U 1 DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS WITH SWE DEN S w 3

govern men T

Stor age Q J J J - g

NOV 1 4 1973

T H E -: L _S tJ .x /^ .^ Y

K A N S A S S T A T E U N IV E R S IT Y

H E A R I N G

BEFO RE T H E

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EUROPE

OF TH E

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFF AIR S 

HOUSE OF REPRESE NTA TIVE S

NINE TY -TH IRD CONGRESS 

FIR ST SESSI ON

22-353

b. S GO VE RN ME NT PR IN TING OF FICE 

WA SH INGT ON : 1973
ft. V

S

CO MMITTE E ON FO RE IG N AF FA IR S

TH OM AS E. M ORGAN , Pen nsylvan ia, Ch air ma n

CL EM EN T J. Z A B L O CK I, Wisconsin 

W AYN E L. H A Y S, Ohio 

L. H. FO U N TA IN , North Carolina 

D A N T E B. F A SC E L L, Florida 

CH A R LE S C. D IG G S, Jr., Michigan 

R O B E R T N. C. N IX , Penn sylvania 

DO N ALD M. F R A S E R , Minnesota 

BE NJA MIN S. RO SE N TH AL, New York 

JOHN C. C U LV E R , Iowa 

LE E H. HAM IL TO N, Indiana 

ABRAH AM K A Z E N , Jr., Texas 

LE S T E R L. W OL FF , Ne w Yo rk 

JO NAT H AN B. BI NGH AM , New York 

GU S Y A T R O N , Pennsylvania 

R O Y A. T A Y L O R , North Carolina 

JO HN W. DAVI S, Georgia 

O G D EN R. R E ID , Ne w Yo rk 

M IC H AE L H A R R IN G T O N , Massachusetts 

LE O J. R Y A N , California 

CH A R LES WI LS ON , Texas 

DO N ALD W. R IE G L E , Jr., Michigan

WILLIAM S. M AIL LI AR D , California 

P E T E R II. B. F R E LIN G H U Y SE N , New Jersey 

WILLIAM S. BROOM FI ELD , Michigan 

H. R. GR OS S, Iowa

ED W AR D J. DE RW IN SK I, Hlinois

V E R N O N W. TH OM SO N, Wisconsin

P A U L F IN D L E Y , Illinois

JO HN H. B U CH AN AN , Jr., Ala bama 

J. H E R B E R T B U R K E , Florida 

G U Y V A N D E R JA G T, Michigan 

R O B E R T H. STE E L E , Connecticut 

P IE R R E S. (P ETE ) du PO N T, Delaware 

C H A R LE S W. WHAL EN , Jr., Ohio 

R O B E R T B. (BOB) M AT HIA S, California 

ED W AR D G. B IE STE R , Jr., Pennsylvan ia 

L A R R Y WI NN , Jr., Kansas 

BE NJA M IN A. GI LM AN , New Yo rk 

T E N N Y SO N G U Y E R , Ohio

Marian A. Cza rn ec ki, Ch ief o f Sta ff

Su b c o m m it tee on E u r o pe

BE NJA M IN S. R O SE N TH A L, New Yo rk . Ch air ma n

W AYN E L. H A Y S, Ohio

LE E H. H AM IL TO N, Indiana 

GU S Y A T R O N , Pennsylvania 

R O Y A. T A Y L O R , North Carolina 

O G D EN R. R E ID , Ne w Yo rk 

DO N ALD W. R IE G L E , Jr., Michigan

P E T E R H. B. F R E L IN G H U Y S E N , New Jersey

P A U L F IN D L E Y , Illinois

J. H E R B E R T B U R K E , Florida

JO HN H. BU CH A N A N , Jr., Alab ama

G U Y V A N D E R JA G T, Michigan

Cliffor d P. Hac ke tt, Subcom mi tte e S ta ff Co ns ultant

A rlene M. Atw at er , S ta ff A ss is ta nt

(I I)
C O N T E N T S

WITNESS

Page

J Fraser, Hon. Donald F., a representativ e in Congress from the Sta te of

Minnesota____________________________________________________ 2

LE TT ER SU BM ITTE D FOR TH E RE CO RD

Letter from the Departme nt of Sta te citing reasons for its refusal to

testify before subcom mittee_____________________________________ 7

AP PE ND IX

Statem ent of Hon. Herman Badillo of New York_____________________ 9

Survey on American attitudes toward Sweden, sub mitted by Hon. Donald

M. Fraser_____________________________________________________ H

Text of House Resolution 521 and co-sponsors_______________________ 20

(h i)

UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS 

WITH SWEDEN

W E D N E SD A Y , SE PT E M B E R 12, 19 73

H ouse of R e pr e se n t a t iv e s,

C om m it tee on F orei gn A ff a ir s,

S ubcom m it te e on E u r o pe,

WasAww/fon, D.C.

The subcommittee met at 2 p.m. in room 2255, Rayburn House 

Office Building, Hon. Benjamin S. Rosenthal [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.

Mr. R o sen th a l. The subcommittee meets today to consider legislation recently introduced on U.S. relations with Sweden, by 27 Members of the House of Representatives. Yet, in fact, our subject concerns 

the consequences of Vietnam among the European countries.

Earlier this year, our subcommittee held hearings on European 

reactions to the December 1972 bombings in Southeast Asia and to 

other developments in that area. Our session today constitutes a continuation of those hearings with specific concern for the official 

American response to those reactions in one country, Sweden.

O U T L IN E OF E V E N T S

Our witness today, Congressman Donald M. Fraser, will describe, 

I am sure, the events which led us today to consider legislation to 

restore normal diplomatic relations with Sweden. In brief, those 

events consist of the U.S. failure to replace its Ambassador in Sweden, 

a post which has been vacant since August 1972. Later, we withdrew 

our second man, the Deputy Chief of Mission, and refused to accept 

the new Swedish Ambassador to the United States.

All of these events were presumably precipitated by the criticism 

of American policy in Vietnam by the Swedish Government. Yet 

there remains something inexplicable about these events. A peace 

settlement was reached in Vietnam and American military forces 

have left tha t country. Yet relations with Sweden continue in a state 

of calculated suspension.

We also asked the State Department to testify today for what we 

seek, essentially, is an official explanation for these acts directed 

against Sweden. The Department has refused to appear for reasons as 

remote to me as the explanation for our actions regarding Sweden 

since last year. The Department of State’s le tter to me, which will be 

included in the hearing record, gives two reasons for the refusal to 

testify:

(1) There is an election in Sweden this coming weekend, and testimony might be interpreted as interference in the Swedish election.

(D
2

(2) Secre tar y of State -designate Kissing er has promised to review 

ou r policy tow ard Sweden.

