The Swedish Ambassador in Harare, Sten Rylander is under attack by the Zimbabwean state-owned newspaper The Herald for pursuing a crusade against the Mugabe regime before the forthcoming EU-African Union summit meeting in Lisbon, reported Africa-based DN reporter Anna Koblanck. The local media campaign against Sweden and Rylander started in October. Zimbabwe alleges that Sweden wants Zimbabwe's human rights record taken up during the summit meeting in Lisbon this weekend.
The Lisbon summit meeting faced several controversies and conflicts surrounding Robert Mugabe's attendance, which in particular led to British Prime Minister Gordon Brown's boycott of the conference. Mugabe criticised Brown's action as imperialistic while at the same time thanking the other EU-member states and his neighboring African countries for supporting him.
Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt in his political blog stated that Sten Rylander's criticism against Zimbabwe "was correct and in the right way, and in line with what the Swedish government and parliament thinks." It remains unclear whether the crisis in Zimbabwe will be taken up or not. This is the first summit between the EU and AU since 2000. Mugabe's inclusion in the meeting was sanctioned by the AU, where his African colleagues openly extended their support to his participation. Some African leaders, such as Zambia's president Levy Mwanawasa are more cautious.
Several African and European journalists and writers protested against the summit leaders' cowardice to tackle the situation in Zimbabwe or the conflict in Darfur- "two of the world's worst human rights catastrophes." Zimbabwe's economic downfall is characterised by an inflation of 2,000 percent, a collapse in agricultural production and shortage of consumer goods and petrol.
The 83-year old Mugabe took over power in Zimbabwe since its independence in 1980. Earlier hailed as a national hero, he turned later into a power-hungry dictator responsible for crushing his political opponents and driving his country into economic decay. He blames the West for the economic sanctions against his regime.
Friday, December 7, 2007
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
EU-Africa Summit: Who wins, who loses
Everything appears set for Zimbabwe dictator Robert Mugabe to make his red carpet entrance to EU's Africa summit meeting in Lisbon on December 8. UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown's boycott has not affected the other EU-member states decision to attend. For seven years of postponed meetings between EU and Africa because of Mugabe is finally over, wrote Svenska Dagbladet Africa specialist Ola Säll (SvD, 07.11.24).
It was hardly the EU's intention, but already in the beginning the summit meeting was a triumph for Mugabe. Gordon Brown stays home and is therefore accused of being petty and intolerant. On the other hand, Mugabe has succeeded to drum up support from other African presidents whose almost 50 unanimous voice declared: No Mugabe, none of us. Therefore EU succumbed. The prohibition against Mugabe and his government to make the trip to EU was lifted.
The biggest stain in the Africa Union's face is not because there is a dictator in Africa. That has always existed. No, AU has destroyed its good name through solidarity with known dictators. Who can trust AU's loud declarations of an African renaissance grounded on democracy and human rights?
Sweden, the Netherlands and Germany states that the Lisbon summit would be " an opportunity to discuss human rights". EU member states' foreign ministers are unanimous at being "clear and tough" against Mugabe. But if Mugabe has not listened to EU in the last decade, why should he suddenly do so in Lisbon where he is backed by several other African presidents?
It just seems that EU would have no chance. Mugabe excels in the limelight, the latest of which was at the UN where he compared Bush and Blair to Hitler and Mussolini. The other unforgettable event was the UN environmental conference in Johannesburg in 2002, where a state-organised violence ended in Zimbabwe. The African presidents gave its support and applauded Mugabe more than any other speaker.
It would be a spectacle in Lisbon. Mugabe has already the leading role where he would call Europeans both racist's and imperialists, while other African leaders applaud that he dares. He may embarrass himself before the Europeans' eye but in the African presidents' eye he has once again proven his greatness.
(Translated from Ola Säll's analysis of the summit meeting, SvD, 24 Nov. 2007)
It was hardly the EU's intention, but already in the beginning the summit meeting was a triumph for Mugabe. Gordon Brown stays home and is therefore accused of being petty and intolerant. On the other hand, Mugabe has succeeded to drum up support from other African presidents whose almost 50 unanimous voice declared: No Mugabe, none of us. Therefore EU succumbed. The prohibition against Mugabe and his government to make the trip to EU was lifted.
