”A crime is always
a crime, and terror
is always terror, even
when it is committed
in the name of lofty
objectives and ideals.”
-- Olof Palme, 1965
”You know how it is:
When the big guys
call, one is eager
to do one’s bit.”
-- Göran Persson, 2000
An admirer places red roses, traditional symbol of
Social Democracy, on the grave of Olof Palme in
central Stockholm. It has become increasingly evident
that, as far as the current leadership is concerned, his
political legacy was buried with him.
Sweden’s Legacy of Peace
relatively little attention
to the historical context,
including the vastly
greater horrors of the
state terror long prac-
tised and encouraged
by the USA
There are signs that an
anti-war movement of
significant proportions
may be forming.
Not anymore. The dust had barely settled on the rubble of the World Trade Center in New York when Prime Minister Göran Persson announced his ”unconditional support” for any measures that the United States might care to take in response to the terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001. Two weeks into the massive bombing of Afghanistan, whose responsibility for the attacks has yet to be established, the Swedish prime minister’s support for the U.S. remains unshaken.
According to opinion polls, that stance is approved by a slight majority of the Swedish population-- with the customary division between belligerent males and more peacefully inclined females. This is hardly surprising, given the emphasis of major news media on the ”inexplicable” horror of the terror attacks. The military response was preceded with the customary demonization of the United States’ chosen targets and, now that the high-tech hunt is on, the standard images of the good guys chasing the bad guys dominate the news. The harmful consequences for innocent bystanders have also been reported, but that has yet to become the main story.
As usual, there has been relatively little attention to the historical context, including the vastly greater horrors of the state terror long practised and encouraged by the United States. (For a discussion of these and related issues, see The Word from the White House, especially ”Appendix E: Philip Agee”.)
Dissenting voices
There have, of course, been a few dissenting voices amidst the general chorus of anxiety and sympathy for the wounded superpower. The two political parties that have provided essential support to the minority Social Democratic government during the current term, the Left and the Greens, have objected to Prime Minister Persson’s endorsement of the latest U.S. assault on a backward nation.
As in other European countries, there are also signs that an anti-war movement of significant proportions may be forming. On October 20th, several thousand turned out for a demonstration in Stockholm against the war and their government’s acquiescence-- a respectable showing for a country of less than nine million in which issues of war and peace have attracted little interest during recent years.
Among the most influential voices of dissent is that of the current president of the Swedish National Press Club, author and journalist, Jan Guillou. Often accused of macho tendencies that include an unhealthy interest in weapons and hunting, Guillou demonstratively refused to participate in three-minutes of silence observed throughout Europe to honour the victims of the attacks in New York and Washington, reasoning as follows:
were directed to manifest
collectively, was decreed
to be greater than for
any other event since
World War II."
"The wars against
Vietnam and the other
countries of Southeast Asia,
alone, took a toll of four
million lives-- without a
single silent moment being
observed in Sweden."
The prime minister has said that the terrorist attack against the U.S. was, in fact, ’an attack against us all’. That is not true, of course. . . . The terrorists attacked U.S. imperialism. No one on earth should have been capable of misunderstanding that message.
[With the three minutes of silence] we were pressed into service as Americans. Our grief, which we were directed to manifest collectively, was decreed to be greater than for any other event since World War II.
The terrorists who attacked the U.S. killed an incredibly large number of innocent people-- up to ten thousand lives according to some estimates. That is roughly one-third the number of innocent human lives taken during Israel’s attack on Lebanon at the start of the 1980s. . . . But no Stockholm editoriialist would have conceived the preposterous notion of calling for a single minute’s silence for their sake, nor would any of that bloodthirsty tribe have informed us that we are all Lebanese.
The United States is the great mass murderer of our time. The wars against Vietnam and neighbouring countries of Southeast Asia, alone, took a toll of four million lives-- without a single silent moment being observed in Sweden.
