Archive for the ‘Sweden’ Category

The conundrum of putting adolescents into positions of power

May 5, 2015

The prefrontal cortex of the brain, we are told,  mediates decision making, is selectively involved in the retrieval of remote long-term memory and is the seat of good judgement.

The prefrontal cortex (PFC) is located in the very front of the brain, just behind the forehead. In charge of abstract thinking and thought analysis, it is also responsible for regulating behavior. This includes mediating conflicting thoughts, making choices between right and wrong, and predicting the probable outcomes of actions or events. This brain area also governs social control, such as suppressing emotional or sexual urges. Since the prefrontal cortex is the brain center responsible for taking in data through the body’s senses and deciding on actions, it is most strongly implicated in human qualities like consciousness, general intelligence, and personality.

We are also told that the prefrontal cortex is not fully developed till the age of 25 years or even later. Until the prefrontal cortex is fully developed a human is “adolescent”.

BBCChild psychologists are being given a new directive which is that the age range they work with is increasing from 0-18 to 0-25.

There are three stages of adolescence – early adolescence from 12-14 years, middle adolescence from 15-17 years and late adolescence from 18 years and over.

Neuroscience has shown that a young person’s cognitive development continues into this later stage and that their emotional maturity, self-image and judgement will be affected until the prefrontal cortex of the brain has fully developed. Alongside brain development, hormonal activity is also continuing well into the early twenties.

Most countries allow voting at age 18. Some allow voting even earlier:

Those with a national minimum age of 17 include East Timor, Indonesia, North Korea, South Sudan and Sudan. The minimum age is 16 in Argentina, Austria, Brazil, Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua and the Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey (three self-governing British Crown Dependencies). People aged 16–18 can vote in Bosnia, Serbia and Montenegro if employed.

The mystery is why adolescents whose power of judgement is not yet fully developed are allowed to exercise this undeveloped judgement.

Even more perplexing is why adolescents with undeveloped judgement ability (those < 25 years old) are allowed not only to become armed soldiers and police but also politicians and even members of parliaments? We put them into positions of power where they must exercise their partially-developed judgement – even over others whose judgement is fully developed.

Why?

Statistics in Sweden are quite comprehensive and numbers for voters and politicians in the age group 18 – 29 are readily available. Conservatively, I take the age group 18 – 25 to be the majority (>50%) of the 18-29 age group.

Age group 18 – 25

  1. Proportion of electorate for parliament elections                           >10%
  2. Proportion of candidates                                                                       >6.5%
  3. Proportion of elected members of parliament                                  >5.5%

There is no getting away from the conclusion that over 5% of elected, Swedish members of parliament are adolescents whose brains are not fully developed and whose judgement is less than what it should be.

Interestingly, the proportion of the electorate older than 65 is 25% but the proportion of elected members of parliament over 65 is only 2.9%.

The only explanation I have is that in Sweden, “youth” has been made into a “politically correct” fetish with religious and mystical – if not electoral – significance.

It is not difficult to observe that many in the Swedish parliament today, and even some in government, are remarkably childish and quite clearly demonstrate that they are still adolescent.

In Sweden “abortion rights” come into conflict with “rights to conscience”

April 27, 2015

There are no such things as “absolute” human rights. There are only privileges which various societies variously deem to be the rights of their members (and sometimes of their non-members). “Rights” are nothing more than “privileges” granted by a body which claims the authority to grant such privileges. Very often such “rights” are granted even though the body granting the privilege has not the power or capability to ensure the privilege, even where the body is a State and has introduced legislation about it.

(I note in passing that no Law of God or Man ensures – or can ensure – compliance with the Law. It is only the Laws of Nature which enjoy 100% compliance and where compliance is inherent within the existence of the Law. Which suggests to me that the Laws of Nature rank higher than the Law of any god or of any man).

