In response to the militant Palestinian group Hamas's attack in
Israel, Sweden, and the EU are reviewing their non-humanitarian
aid to Palestinians, while accusations are flying about
a so-called double standard in the West's actions in the Middle East and Ukraine.
We shouldn't have any double standards.
We should apply the same standards when it comes
to atrocities committed.
My guest this week on Conflict Zone is Swedish Foreign
Minister, Tobias Billstrom.
He joins me from Stockholm.
As the bombardment of Gaza intensifies, how concerned is he
that the conflict could spread in the region?
And with the risk of attention being diverted, how can he continue
to shore up support for the war in Ukraine?
Foreign Minister Billstrom,
welcome to Conflict Zone.
Thank you very much.
There are fears that the Israel-Hamas war could
widen into a broader Middle East conflict as Israel steps up its
bombardment of Gaza and clashes at Israel's northern border
with Lebanon intensify.
How are you looking at the current situation?
Well, it is indeed a very, very horrible situation which is now evolving before our eyes.
And I think that we have to look at this from both
a short-term and a long-term perspective.
The short-term perspective is of course that we need to bring more
humanitarian assistance to Gaza.
We need to acknowledge that Israel has the right to defend itself
against the atrocities and the terrorist attacks by
the terrorist organization Hamas and Islamic Jihad.
But we also have to look to the suffering of the people in Gaza
and to find a way to bring a humanitarian assistance in
the shape of water, supplies, food and also fuel for the desalination
plants inside of Gaza.
To get fresh water to the people in there is important.
At the other hand, we also had to look at the very important issue of
releasing the hostages taken by Hamas, and in this I can see many
actors playing an important role, the European Union, the United
States, the UN of course, but also the Arab states who I think are
acting in a very constructive way.
I've done a reach out to colleagues in this regard and
that's my feeling.
The EU has increased its humanitarian aid to the Palestinians,
but at the same time you will be reviewing
your non-humanitarian aid.
What does that mean?
Are you just now checking if you indirectly gave money to Hamas,
which the EU, as you've mentioned there, classifies as
a terrorist organization?
I think that under the circumstances, it is
prudent to see to it that no money which is allocated to
the Palestinian Authority finds its way into the pockets of
organizations like Hamas or Islamic Jihad.
But in the long term this is also connected to the question of
the peace process.
We need to see to it the Palestinian Authority can
function and that it is a credible organization because if we are
going for a two-state solution and this has to be the long-term
perspective — to establish peace in the region, two states, Israel and
Palestine, being able to live side by side.
Are you thinking about whether you will in fact reduce
non-humanitarian aid, for example, on the EU level?
Because, I mean, the EU is the biggest single donor of
aid to Palestinians.
Well, from an EU perspective,
I don't see that happening.
I think that it is important and I think that there's a clear majority
also in the Council in favor of this.
I also, but we have to understand that, you know, undermining
the credibility of a Palestinian Authority would be a dangerous thing
that could actually help Hamas and Islamic Jihad to gain
supporters in Palestine, in both, the West Bank and Gaza.
And that would be that would be really dangerous.
When we look at the overall EU approach so far,
what we have seen is disunity and confusion on display.
First, there was a statement that the EU said it's suspended its
aid to Palestinians in response to the attack on Israel by Hamas.
That statement was reversed soon thereafter.
Isn't it a bit embarrassing in the middle of a crisis like this?
I think that we have to separate the issues.
It is quite clear that that statement was so
premature, but that was done by an individual commissioner, not by
the commission itself.
And when it comes to the member states, well, it is the member
states who are calling the shots on this, and it is the member states
also ultimately who decide this.
And I have to say that I've just come back from yesterday's meeting
in Luxembourg with the feeling that, yes, there are debates and
discussions quite naturally in a heated moment like this, but the
EU has to maintain and achieve unity.
Now we have an upcoming meeting with the leaders of the European
Council now Wednesday, and that I think will bring some more clarity
to these issues.
But you know, what it does speak to, Mr. Foreign Minister,
is how the EU expects to find consensus on
the future of aid for Palestinians and just the general approach
to the situation.