My judg me nt is th at our Go vernme nt has alr ead y trie d to in te rfere with the Swed ish electoral process by our refusa l to engage in 

norm al dip lom atic relati ons for over 1 yea r. As for Mr. Kis singer ’s 

willingness to reassess Un ite d States-Sw edish policy after his confirm ation, I mus t also note th at he specifically refused to include Sweden 

among those cou ntries where we have no ambas sad or and for which, 

Mr. Kissing er s aid las t Friday , he would find envoys w ithin 60 d ays. I 

conclude from Mr. Kissinger’s rem ark s th at the admi nis tra tio n still 

intend s to give some kind of special tre atm en t to Sweden, even un de r 

a new Secre tary of S tate.

We are indeed ha pp y to welcome to the su bco mm ittee hea ring toda y 

the distinguished chair ma n of the Sub com mittee on In tern ationa l 

Organ ization s and Movem ent s, Congressm an Fra ser , who will tes tify 

on his legislation concerning relations with Sweden. I hope th at Mr. 

Fr as er will also review for the sub comm itte e the action take n on 

identic al legislation in the Senate.

Mr. Fra ser.

STATEM ENT OF HON. DONALD M. FRA SER , A RE PR ES EN TA TIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM TH E STATE OF MINNESOTA

Mr. F raser. Tha nk you, Mr. Chairma n. I am grate ful for the oppo rtun ity to tes tify toda y in supp ort of House Resolution 521, which 

urges the admi nis tra tio n to res tore normal relatio ns with Sweden, and 

I congrat ula te you for holding this hearing to fac ilitate pub lic airing 

of the im po rta nt issues involved.

Am eric a’s policy of no t naming an ambas sad or to Stockh olm is 

conduct un wo rth y of a matur e and modern na tio n such as ours. I t is 

a spitefu l rea ction to Swedish crit icism—both official and unofficial— 

of our military activ itie s in So uthe ast Asia, and in view of lon gstan ding o ppo sition to our p olic y the re by num erous other countries, shows 

our policym akers to be bo th dis criminator y and thinskin ned in re ac ting to this parti cu lar insta nc e of criticism .

Am ericans have bee n awa re of Swedish opposition to our policy in 

Vietn am ever since w'e began the militar y buildup the re a decade ago. 

Public demo nstra tio ns an d official sta temen ts from Sweden left no 

do ub t in our m inds as to the at titu de of the m ajority in th at country . 

Th roug ho ut the 1960’s, as deserters from our forces in Vietnam fou nd 

haven in Sweden, we knew exact ly where the Swed ish Go vernme nt 

stood on the sub jec t. As a result, relations were str ain ed, to be sure, 

but ne ith er co un try wen t to the extrem e of withho ldin g ambas sad ors 

un til Presi dent Nix on bec ame pa rticular ly irked over a stat em en t 

ma de by Prime M inist er Palme last Dec ember 23, on the renewed 

bomb ing of Nor th Vi etn am at the very mo me nt the U.S. Go ver nm en t was assurin g the wor ld th at “peace is at ha nd .” The Prim e 

M inister said, in par t:
3

ST AT EM EN T BY PA LM E

W ha t happ en s toda y in Viet nam is a form of to rtur e. Th ere can be n o m ili tary 

mo tives for th e bom bings. M ili tary spokesmen in Saigon ha ve denie d th at there 

is a ny ste pu p of m ili tary a ct iv ity on th e par t of th e North Vi etn am ese . No r could 

it be Vie tnamese ob sti nacy at th e nego tia tio n tab le. Re sis tan ce ag ains t th e Octobe r agreem en t in Paris comes prim arily —as w as po int ed ou t by th e New York 

Tim es— from Presiden t Th ieu in Saigon.

W ha t is being done is th a t peo ple are being torm en ted, th a t a na tio n is bei ng 

torm en ted, to hu miliate the m, to force them to su bm it to th e lan guage of force. 

This is wh y th e bom bings are an outra ge.

The portion of Mr. Palme’s statement which the U.S. Government 

apparently found the hardest to take was his placing the bombing of 

North Vietnam in the same category as outrages perpetrated by the 

Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, and South Africa through the years. 

The United States thereupon ordered its Charge d’Affaires, who was 

home for Christmas, not to return to Stockholm, decided not to appoint an ambassador to Stockholm for the time being, and notified 

the Swedish Government that the newly appointed Swedish Ambassador to Washington was “unwelcome a t the present time.”

That was 9 months ago. Since then a cease-fire has come into effect 

in Vietnam, the bombing has stopped, and U.S. forces have been 

withdrawn. But, although U.S. officials have made peaceful visits to 

Hanoi, and Vietcong representatives are free to walk the streets of 

Saigon, the United States still has not seen fit to mend fences with a 

noncombatant, a neutral—Sweden.

VI EW S ON VIET NA M IR REL EV ANT

In introducing House Resolution 521, it was n ot my intention to 

endorse the statements made by Prime Minister Palme. Nor am I 

here for the purpose of defending their substance today. My views 

on the Vietnam war and on Mr. Palme’s criticism of it are irrelevant to 

the purposes of this resolution. My purpose is to gain acceptance of 

what I regard a fundamental premise of diplomacy: that the extension 

of recognition to a foreign government and the exchange of diplomatic 

representatives with tha t government do not necessarily imply tha t 

the United States approves of the form, ideology, or policy of that 

government. A resolution to this effect was, in fact, passed by the 

Senate in 1969.

There are numerous examples of acceptance of this premise in our 

foreign relations. We have extensive relations, including the exchange 

of ambassadors, with governments whose form, ideology, or policy do 

not meet with our general approval. The Soviet Union—with whom 

the administration is making maximum efforts to expand detente—is 

an example. We express official abhorrence over racial apartheid as 

practiced by South Africa, yet there is and always has been an American Ambassador in Pretoria. The Greek Government ignores our pleas 

for a restoration of democracy but we go to great lengths to maintain 

a cooperative relationship, even to the point of holding fast to our 

military alliance with it.
NO C O N SIS T E N T PO LIC Y

We also hav e no t made a consistent pra ctice of r etaliatin g again st 

those gov ern me nts who have been the m ost severe in their criticism of 

our V ietnam policy. We con tinu ed to pro mote deten te in the face of 

vitriolic Sov iet den unc iations , and opened our conta cts with the 

Peo ple’s Rep ublic of China to the widest ex ten t possible despite 

ho stility to our actions in Vietn am expressed in the mo st intem perate 

language. We have lived for a decade with outspoken antago nism 

tow ard Vie tnam policy from our oldest ally, Fra nce . We hav e conducted diplom atic busin ess as usual with Japa n, our chief Pacific 

ally, as i t tra de d with N or th Vietnam.