I do not look to any body or society to grant me the “right” to have an opinion (or to think or to breathe for that matter). I just have opinions on virtually everything but I claim no “right” that others must listen to or pay any attention to my opinions. And even if every other person disagrees, it remains my opinion. Opinions are neither right or wrong – they exist in a cognitive space which is undisturbed by rightness or wrongness. And so I have opinions also about abortion and infanticide and eugenics. I take “life” as originating from parents and passing from their sperm and eggs to the conception of a new identity and then a birth as all being part of the same continuum. I think a new “identity” is created at the moment of conception and am therefore uncertain as to

…. what is it that makes aborting a foetus and preventing a child from being born much less disturbing than terminating the existence of that same child after birth?

Whether to have an abortion or not is entirely a matter for the woman concerned – in my opinion. Whether others should assist her or not is a matter for them – in my opinion. But in Sweden where the State has determined that abortion is a “privilege” it has granted under certain circumstances, it has also – to try and ensure compliance – made it a duty and obligatory for health care workers to assist in such abortions. And that impinges on the “rights” of those workers in their choice whether to help or not.

Swedish Radio:

The abortion issue can sail up as a conflict area within the conservative Alliance parties. The new Christian Democrat leader Ebba Busch Thor has reiterated the call for a conscience clause. But the proposal was rejected by the Liberal Party leader Jan Björklund. “It is not reasonable. Health care operates under legislation to be able to perform abortions under certain criteria and conditions. Then the staff who are in health care must perform accordingly” says Jan Björklund.

The Christian Democrats have long called for the introduction of a conscience clause which would means that midwives who do not want to perform abortions should be able to avoid it. But the previous party leadership with Göran Hägglund at the top, decided not to pursue the matter.

Ebba Busch Thor, who yesterday was elected as the new Christian Democrats leader, has in several interviews in recent months raised the conscience clause and she now wants to get the party to run with it. This would then be a change of course for the Christian Democrats.

If this is what happens Busch Thor can expect to meet resistance from Alliance colleague Jan Björklund. “For the Liberal Party this is not an issue. We are different parties and of course we have different views on some issues. It’s nothing new. Then if the Christian Democrats intend to pursue this type of question harder, we would of course have discussions in the Alliance” he said.

Anna Starbrink, the Liberal Party’s strong woman in Stockholm and responsible for health care is upset. “The woman’s right to abortion must be that which rules. There can be no doubt about it. If a woman seeks an abortion, she should not be questioned and met by staff who refuse to perform their duties. It nibbles the right to abortion at the edges. If it hampers women from getting an abortion, the law would have been sidelined” says Anna Starbrink.

In Sweden abortion is available “on demand” upto the 18th week of pregnancy. Between the 18th and 22nd week permission is needed from the National Board of Health and Welfare (Socialstyrelsen). In very special cases, later abortions are permitted if the foetus is not viable.

Currently around 25% of all known pregnancies in Sweden end in abortion. It is interesting to compare this figure with infant mortality rates (infant deaths in the first year after after birth). In today’s Sweden this figure is at about 0.3%. But todays abortions are comparable to the infant mortality rates of 300 years ago:

High infant mortality rates plagued communities throughout Europe until the beginning of the twentieth century. Even in the middle of the 1800s, a quarter of all babies born in many European countries died before their first birthday. At the start of the nineteenth century in France, less than one half of children lived to be ten years old. In Sweden as a whole, the infant mortality rate in the late 1700s was about twenty percent.

Medical science it would seem has enabled the dramatic reduction in infant mortality and has also enabled an equivalent increase in the number of abortions. After-birth, involuntary termination of life has been replaced by a before-birth, voluntary termination.

While it seems logical that every women decide for herself if she wishes to have an abortion or not, it does not seem logical – to me – that others should be forced – coerced by the threat of losing their jobs – to participate in her decision.

Does the Swedish “right to have an abortion” override the individual’s “right to have a conscience”?

Swedish health care provides inferior treatment of prostate cancer to elderly men

April 21, 2015

The Swedish health care system is often cited as an example. And in general that is probably justified. But there is little doubt that care is denied when the physician – for whatever reason – believes it is not worthwhile. The patient’s life expectancy plays a key part in this judgement. And that automatically leads to the elderly being denied treatment in some cases. After all, the common good requires that resources not be wasted! Perhaps it would be best to simply withhold all care for people over 70 – or should we say 75?

