Cecilia Malmström and Her Work in Europe
Cecilia Malmström is a Swedish politician who looks after Sweden’s interests in the European Union. In the following she reflects on her career path and on matters of international policy regarding immigration and trade.
Please tell us about your upbringing and career path.
I was brought up in Sweden and France. The part of my childhood spent in France was particularly formative. I remember having friends in school whose grandparents were lost in the Second World War. I recall field trips to endless war cemeteries with simple but worthy graves in memory of the people that sacrificed their lives in these gruesome wars. I think these experiences shaped my view of Europe at an early stage: The notion that the atrocities Europe had suffered must never be repeated.
After this I went on to study and work in Europe, notably France, Spain and Germany. I later pursued an academic career and achieved a PhD in Political Science. Perhaps it comes as no surprise that the topic of my dissertation was regional European political parties and movements.
Having been very active in the campaign leading up to the Swedish referendum on whether to join the EU, I became a Member of the European Parliament in 1999. Between the years 2006 and 2009 I was the Swedish Minister of European Affairs. And for the past ten years I’ve been a European Commissioner – first for Migration and Home Affairs, and currently for Trade.
Soon after taking office, President Trump pulled the United States out of the negotiations with the European Union for the planned Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). How do you see the future trade relationship between the US and the EU evolving?
It was a hard blow to the EU when the US introduced its steel and aluminium tariffs last year. Not least, the supposed motive behind these tariffs was unpleasant for us – that they were imposed on grounds of national security. Twenty-two out of 28 EU member states are NATO members. To have their exports of steel and aluminium to the US declared as a security threat was rather surreal and also offensive, as we consider the transatlantic partnership very important. Even for countries like Sweden, which is not a member of NATO, this was all very strange. I am sure this was also the case for other US partners affected, such as Japan, Canada, Mexico, Norway and South Korea. Not to mention the idea that our car exports are also under consideration as a potential threat to US national security. That is just absurd.
Last summer, the Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker and I went over to the White House and met President Trump and my counterpart, the United States Trade Representative Robert E. Lighthizer. The two Presidents agreed on a joint statement which set out a positive trade agenda. Specifically, we agreed to explore regulatory cooperation and a limited industrial-goods-only trade agreement. On the regulatory cooperation we are making progress. But the negotiations to eliminate tariffs on industrial goods have not started yet.
My hope is that we can get back to working together on global challenges, like we have done rather successfully ever since the Second World War. I become very concerned by some of the things the US President is tweeting about the EU – that “the EU was created to take advantage of the US”. If anything, the US helped rebuild Europe after World War II and helped build institutions like the EU, because it was in US interest to have a strong and democratic Europe.
Immigration has been an important subject in your work, and Sweden has suffered much negative publicity abroad for its recent immigration and asylum policies. Is Sweden making progress in assimilating the asylum-seekers and reducing the crime rate allegedly committed by them?
I am proud of the fact that Sweden honoured its international obligations during the migrant crisis in 2015. Sweden provided shelter for hundreds of thousands of people in need, mainly fleeing the atrocities and humanitarian catastrophe in Syria.
There is no evidence that these asylum-seekers of 2015 are committing crimes to a larger extent than the average population. At the same time, it is clear that Sweden has a problem of segregation. We also see an increase in gang-related crimes and radicalization in extremist religious and political camps. But it is important to be precise when you speak about these issues. Migrants and asylum-seekers are not in any way a homogenous group of people. Unfortunately, it all too often sounds like that were the case in the public debate. Some groups are extremely well integrated. Others less integrated. A good predictor is often to look at the situation in the countries they are fleeing. In places like Somalia, there has been conflict and unrest for such a long time. That erodes the institutions that build a society. It robs civilians of possibilities such as education and formal employment. Compare that to Bosnia and former Yugoslavia, which was in no way a perfect democracy before the civil war, but was not chaos either. I think it is clear which group will have a harder time to integrate on average.
As in almost all Western European countries, the issue of integration has been at the top of the political agenda for a long time. But are we making progress? I think we are, but one always needs to try to do it better. It is also difficult to work constructively on this in a time of such political polarization and xenophobia.
Considering your vast experience in international politics, in which areas do you feel Sweden contributes most globally?
Sweden contributes with best practices in many global challenges. Environment, gender equality, poverty eradication and good governance just to name a few. In my current policy area – international trade – Swedes are seen as keen defenders (too keen, according to some) of free trade.
How do you think the image of Sweden is changing and developing internationally, and particularly in North America?
Sweden is punching well above our weight in terms of cultural, political and economic exports. We have many world-renowned fashion brands, car brands, diplomats, artists and writers. I certainly think that helps to keep a good image of Sweden not only in North America, but also globally.
In your view, how has Sweden achieved its socio-economic successes by international standards, despite being such a small country population-wise?
One could write several books on that topic, and many already have. There are of course many reasons behind this. I think in part Sweden has done well because of good institutions and good governance. Corruption is very low. Trust between citizens, and from citizens towards government, is very high. This creates a strong democracy based on the rule of law, which is in turn very important for a well-functioning market economy with fair outcomes. It is also a country where active policies have created opportunities for marginalized groups. Free universities make tertiary education available for most people, also those who are less well off. Affordable day care and individual taxation creates incentives and opportunities for women to take part in the labour force.
Sweden has also done remarkably well in industries related to its natural resources. Ever since industrialization, Sweden has been a small open economy dependent on exports, with many global companies despite our small size. For example, I used to work in SKF, the world’s largest manufacturer of bearings, headquartered in my hometown Gothenburg. Furthermore, Sweden has been good in managing these resources in a sustainable way. Forestry is a prime example.
Are there any current or upcoming projects or events that you would like to highlight?
End of September, I will hold a big conference in Brussels on women and trade. We know that women do not reap the benefits of trade to the same extent as men. However, we do not have in-depth knowledge of the reasons behind this. I have therefore called this conference to discuss these issues further, and to come up with policies on how to make trade policy more inclusive.
Interviewed by Peter Berlin