An obvious question arises. Why Swed en? Is its Prime Minis ter 

rab idly a nti-Am erican? Ha rdly. Olof Palme said rec ently to an American jou rna list, “M y a tti tu de t ow ard th e Un ited S tates ha s always been 

very positive. I was educate d there, I love the country and I love the 

people, so I have nev er been again st the Un ited State s. I hav e been 

again st the Vietnam war which I think is com pletely out of line with 

the Am erican tra ditio n------ ”

Is Sweden an ally of No rth Vietn am ? It is one of some 45 non-Commu nis t countries with which Nor th Vietn am has eit he r de jur e or de 

facto dip lom atic relatio ns. A list of thes e cou ntries includes such 

friends of the Un ited St ates as Ca nada, Austra lia, Ital y, the Ne therland s, and all of the Sc andin avian cou ntri es. Sweden has a p rog ram of 

hu manita ria n assistance to No rth Vie tnam emphasizing medical 

supplies, food, and rec onstruction aid, a pro gram not unlike the one 

envisag ed by our own Go vernm ent for No rth Vie tnam. Sweden has 

even been helpful to the Un ite d States by passing mail from POW 

families for delivery throug h the Nor th Vietnam ese Em bassy in 

Stockholm .

CR IT IC A L OF SO V IE T U N IO N

Does Sweden single o ut the U nited S tates for criticism? The Governmen t has pub licly expressed its disapprov al of th e au thor ita ria n na ture 

of the regim e in No rth V ietnam , and the la rge st pub lic demo nstra tio n 

in Swedish his tory was held in 1968 to p rotest inter vention in Czechoslov akia. On th at occasion Foreign Ministe r Nilsson den oun ced “the 

Soviet Un ion ’s brutal aggression again st Czech oslova kia.”

Ear ly this year, Prime Mini ste r Palme said Sweden “has no t forgo tte n Czechoslov kia.” And o nly las t week Foreign M ini ste r W ickman 

observed th at the Soviet Union “lacks the inn er str en gth to tolera te 

dissen ting voices in its own socie ty. ”

Rec ogn ition of Sweden’s ne ut ra lity must always be a ma jor factor 

in our relations with Stockh olm . We could view it as an obligation for 

Sweden to rem ain silent in all internationa l conflicts, bu t to do so 

would igno re the res ponsibility felt by Sweden and othe r peaceful 

natio ns to s pea k o ut on the m ora l v alues to which they are com mitted.

Th e Un ite d States has come a long way in its tole rance of n eu tra lit y 

on Ea st- W est issues since the 1950’s, and I hope th at our ret aliatio n 

aga inst Swedish criticism is only an isolate d aberr ati on from a tre nd 

th at will con tinu e. Surely we have o utgrow n the n otion th at the world 

must be divided in two totally comm itted camps.
5

FUNDAMENTAL PR IN CIPL E OF DIPLOMACY

I do not mean to suggest that we should view Sweden as a model 

nation whose example all the world should follow. Such a suggestion, 

if made, would also be irrelevant to the legislation before this subcommittee. I am simply urging the subcommittee to take a stand, 

tlu’ough House Resolution 521, in favor of normal diplomatic relations 

with Sweden on the same basis on which nations throughout the world 

engage in diplomatic relations—neither condemning nor condoning 

Sweden by the exchange of ambassadors. Passage of this bill by the 

House would be an endorsement of the fundamental premises of 

diplomacy, and the dispatch of an American Ambassador to Stockholm would be a reaffirmation of ma turity in our foreign relations.

Mr. Rosenthal. Mr. Fraser, am I correct in stating tha t the 

Senate has approved a similar resolution?

Mr. Fraser. I know tha t a similar resolution was reported from 

the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I am not certain whether 

it passed the Senate itself.

Mr. Rosenthal. I think that is correct, tha t the Senate committee approved it. 1

How serious, in your view, is the disruption of normal diplomatic 

relations with Sweden? We maintain our Embassy staffs in both 

capitals, so is it in fact a problem?

HO W SE R IO U S A PRO B LEM ?

Mr. Fraser. 1 don’t want to exaggerate the importance of the 

problem. It obviously causes some problem. I understand it has been 

made clear tha t the representation here in this country from Sweden 

is welcome only to see contacts at lower levels of the departm ents of 

our Government.

I think it is an irritant and it is an unhappy circumstance. What 

particularly bothers me is that I regard Sweden’s concept of the role 

of government and the relation of government and individuals as one 

of the most civilized and advanced of any nation in the world. They 

embrace thoroughly the values which undergird the American system.

Mr. Rosenthal. I s part of the problem the effect of our actions 

on the U.S. image and the impression the United States leaves 

throughout the world? Does it make us look like a petulant nation? 

If one doesn’t agree with us, with another country’s particularly 

harsh criticism, will we respond in this childlike way?

Mr. Fraser. I think i t looks petulant. 1 was interested in reading 

in an Air Force magazine in which the author of an article—I don’t 

know who it was—made the comment tha t he thought the United 

States overreacted to Sweden. We have a wide range of contacts with 

Swedish people. We have, I think, some cooperation in the military 

sphere, so to act in this case on the basis of a statement honestly 

expressed by the Prime Minister does seem to me to be quite out of 

place and could only be interpreted as a form of petulance.

1

 T he Senate passed the resolution on October 4,1973. It was reported by the Senate Foreign Relations 

Committee on August 2,1973 by a vote of 14-3. (Senate Report 93-374.)

22-35 3-73------2
6

ARE W E IN TER FER IN G IN SW ED EN ?

Mr. Rosenthal. Do you have any feeling or any view as to whether 

or not the United States is interfering in the Swedish electoral process 

by refusing to designate an ambassador, at least until after this 

weekend when their national election will be held?

Mr. Fraser. I don’t want to overstate it, but since the Watergate 

hearings, I have the impression that Sweden is on the enemy list the 

same as those in the United States opposing the administration were 

put on the enemy list. I think it is the same kind of reaction and my 

own impression is tha t the hope is tha t it will have some effect hi 

Sweden itself.

The President’s action may become a political liability to the 

present Swedish Government and the present party in power.

Mr. Rosenthal. Congressman Frelinghuysen.

Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It is a pleasure to welcome you before the subcommittee, Mr. Fraser.

I see in front of us H. Res. 521, H. Res. 523, II. Res. 535, and H. 

Res. 531. Are they all identical in language?

Mr. Fraser. I think they are the same resolution resubmitted 

because of the number of sponsors or cosponsors.

the congressional role

Mr. Frelinghuysen. Mr. Rosenthal said we are discussing a 

resolution to restore normal diplomatic relations with Sweden. Of 

course, tha t is not the function or within the capacity of this committee. I think what you are suggesting is tha t tha t normal relation 

should be restored, as I understand it.

Mr. Fraser. I think under the Constitution tha t is the limit of our 

ability to act on that.