The Swedish health system does provide inferior treatment to men with prostate cancer if they are over 70 years old. A report from Lund University exposes yet another example of the age discrimination that is endemic in Sweden. And as the country ages, we can expect such denial of care to increase.

Until the over 70s start to exercise their political power.

Aftonbladet:

Many older men are not getting the cancer treatment they need. New Swedish research shows that men between 70 and 80 years are often under-treated despite having a high risk of prostate cancer. According to the national guidelines men should  have surgery or radiation treatment, but many are denied access to these treatments. The doctors believe that patients are too old, says Associate Professor Ola Bratt at Lund University in the research report that was presented at an international urology meeting in Madrid.

Prof. Ola Bratt has examined all the 19 000 men especially at risk and treated for prostate cancer  in Sweden between 2001 and 2012. He notes that doctors often misjudged the patient’s expected lifetime. The doctors have simply ignored vital treatment because they mistakenly believed that the patients would die soon.

“Such an old-fashioned and rather jaundiced view of today’s 70 year olds can have devastating consequences. It can not be the intention that Swedish men should die prematurely”.

Ola Bratt notes that there are large differences between different parts of Sweden. Between 2001 and 2012, the proportion of men over 70 years who received curative treatment was 15-38 percent, but the proportion varies greatly between counties – from 13 percent in Örebro County to 85 percent in Kronoberg County, according to the National Prostate Cancer Register. Many men are thus losers in the great cancer lottery. Those who want to survive, should stay in the right county and go to the right doctor.

There is a shortage of urologists and many of them are available in small clinics that may not keep up with the latest developments. Choice of care has also contributed to more private clinics taking responsibility for severe disease and the patient is then challenged to find the right treatment in a jungle of offers.

Swedish lay judge wants capital punishment “for some races”

April 17, 2015

I have yet to discern the real advantages brought by lay judges to the Swedish judicial system. Presumably they are thought to bring a modicum of “real life” into the ivory tower of jurisprudence. But it seems to me that politically appointed lay judges pervert the course of justice more often than they assist it.

Sveriges Domstolar

Serving as a lay judge in a court is an honorary task.  It helps to maintain public confidence in judicial administration and is a way for the public to gain insight into the operations of the courts. The varying background and experiences of lay judges give the courts a broad picture of the general conception of justice in   society.  This is particularly valuable for assessment issues, for example, for evaluation of evidence, reasonability issues and choice of sentence. …

Lay judges are elected …  in the municipal council or county borough council after nomination by political parties. If a person wishes to be a lay judge, he or she contacts a political party and puts forward their interest.

The simple fact is that lay judges in Sweden today are mainly passive and often unprofessional – and I can’t say much worse than that. Yet another case of a lay judge demonstrating her unsuitability is reported in the Sundsvalls Tidning:

Lay judge Anita Edin (M) believes that one could impose the death penalty “for certain races.” After her statement the trial had to be interrupted.
“We obviously have zero tolerance for these things” said Judge Kristina Svedberg.
The statement was made during a break in a trial in Sundsvall District Court on Wednesday, where several persons of foreign origin were indicted for drug offenses. During the break, one of the three lay judges said that he would write a motion on the death penalty.
“Yes, at least for certain races”, responded Anita Edin, a lay judge and Moderate politician in Timrå. Judge Kristina Svedberg broke into the discussion between the jurors and pointed out to Anita Edin that statements about the death penalty on the basis of race were very inappropriate.
“No, it’s clear, you do not say such things. You can only think such things” said Anita Edin.

But in one respect Anita Edin has a point. I see no reason why – for real justice – different people committing the same crime should not be subject to differing penalties. But perhaps reserving capital punishment just “for some races” is going too far. Anita Edin should probably join the Sweden Democrats.

The Swedish use of lay judges is over 1,000 years old and it is a working system – but it does not improve the dispensation of “justice” (whatever one takes that to be). Professor Christian Diesen of Stockholm University writes –

CairnLay judges have always, without interruption, taken part in the administration of justice in Sweden. For more than a thousand years, lay judges, elected by the people, have been members of the local courts. The role has changed during the centuries, but – in contrast to all other countries in Europe except Finland (as Finland was a part of Sweden until 1809) – the lay judge has never been out of the system.

