February 2, 2017

Fox News on Februari 1, 2017, reported that US National Security Adviser Mike Flynn said the Trump administration is putting Iran “on notice” after it tested a ballistic missile and Tehran-backed militants attacked a Saudi naval vessel. Excerpts below:

The implications of the warning are unclear, but Flynn pointedly criticized the Obama administration for failing “to respond adequately” to Iran’s provocative behavior.

“As of today, we are officially putting Iran on notice,” Flynn said, speaking to reporters in the White House briefing and also issuing a written statement.

At a press briefing later on Februari 1 a senior administration official declined to elaborate on how Iran would be held accountable, saying, “there are a large range of options available to the administration, from financial and economic…to pursuing other options related to support for those that are challenging and opposing Iranian malign activity in the region.”

Asked if that would include a military option, the official replied, “we are considering a whole range of options. We’re in a deliberative process.”

Flynn blasted Iran’s “destabilizing behavior,” saying the recent missile launch defied a U.N. Security Council resolution.

“The Obama Administration failed to respond adequately to Tehran’s malign actions—including weapons transfers, support for terrorism, and other violations of international norms,” Flynn said. “The Trump Administration condemns such actions by Iran that undermine security, prosperity, and stability throughout and beyond the Middle East and … place American lives at risk.”

A defense official said this week that the missile test ended with a “failed” re-entry into the earth’s atmosphere.

The attack on a Saudi vessel, meanwhile, was carried out by Iranian-backed Houthi rebels in the Red Sea.

Two Saudi sailors were killed and three were wounded. Fox News reported earlier this week that, according to two defense officials, the attack may have been meant for an American warship.

In audio heard on a video of the attack, a voice narrating the attack shouts in Arabic, “Allahu akbar [God is great], death to America, death to Israel, a curse on the Jews and victory for Islam.

Comment: US allies in the area have with growing concern noted the lack of American response to Iranian subversive activities. The reaction in Israel is naturally one of relief. The growing influence of Iran in the Middle East threatens not only the Jewish state.


January 16, 2017

Fox News on January 15, 2017 reported that former top U.S. government officials have urged President-elect Donald Trump to work with Iran’s opposition once in office. A letter signed by 23 former officeholders calls on Trump to consult with the Paris-based National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI). The group has called for free elections and freedom of religion in Iran, as well as an end to what it calls Tehran’s “religious dictatorship.” Excerpts below:

…the NCRI’s network of supporters in Iran helped the U.S. with intelligence during the Iraq invasion. The group also helped expose Iran’s nascent nuclear weapons program.

“Iran’s rulers have directly targeted US strategic interests, policies and principles, and those of our allies and friends in the Middle East,” the letter reads, in part. “To restore American influence and credibility in the world, the United States needs a revised policy.”

Last month, Fox obtained a letter to Trump from a group of Iranian dissidents that urged the president-elect to follow through on his campaign promise to revisit the nuclear deal between Iran and six global powers, including the U.S.

Comment: There is a real threat of Iran to Western interests. Persian nationalists want to create a Greater Iran while building up the military strength of the new empire. Also they are forming a front with the Syrian regime together with Lebanese as well as Sudanese terrorists. To the east Iran seeks to merge Middle East and South Asian conflicts and wants to undermine and bring down Turkey.


January 13, 2017

Fox News on January 12, 2017, reported that Defense secretary nominee Gen. James Mattis issued a grave warning at his Senate confirmation hearing, saying the established world order is under its “biggest attack” since World War II as he called for boosting military readiness and America’s alliances. Excerpts below:

Citing Russia’s aggressions and other concerns, he said: “I think [the world order is] under the biggest attack since World War II … from Russia, from terrorist groups and with what China is doing in the South China Sea.”
To address this, Mattis testified, “deterrence is critical.”

His assessment came as he called for strengthening “military readiness”…He said U.S. forces must be the “best led, best equipped and most lethal in the world.”
“If you confirm me, my watchwords will be solvency and security in providing for the protection of our people and the survival of our freedoms,” he said.

The question of budget restraints at the Pentagon is a critical one for lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. Senator McCain warned at Thursday’s hearing that the military can’t proceed with “business as usual” as he ripped “arbitrary” congressional caps on spending.

