The Indochinese revolutionary movements enjoyed widespread support in Swedish society, particularly among supporters of the
Swedish Social Democratic Party. When the Khmer Rouge captured Phnom Penh and expelled its inhabitants, 15,000 Swedes greeted their victory by spontaneously celebrating in the center of Stockholm. Claes-Göran Bjernér, a cameraman for the Swedish state broadcaster
Sveriges Television, described the jubilant mood among Swedish journalists saying, "at the time most of us considered the Red Khmers as a liberation army and Pol Pot as no less than a Robin Hood". One journalist for
Expressen cried with joy, calling the fall of Phnom Penh the most beautiful thing he had ever seen.
[36] Swedish author and journalist
Per Olov Enquist defended the emptying of what he called "that whorehouse, Phnom Penh".
[37]
Prime Minister
Olof Palme issued a joint declaration with
Fidel Castro congratulating the Khmer Rouge on their victory, and immediately extended diplomatic recognition to the new rulers of Cambodia. Parliamentarian
Birgitta Dahl became the driving force in the Social Democratic government for providing foreign aid to Democratic Kampuchea, an offer which the Khmer Rouge would eventually decline. In 1976, she vigorously denied allegations of Khmer Rouge atrocities during a discussion on Swedish radio.
[36]
We all know that much, well—probably most of what has been said and written about Cambodia is lies and speculation. It was absolutely necessary to evacuate Phnom Penh. It was a necessity to immediately get food production going and it would require enormous sacrifices of the population. But that is not our problem just now. The problem is that we don't actually have the knowledge—direct testimony—in order to dismiss all the lies that are spread by Cambodia's enemies.
Her skepticism was shared by
Gertrud Sigurdsen, the Minister for International Development Cooperation, who dismissed the allegations as "exaggerated horror stories".
[37]
In recognition of the Swedish government's "special relationship" with the Khmer Rouge,
Kaj Björk, the
Swedish ambassador to Beijing, became the first diplomat of any western country to be invited to visit Democratic Kampuchea in 1976. A Social Democrat, Björk had been a fervent admirer of Maoist China, where he developed a friendship with
Ieng Sary, the third-most senior official in the Khmer Rouge. Now serving as the Swedish government's official source of information about Cambodia, he wrote glowing diplomatic reports extolling the new regime. When a member of the Palestinian delegation observed that he had detected fear on the faces of Cambodians, Björk instead attributed their countenance to the natural modesty of the Cambodian people.
[36]
Also accompanying Björk on his strictly guided tour of the country was Jan Lundvik, an official from Sweden's
Ministry for Foreign Affairs, who dismissed concurrent reportage in the French press alleging 800,000 deaths under the Khmer Rouge as unimaginable. They were lodged in one of Phnom Penh's abandoned mansions where Björk enjoyed the desolation of the empty city, remarking, "Being a privileged prisoner in Phnom Penh's deserted upper-class quarter is a great opportunity for quiet concentration. What could then be more appropriate than to immerse oneself in Friedrich Engel's
Anti-Dühring?"
[36]
Their reluctance to say anything critical about Cambodia was also informed in part by electoral concerns—it was feared that scrutiny of the Swedish government's plans to offer foreign aid to the Khmer Rouge could hamper the Social Democrat's fortunes in the upcoming
1976 Swedish general election.
[36]
In 1977, a third Swedish diplomat would be invited to visit Cambodia.
Jean-Christophe Öberg, a radical Social Democrat who had been stationed in
Hanoi and
Bangkok, made a two-day tour of the country and upon his return, conveyed his uncritical impressions to the media. Although he had made an effort to personally interview Cambodian refugees, Öberg dismissed their testimony as false because he felt their accounts were suspiciously consistent with what had been reported by John Barron and Anthony Paul in
Reader's Digest.
Well, the refugee's stories are, in their very nature, highly coloured. Their accounts are made with their own interest before their eyes. Partly, they want to get out of the camps as soon as possible [...] and to make it possible to obtain status as a political refugee, you have to prove you have been subject to persecution! [...] What is so striking about this, is that when I went around and talked to people in the camp, they described the situation in Cambodia just as it had been reported in
Reader's Digest. And this cannot be taken very seriously! It would have been more interesting to listen to what the Cambodians had to say about the situation in Cambodia, according to their own experiences, rather than what was said in [
Reader's Digest] in February. And I would like to emphasize how exaggerated and biased the reports from Cambodia have been in the international news media. And that brings us back to what we said earlier. "Why is it like this? Who is behind it?" But apparently there are those who have an interest in continuing to portray the regime in Phnom Penh as a reign of murder. One can say that the best way to deny this is to let the journalists come there and see for themselves.
[37]
The uncritical accounts of Swedish diplomats would later be cited by other skeptics trying to present a more benign image of the Khmer Rouge.
Sweden–Kampuchea Friendship Association
In August 1978, four members of the
Sweden–Kampuchea Friendship Association (SKFA) were invited to visit Cambodia. Among them were its chairperson Hedvig Ekerwald, Gunnar Bergström, the editor of the magazine
Kampuchea,
Jan Myrdal, the son of
Gunnar and
Alva Myrdal and one of Sweden's most internationally renowned left-wing activists, and Marita Wikander, who was married to a Khmer Rouge diplomat who had been stationed in East Germany before he was recalled to Cambodia.
[36] During their visit, they would have a lavish dinner with
Pol Pot.
[38]
Wikander asked their hosts if she could see her husband, but her request was denied. Unbeknownst to her, her husband had been executed by the Khmer Rouge after his return to Cambodia in 1977, one year earlier. Her son would later find records of his death at
Tuol Sleng.
[39]
At that time, aged 27, Bergström believed that the reports about overwork, starvation, and mass killings in Cambodia were just "Western propaganda."
[40] The four saw "smiling peasants" and a society on its way to become "an ideal society". When they came back to Sweden, they "undertook a speaking tour and wrote articles in support of the
Democratic Kampuchea regime."
[40]
Evidence that emerged after the fall of the regime shocked Bergström, forcing him to change his views. He said that it was "like falling off the branch of the tree" and that he had to re-identify everything he had believed in.
[40] In later interviews, he acknowledged that he had been wrong, that it was a "propaganda tour" and that they were brought to see what the Khmer Rouge wanted them to see.
[41][40] Bergström would later return to Cambodia for a "big forgiveness tour."
[41] In a speech with high school students in Phnom Penh on 12 September 2016, he recommended that everybody should learn history.
[40]
Jan Myrdal never abandoned his support for the Khmer Rouge.
[37]
