By Jennifer Jun, Director of Strategic Partnerships and Communications
A live recording of the lecture as it was delivered by Ambassador Olof Skoog can be found on RWI’s On Human Rights podcast series via Soundcloud. The full transcript of the remarks as delivered is found at the bottom of this page.
(Photo credit: Cornelia Walles)
The 2024 Anna Lindh Lecture, delivered by the European Union’s Special Representative for Human Rights Olof Skoog, drew a large public audience of students, faculty, local residents, and visiting dignitaries to the stately venue of the University Hall in Lund on 19 November. Classical music performed by Malmö Music Academy pianist Nino Chikhelidze and saxophonist Albin Rickman punctuated the evening with stirring performances. It was an inspiring occasion of reflection and resolve.
Lund University’s Pro Vice-Chancellor Ann Kristin Wallengren opened the ceremony with welcoming remarks on behalf of Lund University. Peter Lundberg, Executive Director of the Raoul Wallenberg Institute, set the scene for the event by highlighting the lecture’s special significance on the occasion of RWI’s 40th anniversary. He invoked Raoul Wallenberg’s legacy as a reminder that defending human dignity requires both moral courage and pragmatic action.
(Photo credit: Cornelia Walles)
In his remarks, entitled “The Strategy of Human Rights”, Ambassador Skoog captivated the audience with personal anecdotes, historical references, commentary on current events and trends, and clear calls to action. He harkened back to his student days at the Faculty of Law at Lund University and the Raoul Wallenberg Institute and recalled with fondness his time spent with Professor Göran Melander. As he progressed in his career as a Swedish diplomat, he was inspired by the late Anna Lindh’s vision of the EU as a peace and democracy project and came to share her belief that the EU must use all of its levers to advance human rights and democracy. He also paid tribute to both Raoul Wallenberg and Anna Lindh as examples of the transformative power of personal responsibility and courage.
(Photo credit: Cornelia Walles)
Ambassador Skoog’s lecture followed an arc along these three questions: where we are today, where we come from, and where we must go. He painted a sobering picture of setbacks in human rights worldwide, from rising authoritarianism to the erosion of civic space and gender equality. Yet, his message remained hopeful. “Even in the darkest times,” he said, “there is a way out—a callejón con salida (‘alley with exit’).” Progress starts with holding ourselves accountable, staying consistent, and leveraging our collective power.
Drawing on Europe’s unique history and the EU’s position as a global voice for human rights, he emphasized that the EU has leverage and can offer something that people aspire to across the globe: a societal model based on rights, freedoms, and cooperation. “We just need to find the stamina and confidence to stand up for what we believe in,” he urged, “and we need to build realistic and creative partnerships where human rights are center-stage.” He ended his remarks with a challenge to the audience: “If we do not get up in the morning to stand up for what is right – the world would be in an even more difficult spot.”
This year’s Anna Lindh Lecture was a collaboration between the Raoul Wallenberg Institute, Anna Lindh Memorial Foundation, Lund University, and Lund University’s Association of Foreign Affairs. For more information about the Anna Lindh Lecture series and upcoming events, please visit RWI’s website.
Full transcript of remarks as delivered on 19 November 2024
Title: “The Strategy of Human Rights”
This is a big occasion for anyone asked to hold the lecture. But I think it is bigger for me than for all those preceding me. Not only an intimidating and humbling task given the Titans that have spoken here before me. But just coming in here with a red carpet and musicians! You have to understand I have been in these venues many times in my youth. But if I was shown a door, it was the exit, not the entrance. And I never saw the red carpet before!
I am an alumni from this university. I studied law, and specialized in international law and human rights. I spent time with the Raoul Wallenberg Institute with legends such as Göran Melander. I cannot truthfully claim however that I ever saw myself in this lectern. One could perhaps say that I studied human rights and international law, but spent more time exercising those rights and living my fundamental freedoms than actually studying them.
The work of the Raoul Wallenberg Institute is immensely important. I was early on impressed with your activity in China. In my first diplomatic post, Havana in 1989, I was inspired by how you approached human rights from a very practical perspective, including by exchanges of experts in the justice system, capacity building in law enforcement and detention centers etc. you identified areas of cooperation relating to human rights also in closed societies where political rights were and continue to be severely restricted. Human rights can be advanced through very practical cooperation. They are far too precious and important to be left only to public condemnations.
