Latest news with #OlofPalme
Irish Times
07-08-2025
- Politics
- Irish Times
John Hume's life provides lessons for addressing Palestine-Israel conflict
Having worked for and with the former leader of the SDLP , John Hume , I often get asked about how he might respond to the challenges of today. On the fifth anniversary of Hume's death, a new appreciation of the transformation he brought to the lives of so many offers space to consider how his political ethic and method could be used to address the appalling situation in the Middle East . In response to doubts, frustration and the emotional impact of atrocious events, Hume would revert to: 'If the underlying problem has not changed then the underlying solution has not changed.' He would stress that the dimensions of the problem had to be at least matched by the dimensions of any purported solution. Hume looked at problems through two lenses – rights and relationships. He also applied the light of responsibility to better discern salient issues and duties – both moral and legal – of agency. READ MORE He used the line 'you cannot be reconciled with someone whose boot is on your neck' to stress the essential requirement for the protection of rights, equal human dignity and respect for difference. [ John Hume: His life and times Opens in new window ] He would also allude to the maxim of Olof Palme that we cannot really be secure against each other, we can only achieve true security with each other. Such ethical instincts would, I believe, have guided (in his thinking prime) Hume's empathy, analysis and laser logic if looking at the dire suffering of Palestine today. Like others, he cautioned against superficially equating different situations and conditions of conflict but he would cite some comparable precepts. I think that Hume's strong lines on the global community's obligations of human solidarity and international law against Apartheid in South Africa would be amplified in the current context. (Kader Asmal acclaimed Hume's groundbreaking justification of sanctions against Apartheid South Africa as not just means of marking moral distance and/or trying to exert some economic leverage but also to manifest solidarity with the struggle for democracy in South Africa). If 'the underlying solution' that has not changed in the Middle East is a two-state solution, would that not have better chance of advancement if there was more semblance of a two-state process? The Hume-promoted schema for our peace process saw negotiations convened by both governments, deliberately inclusive of all parties, in an absence of violence, framed on three institutional strands, also addressing rights, equality and the valid democratic contest of legitimate constitutional preferences. That delivered an agreed outcome which spanned all those ambits even though different parties had rejected various inherent premises. It might be observed from Irish experience that qualitative 'givens' of a diplomatically desired solution gain better prospect of agreed outcome if they are insinuated as working givens of the negotiating process. Hume knew the folly of parties turning objectives into their preconditions. However, he strongly canvassed the conditioning value for dialogue of key affirmations by duly involved governments and authoritative indications from other international actors. Lateral interests leaning in supportively with valid, balanced and principled influence proved to be beneficent even though their motivation or modes were rejected or resented by given parties. Hume's dictum that 'the framework of the problem has to be matched by the framework for a solution' could usefully extend to include 'the framework of the process'. This can provide a distinctive accent on Ireland's cogent rationale for state recognition. It might be commended to a UK government which claims part credit for our Belfast Agreement. Recognising the state of Palestine is one way of other states leaning in to underscore a fundamental premise for a solution rooted in international law. [ Gaza is also a war on the human instinct for compassion Opens in new window ] Many tributes after Hume's death on August 3rd, 2020 recognised a resilient single-mindedness, both in repudiation of violence from any source and steadfast pursuit of political developments which could bring us out of the deepening rut of division and destructive conflict. However, Hume never really saw his work of leadership towards dialogue and agreement as a single-handed role or achievement. His Nobel Prize acceptance speech paid tribute to other party leaderships, both Irish and British governments – including successive administrations – US and EU support and the people's resilience. This showed an ethic that believed in the efficacy of dialogue and the value of inclusion underpinned by the compelling assertion of rights. That generous acknowledgment understandably sidestepped the frustrating and tragic reality that many of those parties had persistently repudiated his analysis of the 'three sets of relationships'; rejected his regard to the equal legitimacy of nationalist and unionist aspirations; dismissed the value or validity of signal engagement between the two governments; and/or resisted concepts around institutional democratic partnership and North-South political co-operation. All of these precepts – plus more that Hume had long espoused – were framed into