The flag-wavers want us to join a war on the American side. It is we whites in the rich part of the world against the Muslim world. The U.S. government has clearly explained that we are at war. It is thus no small revenge for which we are being prepared. Several Stockholm newspapers have already coupled us to that war by openly referring to both a ’crusade’ and a ’holy war’. This is the implication of the slogan that we are all Americans. . . .
[But] we are not Americans. We are Europeans, and it is for very obvious reasons that terrorists from the tormented and repeatedly mass-murdered Muslim world attacked the United States and not Europe. . . .
A defence of terrorism? Of course not. My modest proposal is simply that we regard U.S. wars of terror through the same moral prism as we do Muslim terrorism.(Excerpted from Aftonbladet, 2001-09-17)
”anti-Americanism” are
beginning to fly about with
a frequency and intensity
reminiscent of the Cold
War’s darkest hours,
causing some observers to
express concern about the
potential for resurgent
McCarthyism.
Persson and key
government officials
strongly supported
USA/NATO's war
of aggression against
Yugoslavia, even to
the extent of adding
their voices to the
associated propaganda.
Resurgent McCarthyism
The colliding principles of the Liberal Party raise the question of whether it is possible to support U.S. foreign policy and still tolerate complete freedom of speech. It is a question that could become increasingly relevant in the months and years ahead if the current, somewhat hysterical, atmosphere of public debate persists. Based on an apparently widespread faith in the good intentions and basic goodness of the United States, angry accusations of ”anti-Americanism” are beginning to fly about with a frequency and intensity reminiscent of the Cold War’s darkest hours, causing some observers to express concern about the potential for resurgent McCarthyism. (The history of Swedish relations with the U.S. is reviewed in The Price of Everything under the heading of "Safe in the Arms of Uncle Sam, Again".)
In any event, Guillou has received broad support for the views he expressed in Aftonbladet, which is associated with the labour movement and is Sweden’s largest-circulation daily, suggesting that the principles and values which in the past informed Sweden’s foreign policy are not completely dead among the grassroots.
But as noted, the attitude of the Social Democratic leadership is a very different story. An informal alliance with the U.S. and its NATO allies had already begun to take shape when Sweden joined the European Union in 1995, and the process accelerated when Göran Persson became prime minister and party leader in 1996. Under his leadership, Sweden has more or less abandoned the widely-admired foreign policy that was pursued during most of the past century by such prominent figures as Dag Hammarskjöld, Alva Myrdal and Olof Palme.
That profound shift in foreign policy, which has never been exposed to systematic debate, was consolidated in 1999 when USA/NATO attacked Yugoslavia in the name of human rights, unleashing a human-rights disaster in the process. Persson and key government officials strongly supported that war of aggression, even to the extent of adding their voices to the associated propaganda. They chose, for example, to repeat highly doubtful assertions that the flood of Kosovo refugees triggered by the NATO bombings constituted ”genocide”, and that Yugoslavian President Slobodan Milosevic was entirely to blame.
Until recently, the people of Sweden have been largely spared that sort of unbalanced posturing by its national leaders, especially in matters of such historic complexity and diffuse responsibility.
Leadership crisis
The Persson government’s enthusiasm for USA/NATO aggression in the Balkans reflects the leadership crisis that has afflicted Social Democratic parties throughout Europe, as noted in an editorial by Ignacio Ramonet in Le Monde Diplomatique:
yield to pressure from
Washington and embark
on a military escapade
that has not a shred of
international legitimacy?"
For the first time since it was established in 1949, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation is engaged in a war against a country that has not committed any act of aggression outside its own frontiers. . . . NATO is supported in this decision principally by the French, German, Italian and U.K. heads of government, Lionel Jospin, Gerhard Schröder, Massimo d'Alema and Tony Blair-- all four of them eminent proponents of social democracy in Europe. . . .
How could Social Democrat leaders, heirs to Jean Jaurès and a long tradition of respect for international law, yield to pressure from Washington and embark on a military escapade that has not a shred of international legitimacy? . . . It is impossible not to see his departure as yet another sign of the ideological collapse of social democracy. The movement has completely lost its bearings…(Le Monde Diplomatique, April 1999)
A tantalizing indication of
possible "guidance" by the
United States is the curious
career of Xavier Solana,"the
informal caretaker of U.S.
interests in the EU".
