Reporting from the Council of Europe meeting on October 26-27

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! It was in a somber atmosphere that the European Council met during Thursday and Friday of the week before last. There were many difficult issues on the agenda, but it was the crisis in the Middle East, Russia's war against Ukraine, the budget review, and migration that were in focus.

Reporting from the Council of Europe meeting on October 26-27

There is a fundamental European consensus on some basic issues in the Middle East. Firstly: Hamas is a terrorist organization whose unbridled violence against ordinary children, youth, women, and men is an atrocity of historical proportions. Secondly: Israel has the right to defend itself. Thirdly: International law must be respected and humanitarian access guaranteed. Fourthly: We have a responsibility to avoid escalation. Fifthly: We seek a two-state solution. On these points, the European Union is in agreement.

But at the same time, it is no secret that the member states, for historical and other reasons, have completely different views on Israel and Palestine and different views on the situation in the Middle East. This was also manifested in a long discussion about the exact wording of the European Council's call for humanitarian access. This disagreement also recurred later when the EU's member states, a few hours later and in a completely different context, voted in three different ways in the UN General Assembly. This disagreement over the Middle East is, as said, not new, and very little suggests that decades-old differences of opinion would disappear right now.

A fundamentally new ingredient, however, is this that in several countries these conflicts are no longer at all solely about conflicts in the Middle East but increasingly about the Middle East at home and how the Middle East is used as a shield for entirely other messages - so even in Sweden, Denmark, Germany and France, to name a few countries. We see demonstrations and actions in support of Hamas terror, both on Swedish and on other European countries' streets. We see and hear pure and simple antisemitism and clearly violence-promoting messages that create concern and fear among many Jewish families in our country and in other European countries.

I was not the only Prime Minister at the European Council who was deeply concerned about this development - and even worse, after the terrorist attack against Swedes in Brussels just a few weeks ago. My message at the European Council was this, and I say it again in this chamber: In a democracy like ours, it is completely legitimate to have completely different views on the conflicts in the Middle East and in other parts of the world, but it is completely unacceptable to bring these conflicts here and spread hateful and antisemitic messages against Jews in Sweden. The government will combat hate, threats, and terror romanticism with full force and unequivocally stand up for the Jewish minority's right to live a Jewish life in Sweden. I cannot emphasize enough in this chamber how important that issue is.

Madam Speaker! Ukraine was also on the agenda, and just as many times before, President Zelenskyy participated via video link. The very broad support for Ukraine was manifested once again, and many underlined that the EU must not let the crisis in the Middle East lead to a declining commitment to the war against Ukraine. The EU must be able to manage having several thoughts in its head at the same time.

The discussion on the budget review this time was about the declaration of positions, not about negotiations. They will likely come to the meeting in December. I outlined the Swedish starting points which have very broad support in the Riksdag. Firstly, a predictable and sustained support for Ukraine is the actual and central issue in the upcoming negotiation. Secondly, the budget framework must not be touched. New priorities, such as the in itself necessary reinforcement of the EU's external border if the EU is to be able to stop a new, uncontrollable wave of migration, must be financed through reallocations within the existing budget framework. Thus, Sweden and other member states are forced to do in their own national budgets, and so must it also be for the EU.

As everyone can understand, the discussion became fragmented. It reflected all the different perspectives prevailing among the member states, relatively often governed by whether one is a net contributor or a net recipient to the overall budget – nothing new there, of course. Many countries supported our line to reprioritize and not provide new funds. Perhaps most clearly was the support from Germany, but also from Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands and Austria. Continued close cooperation between those of us who both want to stand up for continued support for Ukraine and be frugal with the member states' money is therefore necessary.

Madam Speaker! Regarding migration, I can say that the focus in that issue, just as before, lay partly on the negotiations within the migration pact, and partly on immediate measures to much better than today protect the EU's external border.

During the meeting, I also thanked my colleagues for all the support they have shown us in Sweden after the terror attack in Brussels at the beginning of October. Before the meeting, we also raised, from the Swedish side, the need for cooperation within the EU to better combat cross-border terrorism than today. It is about sharing information between countries' law enforcement agencies to detect people who are dangerous. It is also about strengthening the EU's external border and significantly increasing the return of migrants who do not have the right to stay within the EU's borders.

Only in Sweden do 27,000 people currently live with legally binding decisions that they must leave the country, and in Belgium over 100,000. Some of these are obviously dangerous individuals. This is completely unsustainable. Europe's countries need to have much better control over who comes here and who is here, and that those who should not be here also leave Sweden and other European countries. The problem is cross-border, and the EU can play a completely decisive role here.