At the time of the Vikings all free men were assembled in the ting, where political matters were discussed and decided. The ting, held outdoors in a place of religious cult, also served, however, as a court. Many disputes were ”solved” through ordeals or duels, but in civil litigation the chief or leader of the court proposed a verdict to the members of the ting for approval ( – the Vikings banged their shields to signal agreement…). In the 13th century when the local courts were established (and the ordeals abandoned), the administration of justice in the country was carried out by a judge, appointed by the king, and 12 elected (permanent) members of the local community. In the 17th century the courts were led by professional judges (with legal education) and the proceedings changed from oral to written form, a change that reduced the influence of the lay members of the court. The legal reform of 1734 reduced that influence even further as it stipulated that all lay judges had to disagree with the professional judge in order to outvote him. At the beginning of the 19th century the introduction of the jury system was discussed, but the jury was introduced into the Swedish system only in cases concerning freedom of the press (and it still applies in these cases). During the 20th century two opposite lines can be seen in the development of the role of the lay judges : The number of lay judges in the local courts has been reduced, step by step. In 1918 the government decided that 3 lay judges were sufficient for minor criminal cases. In 1948 the number of lay judges was reduced from 12 to 9 for major criminal cases and in 1971 from 9 to 7. The same year lay judges disappeared from civil cases (except for cases concerning family law). In 1983 the number decreased to 5 for major criminal cases and in 1997 it fell to 3 lay judges in all criminal cases.

But though the number of lay judges has steadily decreased, they have, in spite of being politically appointed amateurs, also been given a higher individual standing

On the other hand, since 1971, lay judges participate in the proceedings of Court of Appeal (as a minority) as well as the administrative courts, and in 1983 lay judges of all courts received an individual voting right, which put them on an equal footing with a professional judge.

A Swedish government non-apology (which the silly Saudis thought was sincere)

March 30, 2015

Oh dear!

She couldn’t understand how a unilateral non-extension of a defence cooperation agreement with Saudi Arabia – because it was a dictatorship – was an insult. She couldn’t understand how her planned formal speech about women’s rights and human rights – as Sweden’s Foreign Minister and as a speaker invited to the Arab League – was not an insult to the systems of government and a denigration of their judicial systems. Even though she was a Foreign Minister she could not understand how criticising a judicial system based on Sharia was not also a criticism of the religion it was based on.

In any case, the deteriorating diplomatic situation was rescued by a monarch-to-monarch appeal by King Carl XVI Gustaf to King Salman bin Abdulaziz al-Saud. Margot Wallström could not understand her offense and now she cannot understand how the Swedish appeal through its special emissary could be construed as an apology! But her denial that anything said was an apology insults intelligence. Or does she mean that “we didn’t apologise but the silly Saudis thought we did”. She might as well say that the Saudi King now agrees with her statements.

Margot Wallström is among the more experienced and competent members of the Swedish government. But as Foreign Minister, her lack of understanding of the consequences of her statements smacks of incompetence. I have no doubt that some of her statements were more for domestic consumption, since this government is hostage to its green partners (pun intended). But it was more than a little naive for a Foreign Minister to think that such statements would not be taken seriously and at face value abroad.

The Saudi King would never have received an emissary directly from the “socialist” government which had contemptuously dismissed him as a dictator. However he was certainly prepared to accept an emissary and a private letter from King Carl XVI Gustaf. The letter hailed King Salman for  “protecting Islam and its holy places” and expressed great “sorrow and regret”. It is not the first time that Swedish royalty has been invoked to smooth over diplomatic issues with Saudi Arabia. Back in 2004 Crown Princess Victoria was sent to Saudi Arabia (also by a Social Democrat government) to save some defence (radar equipment) deals. The Defence cooperation agreement came in 2005 – also under the Social Democrats.


UPDATE! I note that the Svenska Dagbladet claims to have seen the King’s letter and that it contained no apology. Presumably SvD in its politically correct wisdom (or self-delusion) thinks that the Saudis have been successfully fooled!!!


