Agreement on enhanced partnership and cooperation between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Kyrgyz Republic, of the other part
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
1 M votes in favor of the proposal as it contributes to increased security, economic growth, and respect for human rights 1. M believes that the agreement gives the EU the opportunity to limit Chinese influence as well as improve water supply and stop erosion 1 2. M believes that consequences arise by companies withdrawing in the event of a lack of order 3 and that consequences in the event of non-compliance will be reduced trade and cooperation 4. M wants more clarity on what Europe can do so that the countries will become better for their citizens 4. 5 MP votes that the bill be rejected as the agreement lacks concrete consequences if Kyrgyzstan does not meet the requirements for democracy and human rights 5 6 7. MP considers that the agreement risks rewarding authoritarian development 7. 8 MP is positive about signing agreements with Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan 8. 9 MP believes that increased cooperation with the EU is required due to concern over Russia's and China's involvement in Central Asia 9. MP considers that there is a lack of sufficient requirements in the agreements, which risks that economic interests will prevail rather than democratic development 9.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Margareta Cederfelt (M)
Mr. Speaker! The matter we are now debating is the Committee on Foreign Affairs' report UU23 Agreement on deepened partnership and cooperation between the European Union and its member states, on the one hand, and the Republic of Kyrgyzstan, on the other.
Mr. Speaker! There are many similarities between Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan but also great differences, just as there are between the Nordic countries. Each country is unique. The similarities are that Kyrgyzstan has been a part of the Soviet Union, that Kyrgyzstan became independent in 1991 when the Soviet Union collapsed, but also that it is a country with a democratic deficit and a lack of respect for human rights and civil society. It is a country that is still a member of several Russian-based organizations, precisely those that I mentioned in my previous speech. And it is a country where China is building its Silk Road or Belt and Road – whichever one people want to use.
But it is also a country where, just like in Uzbekistan, there is faith in the future. It is a country where the people, the citizens, want economic development, democracy and a functioning civil society. That is also something I have heard during all the years I have visited Kyrgyzstan.
I therefore believe strongly in the agreement that we are now debating. I believe that it will contribute to increased security and increased safety, but also to economic growth and greater respect for human rights.
Kyrgyzstan is the country in Central Asia that has come the furthest when it comes to democracy. It is a country that has had and to some extent still has major problems with terrorism. If I remember correctly, in the early 2000s there was not a functioning parliament or a functioning government. But a woman, Roza Otunbayeva, emerged and took on the role of president. She did something so unusual but important as to ensure that there was an election, and she stepped down when there was a winner. Since then, there have been several elections where the election result has been respected. It does not always happen, but in Kyrgyzstan, the election result has been respected. There has been a change of majority.
It may seem like a small matter, and it may seem obvious. But it is not. It is absolutely not obvious, Mr. Speaker.
I believe therefore that a deepened trade agreement can lead to a very good result, especially because there is a will at all levels of society to develop the international contacts and relations with the West. In Kyrgyzstan, I have indeed heard exactly the same argument as in Uzbekistan and in other Central Asian countries: We need trade and cooperation with the EU, with the West. Why are you turning your backs on us?
I see that this agreement is welcome. It is also welcome from the EU, because it can give us the opportunity to develop our trade, gain access to growth and also influence a part of the world where we have not been active before.
If the EU can gain greater influence, I also see opportunities to limit a Chinese advance. It is something that we rarely discuss here in the chamber, but I see that issue as important. I see it as central that we actively work with all the instruments that exist.
I also see it as important that it is precisely an agreement, that it is not about a membership. It is important to make the distinction between a membership and an agreement on cooperation and trade.
Mr. Speaker! In my previous speech, I forgot to move for the approval of the proposal in the report. Therefore, I hope it is accepted that I, of course, move for the approval of the proposals in both this report, UU23, and report UU22. I apologize. I was so eager to be allowed to debate about two Central Asian countries that it slipped my mind.
Let me mention another issue that the Green Party often debates: the environment. Central Asian countries such as both Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan suffer from extensive water shortages, extensive erosion, and difficulties for agriculture to develop. Through this agreement, there are opportunities to work so that water availability can be improved through other uses and through development.
There are also opportunities to stop the erosion, which is a widespread problem. I know that it is a problem that the EU and the UN are working on. So is an organization that we are not familiar with here in Sweden but which exists in many Muslim countries: Aga Khan Foundation.
This shows how many different actors are involved when it comes to development and security in Central Asia. It is time for the EU to also take up more space and not just have a mission office.
Jacob Risberg (MP)
Mr. Speaker! Member Cederfelt! Now we are standing here again talking about Central Asia. It was not so long ago since last time.
Even in this agreement, as in the one we just spoke about, there are general provisions on human rights. They exist in many international agreements. But the problem is what happens when they are not complied with. In our previous debate, I mentioned the agreement that the EU has with New Zealand, where they have formulated actual "shall" requirements instead of "should" requirements.