Sweden received support for the cooperation against terrorism to be intensified. The work is now being taken forward in several different tracks. Among other things, negotiations on measures against money laundering and terrorist financing continue. Also, the negotiations on the firearms regulation, which regulates the import of weapons from third countries as well as the transit of weapons within the EU, continue. The Commission is also to propose a modernization of EU legislation against migrant smuggling in December.

At the meeting, conclusions on the Western Balkans, Armenia-Azerbaijan and the Sahel were adopted, essentially without discussion. The EU's adopted negotiating position ahead of COP 28 was also accepted.

At the euro summit, the President of the European Central Bank, Christine Lagarde, gave her view of the economic situation in the EU. She noted a continued weak economy but some signs of recovery, both a falling inflation and an expected slowly rising growth. Also, Europe's strong labor market, with the lowest unemployment in modern times, is a strength in otherwise difficult times.

In the margins of the meeting, I met Donald Tusk, who after the election in Poland is hoped to have the parliamentary conditions to be able to form the next Polish government. I also met Finland's Prime Minister Petteri Orpo and Estonia's Prime Minister Kaja Kallas. We went into detail regarding what we now know and do not know about the damaged gas and data cables in the Baltic Sea between our three countries.

Lastly, Madam Speaker, I just want to say a few words about the rather collegial atmosphere that prevails even in tough times at EU summits. While I myself, with this European Council, have attended every meeting for exactly one year, it was at the meeting that one person left the leadership circle after having attended every meeting for ten years. Luxembourg's Prime Minister Xavier Bettel is a true friend of Sweden. He is a devoted enthusiast for also the Swedish part of Melodifestivalen - just one such thing. He has probably been to more clubs and bars here than I have even read about or heard of. And three years ago, he was a presenter at the big QX gala here in Stockholm.

Under his leadership, Luxembourg has opened up marriage even for same-sex couples and introduced constitutional protection for same-sex marriages and rainbow families. He is a very appreciated colleague. I and the Swedish government do not interfere in Luxembourg's domestic policy, but it would not surprise me at all if we are going to see much more of him in European politics even in the future.

With that, Madam Speaker, the report from the summit is concluded.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Matilda Ernkrans (S)

Madam Speaker! It was inevitable that the summit nearly two weeks ago would be dominated by the conflict between Israel and Hamas, a conflict that unfortunately only worsens with each passing day. It is welcome that the EU's leaders, despite the different perspectives that exist on the issue, managed to agree on a statement that they continue to push for the hostages to be released, that they work for humanitarian pauses in Gaza and that they do everything to prevent an escalation of the conflict in the region. Europe's leaders must jointly be able to show that both Israelis and Palestinians have the same right to life in safety, peace and freedom.

Before the summit, the Prime Minister said that he would discuss with the EU leaders how the EU can become better at working against organized crime. It is indeed very commendable that the Prime Minister finally took that chance. I have previously raised the question of an initiative to stop the smuggling of narcotics into European ports. It is an initiative in which several EU countries participate, including the Netherlands, Spain, and France. Swedish ports are, as is known, increasingly exposed to large-scale narcotics smuggling. Is the Prime Minister aware of this initiative, and what is the Prime Minister's view on Sweden potentially participating in it?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! Narcotics in themselves were not at the top of the agenda at the summit. However, we discussed in broader terms all the cross-border crime that now affects virtually all of Europe's countries. There, weapons and narcotics, as well as human smuggling, are important parts. We therefore did not discuss narcotics specifically at this summit.

However, it is quite obvious that narcotics are one of the many things that finance the large gangs. In Swedish terms, we usually point out that narcotics are an important part, but it is not by any means the largest part. Narcotics, alongside fraud, tax crimes, organized economic crime, and much more, are what finance the gangs. I view all cooperation across borders to limit those types of dangers positively.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Matilda Ernkrans (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Prime Minister, for the answer! It is impossible to escape the fact that narcotics are an important source of income for the Swedish gangs and that the importation is increasing in Swedish ports. I truly mean that we should seize all opportunities to work jointly with other EU countries to stop the drugs. That opportunity was there for the Prime Minister, together with other EU leaders. The Prime Minister could have raised this issue on the table when you met at the summit two weeks ago. Then one could also have raised this initiative, and one might also have been able to give notice as to whether Sweden intends to participate in it.

I want to ask again whether the Prime Minister is aware of this initiative and whether the Prime Minister really thinks that we are doing enough to remove the drive behind the gang murders.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! The Swedish gang murders were unfortunately discussed in the Council because everyone has heard horror stories about how badly things are going in Sweden. They are asking what Sweden has failed at for such a long time. But the exact ingredients for the division were not significantly present in the discussion, and the narcotics issue is large in all countries. Let me point that out.