Mattis’ testimony falls amid a packed week of confirmation hearings for top Trump Cabinet nominees, including Sen. Jeff Sessions for attorney general and Rex Tillerson for secretary of state.

In prepared remarks for the hearing, Mattis expressed unqualified support for traditional U.S. international alliances.

Mattis is a former leader of NATO’s transformation command, in charge of efforts to adapt the alliance’s structure and capabilities to 21st century threats.
In his testimony, he spoke about the importance of the alliance, calling for the U.S. to maintain “the strongest possible relationship with NATO.”

On the Iran nuclear deal, Mattis said he would not have personally signed the pact, but said that when America gives its word, we have to “live up to it.”

Mattis, 66, is one of three recently retired senior generals selected by Trump for top jobs in his administration.

After retiring, Mattis joined the Hoover Institution, a conservative-leaning think tank. He also is a member of the board of directors of General Dynamics, the big defense contractor.

He has remained outspoken in his concerns about Iran. In remarks last April at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Mattis called Iran “the single most enduring threat to stability and peace in the Middle East.”

Mattis is best known as a battle-hardened combat officer who served in Afghanistan and Iraq. But he also has worked behind the scenes with senior civilian officials at the Pentagon.

Comment: Gen. Mattis will most likely be confirmed by the Senate. It is of great importance for the West as a whole that the United States will have an experienced military leader as Secretary of Defense. Mattis made clear during the Senate hearings that he regards Russia, China, and Iran along with terrorist groups to be greatest present challenges to the West. The passed 8 years have weakened the position of the United States in the world. Increased military spending is of great importance. European NATO member countries need to spend at least 2 percent of GNP on defense during the coming years. The strategically important non-aligned Sweden with defense spending of 1 percent of GNP (lowest spending in Europe) endangers NATO’s Baltic Sea area security. The present government in Stockholm refuses to increase defense spending.


December 27, 2016

National interest on November 3, 2015 reported on Peter Navarro’s new book Crouching Tiger. It is a timely book on the growing threat of Chinese militarism. After Navarro’s appointment to head the White House Nation Trade Council there is growing interest in Navarro’s books on China. Excerpts below:

China continues to develop its Great Underground Wall. This maze of tunnels, up to 3,000 miles long, now harbors one of the world’s most diverse missile arsenals – from the tactical and theater to the strategic.

Why is China developing such capabilities if, as its leaders have repeatedly claimed, China seeks only a peaceful rise? This may well be the most important question of our nuclear-tipped times – and one destined to dominate the 2016 presidential election debate.

The Crouching Tiger Project is the result, and the “geopolitical detective story” that unfolds in the 45 chapters of the book. Will there be a war with China?

China Intentions

If China seeks merely to protect its homeland after a “Century of Humiliation” and if it is only concerned about guarding the global trade routes it needs to prosper, then the world has nothing to fear from its rapid military buildup.

If, however, China and its leader Xi Jinping seek to follow in the revanchist footsteps of Russia and Vladimir Putin and seize territory from neighbors – and perhaps attempt to drive U.S. forces out of the Western Pacific – then the world has a very big problem.

Strategies & Capabilities

Most [experts] agree that China’s doctrine of asymmetric warfare and its emerging anti-access, area denial strategy (or A2/AD) poses an increasing risk to an American presence in the Western Pacific.


They include China’s “renegade province” of Taiwan, Japan’s Senkaku Islands, the resource rich waters of the South China Sea and the wild card of North Korea. The most subtle – perhaps with the highest stakes – is the emerging struggle between Beijing and Washington over freedom of navigation and overflight.

Pathways to Peace

Many experts…question whether the traditional triad of economic engagement, economic interdependence, and nuclear deterrence will keep the peace. If these pathways no longer work, what will? This debate is not just about whether Japan should remilitarize or whether the U.S. should build a new long range bomber or whether Asian democracies need a new missile defense system. There are deeper questions related to the Chinese concept of Comprehensive National Power – a strategic construct that far transcends shear military might and may ultimately provide the key to keeping the peace.

