Andra om Anna Lindh

Intervju med Margot Wallström om Anna Lindhs EU-arbete

ME = Mats Engström

MW = Margot Wallström

ME: Vad betydde SSU-tiden för Anna Lindhs fortsatta arbete?

MW: SSU-tiden betydde otroligt mycket för Anna. Den formade hennes syn på utrikespolitiken och mycket annat. I grunden fanns ett stort internationellt engagemang, att titta utanför det egna landets gränser. Som SSU-ordförande fick hon fördjupa sig, resa., ha väldigt mycket internationella kontakter. Engagemanget för palestinierna var ett exempel. Hennes erfarenheter från SSU-tiden var mycket av grunden.

ME: Hur förändrades hennes syn på EG/EU?

MW: Under 1980-talet var EG på många sätt en icke-fråga, skjutet åt sidan. Det engagerade inte oss så starkt. Det var inte ett emotionellt motstånd. Så småningom kom det rationella skäl, som Ingvar Carlsson presenterade när han tog oss in, rationella och ekonomiska. Det var en anpassning till realiteterna som inte var så svår eftersom vi inte i SSU mobiliserat oss så väldigt starkt känslomässigt emot. Det fanns inte så många argument emot, efter murens fall och i den ekonomiska krisen. Sedan fanns i grunden det internationella engagemanget.

ME: När uppfattade du att Anna blev mer positiv till EG/EU som projekt?

MW: När du börjar jobba med det ser du nyttan, får hela bilden. Det är det jag tror hon upplevde. Du sätter händerna i det, och tänderna, och så följer hjärtat med. Efter murens fall var också känslan stark för demokratin och kontakterna. Skulle vi stå utanför eller vara med och forma det nya? Sedan var miljön, som Anna arbetade med, ett tydligt fall där det behövs gränsöverskridande samarbete.

ME: Apropå miljön, tror du att Anna också hade betydelse för att du fick miljöportföljen under din första period som kommissionsledamot?

MW: Jag tror att Anna hade en mer underskymd del i det, portföljen kom inte först. Då gällde det person. Sedan var det diskussionen med Prodi om portfölj, där var det mer statsministern. Däremot pratade vi om Rolf Annerberg som min kabinettschef.

ME: När det gällde ditt namn som kommissionsledamot då?

MW: Där var hon aktiv. Det var hon som ringde till mig om posten.

ME: År 2000 blev debatten om EU:s framtida organisation mer intensiv. Göran Persson höll ett tal på Klubb Norden där han betonade mellanstatligheten och var inne på att omvandla kommissionen till ett sorts sekretariat åt ministerrådet. Hur upplevde du att Anna såg på de frågorna?

MW: Jag tror inte hon hade samma syn som statsministern på det. Där kändes det som om Göran var ute med ett eget budskap. Jag tyckte inte ens han företrädde Sveriges syn på det. Jag tror många blev förvirrande av hans hållning som var ny för Sverige. Det blev ett udda inslag. Jag kände att Anna och jag tyckte rätt lika om de frågorna. Hon tyckte att kommissionen var de små ländernas bästa trygghet och att gemenskapsmetoden var en bra grund.

ME: Hur blev Anna så starkt engagerad för EU som till exempel i Almedalstalet 2003?

MW: Jag tror det var så för flera av oss att vi använde erfarenheten från SSU-tiden, när vi engagerade oss var det fullt ut. Vi tyckte det var viktigt, bland annat med de nya spirande demokratierna. När vi bestämt oss blev det internationella engagemanget som varit starkt hela tiden också att vara drivande i EU. För Anna var det även erfarenheterna från miljöarbetet.

ME: Vad betydde hon när det gällde EMU?

MW: Det var ju det sista stora projektet. Hon betydde jättemycket för den kampanjen, krånglade inte till det utan förklarade vad EMU är, också vad vi ger upp. Hon talade inte bra om ekonomin, utan också om inflytandet, euron som del av samarbetet i Europa. Och så hade vi väldigt kul. Det betydde mycket i den där debatten, att det inte bara blev ekonomi. Vi skulle ha gjort en gemensam turné i slutet av kampanjen, hon och jag och Anna Diamantopoulou. Men så var jag tvungen att åka tillbaka till Bryssel för ett avgörande möte om Reach. När jag landade i Bryssel meddelade Ann Linde att något hade hänt. Sedan, när jag satt i mötet med Liikanen, kom Rolf Annerberg in med beskedet.

ME: Är det något särskilt du vill tillägga om Annas betydelse när det gäller EU?

MW: Ibland är det så att ingen riktigt vill stå upp och vara tydlig. Om alla bara duckar, vart ska då de vända sig som är positiva till samarbetet? Det var viktigt att vi var några som ville ställa oss upp, och Anna var den bästa. Hon var otroligt viktig, genom sitt sätt och genom det förtroende hon hade. Där har det blivit tommare.

