Mehmet OZKAN
Anyone reads the history of independent movements in Africa or elsewhere, or anyone who travels to conflict-ridden areas such as Southern Africa or Balkans will certainly see some kind of help, financial aid or otherwise provided by Sweden in particular and Nordic countries in general.
Anyone reads the history of independent movements in Africa or elsewhere, or anyone who travels to conflict-ridden areas such as Southern Africa or Balkans will certainly see some kind of help, financial aid or otherwise provided by Sweden in particular and Nordic countries in general.
Nordic countries are sparing their % 0.7 of GDP to foreign aid, being among the few countries that catch the Millennium Developing Goals of United Nations. Currently, the 15 percent of the population of Sweden either were born outside then moved to Sweden or their parents were born outside. One can even argue that Sweden is very much welcome to foreigners, especially the minorities and oppressed ones in other countries, if they wish to immigrate. Why so and why Sweden or Nordic countries? Do they have vital or any political or economic interest at all in those areas? If they are doing this only with humanitarian purpose, why are they so humanitarian in comparison to other nations? These questions stroked me for last two years after I exposed to Southern African history and politics. Now living in Sweden gave me chance to understand and analyze my questions. In this short essay, first a historical and psychological account of Swedes will be outlined. Second, their neutrality and mostly egalitarian inclinations will be understood in terms of climate in the area. Third, an explanation for both, why Sweden is the most helpful nation, and the popularity or widespread of rock music in the area well be offered.
I
History is the best place to find future. The deeper one goes into history, the further one understands the future. In a metaphoric form, the stronger the archer takes aback his/her arc, the faster and further the arrow would go. Therefore, a short historical description is needed here to shed a light on current issues. In 17th century Sweden was one of the great powers in European politics and was then relatively able to define the future of the continent. Under the rule of King Gustav II Adolph, Sweden took part in Thirty Years’ War and was quite successful. However, such a great nation started to lose its position as mover-and-shaker in the continents affairs day-by-day since then. Although, there can be many explanations such as separation of area among different kings or rulers, the main point here is that Nordic countries in general and Sweden in particular has lost its influence in European affairs. Of course they were not out, but quite down. That is mostly why Sweden united with Norway in order to find a way and act together to bring its influence back. Unity with Norway, though it was created by force, lasted between 1814 and 1905. But this created more disintegration rather than the aimed integration. Until the 20th century, the overall declining trend continued. In the first half of 20th century, two world wars were fought between other players in Europe, mainly France, Britain and Germany. Nordic countries were neutral and did not involve either of the wars. Perhaps, Nordic countries were of opinion that they could play a constructive role in Europe after the wars, thus increasing their influence in European affairs. However that had not happened and power blocs moved to the US and the Soviet Union, leaving Europe first time in modern times as a battleground but not power centre. For Nordic countries, there were limited options; either they would align themselves with the Atlantic bloc or stay neutral as they did in first half of the 20th century. They preferred to be neutral focusing their economic development and creating a social state. At the same time, the developing process of European Union was undergoing in Europe, for the Nordic countries, it was there only to watch in that time. When the Cold-War ended, Nordic countries entered to the EU (with the exception of Norway), but such a move decreased further their influence in European affairs in essence, although they are inside the decision-making process. Today, many people agree that the EU cannot take any decision without the authorization of Germany, France and Britain together. This tripartite-character of the EU is not much-liked, but accepted as bona fide.
I
History is the best place to find future. The deeper one goes into history, the further one understands the future. In a metaphoric form, the stronger the archer takes aback his/her arc, the faster and further the arrow would go. Therefore, a short historical description is needed here to shed a light on current issues. In 17th century Sweden was one of the great powers in European politics and was then relatively able to define the future of the continent. Under the rule of King Gustav II Adolph, Sweden took part in Thirty Years’ War and was quite successful. However, such a great nation started to lose its position as mover-and-shaker in the continents affairs day-by-day since then. Although, there can be many explanations such as separation of area among different kings or rulers, the main point here is that Nordic countries in general and Sweden in particular has lost its influence in European affairs. Of course they were not out, but quite down. That is mostly why Sweden united with Norway in order to find a way and act together to bring its influence back. Unity with Norway, though it was created by force, lasted between 1814 and 1905. But this created more disintegration rather than the aimed integration. Until the 20th century, the overall declining trend continued. In the first half of 20th century, two world wars were fought between other players in Europe, mainly France, Britain and Germany. Nordic countries were neutral and did not involve either of the wars. Perhaps, Nordic countries were of opinion that they could play a constructive role in Europe after the wars, thus increasing their influence in European affairs. However that had not happened and power blocs moved to the US and the Soviet Union, leaving Europe first time in modern times as a battleground but not power centre. For Nordic countries, there were limited options; either they would align themselves with the Atlantic bloc or stay neutral as they did in first half of the 20th century. They preferred to be neutral focusing their economic development and creating a social state. At the same time, the developing process of European Union was undergoing in Europe, for the Nordic countries, it was there only to watch in that time. When the Cold-War ended, Nordic countries entered to the EU (with the exception of Norway), but such a move decreased further their influence in European affairs in essence, although they are inside the decision-making process. Today, many people agree that the EU cannot take any decision without the authorization of Germany, France and Britain together. This tripartite-character of the EU is not much-liked, but accepted as bona fide.
