Monday, May 16, 2005
Who’s under fire?
   The Commissioner from Sweden, Margot Wallström, is under fire. She made a speech in which she reminded the listeners of the horrors of the Nazi atrocities in Terezin during Second World War. In the written part of the speech (she never actually said it) is the following line (my translation from Swedish): “I say that those opposing the new EU constitution should come to Terezin and see for themselves where the old road is leading”.
    Mr Sjöstedt, a representative of the Swedish communist party in the EU Parliament and a severe and strenuous opponent to the new EU constitution (and to the Swedish membership in the EU, for that matter), takes his chance to attack the one person from Sweden who really appears to understand the EU concept as a peace project. “Resign”, says he. “We cannot have one of the major representatives of the Commission express an opinion that is so offensive to me and all others who oppose the new EU constitution. ..snip.. Holocaust is about a totalitarian power which wasn’t stopped in time”.
    The New EU constitution is just that, a way to create a strong super-state body which is able to stop despotic state leaders to repeat what the Nazis once did. That means that Margot Wallström is on the right track and the communist representative is shooting himself in the foot. At least in my opinion. So, Margot Wallström, keep up the good work. ▲

Sunday, May 15, 2005
NGO laundering?
   Sweden is the chairman of the international anti money laundering organisation FATF. In order to show off (one presumes) the Government is about to propose a new legislation in order to prevent money laundering by terrorist organisations through certain NGOs involved with foreign aid. The new legislation is specifically aimed at NGO-organisations such as the Red Cross, Diakonia, YMCA and some one-hundred other NGO organisations. It means that the government will give itself the right to scrutinise the books of these organisations. The affected organisations and the Swedish Helsinki Committee for Human Rights are naturally protesting.
   If the Government is getting its way it will probably be the end of much of NGOs’ support of organisations and individuals working for freedom on their respective territories. If names and other sensitive information are made public property through government authorities, it will in many cases simply be too dangerous for the human rights NGOs to expose such information. They will likely have to reduce their involvement in the third world to the repair of bridges and filling in potholes on the roads.
   The new legislation suits the central state governments well; they have always preferred monopoly on foreign policy, including foreign aid and support. But as long as the world state governments and human rights organisation are unable to agree on a workable terrorist definition, acceptable to all parties, the state government is embarking on dangerous road by using the terrorist card as a pretext or excuse for this type of legislation. Particularly since the Government is referring to FATF’s very short list of suspicious organisations.
    Contrary to what the Swedish Government seems to think, there are strong reasons to continue to permit and support free NGOs to explore new avenues in the field of human rights and regional self-rule. By introducing the type of legislation, which the Swedish Government may now do, it may flush an important peace-baby out with the bathwater. That is NGO Laundering and not Money Laundering. And that’s tragic.  ▲
 

Saturday, May 14, 2005
Sitting on the loot
   The Swedish Prime Minister visited Moscow on May 8th to commemorate the end of World War II. In a speech in Moscow he explained why Sweden was “neutral” during the last two world wars (..because..) "Sweden had for two hundred years wanted peace”, he said and added “Just imagine if every state had done the same thing”.
    The major Stockholm newspaper Dagens Nyheter calls his statement “a breakneck interpretation of history”. But Dagens Nyheter only applies contemporary history views on the Prime Minister’s statement instead of asking what happened prior to Sweden’s so called “two-hundred-year peace policy".
    How about Sweden’s involvement in the thirty-year war on the northern European continent, Germany in particular? How about the expansionist invasions of Denmark in from 1276 to 1676? How about the colonisation of northen Scandinavia (Norrland) during the last few centuries? How about the “big-power” ambitions in the Baltic countries?
    It was not an insignificant little militia group from Sweden riding into Denmark on the 26 February 1658. It was probably the most powerful military force Europe has ever seen since Alexander the Great, with a lot of experience from 30 years of military fighting. Some scholars suggest that the Scanian population was reduced by as much as 35 to 48 % during the period of 1658 and 1719. At the end of the Swedish expansionist wars, Sweden had added a lot of territory to the central region of Sweden (Svealand) at a tremendous suffering and social cost to the affected provinces.
    It is easy for someone - like the Swedish Prime Minister - who is sitting on the loot, to be talking about being “peace loving” and “neutral”. It is also on the steep side, to say the least, to lecture others about the morality of staying out of wars. Who does not want to sit in peace if you have stolen territory and war booty to watch over? ▲
 