I'd like to ask you about one aspect of that.
How about, for example, calling for a ceasefire so that that crucial
aid that you mentioned, the humanitarian aid, may be let
into Gaza for those civilians.
The UN is calling for it, EU foreign ministers couldn't agree at
a meeting earlier this week.
Where do you stand?
Well, we stand on the side of a High Representative,
Josep Borrell, who has spoken about a humanitarian pause.
I think of this as the way forward.
We have to understand again that this is a very complex
situation.
There are no easy solutions to this, no quick fixes.
But a humanitarian pause would enable us to bring the aid into
Gaza, to the suffering people in forms of food and water and
medicine and also fuel, and I think this is important.
You spoke a little bit earlier about diplomacy and
the prospect of a two-state solution.
You know, Sweden in general back in 2014 was the first EU member in
Western Europe to officially recognize a state of Palestine
saying, and I'm quoting here, "We hope this will show
the way for others."
You've been supporting Palestinians toward
a two-state solution.
Is there any hope of that anymore, realistically?
Yeah, well, the two-state solution has to be
achieved because it is the only way, the only feasible way of
bringing peace to this region, to the people who are suffering, to
both Israelis and to Palestinians.
And there are credible solutions on the table, and have been for many,
many years now.
But what it boils down to is that you have to achieve trust and
you have to achieve confidence enough among leaders.
And one thing though that I take a bit of hope in and like I think
while I ask to understand of course that during a moment like this,
when the bombs are falling, it doesn't perhaps seem, perhaps you
don't feel like this, but actually after every big crisis over
the last 20 years, there has been a restart of the peace process and
a way forward.
And I think we have to understand that this could be the outcome of
this terrible situation which we are facing right now.
And frankly, the Swedish government don't really see an alternative to
the two-state solution.
So we're going to work in favor of this with partners both in
the Middle East, with the United States, with the UN and within
the EU, of which we are a part.
Let's turn now to the impact inside the EU’s borders.
We are seeing heightened security concerns here in Europe over
the situation in the Middle East.
The EU foreign policy chief, Josep Borrell, said last week that when
he hears, and I'm quoting here “religious authorities speaking
the language of interreligious conflict and explicitly stating
that Europe is a party to the conflict, ” he feels “the storm
clouds are looming.” He says he believes we are on the edge of the abyss.
Do you agree with him?
I think that he's on to something very important —
that we have to find a balanced way forward.
We have to acknowledge the indispensable right of Israel
to defend itself against terrorist attacks.
Frankly speaking, which government wouldn't do that when you're faced
with the slaughtering of your own citizens in thousands, as has been
the case on the 7th of October atrocities.
So European countries, they're increasing their security
measures, including border checks, as a result of the conflict and
a series of violent attacks here, including two Swedish nationals
killed in Brussels last week by a gunman claiming allegiance to
the so-called Islamic State, presumably in response to a number
of recent Quran burnings in Sweden this past year.
Tell us a little bit more about the security situation and how it's
affecting Sweden in particular.
Well, the terrorist deed was of course
terrible and we are, you know, we're all in shock together with
the people, the near and the dear who suffered the loss of the lives
of the family members.
We also have to look of course to the security situation, you mention
it, and I think we have to do this on many levels.
The Swedish Security Police, already during the summer, raised
the level of terrorist threat from three to a four on a five scale.
And we actually were afraid that something like this, which
happened in Belgium could happen, but that mustn't deter us from
continuing along the same path that we have already started to trod and
that is to clamp down on terrorism.
And we have to do this with the help of the police, but we also
have to do it with the dialogue with people so that we can push
back the terrorist threats and the levels which we see are rising
now in our society.
But can you tell us a little bit more about how you're
clamping down on the incidents that have caused so much anger?
Because, you know, many in the Muslim world are furious about
these public Quran burnings that have taken place in your country.
And I just like to bring in the example in June because there
we understand that two men were watched by a crowd of people.