I know that you are particularly interested in the narcotics part. There are strong reasons to fight narcotics. All of Europe's countries have problems with narcotics, but it is only Sweden that has these problems with organized crime where people shoot each other dead. No other country has these problems.

I do not think, therefore, that one should exaggerate the importance of drugs. It is a subset of all the money that finances serious organized crime.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Madam Speaker! There is a recorded conversation between the Israeli army and Hamas that I think summarizes the war currently underway in a fairly good way. The Israeli military calls to warn that they will bomb a certain building and asks Hamas to please evacuate the civilians who are there. Hamas, however, refuses to do this and says: We want them to die, because that is how we show the world who you are.

The suffering that Palestinian civilians are being subjected to right now is part of Hamas's strategy. Hamas knows that they cannot defeat Israel militarily. The strategy instead consists of using civilian human shields to cause death and suffering and, in that way, inflame public opinion in the neighboring countries to get them to enter the war.

The risks of this are obvious. If Hamas succeeds in getting Hezbollah to attack, Israel must respond in Lebanon, and this in itself would probably draw in both Syria and Iran into the war. The consequences of this would naturally be completely devastating.

Against that background, it is at least regrettable that the EU's own institutions are not quite able to see through this strategy. For example, 800 EU diplomats signed a letter of protest in which they refer to a massacre of civilians on the Gaza Strip. Such a letter should naturally be addressed to Hamas and not to Israel. Charles Michel, the Council President, repeated completely uncritically the claim that Israel had bombed a hospital and killed 500 people, something we know is a lie spread by Hamas precisely to inflame public opinion and force more countries into the war.

I would therefore like to ask the Prime Minister if he agrees with me that there is a risk that the EU's own institutions exacerbate the situation by failing to see through Hamas's strategy.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! I do not think we should overestimate the risk that the EU's institutions will worsen the situation. Nor should one have any exaggerated expectations that the EU is a global leader in this context.

As I said: There are significant parts where the EU is in agreement. These are not small things. Hamas is a terrorist organization. Israel has the right to defend itself. Defense must take place within international law. It is about humanitarian access, about a two-state solution, and about releasing the hostages.

All these things are important. They should not be underestimated. But as I said: It does not change the fact that there are very many different national and historically anchored loyalties and considerations to take into account in this situation. Therefore, I do not think we should exaggerate when it comes to the EU.

Quite a few have written about this. In light of the EU's impressive stance during Russia's ongoing war against Ukraine, the EU has become an important actor, very cohesive and united. Here, the consensus is not as great. It is only to be noted, but I do not think it should diminish the fact that we agree on a number of things. We stand where we stand, I would say.

Sweden does not have any serious or extensive influence over the situation in the Middle East. Sweden has done what we have done with the council conclusions that now exist and which have practically existed since 2009, during the previous Swedish presidency. But we shall not exaggerate our influence over other European countries' positions on issues regarding the Middle East.

It is truly both. We will probably have to live with the fact that it is that way.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank you very much for the answer. Yesterday, a video was published showing a couple of alleged members of Fatah, who describe how they participated in the terror invasion on October 7 and how they were involved in indiscriminately killing civilians.

Fatah is, therefore, the organization that rules in the West Bank, not in the Gaza Strip. Unlike when it comes to Hamas, there is completely open Swedish support for Fatah. It is a long-term support that covers very much money. Fatah is listed as one of Sida's and the Olof Palme Centre's partner organizations within the so-called democracy support. It is a bit ironic considering that they have not allowed any democratic elections in 19 years.

However, there is an opportunity here for Sweden to act immediately - from the government's side. Will the Prime Minister intervene and ensure that the Swedish support to Fatah is stopped immediately if it turns out that the information that Fatah participated in the attack on October 7 is correct?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! First, for the sake of form, I want to say that Swedish specific aid was not up for discussion at the European Council summit. It may seem strange, but that was the case. There are many things about Sweden that are not discussed at various European summits. On the other hand, there are many countries that have paused aid, including Sweden, however not the humanitarian aid.

When it comes to the aid that is directed through the party-politically linked aid organizations, one must direct the question directly to those who influence and control this.

We have now seen to pausing the Swedish development aid for a review, so that those funds do not go to things they should not go to. And the other day we expanded the humanitarian aid to people in distress in Gaza.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Madam Speaker! At the center of the political debate right now are Israel's bombings of Gaza and its ongoing military operations directed against Hamas but which obviously hit the 2.3 million Palestinians who live and reside in Gaza.