 

 

1427498080030735400.jpg

Björn von Sydow, former Swedish defense minister and special envoy of Sweden meets Prince Mohammed Bin Salman, Minister of Defense. (SPA)

 Arab NewsSweden has apologized for the recent offensive remarks by its foreign minister against the laws of Saudi Arabia and hoped for better relations between the two countries. …….. 

In a message to King Salman, Sweden’s Prime Minister Stefan Lofven expressed “deep sorrow and regret over the current crisis in the relations between the two countries” while stressing his government’s keenness to maintain healthy relations between the two countries.
Lofven also said the role of King Salman in protecting Islam and its holy places is clear and that his government was concerned over the deterioration of the relations between the two countries following the controversial comment by his cabinet minister.

But for domestic consumption Margot Wallström must now walk the tightrope and insist that what was an abject apology, and accepted as a sincere apology, was not really an apology after all. If she agrees she apologised she upsets the greens and denies moral superiority. If she denies the apology she is insincere and has “duped” the Saudis with her subterfuge.

Expressen: “Naturally, the Swedish government has not apologised for its well-known and long-held positions on democracy and human rights”

The bottom line is that for a Swedish Foreign Minister, an abject expression of “deep sorrow and regret” does not constitute an apology. If a Saudi Arabian Foreign Minister had used such words he would have had little recourse but to resign for having his country deliver such a shameful apology. A Japanese Foreign Minister forced to express “sorrow and regret” would then have resigned and (since hara-kiri is no longer de rigueur) left politics. These are dangerous waters for Margot Wallström and for Sweden. A Foreign Minister of Sweden who is perceived as being insincere is “all used up” and can only damage the country’s affairs abroad.

What I find most reprehensible in anybody is a lack of professionalism. The worst insult I know of is to call a specialist an amateur. Margot Wallström and this Swedish red/green government have been amateur and unprofessional. If Swedish foreign policy is to influence and encourage the development of human rights in Saudi Arabia then this episode has been spectacularly counter-productive.

Monarch to monarch: Saudi King accepts Swedish King’s apology

March 28, 2015

The Saudi Arabian Ambassador returned to Sweden yesterday. It must be galling for the Swedish Social Democratic government that a monarch-to-monarch apology and appeal was needed to mollify the Saudis. (No doubt the Swedish monarch’s request to the government for an increase in his budget will soon be approved). The apology was carried in a letter carried personally by the King’s/Swedish government’s envoy (not the Ambassador to Saudi Arabia), Björn von Sydow. He is a former Speaker and has even been Regent when the King and his children have been abroad. He would have been acceptable to the Saudi monarch as a true representative of King Carl XVI Gustaf. The Swedish government may say otherwise, but this was indubitably an appeal from a monarch to a monarch and not from a socialist government to a “dictator” King.

The Swedish Foreign Minister, Margot Wallström says she does not back away from any of her support for “human rights or democracy” and that she has the support of the people. Indeed! But it took a King to ride in on his white charger to rescue her. “We had an opportunity to address the misunderstandings that we could have criticized Islam or insulted Saudi Arabia” is what she said.  The Prime Minister, Stefan Löfven, while in China said “We have resolved any misunderstandings about our insulting Islam, which we have never done. We apologize if we have acted in such a manner that it has been understood that we  have somehow downgraded Saudi Arabia as a nation. That has never been our intention and we have not done that”. Sounds pretty close to an abject apology to me.

It is also grand hypocrisy. Because of course it was always Margot Wallström’s intention to denigrate Saudi Arabia, their system of government and their legal system. She singled out Saudi Arabia as a country whose morals were too low for Sweden to cooperate with on Defence matters.

She has been noticeably silent about voicing any criticism of China (where Prime Minister Löfven is on a visit). For Sweden to fall out with China would be economically unsustainable. The EU has been criticising Saudi Arabia for air attacks in Yemen but Margot Wallström has been conspicuously silent on the matter. Hopefully she has learnt the lesson that there is a little more to be considered about consequences when one is a Minister rather than an activist leading a demonstration. (That is a lesson still eluding her Green party partners in government who bear their share of blame for the Saudi Arabia fiasco).