Intervju med den palestinska politikern Hanan Ashrawi om Anna Lindh

ME = Mats Engström

HA = Hanan Ashrawi

ME: How would you describe the role of Anna Lindh regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

HA: Her role was one of a very brave and principled politician. She had courage and positive engagement for a just peace. Anna Lindh was always straight to the point, trying to reach conclusions that could lead forward. She was motivated by higher values of justice and human rights.

ME: Could you describe her views more in detail?

HA: She was committed to the UN resolutions as the basis for a solution. Anna Lindh was urgently trying to saving human lives on both sides. She was a skilled politician, and at the same time a real sensitive human being, who thought that both sides were paying a very heavy price. We thoroughly miss her.

ME: Was there a difference to other European foreign ministers?

HA: At least she was involved more than other foreign ministers, had more direct contacts.

ME: Sweden had the EU Presidency the first half of 2001, when Ariel Sharon became Prime Minister. There were discussions about the EU positions, inter alia on the import of products from the occupied territories. Do you remember Anna Lindh´s role during that period?

HA: I recall that there was this discussion on Palestinians products and that Anna Lindh was involved in that.

ME: Were there any other specific issues you discussed?

HA: I remember we talked about the association agreement between EU and Israel, and about the European Economic Space. That the Israeli violation of human rights must affect those negotiations.

ME: She also criticized Israel´s actions on the occupied territories, for example in Jenin 2002?

HA: Yes, I remember she did that. She was a clear voice against the horrors of 2002. Palestinians remember her as an outspoken voice of courage, a strong woman. We need more like her.

ME: But she also put demands on President Arafat to do his utmost to end violence by Palestinians?

HA: That was part of the general approach. Anna Lindh was not 100 percent on Palestinian positions, as Israelis sometimes try to claim. She was candid with everybody, made her opinion clear. The Israeli´s were not used to that.

ME: Do you remember Anna Lindh´s views on the Road map? I believe she was inter alia critical to the way the Bush administration wanted to isolate President Arafat?

HA: I was part of that discussion myself, I met Condoleezza Rice in Washington for example. I don´t remember Anna Lindh´s position exactly, but she recognized President Arafat as an elected, legitimate leader.

ME: Was there a difference in approach between Lindh and Patten on one side, and Javier Solana on the other?

HA: I don´t want to go into that discussion. They were all three good friends to me.

ME: How do you think the role of the EU has evolved after 2003?

HA: I think the Europeans have allowed themselves to be sidelined by the Americans. The Americans decided on a line and expected the Europeans to fall in line, for example on the boycott.

Intervju med Poul Nyrup Rasmussen, tidigare dansk statsminister och nu ordförande för de europeiska socialdemokraterna

ME = Mats Engström

PNR = Poul Nyrup Rasmussen

ME: Vilken betydelse hade Anna Lindh i EU, till exempel för det svenska ordförandeskapet år 2001?

PNR: Det står utanför alla tvivel att Anna Lindh hade en avgörande roll under ordförandeskapet. Hon skapade de nödvändiga förutsättningarna för framstegen i Göteborg. Hon fick också George Bush att komma till Göteborg och hon organiserade diskussionen om hållbarhet. Hennes förmåga att kombinera stor charm och stor karisma var avgörande för att Bush skulle röra sig från Nato-toppmötet till Göteborg och möta EU-ledarna. Anna Lindh stod för en kompromisslös humanism. Hon var en av de få som kunde få Bushadministrationen att tänka annorlunda. Hon var starkt engagerad i ojämnvikten mellan israeler och palestinier, med palestinierna som den svagare parten. Hon sa ja till två självständiga stater och betonade att man måste se till den humanistiska sidan av saken.

ME: När du säger framstegen i Göteborg, gäller det också utvidgningen?

PNR: Anna Lindh hade avgjort stor betydelse, till exempel för att få med Tyskland. Tyskland hade ett starkt intresse av att få med Polen, liksom Tjeckien och Slovakien, i EU men var inte lika engagerade för balterna. De var inte emot balternas EU-medlemskap men det var inte det som stod överst på dagordningen.

När vi ser tillbaka, hur gick det till att Günter Verheugen fick alla med, så är det inget tvivel om betydelsen av att Anna Lindh pressade på våra tyska vänner. Hennes kontakt med Joschka Fischer var mycket effektiv. Anna Lindh var idémässigt mycket klar och tydlig. På det tyska utrikesministeriet tänkte man i klassiska maktpolitiska termer, men Tyskland flyttade sig tack vara kontakterna mellan Anna Lindh och Joschka Fischer.

