Sweden has a feminist foreign policy. What does that mean? First some background. Sweden, a country of about 9.6 million people, is home to 700,000 Muslims. About 7% of the population.
Many people in Sweden now feel that if Sweden can recognize Palestine, why not do the same with Western Sahara, a disputed territory unilaterally annexed by Morocco 40 years ago? Does such a decision not jibe with the “feminist foreign policy?” Or could it be that Morocco is a Muslim country, and that the feminist Wallström does not want to offend countries such as that? Certainly not after a debacle in 2015, when Wallström labeled Saudi Arabia a dictatorship with medieval laws and oppressing women. This statement before Parliament came as a reaction to the sentencing of Saudi blogger Raif Badawi to ten years in prison and 1,000 lashes, on charges of “insulting Islam.”
Many Swedes at the time were pleasantly surprised by Wallström’s statement, and thought that maybe this “feminist foreign policy” thing was not so bad after all. In the Muslim world, however, her statement was met with considerable anger. The Organization of Islamic Cooperation, OIC, wrote on its web page: “In her remarks, Ms. Wallström degraded Saudi Arabia and its social norms, judicial system and political institutions.”
What Wallström apparently failed to grasp when she attacked the Saudi justice system, is that it is based on Sharia law, the Islamic judicial system. And one does not criticize this with impunity, as a Foreign Minister should know. So, instead of sticking to her original arguments, which were, of course, factually correct, wild panic erupted at the government offices. Wallström’s Press Secretary, Erik Boman, hurried to claim that his boss had not meant her statement to be construed as any kind of criticism of Islam. “We have the utmost respect for Islam,” Boman said. “Sweden values its good relations with the Muslim world.”
Wallström herself held an ingratiating speech in Parliament. She praised Saudi Arabia, mentioned that the king is the guardian of the two most important mosques in Islam, and stressed that many Swedes go on pilgrimage there every year. The end of her speech once again made people gasp: “To address some of the claims circulating, I would just like to say: We have the utmost respect for Islam as a world religion and for its contributions to our common civilization. … Sweden values our good relations to the Muslim world. Many Swedes are Muslims, and they of course give valuable contributions to our society.”
I assume that “feminist foreign policy” means avoiding war at all costs. She forgets that sometimes in world affairs there are irreconcilable differences.
On a historical note – Sweden was a “neutral” in WW2. They sold iron ore to Germany and bought coal from the Germans. Maybe they see a profit opportunity in Islam.
There does appear to be a fly in the “feminist foreign policy” ointment: Massive Coverup Exposed In Sweden As Media, Cops Hid Migrant Sex Attacks.
Reality is a son-of-a-bitch.
Comments
10 responses to “Feminist Foreign Policy”
Stop the Swedish neutrality BS. They sided with Germany in both world wars although on the down low. They aided and abetted the invasion of Norway, and neither Sweden nor Norway are yet de-Nazified, hence the virulent anti-Semitism of both countries.
old man koch built refineries for hitler and grand pappy bush and henry ford did business with him. republicans and southern democrats demand the st louis not be alowed to dock in ameriKKKa.
Bob – The other side wasn’t us, it was the Soviets who savagely invaded Finland for no reason other than they wanted their land. Neutral is a pretty good choice when the alternatives are Stalin or Hitler.
[…] MAKES ABOUT AS MUCH SENSE AS A CHOCOLATE HAMMER: Feminist Foreign Policy. […]
Sweden has had a cowardly foreign policy since the start of WWII at least (and has had a well-to-the-left government almost all the time since 1936 – one may suspect the two are related). Sweden helped Germany invade Norway in 1940 (when Hitler and Stalin were allies – see incorrect comment two above); Nazi soldiers were allowed to travelled across Sweden to reach their force in Narvik during the fighting; the Germans at Narvik were otherwise cut off from Germany after a successful British Navy action. Thereafter, over a hundred thousand Nazi troops were allowed to travel across Sweden from first to last, and Swedish factories and mines supplied some essential ores and a huge amount of useful material. Sweden resisted allied pressure to stop till very late in the war and then cheated on their promise to stop, smuggling more material to Germany (for high profits). (Details in, for example, Weinberg “A World at Arms”.) The ultimate comment on Sweden in WWII appears in the ‘German Player Notes’ of a WWII wargame I own: “Remember: your Swedish arms factories are the only ones the allies cannot bomb”.
There is very little that can be said on the other side for the government of Sweden – I’ll say here what there is. Although they left Wallenberg hung out to dry after the Soviets picked him up, and never really helped his earlier anti-Nazi work to save Jews, Hitler’s fear (perhaps unjustified, given how they let Stalin disappear him later!) that a provoked Swedish government might reduce supplies was why Wallenberg was handled gently in Hungary in 1944 when he saved maybe 30,000 Jews. Earlier, in 1943, the Swedes did allow some six thousand plus Jews to enter their country from Denmark (rich Danes paid for cost of smuggling them IIRC) and once in Sweden these Jews were allowed to work.
Based on this article, I’d guess that “feminist foreign policy” means lay back, spread your legs, and think of Marx.
Feminine foreign policy doesn’t hold a candle to my favorite Progressive delusion – Postmodern Math. Yes, some believe there is such a thing.
I wonder if the term should have been feminine foreign policy rather then feminist foreign policy. A true feminist would be horrified at Sharia law and how it treats women. Of course, most feminists are only concerned with made up slights in the United States. The women in foreign countries are not even an afterthought.
For most modern “feminists”, the title is completely undeserved. They aren’t feminists; what they want is to return to the (romantic novel – highly fictional) Victorian world where women were put on a pedestal and untouchable by any man.