DagensNyheter:

Saudi Arabia decided on Friday to normalize bilateral relations with Sweden after a meeting between the government’s envoy, Björn von Sydow, and Saudi Arabian government leaders and King Salman bin Abdulaziz al-Saud.

“We had an opportunity to address the misunderstandings that we could have criticized Islam or insulted Saudi Arabia. This allowed the Ambassador to return” said Margot Wallström when asked if Sweden had apologized.

“I’m not backing down from my statements for democracy and human rights. It is well known what we think on these issues and it is something we have strong support in the Swedish population” she said

Margot Wallström thinks she has acted professionally and that the problem was resolved quickly in normalising relations with Saudi Arabia. Bjorn von Sydow had the meeting with government leaders and carried a letter from King Carl XVI Gustaf to King Salman. von Sydow will not go into any more detail.

“We can confirm that the king on the government’s desire sent a letter that the government’s envoy handed over to the Saudi king” wrote the Court Information officer Margaret Thorgren. “Please also refer all questions to the Foreign Ministry”. ………

According to the television channel Al-Arabiyya the Swedish king stressed “the power in the relationship” between their countries to his brother-monarch King Salman bin Abdulaziz al-Saud.

Prime Minister Stefan Löfven comment on the re-established diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia during his visit to China. He did not directly answer the question if Sweden apologized.

“We have resolved any misunderstandings about our insulting Islam, which we have never done. We apologize if we have acted in such a manner that it has been understood that we  have somehow downgraded Saudi Arabia as a nation. That has never been our intention and we have not done that”.

A “democracy” provides no immunity from – or an excuse for – incompetence and stupidity.

Swedish Green minority in government leads to oppression of the majority and a “bad democracy”

March 28, 2015

The Swedish Green party won 6.9% of the vote (25 seats in a 349 seat parliament) in the last general election. But they are part of the minority government with the Social Democrats (31% of the vote – 113 seats). Inevitably the Social Democrats are forced (or choose to) adopt some of the Green party policies. Most Green party policies are about forbidding things they don’t like on ideological grounds. Or they are about increasing taxes to discourage behaviour they don’t like. Very few of the Swedish Greens’ environmental policies are based on sound science. They are mostly based on alarmism and fear. Even when they propose new taxes they have not even an inkling – apart from how much will be collected – of what they will actually achieve. The goals are never capable of being monitored or – in many cases – even measured.

Whenever the Social Democrats accept Green policies – which they themselves don’t agree with – they put it down to being the “price of having a coalition partner”. They are effectively promoting a minority view and subverting the democratic process. A policy supported by 6.9% of the voters is inflicted upon the entire population.

It happened again this week. Green party minority dogma is planned to be inflicted on the entire country and the Social Democrats – who promised not to do this – are now complicit in the subversion of democracy. It is a simple case of a tiny minority oppressing an overwhelming majority. (Not so different from a dictatorship). The Social Democrats are effectively a “poodle” being wagged by their Green tail.

TheLocalSweden’s left-wing government proposed a hike in petrol taxes on Friday, citing the drop in oil prices and pressure put on it by its coalition partner the Greens.

“The oil price has plunged by 50 percent, so it’s become cheaper to fill up at the pump. That’s one thing. The other is that we are in a government with the Green Party,” Social Democratic Finance Minister Magdalena Andersson told reporters at a press conference.

“We need to finance our reforms krona for krona. And that means we need to increase revenues,” she said. The government proposed to increase the tax on petrol by 0.44 kronor ($0.05) per litre and on diesel by 0.48 kronor.

The hike, which would take effect on January 1st, would bring in 4.1 billion kronor ($479 million) to state coffers in 2016.

The Social Democrats no doubt see this as a way of raising revenues while blaming the Greens. But it also demonstrates their incompetence in running a coalition where they ought to be the senior partner. The Green tail is wagging the Social Democratic poodle. Democracies work but they have their share of negatives. And coalition governments where a large party is dependant upon a small party leads to tiny minorities inflicting their views on the majority. There is nothing inherently better in a democracy than in a dictatorship. It all depends on the “goodness” of the democracy or the dictatorship. A “good dictatorship” may well be superior to a “bad democracy”.