Mr. Frelinghuysen. I really have no questions. Let me mention 

the quote you used of the Prime Minister of Sweden. I do think his 

remarks were unfortunate and unfair and I do think they were provocative. At the same time I agree that our reaction was probably excessive, and tha t nothing much is gained by n ot having ambassadors in 

both capitals. I doubt if there are seriously adverse reactions in 

Sweden or elsewhere if we don’t have an ambassador there. I view 

with sympathy the suggestion th at we resume ambassadorial relations 

and I hope the Secretary of State, if he is confirmed soon, will resume 

negotiations along that line.

Mr. Rosenthal said the reasons for the S tate Department’s refusal 

to appear were remote-----

Mr. Rosenthal. I said “remote to me.”

Mr. Frelinghuysen. I don’t know what “remote” means. I 

can’t follow the reasoning. I would like to submit for the record the 

letter from the Sta te Department. I t doesn’t seem to me unreasonable, 

in view of the fact there are going to be elections in Sweden this 

weekend, that the State Department doesn’t want to be put on the 

record now discussing the pros and cons of whether we should have an 

Ambassador there. I would like to ask tha t the letter be submitted 

for the record.

Mr. Rosenthal. Without objection, it will be included in the 

record.
7

D ep art m en t of Sta te , 

Wash ington, D.C., September 11, 1978.

Hon. Benjamin S. R osenthal,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Europe, Committee on Foreign Affairs,

House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Chairman: I refer to your request th at the Depar tment provide a 

witness to appear before you r Subcommittee this week on House Resolution 521 calling for restoration of norm al diplom atic relations throug h an exchange of 

amba ssadors with Sweden. As you know, Sweden will be conducting nationwide elections this weekend.2

Hearings such as you propose will be widely repo rted in Sweden and any state­ ments made by an official spokesman for the Depar tment of Sta te concerning U.S.-Swedish relations would prob ably lead to charges of interference in Sweden’s electoral process. Such a development would not be conducive for future good 

relations between our two countries. In addition, Secretary of State-designate Hen ry Kissinger indicate d before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week th at the sta tus of our representation in Sweden would be a matter he would review if confirmed.3

 Pending such a 

review, the Department would be relu ctant to engage publicly in the kind of examination of our relations with Sweden which your hearing would entail. We, therefore, hope th at you will und erstand our inability to accept your invitation 

to testify on this subject at this partic ular time. I regret the negative natur e of this response and hope th at you will contin ue 

to let us know whenever we can be helpful.

Sincerely yours,

Marshall Wright,

Assista nt Secretary for

Congressional Relations.

Mr. Frelinghuysen. No further questions.

Mr. Rosenthal. If you were to make a recommendation as far as 

timing is concerned, what is your feeling as to when the subcommittee might take action on this resolution?

Mr. Fraser. I don’t think there is any special timing. I don’t 

think tha t the subcommittee should act with any reference to the 

election in Sweden. I think the subcommittee ought not to try to be 

involved in the election, not that it would, in any event. I think the 

subcommittee should act in whatever would be regular, normal 

timing.

Mr. Rosenthal. Thank you very, very much and we are very 

honored tha t you have found the time to testify before the 

subcommittee.

The subcommittee stands adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 2:30 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned.]

2 Th e elections of September 16, 1973, resulted in a tie in the Swedish Par liin ent w ith Prim e Minister Palme’s Socialist bloc and the opposition parties each gaining 175 seats. Palme is expected to continue 

in power for the foreseeable future.

3

 Secretary of State Kissinger was confirmed b y the Senate on September 21,1973.

A P P E N D I X

Statem en t of H o n. H er man B adil lo , a R e pr e se n t a t iv e in

C ongres s fr om t h e Sta te of N ew Y or k

Mr. Chairman, I am very encouraged by these hearings on the urgent need to 

restore normal diplomatic relations between the United States and Sweden and 

I commend this subcommittee for taking the initiative on this important issue. 

Also, I appreciate this opportunity to submit this statement in support of H. Res. 

521, of which I am a co-sponsor.

Presumably the tension between the United States and Sweden had its inception 

in the remarks of Prime Minister Olof Palme about the bombing of various parts 

of Indochina by the United States. Mr. Palme very aptly referred to the illegal 

and immoral bombing policies of this country as similar to outrages committed by 

1

 other nations in the past. Although the Swedish Prime Minister was simply exercis-

: ing his right to express his nation’s grave concern over the continued involvement

of the United States in Indochina and was just one of many foreign and domestic 

leaders who criticized our government for its various ill-conceived war policies, 

Mr. Palme was singled out for special treatment by Mr. Nixon and his advisers. 

With typical emotional over-reaction which has marked most of his public career, 

Mr. Nixon refused to nominate someone to replace the American Ambassador 

who had retired from Stockholm in the summer of 1972 and requested the Swedish 

Government not to send a new ambassador to Washington.

M OTIV A TIO N NOT U N D ERSTO O D

It is difficult to understand the motivation behind Mr. Nixon’s diplomatic 

blunder when you consider the fact that other nations, such as Canada, France 

and India, were critical of U.S. involvemen t in Vietnam yet no recriminations 

were made against them; when you take into account the fact that U.S. B-52 s 

were being shot out of the sky by missiles supplied to Hanoi by the Soviet Union 

and thousands of South Vietnamese were being killed by bullets supplied to the 

Vietcong by the Peoples’ Republic of China at a time when the President was 

moving toward detente with these two nations; and when the United States 

maintained normal diplomatic relations with certain nations, such as Greece 

and Brazil, who openly repressed those basic civil rights of their citizens which 

are protected by international agreements. Perhaps Mr. Nixon was piqued by the 

fact that Mr. Palme was basically correct and that his statements reflected 

the sentiments of many in the family of free nations.

I am convinced that the criticism which Mr. Palme directed toward the United 

States was motivated by his deep, personal concern over the distorted priorities 

pursued by the Nixon administration in Southeast Asia and the corruption of 

those principles of basic human decency normally observed in this country with 

which the Swedish Prime Minister became familiar during his undergraduate 

days in Ohio. As he declared in a magazine interview earlier this year:

We have been used to looking to the United States for moral leadership 

and autho rity when it comes to questions of peace and the preservation of 

basic human values. And just because of this we feel our sorrow and our 

disappointment when something like the bombings of Hanoi and Haiphong 

' happens.

Surely there was no sinister purpose or objective underlying Mr. Palme’s timely 

and very apt criticism and his comments were certainly consistent with the long 

tradition of neutralism, the respect for human dignity and the protection of the 

victims of aggression of Sweden.

But the policy of the United States toward Sweden goes far beyond the personal 

displeasure of one American president. What is really at stake— and what has 

been very seriously damaged— is the future of American diplomatic relations 

with progressive, industrial nations of Western Europe. These nations— as does 

any free state in the world— desire to pursue their own, independent foreign 

(9)
10

policies, free from the pressures of the United States. Further, the present administration’s policy seriously questions the ability of this country to fulfill i ts international commitments and our capa city for a continued leading world role. Is it 

possible that the United States expects silent acquiesence by other nations for 

certain policies which we pursue? Are our traditional allies to be punished for 

expressing criticism of or reservations over independent actions which the United 

States takes?