Gaza has been an open-air prison since 2007. Very few have had the opportunity to leave Gaza. Now it is practically impossible for both the injured and for foreign citizens. For more than four weeks, they have had great difficulty leaving Gaza. At the same time, almost no humanitarian aid is coming in.

Hamas' attack on Israeli civilians was despicable - many of us were horrified to our core. But the response from the Israeli government and military has horrified us just as much. Over 10,000 people, of whom 4,000 are children, have been killed.

Israel's bombings must be investigated, as well as all war crimes that all parties have committed. They need to be subjected to legal proceedings in the International Criminal Court, ICC. Here, Sweden has an important role to play.

The world must now increase the pressure on Benjamin Netanyahu, so that there is a ceasefire and genuine peace negotiations on a two-state solution.

I wonder what the Swedish government's line is. Is it a ceasefire? Is it humanitarian corridors? Or is it humanitarian pauses? There is an important difference, and I mean that Sweden must stand for a ceasefire.

In this situation, more UN aid workers have been killed in the attack on Gaza than during any other single conflict. In four weeks, 88 people who have worked for the UN have been killed, 5 just in the last 24 hours.

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Volker Türk, and the UN humanitarian chief, Martin Griffiths, wrote in a statement that the conflict must come to an immediate end: It has been 30 days. Enough is enough.

The Swedish government should be able to be much clearer than it is towards all of us, but above all towards Israel. I wonder what the Swedish government's opinion is regarding Israel's total blockade concerning water, food, medicine, and fuel, which is starving the people in Gaza day by day.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! Even here, for the sake of form, I want to say that the specifically Swedish government's position in these matters was not up in any other part than that our word was part of the collective team.

I described quite well what the European Union has agreed on at this summit. It was nothing new. The unity is important. Sweden stands fully and completely behind that unity. But there are, as I said, also significant nuances. It was nothing more than what I have said.

One of the nuances, of course, concerns where the emphasis is placed. Some say it like this: Hamas's bestial attack was indeed just bestial, but now all the light should be directed towards what Israel is doing.

I would not put the emphasis there. I would put the emphasis on that Israel has the right to defend itself against precisely that kind of attempted extermination that the terrorist organization is carrying out, with the support of some helping hands who display horrific posters that essentially imply that Jews should be removed from that entire part of the world.

One must have the basics clear in mind in this.

I nevertheless land on the conclusion: No one can yet judge the overall result here. It is quite obvious that Hamas wanted a violent attack in return. It is quite obvious that they use civilians as shields. It is quite obvious that it is difficult to operate in such terrain. But just as obvious is that Israel has an obligation to follow international law and to provide humanitarian access. That is where the EU stands, and that is where the Swedish government stands. It is neither more nor less than that.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Madam Speaker! That the Hamas attack was brutal, the Prime Minister and I agree. It has been a month since it occurred. It is time for Hamas to release the hostages, so that we can reach an end to the hostage situation that exists.

But, Madam Speaker, I get no answer as to whether the Swedish government wants to see a ceasefire. It would, after all, be best from a humanitarian perspective, regardless of where one places the blame, if Israel stopped bombing Palestinians who live and reside in Gaza. The Prime Minister will not come around.

It is good that the government has increased the humanitarian support, but the need is much greater. The UN hopes for 1.2 billion dollars. It is therefore a lot that is needed.

I wonder when the Prime Minister will reach the point where he demands a ceasefire. How many bombings of Gaza will we have to see before we get there? How many days will this continue? For me, it was probably a long time ago.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! Neither the EU nor Sweden demands a ceasefire in the sense that Israel has no right to defend itself. However, the EU, with Swedish support, demands humanitarian pauses that provide space for humanitarian aid during the ongoing fighting. That is where the EU stands, and that is where Sweden stands.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Anna Lasses (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Prime Minister, for the account and for the answers that have been given so far! First, I want to say that I think it is extremely pleasing and reassuring to hear that the support for Ukraine remains strong and stable. I hope that it will continue to be so within the EU. I also think it is good that one has nevertheless found this unity when it comes to the conflict in the Middle East.

I am, so to speak, twisting and turning how I should get across what I actually want to say. Fundamentally, I do agree with what the Prime Minister says regarding the conflict itself, that is, when one looks back regarding the Jewish right and, of course, also regarding the actual humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza.

It is good that that consensus exists, but what preparedness does the EU actually have to ensure that the humanitarian pauses and corridors and so on are upheld? How does one think further, beyond what has been said today? That was the one question.

