 I'm very pleased to welcome you for this IENA webinar and this event is part of the future of the EU 27 project which is sponsored by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. My name is Marie Cross. We're delighted to be joined today by Minister for Foreign Affairs of Sweden and Linda, and I would like to thank her for taking the time to speak to us. I know the Minister has a particularly busy schedule at the moment and will have to leave us at 12.45, but we look forward to an engaging and timely discussion in the meantime. Minister Linda will speak for approximately 15 minutes or so and then we will go to the question and answer with our audience. You will be able to join the discussion using the Q&A function on Zoom, which you should see on your screen. Please feel free to send your questions throughout the session as they occur to you and we will come to them once Minister Linda has finished her address. It would be appreciated if you could give us your name and affiliation when putting your questions. And a reminder that today's presentation and Q&A are on the record. You can join the discussion on Twitter using the handle at FIEA and we're also live streaming this morning's discussion. So very warm welcome to all of you who are tuning in via YouTube. I would now like to formally introduce Minister Linda just before I hand over to her. And Linda became Minister for Foreign Affairs of Sweden in September 2019. Her previous roles in government include Minister for Foreign Trade with responsibility for Nordic Affairs and Minister for EU Affairs and trade in 2016 to 2018. A member of the Swedish Democratic Party, Minister Linda also served as head of the International Unit of the Party of European Socialists between 2013 and 2014. And in her address to the IIEA, Minister Linda will explore Sweden's experience of the COVID-19 pandemic, including the unique features of its response in the wider European context. And she will consider the distinct implications of the crisis for gender equality issues and the particular impact that the virus containment measures have had on women. And at a global level, Minister Linda will reflect on Sweden's pioneering efforts to implement a feminist foreign policy, the first of its kind as a vehicle for sustainable development, security and peace. So Minister Linda, you are most welcome this morning and I hand over the floor or I should say in fact the screen to you. Please. Thank you very much. And as we said, I'm going to another webinar after this and that is a little bit interesting because we have a network of women foreign ministers. And we have also kept our meeting in this form and this afternoon directly after my meeting here, we will meet and discuss how the economic recovery needs to be seen through gender perspective. And it's a female minister from as different places as Spain, New Zealand, no Australia and South Africa, for example. But I'm very happy to be here at IIEA and speak at this webinar. I've had the pleasure to visit you in person and when I was Minister of EU Affairs. And it's great to join you for this discussion and share our experiences of the COVID-19 pandemic and discuss the implication of the crisis for gender quality issues. I might as well start by addressing the debate whether or not Sweden is going against the grain when it comes to managing COVID-19. Well, we have the same strategic goals as every other country and that is saving lives, slow down their outbreak, ensure that Swedish healthcare system will cope with extraordinary challenges and mitigate effects on business and jobs. Our strategy is based on social distancing, staying at home with even the slightest symptoms and protecting older and other risk groups. This is done by a mixture of strong recommendations and legally binding measures. And people are following the recommendation to a high degree. They know this is not some kind of tip that you can follow if you want to or not. As one example, during Easter holiday travels to the most popular location destinations went down with 96%. It's a fact that trade and our economy has been severely hit and the unemployment numbers are worrying. So no, it's not business as usual and we are not casual about the pandemic. In Sweden, we have slightly different governmental structure with small ministries and large autonomous agencies dating back centuries. Their luckily is a high degree of trust in the state and the autonomous agencies and some scientific advisors know this. We are used to listen to scientific advice from our expert authorities and mostly follow them. One reason is that corruption is very low. People rightly believe that recommendation is not because political or economic favors to give their advice. We do know that the virus is highly contagious and high quality health care helps. We do not know enough about mutations, immunity, second waves and the long term benefits of lockdowns or not lockdowns. In some, we should all be humble to different national strategies and focus on cooperation. The COVID-19 crisis affects men and women in different ways. Therefore, measures to resolve the crisis must take yander into account. Women and girls are in the front lines of health care and severely affected by economic decline. In addition, they are often outside social protection system. Women still bear most of the responsibility for unpaid work. And when this work is carried out by professionals, these professions are often low paid. The COVID-19 crisis has shared even more light on these grave gender-based differences. In building back after the crisis, we have a chance to ensure that measures also build back better for women and girls. Violence is the most extreme form of oppression and one of the most serious barriers to women and girls enjoyment of human rights. In the COVID-19 crisis, women and girls are at particularly at risk of becoming victims of sexual and gender-based violence. Under conditions of quarantine, women and children who live with violent and controlling men are exposed to considerably greater