GJIA: What role does Sweden aspire to play within the European Union, and how does Sweden see its influence contributing to shaping EU priorities, especially at a time when cohesion within the union is essential?
Ambassador Ahlin: Sweden wants to play a constructive role in the European Union, and we think the strength of the European Union is when we are countries working together. The European Union helps the countries, but also the countries support the European Union. The most important thing is the economy. What we are advocating for in the European Union is the need to be more competitive and innovative, on the front line to be a stronger economic union. That has always been the focus of the Swedish government’s attitude towards the European Union. If you compare it to other countries like the United States, China, or Asia as a whole, Europe is actually lagging behind. We are not as productive and competitive as we should be. To be successful as a union, we need to be successful when it comes to the economy. We need to focus on the competitiveness of the European Union, which is what Sweden is trying to bring to the table. Mostly because we are one of the most competitive and innovative countries. For us, it is important that we push the European Union in that direction as well. Because at the end of the day, if you do not have a good economy, it is hard to be taken seriously.
GJIA: Switching to the topic of NATO, it seems clear the Russian invasion of Ukraine played a big role in Sweden’s ascendency. However, I think there are two dimensions to that: domestic and foreign policy. How much of the decision came from concerns over domestic security, and how much did it come from denouncing Russia’s attack in Ukraine as a part of Sweden’s foreign policy?
Ambassador Ahlin: I would say there is a third option, and that is when the Russians said, “We want to change the European security architecture, and we do not want Finland and Sweden to become members of NATO.” At that point, the Finnish and Swedish people responded that it is not up to the Russians to dictate what kind of decisions sovereign countries make. In my view, that was the tipping point. To your point, of course, we joined NATO because we wanted to be security providers and to establish that kind of defense agreement with other countries. If something happens to Finland, then naturally, Sweden will want to have defense agreements in place to support them. Still, I would say this decision was more of a reaction to the prevailing Russian stance that Sweden and Finland should not be allowed to join NATO. That gave us the incentive to tell Russia, “It is not up to you to decide, and we can join NATO if we choose to.” To be clear, all three factors contributed to this decision, but Russia’s stance was the defining moment.
GJIA: Sweden joining NATO was a major shift in Sweden’s foreign policy, especially considering that Sweden was a neutral country. What would you say about the viability of military non-alignment in today’s world?
Ambassador Ahlin: First, it is important to emphasize the difference between neutrality and military non-alignment. Sweden’s official neutrality was abandoned in 1992, and since then, we have considered ourselves militarily non-aligned. When a country claims neutrality, it commits to remaining impartial in conflicts, signaling to others that it will not take sides. Military non-alignment, on the other hand, means that we are not joining a military alliance, but we still retain the ability to make independent decisions during conflicts. It is important to understand that there is a big difference between being a neutral country, in the sense of international law, and being military non-aligned. I do not think being military non-aligned to becoming a member of NATO was a big step for Swedish society. We are a Western, democratic country. We always work with Europe, the United States, and Canada. We were also participating in all different sorts of NATO operations, or operations led by NATO. Our military force has been compatible with NATO standards and structures for many years. In many ways, you can say that the last thirty years have been a slow process where Sweden became closer and closer to NATO membership. The tipping point was when Russia asserted that we should not be allowed to join. Historically, Sweden’s neutrality dates back to 1809, but a significant shift occurred in 1992 when we recognized the need for greater collaboration. We had something called a solidarity clause, where if something happened to a European country or to a Nordic country that is not a member of the European Union—meaning Norway and Iceland—we would need to support and help them. In a way, we gave up military non-alignment with this kind of security. This was our decision, not a result of a bilateral NATO agreement. We announced that even though we were outside of NATO, if something happened to our EU or Nordic friends, we would take part in helping these countries. It was a big shift from 1809 to the 1950s and the 60s, when during the Cold War, Sweden was a trustworthy neutral with their own defense industry. The saying we had at that time was that Sweden sought neutrality in the event of a war. We never say that in recent years because we realized that recent conflicts in our region have shown the potential of Sweden being drawn into them as well.
GJIA: During your speaker event at Georgetown concerning Sweden’s accession to NATO, you discussed how Hungary and Turkey slowed down the process of accession. Today, you see Turkey trying to establish its own foreign policy and distancing itself from the rest of the Western bloc. Do you see potential problems regarding the unity of the NATO alliance?