Sweden’s loss of bearings
is intimately related to the
country’s entry into the
European Union in 1995.
Persson & Co. have
conducted a purge of EU
critics and sceptics that is
now fairly complete.
But there are some tantalizing indications, such as the curious career of the Spanish Social Democrat, Xavier Solana. A fierce opponent of NATO throughout most of his political life, Solana somehow ended up as Secretary General of that organization in 1995. It was somewhat like selecting an atheist to be Pope, or a ”nigger-lover” to head the Ku Klux Klan. Such transformations are highly unlikely to occur by chance.
 |
|
|
Lindh shares an agreeable moment with her counterpart at the EU level, Xavier Solana. |
EUrosion
In Sweden’s case, the loss of bearings is intimately related to the country’s entry into the European Union in 1995. Since then, its once distinctive profile has suffered steady erosion as the result of at least three factors: the display of and, in many areas, the requirement of unity which EU membership implies; the ”ideological collapse” of social democracy lamented by Le Monde Diplomatique; and Prime Minister Persson, whose knowledge and understanding of foreign policy issues are (even according to party colleagues) quite limited.
The influence of EU membership on Sweden’s foreign policy is reflected in the opposing views of two prominent Social Democrats who were closely associated with Olof Palme. Pierre Schori, at present Ambassador to the United Nations, strongly supported the NATO bombings and was among those who molested the truth by referring to the Kosovo refugee disaster as ”genocide”. Maj-Britt Théorin, Palme’s Ambassador for Disarmament and current member of the EU parliament, strongly opposed the bombings in accordance with traditional Social Democratic ideals.
Schori is a strong supporter of the EU and seeks to expand its authority at the expense of Sweden’s; Théorin is an equally convinced sceptic who is attempting to impede such a supra-national development. For her troubles, Théorin has been rewarded with grateful appreciation by a large majority of the Social Democratic membership-- and with consistent efforts by Göran Persson & Co. to minimize her influence. Among other things, she was bumped down to fourth place on the party’s list of candidates in the 1999 election to the EU parliament, to be replaced in the top position by Schori.
This was part of a general purge of EU critics and sceptics that is now fairly complete, continuing the power politics and manipulation that have characterized the SDP leadership’s EU policy from the start. (For details, see ”Doubtful Referendum” in Great European Expectations.)
the EU’s has always been a
submissive partner: What
the United States wants,
it usually gets.
The people of Sweden are
likely to wake up one day
in the not-too-distant
future to discover that
their country has been
drawn into a military
alliance, like it or not.
In foreign policy matters, the EU’s has always been a submissive partner in NATO: What the United States wants, it usually gets, and the latest Balkan tragedy was no exception. Although Sweden is not yet a member of NATO, it is clearly being led in that direction by a series of gradual accommodations, including an ever-deepening involvement in the halfway house dubbed ”Partnership for Peace”. Via that channel and EU membership, Swedish troops have served in Kosovo under NATO command.
Full-fledged membership in NATO is not yet politically possible, since a large majority of the Swedish population remains stubbornly opposed to the idea. But the process of gradual accommodation continues, and the people of Sweden are likely to wake up one day in the not-too-distant future to discover that their country has de facto been drawn into the military alliance, like it or not.
The most important component of that process has been the government’s endorsement of the United States’ right to rule the world. A few years ago, it was still possible to hear leading figures like Pierre Schori issue warnings about the perils of Pax Americana. But that sort of talk has now been replaced by a willingness to ”understand” the necessity of such U.S. aggression as that against Sudan, Yugoslavia and, for the second time in recent years, Afghanistan.
 |
|
|
under NATO command. |
In short, the country that was once regarded as the western world’s ”one honourable exception” in its early and forceful opposition to the Vietnam War, is being inexorably drawn into the violent realm of Pax Americana by the government of Göran Persson.