There is no question but that our present Swedish policy must be carefully 

re-examined and that steps must be promptly taken to repair the damage which 

Mr. Nixon has wrought and to restore relations between our two countries. As 

John K enneth Galbraith has so perceptively noted in a recent statement:

“ Surely, the time has come to concede that the Swedes were not only right 

but helpful, and to take steps to repair relations with the country to which 

we owe so much. . . .

Our present posture does nothing more than demean the United States in the eyes 

of the world and further tarnishes our image in many lands.

Mr. Chairman, I urge that H. RE S. 521 be expeditiously and favorably considered and that the Congress prevail upon the administration to immediately 

undertake the restoration of full, normal relations with Sweden.

Than k you.
S urvey on A m er ic an A tt itud es T oward S we de n

Su bm it ted by H o n . D on al d M. F ra se r

Committee on Foreign Affairs,

October 5, 1978.

Hon. Benjamin S. R osenthal, Chairman,

Subcommittee on Europe, Foreign Affairs, Committee,

House of Representatives, Washington D.C.

Dear Mr. Chairman: The attac hed study of American attitudes toward 

Sweden commissioned by the Swedish Information Service, bears on your recent 

hearings on my resolution on restoration of normal diplomatic relations with 

Sweden.

If you agree, I think it would be useful to include extracts from the study in 

the appendix of the hearing record when it is published.

Sincerely,

Donald M. Fraser,

Chairman, Subcommittee on International

Organizations and Movements.

Attachment

Highlights of Survey on American Attitudes Toward Sweden

INTR ODU CTION

The Swedish Information Service has retained Response Analysis Corporation 

to provide a profile of the attitudes and knowledge level of American adults 

about Sweden.

Objectives of the Study

The basic objective of the research is to provide the Swedish Information 

Service with an accurate picture of the feelings and opinions about Sweden held 

by the American public in general, as well as by the more influential or more 

sophisticated segments of the public. The research is also intended to measure 

knowledge—and misperceptions—of Sweden held by the public at large and by 

the more influential members of the public.

Both these objectives, of course, are oriented toward the goal of providing you 

with information and research-based insights that will be useful in shaping the 

communications strategy and themeing of the Swedish Information Service.

The Samples and Study Methodology

Findings are based on interviews conducted in May and June 1973 with samples 

of three different groups of American adults:

1. Face-to-face interviews in the home, with 1,002 adults who are a cross 

section of all adults age 18 and older. Interviews were conducted between 

May 14 and June 3, 1973 by ORC Caravan Surveys.* This is the general

public sample.|

The general public findings are reliably projectable to 137 million adults 

age 18 and over.

2. Nationwide telephone interviews with adults who live in Census tracts 

where the median annual income is over $15,000.

These telephone interviews were conducted by Response Analysis’ trained 

interviewers from our Princeton office between May 7 and June 15, 1973.

A random digit dialing plan was used to assure that unlisted and newly 

listed telephone households were included in the sample.

♦ORC Caravan Surveys Is a survey research service which combines questions from 

several clients and thus reduces the interviewing costs for all of them. This service was 

used in the intere sts of obtaining quality, national data for lower study budget.

(ID
12

FINDIN GS IN BRIE F

The American public has high rega rd for Sweden and its people. Forty-six 

percent of Americans believe Sweden would be a good country in which to live; 

only 14% do n ot think they would like to live there.

These findings are from a nationwide study of American attitudes toward 

Sweden and Swedish foreign policy conducted for the Swedish Inform ation Service 

by Response Analysis Corporation of Princeton, New Jersey, a leading att itu de 

research firm. The Survey was conducted in May 1973. Findings are based on 

over 1,000 personal face-to-face interviews with a represen tative cross section of 

American adults and a nother 2,000 interviews by telephone with special samples 

of upper income Americans and community leaders.

Overall, Americans see Sweden as a technologically advanced, aesthetic ally 

pleasant cou ntry whose citizens are well taken care of by their government.

Sweden’s criticism of U.S. involvement in V ietnam has not damaged Sweden’s 

reputation among Americans. Fewer tha n one American in ten believes th at 

Sweden’s opposition to U.S. Southea st Asia policies is an expression of antiAmerican feeling..

A large majority of comm unity leaders knows th at Sweden has opposed U.S. 

involvement in Vietnam. However, the bulk of the American public is not sure 

what position Sweden has taken on U.S. Southea st Asia involvement.

Sweden has gran ted young men from the United States permission to sta y in 

Sweden to avoid serving in Vietnam. A m ajority of the comm unity leaders who 

were interviewed (55%) approves of th e fact th at Sweden offered sh elter to such 

Americans. However, among the American public, more people are against Swreden 

granting shelte r (43%) tha n in favor (27%).

Before the y learned th at the Swedish info rmation Service was sponsoring the 

survey, community leaders ranked four European countries (Sweden, France, 

Switzerland a nd Poland) on a series of questions. Sweden is ranked tops for taking 

the best care of its people. Sweden and Switzerland share the top position for 

political freedom and having the most highly educ ated people. France and Sweden 

are considered to have the most advanced technology. France and Sweden rank 

considerably behind Switzerland for being the best friend of the United States.

In addition to investigating att itu des toward Sweden, Response Analysis also 

questioned Americans about their knowledge of different aspects of life in Sweden.

Americans have some correct impressions abo ut life in Sweden, some wrong 

impressions, bu t most often they lack specific information a bou t Sweden.

All respondents who were interviewed by telephone were administered a series 

of special questions to perm it us to identify two types of adults:

The 484 adults who scored high on the special questions became the 

sample of influential adults.

The 1,533 adu lts who did not score as highly on the special questions 

became the upper income sample.

The upp er income sample is projecta ble to approximately 15 million 

Americans who live in upper income census tra cts ; 11% of American adults 

live in these areas.

Pilot Sxirvey

A Pilot Survey was conducted in Princeton, New Jersey (an upper income 

community) among a sample of 213 adu lts in April 1973 to help evaluate the 

advantages and disad vantages of the telephone interview as a meth od to gather 

comprehensive research data. Findings from this study are reported separately. 

Results from the Pilot Study closely parallel the results from the survey of 

influential adults.

Acknowledgments

We would like to tha nk the Swedish Information Office, the Consul General 

and the Royal Ministry for Foreign Affairs for their guidance, cooperation and 

assistance at key phases of this project. We would also like to recognize the 

contribution of Professor W. Phillips Davison, Columbia University, who was 

a consultant on this project.

