Office of the Historian

279. Telegram From the Embassy in Sweden to the Department of State1

1541.
Stockholm, April 4, 1980, 1432Z

SUBJECT

  • Attitudes Toward US Policy and Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan.

Ref:

  • State 088475.2
1.
(S) Entire text.
2.
(A) Soviet invasion of Afghanistan brought forth heaviest criticism Swedish Government had directed against Soviet Union, or any other government, in many years. Condemnation of aggression against non-aligned state and demands for earliest Soviet withdrawal have been expressed by PM, FM and other top-level GOS officials publicly (and privately to Soviets in both Stockholm and Moscow).3 Opposition leader Olof Palme has been sharply critical of Soviet actions from beginning. Sweden, of course, voted with majority in UNGA condemnation of Soviet aggression.4
(B) Swedish criticism has not been diluted by passage of time. Both in mid-March foreign policy debate in Riksdag and at Nordic FM meeting in Helsinki last week, Swedish leadership has repeated Swedish concern over failure of Soviets to leave Afghanistan.
3.
(A) Swedish attitude towards U.S. policies in response was more complicated. There was full understanding of grain sale suspension and high technology transfer prohibition, but less understanding of US call for Olympic boycott. Swedish participation in boycott actions against Soviets has not been forthcoming since such measures, in Swedish view and tradition, must be based on Security Council-approved sanctions. On Olympics, leaders of non-aligned Sweden have expressed view that, in the absence of UN sanctions, decisions of participation at Moscow Games must be left to National Olympic Committees. While Swedish Committee has yet to accept Soviet invitation, it most probably will by May 24 deadline unless substantial Western European opposition develops. Coupled with GOS understanding of US responses were expressions of concern by Swedish leaders that gains achieved through detente not be lost in aftermath of Soviet invasion. The Swedes hoped particularly that disarmament discussions (SALT II, CTB) would continue and that Madrid CSCE meeting would take place on schedule.
(B) GOS attitude towards US responses has not changed.
Kennedy–Minott
  1. Source: National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D800169–0857. Secret; Immediate; Exdis.↩
  2. Telegram 88475 has not been found.↩
  3. Telegrams 213 and 215 from Stockholm, January 15, reported on sharp criticism of Soviet intervention in Afghanistan by government leaders. (National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D800025–1008 and D800026–1154)↩
  4. See footnote 2, Document 278.↩