Poaching policeman
One measure of just how far Prime Minister Göran Persson has wandered from the peaceful path of Sweden’s traditional foreign policy has been provided by the reaction of his predecessor, Ingvar Carlsson, to the NATO assault on Yugoslavia. Writing in the International Herald-Tribune and The Guardian, Carlsson and Shridath Ramphal of Guyana* argued that:
turned poachers, posing as
policemen. This temptation
to assume police powers on
the basis of righteousness
and military strength is
dangerous for world order
and world peace; what
results is a world ordered
by vigilante action."
NATO air strikes against Yugoslavia have not been authorized by the United Nations. That authority was not even sought. They are therefore acts of aggression against a sovereign country; and as such they strike at the heart of the rule of international law and the authority of the United Nations. Because they are acts undertaken by the world's most militarily powerful countries, that damage is incalculable. . . .
NATO countries assert their respect for the Charter of the United Nations and the norms of international law that arise from it. Europe, in particular, claims moral authority as a custodian of internationalism. Now the gamekeepers have turned poachers, posing as policemen. This temptation to assume police powers on the basis of righteousness and military strength is dangerous for world order and world peace; what results is a world ordered by vigilante action. . . .
If in our responses we become violators too, in the end we return to a dark time when might alone is right and law comes out of the barrel of a gun.(The Guardian; 1999-04-02)
*Note: Ingvar Carlson was the Social Democratic prime minister of Sweden from the time of Palme’s assassination in 1986 until 1991, and again from 1994-95. He and Shridath Ramphal were co-chairmen of the Commission on Global Governance, which in 1994 presented recommendations for strengthening the U.N. that have been thwarted by the United States and other major powers.
several veterans of the
Palme era have pointedly
expressed their displeasure
with various aspects of the
Persson government’s
foreign policy.
It is, of course, highly unusual for a former prime minister to so openly rebuke a successor, especially one within the same party. At the time, little attention was paid to Carillon’s critique and its deeper implications, due partly to the incorporation of the mainstream press into the propaganda apparatus of the USA/ NATO, and partly to the Social Democrats’ traditional distaste for open conflict.
But during the past year, several veterans of the Palme era have pointedly expressed their displeasure with various aspects of the Persson government’s foreign policy. One of them is Sten Andersson, who served as foreign minister under both Palme and Carlsson, and for two decades played a key role in efforts to resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict. Andersson has been very outspoken in his criticism of Persson’s tilt toward Israel in conformity with U.S. policy and, most likely, with his personal inclinations.
Former Defence Minister Thage G. Peterson has on several occasions tried to raise the alarm about the steady slide into NATO, but has run into a fairly solid wall of indifference from the dominant news media.
The latest bombing war of the United States has inevitably provoked another occasion for discord within the SDP. Ingvar Carlsson has again expressed sharp exception to his successor’s policy, this time in an unusually blunt joint article with former Education Minister Carl Tham published on 22 September in Sweden’s leading debate forum, the op-ed page of Dagens Nyheter: ”It is the U.S. which ultimately sets the international agenda,” they write, ”which decides what is possible and what is not possible. This is done at times with an arrogance of power that causes friends and allies to react.”
They criticize the inequitable neo-liberalism which the U.S. is primarily responsible for imposing on the world, with devastating consequences. ”Those who do not understand the connection between economic misery, class divisions and violence have learned nothing from the history of the 20th century,” argue Carlsson and Tham, and note that many people in the Third World ”associate the West not with democracy, but with oppression and racism”.
The article is a scathing indictment of the ”new world order” which the U.S. and its allies have concocted since the end of the Cold War, and the authors emphasize that the U.N. Security Council ”has not given the clear signal for massive retaliation. Such measures would violate international law, the ideals of democracy and common sense.”
Foreign Minister Anna
Lindh stated the following:
”What is happening now
in Chechen is
unacceptable. We said
right from the beginning
that one cannot fight
terrorists by means of a
full-scale military war.”
But that was then and
Russia, this is now and
the United States.