the Belfast Agreement. Stones that wreckers had rejected from the builder had become the cornerstones. The agreement was capstoned by its overwhelming ratification in island-wide referendums: the form of articulated self-determination conceived by Hume to endorse a model of agreed Ireland that could allow further democratic change. [ From the archive: Nationalist leader who championed 'agreed Ireland' Opens in new window ] The Belfast Agreement embodies much more than a few days' word-craft from 'the hand of history' in April 1998. It compacted layers of understanding achieved in many earlier initiatives, events or efforts, including some tagged 'failed' in media commentary. Indeed more of its text is upcycled from earlier process drafts, previous documents or formal declarations than is often acknowledged. Perhaps in Beckett's spirit of 'Try again. Fail again. Fail better', numerous hands and strands should be credited for such milestones. Not for today a cast and credits list for such as Sunningdale, the New Ireland Forum, Anglo-Irish Agreement, Hume-Adams dialogue/papers, the Brooke/Mayhew talks, Downing Street Declaration, Forum for Peace and Reconciliation, framework documents, Mitchell principles, ground rules (renegotiated) for multi-party talks etc. The single common determinator in all these – and more – was Hume. His long pathfinding mission that entailed close collaboration with successive governments and serious engagement with his political counterparts also personally cultivated influential US involvements and harnessed EU relevance and effectiveness. That knack of purposeful partnership and productive rapport with other political and diplomatic players can be overlooked in some appraisals of his singular contribution. It was interactive as well as iterative. His constancy of robust analysis did allow for adjustment or refinement of argument, hearing other takes and refiling his ordered ideas. No account could exaggerate the partnership importance of his wife Pat Hume – an alchemist of optimism – to John's famous 'stickability'. [ John Hume: The mesmerising persuader the public rarely got to see Opens in new window ] Scanning today's wider political domain, it would be hard to speculate how a leader who used to warn us about the risks of 'falling into reacting to reaction' might cope in an age where prejudicial political communication sets agendas and narrows debate. A Denis Lehane line observes that people like sides, not subtleties. John Hume could both address sides and express subtleties in a way that few could match. If infective invective sets the heat and beat of polarising exchange rather than respectful, cooler, logical challenge, such signal leadership as Hume's will struggle for traction in what still passes for public discourse. Mark Durkan is a former leader of the SDLP and served as Northern Ireland's Deputy First Minister between 2001 and 2002.
Malay Mail
27-06-2025
- Politics
- Malay Mail
Swedish robber Clark Olofsson who inspired the term ‘Stockholm syndrome', dies at 78
KUALA LUMPUR, June 27 — Clark Olofsson, the Swedish criminal whose role in a 1973 Stockholm bank robbery inspired the term 'Stockholm syndrome,' has died at 78, his family confirmed to Dagens ETC, as reported by the BBC. The six-day bank siege saw Olofsson and his accomplice, Jan-Erik Olsson, take four hostages who grew sympathetic towards them while increasingly distrustful of the police. This counterintuitive response was later named Stockholm syndrome, a theorised psychological condition where captives develop feelings of attachment to their captors. The BBC reported that the siege began with Olsson taking three women and one man hostage at a Stockholm bank, demanding Olofsson be brought from prison to the scene. Swedish authorities complied, allowing Olofsson to join Olsson inside the bank, which was under heavy police surveillance. Olofsson claimed in a later interview with Sweden's Aftonbladet newspaper that authorities had asked him to protect the hostages in exchange for a reduced sentence. However, he alleged the agreement was not honoured. During the standoff, Olofsson persuaded one of the hostages, Kristin Enmark, to call the Swedish prime minister, Olof Palme. She expressed trust in her captors and asked to leave the bank with them, telling Palme: 'I fully trust Clark and the robber... They haven't done a thing to us.' The incident concluded when police used tear gas to storm the building. Despite being freed, hostages initially hesitated to leave, fearing their captors would be harmed. They later refused to testify against Olofsson and Olsson in court. As highlighted by the BBC, the term Stockholm syndrome was coined by Swedish criminologist Nils Bejerot. While the concept gained attention in high-profile cases, such as the 1974 kidnapping of Patty Hearst, it remains contested among experts. Enmark herself dismissed the idea during a BBC Sideways podcast in 2021, saying it unfairly blames victims. Olofsson, who spent much of his life in prison for armed robbery, drug offences, and other crimes, was released in 2018. The BBC noted that his life story was dramatized in the 2022 Netflix series 'Clark', with actor Bill Skarsgård portraying him. The BBC reported that Olofsson's family confirmed his death following a lengthy illness, marking the end of a life that profoundly impacted criminal history and popular psychology.
