Does the Swedish Government Consider Failure a Success?
November 30, 2025
A shorter version of this article appeared in Swedish in GLOBAL BAR Magazine on 11/27/2025.
Link to full English version below!
For decades now, Swedish officials have clung to a policy of silent diplomacy even though it has yielded no tangible result in the cases of three Swedish citizens unlawfully detained abroad. What is the strategy behind this seeming contradiction? Is the Swedish government actually content with “failure” - the fact that its citizens remain alive but in dangerous limbo? In other words, do Swedish officials feel that it is the best they can do but are afraid to say so? The fact that neither China, Iran nor Eritrea have incurred any meaningful costs for the serious crimes committed against Swedish nationals suggests that this may well guide Sweden’s strategic thinking, at least in part.
Diplomats are naturally risk averse and inclined to accept partial results. This may not yield the best outcome for three Swedish citizens imprisoned for decades abroad. All are presumed to be alive, but their freedom remains elusive, write SUSANNE BERGER and CAROLINE EDELSTAM.
A closed off culture
If the Swedish Foreign Ministry were a country, it would rank among the most isolationist, least participatory societies in the world.
Years ago, during the official investigation of the fate of Swedish diplomat and Holocaust hero Raoul Wallenberg in Russia, researchers would huddle to discuss how to move the inquiry forward. The group felt that if they could just convince Swedish officials to tackle the issue in more creative ways, to seek answers from unexpected sources, such an approach could yield important progress.
It took years before the realization finally set in that the seeming foot dragging by Swedish diplomats was not due to a lack of understanding, a failure to recognize the value of the proposed steps, or obscure bureaucratic hurdles. They just simply did not want to act.
This institutional aversion towards cooperating with outsiders has proved to be a major obstacle in the handling of current cases of Swedish citizens missing or arbitrarily detained abroad. Swedish officials prefer to deal with politically sensitive matters strictly “in house”, keeping their cards tightly to their vest and any third parties firmly at bay, even when seemingly at their most openminded and inclusive.
An inherent conflict of interest
Above all, family members are experiencing firsthand how much the Swedish Foreign Ministry has closed itself off not only from them, but also from any outside scrutiny. Representatives of the public – human rights advocates, journalists, even parliamentarians or legal counsels – are kept at arm’s length. Obfuscation, evasion, delays, the feigning of ignorance are all tools to avoid direct interaction and cooperation. When this fails and Swedish officials feel pressured, they resort first to anger, only to shut themselves off even more, by not responding to inquiries or invoking Sweden’s strict secrecy provisions.
Both families and their advocates emphasize that they do not want to take an adversarial position. In fact, they want nothing more than for Swedish officials to succeed. None of this appears to register or bring about any meaningful change.
Part of the problem is, of course, that Swedish diplomats primarily represent Swedish national interests which creates an inherent conflict. It means that the goals of families and those of the Swedish government do not always coincide. Families have only one aim – to free their loved ones. Diplomats have many other factors to consider which makes them naturally risk averse. It also makes them far more inclined to accept partial solutions.
READ FULL ENGLISH TEXT at GlOBAL BAR MAGAZINE!