Anna Lindh was my boss as foreign minister. I was posted abroad, in New York and then Colombia at that time. Our interactions were therefore sporadic. I will mention two strong memories of her. At an Ambassadors’ conference we discussed EU’s influence over our neighbourhood. She had indicated doubts as to whether some of the countries in line for EU membership were ready, given shortcomings on human rights and democracy. I argued that it was in our interest to see them as a member. She said that we should above all use our leverage to ensure that democracy and human rights were fully respected. This was her vision for the EU. That was also how she saw the EUs role in the Balkan wars – the EU as a peace and democracy project.
My second memory is of her death. A JFK moment – most remember where they were when they heard the news. I was in Bogota, just about to kick off a major event on the many challenges facing Colombia. The title of the event was A callejon con salida. A maze with hope. I have a memory of a goldfish – three seconds. But I can even recall the tie I wore that day. It was black with small yellow dots. Small glimmers of light in the darkness. Un callejon con salida.
Anna Lindh also firmly believed in the personal responsibility and ability for change. Indeed that if you have power and influence you have to be the change. Everybody liked her, she was positive, warm, energetic. Yet she was someone who spoke the truth and stood firm in her convictions.
My talk today will build on these three ideas.
- Our main contribution to the world is human rights and we have leverage.
- There is hope even in the darkest times, a Callejon con salida.
- The personal responsibility.
Let me start with the third. First days of January 2017 when Sweden had just become members of the UN Security Council, we hosted the other 14 Ambassadors for a breakfast. We were the newcomers. Naïve of course but also ambitious and eager. We had two years for which we were elected. On the Council then were the Russian UN Ambassador Vitally Churkin and the US Samantha Powers. I invited them all for a “skånsk” breakfast with “sill” and snaps. My message was to work together. We had a bigger responsibility than just fulfilling our instructions from home. The world had entrusted us with upholding international peace. There was a moral obligation to always do our personal best to live up to that responsibility. I’m not saying we achieved this. The ambassadors are not alone in charge. But establishing a private functioning and respectful social environment among them is an essential starting point. The same logic made us invite them all to Backåkra in 2018. It’s not so well known, but that excursion actually included an evening at Tomanders studenthem. What little I remember I will never forget from that evening. And that is all you will hear from me on that for now!
The basic point here is – don’t underestimate the personal dimension in world politics and diplomacy. I find that this is not always the criteria it should be. We need experts on all sorts of things – but if our diplomats don’t know how to build trust and personal relationships expertise is not sufficient. Everyone who knew Anna Lindh, so many speak warmly of her. She was a master in establishing personal relationships. But she was also clear and outspoken. Respect comes from being attentive, open, listening, but also for being clear in your convictions.
Now. I know that many of you feel the same as I do. Why do we get up in the morning when the world is spinning out of control. It’s safer to stay under the blanket. But if YOU find it tough to get up in the morning – imagine what it’s like for me! My mandate is to promote human rights around the world!
So let’s see this lecture as a collective therapy session. I will try to structure my talk around three lines. Where are we? Where do we come from? Where are we going?
So if you lose the thread- and you will – at least you can try to reorient yourself along by thinking that he is probably somehow going on about one of those three lines.
Where are we?
Human rights are being pushed back, including democracy, civic space, free media, and gender equality. The universality of the established norms based on fundamental human rights and dignity of the individual is being questioned. Economic and social rights are stalled or halted as witnessed by falling behind on SDGs in many parts of the world, with inequalities inside and between countries growing. IHL violations have increased significantly in the past 10 years- accountability has not.
Politicians are rewarded for stoking fear when we need vision. Turning inwards when we need international cooperation. Nationalism when we need globalism, hatred when we need dialogue. Attacking independent media and justice when we need more not less scrutiny and facts Military confrontation when we need diplomacy. People use their democratic right to elect leaders who are set on limiting precisely the democratic rights that allow for scrutiny, checks and balances. Democracy is used to weaken democracy through disinformation and intimidation. Authoritarian leaders are not even trying to hide these tendencies but overbidding each other and adding verses to the songbook of intolerance and polarization. We know climate change, pollution and biodiversity loss is slowly killing us, yet we dither about what needs to be done although science is clear.
International negotiations on climate, peace, trade and disarmament are blocked by tension between major powers and growing division between the so-called global South and the West.
There is a strong feeling of mistrust and disillusionment right now. There is a sense that we are passively observing the incremental destruction of life, as we know it, the planet we live on and the dismantling of fundamental values that we have always taken for granted.
I will come back on some thoughts of where we are, and where we should be going but first an important reminder of where we as Europeans come from.