The broader mission [of future articles in National Interest] is to raise public awareness about an increasing danger

Peter Navarro is a professor at the University of California-Irvine. He is the author of Crouching Tiger: What China’s Militarism Means for the World (Prometheus Books) and director of the companion Crouching Tiger documentary film series.

Comment: Chinese doctrine has been built on the belief that China by its example made the surrounding ”barbarians” to acknowledge its civilization. The traditional China concept was to maintain a circle of ”tributary states” which protected the inner core. Among those tributary states were Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Thailand, Burma and Nepal in the south. To the west there was the Great Northwest area and Mongolia in the north. Korea in the east and northeast territories now in Russian possession. With growing military strength the present regime in Peking will likely want to control former ”tributary states” as a protection against Western influence


December 19, 2016

Wall Street on December 16, 2016, published an article by Garry Kasparov on what happened after the fall of the Soviet Union 25 years ago. At first Gasparov was an optimist hoping for freedom and democracy for all peoples of the Soviet Union. Excerpts below:

Earlier visits to Western Europe confirmed my suspicions that it was in the U.S.S.R. where life was distorted, as in a funhouse mirror.

“Gorbachev’s perestroika is another fake,” Czech-American Director Milos Forman at a meeting warned that the Soviet leader’s loosening of state controls, “and it will end up getting more hopeful people killed.” I insisted that Mr. Gorbachev would not be able to control the forces he was unleashing. Mr. Forman pressed me for specifics: “But how will it end, Garry?”

I replied—specifics not being my strong suit—that “one day, Miloš, you will wake up, open your window, and they’ll be gone.”

The U.S.S.R. ceased to exist in 1991, but there are plenty of repressive, authoritarian regimes thriving in 2016. The difference, and I am sad to say it, is that the citizens of the free world don’t much care about dictatorships anymore, or about the 2.7 billion people who still live in them.

Ronald Reagan’s warning that “freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction” was never meant to be put to the test, but it is being tested now. If anything, Reagan’s time frame of a generation was far too generous. The dramatic expansion of freedom that occurred 25 years ago may be coming undone in 25 months.

The fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the U.S.S.R. was the end of watch for the anti-Communist coalition formed by Harry Truman after World War II.

The U.S. in 1992 had unrivaled global power and influence, more than at any other time in history. Yet instead of using it to shape a new global framework to protect and project the values of democracy and human rights—as Truman had done immediately to put Stalin in check—the free world acted as though the fight had been won once and for all.

Even worse, we made the same mistake in Russia and in many other newly independent states. We were so eager to embrace the bright future that we failed to address our dark past. There were no truth commissions, no lustration—the shining of light on past crimes and their perpetrators—no accountability for decades of repression.

We in Russia naively equated democracy with wealth, as if the ballot box functioned like an ATM—and we looked on enviously as many of our former Warsaw Pact brethren enjoyed the benefits of massive Western investment. With so few strings attached to the loans and credits Russia received, it was easy for the well-connected to game and profit from the system.

When Vladimir Putin took power in 2000, he found few obstacles capable of resisting his instinct to remake Russia in his own KGB image.

Mr. Putin’s vulgar rhetoric of security and national pride would have worn thin quickly had the price of oil not begun to skyrocket in the new millennium.

A rising cash flow enabled him to negotiate a Faustian bargain with the Russian people: your freedoms in return for stability. Few envisioned how far he would go in collecting on that bargain, but that’s always the trap with empowering authoritarians. Every step Mr. Putin took without consequences encouraged him to take another, and another.

Outside Russia, at every turn, Europe and the U.S. failed to provide the leadership the historic moment required. (Emphasis added by Varldsinbordeskriget)

Even today, members of the Western democratic establishment praise Mr. Putin as a “strong leader”—as he enters his 17th year of total power in an imploding Russia that millions have fled.

To paraphrase Tolstoy, every repressive state is repressive in its own way—but socialism has proved uniquely toxic. The utopian communist idea competed directly with capitalism and lost. Instead of admitting this failure, Soviet leaders squeezed the soul from their citizens by forcing them to perform in the macabre perversion of human nature that is totalitarian socialism.

Instead of believing that happy, successful individuals make for a successful society, socialism insists that a perfectly functioning system will produce happy individuals. When the system comes first, the individual becomes an afterthought. When the system fails, individuals are blamed for not surrendering to it enough.