Jag såg också Anna Lindhs betydelse på ett antal toppmöten. Det var hon som verkligen fick dynamik på arbetet. Om inte Anna Lindh varit så hade vi inte sett de tio bli medlemmar. Günter Verheugen kunde inte göra så mycket om inte Tyskland var med.

ME: Hur ser du på Anna Lindhs hållning när det gäller de mänskliga rättigheterna?

PNR: Hon spelade en viktig roll i förhållande till Tjetjenien. Där framförde jag också allvarlig kritik. Också när det gäller Turkiet var hon först på banan. Hon ville att de skulle få ett nytt perspektiv samtidigt som hon betonade de mänskliga rättigheterna. Anna Lindh var mycket starkt engagerade för kvinnors lika ställning, och såg Turkiets väg till EU som ett sätt att förbättra kvinnornas villkor.

ME: Vilka frågor tog hon upp i samband med utvecklingen av EU:s säkerhets- och försvarspolitik?

PNR: Där kan jag inte ge något heltäckande svar, men jag minns att hon argumenterade starkt för FN:s roll.

Intervju med Cem Özdemir, språkrör för De Gröna i Tyskland, om Anna Lindh

ME= Mats Engström

CÖ= Cem Özdemir

ME: You participated together with Anna Lindh in a seminar on Islam and Europe in Stockholm 2003. What do you remember?

CÖ: She was the Foreign Minister and actually took time and appeared there. And neither the seminar nor the participants were very special but she took the time to really listen. I also appreciated that she resisted to stereotypes. She did not see any contradiction in fighting the discrimination of Muslims, and at the same time not give up values of our democracies and constitutions, in particular about women’s rights. Especially in that debate, I think her voice is missing. She had a voice of rationality and was a humble politician. It is bitter to see what price that humbleness had for her.

ME: Could you say more about this resistance to stereotype?

CÖ: She was very clear in condemning all kinds of discrimination, but also discussed problems of inclusion and exclusion. Everybody must fulfill their own duties, and not use any excuses like religion, she said. Politicians from the left are often fishing for applause in this kind of audiences, not taking up difficult issues. She was different.

ME: The debate was inter alia about honour killings?

CÖ: Yes, that was one of the issues. She was clear in condemning that. The people responsible should not hide themselves behind religion. She was clear in defending Muslims when they were attacked just because of their religion. Being muslim and democrat was clearly not a contradiction in her view. But she was also clear in her expectations of their role to play in society.

ME: That sounds similar to your own views?

CÖ: Yes. And if the left does not say that clearly, it is easier for the right to stereotype as happened in the Netherlands.Much could have been better in the European debate. After 9.11 there have been a lot of stereotypes in the debate about Muslims. But people have many segments of identity. What is important is how the ideals of enlightenment have affected traditional views in all religions and that this process has not come to an end.

ME: What importance did Anna Lindh ́s position on Turkey have?

CÖ: I remember that Anna Lindh was very critical against the lacking respect of human rights, but at the same time she was clear that in order to give stronger rights to women, Kurds and other minorities it was important to bring Turkey closer to the European Union. She had a high credibility on human rights and when she wanted Turkey in, it also strengthened that side.

ME: Which role could she have played if she had been able to continue her political work in Europe?

CÖ: What many Muslims miss is that somebody says that you are part of Europe regardless of your religion or origin. There are many issues we share, whether education or climate change.

We must talk about all challenges, whether racism, anti-semitism or islamophobia. None of it is acceptable. Anna Lindh ́s views were based purely on the respect of human rights. Such a voice is missing today. Muslims are talking about what happens to Muslims, others are talking about the Muslim community from an outsider’s perspective. I was born in Germany and my family has different kinds of background. And still, because of all this talk about Muslims I end up being identified as a Muslim just because of my name or origin. However, someone with a more common name is not per se viewed as Christian, he or she could be anything or even atheist, right?

Anna Lindh would have no problem in fighting against islamophobia and at the same time criticize stereotypes about women. There is no contradiction in doing both things.

ME: I understand that Anna Lindh appreciated your views very much. Did you discuss further co-operation?

CE: We discussed to repeat the seminar and to follow-up the discussions, involving more people. But that was not possible, unfortunately.

Intervju med den tidigare EU-kommissionären Chris Patten om Anna Lindh

ME = Mats Engström

CP = Chris Patten

ME: In your Anna Lindh lecture at the Raoul Wallenberg institute, you mentioned some occasions when Anna Lindh raised human rights issues. Could you describe the meeting with President Kuchma in Ukraine, for example?

CP: We were in Kiev for a meeting during the Swedish Presidency in 2001. It was shortly after news about the disappearance of the journalist Gongadze. Human rights abuses are often taken up rather discretely at this kind of meetings. Very often what happens is that the subjects become something for the last minutes of the meetings. Anna saw them as central for what we did. She did not only take up the Gongadze case once with Kuchma, she stuck to it. One or two of the EU officials present rolled their eyes; they did not think she acted appropriately. At first, Kuchma reacted grumpily. She asked again and again until he flustered and did not really have any answers.

