Pierre Schori Interview: Conversations with History; Institute of International Studies, UC Berkeley
Page 5 of 9
Tell us a little about how Sweden's foreign policy and the kinds of commitments you had talked about earlier, coming out of your party, related to that millennium agenda. Because when one looks at the record, Sweden, across the board, takes a leadership role in many of these areas, and for a small state it's surprising. One always thinks that it's only the major powers who can contribute.
In 1962, already, we set up the 0.7 goal of GNP for foreign assistance, because we saw that as part of our national security policy, that as long as you're having injustices and poverty and conflicts out there, we can never in the long run develop our own society behind walls, or under a glass. This was in '62, and there was Olof Palme, he was secretary of that group. It was the same time when the War on Poverty started in this country, or was announced by Lyndon Johnson and Michael Harrington, which inspired us -- we knew Michael Harrington, Palme met him, too, and that inspired us, too.
But there were two wars on poverty. Ours, in '62, was against world poverty, because we had already gotten started on our own society. Lyndon's was the [domestic] War on Poverty, which was obvious, then. Again, there was a war that disturbed that -- Vietnam, of course. So over the years, we have set aside a lot of money for development and cooperation, and I think that we made a difference in many fields where other countries held back. The anti-apartheid struggle, for instance, we were early on involved in humanitarian support and legal support to the ANC, and also for liberation movements. That was very important.
Why has your country been an important leader at the UN? It really has been. Is it this link between domestic and foreign policy, and Sweden's own internal values?
We believe that as a small nation before we were in the European Union, we needed an international organization like the UN. We have always said that the UN is a cornerstone of our foreign and security policy. We need collective action and a collective solution for collective problems. So, therefore, we have, together with the other Nordic countries contributed a lot to UN programs; together, as much as the U.S., by the way. We are major donors, like the fifth or sixth or tenth in the world, to all the different programs, because we believe in the UN.
We also know that the UN needs reform now, just like the EU expanding its membership now needs to deepen and change the structures. The UN needs radical reform. There's a lot of internal inertia, while there's a lot of external energy at the UN with all the peacekeeping operations and so on. But it's the only organization where you have legitimacy, sustainability, impartiality, and universality.
Sweden has always made a contribution to the peacekeeping forces, either in the form of boots on the ground or in terms of expertise.
Yes. There have been about 800,000 peacekeepers since they were started under Dag Hammarskjöld, the Swedish Secretary-General, and Ralph Bunche. Out of 800,000, we have [provided] about 10 percent, which shows a lot about our commitment. That [figure] was down some years ago, but now we are coming back with a vengeance, I would say. We are right now in all the peacekeeping operation in Africa, in one or another form. But, yes, it has been a tradition.
The problem for peacekeeping now is that it's mainly Third World countries who are contributing, and you see European countries and industrial countries not wanting to go in so much in Africa, for instance, where all the main peacekeeping operations are. We have to rectify that to show that we are not Europeanized, so to say, or [that we] just take care of the Balkans and do not want to engage in Africa. I think that is changing now. It needs to change.
Next page: UN Operations
© Copyright 2004, Regents of the University of California