If Syria was Sweden... Part III (see previous below)

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. 

If Syria was Sweden... Part II (see part I below)

The local ‘Strong Man’ of Malmö has on many occasions been directly opposing the policies emanating from the National Parliament in Stockholm. The extremely quick development of this volatile situation, has taken most Scanians and Swedes by surprise. He however, claims that this should not be a surprise, as the interests of the army are the same as those of the Government. From his office the local Swedish Television mange to televise his speech against what he calls the ‘Swedish occupation of Scania,’ claiming that this is an offence of the same kind experienced a little more than 300 years ago, asking his fellow Scanians not ‘to bow ever again to Stockholm.’ He says he will himself approach the Home Reserve and participate in the struggle to free Scania once and for all.

Local and national politicians as well as the military seem to be divided—and hence paralysed—on the issue, as P7’s advancement in less than 10 hours have led to road blocks all around Malmö, aggressive searches in particular neighbourhoods and armed clashes between local brigades (Home Reserve, some divisions of the local police and criminal elements joined) and P7’s soldiers patrolling the main streets of the city. It is increasingly apparent that P7 is not isolated in the Swedish army; the Marine and the Air Force have come in to support P7, while other regiments have started preparations for similar situations.

In other Swedish towns and cities people are taking to the streets in angered protests against a government and parliament, which seems to completely have lost all control of the military. The mass protests are not organised, but seem to embrace all kinds of civil society actors, political parties and un-organised civilians joined in outrage. The Prime Minister, in a bid to indicate being in control of the situation, explains the need to keep Malmö calm. Within 24 hours of the siege of Malmö, the army, heavily supported by the Air Force and the Marine, invades Gothenburg, Kalmar, Karlstad, and not least Kiruna.

Rumours spread that the bridge to Copenhagen is about to be closed, and Danes living in southern Scania, as well as an incredible number of Swedes from the southern end of the country pack essentials in their cars, in a frantic move to leave the country. On the eve of the second day of the crisis, the Öresund bridge is packed with cars, the Öresund trains are swamped with people, and since the traffic in the Swedish direction is close to nil, people have started crossing the bridge on foot on the ‘wrong’ side. Similarly, the boats for other Danish cities, including Rönne in Bornholm, are crammed with people wishing to leave Sweden until the crisis is over. Only the ferries across the Baltic Sea, towards southern Finland and Estland do not experience any significant rise in number of passengers. The roads into Norway are also fully packed with people claiming they are off on holiday. Only airports seem to be operating as usual without any disturbances; they are under the control of the army. The number of cancellations is rising however. 

If Syria was Sweden... Part I

I am not in favour of military intervention in Syria. Not at all. There are too much weapons in use, too many fighters on the ground as it is. Need no more—we are in dire need of less rather! 

Consider the following situation: conflicting Stockholm-based elites have ruled Sweden for more than 50 years. “Stockholm,” or the “08’s” as they are popularly called in the rest of the country, has tightened the grip on power during the last 10-15 years, to the detriment of the rest of the country. Anger and frustration is reaching a boiling point, particularly in regions with historical experiences of tough rule from Stockholm; Scania, Småland, Blekinge, Halland and the Northern regions, including Herjedalen, Jämtland and the mining city of Kiruna. The response from Stockholm has been less than interested in talks about political change, economic equality between regions and social, cultural and religious freedoms. 

There have been plans of arranging marches towards Stockholm from the different main cities around the country, from Malmö, Kalmar, Halmstad, Göteborg, Karlstad, Kiruna. There are historical precedents to this, of which the whole population is aware. Creating Sweden was not done easily over a night—it took centuries of warring regional interests and local leaders. The history of resistance to Stockholm is well known, and some of the stories highly publicised, such as the Dacke feud, the Snapphane rebellion, or the Battle of Lund. In addition, there are myriad local stories of heroes and martyrs having risen to fight “Stockholm” over the centuries all over the country. The resistance is also represented in the capital city itself, which has for three hundred years been a magnet to people from all over the country in search of a future impossible to envision in the area from where people came. There are a number of Swedish descendants around the world, particularly in the USA. Most of them with roots in the regions with the harshest experiences of Stockholm (again Småland, Scania and the Göteborg region is well represented). As the situation in Sweden is seriously deteriorating, they are now being contacted by their long-lost kin in Sweden, being asked to act as lobby groups in their new country.

The rebellion starts in the small village of Revinge, some 40 kilometres north east of Malmö, when a local rebel group, belonging to the Home Reserve, attacks the military camp P7. The Home Reserve in many parts of Scania now decide to side with the Revinge Group, and as the National Army advances on Malmö the Home Reserve groups gather in the city to protect it from the Army. In Malmö itself, local criminal gangs side with the Home Reserve rebels, forming a number of support groups of their own, based on different allegiances between them. 