The second question concerns exactly what the Prime Minister touched upon, namely the avalanche-like increasing wave of antisemitism that we are now seeing. The question is actually the same: How does one within the circles of the EU intend to be able to counter this in a concrete way?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! I think the questioner describes in a very good way precisely the discussion that I believe is taking place in several European countries right now. One thing is the insight that the EU as an organization and as a community is not a large, unified actor in the Middle East. One might think that is bad, but that is how it has been for a very, very long time. It would have required greater unity on the issues at hand to be able to be a common actor.

The second thing is that one still does good, both individually and as a union. We absolutely have a shared responsibility to do what we can where we can agree as a union and to individually do what we can as individual countries. But the EU collectively is not a major actor.

When I say that we have a shared responsibility on the spot, it also implies the realization—and I believe this was shared by not least Denmark, Germany, France, the Netherlands and Belgium—that we have a one hundred percent responsibility for what happens in our own countries as a consequence of the conflict in the Middle East.

This is not entirely new. It is, however, relatively new on the scale we are seeing right now, and in that, the escalating antisemitism is undoubtedly the worst fear that exists in these countries. I think it is appalling right now. As I said, I think it is completely legitimate in a democracy to express one's opinion in orderly, democratic, and peaceful forms, even regarding conflicts that are far from where one lives - completely legitimate. But it is something completely different to direct threats and hateful expressions toward Jews living in Sweden, to be unable to see the difference between geopolitical conflicts that are very, very old in another part of the world and to express one's contempt and even threat toward Jews living in Sweden or for the most part in France, Germany, or Denmark.

It is unacceptable to a level that I can hardly express, and here we have the full responsibility ourselves, completely regardless of what happens in the Middle East.

I will never turn my gaze away from the Middle East. I and Sweden have a shared responsibility, but in Sweden, our responsibility is 100 percent.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Anna Lasses (C)

Madam Speaker! It is good to hear.

When it comes to the shared responsibility, I wonder, even if the EU will never be able to become this great power, is there still anything that the Prime Minister sees that Sweden can push for so that we can do more? That is one question.

The second question concerns our one hundred percent responsibility. I assume almost that the Prime Minister will push forward in the EU on the issue of how to take decisive action against this. Is it a discussion that will continue?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! I mentioned it explicitly precisely because, in parallel with the discussion on the situation in the Middle East, it was so obvious that our own countries were very present in the discussion. I believe I mentioned most of the countries that are experiencing this firsthand, and therefore it became very strong.

Sweden is one of the countries, and we also talked a lot among ourselves about what is now being done to educate in schools and to clarify what are legitimate and democratic, albeit quite frank, expressions of opinion and what is foreign to every democracy. This is what we struggle with, and several other countries are also struggling with it. But we will be extremely clear. In several countries, large legal processes are also currently underway against hate crimes, primarily against Jews.

What can the EU do then? We provide humanitarian aid both as individual countries and as a union. Nevertheless, one should not underestimate the political influence that we, after all, have in the positions that currently exist.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Rebecka Le Moine (MP)

Madam Speaker! I want to begin by underlining my support for Ukraine and thanking the government and the Prime Minister for the work that has been put in. When I read the council conclusions, I feel a sense of pride that this issue has not been overshadowed despite the horrors currently taking place in the Middle East. This I want to begin by underlining.

I also see in the council's conclusions that an intensive diplomatic effort shall be undertaken to ensure as broad international support as is possible in order to be able to reach the goals in Ukraine's own peace formula. In this formula, which consists of ten points, point 8 specifically concerns the environment.

This is an issue that I have championed for a long time and which concerns ecocide, that is to say, large-scale environmental destruction. In light of Russia's invasion, the issue has also come to be raised in this light, as it is included in Ukraine's own peace plan. President Zelenskyy has pleaded with the world to recognize ecocide as a crime and for Russia to also be held accountable for the major crimes and enormous costs that this will entail.

Ukraine is in a situation where there is a great need for hope. An invasion entails enormous suffering and trauma, but additionally attacking the environment, nature, and animals in the way that Russia does worsens, deepens, and prolongs this trauma. It is therefore necessary that an international mechanism is established that also ensures that Russia is held accountable for this.

Before the council meeting, I actually received a hearing from the Prime Minister on this issue regarding environmental crime. Therefore, I am curious whether the question was in any way discussed at the meeting and what the response was, if so.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! The answer is no. We did not speak about any individual parts of the Ukrainian peace plan, neither about different serious environmental crimes nor about other parts of a future accountability towards Russia. The answer there is, therefore, no.