They tore pages out of the Quran, they burned them outside of
a mosque, and they were granted a permit for demonstration.
That's how things work in your country.
They didn't hide their intent to burn the book.
And yet the New York Times reported this, that the demonstrations were
not allowed to burn objects in Stockholm.
So how is it that these demonstrators were able
to ultimately burn the book?
The reason is that the Swedish legislation is
constructed in a way that we give permits for demonstrations.
But as you said quite rightly, they do not have a permit to burn
the book, to burn holy scripture, the Quran or any other book.
What the Swedish Government is now doing is that we have launched
an inquiry into the Public Order Act, which governs the
police authorities' responsibility to grant permits.
And that inquiry means that it will also lead to an opportunity to look
into the possibility of bringing national security when you grant
a national bill, when you grant a permit, something which you
cannot do today.
And this is a tool which the government wants to
know more about.
But Mr. Foreign Minister, your neighbor
Denmark, for example, they're taking moves to actually outrightly
ban Quran burnings following outrage over burnings
there as well.
Is it time for Sweden to think about doing the same?
The problem is that Denmark and Sweden
have different legislations.
If we were to do the thing which they are doing in Denmark,
that would be a constitutional issue.
It has to lead to constitutional changes in Sweden.
While if Denmark were to do what we are planning to do, changing
the Public Order Act, that would lead to constitutional changes in
their legislation because they don't operate permits.
Russia has meantime been spreading narratives,
especially in the developing world, saying that Sweden is
hostile toward Islam.
For example, the Kremlin-controlled outlets created a rumor
that Swedish social services were systematically kidnapping and
trying to Christianize children from Muslim families.
That campaign is said to have reached hundreds of millions of
followers on social media.
How widespread is disinformation like this?
How big is the problem for you?
It is a big problem and we can see that states,
both Russia — state and state actors, Russia and Iran, it's also
another country which has furthered this this campaign and promoted it
in social media channels.
And it is a very, very aggressive campaign and it aims both towards
Muslims in other countries and Muslims in my own country.
We are now combating this.
We have brought together the responsible authorities in
Sweden all the way down to municipality level and all the way
up to national authorities in order to hammer out a
counter-campaign to this.
And we are well on this from the government side to do so.
We're also going to do it together with partners.
And we have to understand that has been a new information warfare
operational arena which we are living through.
This is the way things are going to be conducted, that you find things
— small grains of truth and then you blow them up.
It's an old Russian trick, but you have to work against it.
Let's turn now to the war in Ukraine.
How worried are you that attention and weapons will be diverted
elsewhere given the conflict in the Middle East?
For example, we've seen the US saying last week that tens of
thousands of artillery shells promised to Ukraine are now going
to be diverted to Israel.
A sign of more to come?
You know, I'm quite confident in the words of
President Biden when he was interviewed the other day and said,
you know, we are the United States, of course we are capable of
handling two conflicts at the same time.
And I'm quite confident that this will be the case.
And also the conflict in Israel is not the conflict in Ukraine.
It is not only in a much, much smaller scale, it is also different
in its entire makeup.
The war in Ukraine is a large-scale war, something, you know, we
haven't seen in Europe since the Second World War.
So we have to look at it from that point of view.
But as I said, we're quite confident in the words
of President Biden.
But where do you get that confidence, Mr. Foreign Minister?
Because, I mean it's quite clear that the US president doesn't
always have his Congress behind him.
We've also been seeing divisions in the EU over Russia.
They have been taken to the next level in fact — after Hungary's
Orban met with Putin, we've also seen the election of Robert Fico in
Slovakia who ran on an anti-Ukraine platform, basically showing how
quickly the tide can turn, especially considering that
Slovakia was the first country to deliver fighter jets to Ukraine.
Aren't you concerned about EU unity and support for Ukraine?
I mean, this is seems like a clear sign of waning European support?
President Biden is clearly contemplating a package
to be brought to Congress consisting of aid to both Ukraine
Israel and Taiwan in the same combination.
I think that needs to be brought into the scope to understand
the political realities.
And I again, we feel confident about this.