It seems that Nordic countries’ donation and good-offices policies can be understood fully in the light of above-summarized historical account and psychology. Against this background, one can claim that the channels were needed to express or show that Nordic countries are active in global politics not only for the other nations, but most importantly for the Nordic countries per se. Coupled with and supported by the psychological imperatives that they were the-mover-and-shaker once, the intentions to find a way to be influential in global politics and humanitarian inclinations came together and showed itself in supporting the anti-apartheid and self-determination movements in various part of the world. Financial aid, supporting local projects, and scholarships have all can be regarded as the realizations of this policy. There seems a strong tendency to help minorities in all over the world, especially the ones who faces some sort of human rights or war crisis. In other words, immigrants in Nordic countries consist of minority groups from different part of the world, rather than majorities in anywhere in the world. Party in explaining this understanding, the immigrant populations in Nordic countries are mostly from the Kurdish areas of the Middle East, Somali, Bosnia, Kosovo, and other conflict-ridden areas. It is arguable to say that Sweden and other Nordic countries are of helpful of other minorities not only because of humanitarian purposes, but also the minority psychology or ineffectiveness that they experience in European affairs. While this issue is open to debate and further research, my reading of deeper Swedish psychology points this way. In Foucaultian term, ‘the archeology of knowledge’ might have established a similarity in Nordic perception between minorities all over the world and themselves.
II
Nordic countries are among the coldest areas in the World. The number of dark days and the very short light time during the day are the main characteristics of winter in Nordic countries. During almost six months winter period, for one, there is no option but to stay at home. The longevity of the dark and gloomy days should have some impacts on people who live in there. Usually the people of cold areas are seen as serious and having strong character against difficulties. In Nordic countries, strong character may be not that recognizable but seriousness and rationality is quite vivid. If the clime has an effect on human behavior, this can be illustrated clearly in music industry. Nordic countries are areas that rock music is widely listened and more importantly produced. In an overall judgment, rock music has sort of rebellion character and mostly a representation or repercussion of individualities. Egalitarian societies are the cradle, and par excellence, of individualist life style. This notion, which is very much well-established in Nordic countries, coupled with the climate influence results a society where people need to face the real reality of gloomy weather and real individualist life style. Therefore, the popularity and productivity of rock music industry in Nordic countries can be attributed to climate condition.
III
In global politic, neutrality has become the cornerstone of the foreign policy of Sweden, Finland and Norway. Although, this is partly explained with regard to stationing at the periphery of Europe, such an understanding does not fully explain the reasons behind Nordic neutrality. It is also questionable, given the fact that Britain is also located at the periphery of Europe rather than the center geographically. I think Nordic neutrality needs to be understood from two perspectives. First, Nordic countries were never colonizers as the other Europeans, notably Britain, were. Being not a colonizer, theoretically, provided little information about the rest of the world; killed adventures feelings among the society; and thus created a socially reserve, constructed society in which internal happiness is regarded as the main aim. Put sufficiently, the importance that was attributed economic development and social well-being in Nordic countries’ policies is a by-product of being non-colonizer. In other words, psychology of non-colonizer never or rarely looks outside word, until it solves its own problem at outmost level. They do take hardly any risk, and, therefore play the game very carefully. Consider the unwillingness of Norway in joining the European Union, while there is open and standing invitation. In Nordic countries, the involvement in outside affairs is secondary rather than primary and it shows itself in low politics such as financial aid, not in high politics. However, there might be an expectation or hope that low politics will help to reach high politics.
Second, the influence of climate in this process is also vital. As explained above, Nordic countries were not colonizers. Colonizers have usually imperial mentality and psychology. Nordic countries do not have such understanding of global politics. Climate is, in supportive of and settling this notion, important to understand. Probably, the climate is not the sole factor in creating such thinking, but it likely that climate condition played a role in ‘naturalizing’ this notion.
During the long winter in Nordic countries, one usually has no one to ask help. As mentioned days are very short, and nights are long. Social interactions in cold and dark winter days are, expectedly, less. The connection with outside world, physically, is diminished dramatically. Once everybody lives in a self-help condition (positively), individual doings are coming to surface. Now thanks to technological developments, TV, internet, and computer games are making life much easier but they are also creating more individualist society in Nordic countries. This issue, I believe, is creating an ‘unintended consequence’ that supports and embarks on the creation of more egalitarian society. Therefore, climate dimension should be also brought in to understand the development of democracy and egalitarian society in Nordic countries.
Originally published in A DIFFERENT VIEW, Issue 10, January 2007.
No comments:
Post a Comment