 |
|
|
 |
| |
I'm very happy to be here. For the last five years, my wife Inger and Ihave represented Sweden in New York, and in a good portion of the UnitedStates. The district (as it's officially called) of the Consulate Generalof Sweden in New York extends across the entire United States, with theexception of California and the greater Washington D.C. area.
Neither Inger nor I come from the world of diplomacy. Inger was thedirector general of the Office of the Disability Ombudsman and vicepresident of the board of Stockholm University. I have a background inbusiness, and have been a member of Swedish Parliament, under-secretary ofstate for finance and budget, and editor-in-chief of Sweden's largestnewspaper.
So, do I represent Europe or Sweden? Clearly, the answer is Sweden. It'sfairly typical that the European Commission has adopted the idea of a newlabel: Made in Europe as opposed to Made in Italy, Made in Sweden, etc.This concept has met with vigorous opposition. The different countries ofthe EU all have strong unique identities, and are all competing to promotetheir own products, cultures and national concepts in the internationalarena, not least in the U.S.
It will take a long time, a very long time, before we ever see a UnitedStates of Europe. Europeans are not as willing to relocate as Americansare. The unified European labor market still exists only in theory and wespeak many different languages in Europe. (Although, for sure, there aremany more languages than English being spoken in Florida.)
May of 2004 will mark a giant step in European history. It will signify thefinal (symbolic?) end of communist oppression in Europe. But the expansionof the EU does not necessarily translate into a European mental unification.
As former German chancellor Helmut Schmidt said in a speech in New Yorkabout half a year ago, "one cannot totally rule out the possibility that theoncoming enormous enlargement of the EU by the accession of ten states atone and the same time could lead to a watering down of the competence of theUnion. One cannot totally exclude the possibility of the development of amuch closer cooperation within a smaller inner core."
Add to this the fact that, within an expanded EU, there will exist animpulse to create larger regional spheres. In her annual foreign policystatement to the Swedish Parliament, Swedish Minister for Foreign AffairsLaila Freivalds spoke of the "Nordic-Baltic context". The Nordic InvestmentBank which historically has been a prime example of transnationalcooperation in Scandinavia was recently expanded to include the threeBaltic states.
At one point 350 years ago Sweden was a major power, encompassing all ofthe Baltic Sea, with Stockholm as the central hub. There still exists anotion of economic cooperation within this same geographic region. TheCzech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary and perhaps also Poland are all part of asimilar sphere.
I've chosen the title "Mixed Feelings". The main reason for this is therejection by the Swedish people of the euro currency in last September'snational referendum. This very definitive outcome can be explained on threelevels:
Firstly, Swedish politicians have always maintained a very pragmatic stancewhen it comes to the EU. While the Germans and the French have seen the EUas a means of once and for all abandoning a legacy of historical conflict,of securing a lasting European peace, the Swedes have focused on issues ofemployment, interest rates and trade advantages. As these advantages havefailed to materialize, enthusiasm and support for the European project hasdwindled.
It's also important to remember that Sweden has a stronger transatlanticlink than most other European countries. There is no country, with thepossible exception of our Nordic neighbors, with which Sweden has had acloser relationship than the U.S. Not only did one fifth of the entireSwedish population at one point immigrate to America; 20% of those who cameto the U.S eventually returned, sparking a political and economic revival inthe old country. American influence was strongest among the lower andmiddle classes and in the context of the growing democracy. The upperclasses were still keeping their eyes on imperial Germany.
The U.S. is the most important country in the world for Sweden. Not justbecause the U.S. is the political superpower, but because the United Statesis by far Sweden's most important trading partner, accounting for 10% of alltrade. 200,000 people work for Swedish firms in the U.S., while Americancompanies have 100,000 employees in Sweden. No country invests more inSweden than the United States. All major Swedish companies are at leastpartly owned by Americans.
Culturally, Sweden is somewhat of a 51st state. We have the Ricki Lake Showand Dr. Phil on Swedish TV. Conversely, the popular Survivor series is basedon a Swedish format, generating Swedish export revenue on a weekly basis.
