Veterans
and victims of war have ample experience of what happens when
politics fail. Be it a traditional international war
between states or an internal violent clash of conflicting interests
inside a country. The consequences of a failure to mobilize sufficient
leadership to reach out to competing forces before hostilities have become more
or less irreversible more often than not means large scale suffering for
generations to come.
If human
civilisation is anything, it is institutions and methods that in
preconceived and agreed ways handle human fragility and vanity.
Negotiations however tedious are almost always to be preferred to violent
means.
The United Nations
and the World Veteran Federation are two such institutions
that strive to make the world a little bit more orderly and peaceful.
As such they both deserve our full support.
I'm but a
national parliamentarian from Sweden’s third biggest city Malmö
situated in the Southern part of the country. If you’ve seen a televised
musical contest recently you might just know of this town right across the
narrow strait from Copenhagen.
It is my
duty as an elected representative to defend the liberal values in which I
believe and which got me elected. But I and my colleagues in Parliament must
differentiate between policy, which we might or might not agree upon, and our
fundamental obligation to express solidarity and a great deal of appreciation for
the individual service rendered by all personnel military or civilian who in
often difficult circumstances did their best to carry out Swedish official
policy in conflicts abroad.
The same
holds true to the families and relatives of those who serve in foreign
countries. Their wellbeing at home is a prerequisite for those deployed men and
women to do a good job in an often far away and dangerous place.
I'm not
going to give you a complete list of what Sweden has or has not done for
veterans. Whatever we have done has clearly been inspired by neighbouring
countries with a far longer and more profound experience of
caring for veterans and their relatives. We don’t, at least not yet, have a
Veteran Centre such as Baereia in Norway or a Veterans Institute as in the
Netherlands. Furthermore I'm not an official
government representative and thus should not try to speak as one.
Rather than that, I will try to explain my own personal view on Sweden’s relations to the European Union and NATO and the potential importance that veteran affairs possibly can play for the multinational integration of defence efforts in this part of the world.
Sweden is a member-state in the European Union and a partner to NATO, but foremost Sweden as any other state is a Nation-state. The armed forces of Sweden are ultimately designed and financed for the protection of Swedish sovereignty. This doesn’t mean that Sweden believes in splendid isolation when it comes to defence matters and this has probably never been the case. But we Swedes have been quite apt at propagating the illusion of neutrality. The defence of Scandinavian territory and Scandinavian interests will, as almost always has been the case, be a common effort of many likeminded free and independent nations. This is why the European Union and NATO matter so much for our country.
Rather than that, I will try to explain my own personal view on Sweden’s relations to the European Union and NATO and the potential importance that veteran affairs possibly can play for the multinational integration of defence efforts in this part of the world.
Sweden is a member-state in the European Union and a partner to NATO, but foremost Sweden as any other state is a Nation-state. The armed forces of Sweden are ultimately designed and financed for the protection of Swedish sovereignty. This doesn’t mean that Sweden believes in splendid isolation when it comes to defence matters and this has probably never been the case. But we Swedes have been quite apt at propagating the illusion of neutrality. The defence of Scandinavian territory and Scandinavian interests will, as almost always has been the case, be a common effort of many likeminded free and independent nations. This is why the European Union and NATO matter so much for our country.
Concepts
such as Pooling and Sharing and Smart Defence have since some time been
tried by the European Union and NATO respectively. I will not dismiss these
commendable efforts and the highly desirable results which have been promised. Even
so it is my firm belief that these top-down programmes will have to be
complemented by more of a bottom-up or why not citizen-oriented approach.
Veterans and their relatives clearly should be able to play a crucial role reaching
out across borders. Veteran Affairs should be a central task for the High
Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy
and likewise for the Secretary General of NATO.
You have all yesterday experienced the inauguration of a National Swedish Veteran Monument on the occasion of the International Day of the United Nations Peacekeepers. It is my hope that this monument will serve Sweden and international peacekeeping for many decades yet to come.
You have all yesterday experienced the inauguration of a National Swedish Veteran Monument on the occasion of the International Day of the United Nations Peacekeepers. It is my hope that this monument will serve Sweden and international peacekeeping for many decades yet to come.
This
doesn't mean that all has been done for veterans in Sweden. Let me just finally
mention three clear and pressing examples of what in my
opinion Sweden as a nation-state needs to address. These are the lack of:
- an official national medal of recognition for distinguished service,
- recognition also of veterans which have served before 1992 and
- a memorial for Sweden’s hereto only Secretary-General of the United Nations. Dag Hammarskjöld died in the very pursuit of human rights and Peace in an armed conflict in Congo more than fifty years ago.
- an official national medal of recognition for distinguished service,
- recognition also of veterans which have served before 1992 and
- a memorial for Sweden’s hereto only Secretary-General of the United Nations. Dag Hammarskjöld died in the very pursuit of human rights and Peace in an armed conflict in Congo more than fifty years ago.