Just a little reminder of what it's all about...

http://www.ted.com/talks/brene_brown_on_vulnerability.html

22 July

July 22 2011. With the kids at the public pool. Listening to the unbelievable unfolding in Oslo, then confused messages of shootings at a summer camp outside Oslo. How easily violence explodes security... The central paradox of democracy dismantled, through the killing of future politicians, actors of consolidation rather than change; the security you feel, the safety enjoyed, when being in a position, to take non-violent re/actions for granted. At some point democracy means that you forget that this is not necessarily something you should expect to take for granted—it gets dusty, not valued, no longer perceived as the most central aspect of being able to practice democracy. Only through the momentary and complete loss of security and safety are we reminded of the vulnerability of non-violent democracy. The every-day dustyness of democratic security and safety allows the hubris of extremism, allows distance to grow between people, allows isolation and exclusion to increase. We are all part of the crime, in different ways, unless we actively decide to practice democracy in our everyday encounters with each other—only if we constantly act to increase each others and our own security and safety, through the complete, unreserved and unconditional respect for every one will we be able to defend non-violent democratic values.

Traveling the times of violence

We have just watched yet another episode of the Time Team, one of our all time favourite TV shows. They were excavating a hilltop bronze age community with heavy defence works surrounding it, north of Belfast. Laying in the sofa watching the dark clouds travelling the stormy skies afterwards, waiting for the young one to fall asleep, I cannot help thinking of the disturbing question raised in the programme, and the shadows it throws over the last ten thousand years of human history. Why was such defence works necessary? Thomas Hobbes grins at me through the growing darkness of the falling summer night’s hurling rain. Just how peculiar are our present times at this particular spot on earth? The fact that I do not need to live behind bars, that my children can go to the park and play without guards or even adult company, that friends look a bit questioning at me when I say I don’t let my children go to the baths alone... For how long will this actually still be possible, for how long has it not even been a faint possible fantasy? 

I am completely and absolutely convinced that the human being is basically peaceful, but similarly convinced that she was utterly corrupted by the wealth made possible through agricultural accumulation. So corrupted, in-fact, that she needed to build defence works to protect her goods, both produced by her own sweat and tears and the sweat and tears taken by structural or direct violence from others—family, friends or enemies alike. 

I look at my children, and I see the vulnerability and sensitivity in them, I see the soft curves of their selves slowly and quite carefully being attempted formed by J and myself—into sensible, wise men choosing talk over knives. I wonder whether that would have been possible in more violent times and places. Have we ever seen less violent societies than those of Scandinavia today—despite the very real structural and direct violence actually happening here—since the Neolithic age? What would you tell me Thomas, would you say: ’Just you wait and see!’ Or would you scratch your beard wondering what you got wrong?

Living the post-patriarchal nightmare?

I agree—it feels like there's just too much "post" all around us. And now we're even seeing post post'ing, as in post postmodernism (or metamodernism...). I just looked it up, because I thought I need to know for sure there's not a hidden meaning in this prefix. But as I suspected there isn't. It means just plainly that which comes or happens just after something, as in postmodern or postcolonial. Why bother? Because I'm struggling with the women's equality issue. Please note that I'm NOT talking about gender equality. My problem is that it actually doesn't seem to be be about dismantling the patriarchal, but about a patriarchally defined and driven remodeling of what it means to be a women: from housewifery and mothering, to formal work and careering. Hence, what we see at the moment is not at all the freeing of women from home, bed, kitchen, but a kicking of them out in the male world of work, in which family life is perceived of as suffocation rather than as a re-creative part of life. I know I sound like a radical religious voice of opposition. That's not however my point of departure. Let me try and explain this in some more detail. 

We talk of the 1960's as the decade of revolutions, and most celebrated is the sexual revolution which has become directly connected to women's liberation (because we got the contraceptive pill freely distributed on the market, in the North as well as in the South—i.e. women could suddenly have sex without fearing pregnancy, consequently they could regulate their fertility without the knowledge of any one else than their physician). This is of course worth celebrating. No two words about that. However, it also liberated men from a sexual-reproductive responsibility, and removed the quite obvious excuse for refusing sex, on the part of women, i.e. that they didn't want sex because they were afraid of (yet another) pregnancy and birth. So, the sexual revolution might be seen as a revolution of men's interests in ready access to the women they have a relationship with. The major problem here is not the pill—it is about interests. The discourse surrounding modern (and postmodern!) sex is that it is always nice, however it is practiced as long as those involved consent to it. But what is consent? If anal sex is defined as 'not risky' in whose interests is this? When clean shaved vaginas are defined as OK (as long as you see to it not to get any cuts, or to use particular cleansing products to avoid infections), in whose interests is this defined so?

When you are told to postpone family-making till after you have secured a career, in whose interests is this advise? We may note that in the anglo-saxon tradition this is a particularly patriarchal practice with long and deep roots, not only among the nobility, but also among the working poor (see Jeffrey Weeks). Or , when we are told that prefab food is just as good for us as home cooked meals from fresh produce, in whose interest is it that you buy such prefab stuff? 

What kind of society would take the re-generation of us seriously? How would it look like? The focus would not be on working life, it would be on family. It would not be on the "right" to sex, but the gratefulness of being bestowed access to each others secrets. Focus would be on relational stability and mutual respect of interests and wishes. A focus on time as valuable, not in monetary, but in social terms. 

What we are living today is not a gender equal dream, but a post-patriarchal nightmare, in which the backlash into old-fashioned patriarchalism is imminent, and in which people who try hard to live as equals are forced on their knees, overburdened by juggling the demands on careering and re-generation.