Critic or Mediator? Sweden in World Politics, 1945-90

Abstract

The article analyses Sweden as a critic and as a mediator and bridge-builder on the international arena since 1945. Some researchers have claimed that in the mid-1960s Sweden took on the role of critic at the expense of that of mediator. Was this true? Has Sweden's participation in international opinion-building had a negative effect on her usefulness as mediator or bridge-builder in international conflicts? And what role do the actions of a nation as critic play for the image of that state as an impartial mediator? First, the relevance of a mediator/bridge-builder's impartiality is discussed. Thereafter, Sweden as critic and mediator/bridge-builder since 1945 is presented. Sweden's actions in two concrete cases are focused on the Vietnam and Iran-Iraq wars. In both cases Sweden tried to combine the role of mediator and bridge-builder with that of critic. Finally, some general conclusions are formulated about the relationship between the role of critic and that of mediator/bridge-builder. The results show that in the mid-1960s Sweden began to take part in international opinion-building and to formulate criticism of other countries to a much greater extent than previously. But Sweden's taking on of the critic's role in the 1960s was not followed by a decrease in her mediation or bridge-building missions. The hypothesis that Sweden took on the critic's role at the expense of the mediator's role is thus not supported in this study. It is concluded that there are no objections to a country that wants to act as a mediator or bridge-builder taking an active part in international opinion-building or formulating criticism of other countries in terms of different issues. But restrictions on criticism and attitudes come up in conflicts where that country is also acting as a mediator or bridge-builder.

Incentives for Talking: Accepting Mediation in International and Civil Wars

“…In the interstate war between Iran and Iraq, the disputing parties accepted Swedish opposition leader Olof Palme to facilitate authoritative communications between the parties at the onset of the conflict. Although there were high degrees of hostility and fear between the parties, the acceptance of mediation was not a question under dispute (see for instance , Eknes 1989;Bjereld 1995). This sharply contrasts with the Sri Lankan conflict between the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) and the government, where the Sinhalese government did not accept foreign involvement in what it considered a domestic issue for 17 years.…”

‘Nordicness’ in Swedish foreign policy – from mid power internationalism to small state balancing?

“…In his article Lawler also discusses features of Swedish foreign policy such as an active foreign aid policy and an emphasis on 'peace, freedom and welfare' (Hook, 1995, p. 98;cited in Lawler, 1997, p. 569). Based on the work of Ulf Bjereld (1995), Lawler also refers to 'the roles of critic/opinion-builder and mediator/bridge-builder' as part of Sweden's exceptionalism (but see, also, Jerneck, 1993). More recently, Annika Bergman Rosamund has argued that Sweden was (or at least had been) an exceptionally internationalist state, and that this internationalismincluding strong support for developing countries via a generous foreign aid policyshould be understood as the international version of Sweden's domestic welfare policy (Bergman, 2007).…”

Normative Europeanization: The case of Swedish foreign policy reorientation

“…7. For studies of Sweden as a critical voice in world politics, see Bjereld (1995) and Jerneck (1983). 8.…”