The European Model
Europe was the theatre of some of the worst atrocities in modern times and it was in response to this violence that the codification of international humanitarian and human rights law was born. It was with the horrors of the Second World War fresh in memory that the world united, created the UN and adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the central covenants. Both the UN Charter and The Convention against Genocide as well as the notion of Crimes against Humanity were drafted to make another holocaust impossible. Going even further back, the barbarity witnessed by Henri Dunant on the battlefields in Solferini, Italy, gave birth to the principles of international humanitarian law. It was on the notion to safeguard humanity from such cruelty as experienced here that the human rights system of international, regional and national courts, special procedures and human rights institutions was founded.
The EU is essentially a peace project – a very successful one – that has also proven to be the best guarantor of expanding and consolidating democracy, prosperity and social cohesion. While the EU is not the only regional organization, nor the oldest still existing one, it is the most integrated and successful. The Union has made wars nearly impossible between us. It has created a societal model aspired to by many around the world.
We have come thus far because we learned the necessity of safeguarding human rights from our very own history. But Human rights don’t belong more to Europe than any other continent; they are universal by their very nature. Under the leadership of chair Eleanor Roosevelt the first UN Human Rights Commission was a cross-regional body with eighteen representatives from all regions of the world. This to ensure that the UDHR would capture the diversity of experiences and concepts and find the common universal denominator.
Where Europe excels, however, is in the extent to which these universal standards have been integrated into our system.
The European Union has proved how trust, cooperation and fundamentally peace is based on cooperation in the most ordain aspects of life from fishing quotas to work hour regulations. We have an interest in ensuring precisely these same fundamentals of our own societies reflected at the global level, for the very same reason that they serve us at home. Rule of law, international law and human rights need to be central tenets of the architecture for international relations. It builds stronger societies and improves relations between countries. Importantly it holds the powerful to account, as should be the case, at home as well as globally, through respect for international law. It is essentially the same principles that should govern the interaction between states, the so-called rules-based world order. The UN Charter and the UDHR were essentially crafted with this worldview in mind. And fundamentally, the EU has the potential of being a voice of reason and moderation in the world. By coming together the 27 EUMS understand that they multiply their influence in the world where they would otherwise be fending for themselves.
Checks and balances
The human rights system was not written primarily for the days of peace, but as a safeguard for the days of conflict and tension. International law is not only there to protect ourselves from dictators and aggressors. They are in large part conceived to protect ourselves from ourselves. Even in Europe we bear witness to the fragility of our societies with the rise of populism, xenophobia, antisemitism, islamophobia and even democratic backsliding. Historically Europe has been the proponent not only of cooperation and human rights, but the source of unspeakable crimes such as slavery and colonialism, at times enjoying popular support. We have a lot to make up for and a lot to watch out for.
The human being is unique not only in its ability to imagine and create, but in its ability for destruction. The broader human rights system was created to control the direction of human creativity for our best interest. With the formidable means of destruction we have created today those rules are more relevant than ever. Our creativity has extended lives but also worked out weapons to end a life in a second. It has cured diseases, but cannot provide food for everyone. Our industrial pursuit has damaged our habitat, threatening our very survival. We have explored the moon, but made parts of this planet unliveable. As Neil Armstrong said when speaking at the UN after returning from the moon in 1969: I …hope that we citizens of earth, who can solve the problems of leaving earth, can also solve the problems of staying on it.
There is a sense that technology is not always put to best use. Nor driven by a quest to further the rights of the individual or the human race. Artificial Intelligence is a good example of where regulators are running behind the tech sector. At least the EU is leading the way to develop rules in this fast-moving and highly complex area. I only hope it is happening fast enough.
Where are we going? Or rather where should we be going? When you think about it, much of what ails the world can be boiled down to growing disrespect for human rights. So this means that by coming back to improving the implementation of human rights, we can reverse the trend. Human rights are fundamentally based on some key principles. Treat your neighbour as you want to be treated. Everyone has equal rights. All have a right to life and dignity. The preamble of the UN Charter is in essence the same as that of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. It reads:
to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and
to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and
to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom.
The Human Rights architecture is based on the notion that the individual has rights and that Governments are bound to respect those rights. Governments are there to serve the people – not the other way around. People should through elections be able to change those leaders who do not fulfil expectations. Hold them to account. Rule of Law – a concept that makes people yawn – is actually fundamental to this. Laws are set up by our democratically chosen representatives. Violators are held to account. Domestically as well as in international affairs. And it is not a static concept- it has to adapt to the challenges of our times. The European Court for Human Rights has ruled (in a case concerning Switzerland) that the Government has to protect their citizens from effects of climate change. The EU has established that what is prohibited to say or write in a newspaper should also be prohibited online. So the human rights concept is evolving.