danger. We must ensure that women's shelters and systems are maintained and strengthened. Sweden has provided more resources to local governments and civil society groups for measures such as emergency housing, telephone health lines, etc. In addition, the COVID-19 crisis, the profession of sexual and reproductive health and rights services are at risk, including prenatal and maternal care and access to contraceptives and safe abortions. Sweden pushes for SRHR globally and has substantially international funding for these issues. In the aftermath of the COVID-19 crisis, women risk being hit harder by the economic downturn. Women's position in the labour market is less secure and women's personal finances are weaker than men's. Given these differences, it is critical that economic crisis response measures account for women's situation. Sweden will be one of the leading countries in a global action coalition on economic gender equality. Sweden has a feminist government and gender equality is at the centre of its national and international work. Sweden became the first country in the world to launch a feminist foreign policy and has also launched a feminist trade policy. Sweden's feminist foreign policy is based on the conviction that sustainable peace, security and development can never be achieved if half the world's population is excluded. It's an agenda for change and a result to strengthen the rights, representation and resources of all women and girls. Today, all countries are facing the same crisis and none will prevail over COVID-19 by acting alone. Therefore, all of us must work to ensure that this one built on solidarity and partnership. Governments, the EU and the international community must show leadership. Let me also briefly mention some of the economic long-term effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. Although we are in the middle of the immediate crisis with grave consequences for life and healthcare and an economic downturn at hand, we need to keep an eye on the important geopolitical trends and the long-term impact of COVID-19. There are three major trends we can now see and what can only be described as the worst pandemic of our time. First, with hundreds of thousands of death and natural lockdowns, we are seeing dramatic economic assessments from the IMF, WTO, ECB and our natural ministries of finance. The level of nearly newly acquired debt, the number of bankruptcies and the high unemployment number both at home and in Europe and especially the US risk growing even stronger. Secondly, I believe the critique of multilateral cooperation is damaging to our societies and the confrontation on the rhetoric between US and China is most problematic. We have seen trade wars, threats of decoupling and playing games. All of this is highly damaging for the multilateral cooperation that needs both these countries to cooperate in order to work. The UN Security Council is blocked and the WHO is caught up in geopolitics. Similarly, we do not have the luxury of putting other pressing issues on hold, such as climate change, poverty reduction, food, water, air security, migration, disarmament and antimicrobial resistance. And don't forget regional tensions in the Levant, Gulf, Yemen, Afghanistan or South China Sea. Thirdly, the EU must play a more central role now and after the end of the immediate pandemic is over. All EU member states have implemented some degree of limitations to personal freedom as a consequence of COVID-19. This is a natural important political move, but I fear that the pandemic has been an excuse for some countries, including some EU members, to take political decisions that would normally undergo parliamentary scrutiny in a way that is now impossible. It's also a fine line between self-sufficiency and protectionism, and suddenly we are talking of autonomy in Europe. I fear this is a slippery and less efficient and more expensive slope. We cannot abandon free trade as this would hurt all our economies and lives of Europeans everywhere. I fear the world is increasingly moving in the direction of greater fragmentation, something we must counter. I also fear it will take time to retake what has been lost in democracy, free trade and liberties. It's a fact that no one center of power, be it China, US, EU or India, can alone lead much less dominated world today in any area. Only by coming together will we be able to create momentum and produce global change. And that is what we would need today, monitoring, managing and curing this current threat. In recovery, the EU must make the case actively that democracy and high normative standards are good for stability, security and economic growth, even as we grapple with the current crisis. We need to keep EU together. We need to maintain strong relations with the United States. Not only for transatlantic security, on which we are all dependent, but also the US key role in multilateral institutions and as a key guardian of democracy, human rights and freedoms. I had, for example, a long and constructive talk with my American counterpart, Secretary of State Pompeo, a few weeks ago. We also need a decent dialogue with countries that we do not always agree with, including Russia and China. We need them on board and we need them to be part of the global solution. But also, within Europe, we need to work together with like-minded to maintain high standards and develop pragmatic cooperation. For Sweden, Ireland is an important partner in this regard. The same is true of the Nordics and Baltics and we feel a close affiliation to the values and interests of several other European countries. So in conclusion, now it's the time for humility and realism. Now it's the time for cooperation, compromise and a common vision. And I believe that putting a gender perspective on this crisis is essential for a full and more equal recovery. Thank you very much for listening. Thank you very much, indeed, Minister, for that wide-ranging address and encouraging for us to move forward through the pandemic and also looking to the future. I'm just wondering