Kajsa Ollongren, the European Union’s special representative for human rights, has her work cut out for her as the bloc’s top representative for promoting human rights and democracy.
In the United States, senior White House figures such as Vice President J.D. Vance have taken the unusual step of accusing European nations of backsliding on democracy and free speech as well as strongly criticizing immigration into the continent. It’s no idle talk, either—the State Department reportedly discussed funding right-wing think tanks in Europe and pressed European officials in lower-level meetings on the subject of free speech.
Meanwhile, in Europe, intergovernmental organizations and human rights groups have documented substantial evidence that Russia has committed war crimes and crimes against humanity in Ukraine, including the abduction of thousands of Ukrainian children. In the Middle East, a new war against Iran has broken out even as the embers of the war in Gaza still burn.
Ollongren is no stranger to a tough geopolitical situation—as a former defense minister for the Netherlands, she helped spearhead support to Ukraine in its current war against Russia.
In an interview on March 5, Ollongren defended the European Union’s record on democracy—but also outlined where the EU and United States could partner, as well as detailed her concerns on Ukraine, Iran, and Gaza.
This interview has been edited for clarity and length.
Foreign Policy: You had a meeting with U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Riley Barnes, whose office has criticized the EU, during this current visit to the United States. What can you tell me about that meeting?
Kajsa Ollongren: I met him already—he came to Brussels [in] early January, after he was confirmed and after the shutdown was solved. I thought that was a really good gesture to come to Brussels and to talk to me and others.
I think Barnes is a really good interlocutor; he takes human rights seriously. So we have been able to engage on topics where we agree. For instance, when we talk about Ukraine, we talk a lot about Ukrainian children, and how we can cooperate on that to improve the chances to get the children back and to do what is necessary to prepare for their return.
And I think we also agree that we should be able, from both sides, to raise issues that we feel we are concerned about. So I think that is really positive, the fact that we have this dialogue going between us.
For instance, we also discussed the new rules for funding that the U.S. State Department has under the new Mexico City policy [which restricts U.S. funding of organizations promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion policies]. It’s important because we might be able to find some common ground there as well. [The State Department] might be less strict in the interpretation so that it does not hinder us from continuing to fund certain organizations.
FP: On the Ukraine children issue—what is your assessment of that situation, and how can the United States be helpful?
KO: I think the U.S. can be very helpful, especially because the U.S. is at the table with Russia—we are not. And I think it has to be a hard ask from the U.S. side, when talking about a cease-fire, that Russia agrees to return these children.
And the other thing is that we have to jointly make sure that we support Ukraine in their documentation of these children. Even for those who might not be able to return, it’s important for everybody to be able to assess your origins and to be sure of “where did I come from.”
I know that the [U.S.] first lady, [Melania Trump], has taken up this topic on the European side. Also, the president of the European Commission is very engaged in this. So I think there is a coalition of countries that care about this issue that are also able to reach out to other countries. For instance, the Gulf states have been quite successful in having children returned to Ukraine. This is really a joint effort.
FP: There was reportedly a version of a Ukraine-Russia peace plan that included amnesty for all war crimes. Do you have any concerns about that?
KO: Well, it was only in the [United States’] initial 28[-point] plan, then it disappeared, I think because we were very, very much pressuring to get it [taken] out. But also, it was not acceptable for Ukraine.
We know that Russia has committed war crimes in Ukraine, and there can never be amnesty for war crimes. There should not be impunity for any of these crimes, because we know from other experiences that if there is impunity, at some point the whole conflict will start again.
FP: Switching tack, the U.S. National Security Strategy did not identify Russia as a particularly large threat to Europe; instead, it talked about threats to democracy in Europe. What is your response to that?
KO: That is also a reason for me to come here and to engage with people who want to talk about this. Democracy is thriving—there is no issue with democracy. We have elections all the time. We have all kinds of different coalitions and governments. So we don’t have a democracy issue.
We also do not have a free speech issue. Human rights—the universality of human rights—is part of the fundamentals under the European Union.
