The sudden,
and according to many observes completely unexpected developments in Sweden,
leads to frantic behind-the-scenes diplomatic activity. Sweden is not a member
of any defence organisation, and hence the international community could agree on a concerted and swift
international action to calm down the situation. On the other hand the country
is also strategically geo-politically placed—i.e. an agreement will be
difficult to achieve. Russia, most openly supported by Iran, Iraq, the Vatican,
Argentina and the Philippines on the one hand has an interest in a politically
weakened Scandinavia, while the USA, France, Germany, Great Britain, South
Africa and Turkey are quite clearly interested in keeping the Scandinavian
voices strong. Countries like Poland are divided on the issue; Sweden is very
popular among the Polish people, but the strong stance on abortion, women’s,
and children’s rights are issues over which Poland and Sweden have disagreed
openly during the last many years, both in the EU and in the UN. China and
India has the same kind of relationship with Sweden, and indeed all of the
Nordic Countries, and remain quiet.
The first
step discussed is of course to call the various parties to a conference to
achieve an immediate ceasefire. This attempt fails almost as quickly as it has
been printed down; nobody seems to have a clear idea regarding who the
rebellious groups are, really. Clearly, the Home Reserve is involved, and is
supported by the Strong Man of Malmö, and lately even his second in line, as
well as the Mayors of Gothenburg, the second city of Sweden, and a number of
other important, smaller cities around the country. It is also clear that the
police are divided (some siding with the rebels, some with the army), and that
there have been a number of deserters, leaving the army, the Air Force (some
bringing smaller air crafts with them), and marines. There seems, however to be
some involvement also of criminal elements with access both to advanced
weaponry, money and international semi- and fully criminal networks. The
political goals of these last actors are difficult to estimate, while those of
the other actors seem to be very readable—either freedom from Stockholm (i.e. a
division of Sweden into smaller states), or a continued Swedish state (the
British solution supported by Turkey and South Africa), possibly with greater
autonomy of the rebellious regions (which is the solution favoured by Norway,
Germany and the USA).
Weapons are
circulating, as weapons storages have been emptied, and soldiers bringing as
much as they can with them when leaving their regiments. Increasingly, the
press reports on deadly violence between and against civilians, some attacks
seemingly prompted by personal conflicts between individuals or family groups,
others based on suspicions of siding with one side or the other.
While many
are fleeing to neighbouring or other countries, most Swedes stay within the
borders, but deciding to take as much as they can possibly bring, and leaving
the areas where fighting is going on. Even Stockholm begins to feel the
consequences, as internal refugees come in rather large numbers, for ‘visits’
to family members or friends in the capital city. City planners and local
politicians are foreseeing serious over crowding within only a few days amidst
the acute violent crisis. At the same time, a number of Stockholm residents
decide to leave the city, as they feel an increasing aggression from Mälardal-Swedes,
i.e. local to the capital city region, or as they soon start to name themselves,
‘authentic’ or ‘real’ Swedes. Fighting between individuals and groups of people
increase in Stockholm, both because of the influx of ‘outsiders’ and because
regular Stockholm residents get into fights over what an ‘authentic’ or ‘real’
Swede is exactly, and how many generations deep belonging needs to be to make
you authentic.