I think much of what we need to focus on can be boiled down to one single concept – Accountability. Leaders have to be held to account vis-à-vis their populations for the universal obligations they are bound by, including on human rights. Silencing dissent, manipulating justice, corruption is too often, if not accepted, at least expected or tolerated.
Governments are also bound by international law. Russia is violating the most fundamental of those laws. For this, the ICC has called for the arrest of the Russian leadership. Meticulous work is ongoing in Ukraine to document atrocities. Over 130,000 cases are opened. Even wars have rules. The right to self-defence – often quoted as Israel attacks Gaza, comes with limitations aimed to protect civilians. Very serious allegations of violations including war crimes have been issued against both Hamas and Israel. The ICC Prosecutor has suggested indictments. Justice is very slow, but it does actually catch up eventually.
I very often meet the argument of double standards. We need to demonstrate that a life in Gaza is worth as much as one in Ukraine. Supporting the ICC and the ICJ is one way of doing that and staying consistent. Accountability must apply equally to all. When things get political or emotional – we can usefully rely on the Law.
But accountability goes both ways. We too, need to be held to account. We need to uphold the highest standards of human rights, comply with international obligations and abide by International Law. We also need to stick with the commitments we’ve made in the Paris Agreement on Climate, on pledges for development. Human rights for many people of the world are as much about economic and social rights as they are about political rights. We need to support both.
I want to insert a side comment here, hopefully without losing the thread. Obviously the perception that the global system is crumbling and doesn’t deliver accountability when it comes to improving peoples’ lives is dangerous in itself. The great powers such as China and the US may find that the system can suffer as they are strong enough to fend for themselves. Russia seems to believe that Might makes Right. They are the main power aiming to break up the system. To counter this we in the EU mobilized the General Assembly when Russia had blocked further action in the UN Security Council. We still have a majority of countries with us in favour of a rules-based multilateral order, but the system has to continue to deliver.
For us as Europeans a rules-based order with the UN at its centre is a strategic interest. Leaving the system de-capacitated and unable to respond comes with great risk for us. The system also has to respond to the very legitimate concern of the developing world for a global financial system more adapted to their needs. Otherwise, we risk the creation of alternative power centres. In these, we will not only have less influence, the global system we in a way built and modelled on our beliefs and experiences risk being sidelined. It is in this vacuum that BRICS, led by China and Russia starts to thrive.
We need a functioning global normative system adapted to the enormity of the new threats- climate change, biodiversity, nuclear proliferation. One that provides economic rights for those furthest behind, justice to victims, sanctions against the violators. In the context of current conflicts and very severe global tensions this seems very difficult to achieve. But again: the EU must lead. We cannot allow a further division between us and the developing world.
So yes, morale is not high right now. However, the good news is that many countries of the world, a majority I would say, are as keen as we are to have a system of accountability also internationally. They want to have deeper relations with the EU.
I also think most people, especially the youth in the world, would choose our system and us as a partner, if they were free to choose. Migrants do not flock to Russia or China – they seek a better future here or in the US.
So we have something to offer. The societal model based on rights is one that people aspire to across the globe. We also have leverage. Countries want to trade with us, they want visa-free travel to our region, they want our technologies, our budget support and investments. We just need to find the stamina and confidence to stand up for what we believe in our response to their aspiration. We need to build realistic and creative partnerships where human rights are centre-stage. No one is as vocal, credible and consistent as the EU is. But, we need to do better, see what works, how we do it and above all not underestimate our weight and our leverage – just as Anna Lindh taught us.
WHY
The Strategic logic why promotion of democracy and human rights in every way is in our interest.
We are in an era of growing transactionalism in foreign policy. It would be a huge mistake to take this to mean that the EU would no longer stand up for and promote human rights and democracy. Human rights cannot just be left as an afterthought to feel good about ourselves, but must be fully integrated and at the center of our foreign policy aspiration. We need to be clear about how our model is different from that of China. We stand right in the middle of a systemic rivalry between authoritarianism and an international rules-based order anchored in human rights. At this juncture in time it is more than ever in our strategic interest to work with partners. Often this will be slow and bumpy- but the direction of travel needs to be supported.
Think of it this way, if we compete with China in providing unconditional support to authoritarian human rights violators we will lose. If we instead work with those countries to gradually open up civil society, accelerate gender equality and inclusion of youth, people will have gradually a bigger say. And with such freedoms comes the right to choose and in most cases they will choose to partner with us. Nelson Mandela’s praise for the countries in the west, including not least Sweden, who stood up for the oppressed South Africans still resonates.