In the case of the present coalition government in Sweden, the inescapable conclusion is that the inclusion of the Greens makes it a “bad democracy”.

Colour police crack down on “unswedish” colours

March 24, 2015

You don’t have to be a politician to be an idiot, but it helps.

Local politicians in Mjölby don’t like the colour an artist has painted his house and have ordered him to repaint it because the colour is unswedish!!

The Colour Police

Anders Steen Chairman of Mjölby’s colour police

TheLocal: Bernth Uhno, an artist who has frequently exhibited his own paintings and etchings across Sweden, recently bought and repainted a house that had been empty since 1981. …. However his taste proved too radical for local councillors who argued his colour scheme was too outlandish and ordered him to repaint it in a more suitable shade. “The colour scheme is not Swedish,” Anders Steen, a Centre Party politician who is chair of the town’s building committee told local television news network, ……

The House

Wrong Colour. This house is to be “inspected” by the local Building Committee in Skänninge. Photo karl-johan norén (via Corren)

The cat likes it.

 

Swedish King rides to the rescue of the damsel Minister in distress?

March 22, 2015

Swedish foreign policy has blundered badly by not analysing or understanding the Saudi Arabian reaction to the “morally superior” and sanctimonious statements made by the Swedish Foreign Minister about the status of “human and women’s rights” in the Kingdom. The debacle is transforming into high farce as the Swedish King – who has no powers at all – offers to ride to the rescue.

In a most unusual statement, the Swedish King, Carl XVI Gustaf, has offered his “help to contribute in finding a solution to the situation”. The Swedish monarch has no political powers whatsoever but felt compelled to say something as the crisis with Saudi Arabia and the Arab world created by the Foreign Minister, Margot Wallström, continues to escalate. While more Arab countries are expressing their condemnation of Wallströms ill-judged  statements, even the Danish government has indicated that they feel she went too far.

TheLocal.seThe king is seemingly distressed about Sweden’s escalating spat with Saudi Arabia. The row began when Saudi Arabia blocked Wallström’s speech on democracy and human rights as a guest of honour addressing the Arab League, and resulted in Sweden limiting its military ties with the Saudis.

Tensions heightened when Saudi Arabia responded by recalling its ambassador to Stockholm and announced it would not issue any new visas for Swedish business people.

On Saturday, the royal palace announced that the king would meet Sweden’s top diplomat on Monday “to help contribute in finding a solution to the situation”. The king also said that: “It’s important to have a good dialogue and good relations between countries,” but noted that he hadn’t been in contact with the Saudi royals.

In Saudi Arabia, the Justice Minister has also added his voice to the wide-spread Arab condemnation of  Wallström’s statements.

ArabNewsJustice Minister Walid Al-Samaani strongly condemned recent statements from foreign parties targeting the country’s judicial system. ….. 

Al-Samaani’s statement came in the backdrop of Swedish Foreign Minister Margot Wallstrom’s pronouncements against the Kingdom’s Shariah laws that led Saudi Arabia to recall its envoy to Stockholm. The minister said that such accusations are unwarranted and uncalled for, since the Saudi law is derived from the Book of Allah and the teachings and practices of His Prophet (peace be upon him). 

The Saudi law, the minister emphasized, guarantees the dignity of all its citizens irrespective of race, religion, sex and language. “Everybody before our law is equal,” he reiterated.

 

Left/Green sanctimony is causing a debacle for Swedish foreign policy

March 19, 2015

The 2005 defence cooperation agreement between Sweden and Saudi Arabia was renewed in 2010 and was coming up for a natural termination or a mutual renewal again this year. Currently there is very little being done under this agreement. It could have been allowed to die quietly. But that was not loud enough and self-righteous enough for the Greens and the left of the ruling Social Democrats.