when you have mentioned the EU and the strength, the difficulties of the international situation where there are certain fragmentations. And I wanted to ask you, with the EU role, foreign policy role, how do you think that the EU could help bridge that gap between the US, China and indeed Russia? I know Sweden has a particular foreign policy direction on Russia. Can you see a role for the EU to take a more forward position in trying to keep the multilateral bridges intact and play a role between China and Russia and the US? Thank you. Well, actually, I think it's one of the great strategic geopolitical challenges we have now. How should the EU navigate in the midst of China, America and Russia? We see wearing signs of both US withdrawing from important international treaties like the Open Sky Treaty, which is extremely important for the security in the Baltic Sea region. And we are very, very worried for this. We see that US withdrawing from WHO, which give China more room and influence. We know, of course, the Paris Agreement and so on. And I think that in many cases, US has had legitimate things to say about Russia not following all the things in the Open Sky Treaty. China not following all the measures that need to be taken in double TO, but they take the wrong conclusion. They withdraw and start to look inwards instead of together with EU try to get the situation better or in the case of Open Sky Treaty to work together with those of us who wants to change it to the better. I think EU must be much more forward leaning when it comes to taking global responsibility. As one example, when it comes to the Middle East, I have proposed at the Foreign Affairs Minister's meeting that EU should have a special envoy for the Gulf area, that EU should have equivalent to embassy in Tehran and so on. And I think that the old cliche that EU is more of a payer than a player unfortunately has some truth in it. But one important issue is, are we unanimous in EU or are we split and fragmented? And we can see now much to my big disappointment that we are not anymore united when it comes to the Middle East, for example. We are not even united on those issues that we have agreed on. This is an issue where I work a lot together with the Irish Foreign Minister, Simon, who is a great friend and some of the others to try to get back on track, so to say. We also see when it comes to China that we have big differences in how we relate and react to China. And I think that we need to come together much more in the member state to be as strong as we could be as an European Union. Thank you. Thank you, Minister. I have some questions from the audience for you to consider. A member of the IIEA Board, Peter McLoone, has asked and it's getting back to the domestic situation in Sweden. What was the response among the Swedish population to the chief epidemiologist's comments in recent days that there was potential for improvement in what we have done in Sweden? And in hindsight, perhaps, would you consider who might consider his approach to the pandemic? Thank you very much. Well, there was some misunderstanding in the media, not at least in the international media, in the way that an academic is speaking compared to how we politicians are speaking. He was asked in a long interview if there was something that could be done differently. And he said, well, now we know so much more about the virus, so maybe it would have been possible to do something differently. But he was absolutely clear that the strategy we have was the one that he would have said we should follow, the fact that we did not close our schools up to secondary school. Absolutely, we should follow. What he said that we might have, maybe we should have started testing a little earlier, but in no way going in other ways when it comes to lockdowns and so on and so forth. And for our academia to say that if we have known before what we know now we could have used some other measures, that's nothing strange with that. And both him and many of us were extremely surprised how this was received, because it was 100% not the intention of him. And he was very, very disappointed, which he clearly stated at his press conference. Thank you. Thank you. Our Director General Michael Collins has a question. It's a bilateral question, Minister. He said some years ago Sweden closed its embassy in Dublin. Is this a decision that sometime might be considered in reverse? We have a very, very good ambassador for Ireland, but it's home based and several of our ambassadors are based in Stockholm and for the near future we would like to keep it that way. It's not that we don't have an ambassador for Ireland, it's just that we don't have the embassy. Thank you, Minister. I have a question. We read a lot. Of course there is a lot of discussion about the huge amount of EU money that's going to come for the, to get over the pandemic and also in the recovery fund. There is quite a lot of discussion ongoing about whether this package can be approved and Sweden has been labelled rightly or wrongly as one of the frugal four. What is your view about the package that is on the table now that is up for discussion on the 17th June? Thank you. Well, we have always been very, very strict on having your finances in order to pay off your national debt and we have a saying that if you're in debt, you are not free, as one of our former prime ministers said. So we are not very keen on the idea to lend so much money as is proposed, then letting our children pay the check because it's not for free to lend. We put EU in a debt situation, but we agree that we need to do something for a recovery package. So that's why we will accept that EU is going to loan money. How much or not that has to be discussed in the negotiation. We think it should be discussed in connection with the MFF. We are not very keen on getting grants. We want the countries to get loan instead, but with, of course, good conditions. And we also think that we should keep a very strict timeframe and we should not let this change the way that EU is financed