Looking into the EU, well, during the recent Swedish EU Presidency
during the spring, we were able to bring forward two new sanction
packages against Russia.
I think that we are able to maintain unity and move forward.
And I'm not worried about this, but we have to constantly contemplate
it and not taking it for granted, that needs to be said.
Above all we have to give acknowledge, acknowledgement to
the huge effort by the American people.
I've said this publicly, and I'll say it again, the fact that the US
has provided so much military support to Ukraine is the reason
why Ukraine is still standing as a state.
The EU has done a lot when it comes to financial support to Ukraine by
determining support, but we need to do more when it comes to military
support and acknowledge what the US people are doing for Ukraine.
Experts say that one of the few weapon systems
that could change the course of the war is fighter jets.
Sweden says that it will only provide its Gripen warplanes to
Ukraine if it gets NATO accession.
Is there no chance of you providing these warplanes beforehand?
Well, I was at the press conference at
Harpsund, the Prime Minister's summer residence, when President
Zelenskyy visited us earlier this autumn.
And what the Prime Minister said then, it still stands, namely
that we have to see to it that our NATO accession process is
finalized.
But we are already now training Ukrainian fighter jet pilots on the Gripen system.
How quickly could you get Ukraine the planes if you are
indeed admitted to NATO?
Well, I'm not going to talk about that because
that is of course, military secrets.
But what I could say clearly is that once we have become NATO
members, things will be in a different light.
But we have to look to our own security first.
That is of course imminent and imperative.
Another security threat, recent attacks on underseas
infrastructure, this time a communication cable between
Sweden and Estonia and the Baltic Sea, a gas pipeline connecting
Finland and Estonia also damaged.
Your Prime Minister has warned that these undersea data cables are
both essential to the modern economy and vulnerable to attack.
How vulnerable are you?
Well,it's not just us actually.
We have to look at this again from an EU and from a NATO perspective.
I mean, we have a, we have a neighboring country, Norway, who
has gas fields and oil fields where you can see where the underwater
cables are essential to their economy.
And I think that we have to understand that this is also a new
type of time which we are living in.
And the attitude of my government is that we need more cooperation
with our neighbors, more cooperation with our NATO allies,
in order to counter this and that calls of course for more, both
more, I should say capabilities when it comes to surveying
the situations underwater.
And luckily, Sweden has good capabilities already.
But we also would like to see more cooperation on this, because
this is not something which is going away.
We can see that this could be a, could be a very dangerous tool,
tools for adversaries to use against countries like Sweden,
Estonia and Finland in this case.
And Finland's Foreign Minister said the two underseas
links have probably been damaged on purpose.
Do you agree?
Is it likely sabotage?
Who's behind it?
Russia?
Well, again, I need to say that I'm not going to
attribute this to any country right now.
There is a police investigation on the way.
When that is finalized and the prosecutor has said what they
need to say, I might be able to do a public statement on this, but
before that I'm not going to do it.
I think that would be wrong of me as a minister to do so.
Let's talk about your membership in NATO, which has
long been blocked by Turkey.
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has just submitted a bill
approving your membership bid to his parliament for ratification.
In general, though, how disappointed
are you in the process and the demands that
Turkey has been placing on you?
I've said it many times before, and I'll say it
again, that the memorandum signed in Madrid at the summit in Madrid
last year was important because it meant that Sweden undertook certain
responsibilities for changes that were legit legitimate on
behalf of Türkiye.
And those changes have been conducted, that means that we now
combat the organization PKK's activities in my country in a more
coherent way, taking measures which had led to people being handed
verdicts in our courts.
For an example, a man was handed verdict just two weeks ago, a 4 1/2
year sentence for armed robbery with a clear connection of getting
money to send to the PKK.
Now the PKK doesn't conduct terrorist operations as such on
directed against Sweden on our territory, but they collect
money which were used to terrorist activities against Türkiye.
So Türkiye have had legitimate claims, but the summit in Vilnius
this summer meant that Türkiye acknowledged that Sweden had
fulfilled our part of the bargain.