The biggest stain in the Africa Union's face is not because there is a dictator in Africa. That has always existed. No, AU has destroyed its good name through solidarity with known dictators. Who can trust AU's loud declarations of an African renaissance grounded on democracy and human rights?
Sweden, the Netherlands and Germany states that the Lisbon summit would be " an opportunity to discuss human rights". EU member states' foreign ministers are unanimous at being "clear and tough" against Mugabe. But if Mugabe has not listened to EU in the last decade, why should he suddenly do so in Lisbon where he is backed by several other African presidents?
It just seems that EU would have no chance. Mugabe excels in the limelight, the latest of which was at the UN where he compared Bush and Blair to Hitler and Mussolini. The other unforgettable event was the UN environmental conference in Johannesburg in 2002, where a state-organised violence ended in Zimbabwe. The African presidents gave its support and applauded Mugabe more than any other speaker.
It would be a spectacle in Lisbon. Mugabe has already the leading role where he would call Europeans both racist's and imperialists, while other African leaders applaud that he dares. He may embarrass himself before the Europeans' eye but in the African presidents' eye he has once again proven his greatness.
(Translated from Ola Säll's analysis of the summit meeting, SvD, 24 Nov. 2007)
Friday, November 9, 2007
Nordic Battlegroup: A good Start for Swedish Defence Policy
A Nordic Battle group shall have completed seven weeks of intensive training in Sweden's northernmost forests before it is deployed in real war zones. It will be Sweden's contribution to the European Union's rapid deployment force and the start of a new defence policy. Sweden's security will depend upon cooperation with other democracies, Dagens Nyheter reported Thursday, Nov. 8th.
An earlier report states that the Nordic battle group consists of 2,350 Swedish soldiers, 220 Finnish, 150 Norwegian, 80 Irish and 50 Estonian. The battle group will be used for conflict prevention or for humanitarian assistance during catastrophes. Sweden will foot the bill for 345 million crowns, or more when actually deployed.
According to DN's Thursday editorial, Sweden's national security situation is good, thanks to the EU and the Eastern NATO's expansion. "The likelihood for an armed attack of any form is therefore remote. The defence powers have a clearer focus towards the international efforts."
Such assumption is however being questioned. The world has in many ways become more dangerous these later years. Some examples:
- An authoritarian Russia gears up and shows a higher profile in foreign politics.
- USA has become more isolationist after its setback in Iraq, less inclined to outside intervention.
- Unstable states with elements of militant Islam such as Iran and Pakistan are acquiring nuclear capacity.
- Terrorism, refugee outflow, large-scale criminality and environmental catastrophes create a new diffused
threat.
The adjustments in the Swedish defence goes slow and rests on the uncertain commitment that EU can offer collective security. After the fall of the Berlin wall, the world was temporarily safe, "the end of history" as American political scientist Francis Fukuyama wrote.
After this however came the civil war in the Balkan, genocide in Africa, Islamic terror killings, USA's problematic setback in Afghanistan and Iraq, a new big power competition with element of arms race and rivalry over limited resources.
Instead of the liberal democracy's triumph, we have a potential dangerous combination of old and new threats. Traditional geopolitical contradictions remain-India vs Pakistan, the Arab world against Israel, Russia against Western Europe, Islam vs West - at the same time that other dimensions appeared.
The Nordic battle group's military exercise is equipped with the latest material gadgets. Its final exercise is a simulated training in a foreign land, with eye on democratic elections. It is a realistic framework for future foreign contribution, at the same time that the group is prepared for actual war and therefore relevant for Sweden's defence. Most important of all is the international connection. Norway, Finland, Irland and Estonia are a part and Sweden cooperates with United Kingdom on strategic leadership.
Of all the money we (taxpapers) have invested in defence since 1989, this has been the best use, concluded DN.
(Translated/Edited from Dagens Nyheter, 7-8/11/07)
An earlier report states that the Nordic battle group consists of 2,350 Swedish soldiers, 220 Finnish, 150 Norwegian, 80 Irish and 50 Estonian. The battle group will be used for conflict prevention or for humanitarian assistance during catastrophes. Sweden will foot the bill for 345 million crowns, or more when actually deployed.
According to DN's Thursday editorial, Sweden's national security situation is good, thanks to the EU and the Eastern NATO's expansion. "The likelihood for an armed attack of any form is therefore remote. The defence powers have a clearer focus towards the international efforts."
