Ämnet för min C-uppsats handlar om diskussionen om vad som kan ...

4. International organisations (e.g. League of Nations) are very important to small states.5. Small states are often viewed as good mediators and arbitrators in internationalconflicts.6. Their foreign policy is often related to security issues.7. Small states are more vulnerable and have fewer alternatives than major powers. 86Rogers emphasises that the above mentioned results are merely a starting point and lack generalvalidity. He points out that the behaviour of small states in specific cases is dependant on theprevailing circumstances and constraints rather than the above mentioned grounds. For instance,Rogers mentions that the first four points depend directly on whether the nation in question feelsexternally threatened or not. 87 This in mind, Rogers then presents his model, asserting that “asmall state can base its foreign policy on one of the four strategic options; realism, isolationism,idealism or expansionism.” 88 The realistic path would suggest an anti-balance policy, while theisolationism would mean a withdrawal from active participation and following the developmentpassively. A policy based on idealism would instead indicate a striving for fulfilment of specificgoals by using international laws to provide protection. And finally, expansionism would serve asmeans to increase the nation’s role and influence in the international arena in order to fulfil itsown goals. 89 Furthermore, Rogers writes that particular ideological, political and economicalgoals might influence the decision making of the foreign policy. 90 The economic circumstancesas well as “domestic actors such as companies and corporations, trade organisations and unionsare fully capable of influencing foreign-policy decisions.” 91 The amount of information at hand isa factor that clearly plays a decisive role in shaping the policy and the response of a state.“Reports from embassies and consulates, intelligence gathering, newspapers and many otherformal and informal sources provide the basis for making foreign-policy decisions.” 92 Theempirical research presented in this paper will use the very same sources to investigate how muchdifferent institutions and authorities knew about the Armenian massacres to base theirsubsequent actions on and what strategic options Sweden chose in different phases of the event.In the early 20 th century, neutrality in Sweden had become synonymous with peace-policy andSwedes were, falsely, under the impression that their country’s long period of peace since 1814was a period of strict neutrality. 93 Before 1933, Swedish foreign policy was a consequence of thesucceeding minority governments, which did not allow the foreign policy to follow any exclusivepartisan lines. The foreign policy, as well as the domestic, was a result of compromising over86 Rogers, 2007, p. 353-4.87 Rogers, 2007, p. 354.88 Rogers, 2007, p. 355.89 Rogers, 2007, p. 355.90 Rogers, 2007, p. 356.91 Rogers, 2007, p. 357.92 Rogers, 2007, p. 358.93 Norman, 1988, p. 236.21