Limiting diplomatic friction: Sweden, the United States and SKF's ball bearing exports to Eastern Europe, 1950–52

Abstract This article deals with the US government's efforts to curb the Swedish ball bearing producer SKF's exports to the East early in the Cold War, 1950–1952, and interprets this process within the framework of hegemony theory. In doing this, the article makes use of previously unutilised US archival material. The period up to mid-1951 saw increasing US pressure upon Sweden and SKF to consent to US hegemony by abiding by the Coordinating Committee for Multilateral Export Controls (CoCom) embargo. To achieve its objectives US policymakers developed a flexible ‘carrot and stick’ approach, and the article adds considerable detail regarding the US government's handling of SKF. US tolerance and flexibility was dependent upon Swedish consent to American hegemony in Western Europe, which was received through the signing of the Stockholm agreement – a hegemonic apparatus through which Sweden's abidance by the embargo was handled – in mid-June 1951. A small amount of exports was accepted by Washington as long as the main US objective – to deny the Eastern Bloc strategic technology – was adhered to by SKF. The article also reveals the lack of policy coordination in the Swedish government, and the conflicts between the government and SKF regarding the responsibility for adhering to the embargo.

[1]  F. Cain.  Economic Statecraft during the Cold War: European Responses to the US Trade Embargo , 2006 .

[2]  Gerard Aalders,et al.  The Art of Cloaking Ownership: The Secret Collaboration and Protection of the German War Industry by the Neutrals: The Case of Sweden , 1996 .

[3]  P. Ham.  After the Cold War: international institutions and state strategies in Europe, 1989–1991 , 1994 .

[4]  Tor Egil F⊘rland.  Foreign policy profiles of the Scandinavian Countries: Making use of GoCom , 1994 .

[5]  G. Lundestad.  The American "Empire": and Other Studies of US Foreign Policy in a Comparative Perspective , 1991 .

[6]  B. Nilson.  No coal without iron ore: Anglo‐Swedish trade relations in the shadow of the Korean War , 1991 .

[7]  Stephen Gill,et al.  Global Hegemony and the Structural Power of Capital , 1989 .

[8]  E. Dohlman.  National Welfare and Economic Interdependence: The Case of Sweden's Foreign Trade Policy , 1989 .

[9]  Stuart Hall,et al.  Gramsci's Relevance for the Study of Race and Ethnicity , 1986, Selected Writings on Race and Difference.

[10]  B. Buzan.  After hegemony: cooperation and discord in the world political economy , 1985 .

[11]  Robert W. Cox,et al.  Gramsci, Hegemony and International Relations : An Essay in Method , 1983 .

[12]  G. Therborn,et al.  The Ideology of Power and the Power of Ideology , 1980 .

[13]  P. Katzenstein,et al.  Between Power And Plenty: Foreign Economic Policies Of Advanced Industrial States , 1978 .

[14]  Charles S. Maier.  The politics of productivity: foundations of American international economic policy after World War II , 1977, International Organization.

[15]  M. Dimick.  Theories of the State Weekly Interrogation 1 State Power and State Apparatus In his book What Does the Ruling Class Do When it Rules ? , 2022 .