XPost: alt.politics.radical-left, alt.activism, de.soc.politik.misc   
   XPost: alt.politics.india.communist   
   From: rolf.martens@comhem.se   
      
   UNITE! Info #278en: 4/4 Bush and Reinfeldt agree on energy strangling   
   [Posted: 25.05.2007; planned for 19.05.2007]   
      
   [Continued from part 3/4]   
      
      
      
   A VERY REVEALING FIRST-PAGE ARTICLE   
   IN THE WASHINGTON POST ON 25.11.1994 (ctd.)   
      
   Back in the early and mid-1990s however, there still was a   
   certain resistance, on the part of some bourgeois forces too   
   here in Sweden, against that anti-nuclear-energy campaign   
   which had been brought to such extreme lengths in this coun-   
   try, with even an Inquisition-type ban on all nuclear power   
   reactor construction and on that whole energy source for the   
   future. One public expression of this came in the autumn of   
   1994. On this and on the very noteworthy reaction by the US   
   imperialists to it, actually, for once, a public one too and   
   thus one very visible thing that can be pointed to as proof of   
   their desires since a long time back concerning nuclear energy   
   in such a country as Sweden, I wrote in Info #034en, part 3/3:   
      
      
   "A SEEMINGLY STRANGE ARTICLE IN THE WASHINGTON POST, [ON]   
   25.11.1994   
      
   In 1994, there in Sweden were some rather weak but significant   
   moves in certain bourgeois circles to get out of the economi-   
   cally of course extremely damaging straightjacket that the   
   abovementioned stoneage laws against nuclear energy were im-   
   posing. There was also stronger and stronger, even if quite   
   unorganized and thus mainly unexpressed, pressure in that   
   direction from the great majority of people here.   
      
   On 13.10.1994, for instance, the director of the International   
   Atomic Energy Agency, who happened to be a Swede, Hans Blix,   
   in a speech in Stockholm (which - rather 'naturally' - was not   
   reported on in any of the media) i.a. said that 'if another   
   referendum is required to save our nuclear-energy programme,   
   then let us take this'.   
      
   Another referendum? Then this 'might have to' be a genuine   
   one; it wouldn't be possible to pull anything nearly like the   
   fantastic stunt of 1980 once more in this country. But this   
   then would result in an overwhelming 'yes' to nuclear energy,   
   which, as those in power well know, has always been the   
   opinion of the Swedish people, and in later years even   
   stronger than before. If it's one thing that the main, ultra-   
   reactionary, ruling bourgeois forces here and abroad are dead   
   set against, that's precisely a genuine referendum on this   
   question.   
      
   It no doubt were these moves in Sweden that occasioned the   
   otherwise rather inexplicable, very curious, cock-and-bull   
   story that filled the first page, and several others, of the   
   semi-governmental US newspaper the Washington Post on   
   25.11.1994. Its headline was: 'Neutral Sweden Quietly Keeps   
   Nuclear Option Open'. Reading that headline, you wouldn't   
   really immediately understand what 'nuclear option' was being   
   referred to, whether one of (extended) peaceful use, i.e.   
   building some more power plants, or one of making bombs - even   
   if the word 'neutral' of course did give a hint. In reality,   
   as the circumstances clearly shows, the article was intended   
   to give the message, quite publicly this time, to the Swedish   
   politicians: 'Don't you dare abrogate those anti- nuclear-   
   energy laws in your small country, for instance as a result of   
   any real referendum, or else...'.   
      
   Purportedly, it was about a supposed suspicion that Sweden -   
   that not only 'friendly' but also very 'docile' country, on   
   these questions - was actually holding open a nuclear-weapons   
   production option. Back In the late 50s, in a quite different   
   situation in the world, there actually had been a certain   
   discussion about such a possibility here. It rather quickly   
   died out, after some grumpy reactions from both of the biggest   
   powers at the time, the USA and the (of course neighbouring)   
   Soviet Union. Since many years back today, no Swedish bour-   
   geois politician would as much as dream of challenging the   
   'Gods and Jesuses' of this planet by making the slightest move   
   in the direction of an independent nuclear-weapons force   
   similar to the French [one].   
      
   Completely ridiculously, as all well knew, the WP article for   
   'evidence' of its 'suspicion' referred to the old and small,   
   since more than 20 years back shut-down and today completely   
   inoperable Ågesta heavy-water reactor which in the 60s and   
   early 70s had supplied the Stockholmers with some amounts of   
   appreciatedly environmental-friendly heat and electricity. In   
   the issue of the Dagens Nyheter the next day, it was reported   
   that the Swedish government was preparing a statement on ac-   
   count of that article in the influential US paper, but event-   
   ually, silence was preferred on the matter.   
      
   However, although factually, the WP article had been a   
   seemingly surprising piece of idiocy, it politically of   
   course, precisely therefore too, constituted a very demonstra-   
   tive piece of pressure on the rulers of this country. *That* -   
   indirect - statement of 1994, and not the recent, later also   
   'retracted' one by the ambassador, shows the real wishes and   
   intents of those in power in the USA concerning nuclear energy   
   here in Sweden."   
      
      
   The statement which I referred to here was one by the then US   
   ambassador to Sweden,  Thomas L.Siebert, which was reported on   
   by the media on 21.05.1997 and in which he said that the   
   plan here in Sweden (actually, at that point only one by some   
   "leading" politicians here, and in fact a directly criminal   
   one too, according to the laws of the country) to close down   
   the Barsebäck nuclear power plant "was giving the wrong signal   
   to those in America [meaning, the USA] who might want to in-   
   vest in Swedish enterprises".   
      
   The then prime minister in Sweden, Göran Persson, seized the   
   opportunity to make some rather loud noises against this,   
   because that statement - although actually, for once, as   
   coming from a US representative, a quite good one on that   
   subject - was also something which he could utilize in order   
   to make himself appear publicly, not as that rather extreme   
   stooge of the US imperialists which he really was, who had   
   recently cooked up the criminal destruction plan against Bar-   
   sebäck precisely in accordance with their wishes too, but as a   
   "staunch guardian of Sweden's independence against big-power   
   pressure". On the continuation of that rather small affair, I   
   wrote in Info #034en, part 1/3:   
      
      
   "After Mr Siebert, who was by then back on a trip to the USA,   
   had been "asked for an explanation" over the telephone by an   
   official of the Swedish foreign ministry, he issued a press   
   release via the United States Information Service on the same   
   day, 22.05, saying that his earlier statement had 'not' been   
   'a criticism of Sweden's decision [!] to close the nuclear   
   power plant at Barsebäck' - thus pretending 'not to know' that   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)