The Policy on Force Revisited?

Although Sweden has increased its participation in peace-enforcing activities considerably ever since the 1990s, the domestic political debate still seems to portray Sweden as a non-aligned, peace-loving nation, distanced from the violent practices associated with war and armed conflict. Given the shift in policy, it is somewhat puzzling how such a self-conception has been sustained and vitalized over the years. Research on the shifting character of war often tends to disassociate the period before and after the end of the Cold War as if the fall of the Berlin wall signified a fundamental break with old political and military logic. However, in relation to the issue of third party military interventions, the field would benefit from analyses of continuities as well as discontinuities in the political and military legitimation and ultimately normalization of the use of force. To understand how the shift in the policy on force has been enabled in the Swedish case it is arguably necessary to explore how the link between policy and identity has been adjusted and maintained over time (Hansen, 2006). My dissertation project deals with the notion of Swedish identity and the policy on force, and explores how violence has been (in)visibilized, (de)politicized and (de)legitimized in Swedish debate from the 1960s until today. As part of this larger study, this particular paper will delve into and examine in close detail the debates that unfolded during the transition from peace-keeping to peace-enforcement when the UN-led UNPROFOR was replaced by the NATO-led IFOR in late 1995. This transition could be considered the starting point for Sweden’s official engagement in peace-enforcing operations, and hence signifies a key moment for the evolving tendency to accept involvement in violent interventions. By arguing that the engagement in Bosnia represents a dislocation in the Swedish discourse and policy on force, the paper will examine the debates and representations in public service broadcasting (SVT) during this period to explore, what Glynos and Howarth (2007) have called, ideological and ethical responses to the shifting character of the military intervention. Is the dislocatory experience denied and concealed or acknowledged and coped with? What sort of meaning-making processes are (re)activated? Above all, the paper will draw attention to narratives on identity and violence, problematize whether such narratives are reinterpreted and renegotiated, and whether violent practices are recognized and legitimized in new ways.