I wonder if the member can point out what concrete consequences it would have for Kyrgyzstan regarding how to meet the repression against opposition, media, and human rights defenders. If this continues to worsen, what consequences does it have for Kyrgyzstan according to this agreement? If the member means that those requirements are in the agreement, one must also know what the consequences will be if they are not met. Or is this, in practice, an agreement without any real democratic conditionality?
Margareta Cederfelt (M)
Mr. Speaker! Let me mention, which has not been done here, that there is a will among the countries, in this case Kyrgyzstan, for own development. This is present. Kyrgyzstan has itself adopted development goals which state that the country should be among the top 60 when it comes to economic development and respect for its citizens. Today, the country is far down. Of 160 countries, Kyrgyzstan is in 117th place, but Kyrgyzstan has not given up. I think that is a good sign – not that one is in 117th place, but that one is working for the country to succeed.
If a country is to succeed in the long term, it is not just about working with the economy – that is important to note. It is also about human rights, democracy, and an inclusive society. That is exactly what is focused on in the agreement with its 350 pages. Can Jacob Risberg not see anything positive in this? Well, Jacob Risberg has said that, so that question perhaps does not need to be repeated. But I would like to hear stronger words from Jacob Risberg about the fact that the agreement can and will contribute to economic and democratic development in Kyrgyzstan.
Jacob Risberg (MP)
Mr. Speaker! I thank member Cederfelt for the answer.
Yes, the agreement can very well lead to not only economic but also democratic improvement in Kyrgyzstan, but there is no guarantee for that. On the 370 pages that the agreement covers, it says nothing about what the consequences will be if one does not live up to the requirements that are set. Very much is mentioned about democracy. Civil society is also mentioned. There is talk of free media, free elections, democracy and so on. But it says nothing about what happens when one does not live up to it, and that is what I miss.
For the agreement to truly contribute to improvement, will alone is not enough. There is a will today that I find very positive in Kyrgyzstan. But will does not change countries; action is also required. Furthermore, consequences are required if one fails to live up to this. That is what I lack. I would like to know from the member whether there will be any consequences if Kyrgyzstan does not live up to the conditions that are set regarding human rights and so on.
Margareta Cederfelt (M)
Mr. Speaker! Yes, there will be consequences in practice. I am completely convinced that even Jacob Risberg will remember the corruption stories in Central Asia and that companies have been established but withdrawn and did not want to be involved. This shows how important it is that a country works actively at all levels for a better economy and for order and clarity. This is exactly what the agreement is about: order and clarity, democracy and transparency.
Given the situation we have today regarding competition, lack of security, and threats, I am convinced that the development will be positive. Within the EU, we must actively work to find new cooperation partners and new trading partners and for other countries to be given the opportunity to grow democratically.
Jacob Risberg (MP)
Mr. Speaker! It feels a bit like déjà vu here in the chamber right now.
We now continue the discussion on the EU's deepened relations in Central Asia. Even here, the starting point is simple: the EU's foreign, trade, and partnership policy must rest on the Union's fundamental values. Respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the principles of the rule of law, and human rights must not be negotiable.
The Government proposes that the Riksdag should approve a deepened partnership and cooperation agreement between the EU and Kyrgyzstan. The agreement shall replace an older agreement from 1999 and deepen the political and economic relations between the parties. The Government emphasizes that the agreement is based on democracy, human rights, fundamental freedoms, and the principles of the rule of law.
Mr. Speaker! The Green Party does not oppose cooperation with Kyrgyzstan. The EU needs relations that strengthen sustainable development, fair trade, climate transition, education, social development, and regional stability. But cooperation must not become a way to reward authoritarian development. When democracy is weakened, the EU must use its weight to defend the open society.
Mr. Speaker! Kyrgyzstan has long been seen as one of Central Asia's more open countries. That is precisely why the development is so serious. The country is moving in the wrong direction. Power has been concentrated in the presidency. The judiciary and state pressure tactics have been used against opposition members, journalists, bloggers, human rights defenders, and civil society actors.
Mr. Speaker! Freedom of speech is under pressure. Civil society is being restricted. Legislation on so-called foreign representatives risks criminalizing organizations that work for human rights, equality, democracy, and the rule of law. Elections can be administered effectively and still be carried out in an environment where candidates, voters, and the media do not have truly free conditions.
Against that background, it is not enough that the agreement contains general formulations about democracy, human rights and civil society. It is good that the words are there, but the words must be followed by requirements. Monitoring was needed, and consequences were needed when the development goes in the wrong direction.
Mr. Speaker! The EU should clearly demand concrete improvements: strengthened free media, protection for an independent civil society, the right for the opposition to operate, independent courts, and an end to harassment against human rights defenders. These are not unreasonable demands. They are the very foundation of a democratic society.
This is not about isolating Kyrgyzstan. It is about what kind of relationship the EU should build – a relationship that strengthens people, rights, and long-term sustainable development or a relationship that primarily strengthens power holders and economic interests.
