear in the power-mapping exercise.

• Public engagement: Raising awareness through media, storytelling, student art competitions, and public displays.
• Political messaging: Leveraging influential messengers and political allies to present statistics and information to shift the narrative within political circles.
• Corporate pressure: Exposing and pressuring weapons manufacturers and their financial backers to create reputational risks.

Each track aimed to reinforce the other, unfolding in four distinct phases organised around critical junctures, creating momentum that would peak during Sweden’s annual arms export review in November 2025, when a parliamentary motion for the ban could be “put in motion” or: formally proposed.

The Importance of Framing and Messaging

Initially, I focused heavily on statistics and scorecards, highlighting the contradiction between Sweden’s humanitarian and peace-promoting efforts and the reality of its arms exports. I also sought to leverage the ongoing national aid-cuts debate to illustrate the hypocrisy.

For example, I found that while Sweden sent millions in aid to the conflict-stricken Sudan, it also sold billions in arms to the UAE. UAE is accused of fueling that same conflict, and was Sweden’s top receiver of arms last year. Would these types of contradictions be enough to attract media attention and spark political debate?

In 2019, satellite images linked Swedish manufactured arms to suspected war crimes in Yemen. Since Sweden was engaged in the peace process at that time, this scandal caused a brief media stir. Yet, after the controversy faded, arms sales to regimes with troubling human rights records continued to increase.

An important (if not the most important!) lesson from the LSE course was this: activists cannot assume that people will care and bring about change just because information is made available. In other words, simply exposing this contradiction would not be enough to attract the attention of a broader Swedish audience.

A different Approach

I was inspired by Oxfam’s Influencing for Impact Guideto refine my outsider tactics and their framing to better connect with people’s values and motivations.

I designed two different media campaigns. One emphasised Sweden’s peace-promoting identity using the iconic Swedish-made Knotted Gun sculpture to resonate with intrinsic values of peace and justice.

The other challenged extrinsic values, in this case profit-driven motives, exposing how financial, rather than security interests drive arms sales. This targeted weapons manufacturers and their financiers, undermining their credibility and increasing political pressure for reform.

For example, a suggested communication for the campaign took direct aim at SAAB, Sweden’s largest arms manufacturer, using their own slogan against them:

SAAB says, “It’s a human right to feel safe.” But while SAAB profits, humans pay the price. Stop Sweden from arming human rights violators. Support the ban.

Lessons Learned

Planning this influencing strategy taught me that successful activism goes beyond raising awareness or overwhelming people with information, hoping it will resonate (which I admit I’ve been guilty of on my channels). It requires a deep understanding of power dynamics, knowing your audience, and strategically engaging the actors best positioned to bring about change.

My key takeaways:

• Power mapping identifies decision-makers and influence points. Knowing who has the power to make change, and who can block it, is crucial.
• Coalition-building isn’t just about numbers; it’s about building power with, and positioning the right actors strategically.
• Effective framing and messaging connects with values, not just facts and statistics. People respond to narratives that resonate with their beliefs and emotions.

While Sweden’s arms export contradictions remain, I believe that a strategic, coalition-driven approach could offer a real chance to drive change. To summarise, influence is not just about exposing the problem, it’s about knowing where, how, and whom to push.