However, it does not mean that there is a lack of commitment to this or to all other crimes that we know or suspect Russia has committed and which will require accountability. The question remains on the table. The environmental crimes are, as mentioned, included in Ukraine's peace plan. Different countries have engaged to different depths in different parts of this. Ukraine is actively trying to get countries to, at most, adopt individual points, and Sweden, together with some other countries, has chosen to focus on the nuclear safety issue, which we believe we have extra specific competence in. I hope that other countries will choose other areas.

The question is therefore not gone from the agenda in any way, but the answer is that it was not specifically raised at this meeting - no.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Rebecka Le Moine (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the honest answer. It means that there is more to be done.

We were together at the session in Oslo when the Nordic Council convened. There, almost three years ago, I initiated a member proposal aimed at urging the Nordic prime ministers to participate actively in these very conversations about ecocide.

These are very terrible crimes. It is about how Russia attacks the environment, not as a consequence of the war but as a target of attack in itself. More than 20 percent of Ukraine's forests are destroyed. More than 600,000 hectares of wetlands are attacked. Soil and water are poisoned.

The question therefore becomes: How does Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson intend to take on the responsibility of being able to drive and lead this work in the Nordic region in the future?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! Let me say again that precisely these issues were not raised at the European Council meeting, and that meeting is the reason we have gathered here.

The questions are nevertheless interesting, and I am happy to discuss them. I completely share the view that there is much more to be done, and it is evident now that there is also a major conflict in the Middle East. It will be demanding to maintain focus and mental attention on Ukraine as well in the way we have been used to - unfortunately. It is an important task.

It is also important to ensure that the processes regarding accountability proceed and that we equip Ukraine in every way so that those responsible can be held accountable after the war. The lesson is that Russia, in various ways, destroys civilian living conditions as part of its warfare with completely appalling consequences. So we are in complete agreement on the issue of substance, but it was not raised at this meeting.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Jan Ericson (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank the Prime Minister for the report.

As the Prime Minister has noted, it is a dark time right now with war in both Ukraine and the Middle East, combined with terror threats, unacceptable extremist currents, and a growing antisemitism across Europe. It was very pleasing that the European Council's conclusions on the war between Israel and Hamas became significantly more nuanced and balanced than in the first draft. One clearly distances oneself from Hamas's terror and notes Israel's self-evident and international law-based right to defend itself with respect for international laws and humanitarian law.

The Prime Minister's clarity is extremely welcome regarding the distancing from the demonstrations taking place in both Sweden and the EU in support of Hamas's terror and with clearly violence-promoting messages, as well as the strong distancing from antisemitic messages, which create concern and fear among many Jewish families.

The antisemitism that is visible in Swedish society right now is immensely tragic and frightening, and I am not sure that the Swedish people in general know what is actually affecting some Jewish families today. These are Jews who have nothing to do with the war and who just want to live in peace in Sweden, just like everyone else.

Yesterday, together with four other Moderate MPs from western Sweden, I visited the Jewish Congregation in Gothenburg, both to show our support and to get a picture of how antisemitism manifests in the everyday lives of Jews in Gothenburg. It is about open threats on social media, about individuals being targeted as Jews with their addresses and other information disclosed. It is about Jewish children not daring to go to school. It is about people not daring to wear jewelry and Jewish symbols publicly. It is about demonstrators making direct threats against Jews and that Jewish establishments need significantly increased protection.

I know that it is extremely welcome for the Jewish minority in Sweden to hear the Prime Minister so clearly state that the government will combat this.

How was the Prime Minister's very clear message received in the European Council, and how does the Prime Minister perceive the actions being taken against antisemitism in other member states? This is, after all, a common European problem.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! I mentioned a number of the countries that themselves raised the issue, just as I did. They experience this on their streets and squares, roughly as we do. It is larger events in larger countries, perhaps smaller in other contexts – but principally the same thing. I perceived that we all had a similar picture of the enormous tasks that lie ahead of us, including getting people to respect the law; the difference between having opinions on geopolitical conflicts on one hand and threatening people at home on the other. It may sound obvious to us, but it is quite obviously not obvious. This is a major task.

Many also engage in prosecuting those who can be identified. It is also about the long-term work that Sweden has sometimes been good at, for example, education. All children in all schools in all neighborhoods should know what has happened; the Holocaust, the life of the Jewish minority in Sweden. It is a matter of many fronts at the same time.

