EU’s rapid force not in conflict with NATO
An interview with the Swedish Ambassador

Ansar Mahmood Bhatti interviews His Excellency Mr Peter Tejler.

Sweden is holding the rotating EU Presidency. The Swedish Presidency is faced with, among other things, three core issues, Employment, Environment and Enlargement. The way the Swedish Presidency has taken on these issues shows a strong resolve and commitment on the part of the Swedes that they want to resolve these and other issues on priority basis.

This correspondent had a chance to interview Mr. Peter Tejler, the Ambassador of Sweden. Mr. Peter Tejler, apart from the EU matters, also talked about the core issues like Afghanistan and Kashmir. Here are excerpts from his interview.

Having a glance at the future political scenario of Pakistan, it seems, as the military would be seeking a permanent role in the political matters. Would you favour army’s role in politics? In addition, are you satisfied with the pace at which the so-called devolution process is going on?

Of course, the European Union believes in democratic principles, the elected governments and the role of political parties. We think, it is also essential for the social and economic uplift of the country. We also welcome the commitment of the military-led government to respect the Supreme Court ruling on holding of the general elections in the country. We do believe the government would hold elections on the due date.

However, what we are looking for is the real timetable for the restoration of democracy and also a roadmap. We also point out need for strengthening the national institutions. The Election Commission should be strengthened. The whole of judiciary should be strengthened. Over and above, the political parties should be brought into the process. The political parties do represent different sectors of the civil society. We believe that if the military administration reaches out to all with sectors of civil society inducing the political parties that would assure the European Union and the international community that the Pakistan government is committed to a transition to a party-based political system which also should be fully representative. When I say that it should be fully representative, one of the simple things is that it is important to have an elected government, therefore, we lay much emphasis on the transition.

As regards the devolution plan, we welcome this move and consider it a step in right direction. It is encouraging that women have also been given due representation in the local bodies’ elections. But, it is to be kept in mind that this devolution plan only addresses one tier of the federal system. To us, is equally important that the economic power is given down to the districts level and the representatives in the districts are the ones who should make important decisions regarding education, schools, healthcare, lands etc. And this all can only be done in the presence of economic resources.

As reported, the donors’ countries expressed dismay over the “indiscreet” utilization of funds provided by them to the Government of Pakistan for the execution of various projects, during the Pakistan Development Forum (PDF) meeting. Do you have similar complaints?

I did participate in the PDF meeting while representing Sweden and the Presidency. I would say the donor countries concerns were genuine in the sense that there has been lack of implementation. We do not doubt the intentions, they are of course good but the problem is lack of implementation that has to be looked into. We want the military-led government to better sell these projects to the public. That’s what the Europeans had stressed upon during the three-day meeting.

Don’t you think UN curbs on Afghanistan have multiplied miseries of the Afghans? As regards the humanitarian assistance, what is the EU and Swedish stands?

It is important to know that the European Union has been engaged in Afghanistan both on trying to alleviate humanitarian situation with a strong and long-term support to the Afghan people regardless of the fact that they are living in the areas either under the Taliban or the United Front’s control.

Let me tell you that there is no difference between the EU and the Swedish policy on the Afghan conflict. There is a common EU position on Afghanistan, which describes European Union’s stand on the subject. The latest one was adopted by the Foreign Ministers late January this year that also includes the question about the latest Security Council Resolution 1333. As an example the EU introduced a ban on the export of weapons to all sides already in 1996. The UN Secretary General has looked into the impacts of the sanctions. The UN sanctions are only against the Taliban government. They, in no way, are people-specific. However, it should not be understood that the European Union does not realize the hardships the Afghan population is undergoing.

EU as a whole is one of the largest donor agencies in Afghanistan. The European Union intends to continue humanitarian support to Afghanistan. Last year, EU provided $75 million humanitarian aid to Afghanistan. We have to realize that the ultimate reasons for the miseries is the internal conflict, therefore, it must be addressed at the earliest. We are trying to alleviate the sufferings of the Afghan people through the humanitarian aid etc. We have been making appeals to the warring factions to talk peace seriously. Another problem is the outside interference. That has to be stopped. Then, Taliban are just focussing only on continuing war. They are not focussing on solving the issue amicably.

The EU objectives in Afghanistan are to bring about a lasting peace, put an end to foreign intervention and encourage intra-Afghan dialogue through support for the central role of the United Nations, to promote the stability and development of the whole region through peace. We want to promote respect for international humanitarian law and human rights, including the rights of women and children, to provide effective humanitarian aid including the creation of an environment free of discrimination, in which international organizations and NGOs can operate effectively. It is also necessary to ensure that the international coordination of aid allows for its provision in accordance with international coordination of aid allows for its provision in accordance with international humanitarian principles and an impartial needs assessment, taking into account the community based approach and obvious to reinforce the fight against illegal drugs and terrorism.