Looking at the decline in democracy around the world with more countries moving in an authoritarian rather than a democratic direction (V-dem report) could give the impression that our model is losing popular support, but you need to look closer. The most recent Open Society Barometer shows that 86% of the participants from all parts of the world, democracies as well as autocracies, prefer to live in a democracy. We offer something many crave for. Modernity and a certain trust between leaders and the population. A way to social cohesion that brings stability and freedoms. If people can choose, they will choose our model and us as a partner. So we need to promote their right to choose, their rights and their freedoms. And for this we need to make our offer attractive to world leaders from partner countries around the world.
Far too often I meet European officials who are too afraid of the human rights agenda coming in the way of a strategic partnership with country X. I remind them that:
1.) Usually the other country also wants something from us, after all, we are the biggest single market in the world, and
2.) No major player respects someone who doesn’t come with their own demands.
HOW
OK so I hope I have made the argument of what we should focus on. But as so often, in the end it is not about the WHAT but about the HOW.
Making our offer of a rules-based world order attractive requires getting several things right- our instruments, our credibility and not least our tone when we address human rights.
In terms of tone this means that we need to broaden the way we speak about human rights and challenge outdated dichotomies between human rights and development, freedom and stability, the West and the rest. We need to show not only in action, through our extensive development cooperation, but in words that we give equal importance to economic rights as to political. This is not a matter of dropping the ball on civil and political rights. It is being attentive to the legitimate concerns and interests of partners. We used to say – all in the same boat – fact is we are in different boats on the same sea. Covid showed that our boats are so much more solid than the ones of the poorer countries.
Some may believe that the most important skill of a diplomat is to be well spoken. I would argue that the most important skill of a successful diplomat is the ability to listen. Listening to the extent that you truly understand the interests and constraints of your counterpart. Whether in the UN Security Council or in Human Rights Dialogue with Turkmenistan we need to lecture less and focus on where there is an opening for progress. You might be surprised to hear that it can actually bear results. We need to start off by getting a foot in the door.
This is not to be misunderstood as compromising with our values, nor being quiet or apologetic in the face of violations. It is about using our leverage in a clear but calibrated manner for the promotion of human rights. I am certain that we have more leverage than we understand. The influence is highest in our neighbourhood – the enlargement process is unique in its demands for reforms including on democracy. Our market is huge, visa liberalization is attractive and our budget support, macrofinancial support, free trade agreements, lending mechanisms, investment and credit facilities, global gateway initiatives, debt relief, GSP+ and EBA-programmes are all things that most countries aspire to get a piece of. In all these areas, democracy and human rights have to be central tenets to our offer. Not only is it in our interest, it is what is expected from us- by our domestic public opinion, by oppressed people around the world and even by autocratic leaders.
We are already doing this is several areas. Trade agreements and demands of sustainable business is another. The EU has made mandatory for large companies to ensure due diligence throughout their global value chains for products to be traded in Europe. New legislation is under way that will make sure that forced labour is not acceptable if you want to access the large European market.
We have no reason to be shy about our offer. Rather, we should use this leverage more. But we have to understand that it builds on our credibility. There is nothing more important to the ability of the EU to promote human rights globally than our own credibility. Right now our credibility is questioned, especially by those who oppose and fear a stronger influence for Europe. – but not only them.
Not only has Russia brought war to our direct vicinity. They are using different forms of hybrid warfare from cyberattacks to disinformation campaigns to test our ability to stand up for the values we adhere to. Belarus and Russia are using migrants as another weapon in their hybrid attacks against the European Union. While our defence against any threats against us has to be solid, so does our defence of the global system, of international humanitarian law and human rights. Whatever we do to respond we cannot violate international law and obligations in the process. I am convinced that doing so would undermine our ability to defend the world we wish to live in.
As President Obama said when he received the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo “I, like any leader, reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend my nation. Nonetheless I am convinced that adhering to standards strengthen those who do and isolates – and weakens – those who don’t.”
Conclusion
So Anna Lindh was right. Promoting Human Rights is fundamental is a cure to many of the world’s ailments. It is in our strategic interest that more countries accept this road and that their people fully enjoy their rights. We have considerable leverage.
Given the elections in the US we have even stronger responsibility to be the global force for human rights. Engagement is usually better than isolation. Clarity better than dithering.
Leaders need to be held to account. Personal engagement and enlightened leadership starting at home matters.EU must lead the way – no one else can be entrusted. To have impact we must also hold EU and ourselves to account. And finally – indeed the outlook is dire. But there is hope.
Le Callejon tiene Salida. You, the youth and a majority of countries actually share our vision of rights, freedoms, equality and cooperation over borders. If we do not get up in the morning to stand up for what is right – the world would be in an even more difficult spot. Thank you.