Following its September local and national elections, for the first time in 30 years Sweden will have a right wing majority government. But the victory for the conservative alliance was a narrow one. ANDERS SVENNSSON, a leading member of the Socialist Party in Sweden and the Fourth international, provides an initial analysis of the results. THE CONSERVATIVES only got two per cent more votes than the left parties, 48% against 46%. The conservative alliance took 178 seats against 171 for the left wing bloc. The biggest party, despite the worst election result since 1928, is still the Socialdemocrats (Socia demokratiska arbetarpartiet, SAP) with 130 seats.
The Social-democrats lost 14 seats whereas the biggest party in the conservative alliance, the Conservative Party (Moderaterna) won 42 which makes it the next biggest party with 97 seats. This is the best election result for the Conservative Party since 1928. A marginal gain for the greens (2 seats) and a loss of 8 seats for the Left-party only confirm the bad election results for the left-bloc.
One reason for the Conservative party's success is the Social-democrats themselves. For 12 years they have been in government and during this time they have been privatising, cost-cutting and generally have pursuing a neo-liberal agenda, though carefully and slowly.
The unemployment rate in Sweden during these years has grown to be among the highest in Europe, much higher than in other Nordic countries. Throughout the election campaign the Social-democrats denied this, giving the Conservative party and their alliance an opportunity to act as the more credible alternative for creating more jobs.
The cutting of resources to the public sector, including hospitals etc, by the Social-democrats (together with the Greens and the Left-party) created a paved road for the Conservative alliance to follow. The neo-liberal policies of the Social-democratic government made it possible for the Conservative alliance to win the election with an even worse neoliberal agenda.
The Left-party is another reason for the loss of power of the Social-democrats. Unable to create a left alternative to socialdemocracy and nearly always supporting the social-democratic government, even when it comes to privatisations they have been no alternative for the Swedish working class.
Parts of the working class instead turned to the racist far right Sweden-democrats - just as worrisome as the conservative victory. The failure of the social-democrats to create more jobs and do anything about unemployment was exploited by the Sweden-democrats, using racism as a way to success. Its easy to blame the high unemployment rates on the immigrants and refugees.
They did not make it to the national parliament this time, but if nothing happens inside the left and segmented extreme left in Sweden the racist Swedendemocrats will probably make it to the national parliament next time.
In the local elections however, they have won seats in many local councils. In particular they got very high results in South Sweden, in areas close to Denmark. In the national election they got around 10% and in many local elections up to 20%.
The third party supporting the social-democratic government was the Greens - although they have never gained strong support in the working class and are not seen as an alternative in these groups.
There has been a strong right wing turn in the Swedish elections. The Conservative party seem to have won a lot of votes in the middle class from the Social-democrats but also some working class votes.
They now have stronger support in the working class than the Left-party. We have also seen a significant number of working class votes going to the extreme right, in local elections.
With the victory for the rightwing bourgeois parties the Swedish working-class will experience a harsh four-year period with big cuts in public spending including in unemployment benefit. There will also be more privatised schools. Most of the possibly profitable hospitals will be privatised. The state-owned electricity-utility company will be privatised as well as most stateownie corporations. me legislation to protect workers from getting sacked will be weakened, especially for young people. The Conservative alliance will introduce legislation that will force women away from the job market and legislation that will make life more difficult for refugees. All this will probably lead to higher prices, lower wages and increased segrega• A longer version of this article can be found at www. internationalviewpoint.org
page 15 of the scan
Patrick Scott It is one thing to defeat a conventional army; it is another thing altogether to defeat an entire people. The current situation in the Middle East and Central Asia is a clear demonstration of this principle.
For all its well trained LOODS and sophisticated weaponry the Israeli Army has failed to subdue neither Hezbollah in the Lebanon nor the Palestinian population in the post 1967 occupied territories. Similarly the US is now bogged down in a war that it is increasingly unlikely to win in Iraq.
In practise the rule of the US-propped Iraqi government now barely extends beyond Baghdad. even within Baghdad the government has now been forced to impose a nighttime and at times even a daytime curfew in order to maintain some semblance of control.
US troop casualties in Iraq are currently running at an average of two a day and if things carry on at the present rate total casualties are likely to pass the 3,000 mark early in 2007.
Veteran US journalist Bob Woodward states in a soon to be published book 'State of Denial' that insurgent attacks on US or other occupying forces in Iraq are now taking place on average once every 15 minutes. This is a fact that the Bush administration has been very keen to cover up according to Woodward.