Misleading the people
But those violations are now being committed with accustomed brutality, to hardly anyone’s surprise, and the question of whether or not they have been sanctioned by the U.N. is crucial to Swedish foreign policy. In response to criticism from a wide variety of sources, the Persson government has tried to justify the prime minister’s original blanket endorsement of the U.S. reprisals by referring to the two Security Council resolutions adopted after the terror attacks on September 11th, and by referring to the large number of other governments that have consented to the U.S. assault on Afghanistan.
Among the many who challenge the government’s interpretation are two of Sweden’s acknowledged authorities in such matters: Maj-Britt Théorin (see above) whose long experience includes twenty years as a delegate to the United Nations, and Sverker Åström, former U.N. ambassador who also served for many years as a high official of the Foreign Ministry under both Social Democratic and centre-right governments.
Åström agrees entirely with Carlsson and Tham that the U.S. does not have any legal right to attack Afghanistan: ”That the resolutions repeat a self-evident fact, i.e. that Article 51 of the U.N. Charter grants the right of self-defence, does not provide a mandate for any state to take military measures in order to prevent future attacks by terrorists. . . . Sweden has always applied a very restrictive interpretation to the right of self-defence in Article 51.”
Maj-Britt Théorin concurs: ”It is not possible to interpret the U.N. Charter to mean that it grants the right to retaliation two, three or four weeks after an attack. The Charter has never been interpreted in that way.” She says outright that the Persson government is misleading the people, but adds that, ”It is necessary to look at the political situation. There has been enormous pressure from the U.S. to get approval for what it is doing.”
It was not so very long ago that the Persson government was of the same mind. In December of 1991, for example, Foreign Minister Anna Lindh stated the following: ”What is happening now in Chechen is totally unacceptable. We said right from the beginning that one cannot fight terrorists by means of a full-scale military war.”
But that was then and Russia, this is now and the United States, and the Swedish government is not the only one that has succumbed to the logic and pressure of the superpower. That is a political reality which Sverker Åström acknowledges, and concludes that the effect has been to redefine the practical significance of Article 51 in a way that is hardly reassuring.
a little balance and wisdom
in the assessment of the
situation. I do not want
to see a social democracy
which has lost touch with
the policy and philosophy
of peace that we have
upheld for a very,
very long time.”
”Time and time again," observes Åström, "the right of self-defence has been wrongly invoked to justify military action, especially by the U.S. and Israel. The Security Council has on several occasions condemned that broad interpretation. Now, a new praxis is being introduced which may become established, and that changes the entire situation. . . . It is an extremely important precedent which can lead to the law of the jungle. We have already seen that Russia uses it to justify its actions in Chechen. Israel uses the same argument to justify its behaviour in the occupied areas, and China may start using it at any time to crush resistance movements. . . . What it does is to provide strong states with an excuse to go to military attack on the pretext that they have been subjected to terrorist actions.”
”I am very worried,” agrees Maj-Britt Théorin. ”I am especially worried that people have so readily fallen into the trap of believing that the solution to terrorism lies in military action. That is not at all where the solution is to be found. . . . I am also disturbed by the meek acquiescence [of the Persson government], when one would have expected a little balance and wisdom in the assessment of the situation. I do not want to see a social democracy which has lost touch with the policy and philosophy of peace that we have upheld for a very, very long time.”
 |
|
|
a firm grip on the Social Democratic Party apparatus |
As previously noted, open revolt is not something that comes easily to Swedes, and especially not to the membership of the Social Democratic Party. It is more likely that the ideological collapse of the past decade will continue and that, if there is ever to be a revival of genuine social democracy in Sweden, it will have to be within the framework of a different structure, possibly under a different banner.
Al Burke
21 October 2001
Further reading
For a more detailed discussions of the issues touched upon here, see:
Things by Their Right Names. A review of the process by which "The Legacy of Olof Palme" has been discarded by his successors.
Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research (TFF)
Web site with a wide variety of information on these and related issues. See especially PressInfo nos. 133 & 134, available in both English and Swedish.