This stu dy was directed by Dr. Herbe rt I. Abelson, President of Response 

Analysis and James H. Fouss, Vice Pre sident.
13

Impressions

Americans feel th at the Swedish people have genuine freedom of speech.

Community leaders know th at the Swedish government is a parliam entary 

democracy and th at Sweden is n ot a one-party state.

Americans know Sweden was neu tral and stay ed out of World War II.

Many Americans feel t ha t the Swedish government owns most of the industry 

in Sweden. At the same time, many believe th at Sweden is a socialist coun try. 

A warning must be added because the meaning of socialist was never defined 

in the question. Areas Where Americans Lack Information

Americans are not familiar with the fact th at Sweden is not a member of any 

military or economic block, such as NATO, the Warsaw Pact, or the European 

Common Market. Americans do not know very much abo ut Sweden’s social secu rity system.

While Sweden is the best known Scandinavian coun try, a significant number 

of Americans (42%) cann ot name two Scandinavian countries.

A m ajority (73%) of Americans can not thin k of th e name of an y Swedish city.

A leading topic of conversation when American adults discuss Sweden is the 

attractive ness of Sweden as a vacation or tourist destination, although few 

Americans (3%, or approximately 4 million adult Americans) have ever been to 

Sweden. I n general, most American adults have had minimal contact with Swedish 

people, although one-third of the community leaders have had any form of 

Swedish acqu aintance s and 20% have Swedish business acquaintances.

Although only a min ority of community leaders has had personal contact, a 

large majority of community leaders (85%) says people like themselves are 

good friends of the Swedish people. They also think the Swedish people are 

friendly toward Americans. Results of the Response Analysis survey also show th at newspapers, in fact, 

are the prim ary source of information on Sweden for most American adults, 

followed by news magazines. Television is a less frequent source of information 

on Sweden for the American public.

H IG HLI GHTS

In this section we review the principal findings from the study conducted 

in Ma y-June 1973. Findings are from interviews with samples of three different 

groups of American adults: 1. Face-to-face interviews in the home with 1,002 adu lts who are a cross 

section of all adu lts age 18 and older. This is the general public sample.

2. Nationwide telephone interviews with adu lts who live in Census tracts 

where the median annu al income is over $15,000. All respondents who were 

interviewed by telephone were administered a series of special questions to 

perm it us to identify two types of adults:

The 484 adults who scored high on the special questions became the 

sample of influential adults,

The 1,533 adults who did not score as highly on the special questions 

became the upper income sample.

I. — Knowledge About Sweden

P ag e 1

A. Relationship w ith the Swedish People:

1. The general public has h ad minim al immediate con tact w ith the

Swedish people. A small min ority (12%) has been to Europe 

and only 3% have been to Sweden. Most Americans do not 

have a close relationship with Swedish friend s or business 

acq uaintance s________________________________________ 24-27

2. On the other hand, upper income an d influential adults have had

a fair amoun t of c ontact with Sweden and its people. Many 

influential adults (52%) have been to Europe and one influential in eight has been to Sweden. One-third of th e influential

group has Swedish friends and one-fifth says they have Swedish 

business acqu aintances________________________________ 24-27

1

 Page num bers refer to original survey.
[In percentl

General

public

Upper

income

Influe ntial

adults

Been to Europe............................................................... 12 37 52

Been to Sweden......................................................................................... 3 8 13

Have Swedish fr ie nds........................................................... 7 22 32

Have Swedish business acquaintances..................................................... 3 10 20

Related to a Swedish citizen who lives or works outside Sweden . . . 1 2 2

Page

B. Knowledge of Sweden’s Location and Cities:

1. A large majority of the general public is not aware of th e name 

of any Swedish city and 42% do not know the name of two or 

more Scandinavian countries. Influential adults’ level of 

knowledge of Sweden’s location and its cities is at a much 

higher level. For instance, 72% of influential adults name 

Sweden as a Scandinavian country, and 46% know th at 

Stockholm is one of the cities in Sweden. Upper income men 

and women are almost as knowledgeable as the influential

[In percent]

General Upper Influe ntial

public income adults

Knowledge of Scandinavian countries and Swedish cities :

Sweden........ ........... ............. ....................................... ................... ..

Norway_____ _____________ ____________ ____ ___________ _

Denmark________ ____ __________________________________

Don’t know names of 2 countries__________ ____ ___________

Stockholm_______ ____ _______ ___________ _______

Gothenberg........ ......... ............................................... .....................

Malmo.......... ................. ......... .......................................... . .................

Uppsala...................................................................................................

45 69 72

38 60 74

29 43 66

42 20 8

26 38 46

2 5 7

<*> 3 4

C) 2 4

i Less than 0.5 percent.

C. Sweden’s Form of Government and Economic System:

1. The general public has no important misconceptions regarding 

Sweden’s political system—they just are n’t familiar with it.

For instance, 39% say they don’t know if the Swedish people

have freedom of speech on all issues or n ot ________________ 33

Influ ential and upper income adults are quite familiar with 

Sweden’s form of government. For instance, 73% of influential

adults believe th at Sweden is a parliam entary democracy and 

69% believe Swedish people have genuine freedom of speech on 

all issues_____________________________________________ 33

[In percent]

General Upper Influe ntial

public income adults

“ In Sweden, all people have genuine freedom of speech on all 

issues” :

True.......................................................................................................

Not t ru e ,. ..........................................................................................j

Don't know_____ ______ ______________ ______________ _

“ The Swedish Government is a parliamentary democracy, somethin g like the Government of England” : 1

True................................................................ .....................................

Not true ............................................................................ ...................

Don’t know____________________________________________

46 64 69

15 20 21

39 16 11

73

17

10

1

 General public and upper income adults were not asked this question.
15

Page

2. By a wide margin, influential and upper income people feel 

Sweden is a socialist co untry. The general public is more likely 

to claim ignorance on this and other subjects rela ted to 

Sweden’s government, economic system and social welfare 

programs____________________________________________ 34

[In percent)

General

public

Upper

income

Influential

adults

"Sw eden is a socialist country” :

True...................... . ............... . ........... ................... ............................ 30 55 65

Not tr ue ............................................................................................ . . 19 26 22

Don’t kno w________ _____ ______ __________ ..................... 51 19 13

3. Virtually the same proportion s of influential and upper income

adults believe “the Swedish government owns most of the 

ind ustry .” The tab le below illustrates the similarity of findings on this issue_____________________________________ 34-35

[In percent)

General Upper Influe ntial

pub lic income adults

True................................................................................................................ 28 39 41

Not true .......................................................................................................... 14 27 30

Don’t know......... ............................... 58 34 29

4. On balance, the general public is just not familiar with Sweden’s 

social secu rity system. Six men and women in ten say the y 

do not know anyth ing about Sweden’s social secu rity system 

for its people, influentia l and upper income adults by wide 

margins recognize th at Sweden has an advanced social security system. Less t ha n 10% disagree with the statem ent th at 