Such assumption is however being questioned. The world has in many ways become more dangerous these later years. Some examples:
- An authoritarian Russia gears up and shows a higher profile in foreign politics.
- USA has become more isolationist after its setback in Iraq, less inclined to outside intervention.
- Unstable states with elements of militant Islam such as Iran and Pakistan are acquiring nuclear capacity.
- Terrorism, refugee outflow, large-scale criminality and environmental catastrophes create a new diffused
threat.
The adjustments in the Swedish defence goes slow and rests on the uncertain commitment that EU can offer collective security. After the fall of the Berlin wall, the world was temporarily safe, "the end of history" as American political scientist Francis Fukuyama wrote.
After this however came the civil war in the Balkan, genocide in Africa, Islamic terror killings, USA's problematic setback in Afghanistan and Iraq, a new big power competition with element of arms race and rivalry over limited resources.
Instead of the liberal democracy's triumph, we have a potential dangerous combination of old and new threats. Traditional geopolitical contradictions remain-India vs Pakistan, the Arab world against Israel, Russia against Western Europe, Islam vs West - at the same time that other dimensions appeared.
The Nordic battle group's military exercise is equipped with the latest material gadgets. Its final exercise is a simulated training in a foreign land, with eye on democratic elections. It is a realistic framework for future foreign contribution, at the same time that the group is prepared for actual war and therefore relevant for Sweden's defence. Most important of all is the international connection. Norway, Finland, Irland and Estonia are a part and Sweden cooperates with United Kingdom on strategic leadership.
Of all the money we (taxpapers) have invested in defence since 1989, this has been the best use, concluded DN.
(Translated/Edited from Dagens Nyheter, 7-8/11/07)
Monday, October 29, 2007
Translating aid slogans into action
Thirty Swedish newspaper editors published a collective editorial last Sat., 27th of October 2007, urging the government to use its development aid muscle against Eritrea's oppressive treatment of political dissidents. In this particular issue, the release of 43-year old Swedish-Eritrean journalist Dawit Isaak from prison. He was arrested along with several other political dissidents six years ago and has been held without any formal charges.
Swedish newspapers reported that the Reinfeldt non-Socialist alliance is responding "with quiet diplomacy" to the growing collective call to free Dawit Isaak. What this strategy implies is that, Reinfeldt is sending a special envoy to negotiate the release of Isaak, or probably has asked the Eritrean diplomatic head of mission in Stockholm to come to the Swedish Foreign Ministry for an audience with Foreign Minister Carl Bildt.
But what the Swedish editors are asking, is for Reinfeldt to translate development aid slogans on respect for human rights in aid-recipient countries into action, especially in glaringly oppressive situations involving press freedom. Why indeed, is it taking six years to act against this violation that can never be tolerated in a democratic society? And why can't Sweden use its tremendous development aid influence to bring about a democratic change in Eritrea? To continue giving aid to repressive undemocratic regimes is a betrayal of people's trust, here in Sweden, as well as in aid-receiving countries. After all, the reasoning that it is only the poor people who suffer most when aid is cut no longer holds water.
(Join the "Stop development aid to corrupt regimes" movement!)
Swedish newspapers reported that the Reinfeldt non-Socialist alliance is responding "with quiet diplomacy" to the growing collective call to free Dawit Isaak. What this strategy implies is that, Reinfeldt is sending a special envoy to negotiate the release of Isaak, or probably has asked the Eritrean diplomatic head of mission in Stockholm to come to the Swedish Foreign Ministry for an audience with Foreign Minister Carl Bildt.
But what the Swedish editors are asking, is for Reinfeldt to translate development aid slogans on respect for human rights in aid-recipient countries into action, especially in glaringly oppressive situations involving press freedom. Why indeed, is it taking six years to act against this violation that can never be tolerated in a democratic society? And why can't Sweden use its tremendous development aid influence to bring about a democratic change in Eritrea? To continue giving aid to repressive undemocratic regimes is a betrayal of people's trust, here in Sweden, as well as in aid-receiving countries. After all, the reasoning that it is only the poor people who suffer most when aid is cut no longer holds water.
(Join the "Stop development aid to corrupt regimes" movement!)