All of this makes for a solid foundation on which to further develop therelations between Sweden and the U.S. Swedish public opinion is sometimesreferred to as "anti-American". This is hardly the case. When asked inopinion polls "If you had to flee the country but couldn't enter any of theNordic countries, where would you go?" the Swedish people year after yearanswer: "the U.S."
The Swedish Government and the current U.S. administration have differentviews on the international role of the United Nations. But this does notmean that Sweden is opposed to military action: Sweden supported the firstGulf War and contributed to the coalition with a field hospital. Wesupported the war against the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and sentmilitary personnel. In the latest war in Iraq, Sweden welcomed (along withall decent nations) the fall of Saddam Hussein and his regime, but wouldhave preferred actions based on a solid international consensus and thedirect involvement of the U.N. This would have probably made the currentsituation more manageable.
In addition to its close ties with the U.S., Sweden is unique in that thecountry hasn't been at war in more than 200 years. This has made Swedesless understanding of and receptive to the need for military force. It alsomeans that the European project may not resonate as strongly with Swedes asit does with people who have lived through war and oppression.
A second reason why Swedes voted against the introduction of the euro isthat, more than anything, they protested against a system in which politicaldecisions are considered too far removed from the people. Anyone who haslived in the U.S. knows what the general population thinks of "Washington".Likewise, in Sweden, "Stockholm" is seen by many as having too muchdecision-making power. And, of course, no one of that opinion is likely tovote for the continued transfer of power to Brussels or the European CentralBank in Frankfurt.
Thirdly, the rejection of the euro can be explained by a fear of what theimpending expansion of the EU will bring in terms of increased immigrationto Sweden. Sweden is the European country that, for the last 30 years, hasabsorbed the largest amount of immigrants, often refugees from countriesoutside of Europe. One in every seven Swedes was born in another country.And between one third and one fourth of all children born in Sweden have atleast one immigrant parent.
This influx has not been without problems. The Swedish welfare system from womb to tomb is heavily burdened by the difficulties of certainimmigrant groups in entering the labor market. This trend is likely toaccelerate with the enlargement of the European Union. As per EUregulations, anyone working ten hours a week has the right to full welfarebenefits. This means that a citizen of another EU country who workspart-time in Sweden can send home the equivalent of 5,000 USD per year tohis or her four children, has the right to collect full unemployment andpension benefits, etc.
This prospect has caused most of the original EU member states to introducevarious types of regulations to restrict the free movement of labor acrossborders. Discussions of similar measures are taking place in Sweden and mayalso have influenced the euro referendum.
Nevertheless, it is my belief that the rejection of the euro should beconsidered a mere bump in the road. And the road still continues in thesame direction. Sweden adheres to the EU's common monetary policy in allaspects except for the actual adoption of the currency. Sweden is and willremain bound to the budgetary and financial restrictions of the Maastrichtagreement.
It's interesting to note, as an aside, that the United States currently doesnot meet the criteria for EU membership. The reason for this is not justthat the EU does not allow the death penalty, but also because the U.S.budget deficit does not meet the rules of convergence required by the EU.
Sweden has now been a member of the European Union for nine years. We haveseen how, in one area after another, both laws and patterns of behavior havebecome more integrated. The addition of ten new member states, with afundamentally positive approach to the EU, will lead to an acceleratedintegration process in Sweden as well.
So, to conclude: the enlargement of the EU in May of 2004 will put addedstrain on the existing member states, both politically and financially.Without a doubt, the European project will enter a phase of increasedcomplexity. However, despite the challenges ahead, and despite our "mixedfeelings", Sweden is and must remain a part of Europe and a key player inthe European Union. Sweden with or without the euro currency is readyto assume shared responsibility for the future of a brighter, more complex,and hopefully more economically powerful European Union.
Back to index
| |
|
|
|
 |
 |
wastberg.se/viewrecipie.php?rid= |
 |
 |
|
