By Shastri Ramachandaran, Editor, Times of India
Stockholm
March 26, 2002
STOCKHOLM: Has Sweden lost its way? Or is it merely stuck at the crossroads?
This is the dilemma of a pioneer. Having opted out of the beaten course, the path-breaker must for ever be conscientious about progress in a chosen direction. It calls for sustained vision to remain steadfast in a self-elected mission.
Unfortunately, Sweden, once perceived as a moral superpower that outshone the nuclear powers in their battle armour has lost its reference points: the twin routes of unbridled capitalism and Stalinist socialism between which it charted a promising new way. The Third Way, born of the visionary-activism of Olof Palme, one of the tallest social democrats and celebrated ‘Third Worlder’, was a beacon of hope for many in the South, and also sections in the North, who were unwilling to hitch their wagon to the Cold Warriors. But with the end of the Cold War, in the absence of two divergent routes leading from Washington-NATO and Moscow-COMECON, Sweden seems to have lost its way.
Where and how can there be a Third Way when there are no two other ways? is the despairing question I was repeatedly confronted with by representatives of official Sweden during my eight-day sojourn from Malmo and Lund through Kalmar to Stockholm. Was it a justification, or an apology, for Sweden being reduced to a virtual fellow-traveller of the US, EU and NATO in a unipolar world? One answer is that such a trap is the consequence of predicating a Third Way on the existence of two others, and not as a genuine alternative founded on its own logic and purpose. Because there is nothing in the globalised world of today that is more needed than an alternative vision and direction.
If our story begins with Palme, what did Sweden stand for in his time: A model and humane welfare state with a vibrant civil society striving to internationalise these values. The pillars of this internationalism, dedicated to peace with development and democracy for all, were non-alignment, neutrality, respect for the UN, its mandate and sovereignty of small states and disarmament. If Swedish policy, once proudly independent, is tested against any of these today, the results are disheartening. The official viewpoints I came across are rationalisations for departure from the principles Palme, although the emotional loyalty to his legacy is undiminished among influential figures like foreign minister Anna Lindh.
Lindh is admittedly upset at criticism of her government having jettisoned the policies of Palme because Sweden is part of the US campaign against terrorism. “What Palme did was remarkable during the time of Cold War when US and USSR did not care for smaller states and supported military regimes and dictatorships”, she said in her office in Stockholm. She asserted that it is not Swedish policy but the world that has changed. “We are still independent when it comes to defending developing countries, human rights and criticising the US, as on National Missile Defence”.
Lindh is uncomfortable with Sweden playing superpower, moral or of any other kind. “This is self-glorification and not good, because the EU can be a power, not Sweden which can be just a voice”, and yet she admits that “Sweden is diminished”, hinting at aspirations of engaging in concerns that are not to the fore today.
She is more forthright in “describing Bush’s language as terrible” but is relieved that his “action has not been terrible so far (till Oct 5, before the war began against Afghanistan).
Recalling issues on which Sweden has criticised the US, particularly on the inefficacy of sanctions that only hurt people already suffering under an oppressive political leadership, Lindh takes care to distance herself from statements of prime minister Goran Persson.
Quizzed about Persson’s description of the September 11 attack as an “attack on democracy”, Lindh is evidently uncomfortable with the “West versus Rest” implication in it. China, Cuba and Singapore, for example, may not be formal democracies in the Western sense, but can they be cast as ‘the other’ in this war? She differs and says she would go further: Terrorism has no political or ideological colours and should not be cast in racial or religions terms or connected to forms of governance.
The second point on which she distances herself from the prime minister, with her characteristic charm and subtlety, is Sweden’s role in the Middle East conflict. Asked about Swedish policy becoming pro-Israel and anti-PLO, Lindh says that this is the accusation of Sten Andersson, a former foreign minister and initiator of the Stockholm Process, against the prime minister. Her own position, she states, is unwavering: for a Palestinian state, for removal of Israeli settlements on West Bank, vacation of occupied territories on the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and for an end to extra-territorial executions and attacks.
Of course, Lindh is emphatic that if one thing has not changed with the end of the Cold War it is the injustices and inequalities between the North and South. Yet there is little debate on this dimension that is conspicuously absent in present-day Swedish diplomatic activism. The focus is clearly on the European Union, the so-called Partnership for Peace with NATO and the nuances of Swedish engagement with Washington. There is little of the North-South imbalances which stirred Swedes passionately at one time.
In conversations with defence minister Bjorn von Sydow, Lars Danielsson, state secretary for international and EU affairs in the prime minister’s office and Sven-Olof Petersson, director-general of political affairs in the foreign ministry, all talk is about Sweden’s role in the continental concert called EU. There is much they have to say about the initiatives when Sweden was in the chair from January to June 2001: enhancement of EU’s crisis management capability, giving shape to the military-diplomatic relationship, working towards the Rapid Intervention Force, moves for greater openness and transparency and so on. The sole mention of anything in the southern hemisphere, apart from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, is the Swedish prime minister’s bid to promote the reconciliation process between North and South Koreas.
As Sydow was candid enough to confess “There are no Swedish tunes” here.
Clearly Sweden’s new internationalism is ‘Westward Ho’ and not the beacon it once was for the Southern nations. Another commonplace country in any commonplace Western grouping; acquiescient and eager to get on with the way the current flows in the Northern hemisphere. No longer troubled by the need to find alternatives, not hindered by new thinking for the new problems and inequalities created by globalisation.
Yet the very fact that some in the establishment are uneasy enough to be apologetic or at least appear different, and that there is a churning within the Social Democratic Party which is vocal in its criticism, holds out hope. Hope of forcing more debate on the direction of Swedish policies and making the government heed the many voices in the party and the country clamouring for Sweden to recover its ‘model’ role in world affairs.