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Sweden's 5-point EU presidency agenda
Swedish daily Dagens Nyheter reported today (24 Oct. 2007) Sweden's 5-point agenda during its 2009 European Union presidency, namely: Baltic sea cooperation, climate issues, growth and employment, crime prevention and EU's continued expansion possibilities, says EU Minister Cecilia Malmström. "These are our five main priorities that we will now report to France and Czech Republic," she says.
The French and the Czechs will led the EU during the two half years before Sweden takes over the presidency in the second half of 2009. Together, the three countries will have to decide on a common 18-month program.
Since Sweden assumed the EU presidency for the first time in 2001, conditions have changed radically. EU membership has almost doubled its number, with 27 now as against 15 then. A number of things are brewing in autumn 2009. The EU parliament is newly-elected; the EU Commission will have new commissioners and it means that several of EU's common legal work will be enforced.
At the same time, EU's reformed treaty takes effect. EU will have a new permanent president, as well as a new foreign minister thus in effect limiting the powers of the rotating presidency. According to Malmström, "all these could make things difficult for Sweden to push through its own line." During a six-month presidency, no member country can make fundamental changes in the EU. It was reported earlier that Britain's former PM Tony Blair is a favorite choice for the EU permanent presidency while Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt is seen best as EU's foreign minister.
The preliminary budget for Sweden's half-year presidency is 890 million crowns, which is bigger than 2001 - after all, EU has grown. But lesser than what Finland spent for its presidency.
The French and the Czechs will led the EU during the two half years before Sweden takes over the presidency in the second half of 2009. Together, the three countries will have to decide on a common 18-month program.
Since Sweden assumed the EU presidency for the first time in 2001, conditions have changed radically. EU membership has almost doubled its number, with 27 now as against 15 then. A number of things are brewing in autumn 2009. The EU parliament is newly-elected; the EU Commission will have new commissioners and it means that several of EU's common legal work will be enforced.
At the same time, EU's reformed treaty takes effect. EU will have a new permanent president, as well as a new foreign minister thus in effect limiting the powers of the rotating presidency. According to Malmström, "all these could make things difficult for Sweden to push through its own line." During a six-month presidency, no member country can make fundamental changes in the EU. It was reported earlier that Britain's former PM Tony Blair is a favorite choice for the EU permanent presidency while Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt is seen best as EU's foreign minister.
The preliminary budget for Sweden's half-year presidency is 890 million crowns, which is bigger than 2001 - after all, EU has grown. But lesser than what Finland spent for its presidency.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Sweden tops in Nordic foreign investment
Global investment frenzy continues to spread. Last year capital investments rose by 38 percent and Sweden stands well with competitors, ranking today as the twelfth biggest investment country, according to UNCTAD's annual report.
Swedish companies ranks well in the development. For instance, it has acted aggressively to become an interesting country for Chinese and Indian investments, says Torbjörn Fredriksson, one of the main authors of the report. During 2006, global investments rose to 8.5 billion Swedish crowns of which 170 billion crowns was placed in Sweden. Old Mutual's acquisition of Swedish insurance company Skandia at the tune of 40 billion crowns rocketed Sweden's position among the top foreign investment countries. The Old Mutual-Skandia affair was the 17th largest deal in 2006.
Sweden is clearly the biggest investment country in the whole Nordic. The overall value of investments in Denmark, Norway and Finland remains 30 percent lower than foreign investments in Sweden. UNCTAD's annual reports shows that China and India are on a vigorous march as foreign investors, followed by United States, Great Britain and France. It is the third year in a row that direct global investments have risen in the world. The reason is the expanding world economy. Corporate profits have increased resulting in higher share prices which in turn raised the value of mergers and acquisitions.
The only dark clouds in the investment horizon that create some uncertainty is how credit worries that shook the world's financial system is going to affect investment enthusiasm." It is partly because no one knows exactly how extensive the credit situation in the USA is, and partly because we don't know how this will affect the investment flow. It will be felt most in mergers and acquisition. It will become harder to finance acquisitions of companies," says Torbjörn Fredriksson."
(Translated from DN Ekonomi, 17 Oct. 2007)
Swedish companies ranks well in the development. For instance, it has acted aggressively to become an interesting country for Chinese and Indian investments, says Torbjörn Fredriksson, one of the main authors of the report. During 2006, global investments rose to 8.5 billion Swedish crowns of which 170 billion crowns was placed in Sweden. Old Mutual's acquisition of Swedish insurance company Skandia at the tune of 40 billion crowns rocketed Sweden's position among the top foreign investment countries. The Old Mutual-Skandia affair was the 17th largest deal in 2006.