Ambassador Ahlin: Of course. It is easy to recognize that there will be problems. We already have problems, as you see, with Hungary and its president, Victor Orban. He approached Putin and is not supporting Ukraine in NATO. We want to do things for the Ukrainians, and the Hungarians are stopping these efforts. This is how life is. There will be different views in an organization with many countries. Turkey is no exception. We need to work with them; we need to talk to them; we need to understand their views on things. If they were blocking every agenda and being a total spoiler, that would be a different situation. I have to admit that at times, they come close to that. But so far, we have been able to work around it and find solutions. All countries do not always think the same. And so, you need to discuss and explore where the limits are for everyone to move further. It is not easy, but that is how it is.
GJIA: How does Sweden see its role within the United Nations in strengthening global governance to address urgent humanitarian needs and promote sustainable peace around the world, especially concerning the current crisis in Gaza?
Ambassador Ahlin: Sweden has always been a major donor of foreign aid. We have been one of the most steadfast partners of the United Nations for many years. When you look at the list of countries giving money to different UN organizations and UN funds, Sweden is always at the top. The United Nations is one of the most important organizations in the world. Where we stand today, we see many challenges. The United Nations faces obstacles in taking decisive action, especially with Russia and China often blocking initiatives on various issues. This reflects the same difficulties we observe with other organizations like the European Union and NATO. There are challenges within these forums, but if we had this organization taken away and buried them yesterday, we would have to invent them again tomorrow because they are needed in the world. So, we are focusing more on making the United Nations more relevant again.
It is very problematic now, with this war in Ukraine and this deadlock between Russia, China, and the rest of the United Nations. On foreign aid, securing peace, and being active, Sweden will always be there. We will try everything we can when it comes to the war in Gaza. Sweden has been for many years the biggest donor to the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees, supporting the Palestinian people. We are also very keen on ensuring the money goes to the right thing: it should go toward relieving and helping people who are in stress, and not for other purposes. I think the United Nations today plays a much smaller role than it should because of the situation the world is in. I think that is the view most people in Sweden have. It will take a long time to change it, but we hope it will for the better.
GJIA: Thank you. There are recent incidents of Quran burnings in Sweden that have created a lot of controversies, and they have heightened complex issues surrounding freedom of speech, xenophobia, and the experience of immigrant communities within Swedish society. How does the Swedish government approach these acts, especially considering their potential to fuel xenophobic sentiment and impact the integration and well-being of immigrants within Sweden?
Ambassador Ahlin: Sweden has had freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and press freedom for an extremely long time. That is something that we hold very close to our hearts, and we do not want to decrease that. What we have seen during certain times, such as with the Quran burnings, is that individuals are using this enormous freedom of speech and freedom of expression to push their political agenda. A lot of these cases were, of course, people that were totally against Islam. Some even came from Islamic countries and wanted to make their point this way. These acts are dangerous because they are playing with fire. The question is how to deal with these acts without ending or decreasing the freedom of speech in Sweden. This is an incredibly sensitive topic. The government has had lots of investigations and has considered letting the police have a bigger say over where demonstrations can take place, how they should be conducted, if there is a threat from another country, and so on. Would there be an impact? For example, will the Quran burnings put Sweden or Swedes in a more vulnerable situation? But if you limit freedom of speech, where do you draw the line? Everything can be considered a threat if you look at it that way. I would say that a few individuals caused us a lot of harm during our NATO membership process. They are still sometimes trying to get in the limelight of the media. I feel very angry that some are using the freedom of speech and the freedom of life in Sweden to do disrespectful things like this, especially towards those with certain faiths or views. In every country where you have such enormous freedom, you also need to have an understanding among the people: to treat each other well. I must say, we have largely done that for a long time in Sweden, and as I see it, these are just a few individuals who are using the freedom of Sweden in a very negative way, and I hope it will go away.
. . .
His Excellency Urban Ahlin has been the Ambassador of Sweden to the United States since September 2023. In the past, Ambassador Ahlin has served as Sweden’s Ambassador to Canada and Speaker of the Swedish Parliament as a member of the Social Democratic Party. In addition, Ambassador Ahlin has a long career of working in foreign policy in numerous capacities, including being a founding member of the first pan-European think tank, the European Council on Foreign Relations.
This transcript has been lightly edited for clarity and length.
Interview conducted by Gui Lima and Harry Yang.
Image Credit: Chief, National Guard Bureau, CC BY 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons.
