Agreement on enhanced partnership and cooperation between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Uzbekistan, of the other part

Margareta Cederfelt (M)

Mr. Speaker! I want to begin by saying that I am very pleased to have the opportunity to debate a matter concerning trade agreements signed via the EU, as it is not often that we debate these agreements in the Swedish Riksdag. I am a great friend of Central Asia, and I therefore think it is important that for once we debate not only the agreements but also Central Asian countries and that they get onto the agenda here in the Swedish Riksdag.

The matter we are debating, the Committee on Foreign Affairs' report UU22 Agreement on deepened partnership and cooperation between the European Union and its member states, on the one hand, and the Republic of Uzbekistan, on the other, is, just as the heading says, about a cooperation between the EU and its member states and the Republic of Uzbekistan.

The negotiations regarding this agreement began as early as 2018 and were concluded in 2022. It was signed by the EU on 24 October 2025. What remains now is that all member states must sign the agreement. It is an important process, which concerns the fact that the agreement falls within the member states' area of competence. Therefore, the member states also need to sign, as it concerns the application of the member states' constitutional procedures.

Let me say that I am very pleased that the agreement is coming into being. It is about promoting political dialogue, promoting trade and promoting investments. It is about strengthening not only Uzbekistan but also economic development in the EU. It is about market economy and developing freedom of establishment. It is primarily about Uzbekistan but also about services, trade and capital movements and last but not least about regional security.

The countries of Central Asia have all been parts of the Soviet Union. When the Soviet Union collapsed, the Central Asian states became independent, and they have since fought for independence. But let me emphasize that all these countries are in some way still tied to Russia through membership in a number of Russia-based organizations. This also applies to Uzbekistan.

It is about defense and military cooperation within CSTO. It is about economic cooperation within the Eurasian Economic Union. It is about the CIS, the Commonwealth of Independent States, that is to say, the former Soviet states. But Uzbekistan is also a member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, a China-based organisation where Russia is also a member.

I want to emphasize here that Uzbekistan has recognized Ukraine's independence and territorial integrity. I see it as extremely significant that a former Soviet republic, now an independent state, can and dares to recognize Ukraine's independence. It is significant and extremely important.

Let me also underline what I have heard many times when I have been in Central Asia, including Uzbekistan: "You say that we should become more democratic. You say that we should develop our independence. You say that we should develop respect for human rights. But what are you doing for us?" That is what I have often been told. "Why do you not want to develop your trade with us? Why do you not want to develop your cooperation with us? We are still dependent on Russia. We are still dependent on China." Here, the EU can have great and decisive importance, Mr. Speaker, and I look forward to expanded trade.

Let me say, however, that the EU's presence in Uzbekistan is by no means new. There has been an EU mission there for many years. Uzbekistan is also a member of the OSCE, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. There is an OSCE mission on the ground in the country that works on development issues, democracy issues, and human rights. There is a UN office in the country.

I believe strongly in the agreement between the EU and Uzbekistan, because with trade and exchange there are great opportunities for the EU to also influence democracy and respect for human rights in Uzbekistan in a positive direction.

What I noted when I last visited Uzbekistan was that growth there is moving forward. While we have very low growth here in Sweden, I can state that growth in Uzbekistan in recent years has been somewhere between 6 and 7 percent per year.

Uzbekistan also has developed cooperation not only with Russia and China but also with other countries in the region, which means that there are initiatives on IT and technological development.

We should not believe that it is only the EU that works for development, Mr. Speaker. Other countries do as well. The USA is present and works for development and security. But India is also involved in Uzbekistan, not least through the cooperation that exists regarding educational issues.

This shows, I think, that the EU and its member states need to be involved. We can and shall work actively for human rights, democracy and economic development, especially when there is a demand in Uzbekistan.

Finally, I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that the Chinese Belt and Road or New Silk Road goes straight through Central Asia. I think it would be very unfortunate if Europe cannot work actively to ensure that Europe and its member states are put on the map in the cooperation for Uzbekistan's development. We cannot leave Uzbekistan alone.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member Cederfelt, for a very fine contribution! I can agree with very much in that.

When it comes to various trade and cooperation agreements, Miljöpartiet normally tends to get quite a bit of flak from Minister for Development Cooperation and Foreign Trade Benjamin Dousa, who thinks that we just say no to everything. I had therefore really hoped that it was he who would come here today and defend this agreement, because there are a lot of question marks surrounding it, but I simply have to raise these matters with Member Cederfelt instead.

We are not at all against cooperation with Uzbekistan, but in Uzbekistan, journalists, human rights defenders, oppositionists and independent organizations are being pushed back. Still, civil society's role in the agreements is very weak – in parts almost an option.

