Current Swedish foreign policy is the definition of insanity.
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different outcomes. By that definition Swedish foreign minister Tobias Billström and the entire foreign office (Utrikesdepartementet or UD) are certifiably insane. It has now been over fifteen months since Sweden applied to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and we are still being held up by Turkey and Hungary. Every other month there is a new date being tossed around when Turkey will formally ratify Swedish accession only to postpone it at the last second and every time Billström and the rest of the Swedish government think “this time for sure”.
I bring this up not just because complaining about NATO is a hobby horse of mine but also because it is an instructive case in how politicians misunderstand voters. The shift from our classic neutral stance to joining NATO was due to the outbreak of war in Ukraine. One of Sweden’s old enemies is invading its neighbour which proves that small countries are vulnerable to great powers whims. The Swedish public very reasonably came to the conclusion that the time was right to act on the open invitation to NATO the US had given us. What is critical to understand though is that for the average voter NATO was a means to an end rather than an end itself. Joining a defensive alliance is a good way of increasing one’s security and what the people were asking for was to be more secure, not to be part of an alliance.
In this context the continuous pursuit of a NATO membership is counterproductive; the alliance shows no sign of letting us join so why waste the time and diplomatic resources on trying to persuade Turkey when we could pursue other avenues for becoming more secure. The government is locked in a losing strategy as they seem to think that the Swedish people gave them a mandate to join NATO, so not doing so would be against the demos’ wishes when in reality they were given a mandate to increase security.
This dynamic is not specific to Sweden nor to joining NATO. One can imagine a scenario when a government wins an election on a promise to cut taxes when what the electorate really wants is a cheaper cost of living. These two issues are intimately tied but the goal of lowering living costs can be achieved by a variety of means unlike lowering taxes. Good policy requires an understanding of what the real goal is, otherwise one misses the forest for the trees.
Until Billström and company realise what the electorate is asking for we are stuck in the loop if setting and postponing dates, of excitement and disappointment, of “this time for sure”. That cycle makes the government look dumb, frustrates the voters, and gives Ankara undue leverage. Still, UD and Billström allow the cycle to continue. That is insane.
If you liked this post you can read my last post about influencers here, or the rest of my writings here. It'd mean a lot to me if you recommended the blog to a friend or coworker. Come back next Monday for a new post!
I've always been interested in politics, economics, and the interplay between. The blog is a place for me to explore different ideas and concepts relating to economics or politics, be that national or international. The goal for the blog is to make you think; to provide new perspectives.
Written by Karl Johansson
Cover photo by Michael Erhardsson from Pexels, edited by Karl Johansson
Comments