In 2004, a video message from Osama Bin Laden advised the American people that their country, along with Israel, was the cause of injustice in the Middle East and that was why he and his Al Queada cohorts would continue to strike out at them. He also name checked Sweden as a country they hadn't nor wouldn't attack. Nice lovable Sweden.
Fair enough you may think, apart from a spot of raping and pillaging over a millennium ago, Sweden has been quietly sat there churning out the odd Eurovision song contest winner and avoiding getting involved with much of the global arguing, even managing to stay neutral through the whole of World War II.
It was the quiet one of the class while the more boisterous countries shouted, hollered and fought among themselves.
Then something changed and little Sweden began hanging around the fringe of the bad boys. Then it got involved with a fight between America and Afghanistan and now, after the bombing on the streets of Stockholm, Sweden has been sucked into the sights of the terrorists.
Rather than stay safely on the sidelines, it was swayed by the worst of the gang, America and Great Britain, to join them in a war of dubious origins, that they can't possibly win and which they have been trying to find a way to get out of for years.
You are one of us now Sweden and you have a big hole in the middle of Stockholm shopping district to show for it.
Welcome to the World the boisterous countries made. Nice 'innit.
4 comments:
I completely agree that Sweden has dropped a bollock in suddenly becoming involved in Afghanistan... (ironically, just as even the most ‘hawkish’ people in other countries are – finally – realising what a fool’s errand it always was).
However, on a more theoretical level, I’d also say that no country should allow the formulation of their foreign policy to be unduly influenced by the potential reaction of illiberal nutcases like Osama bin Laden.
As well as being broadly in ‘the national interest’, foreign policy should also have an ethical dimension and strive to produce the maximum moral good, where possible. Both of these goals have the potential to upset fundamentalist ‘agents of intolerance’ who may wish to harm random citizens of the country that they’re annoyed with.
(Granted that these ‘agents’ have also been very annoyed by extremely un-ethical policies as well, but I’m talking theory here rather than practice - terrorists may also be moved to commit their atrocities when a country is pursuing worthy and virtuous goals).
This potential for ‘blowback’ should definitely be taken into account when devising foreign policy, but it should not be the over-riding concern; otherwise you effectively end up being held to ransom.
I am surprised that Sweden got it before Australia David. Hopefully you won't get it at all.
I was aware that the post may come off sounding like don't do this because you will piss off nutters but it was more 'don't be swayed into joining dodgy wars when you can quite simply keep your nose out'.
I guarantee that we will get it, Lucy. Why it's taken so long, I don't know.
The U.S. puts a lot of pressure on potential 'Allies' behind the scenes, so eager is it to appear to have lots of support for its obsessive warmongering.
One of the cables released today shows that America was worried that we couldn't pay for the American armaments we'd agreed to buy (at highly inflated prices).
If we were Israelis, this wouldn't be a problem!
Cheers.
Why do you think I live in Thailand? The Thais don't bother anyone. The Yanks can't keep their big noses out - so it's all karma.
Post a Comment