I wish
you all a constructive Peace and Security Summit and look forward to the
declarations you are going to adopt here in Stockholm.
Allan Widman
Utformningen av den sk Kotten blev väl i ärlighetens namn inte helt lyckad. I stort sätt menlös skulle jag vilja sammanfatta intrycket av den, då den inte ger åskådaren någon som helst fingervisning vad den står för. Tråkigt.
SvaraRaderaSå mycket bättre med den konst som får oss att tänka och pröva det redan etablerade. Jag ansåg den vacker, ljus och ståndaktig. Just så bör våra insatser illustreras.
SvaraRaderaAllan Widman
Gustav Wasa sa...
SvaraRaderaRegeringen uttalar en häpnadsväckande intressant tanke i dokumentet: Konklusioner från Vaxholm - Ett robust Norden utan gränser, daterat 2013-06-04.
Redan skrivelsens andra mening lyder ordagrannt:
"Den starka värdegemenskapen som Danmark, Finland, Island, Norge och Sverige delar avspeglas även i de nordiska ländernas säkerhetspolitik."
Som värd för försvarsministermötet i Vaxholm, så ansvarar det svenska närvarande statsrådet för att påståendet här ovan omfattas av gästande försvarsministrar.
Åtminstone danske respektive norske försvarsministern bör försiktigvis ha rådgjort med parlamentariker i folk- och storting inför denna deklaration om säkerhetspolitisk gemenskap i Norden.
http://www.regeringen.se/content/1/c6/21/85/68/38377ccc.pdf
Nej, det finns ingen konformitet. Det är det nordiska säkerhetsbyggandets uppenbara Akilleshäl. Norge är med i Nato, men inte i EU, Finland är inte med i Nato, men både i EU och euron. Danmark är med i EU och Nato, men deltar inte i EDSP, eller euron.
SvaraRaderaTill sist är ändå inte de inbördes skillnaderna det mest intressanta, utan att de flesta nordiska länderna definierar sig till sin kontext; inte vad de är, utan vad de tillhör.
Vad är vi?
Allan Widman
Gustav Wasa sa...
SvaraRaderaPolitik är att vilja.
För den som för all framtid vill utesluta ett svenskt Nato-medlemskap är all diskussion därom umbärlig.
För alla som inte vill utesluta att en parlamentarisk majoritet någon gång i framtiden kan komma att ratificera ett svenskt biträde till Washington-fördraget, så är en bred svensk Nato-debatt förr eller senare oundviklig.
Jag bedömer att bara Vänsterpartiet och Sverigedemokraterna företräder linje ett här ovan och att övriga sex riksdagspartier hamnar hos linje två.
Linje ett-partiernas ideologiska övertygelse om Nato:s oförbätterliga styggelse bidrar knappast till dessa partiers regeringsduglighet. Men å andra sidan så är det ju inte i första hand realism och pragmatism som attraherar deras väljare.
Lika lite som socialdemokraterna vill utmana sin vänsterflygel genom att öppet diskutera Nato, lika lite vill de erodera sin regeringsduglighet genom att kategoriskt avfärda ett framtida svenskt Nato-medlemskap.
Det är min bedömning att snart sagt varje utländsk makts diplomatiska representation i Stockholm väl känner till att de nya och gamla arbetarpartierna bägge vill kunna ansluta Sverige till Nato vid en omedelbar krigsfara för Sverige. Den diplomatiska rapportering som kommit till allmänhetens kännedom genom läckor styrker denna uppfattning. Detta alldeles oavsett vad arbetarpartiernas företrädare uttalar i svenska medier.
De linje två-partier som inte anser tiden mogen för en offentlig svensk Nato-debatt bör dock kunna förklara vad som krävs för att en sådan ska kunna initieras. Fakta är att Ryssland i strid med folkrätten sedan flera år ockuperar främmande territorium. I försvarsberedningens rapport 2008 omnämnt som ett lackmustest för bedömningen av Ryssland och något som uppenbarligen inte längre räcker för att vi ska våga ens utreda ett svenskt Nato-medlemskap.
En synnerligen Per Albin-mässig modell vore att Sverige anslöt sig till Nato under omständigheter, som så nära som möjligt liknade de rådande vid den så kallade "Midsommarkrisen 1941". Det vill säga om Ryssland anfallit Finland och Tyskland ville transitera trupp genom Sverige, då skulle självklart ingen socialdemokratisk partiledare längre avföra svenskt Nato-medlemskap liksom Mona Sahlin gjort "under sin livstid".
- Kan frågan om svenskt Nato-medlemskap föras upp på den politiska dagordningen innan ett tredje världskrig pågått i ett par år?
Kommenterar Folkpartiets försvarspolitik.
SvaraRaderahttp://navyskipper.blogspot.se/2013/07/almedalen-folkpartiets-dag.html