“Sweden has a very advanced social secu rity system for its 

people.” _____________________________________________ 32

[In percent]

General Upper Influen tial

public income adults

True................................................................................................................ 33 63 73

Not true.......................................................................................................... 8 9 8

Don't kn ow.................................................................................................... 59 28 19

II. —Attitudes toward Sweden

A. Sweden’s Overall Image:

1. The general public, by a three to one margin, thinks Sweden 

would be a good cou ntry to live in. Influential and upper

income adults agree b y even wider margins: 70% of influential

men and women consider living in Sweden attrac tive, and 

60% of upper income adults say the same_________________ 43

[In percent]

General

public

Upper

income

Influential

adults

Say Sweden is a good country to live in ................................. ................ 46 60 70

Do not believe Sweden is a good place to live___________ ................ 14 14 16

Don’t know.................................................................... .............................. 40 26 14
16

Page

Sweden is considered an attra cti ve country because people say 

Sweden takes good care of its people, is peaceful and is a progressive cou ntry__ ______________________________________ 43

2. People’s first thoughts about Sweden rela te to the characteristics of its people, its climate and scenery and its 

“ reputation for sexual freedom.” Thirty percent of the 

general public has no “ top of the mind” impressions a bout 

Sweden. Only 12% of influential adults have no opinion 

abo ut Sweden____________________________________ 39

B. Sweden compared with France, Poland and Switzerland: 2

1. Among in/Zuen/taZ adults, Sweden is selected much more freque ntly tha n Switzerland, France and Poland for taking the 

best care of its people. Sweden and Switzerland have the 

best image for having the most political freedom and having 

the most highly educate d people________________________46-47

2. Fran ce has a somewhat stro nge r rep utation tha n Sweden for

having the m ost advanced tech nology_______________ ____ 48

3. Poland has the rep utation for having the highest percentage of

state-owned indu stry. More influential adults select Sweden 

on this point tha n Switzerland or F rance__________________ 48

4. Influentia l and upper income adults choose Switzerland as the

best friend of the United States more often tha n Sweden and 

France ______________________________________________ 49

C. American People and the Swedish People:

1. Large majorities of influential adults (85%) and upper income

adults (83%) feel people like themselves are good friends of 

the Swedish people. Mo st influential a nd other upper income

men and women also think Swedish people think of themselves as good friends of Americans______________________ 60

2. Influential adults believe Swedish people are friendly to Americans because of th eir personal contact with Swedish friends; 

Americans like themselves are friendly to the Swedish people 

because there is no reason not to be and Americans are 

friendly w ith everyone________________________________ 61-62

D. Sources of Information:

1. Only a minority (22%) of th e general public remembers recently

hearing or reading som ething abou t Sweden. Influential adults

(52 r

.) are more likely to recall a news item abo ut Sweden.

People play back news about Sweden providing shelter for 

American young men, stories on sexual freedom and pornography in Sweden, and news related to Sweden’s opposition 

to American Vietnam policies___________________________ 51

2. Influential and upper income adults' main sources of inform ation

about Sweden are newspapers, news magazines and, finally, 

television__________________________________________ _ 55

2

 The general public was not asked to compare Sweden with other European countries on specific points.

[In percent]

General Upper Influ en tia l

pu blic income adu lts

Yes, remember a news item about Sweden.............................. . ............ 22 37

Newspaper.......... . ...................................................... ............. ........... (i) 19

Newsm agazine......................................................................... . ................................. 10

Television..................... ............................................................................. .............. 9

No; do not remember (m ultip le responses).............. ............................... 78 63

52

25

17

11

48

1

 General public not asked about the source of this info rmation.
17

Page

3. Four influential adults in ten have discussed Sweden with someone in the last six months or so. The conversation was most 

often about a vacation or travel to Sweden---------------------- 59

4. Influential adults are as inte rested in more information abo ut

Switzerland, Poland and F rance as t hey are about inform ation 

about Sweden. Half of the influential group does no t have any 

fur the r inte rest in information abo ut these countries. People’s 

information needs focus on travel, political and general types

of information________________________________________ 57

Inf lue ntial

adults

(by

Would like more information abo ut: percent')

SW ED EN __________ 25

Poland ________________________________________________ 24

Switzerland____________________________________________ 23

Fra nce ________________________________________________ 19

No t interested in information abo ut these countries_____________ 54

(Multiple responses)

III.— Familiarity with Sweden’s Foreign Policy

A. Sweden’s Position on Vietnam:

The Swedish gov ernmen t has repeatedly expressed its views on

the Vietnam War. How much does the American public know 

about this policy? To help us under stand the American public’s 

und erstanding of and att itu de s toward Sweden’s foreign policy, 

we first mea sure d people’s attitud es toward the Vietnam W ar----- 65

1. Only a min ority of the American public now feels U.S. involvem ent in Vietnam was justified. A ma jority of the 

American public says the war was not justified or has 

mixed feelings abo ut the war. Opposition to the war is 

highest among influential adults. Half of the influential

group says America’s involvement was no t justified ; 

only one -third feels the Vietnam War was justified. 

Among th e general public, 44% say U nite d States involvement in Vietnam was not justified and 18% have mixed 

feelings about the war. Only 28% believe the United 

Sta tes was justified in intervening in Vietnam.

[In percent)

General Upper Influential

public income adults

U.S. involvement in Vietnam was justified

Not jus tified..................................................

Mixed fee lings...............................................

No o pinion ...................................................

28 29 34

44 47 49

18 18 14

10 6 3

2. These findings sugg est there is a sym pathetic climate for Sweden ’s foreign policy in this area. A large majority of influential adults (73%) knows Sweden has opposed U.S. involvemen t. However, among the general public, six adults in ten 

are not sure wh at Sweden’s position has been on the Vietnam 

War. There is widespread belief among those who know 

Sweden’s Vietnam War position th at it is aga inst American 

policy on the Vietnam issue alone an d does not express a general

anti-American feeling. Only one person in ten among the 

general public, upper income and influential groups feels 

Sweden’s po sition on the w ar expresses a general anti-Am erican feeling___________________________________________ 67-69
18

[In percent]

General Upper Influential

public income adults

Know Sweden has opposed U.S. involvem ent in V ietnam.......... ...........

Say Sweden’ s position:

Is against U.S. policy on this issue alone_____________________

Expresses general anti-American fee ling_____________________

No opinio n.............................................................................................