The Greens are new to government (and it shows in many areas) but they are implacably opposed to Sweden having any defense industry of any kind. The Greens and the left are utterly opposed to the “anti-feminist and anti-democratic” nature of Saudi Arabia. But the Greens and the left of the Social Democrats forgot that they were actually in government and were not just an irresponsible lobby group like Greenpeace or the WWF indulging in publicity pranks.  They were so mesmerised by the idea of showing off their moral credentials that the intention to terminate the defense agreement was announced in a great blaze of self-righteous publicity.  The Prime Minister Stefan Löfven (an old trade unionist with a good understanding of the importance of jobs) actually wanted to extend the agreement. But he was over-ruled by his far left and the Greens. His Foreign Minister, Margot Wallström (who, unlike the Greens, is old enough to know better), was more obsessed with demonstrating how Swedish foreign policy was feminist and green and occupied the moral high ground than in promoting Swedish interests and values. And so she forgot about her duties as a Foreign Minister and sharply criticised Saudi Arabia in most undiplomatic language. It verges on incompetence that the consequences of her statements were not analysed. She received a swift diplomatic “punch on the nose” when she was barred from speaking to the Arab League.

But the Greens and the left (and the Swedish media – who are all very politically correct and morally upstanding) basked in the warmth of their own sanctimonious self-indulgence. If they thought they were promoting Swedish values, they seem to have failed spectacularly. Instead they have fuelled the opposing views from the region about Swedish moral degeneracy and decadence.

But now the whole affair is becoming a foreign policy debacle. Saudi Arabia and the UAE have called their ambassadors home. Fifty seven other nations have backed Saudi Arabia in criticising Margot Wallström for “denigrating Saudi Arabia’s social norms, judicial institutions and political institutions”. Swedes are not being issued visas for Saudi Arabia any longer.

Sweden is left floundering with a foreign policy being made by children and governed by childishness. A policy built on trying to demonstrate a self-proclaimed moral superiority and which talks down to others smacks of the playground. It diminishes Sweden. Business will suffer and jobs will suffer. And it will take a long time to repair the damage. Right now almost the entire Islamic world has taken umbrage and Sweden’s voice has never been as irrelevant in the region.

(Soon after the left/green government took over they had recognised Palestine as a State – also to demonstrate their moral superiority. Needless to say Israel was not amused and they are not the flavour of the month with Netanyahu. And he is going to be around for a long time yet).

But the Greens and far left are still basking in their moral superiority and don’t even realise that they have done something very silly. That they have managed to earn the contempt of both Israel and the Arab World  – simultaneously – seems to be of little consequence.

Swedish Radio:

Saudi Arabia has informed the Foreign Ministry that they will not issue any new business visas to Swedes. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has confirmed that they received notice about this and say they will continue trying to resolve the issue bilaterally.

Companies that are in procurement or planning projects will not be able to send employees to the country. 

The Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Löfven had just received the information and said, “We do not want this situation with Saudi Arabia. We have been clear all the time that we want a good relationship with Saudi Arabia and we work seriously and systematically with it”.

Swedish Industry Minister Mikael Damberg also believe that the news is negative. “It is clear that this not good and we are working both to normalize relations with Saudi Arabia and to make sure that it does not spread to more countries. We are very careful to emphasize that what the government did was not to extend a military Terms of Collaboration with Saudi Arabia. And there was a very strong political majority in parliament not to extend”, says Mikael Damberg.

Tonight, the Minister and the Foreign Minister, Margot Wallström will meet with executives from Swedish industry regarding Sweden’s relations with Saudi Arabia. “I will talk about what the government is doing but also to listen to those companies that are active in the region to see if they have encountered a problem and if there are misunderstandings so that we can help each other” says Mikael Damberg.

On being asked what actions the government would take, he said “We are working very hard to normalize relations with Saudi Arabia. Both through diplomatic contacts here in Stockholm but also in place in Riyadh and in countries in the region. The work is intense.. We are also working together with Swedish companies in place in these markets. We take note that this has happened but we have no interest to implement some kind of retaliation or to escalate this”, says Mikael Damberg.

Both Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have called their ambassadors home from Sweden. The reason is because of the statements made by Foreign Minister Margot Wallström about Saudi Arabia in connection with the Swedish government cancelling a controversial trade agreement.

At the same time 57 states have closed ranks behind Saudi Arabia in their criticism of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Margot Wallström. This means that almost the entire Muslim world is critical of Wallström’s statements.

“In its opinion Wallström has humiliated Saudi Arabia and its social norms, legal systems and political institutions,” says a statement on the website of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (IOC).