Where does stand the Kashmir issue in the priority areas of the Swedish EU Presidency? What can be an amicable solution?

The European Union is very much concerned over the situation along the Line of Control. This is also an area of arms build up of conventional weapons where nuclear weapons exist. The EU is also concerned about it. The European Union thinks that the violent clashes along the Line of Control between India and Pakistan bear a great risk of escalation that cannot be controlled. The conflict, therefore, poses a threat to the regional peace and stability.

We urge both India and Pakistan to reestablish mutual confidence. I would also like to urge both countries to resume the dialogue. There is no serious dialogue going on at the moment and so it is necessary to kick-start the Lahore process. We consider ceasefire in Kashmir and restraint along the LoC as positive steps that must be followed by some concrete measures to resolve the issue.

We understand, the Foreign Secretaries of both countries would meet next month to discuss the issue. That would be a good opportunity for India and Pakistan to evolve some strategy. The meeting may provide both parties to at least create a kind of mutual confidence in order to start the peace process.

What has forced Europe to have its own military force? Isn’t it in direct conflict with NATO? Does US opposition to the force carry any weight?

One thing is to be kept in mind while talking about the rapid force that it is not a big military force. It is just a small force created for crisis prevention, crisis management including civilian disaster relief. I do not think, it is in conflict with NATO. It should not be taken as a beginning of Pan-European army as well. The discussions are also going on with NATO about its infrastructure. Various countries have assured their fullest cooperation in this respect. The Americans should not be worried over the creation of this force. I think, the Americans realize the necessity behind the creation of the rapid force. That’s why I pointed out, this is not a Pan-European force. The decision to use this force lies with the UN Security Council so I really do not think that it is in conflict with NATO. It is important for the Americans to understand that what are the tasks of this force. I think, this is a process just like the European Union itself and I don’t think that at the end of the day there will be any opposition from the Americans.

The EU enlargement is on cards. Please tell what is the latest on the subject. Do you think EU should make / implement changes in order to enable it to function efficiently with more than 25 member countries?

You know, negotiations with the candidates are on and as per our understanding are proceeding very well. We are opening and closing different areas of negotiations. Sweden is very optimistic about when it comes to the possibility of all having been ready for the enlargement by the end of the year 2002. In some cases the negotiations have reached the advanced stages.

At the same time as the candidate countries must spend a few years making extensive adjustments, the Union must also implement a number of changes to enable it to function efficiently with more than 25 member countries.

For example, changes need to be made to the EU budget. Changes in the current rules are required in order to prevent escalation in the costs for the two largest expenditure items—agricultural policy and structural support. At the Berlin European Council in March 1999, the EU heads of state and government agreed on a new long-term budget for the period 2000-2006, Agenda, 2000. The agreement also covered reforms in the fields of agricultural and structural policies. The new budget makes its possible for the EU to welcome new members within next few years.

In Sweden, there is a public concern that the harmonization of asylum and migration policies in the EU will contribute to the building of a fortress Europe. Is it true?

That is the question about Schengen regime as Sweden has also joined this regime. We, obviously, do not accept the idea of a fortress Europe. One of the reasons for us to be very adamant on the issue is that the Swedes have been travelling to other Nordic countries even without passports etc for last 50 years. We have had an open labour market. What we are trying under this Schengen agreement is to ensure free flow of people. The Swedish Foreign Minister had made it very clear that anyone, with good intentions, who has the valid documents can come to Europe, therefore, we do not subscribe to the idea of a fortress Europe.

For us, its too early to conclude whether joining of the Schengen regime would benefit us or otherwise. It will take some time. A strong cooperation exists among the Schengen countries and there is also a legal convention, which one has to follow. Obviously, there are chances for the criminals to squeeze into the European countries. That has to be checked by the mutual cooperation.

One of the key goals of the Swedish Presidency is to strengthen the transatlantic relations. Would you like to spell out the progress made so far?

The transatlantic relations for us are important. There is a strong bond between Europe and the US. The Europeans invest quite much in the US and vice versa. It shows strong economic ties between the Europe and the US. We have had a transatlantic agenda signed with the US in 1995. What we are trying to do is to strengthen our transatlantic relations in order to jointly address the issues of poverty alleviation, globalization and protection of consumers’ rights.

I think, this transatlantic cooperation was initially trade related but we want to broaden its scope to international criminality, money laundering and the possible aspects of cooperation e.g in the field of security not least in the Middle East and Russia. We, therefore, believe this transatlantic agenda is good and can help grapple issues mentioned above. It can also help us on issues where we do have certain differences. Everyone knows that the Europeans and the Americans are poles apart on the issue of mines. We have been opposing the Kyoto Agreement on global climate change.