Within the US itself this state of affairs has started the beginnings of a crisis arising from a conflict between the generals and the politicians. Principally the shortage of military manpower and of the money needed to finance military operations arising from the difficulties faced in Iraq.
Only recently the US Army heads refused to submit a mila Iran back itary budget plan for 2008, arguing that the military occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq were placing an unbearable strain on military expenditure.
This is despite the fact that extra funds have been voted inrougn on several occasions by Congress including the latest of an extra $70 billion.
For 2008, Donald Rumsfeld had proposed a military budget of $98 billion but the
said they needed milllary $139 billion to keep the US Army going i.e. about 40 per cent more than what Rumsfield was offering.
The clear discontent amongst the Generals leading the US Army is about a lot more than money. As military edge in militarv matters thei are going to realise a long time before the politicians do that militarily speaking the game may well be up for the US in in Bush's gunsights
For 2008, Donald Rumsfeld had proposed a military
budget of $98 billion but the military said they needed
$139 billion to keep the US Army going Iraq, if not Afghanistan as well.
Assuming they ever really believed it in the first place the neocons dream that the Afghan and Iraqi would be eternally grateful for their 'liberation' at gunpoint is now just a distant memory.
The New York Times recently published extracts from a leaked National Intelligence Estimate, which stated that the occupation of Iraq was fuelling anti US sentiment amongst Muslims and driving into the hands of Al Qaida and other Islamist forces.
In Britain a research paper recently published by the Ministry of Defence has more or less admitted to the same thing, describing the Irag war as a "recruiting sergeant" for Al Qaida.
None of this should come as any surprise to anti war campaigners both in Britain and internationally who have consistently argued that events such as the Madrid bombings and 7/7 were the inevitable blowback from imperialist aggression in the Middle East and Central Asia.
Bush and Blair continue to maintain a strategy of denial that anything is really amiss -they can do little else. Others in the imperialist camp are now attempting to distance themselves with varying success.
resident Musharraf of Pakistan has recently claimed that the US threatened to bomb his country if his government failed to support the military adventures of US imperialism in the region. If true these threats were totally unnecessary considering that Musharraf was always a reliable ally of US imperialism.
But this is a remarkably candid admission to make -and one that Musharraf would not have made if he really thought the US was winning the Wals and Afghanistan.
Similarly in Britain, Jack Straw now says that the US has made serious mistakes in Iraq. Even Tory leader David Cameron has got in on the act by criticising Tony Blair for being to slavish in his dealings with the US. The rats are trying to find a way off the sinking ship.
Like a gambler who has faced a run of losses, the temptation for Bush may be to undertake an even bigger gamble to recoup those losses.
Only a year ago talk in both US military and political circles was of reducing the US troop presence in Iraq with an imperialist trained Iraqi army playing increasingly prominent role.
Today there is no such talk. Instead they are even looking at increasing the US troop presence, already at 140,000. Toll of misery continues to rise in Iraq (far left) but Rumsfeld (left) remains unconcerned This though would create the problem of the US military becoming CYCA stretched and could even lead to greater casualties.
With more foreign troops in the country the Iraqi insurgents would simply have more military targets to attack. An increasingly likely response for the Bush administration will be to open an attack on another front.
All the myth and hyperbole that was spun about Iraq's so called weapon. of lass destruction only a few years ago is now being repeated in a modified form concerning Iran's nuclear programme.
Even if it were not already extended by the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan it is highly unlikely that the US would be able to invade and occupy Iran even with help from Britain or other imperialist powers.
A more likely scenario is a bombing campaign against Iran by the US and/or Israel under the pretext of destroying the Iran's nuclear power facilities.
Speeches by George W. Bush and his denouncing the Iranian regime 'supporters of
are appearing with increasing regularity so it is likely that the Bush administration nas already deciaed on some form of armed aggression against Iran.
He may even consider this before the Congressional elections in November to bolster the flagging fortunes of the Republican Party.
Some commentators in the US have gone so far as to argue that the Bush administration is even considering the US of tactical nuclear weapons against Iran. This is very, very unlikely. George W. Bush may be a desperate man but even he is not that desperate.
Nevertheless he is probably desperate enough to go toi some form of armed aggression against Iran, even though such aggression will create inevitable and negative repercussions in the long term tot US imperialism and its allies
East and in The Central Asia.