FP: Do you see immigration to the European Union as a threat to human rights, as some in the Trump administration have argued?
KO: No. Immigration is something we are very used to, throughout the centuries. I’m Dutch, personally—we’ve always had immigrants. We’ve had Catholics, we’ve had Jews, we’ve had all kinds of groups coming to our country, and also people from Turkey and Morocco in the [19]60s and the ’70s.
Of course, the world has become smaller, so it’s easier to come from one side of the world to the other. Wars and hunger and climate change are forcing people to move. And, of course, that is something we want to deal with in an honest way. But I would not say that this is the top topic in Europe that we should be most concerned about.
FP: Are you worried at all by this rhetoric coming out of the State Department or the vice president, that Europe should focus on migration? Or is this just noise?
KO: [Vance’s speech at the Munich Security Conference last year] was a bit of a shock to many Europeans.
We were unaware of the fact that this was such a strong view of the administration, but since then, we have engaged and we’ve tried to get a better understanding of what is actually happening.
So I try to filter out a little bit of the political rhetoric. You have political rhetoric in Europe as well and the actual facts on the ground, which is that we will deal with the migration issue as we and the member states see fit—and that’s really our choice.
FP: There’s been reporting that the State Department is considering funding ideologically aligned right-wing think tanks in Europe. Do you see that as interfering in Europe’s right to free speech and democracy?
KO: If you support a party, for instance, by traveling to a country where elections are coming, supporting [a party], we would say it is interference. And we try to respect the democratic rules here [in the United States] as well, right?
We see a big increase in what I would call the “anti”-right movements [which oppose rights like women’s rights]. I don’t know exactly where the funding comes from, [but] that is something that I do worry about.
FP: What’s your counterargument to the U.S. on human rights?
KO: My counterargument is that, first of all, we are thriving democracies and we have lots of open debates on every issue that you can imagine.
Second, that we scrutinize ourselves. And if, for instance, the judiciary or the independence of [the] judiciary is questioned, it can have consequences. For instance, you can limit or even stop the European funding for countries, as the European Union has done in certain cases.
FP: I want to ask about Iran, but in relation to Gaza: Do you feel like it’s going to be difficult to maintain focus on two major Middle Eastern human rights crises at the same time?
KO: It was already a big issue—now it will make it even more difficult, but also even more important, so we have to continue to focus on that because it’s all connected as well.
I visited Lebanon in November. And there was this sense that since the cease-fire in Gaza and the agreement [between Israel and Lebanon] on the disarmament of Hezbollah, [it] is actually possible, perhaps, for this country to get out of this disaster. Now, Hezbollah is being activated as a proxy.
FP: On Iran, what are your major concerns?
KO: [The Iranian people] were repressed for such a long time, and now they are in this uncertainty. Regime change is difficult. We know that from other countries, so there are huge uncertainties for the future of the country. It might lead to large numbers of people leaving the country—all the things that we’ve seen happening in other countries right when there was this type of situation.
FP: U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth likes to talk about removing restrictions on U.S. forces’ rules of engagement. Do you have any concerns about the way the Pentagon has talked about the war?
KO: No, but it’s maybe too early to be able to assess that. War itself is probably the worst thing that can happen from a human rights perspective, right?
Speaking as a former defense minister, in the wars that we’ve been in with the U.S., they have applied the [rules of engagement].
FP: There’s an argument to be said that the administration’s pressure on Europe over free speech and democracy issues may be temporary, especially after the midterm elections in Congress.
Will the tension between the U.S. and Europe over human rights be a long-term issue, or is this just something the EU needs to get through?
KO: It’s too early to tell, but I do think that the awareness in Europe is that the geopolitical order has changed. The U.S. has really taken a different approach to this, and it’s not going to go away after the midterms.
I think that has really sunk in, and I think the whole Greenland disruption has also made us even more aware of this fact, so we cannot take it for granted anymore that we see eye to eye on these topics—on human rights, but also in terms of security, defense, deterrence. I do think that we in Europe have accepted that this might last.