Sweden is clearly the biggest investment country in the whole Nordic. The overall value of investments in Denmark, Norway and Finland remains 30 percent lower than foreign investments in Sweden. UNCTAD's annual reports shows that China and India are on a vigorous march as foreign investors, followed by United States, Great Britain and France. It is the third year in a row that direct global investments have risen in the world. The reason is the expanding world economy. Corporate profits have increased resulting in higher share prices which in turn raised the value of mergers and acquisitions.
The only dark clouds in the investment horizon that create some uncertainty is how credit worries that shook the world's financial system is going to affect investment enthusiasm." It is partly because no one knows exactly how extensive the credit situation in the USA is, and partly because we don't know how this will affect the investment flow. It will be felt most in mergers and acquisition. It will become harder to finance acquisitions of companies," says Torbjörn Fredriksson."
(Translated from DN Ekonomi, 17 Oct. 2007)
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Mugabe - Sweden and EU's dilemma
Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt is facing a tough foreign policy choice: to face or boycott Zimbabwe's despot Robert Mugabe in the forthcoming December 8 summit meeting between the European Union and the African Union. The Liberal Party member of the Alliance government, through spokesperson Birgitta Ohlsson is urging Reinfeldt to boycott Mugabe, thereby refusing any legitimacy for his repressive regime. Great Britain's Gordon Brown already announced that he will not come to the summit meeting if Mugabe were to come.
Birgitta Ohlsson in her debate article in Dagen Nyheter (Oct. 13, 2007) states that in the last Swedish elections, the expectation was high for the non-Socialist Alliance to distance itself from repressive dictatorial regimes. In its foreign policy statement, the Alliance said that, " it is necessary to have a more effective instrument against repressive regimes in many parts of the world. Statements of condemnation are not enough to express dissent against regimes such as Zimbabwe, Burma, Cuba and Sudan.It demands a steadfast strategy, where the spread of democracy and the rule of law are the goals. It also demands a united international action, as well as a regional move against repressive regimes."
It is not clear how Reinfeldt is going to face his biggest foreign policy challenge. Is he joining UK's Brown? Which EU members are following suit, is the main question just now. Mugabe has support from his neighbour- African states, so that some EU countries are playing a safe card. It is expected that Mugabe will attend the summit, hence his presence will overshadow more important issues.
A boycott of Mugabe at the EU-African Union summit will send a strong message even to neighbour states like Zambia and South Africa. Sweden and Europe must have a united position on democracy, the rule of law and human rights in all contacts with African states and other regions, the debate article states. And it is absolutely unacceptable to meet Mugabe with warm applause when he addresses the summit meeting. He should instead be arrested when he leaves his country and be made to face the international crime tribunal ICC for crimes against humanity.
(Source: Dagens Nyheter, Oct. 13, 2007)
Birgitta Ohlsson in her debate article in Dagen Nyheter (Oct. 13, 2007) states that in the last Swedish elections, the expectation was high for the non-Socialist Alliance to distance itself from repressive dictatorial regimes. In its foreign policy statement, the Alliance said that, " it is necessary to have a more effective instrument against repressive regimes in many parts of the world. Statements of condemnation are not enough to express dissent against regimes such as Zimbabwe, Burma, Cuba and Sudan.It demands a steadfast strategy, where the spread of democracy and the rule of law are the goals. It also demands a united international action, as well as a regional move against repressive regimes."
It is not clear how Reinfeldt is going to face his biggest foreign policy challenge. Is he joining UK's Brown? Which EU members are following suit, is the main question just now. Mugabe has support from his neighbour- African states, so that some EU countries are playing a safe card. It is expected that Mugabe will attend the summit, hence his presence will overshadow more important issues.
A boycott of Mugabe at the EU-African Union summit will send a strong message even to neighbour states like Zambia and South Africa. Sweden and Europe must have a united position on democracy, the rule of law and human rights in all contacts with African states and other regions, the debate article states. And it is absolutely unacceptable to meet Mugabe with warm applause when he addresses the summit meeting. He should instead be arrested when he leaves his country and be made to face the international crime tribunal ICC for crimes against humanity.
(Source: Dagens Nyheter, Oct. 13, 2007)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
