Citation

Bjereld U. J. Peace Res. 1995; 32(1): 23-35.

Copyright

(Copyright © 1995, SAGE Publishing)

DOI

10.1177/0022343395032001003

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

The article analyses Sweden as a critic and as a mediator and bridge-builder on the international arena since 1945. Some researchers have claimed that in the mid-1960s Sweden took on the role of critic at the expense of that of mediator. Was this true? Has Sweden's participation in international opinion-building had a negative effect on her usefulness as mediator or bridge-builder in international conflicts? And what role do the actions of a nation as critic play for the image of that state as an impartial mediator? First, the relevance of a mediator/bridge-builder's impartiality is discussed. Thereafter, Sweden as critic and mediator/bridge-builder since 1945 is presented. Sweden's actions in two concrete cases are focused on the Vietnam and Iran-Iraq wars. In both cases Sweden tried to combine the role of mediator and bridge-builder with that of critic. Finally, some general conclusions are formulated about the relationship between the role of critic and that of mediator/bridge-builder. The results show that in the mid-1960s Sweden began to take part in international opinion-building and to formulate criticism of other countries to a much greater extent than previously. But Sweden's taking on of the critic's role in the 1960s was not followed by a decrease in her mediation or bridge-building missions. The hypothesis that Sweden took on the critic's role at the expense of the mediator's role is thus not supported in this study. It is concluded that there are no objections to a country that wants to act as a mediator or bridge-builder taking an active part in international opinion-building or formulating criticism of other countries in terms of different issues. But restrictions on criticism and attitudes come up in conflicts where that country is also acting as a mediator or bridge-builder.