The architects of the Cold War understood that there could be no lasting peace unless the Soviet Union was contained and opposed at every turn. That lesson has been forgotten, along with so many others.

In the old days, I was also asked regularly why I did not defect instead of spending half my time fighting my nemesis Anatoly Karpov at the chessboard and the other half fighting with the Soviet authorities. My answer was always the same, that I wanted to change my country and improve things for everyone, not just for myself.

Today, I live in exile New York City, driven there not by the Soviets but by a bloodthirsty Putin regime that has no ideology beyond power and money.

…25 years later, the thugs and despots are flourishing once again. They still reject liberal democracy and the free market—not because of a competing ideology like communism, but because they understand that those things are a threat to their power.

[There is] hypocrisy and apathy [among] the most powerful nations in the world. Crimea is annexed, Ukraine is invaded, ISIS is rallying, Aleppo is laid waste, and not a one of us can say that we did not know. We can say only that we did not care.

Globalization has made it easy for the enemies of the free world to spread their influence in ways the Soviet leadership couldn’t have imagined, while the West has lost the will to defend itself and its values.

Mr. Kasparov is the chairman of the New York-based Human Rights Foundation and the author of “Winter Is Coming: Why Vladimir Putin and the Enemies of the Free World Must be Stopped” (PublicAffairs, 2015).

Comment: Between 2008 and 2014 the West ignored the growing threat from Russia. After the Russian occupation of Crimea and hybrid warfare in eastern Ukraine the response of the West has been timid. The Obama administration has refused to give Ukraine military aid to defend itself. 25 years of neglecting the threat not only of Russia but of two other aggressive totalitarian empires, China and Iran, has left the West vulnerable. No doubt globalization, as Mr. Gasparov points out, has played into the hands of the enemies of the free world. It will now be up to the United States and a coalition of willing European nations to try to correct the mistakes made since 1992.


December 18, 2016

The Diplomat on October 10, 2016, published an article by geopolitician Francis P. Sempa on the divided China, the nomenklatura vs. the rest. Is the PRC bound for the same fate as the Soviet Union? Excerpts below:

China’s political system does not work. “If we place our foot incorrectly,” a China insider warned, “we could begin a disaster, violence and civil war.”

This is not the rosy picture of a rising China that normally fills the airwaves and popular media throughout much of Asia and the world. “China viewed from the inside is very different than China viewed from the outside,” the insider said.

Sempa relates a scene observed by an American professor visiting China:

a dozen people are standing “motionless . . . drab, glum, calm, resigned,” who were waiting “for their morning meal of scalding hot cabbage and mystery meat” from a small kitchen located on a “rundown square…a woman standing in line began yelling obscenities which triggered others in the line to do likewise, then the “whole previously passive line exploded,” shouting, cursing, and striking each other. After about a minute it was over.

Chinese friends immediately assured the American professor that he had finally seen “what China is really all about.” This, they told him, was “the real China.”

The other China—the military parades, the growing fleet, nuclear rockets, bullying of neighbors in the South China Sea, and the wealthy Communist Party cadres—is the surface underneath which lies “pressurized anger”…

The façade of a rising China on its way to becoming the next superpower hides the reality that after nearly 70 years in power the Communist Party has not attained one of its avowed goals—bringing about “a decent life for ordinary people.”

Instead, there are two Chinas—the China of the Communist Party and their urban dwelling associates and beneficiaries, who constitute the ruling elite or nomenklatura, and the hundreds of millions of people, many who live in the countryside “with no proper education, transport, [or] medical care.”

…Michael Voslensky in 1984 published the book Nomenklatura, when most Soviet experts in the West believed that the Soviet Union would endure well into the 21st century. Voslensky, a former Soviet insider, brought to light the parasitic nature of the communist ruling class in Russia. “The parasitic tendencies of a ruling class,” he wrote, “are the consequences of its monopoly position.” The nomenklatura is an “exploiting, privileged class . . . exercising dictatorial power” not to bring about a classless society but to attain power and privileges for the ruling elite. Voslensky’s book exposed “the antagonistic structure of the real socialist society.” Five years after the publication of Voslensky’s book, the Soviet Union collapsed.

Voslesnky’s analysis in Nomenklatura had much in common with the sociological studies of Vilfredo Pareto, Robert Michels and Gaetano Mosca, whose works were brilliantly synthesized by James Burnham in his 1943 book The Machiavellians. These political philosophers believed that a ruling class or elite governed in all countries, not just communist countries, and that the principal goal of all ruling classes was to maintain and increase their power and privileges.

Pareto, Michels, Mosca, and Burnham would likely say that Mao Zedong’s purpose right from the beginning was a Leninist-Stalinist monopoly of power and privilege in society. … they would surely believe that for today’s ruling elite in China—China’s nomenklatura—[m]aintaining Party rule, whatever the means, is the true purpose of all actions” of the communist ruling elite.

Comment: The Soviet Union collapsed in 1991 after a decade of confrontation with the West that opened up for resistance to the regime in the countries occupied. China has been less imperialistic since the communists took power in 1949. Early on Tibet was occupied. After the Korean War China has waited to start achieving Greater China in the South China Sea. Now it is looking to South East Asia, to the Pacific and perhaps north to Siberia. When the internally vulnerable Chinese regime attempts to widen its control in the Far East in the future a more determined push-back from the West could result in China’s regime sharing the fate of the Soviet regime.


December 7, 2016

US think tank Rand in the summer of 2016 released a report on “War with China”. Premeditated war between the United States is very unlikely according to Rand but both nation’s militaries have plans to fight a war if it comes. Excerpts from the report below:

As Chinese anti-access and area-denial (A2AD) capabilities improve, the United States can no longer be so certain that war would follow its plan and lead to decisive victory.

Technological advances in the ability to target opposing forces are creating conditions of conventional counterforce, whereby each side has the means to strike and degrade the other’s forces and, therefore, an incentive to do so promptly, if not first. This implies fierce early exchanges, with steep military losses on both sides, until one gains control. At present, Chinese losses would greatly exceed U.S. losses, and the gap would only grow as fighting persisted. But, by 2025, that gap could be much smaller. Even then, however, China could not be confident of gaining military advantage, which suggests the possibility of a prolonged and destructive, yet inconclusive, war. In that event, nonmilitary factors — economic costs, internal political effects, and international reactions — could become more important.

Main Findings

Both sides would suffer large military losses in a severe conflict. In 2015, U.S. losses could be a relatively small fraction of forces committed, but still significant; Chinese losses could be much heavier than U.S. losses and a substantial fraction of forces committed.

This gap in losses will shrink as Chinese A2AD improves. By 2025, U.S. losses could range from significant to heavy; Chinese losses, while still very heavy, could be somewhat less than in 2015, owing to increased degradation of U.S. strike capabilities.

China’s A2AD will make it increasingly difficult for the United States to gain military-operational dominance and victory, even in a long war.

…a war would harm both economies, damage to China’s would be far worse.

Because much of the Western Pacific would become a war zone, China’s trade with the region and the rest of the world would decline substantially.

China’s loss of seaborne energy supplies would be especially damaging.

A long conflict could expose China to internal political divisions.

Japan’s increased military activity in the region could have a considerable influence on military operations.


U.S. and Chinese political leaders alike should have military options other than immediate strikes to destroy opposing forces.

U.S. leaders should have the means to confer with Chinese leaders and contain a conflict before it gets out of hand.

The United States should reduce the effect of Chinese A2AD by investing in more-survivable force platforms (e.g., submarines) and in counter-A2AD (e.g., theater missiles).

The United States should conduct contingency planning with key allies, especially Japan.

The United States should ensure that the Chinese are specifically aware of the potential for catastrophic results even if a war is not lost militarily.

The United States should improve its ability to sustain intense military operations.

U.S. leaders should develop options to deny China access to war-critical commodities and technologies in the event of war.

The United States should undertake measures to mitigate the interruption of critical products from China.

Additionally, the U.S. Army should invest in land-based A2AD capabilities, encourage and enable East Asian partners to mount strong defense, improve interoperability with partners (especially Japan), and contribute to the expansion and deepening of Sino-U.S. military-to-military understanding and cooperation to reduce dangers of misperception and miscalculation.

Comment: It must be remembered that there is a doctrine of unrestricted warfare on the Chinese side including financial warfare to subvert banking systems and stock markets. Drug warfare is the Chinese plan to attack the fabric of US society by flooding the market with illicit drugs. Psychological and media warfare are other weapons in the Chinese arsenal. Last but not least the Chinese could unleash man-made earthquakes or other natural disasters. There is also a belief in China that it can take larger losses in life due to a much larger population than the United States.


December 6, 2016

Tidningen Metro publicerade den 6 december 2016 en artikel om socialismens och socialdemokratins kris i Europa. För utdrag se nedan:

2017 kan s-ledarna hamna utanför makten i samtliga större länder.

I så fall skapas en nästan unik situation där de fem stora i EU – Tyskland, Frankrike, Storbritannien, Italien och Spanien – alla styrs av konservativa regeringschefer.

Och inte bara det. Även i Nederländerna riskerar socialdemokraterna att snart röstas bort ur den nuvarande koalitionsregeringen.

Därmed är det snart bara Sverige kvar med en s-regering bland EU:s tio tyngsta ekonomier.

Kommentar: Socialismen startade som en rörelse som förordade klassmord, det vill säga mord på borgerliga motståndare. Efter Sovjets kollaps år 1991 har det gått utför för resterna av socialismen, de något fredligare socialdemokraterna. I Sverige kan det leda till att det blir kvar två mindre vänsterpartier med socialistiska rötter: socialdemokraterna med omkring 10 procent av väljarkåren och vänsterpartiet med omkring 10 procent.


November 30, 2016

November 30, 2016

During the Great Northern War (1700 – 1721) Sweden was allied to the Crimean Khanate and Devlet Geray, Khan of Budjak, of Crimea, Nogay and Circassia.

Budjak is now part of independent Ukraine, subdivided into two cities and nine administrative districts (raions) of the Odessa Oblast. The main ethnic groups today are Ukrainians, Bulgarians, Russians and Moldovans. Earlier the Nogay Tatars also lived in Budjak.

The Nogay horde was a confederation of 18 Turkic and Mongol tribes that ha migrated west from the Pontic-Caspian steppe. The Nogay were divided in Budjak (from the River Danube to the River Dniestr),
Yedisans (from the River Dniestr to the River Bug), Janboyluk (from the River Bug to Crimea) and the Yedikul (north of Crimea and Kuban).

It should be remembered that both Charles XII and the Ukrainian Head of State Ivan Mazepa and his successor Pylyp Orlyk from 1707 to 1714 sought alliances against Russia with also Bashkirs, the Don Cossacks and Circassians.


November 21, 2016

De socialdemokratiska regeringarna i Sverige under det Kalla kriget med stöd av Sveriges Kommunistiska Parti (SKP; senare Vänsterpartiet) hade en “neutral” syn i Tysklandsfrågan. Stockholm hade diplomatiskt erkänt Förbundsrepubliken Tyskland (Västtyskland) och kom senare att även erkänna Tyska Demokratiska Republiken (den kommunistiska diktaturen i Östtyskland). Redan innan erkännandet hade den östtyska regimen fått inrätta ett ”privat” kulturcentrum i Stockholm, som bedrev kommunistisk propaganda i Sverige.

Självfallet kände man oro i Bonn över de östtyska propagandaframgångarna i främst Sverige och Danmark, länder med inflytande i Östersjöområdet. Det kom framför allt till uttryck inom det tyska Ministeriet för alltyska frågor:

…i augusti 1967 rapporterade det politiska Fachreferat II i alarmerande vändningar om DDR:s utrikespolitiska aktiviteter i det skandinaviska området.(Stefan Creuzberger, Kampf für die Einheit – Das gesamtdeutsche Ministerium und die politische Kultur des Kalten Krieges 1949 – 1969, s. 512).

Flera år innan ministeriet i Bonn uttryckte oro över DDR:s propagandaframgångar i Skandinavien bildades vid Lunds universitet en antikommunistisk studentorganisation (1963; Fri politisk informationstjänst, Inform), som bland annat strävade efter att informera om förtrycket i Östtyskland. En av grundarna av Inform var författaren till denna artikel, dåvarande juriststudenten Bertil Häggman.

Under 1963 och 1964 informerade medlemmarna (Inform hade uppskattningsvis omkring 50) om vad som pågick bakom muren i Berlin. Syftet var bland annat att motverka den östtyska propagandakampanj, som ägde rum varje sommar i samband med avhållande av Östersjöveckan i Rostock och längs den östtyska delen av den tyska kusten i norr.

Studenterna från Inform delade ut informationsmaterial om kommunismen, främst den östtyska, och om syftet med den östtyska propagandan i Sverige.

Under 1963 och 1964 samarbetade Inform med Informationsbüro West (IWE) i Berlin-Schlachtensee. Byrån bildades 1951 och leddes till 1964 av Dr. Helmut Bohlmann. Den ägdes av västtyska staten och distribuerade artiklar och information om Östtyskland. IWE avyttrades 1966 till privata köpare. Under hela verksamheten 1951 – 1966 utsattes byrån för östtyska propagandangrepp. Den Stasi-ledda hetskampanjen hävdade att IWE var en ”spioncentral”. Den västtyska regeringen å sin sida förklarade med bestämdhet att det enbart var en nyhetsbyrå, som specialiserade sig på bevakning av DDR.

Svensk utrikesförvaltning reagerar

I maj 1963 (se härom närmare i SOU 2002:90, en rapport av Säkerhetstjänstkommissionen, avsnittet ”Det ’röda’ Lund”) hade det svenska sändebudet i Bonn, Ole Jödahl, reagerat på ett brev från ordföranden i Kuratorium Unteilbares Deutschland (KUD), Dr Wilhelm Wolfgang Schütz. KUD hade bildats den 17 juni 1954, och var en halvstatlig organisation i Västtyskland som informerade om Östtyskland och arbetade för tysk enhet.

Schütz hade kontaktats av Inform, som önskade litteratur och informationsmaterial om den östtyska regimen och KUD:s arbete för tysk enhet. Nu ville dr Schütz veta mer om Inform. Beskickningen i Bonn visste ingenting om den antikommunistiska studentorganisationen i Lund. Nu skrev Jödahl till UD och ville ha en ”diskret” utredning. Han bifogade till en byråchef på UD i Stockholm en brevkopia han fått från KUD. I brevet fanns en presentation av Inform och en beskrivning av planer på en internationell konferens i Lund, som skulle behandla det kommunistiska förtrycket bakom järnridån och hållas i september 1963 med föredrag och filmvisningar. Här noteras att konferensen hölls först i maj 1964.

I SOU 2002:90 beskrivs drygt tio år efter Sovjetunionens kollaps Informs verksamhet i Trelleborg i juni-juli 1963 på följande sätt:

Inform hade i Lund och Trelleborg satt upp affischer mot svenskt deltagande i Östersjöveckan. I samband med utresan från Trelleborg samt ombord på färjan hade gruppen delat ut engelska, tyska och svenska broschyrer. I östtyska radions sändningar ska enligt Säkerhetspolisen (Säpo) verksamheten ha uppmärksammats.

Två säkerhetspoliser rapporterade sommaren 1963 (Inform, fri politisk informationstjänst, MM-ASIIB 29.8.63):

Då deltagarna till Östersjöveckan utreste från Trelleborg uppehöllo sig några ynglingar vid färjeläget och delade ut broschyrer och förde antikommunistisk propaganda bland resenärerna. Enligt uppgift lär ett par ynglingar ha rest med färjan en tur och retur och delat ut broschyrer till passagerarna. Vid färjans avgång från Trelleborg den 6.7.63 uppehöll sig fyra ynglingar vid färjeläget och delade ut broschyrer till resenärerna.

De två poliserna konstaterade att en av broschyrutdelarna var författaren till denna artikel. Som komplettering till rapporten bifogades en broschyr, som delades ut vid färjan, samt fem tidningsurklipp.

Inom den dåvarande Statspolisen hade man åsikten att en antikommunist inte kunde vara demokrat. Därför innehåller en annan rapport från Trelleborg till Statspolisens högkvarter i Stockholm denna kommentar:

Inom kommittén vill man framhålla att det är möjligt att vara demokrat och antikommunist samtidigt.

Bevakningen från Säkerhetspolisens sida fortsatte under 1964. Två säkerhetspoliser rapporterade sommaren 1964:

Medlemmar av organisationen har i samband med Östersjöveckan också nedlagt en krans på den på den plats i Trelleborgs färjeläge, där en östtysk flykting förolyckades, då han hoppade från den östtyska färjan.

Även nu konstaterades att författaren till denna artikel var med bland “de demonstrerande”.

Ett ex av den utdelade broschyren bifogades även denna gång. Nu följde tre tidningsurklipp med.

Ännu så sent som 1988 hade STASI hård kontroll på färjeförbindelsen Trelleborg – Sassnitz (dokument STASI-arkivet, Berlin 61). Ansvarig huvudavdelning vid den östtyska spionorganisationen var huvudavdelningen HA XIX. Den hade till uppgift att övervaka bland annat sjöfart och se till att det inte flydde någon från DDR.

Trelleborgsövervakningen leddes av generalmajor Braun under den sista tiden före Berlinmurens fall 1989.

I dokumentet från den 4 augusti 1988 framgår att färjornas lastdäck var spärrade för östtyska medborgare som nu tilläts göra endagsutflykter med färjan. Vid infarten till Trelleborg låstes dörrarna till bil- och tågdäck.

STASI varnade för riskerna att endagsutflykterna kunde leda till försök att fly till Sverige:
På grund av det ökande faran för att man lämnar DDR i strid mot lagstiftningen om gränssäkerhet av den 13 augusti 1961 vid dagsutflykterna till Trelleborg har dessa inställts. Följande observationer har gjorts av Stasimedarbetare ombord på färjorna:

Det förekommer försök att hoppa ner från färjorna i Östersjön, särskilt i Trelleborgs hamnområde. Från svensk sida drogs de som hoppat över bord sedan ombord på båtar, som låg beredda.

Det förekom att personer som försökte fly gömde sig i svenska bilar och ombord på svenska tågvagnar.

Enskilda personer har försökt fly över taken på järnvägsvagnar i samband med att dessa körts i land i Trelleborg.

Dokumentet är undertecknat “Braun Generalmajor”.

Här noteras att en östtysk medborgare omkom då han försökte hoppa ner från färjans däck och skadades svårt. Han avled senare på sjukhuset i Trelleborg. Flyktförsöket med dödlig utgång ägde rum sommaren 1961.

Reaktionen i det socialdemokratiskt styrda Sverige på Informs antikommunistiska verksamhet i Sydsverige under 1963 och 1964 visar på vilka åsikter som dominerade i svensk utrikesförvaltning och inom socialdemokratiska partiet i Tysklandsfrågan.

Borgerlig antikommunism betraktades som ett hot mot svensk säkerhet. De övervakades av Säpo och det framstod som betydelsefullt att lämna utrymme för östtysk propaganda i Sverige. Det demokratiska Västtyskland och diktaturregimen i Östberlin sågs som likvärdiga i det regerande partiets ögon.

Summary in English

During the 1960s there was an increasing concern in Bonn about East German propaganda advances in the Scandinavian countries especially in the Ministry of All German Questions. At the same time a formation took place in 1963 of an anticommunist student organization at the university of Lund in southern Sweden. Free Political Information Service (Inform) aimed at countering communist subversive activities in Sweden initially among students and youth. In 1964 Inform had a national and international network: students at the universities of Stockholm and Uppsala, Estonian students in Sweden as well as organizations in the field of critical information on communism in Denmark, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, France, England, Switzerland, Federal Republic of Germany, and Japan.

At the Swedish Embassy in Bonn the reaction was that of surprise and dismay when Kuratorium Unteilbares Deutschland (KUD), a West German federal state supported information organization, asked about Inform. KUD had been contacted by the organization in Lund, asking for literature on the East German regime and for support. The embassy wrote to the Foreign Ministry in Stockholm and asked for a “discreet investigation” of the student group. The matter was handed over to the Swedish Security Police (Säkerhetspolisen). This was the beginning of surveillance of center-right anticommunist organizations in Sweden which lasted into the 1980s.