We have learned the hard way now that antisemitism keeps coming back. It has been neo-Nazis, it has been conspiratorial autonomous left, and now it is largely Islamists or people who have simply grown up hating Jews. Regardless of the reason, the task of public Sweden is the same every time, namely to stand up for Jews' right to live a full life in Sweden.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Jan Ericson (M)

Madam Speaker! It is also welcome that the strong unity in the EU regarding continued support for Ukraine remains firm. This applies to everything from efforts to confiscate seized Russian property and to try to monitor compliance with sanctions to the work with the war crimes court proceeding.

The people of Ukraine are making enormous sacrifices to protect their country against Russian aggression, and the clear support from the EU is of great significance for the Ukrainian people.

Finally, I have a question related to the wars in both Ukraine and the Middle East. It is becoming increasingly clear that the Islamist regime in Tehran has a finger in both of these wars and that they support Russia, Hamas, and other groups in various ways. The EU could meet this by tightening the sanctions, by adding further representatives of the Islamist regime to the sanctions lists, and also by designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization. I am aware that opinions on these issues differ among the member states, but I am still a bit curious as to whether these issues were raised in the informal discussions during the Council meeting.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! The short answer is that there is a very broad consensus in EU circles that Iran plays a destructive and very risky role in the region. It is completely obvious to everyone who follows what is happening there. But it is also obvious that there is no consensus on taking more action right now than what the EU has done so far vis-à-vis Iran.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I thank the Prime Minister.

Last week, I was on a short but very heavy visit to Israel. I visited, among other places, the kibbutz Kfar Aza, which is located less than 1 kilometer from the border to Gaza. The people there were severely exposed during many hours on October 7 by Hamas's terror attacks. I could with my own eyes witness the remains of such a bestial attack that it is difficult to put into words, but I believe that it still needs to be done.

We saw shelters where terrorists had broken in and indiscriminately murdered everyone inside. The bloodstains and bullet holes remained, but so did the smell of rotting blood.

The day after, we met residents from Kfar Aza specifically, who had been evacuated together with 200,000 others from southern Israel. Many have already been told that they will not be able to return for at least one year.

We sat in chairs in a circle, and they told one after another about their experiences. The man to my left had been injured in the battle and needed care. He was then told that his wife and three children had been kidnapped. He said: I am not even angry. I might become it, but I just want them home.

Their most important message was unanimous: Do everything in your power to help and bring home those who have been kidnapped!

In view of this, I would like to ask the Prime Minister the following: Does the EU do enough to work towards the release of the kidnapped? Does the EU circle consider that Hamas's atrocities must be equated with IS crimes?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! I can only agree with the description of the bestial attack. I believe that almost everyone in the EU circle sees it that way. There are reasons why Hamas is a terrorist-labeled organization, and they have proven this once again. They are terrible images. And even worse is that there are reports that film recordings of this are being shown publicly. It gives the whole thing an almost intangible dimension.

I am deeply provoked when I see that there are demonstrations in Sweden to celebrate Hamas, but there are no demonstrations in Sweden to protest against the fact that Swedes have been killed in Brussels. It opens an abyss in a value issue that is important to me.

Can the EU do anything about the kidnappings? I do not think we can do much more operationally right now. There is nothing that stands higher in this issue, as I understand it without knowing exactly how they work there, than getting the hostages released. It would probably be presumptuous of us to give good advice on that issue right now.

I perceive that there are many EU countries that individually use their good contacts, both to issue warnings and to provide support in this situation.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Several of the people in the ring whom I mentioned earlier, who spoke about killed and kidnapped family members, also highlighted the lack of safety and also the lack of understanding for what they have experienced. They have seen the demonstrations in the Western world in favor of Hamas or which in any case have been apologetic of their actions.

Antisemitism is now showing its ugly face again, not only in the Middle East but also in Europe. My follow-up question to the Prime Minister is therefore whether the EU in this situation should work together to counter antisemitism. Were any such discussions held in the circle of heads of state and government?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! Sometimes the great strength of EU cooperation is not that one lands on common legislation, but that one shares experiences with each other and discusses how to solve problems in different countries – the more similar, the more room for cooperation. When it comes to terrorism and such things on our soil, it becomes apparent that there is also formal work.

When it comes to antisemitism, it looks a bit different, and there is a bit of different prevalence. The countries I mentioned have many common observations and common problems right now. I have discussed just this quite thoroughly with other European prime ministers.

Then, ultimately, every country must take responsibility for what happens on its own territory. In that regard, we in Sweden have a bigger job to do than I thought we had to do; that has shown itself over the past few weeks. The government will take it extremely seriously.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Elin Nilsson (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Prime Minister, for the presentation!