so that it would be much easier for the future to loan money and put the whole EU and the member states in debt. Thank you, Minister. I have another question here from Donal Brolekorn, an IEA member. He thanks you for your presentation and you mentioned that Swedish citizens trust the small government ministries and large autonomous agencies as corruption is low. And he asks to what extent is this trust based on the 250 years of strong freedom of information which is set down in one of the basic laws and what lessons are there in this long experience for other EU member states? Well, it was already in 1600 and then 1700, 1600 and 30 I think in 1700 and something that we got our way of governing. And the reason was also that the politician shouldn't be able to have so much influence over decisions that was taken on behalf of the citizens. And already since that time it has been forbidden for a Swedish minister to interpret law or to say anything that is of a decision for an individual that is called ministerial ruling and is forbidden by law. And all government decision are taken collectively so a minister does not take government decision, it's all decision we have collectively responsibility for. And this is many foreigners think this is strange when you compare that to the system. I think the principle of public access to official document is in fact very important because there is an extremely tight scrutiny from journalists and the society. And this was one of the things that was difficult when we became members of the European Union where they don't have the same amount of openness when it comes to public access of official documents. Sometimes I think that this, it could be a little misunderstood that the ministers and government couldn't do anything that that's of course not the case. We just saw yesterday that our cabinet meeting we had had about 30 extra government meeting, taking around 80 decisions when it comes to fighting the pandemic everything from economic decision like taking away the deducting fee for the first sick day and paying a lot of recovery funds to the companies and hiring the amount of unemployment benefits that you get and so on and so forth. So, so it's not that we are, you know, not being able to take a lot of decision but the authorities also take a lot of decisions that is in other countries taken by the government or even by single minister. Thank you minister. And, as was mentioned, perhaps it might be a start some an example for some examination in the post 19 COVID-19 recovery. I have another question from column among on from our broadcasting authority, and it comes back again. It's never far away the COVID-19. It's a question again on the domestic situation for the minister clarify if Sweden is pursuing a policy of herd immunity as is has been widely reported. And if so, given that it's no means clear that herd immunity for COVID-19 is possible just to see what your view is on in that area. Thank you very much. Well, I guess I've done. Well, maybe it's 50 or 60 international interviews and you every single one of them. I have underlined we have no strategy of herd immunity. And unfortunately, because President Trump said that we had herd immunity, it seems that the extremely difficult to get this myth away. We don't have a strategy of herd immunity, but eventually we will get herd immunity because that is what happened when you have a pandemic. And that is something that will happen sooner or later. And we will see we don't know with this new virus when herd immunity will occur, but no, no herd immunity strategy in Sweden. That's that's particularly clear. And could I ask you, Minister, as I mentioned that you have very unusual feminist foreign policy and you have an action plan for them and foreign policy. Could I ask you to assess how successful this has been to date? And do you feel the COVID-19 will be an inhibition in implementing your foreign policy, this unusual foreign policy, which, as you say, is a leader internationally? Well, thank you. When we started with this about six years ago, there was a lot of laughter, not the least from from men. And now we can see how much effect it has actually had. We have several countries who has now decided to pursue feminist foreign policy. The latest country were Mexico, but we also have part or a whole in France, in Spain, in Indonesia, in Canada, and so on. We have said that you should always ask yourself, where are the women? You should look at the resources, you should look at representation, and you should look at rights for women and girls. That means that, for example, when we decide about our development cooperation, we need to put our gender lenses on. And we have now, as a result of feminist foreign policy, trained thousands and thousands of midwives as one example and worked against gender mutilation. This period, we have three priorities, is women, peace and security, is the economic and social situation for women, and is social and reproductive health and rights. And I can take one example from the women, peace and security. And that is, we know, after a lot of studies, that if women are part of peace treaty, it's more likely to be viable peace. We also know that if women are not part of the parties in their negotiations, issues like sexual violence in the conflict might not be in the treaty and might not be seen as something that should be impunity for those crimes. We want to have women in all negotiations. We asked, for example, the Yemi delegations that came to Stockholm for a United Nations-led talks on Yemen to have women in their delegation. Unfortunately, only one of the delegations managed to get one woman in. So then we together with the United Nations invited a whole group of women to stay at the same hotel, which is far, far away from the outskirts of Stockholm. So I really had to stay there for the week, meaning that those women could get their inputs, because they met all the people during the lunches and breakfast and everything. And I met the Yemeni women who have been active in peace and