Say Sweden is in favor of U.S. involvem ent______________ _______

Don’t know Sweden’ s position on the Vietnam wa r________________

37 60 73

25 43 57

8 11 11

4 6 5

2 2 1

61 38 22

Page

3. The American public is m ore divided on the question of Sweden 

providing shelter for U.S. young men. Influential adults b y a 

margin of 55% to 31% say Sweden should have provided 

shelter. Other upper income adults are somewhat more in 

favo r of shelter for U.S. young men (46%) than against 

shelter (35%). The general public is lea st likely to thin k 

Sweden should have gra nted shelter for U.S. young men. In 

fact, 43% say “ no” Sweden should not have provided shelter 

and 27% say “ yes” Sweden should have provided s helter for 

American m en________________________________________ 71

[In percent]

General

pub lic

Upper

income

Influential

adults

Sweden should have provided she lter............................ . ...................... 27 46 55

Should not______ _______ _____ . . ____ __________ ___________ 43 35 31

Mixed fee lings............................ ........................ ........... . ___________ 13 9 9

No op in io n. ............................................................. ..................................... 17 10 5

B. The Policy of N eutrality :

1. The American public does not feel Sweden’s policy of neutr ality 

has hu rt Un ited State s’ inte rests. By a thre e to one margin, 

influential adults say Sweden’s neutral policy is not hurtin g 

the U.S. Although the general public also agrees with this 

position, half are no t familiar enough with Sweden’s policy 

to have an opinion on this issue________________________ 76

[In percent)

General

public

Upper

income

Influentia l

adults

“ Sweden’ s neutral policy is hurting the interests of the United States

and the rest of the Western World.’ ’ :

True ......... ........................................ .................................. ............... .. 13 19 20

Not t ru e ................. ......... .................................................................... 37 56 61

Don’t know ............. ......... .................................... ............. ................. 50 25 19

2. In the minds of influential adults, Sweden is more closely linked 

to the U.S. than the Soviet Union. A m ajority of influential

adults (68%) says Sweden has stronger ties to the U.S. th an the 

Soviet Union________________________________________ 76
19

C. Sweden’s Policies During World War II: page

1. People generally know, especially influential and upper income

adults, that Sweden s tay ed out of World War II by trying to 

be strictly neu tral; a few think Sweden favored the Allies 

more than the Nazis. Only one person in twe nty among the 

general public, upper income and injZwentiaZ adults groups says 

Sweden favored Germany in the w ar____________________ 75

[In percent]

General

public

Upper

income

Influen tial

adults

KnowSw eden stayed out of World War II...................................... ......... 56 70 71

Think Sweden fought w ith —

Allies........ ....... ..............................................................................___ 8 12 18

Germany.......... ......... .................................. ......... .......................___ 2 2 3

Don’t know__________ ______ ___________________ ________ 34 16 8

Sweden tried to be s trictly neutral during World War I I . . .......... 38 50 40

Favored United States, Allies ................................................... ......... 16 23 33

Favored G erm an,................................................................................. 4 5 7

Don’t know................................. ........................................................ 42 22 18

D. Attitudes Tow ard the Un ited Nation s and Sweden’s Peace-Keeping

Activitie s:

1. The American public is largely pro-United Nations. Upper income a nd influential adults b y wide m argins agree the Un ited 

Nations has done enough good to make it worthwhile. People 

recognize th at Sweden has carried out im portant Un ited 

Nations peace-keeping activities. Two-thirds of influential

adults feel Sweden has done important things in this a rea__ 77

2. Influ ential adults do n ot really know too much abo ut Sweden’s

economic contributions to developing nations. They are more 

likely to be familiar with Sweden’s activities in the environmental protection area . A m ajo rity of influential adults feels 

Sweden has been active on issues having to do w ith environmental protection____________________________________ 78-79

E. Membership in Intern ational Pacts :

1. The general public is n ot familiar with Sweden’s membership in 

various in ternation al organizations. For instance, a ma jority 

of the public is no t sure if Sweden is a member of NATO, the 

Common Ma rke t or the Warsaw Pact. A majority of influential adults is also unsure or wrong abo ut Sweden’s 

relationship to these economic and milita ry pacts. One-third 

of influential adults knows Sweden is not a NATO mem ber or 

in the EE C; one-half is aware th at Sweden is not a Warsaw 

Pac t co un try___________________________________________ 73

[In percent]

General

public

Upper

income

Influential

adults

Say Sweden—

Is NATO mem be r......... ................................ ......... ........................... 19 29 35

Is not.................................................... ........... ......... ........................ .. 21 31 34

Don't know _ . . _________ ________________ .................... . 60 40 31

Is Common Market m em ber ________________ _____________ 22 32 40

Is not________________ _________ _____ ____ ........................... 19 30 35

Don’t k n o w ........... ....... ........................................... _____________ 59 38 25

Is Warsaw Pact m em be r......................................... _____________ 9 9 13

Is n o t......................... ...................... ....................... .......................... 26 40 48

Don’t k no w..... ................................................ ......... ______ ______ 65 51 39
T ext of H o use R eso lu tio n 521 1

[H. Res. 521, 93d Cong., first sess.]

RE SO LU TIO N

Wh ereas a close an d friendly relat ion ship has no rm all y exi sted between 

Sweden an d th e Un ite d States over th e years, vi rtu ally since the foun da tio n of 

this Republic, and

Wh ereas this rela tio nship has need lessly been disr up ted over a period of a lm ost a 

yea r, as evi den ced by th e absenc e of a Uni te d St ates Am bas sador in Sto ckh olm 

sinc e Au gust of 1972, an d the ta ci t refusal of th e United States Go ve rnmen t to 

receive an Am bas sad or from Sweden sinc e Ja nu ar y of this year, an d

Whereas the Senat e has affirmed th e position th at dip lom atic relat ion s do no t 

depend upo n or con note ap prov al of th e views of th e governme nts concern ed: 

Now, the refore , be it

Resolved, Tha t it is th e sense of the Ho use th a t th e Uni te d State s Go vernme nt 

an d Sweden sho uld res tor e th eir no rm al friendly rel ations, and confirm this 

re tu rn t o norm alc y b y ap po intin g a nd disp atch ing am bassa dors to th ei r res pecti ve 

capit als on an im mediat e basis.

1

 II. Res. 521 is identical to H. Res. 523, 531 and 535, all of which were referred to the Subcommittee on 

Euro pe. Co-sponsors of these resolutions were: Mr. Badillo, Mr. Hechler of West Virginia, Mr. Reuss, Mr. 

Harrington, Mr. D rinan, Mr. Nix, Mr. Denholm , Mr. Helstoski, Mrs. Chisholm, Mr. Rosenthal, Mr. Moorhead of Pennsylvania, Mr. McCloskey, Mrs. Schroeder, Mr. Meeds, Mr. Rees, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Bergland, 

Mr. Danielson, Ms. Abzug, Mr. Hastin gs, Mr. E dw ard s of California, Mr. Dellums, Mr. Stokes, Mr. Roe, 

Mr. Mitchell of Maryland, Mr. Riegle and Mr. Moakley.

(20)

O