a blog by Peter Leonard
Danmarks sak blir... vems?
Commentary in the Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter evokes the language of World War II in urging the Nordic countries to unify behind Denmark's right to a free and independent press. During the 1930s, "Finlands sak är vår" (Finland's Cause is Ours") was the slogan used to drum up solidarity for the former Swedish colony's fight against Soviet territorial aggression. In the face of official neutrality, pro-democratic (or anti-Communist) forces in Swedish society mobilized the public sphere to define pan-Nordic coöperation as an essential element of Swedish identity.
Will such an appeal work seventy years later? Or will Sweden's government and people find more to be gained by drawing distinctions between Danish and Swedish attitudes towards the Muslim world? Already, some commentators are chafing at the Foreign Ministry's efforts to differentiate between Swedes and Danes for a confused outside world. One is reminded of the efforts some Sikh groups undertook after 9/11 to educate Americans that they had nothing to do with Arabs and thus, shouldn't be attacked on the street.
It's fair to say, however, that as much Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the Danish Prime Minister, is confronting the crisis of his political life -- indeed, the crisis that may well define Denmark's relation with the outside world to a degree unseen since the decision to join NATO -- so is the Swedish Prime minister, Göran Persson, facing a challenge of similar magnitude. What are the limits of Nordic solidarity, especially as regards issues so central to a democracy as a free and independent press? Would a middle-eastern boycott of Swedish goods -- which include fighter jets, armaments and construction equipment -- cripple the economy? With so many Swedish companies (Volvo cars, Saab cars, etc) owned by American or multinational firms, the economic dimensions of a boycott are certainly not constrained to one small nation-state.
The historical precedent is not encouraging for Denmark. During World War II Swedish Prime Minister Per Albin Hansson steered a course of 'neutrality' so mannered and compromised as to evacuate all meaning from the term. That he kept the nation out of armed conflict did not sway his critics, including writers such as Vilhelm Moberg and the Nobel-laureate Eyvind Johnson. Johnson wrote a series of novels in protest over the German-friendly policies pursued by Hansson's wartime government, which placed continuation of the profitable sale of iron ore over solidarity with occupied Norway and Denmark. The entire first novel in the Krilon trilogy is an extended allegory of Sweden's internal debate over engagement versus isolationism, with the protagonist Johannes Krilon standing in for the nation as a whole. Krilon represents Johnson's ideal of a Swede who stands in solidarity with his fellow man in order to stand up to threatening, external powers. He asks of his friends:
Jag vill att ni ska skydda mig, för om ni skyddar mig så skyddar ni er själva. ... Jag vill att ni ska bevara ert mod, er ståndaktighet, er tro på den fria framtiden. Jag vill ha löften av er. Vi kan kalla det pakter och förbund. Vårt verk är att hålla frihetens princip levande. Vårt verk är att inte svika friheten och mänskans värdighet. Det är vårt verk. Vill du ge mig ett sådant löfte?
[I want you to protect me, for if you protect me you protect yourselves. I want you to preserve your courage, your steadfastness, your faith in the free future. I want your vows to do so. We can call it pacts and unions. Our work is to hold the principles of freedom living. Our work is to not betray freedom and humanity’s worth. That is our work. Will you swear to this?]
Frightened of the power of the book's villains (thinly-disguised stand-ins for Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia), Krilon's friends desert him one by one. In response to his plea for solidarity, the respond "...var och en får klara sig bäst han kan och vill" [everyone must handle things the best he can and as he wishes.] This attitude carried the day in Swedish politics during the 1940s, and the debate over its correctness and moral defensibility certainly influences the question of how close Sweden should stand to Denmark today.