Mr. Speaker! Central Asia is becoming increasingly important geopolitically. The EU's interest in the region is growing. This concerns trade, energy, raw materials, connectivity, and security. But the greater the EU's interests become, the more important it is that the union does not lose its moral compass. Strategic policy without values becomes short-sighted. Trade without rights becomes weak. Partnerships without democratic requirements risk legitimizing oppression.
Mr. Speaker! For the Green Party, it is crucial that EU policy holds together. Climate transition, sustainable trade, peace, democracy, and human rights are not separate tracks. They are interconnected. A society where media are silenced, courts are politicized, and civil society is viewed with suspicion does not become a stable partner for long-term sustainable development either.
Sweden should therefore not say yes to an agreement that deepens the EU's relations with Kyrgyzstan without sufficient democratic conditionality. Miljöpartiet considers that the Riksdag should therefore reject the proposition.
But if the Riksdag, despite my good arguments, still approves the agreement, the government must take a significantly greater responsibility in the EU. The government must work to ensure that the cooperation council and the agreement's other institutions are used for systematic monitoring of human rights, democracy, and the principles of the rule of law. Civil society must be involved for real, not treated as an option.
The Government should also repeatedly report to the Riksdag on how Sweden handles these issues, what requirements are set, how free media and civil society are involved, and whether the EU is prepared to use the agreement's possibilities for measures when commitments are not followed.
Mr. Speaker! The EU's credibility is not determined by how often the union says the word democracy. It is determined by whether the EU defends democracy when there are also geopolitical and economic interests on the table. Sweden shall be a clear voice for human rights, freedom, and the principles of the rule of law. Therefore, I move for the approval of the Green Party's reservation number 1.
Margareta Cederfelt (M)
Mr. Speaker! I would like to ask Jacob Risberg where he actually finds everything about there being no consequences. Surely it is included in the agreement and also in the awareness of Kyrgyzstan. If one is to succeed in turning the trend, it is a matter of ensuring cooperation and fulfilling the criteria that exist in the agreement.
It is about finding a development and finding other partners than the totalitarian neighbors. Here we have the EU and what the EU can offer. Does Jacob Risberg not see the positive for the development in the direction that Jacob Risberg says he wants in that an agreement is reached?
Mr. Speaker! I say this because I think it is important that we see the positive in that there is an agreement that is to support democracy and respect for human rights. It is not about repetition. It is about ensuring that a lighting is obtained from different perspectives of what the view is on the agreement and its future.
Jacob Risberg (MP)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member Cederfelt, for the question!
We are very positive about signing agreements with both Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan and truly hope that they lead to a positive development.
When Member Cederfelt now says that there are consequences for Kyrgyzstan, perhaps the Member wants to speak about what the consequences will be if they do not live up to the conditions that we set regarding democratization, free media, and the role of civil society.
Margareta Cederfelt (M)
Mr. Speaker! The consequences exist. There will be reduced trade, and there will be reduced cooperation. It is completely opposite to what Kyrgyzstan desires on all levels in the country. Let me say that.
It is also something else that I would like to highlight. Does not Jacob Risberg see the risk that other actors strengthen their foothold in Uzbekistan if the EU is not involved and what that could entail?
The Silk Road has been mentioned. I have not received a single comment about what it could mean negatively. I have spoken about the security issues and Russia. Jacob Risberg has not addressed this with a single word.
I have mentioned the educational cooperation that exists with Kyrgyzstan and India. Something I have not mentioned previously, but which I mention now, is that Turkey is also active and is expanding a cooperation.
What can Europe do so that the countries become better and so that they become better countries to live in for their citizens? I would like to have more clarity on that.
Mr. Speaker! I thanked you from the rostrum already last week. I will not repeat it. I would still like to say that it has been very enjoyable to have the opportunity to debate Central Asia as the final item during my 23 years in the Riksdag.
I sincerely hope that the debate on Central Asia will continue here in the chamber with positive signs so that we can develop our Swedish cooperation, but with respect for all fundamental rights.
Jacob Risberg (MP)
Mr. Speaker! I would like to start by taking the opportunity to thank Margareta Cederfelt for the debates we have had. We have had quite a few exchanges of views here in the speaker's chair.
I hope that we will see both a free Uzbekistan and a free Kyrgyzstan in the future. Perhaps we will meet someday on a street in Tashkent or in some market in Bishkek. It would be very nice to resume our acquaintance there.
The EU is already involved here and has been involved since 1999. There is an agreement. I perhaps did not mention it in this debate, but in the previous debate, the concern regarding Russia's and China's involvement and importance for precisely the countries in Central Asia. That obviously requires increased cooperation with the EU.
I believe we are in agreement on everything, except for the fact that I miss the requirements that we should set when we sign this type of agreement. Otherwise, there is a very great risk that it will be economic interests that rule. It rather strengthens the power for certain individuals than leads to democratic development.
I hope I am wrong in this situation. But we have examples from before that when one does not really set requirements in a serious way, it unfortunately does not always lead to democracy and human rights.
With that, I would like to take the opportunity to once again thank Margareta Cederfelt.
The deliberation was hereby concluded.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.