Sunday, May 08, 2005
Peace in Europe
Today is the 60th anniversary of the end of the second world war. Tomorrow, on the 9th of May, it is exactly 55 years since the French Foreign Minister Robert Schuman announced his plans for a unified Europe. His foresight was incredible; his plan for Europe (which started with a super state control of steel and coal of which guns are made), is still working and has developed into what is the European Union of today.
    It is important, on this anniversary of Peace in Europe, to remind ourselves of the motives of the “founding fathers” of the European Union, Robert Schuman and Jean Monnet: “No more wars to originate from European soil”.
    Their insights of the mechanisms which start wars, and their recipe to prevent them, has led to a non-war Europe for 60 years. Those of us who are reaching sixty years of age belong, in fact, to the first generation to live a peaceful life without a war in Europe. For which we are Robert Schuman and Jean Monnet very grateful.
    What was the core of their insight? Did Bavaria or Slesvig-Holstein start wars? No, it has always been the central government in Berlin doing that. Did Scotland or Wales start wars? No, it has always been the central government of the UK. Did Bretagne or Normandy start wars? No, it has always been the central government of France. Wherever you look in the world you find that it is the central governments who are demonstrating their inability to get along with their neighbours. With almost frightening regularity the central state governments have been, and still are, producing despotic leaderships who have made life miserable for ordinary people.
    So, the recipe, according to Schuman and Monnet, is to phase out the central states’ previous "sovereignty" (in another word to do what they please) and share the power between two other levels of authority. One up: to the European Union and one down: to the Regions of Europe. This is the main thread and the connecting thought one can perceive right through the various EU treaties from Rome to Nice. It is the basic idea behind the new treaty that the European central states presently are in agony about (nobody likes loosing power for any reason!).
    To phase out the central states, with their violent pasts, in favour of a common Europe and stronger European regions is behind the phrase “The European Union is a Peace Project”. It is my humble opinion that those who object to the new European constitution, knowingly or not, favour future wars and other conflicts on European soil.
    For those who think that new violent conflicts in Europe are unthinkable. Think again. It only takes a certain charismatic party leader (for instance: in France), an engaging subject (for instance: immigrants and refugees) and a propaganda friendly mass media (for instance: a major state television station) and the polished boots will again be marching in Europe.
    Today is the anniversary of the end of the Second Word War and tomorrow is the anniversary of Schuman’s plan to stop future warmongers in Europe. ▲
 

Sunday, May 08, 2005
Differentness?
In today’s Sydsvenskan, the largest regional newspaper, is an article on a relatively new magazine called “Magasin Skåne”. It is about the province of Skåne, sometime referred to in the article as a “region”. The publisher is interviewed in length.
    The slogan in the present issue of “Magasin Skåne” is “The New Good Life”. The publisher is suggesting that the state level is on the decline in Europe and the regions is moving up. He talks about the importance of a regional identity as a platform for the development of the future. And the magazine's definition of regional identity is regional good food, cultural events and a good life on the countryside. That’s all.
    The journalist does apparently not like the idea of a Scanian identity and tries to manoeuvre the publisher of the magazine into the corner of Skåne equals xenophobia. In his eagerness to throw suspicion on Scanian initiatives, he uses an seldom used word for something odd and suspicious: “annorlundahet” (“differentness”). Regionalists are suspicious, the journalist suggests, because they base their concept on “annorlundahet” and nostalgia and not on a belief in the future. The publisher objects and suggests that this is not a correct assumption. The regionalists, he says, need the history as a tool to define their spirit of community, fellowship and their unique situation.
    But the journalist presses on and says that “there are those” (read: he does) who think that “neo-regionalism (read: the Scanian regionalism) is something "murky and obscure", on the “borderline of racist”. The question is, why do Swedish journalists, in an otherwise respected news media, pursue this line of questioning as soon as the issues of Skåne and Scanian identity are brought up?
    With the Swedish “racism-cloud” hanging over Skåne, no wonder why people are reluctant to express their Scanian feelings and thoughts and be proud of their background. Are other regions in Europe exposed to the same unpleasant journalistic tactics? Or is it just us? ▲
 

Saturday, May 07, 2005
The Nöbbelöv Prize
   In a previous contribution to this blog I expressed the wish that there was a Scanian Nobel Prize. Maybe there is. One of the readers pointed out that the World Famous philanthropist Alfred Nobel may have his roots in Skåne, more precisely in Nöbbelöv close to the City of Kristianstad. His ancestor was a peasant farmer by the name of Pedersson (-sen?). When one of his sons moved to Uppsala he couldn’t have such a simple name. He changed it by Latinising his home parish name Nöbbelöv to Nobelius. Later generations had it again changed to Nobel.
    So, Skåne has its Nobel Prize. It would be more interesting if it had been called the Nöbbelöv Prize. Maybe it is not too late to change?
    If this interesting suggestion is correct it would make Alfred Nobel another famous person with a Scanian background. Up there with other world famous people with Scanian origin. Like Anita Ekberg, Charles Lindberg, Wilhelm the Conqueror, Max von Sydow and Birgit Nilsson. To mention a few. ▲
 