Malay Mail
27-06-2025
- Politics
- Malay Mail
Stockholm syndrome bank robber Clark Olofsson dies at 78
KUALA LUMPUR, June 27 — Clark Olofsson, the Swedish criminal whose role in a 1973 Stockholm bank robbery inspired the term 'Stockholm syndrome,' has died at 78, his family confirmed to Dagens ETC, as reported by the BBC. The six-day bank siege saw Olofsson and his accomplice, Jan-Erik Olsson, take four hostages who grew sympathetic towards them while increasingly distrustful of the police. This counterintuitive response was later named Stockholm syndrome, a theorised psychological condition where captives develop feelings of attachment to their captors. The BBC reported that the siege began with Olsson taking three women and one man hostage at a Stockholm bank, demanding Olofsson be brought from prison to the scene. Swedish authorities complied, allowing Olofsson to join Olsson inside the bank, which was under heavy police surveillance. Olofsson claimed in a later interview with Sweden's Aftonbladet newspaper that authorities had asked him to protect the hostages in exchange for a reduced sentence. However, he alleged the agreement was not honoured. During the standoff, Olofsson persuaded one of the hostages, Kristin Enmark, to call the Swedish prime minister, Olof Palme. She expressed trust in her captors and asked to leave the bank with them, telling Palme: 'I fully trust Clark and the robber... They haven't done a thing to us.' The incident concluded when police used tear gas to storm the building. Despite being freed, hostages initially hesitated to leave, fearing their captors would be harmed. They later refused to testify against Olofsson and Olsson in court. As highlighted by the BBC, the term Stockholm syndrome was coined by Swedish criminologist Nils Bejerot. While the concept gained attention in high-profile cases, such as the 1974 kidnapping of Patty Hearst, it remains contested among experts. Enmark herself dismissed the idea during a BBC Sideways podcast in 2021, saying it unfairly blames victims. Olofsson, who spent much of his life in prison for armed robbery, drug offences, and other crimes, was released in 2018. The BBC noted that his life story was dramatized in the 2022 Netflix series 'Clark', with actor Bill Skarsgård portraying him. The BBC reported that Olofsson's family confirmed his death following a lengthy illness, marking the end of a life that profoundly impacted criminal history and popular psychology.
IOL News
12-05-2025
- Politics
- IOL News
What killed Chief Albert Luthuli?
The solution to Albert Luthuli's untimely death will come not from a new investigation, but from minds deeply grounded first and last in the mysteries of hypothesis, uncorrupted logic, and metaphor, urges the writer. New evidence on the death of Albert Luthuli death, will probably unearth the truth about his alleged train incident, which, led by new stunning evidence, completely debunks the reports that were compiled in 1967. Had he been hit by the steam locomotive, he would have been dismembered. Sadly the all the role players in his death are either dead or close to death. It is almost certain that all relevant information about his death was probably destroyed by the rulers of that day. Shortly after 9.30 am, on 21 July 1967, Albert Luthuli was killed by a passing train, on a terrain that he knew so well. Since that fateful day, conflicting reports have abounded. In his tragic death, truth became the first casualty. In their 'total onslaught strategy ', the rulers of that era were prepared to go to any lengths to maintain political dominance and military supremacy in Africa. Mysterious deaths became the talking point of that era, these include the death of two Swedes, Olof Palme, the premier of Sweden and Dag Hammarskjold, former secretary-general of the UN. However, when we sift through the disinformation and misinformation and look at verifiable facts, we have no reason to believe the official information released at that time. A hidden hand was behind this monumental tragedy. As we know that politics is war without bloodshed, but it has indirect bloodshed that leaves no traces. History reminds us that there are no accidents in politics; everything happens for a purpose. Albert Luthuli was a formidable opponent of racism. He was feared and loathed by the rulers of that time. The trail has now gone cold. The only persons, if they are still alive, who could shed light on this event are the driver and the guard of that particular train. It is a fact that those who keep spinning the lies that Luthuli's hearing was defective must be hoping that eventually the truth is lost forever. Is it possible that he was eliminated in an orchestrated, stealthy ambush? It was George Washington who once said 'TRUTH WILL ULTIMATELY PREVAIL WHERE THERE IS PAINS TO BRING IT TO LIGHT' The solution to Albert Luthili's untimely death will come not from a new investigation, but from minds deeply grounded first and last in the mysteries of hypothesis, uncorrupted logic, and metaphor. The version parroted by the old rulers is a story of pervasive subterfuge, outright lies and deceptions. It was a vicious plot that duped a nation. The key elements in the myth-making process were the suppression of the truth about Albert Luthuli's injuries, the discouragement of any serious inquiry into the circumstances of his untimely demise. The coroners state supported findings was an effort to lay to rest convenient information. Truth has a way of asserting itself despite all attempts to obscure it. Distortion, deception and deceit only serve to derail it for a time. We need to uncover the truth. 'Truth, crushed to earth, shall rise again'. FAROUK ARAIE I Benoni
