Contact
Lifestream
I spent the day attending the European Security Forum (”Säkerhet i det nya Europa”) held at the University of Skövde (HIS). Very productive and surprisingly apt lecturers for the most part. I have to say the forum had extremely poor attendance though. At least considering the weight of the issues presented and the relative fame, at least in the field, of some of the speakers. They had apparently tried to fill the void with Army officers but even that approach seems to have failed. Deceptively non-essential, well, that is perhaps the best way to describe the event and explain the poor student attendance. If people only knew … and cared that their future is essentially shaped by military academies … in these dangerous times of phantom terrorism and lack of a proper context.
The forum’s keynote speakers included representatives from The Swedish Institute of International Affairs, The Swedish Defence Research Agency (and Jan Hallenberg), The Swedish National Defence College, Red Cross and The Swedish Military Intelligence.
I especially jumped at hearing the representative from the Liberals (LUF), throwing a hissy fit, essentially promising body bags to start coming home in a near future and why we should make it so. It may be tolerated in a room augmented with officer’s support and under the influence of military doctrine, but all in all it was the worst political campaign promise I have ever heard. No contest.
I should have done a write up of the content, criticism and first impressions … but suffice it to say a lot of it was centered around seeking out new threats (and some old, mostly bogus) and meeting them. A second pillar was the European Security and Foreign Policy, Battlegroups and NATO. Many if not most favoured a Europe less dependent on NATO and it was clear that Europe could not cater both its own lofty goals and support NATO. The liberals of course threw a hissy fit again and, as always, proclaimed how we must rally behind the US (and NATO). Yet they can never quite bring themselves to admit the kind of influence the US has over NATO. Funny.
Surprisingly few dwelled on history when bringing up Afghanistan for instance, only the political representative from the Social Democrats noted that the US and Russia shared responsibility for the ills that had befallen the country by the early 1990s.
Possibly the most inflammatory and apt speaker was the one from the Red Cross, who talked about how their relief efforts are being usurped by military structures across the world. At the peril of relief workers whose identity is blurring with fighting units and may stand to lose their neutrality for something they didn’t even do. Also noting that military structures do this not mainly out of the goodness of their hearts but as a PR trick. Winning the “hearts and minds” as one of the attending officers said when he tried to rebut this rather basic premise. Besides essentially admitting to doing publicity stunts, his exact use of “hearts and minds” (in english no less) sent a shiver down my spine.
I didn’t realize that they were so impressionable, almost like children. Instantly picking up whatever nonsense gets spewed out of the White House press corps. Kind of left me with the impression that one of the biggest security risks in Europe today are impressionable, wideeyed soldiers who are looking up to the US, as is perhaps predictable since the US is the leading player in their field, i.e. big shiny weapons, killing and maiming.
There were also quite a few of euphemisms and neologisms that I was previously unfamiliar with. I’m not moving in these circles after all and I have no link to the military. “Fredsframtvingande” (english: peace enforcement) and “MFV” (english: WMD) stood out by their own merit. I always believed we used the terminology of “NBC,” but apparently thanks to George Bush and his cronies the Swedish defence discourse has adopted the equivalent of WMD. Silly. As for “peace enforcement,” it makes war sound like it’s a good thing. Like something Stalin or Hitler would have coined for one of their rallies.
Most delegates seemed convinced that there was only one block that could measure up to the US in the short term, namely Europe. Perhaps not surprising since the forum was a bit Eurocentric but still. Upon being queried, several speakers yielded somewhat and noted that China too can be a factor in the equation. Most still discounted India though, because of its lack of interest in the geopolitical arena.
Jan Hallenberg was the only delegate as I recall that said aloud, while others hinted, that Europe needs to increase its defence spending to match up with the United States. Needless to say there is quite a bit to go from around 160 billion to around 500 billion. And I’d be damned if we are going to have to save paradise by destroying it.