Friday, May 06, 2005
Sweden – a Nation?
   In a month's time, on the sixth of June, Sweden will for the first time “celebrate” Sweden’s National Day as a day off work. Let’s imagine a person in Sweden who does not like the idea of a Swedish National Day. He is convinced that Sweden is not a nation but an administrative entity containing several nations – both indigenous and immigrated. Let’s say that this person is from Scania, Jämtland or a Sameland. For arguments sake, let’s say that this person considers himself a Swedish citizen but of Scanian, Jämtlandian or Sami nation. Let's face it, he has the support to choose which nation he wishes to belong to by most major human rights organisations.
    What if this person does not approve of the Svea Nation’s successful attempts to persuade the Riksdag to force everybody in the country to “celebrate” their nationality? And, on top of all, make it a public holyday. (Svea Nation = Stockholm and its surrounding countryside.)
    What can this person do to maintain the liberty to celebrate the nationhood of his choosing? Can he go to his employer and say that he objects to having to take a day off and would like to work that day? Can he go to his trade union representative and ask for help?
     This person, I’ve been told, was quite content with the situation up until 1984 when Sweden, admirably, celebrated the Swedish Flag’s Day, something everybody could accept. But he became concerned when Sweden's Riksdag introduced a “Swedish National Day” that year. He become very unhappy when the State made it a public holyday this present year 2005. He has even become afraid, lately, to demonstrate the nationhood of his choosing, for instance by hoisting his regional flag on his flagpole. God knows how many misguided state nationalists are out there, he says.
    I have not met this person personally, but heard of him through a third party. What advise can we give him? To stand up for his rights or fall flat on his face for the imperial might of the Svea Nation? ▲
 

Sunday, May 01, 2005
Who will take the fight!
    “Take a fight for the regional self-rule”, said a headline in Kvällsposten last week. The article is written because of a new book on regional self-rule by Tomas Ekberg, a political analyst in the Region of Västra Götaland. The reason for the editorial is that there is a danger that the two biggest parties in the Riksdag will support the closure of the regional parliament after next election in 2006 (Regionfullmäktige – Region Skåne) and the Landsting (elected bodies in charge of medical and health-services in the counties - län), which they have indicated.
    The question to the editor at Kvällsposten’s editorial page is this: Who is going to do the fighting?
    The regional and local politicians who would be the proper group to do the fighting for us are apparently weak and inactive (unless they are engaged in acts of “silent diplomacy” with the State Government). We have hardly heard a peep on the subject from our regional politicians since the change of power three years ago. Tomas Ekberg writes in another report about this political impotency on the regional and local levels: “It is still difficult to se how big future prospects and development issues can be actively pursued with one voice” …. “Besides, the regional and local scope of activities is limited by state directives and legislation and their dependency on state grants”.
     Maybe the Swedish members of the Committee of Regions do the fighting for us? But they are also weak since it is uncertain both for them and for us who their principal master is.
    The EU Parliamentarians? Well, they are not elected personally but are mostly selected by their political mother party. Would they take a fight that goes against those who sent them to Brussels?
    The local politicians? With a few exceptions, they do not seem at all interested in the future of the regional self-rule.
    So, Mr Kvällsposten Editor, there doesn't seem to be anybody ready to take the fight for a permanent elected regional government in Skåne. Except maybe you. And perhaps me, through this Blog. And, I am sure, the Swedish EU Commissioner Margot Wallström - she knows what the EU is all about. But will she take the fight for us? ▲
 

Sunday, May 01, 2005
State Nationalism in excess?
    State nationalism is reaping new victories in Sweden every day. Yesterday was the King’s 59th birthday and the state television was reporting “enormous” crowds outside his window at the castle in Stockholm. Swedish flags were flying in the wind all over the Scanian landscape.
    A quick google on the word ”Nationaldagsdans” ("National Day Dance") revealed a frightening result. Only one hit. From Löberöds Granbacken, a dancing rotunda in Löberöd at the centre of Skåne.
    Between 1919 and 1984 Sweden was a leading country in one respect. It didn’t have a State National Day. In 1919 the Swedish Flag Day was introduced. Excellent! Every citizen regardless of nationality and origin could with a good heart celebrate the Flag Day. In 1984 people in Stockholm got envious on the Norwegians' celebration of their State National Day on May 17 - "Syttende maj". So that year Sweden introduced the Swedish National Day on the sixth of June to replace the Swedish Flag Day. But people did not turned out in large crowds to celebrate. It was mostly public servants and school classes that were commanded out to the parks to see the flag hosted on the flagpoles and to sing the National Hymn.
    The lack of interest irritated the Leaders and this year the sixth of June was proclaimed a “National Holyday”. It came at a price, though - we lost Whit Monday as a day off work.
    Those who are aware of what horrors state nationalism - during the last couple of centuries - is capable of, should not go dancing at the rotunda in Löberöd. Other members of the European Union is playing down and defusing state nationalistic symbols. Sweden is going the other way – again backwards into the future.  ▲