peace building when I, as the only minister so far, spent a full day in Aden in Yemen. And I was so impressed by their insights, their clarity, and I was really, really sure that things would be better if the women were more involved. But you have to do it consciously. And this is nothing that comes just by chance. If you don't have the gender glasses on, nothing will happen. Thank you. Your last remark, I think is particularly pertinent. Another question from Patrick Murphy, who's the chair of our IIA foreign policy group. Would Sweden still characterize itself as neutral, or would you say you have a special relationship with NATO? Thank you. Now, since roughly 20 years ago, we changed our security policy from neutrality to military non-aligned. So we are military non-aligned with a close partnership with NATO and with buy and multilateral agreement. For example, we have an agreement in the defence area between Sweden, Finland and the United States. We have a special relationship together with Finland, with NATO. Sweden and Finland has a special relationship. And that is how we build our security. There is no plan and there is no public majority for NATO membership. Thank you. Sweden and Ireland work together very well in military missions abroad, both in the UN and in the EU, and we appreciate that very much. I have a couple of further questions and I know time is getting short. I have a question from our communications director, Hannah DC. How do you see, minister, the future of the convention on the future of Europe, whether it can take place? Do you feel it's going to be worthwhile or with the health restrictions will that be difficult? This is the conference on the future of Europe, which Ursula von der Leyen has proposed, where citizens' views would be listened to throughout all of the EU. It was supposed to start in May, but now it was obviously then postponed perhaps until September. Do you feel that this will be a useful exercise? First, let me say hello, Hannah. It's a dear friend of mine, so hope you're well. Well, I think it's a very interesting idea and I think that we could see in several cases where EU has really seriously have dialogue with their citizens. It has worked, for example, the issue of social protocol. There was tens and tens and thousands of ideas coming from ordinary citizens all over Europe that could be used in a constructive way. Sometimes it's difficult because you raise hopes among citizens that the ideas should lead to concrete changes in, for example, the status of EU or what EU should do. And then if that is not fulfilled, there could be disappointments. So I think it's very, very important on how you do these things so that you get ideas, opinions that they are being managed in a good way, but that you don't give the hopes that now you will change a lot that from the beginning you know that you will not do. Then there could be a backlash. I have been experienced that first hand when we had our referendum on EU, when we invited to a big conference for citizens and then we promised to publish a lot of things and we couldn't fulfill the expectations of many people. So the way you do it, I think it's very important. Thank you very much, Minister. We have just a few more minutes left. I wanted to ask a question of my own. I think there is a huge upset internationally at the level of domestic violence which you highlighted in your talk during the pandemic. The figures are horrifying and astonishing. Do you have any proposal that states can deal with this situation that has emerged particularly during the pandemic? You have looked at it in great detail and you with colleagues, other foreign ministers, have you come to the conclusion that there are measures that could be taken by states individually that can deal more firmly with this situation? Well, I think that the most important thing is to provide more resources and that should be for telephone health lines, for sheltered housing. In different countries they have also come up with ideas, as for example in France, when they saw that the domestic violence was in the rise, they had a campaign so that you should be able to, when you were getting recipes from the pharmacies, you could write a specific number so that the pharmacies know that this is a woman who needs help without them having to say something. So it is possible, but sheltered housing, telephone health lines, we have provided an extra 10 million euro for this, because of the pandemic here in Sweden. And also to see to people around to look out for this, to have awareness campaigning that this can happen and that people need to be extra aware of women in their immediate circles. And then ask, is everything alright or okay, because we know that this is happening in many, many games. That's also reason why we kept our schools open for child abuse, because we got the expert advice that there is not much idea when it comes to hindering the virus to close the schools. And one effect would be that the children in homes with child abuse, they have kind of a safe haven in the schools. And that was one of the aspects when we decided that we should not close the schools in Sweden. Thank you Minister. I think we are up against the time slot and as you said you have a very important meeting to attend. Thank you for your address and thank you for raising the issues and bringing to our attention the very important policy initiatives that Sweden has taken. I think we should wish you well in the action plans that you have put in place and in the forward actions that you are taking with your colleague foreign ministers, both male and female. And we look forward to cooperating with you in this regard and hopefully to seeing you again in the future. Thank you again for your address and best wishes. Thank you very much. My pleasure. If anybody got any interesting in the feminist foreign policy, just Google it and you can download a whole brochure of what we have done the last five years. Maybe get some inspiration also for Ireland. Thank you very much. Thank you very much indeed.