And that means also that the start of the ratification process now
underway in the Turkish Parliament is a firm sign of this.
But you know, I mean there was the recent comment though
however from the Turkish vice president saying that we don't see
a satisfactory level of implementation when we talk about
those measures that you have taken.
We have also seen Erdogan, you know, make a request from
the United States, including the US selling F16 fighter jets to Turkey
as a precondition to your accession.
You know you've already taken all these measures that
you've highlighted there.
When is it just too much for Sweden?
What are your red lines?
Well, first of all this is a fundamental change of
Swedish foreign and security policy, the largest one
in 200 years.
We have been a non-military aligned country for two centuries, so of
course the question of a few months doesn't mean very much in
that perspective and we are not disappointed at all.
On the contrary, yesterday's news, were of course source of joy, but
we aren't through yet.
We need to see the full ratification process happening in
Türkiye and then of course, also in Hungary.
And yeah, let's talk more about Hungary, because they
must also sign off.
There, the foreign minister has written you a very pointed letter.
Asking you to stop your politicians and press from criticizing
Hungary's democracy, otherwise it won't ratify your accession.
The Hungarians even uploaded that letter to Twitter.
And of course they know that you can't control what opposition
politicians or press might be saying because of freedom
of speech laws.
So what do you think is at play here?
The Hungarian government just looking for excuses
to feel insulted?
And how concerning is this?
I think that the Turkish government, sorry,
the Hungarian Parliament has been very clear on the matter, saying
that they won't be the last, the last to ratify Sweden.
That has been repeated both by Prime Minister Viktor Orban and
also by my foreign minister colleague.
And that means that Hungary has already committed itself.
Once the process in Türkiye is underway, as it is now, we expect
ratification to start in the Hungarian Parliament as well
and they only have the final vote left, they've already done the
committee work in the parliament.
And also just on that, on that same line, there is a difference also
between Türkiye and Hungary.
With Türkiye we have had a memorandum, clear memorandum,
clear stake, clear stakes.
Hungary never asked for anything like that when they accepted
that Sweden were given the status as the invitee at last year's
summit in Madrid.
So I think that the Hungarian Parliament should move on with
the ratification, and that is the clear position of the Swedish Government.
Some, especially in the global South, are looking at
the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East as an approach that is laced
with double standards.
One analyst saying there's a perception that “the West cares
more about Ukrainian refugees, about Ukrainian civilian suffering,
than suffering in Yemen, in Gaza, in Sudan and Syria”.
The former Swedish Prime Minister Carl Bildt has said the following:
“This is something that we must deal with.” First of all, do you
even recognize that there could be a double standard at play?
And how do you deal with it?
Well, we have been very clear from our path, on
our path, especially in my statement, which I delivered at
the United Nations General Assembly, where I said very clearly
that we need to take into account that the Ukrainian conflict is
something which, you know, is of importance to all the world.
Because it means that if Ukraine were to lose, the rules-based world
order, and the UN Charter would be gone.
And those are principles, which means a lot to our global partners,
wherever they are in the world.
And this is a good platform to stand on.
But I do acknowledge what you say, we have to take, we shouldn't have
any double standards.
We should apply the same standards when it comes
to atrocities committed.
And we should also mean that means that the humanitarian problems
which we now see in Gaza needs to be solved in order for this to be,
you know, a credible policy operated by the EU.
Some diplomats are warning that the West is losing
the global South.
What is the danger here if this situation is not handled well
by the EU?
If the South does not perceive that the West is handling the
situation well and equitably?
Well, that could be definitely could be a threat.
But I think that we are doing the right thing right now with both
seeking a reach out to the Arab world in looking for solutions both
to the hostage crisis in relation to the terrorist organization Hamas
and also the question of humanitarian pause when it comes to
Gaza and ultimately the two-state solution which needs to
be brought forward.
Only by operating on all these levels at the same time can
we maintain credibility on the global level.
Foreign Minister Billstrom, we have to
leave it there.
Thank you so much for joining us on Conflict Zone.
Thank you for your time.
Thank you very much.