I want to ask if MP Cederfelt and the Moderaterna really think it is sufficient to speak about civil society in general terms, or should an independent civil society rather be given a guaranteed role in the follow-up of this agreement?

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

Margareta Cederfelt (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Jacob Risberg for the questions. I would like to say exactly what I said in my speech: There has been an EU mission working with human rights for many years, and there is an OSCE mission working with the same. There is also a UN office working with these issues.

In Uzbekistan, there is a will for development. This was demonstrated, not least by the election observation that OSCE conducted in 2019. I was there myself, and I must say that it was like stepping back a number of years, but the will for development that existed, I will always carry with me.

In 2021, it was time for the presidential election. I was on site then as well and could observe that even in that context, a development occurred, even if it was slower than we had hoped for within OSCE. In 2024, it was the election again. I was not on site then, but I have read the statements, and even there, a development is spoken of – but a very slow one.

I hope that the agreement that the EU is now hopefully looking to put in place can contribute to development, because what has often been argued from Uzbekistan – regardless of whether it is from the highest political level or from the local traders – is about why we have turned our backs on them. They wonder why they should be referred only to their totalitarian neighbors. They say: We want to cooperate, and we want to trade with the EU.

Hopefully it can actually become a change!

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member Cederfelt, for the answer! Unfortunately, independent civil society was hardly mentioned, which was actually what I was requesting.

We can, however, go into some of the questions that Member Cederfelt touched upon. The Moderates often say that the EU should be a community of values built on democracy, human rights, and the principles of the rule of law, but in the agreement with Uzbekistan, trade, investments, and political cooperation are deepened without any kind of clear requirements for democratic reforms.

I therefore wonder – and based on what Member Cederfelt said – why you are prepared to give this regime increased political and economic cooperation without demanding measurable improvements for free media, the opposition, and civil society.

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

Margareta Cederfelt (M)

Mr. Speaker! There are clear answers in the agreement on precisely the questions that Jacob Risberg raises. It states that it is about human rights, about civil society and about democratic issues, and it is about economic development in the country and about security and safety. There are many questions included and answered in this agreement. I recommend that Jacob Risberg read the agreement and continue to follow up on how the development in Uzbekistan is progressing.

This is not about membership in the EU. This is not even about getting closer to it, but it is about developing trade. This is something incredibly positive, especially since the EU also needs to develop its trade.

We have previously had the trade agreement with India up for approval, and it is extremely positive. I see this as another important agreement, because we in Europe cannot close the door to the rest of the world if we want to continue to be a continent that participates in driving development and that ensures our values are found in other places on earth. If we want to ensure that other people have a growing economy, have the opportunity to engage in civil society and know that it is democracy and respect for human rights that prevail, we must also cooperate with them. We cannot close the door and leave free room for totalitarian neighboring countries, because then we can be sure that democracy will not move forward but, on the contrary, take further steps backward.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I may have to start by saying that I did not claim that human rights and the environment and so on are not included in the agreement – they are definitely there. The approximately 370 pages concerning the agreement itself are not actually very interesting reading, but there is much to be gained from them. What I, on the other hand, lack in the agreement is the possibility to demand measurable changes in these issues. Just because a question is mentioned does not mean that an automatic improvement will occur there, and this is what I am critical of.

Mr. Speaker! The EU's fundamental values are not decorations in the preamble of the treaties. They are not words to be pulled out for solemn occasions and then set aside when it comes to trade, energy, raw materials, and geopolitics. Respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the principles of the rule of law, and human rights must also be guiding when the EU negotiates with countries where these values are under severe pressure.

The Government proposes in the bill that the Riksdag shall approve an enhanced partnership and cooperation agreement between the EU and Uzbekistan. The agreement is broad and covers politics, trade, energy, sustainable development, connectivity, research, education, environment and climate, as well as foreign and security policy. The Government describes it as an important step towards increased political and economic engagement in Central Asia.

Mr. Speaker! The Green Party is not against cooperation with Uzbekistan or with countries in Central Asia. On the contrary, the EU needs to build more relations, strengthen diplomacy, and contribute to sustainable development in a restless world. It is precisely for that reason that cooperation must be built on clarity. When the EU offers investments, market access, technical cooperation, and political legitimacy, the union must also set requirements.

Mr. Speaker! This is where the agreement fails. Uzbekistan is still an authoritarian country. The opposition has very limited opportunities to operate, and the judiciary is not independent. Independent journalists, bloggers, activists, and human rights defenders continue to be subjected to repression, and when it comes to torture and mistreatment, reforms are still pending.

It is against this reality that the agreement must be judged, and in that case, general writings about human rights, democracy, and the principles of the rule of law are not enough. Such writings may have significance, but it is not the same as real conditionality. It is not the same as clear requirements, measurable progress, and consequences when development goes in the wrong direction.

Mr. