STUCK IN NEUTRAL The reasons behind Sweden’s passivity in the Raoul Wallenberg case Susanne Berger 4793 Williamsburg Blvd Arlington, VA 22207 USA
[email protected] 22 August, 2004 1 I. Introduction II. The Swedish Definition of the Raoul Wallenberg Case 1. The Swedish public a. The not-so-favorite son b. “Proper” c. The dangers of simplification 2. The Swedish government and the Swedish Foreign Office a. A strange creature b. “Moral courage is our only secret weapon” c. Hidden motives d. Old mindsets III. Other Definitions 1. The U.S. a. Swedish diplomat with an American task b. The general definition of the Budapest Mission c. Intelligence aspects of the Budapest Mission d. Lack of Swedish - American coordination 2. The Wallenbergs a. Curious passivity b. Distant relation? c. Wallenberg business interests in Hungary d. Wallenberg interests and their political effect e. Wallenberg Intelligence connections f. Signs of doubt 3. Russia a. The Soviet legacy b. The current Russian view c. Early definitions 2 d. More relevant records have to exist e. Different possibilities f. A possible watershed IV. Deeper Problems 1. The Limits of the Eliasson Report a. Question of motives and limited areas of inquiry b. Need for a more specific analysis of the historical context c. Focus on early years d. Lack of systematic analysis e. Consequences of failure to conduct a systematic analysis 2. Current Definitions a. Sweden today b. The neutrality dilemma 3 “In the minds of responsible government officials it is a far smaller evil to leave a missing person case unsolved than to seriously question the foundations of the state.” (Arvid Fredborg) I.