I want to dwell somewhat on the question of Ukraine, but before I do so, I want to take the opportunity to thank the Prime Minister for the clarity regarding antisemitism. It is incredibly important that we stand united and do everything we can to combat it.

I also want to take the opportunity to praise the government for the active role it has taken in moving forward the issue of Ukraine's future membership in the EU.

We are both eagerly awaiting tomorrow's EU enlargement report, where the reform work of Ukraine and other candidate countries ahead of the expansion of the union is evaluated. It is most likely that it will be recommended that membership negotiations with Ukraine be initiated, and that would, of course, be a most welcome announcement.

The Liberals want to emphasize the importance of Ukraine being able to start negotiations as soon as possible to become a full member of the EU in a few years without us making concessions on the requirements that are set for all new member countries.

At the same time, various institutional EU reforms that are to adapt the union to include more members are now being discussed, both in several EU countries and in other forums. Such reforms will be needed for the EU to be able to continue that work.

However, we know that there are countries that do not have as great an interest in pushing for an accession. Therefore, my question to the Prime Minister is what his perception is of other member states' attitudes toward Ukraine's accession to the union in relation to the discussions on the EU reforms. Does the Prime Minister believe there is a risk that Ukraine's membership will be conditioned or delayed by this reform work?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! It is a complex but important issue. As I believe the questioner is aware, it is complex, and we are both waiting with anticipation for tomorrow's announcement from the EU Commission regarding its position ahead of the next meeting in the European Council on potential membership negotiations.

Quite a few suspect that it could become relevant for Ukraine and Moldova. I think I will wait until tomorrow before I have a more exact understanding of that matter.

Let me first say in terms of the procedural question that what is being said here is important – that when a country has done what must be done and fulfills the requirements, then the EU must be ready. It must not become some kind of procedural question that one then uses as an excuse not to be ready.

It is equally important to say that countries must be ready. They must do what is required. There are no shortcuts. It is a tough process, and it should be tough. Most probably perceive that Ukraine has made impressive progress given the situation one finds oneself in. We have to wait and see what the commission thinks.

Sweden will think that if the Commission judges that one lives up to the merit-based performances, the union shall begin the negotiations. That will be the Swedish position.

Then there are complicating factors in this. Some want treaty amendments. That would be the same as saying that we push the question several years into the future. I believe that treaty amendments are a bad idea. We should do this within the framework of the current treaty. Above all, treaty amendments should not be used as a pretext to avoid discussing Ukraine's membership.

However, it is obvious that other changes will be required. The entire agricultural sector with the cohesion policy will become incredibly difficult to maintain exactly as it is today. It should probably still be changed, I would say. But if you include a country like Ukraine, it will become extra difficult, which will cause problems in the negotiations. It is just a matter of saying it as it is.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Elin Nilsson (L)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the answer.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Erik Hellsborn (SD)

Madam Speaker! The Prime Minister briefly mentioned the conflict in the southern Caucasus between Armenia and Azerbaijan.

That this conflict is current, we saw evidence of earlier this autumn, when the Muslim dictatorship Azerbaijan entered the Nagorno-Karabakh region militarily. It resulted de facto in an ethnic cleansing when over 100,000 Christian Armenians chose to flee from their homes in the land where their ancestors had lived since time immemorial.

The Azerbaijani dictator Aliyev uses a very aggressive language and a very war-mongering rhetoric, which indicates that peace probably is not on the table in the near future.

What I want to ask the Prime Minister is exactly what was discussed regarding this conflict during the cabinet meeting.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! Then I shall be very precise and say that it was not discussed at all. As I said, there was a very brief council conclusion, which I cannot recall. It was simply stated; we had no discussion about this. There were a bit too many other major geopolitical issues on the agenda.

This should also be seen in light of the fact that many perhaps had hoped that what is called the EPC, European Political Community, could have had that discussion just a couple of weeks before the council meeting. But then there were simply no people present for it.

The only thing that was presented at the meeting was the very short council conclusion that exists.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Erik Hellsborn (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you very much for the answer, Mr. Prime Minister! I shall only make one additional comment regarding my request for the future – that Sweden and the EU engage in the issue.

We have seen how France has engaged in an exemplary manner by sending military personnel to its embassy and opening up for the export of military materiel to Armenia to help the country protect its population and its territorial integrity. I hope that more countries within the EU - including Sweden, of course - will follow France in the future.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! I have no further comment on this. In a number of conflicts around the world, individual countries often have a strong commitment for various reasons, while the EU's joint forces are not even devoted to all the big, important things. This time, I believe rather that Ukraine, the budget, and the Middle East simply took all the oxygen in the room.

The reporting was hereby concluded.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)