ME: That could perhaps be explained by later investigations about Kuchma´s involvement?

CP: Yes.

ME: What about the discussions with Russia on Chechnya?

CP: She raised the concerns about Chechnya with Putin, with Igor Ivanov and with Sergej Ivanov. I remember a particularly tough discussion with Igor Ivanov and Sergej Ivanov at a foreign ministers meeting, it can have been before the EU-Russia summit during the Swedish presidency. She also raised our concerns regarding the freedom of the media in Russia. They reacted in the usual Russian way, thought that the West should not try to lecture them. She also took up the issues with Putin. That was at another occasion, maybe in connection with an EU-Russia summit.

ME: In 2001, you presented a Commission Communication on human rights in foreign policy. How was your cooperation with Anna Lindh on this issue?

CP: We cooperated very much with the Swedish Foreign Ministry in the drafting of the Communication. I certainly remember that Anna took the issue far more seriously than some of her colleagues. There was a good discussion at the informal ministerial meeting in Sweden (Nyköping), for example.

ME: How would you describe Anna Lindh´s role on the Middle East?

CP: I remember her being balanced. She was fearless in raising tough issues with Israel, with Prime Minister Sharon for example. IDF activities on the West Bank, the squeeze on economic and social activities in Palestine, the destruction of infrastructure and buildings financed with EU aid. But she was also pretty forceful when we met with Arafat. She criticized Israeli activities, but she was not unbalanced. We went together to Palestine, to the guest house of Yassir Arafat. It was an extraordinary stay; the facilities were not so advanced. We had to negotiate the share of the only bathroom.

ME: How were the discussions in the Council during this time, when Sharon had been elected and Israel was regarded to have adopted a tougher policy – on cooperation agreements and on Palestine products, for example?

CP: The rules of origin were a straightforward issue. It was a question of legality, and there was a real danger of us being taken to court if we did not act. Sweden was always on the side of finding a settlement based on the Geneva resolutions, not all member states were that clear. Britain because of its links to the US. Germany for historical reasons.

ME: How did you perceive Anna Lindh´s view on the war on Iraq?

CP: As I write in my book Not quite the diplomat, I do not think there was as much debate on Iraq in the EU as there should have been. We never had a full discussion on Iraq in the General Affairs Council, we had discussions but not with a broad enough scope.

ME: And what about Anna Lindh and EU-US relations in general?

CP: I think Anna was greatly regarded by Colin Powell. I don´t think he had expected to be ticked off about the death penalty the way it happened. But Anna was prepared to raise it and she did. Condoleezza Rice was much more aggressive in response to Anna´s comments on missile defense for example.

ME: But at the time of these meetings in Washington, Javier Solana had already taken a softer tone on missile defense. Was there a difference in the message from the EU?

CP: I wouldn´t want to criticize him. Javier Solana was never keen on opening any divide with the US.

ME: And later, after 9.11 and in the ”war on terror”, how did you perceive Anna Lindh´s proposal for a joint initiative on European prisoners at Guantanamo?

CP: I don´t recall very much about Guantanamo. I remember that Anna Lindh took such an initiative, but not the details.

ME: Apparently, other governments were not ready to take such a stance.

CP: At that time, people were very careful in relation to the US, they just wanted to be flies on the wall. We should have been more than that.

ME: On the ESDP, there was also cooperation between you and Anna Lindh, on civil crisis management for example?

CP: The Commission had quite a substantial role, we supported the Swedish positions. Through my involvement in the International Crisis Group, I can see how important it is to employ civilian forces as well.

ME: Do you remember the disagreement in the beginning whether the EU should have a civil crisis management committee or not?

CP: What I remember is that there was an argument on whether or not the Commission should be involved.

ME: The EU efforts in Macedonia 2001 were successful. Why was that?

CP: We all managed to work well together: the Commission, the Presidency, Solana and Nato. Also, the EU had something the Macedonians really wanted, that gave us influence. Although there were some nasty moments it turned out well.

ME: You also cooperated on the Northern dimension, and on Kaliningrad?

CP: Kaliningrad was the most difficult case I had while I was at the European Commission. It began after a visit I and Anna had in Kaliningrad. We went there and met the government, had dinner with the governor. It showed that we were serious about getting an agreement. At the same time, we did not want to trample over future member states.

ME: Is there something you would like to add?

CP: To take human rights seriously is regarded by some to be amateurness. This has always been a matter of annoyance to me. I think that view is very far down from the truth. Anna really made human rights a main issue. These meetings – with Kuchma, the Russians, with Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice – were all examples of how European diplomacy should be.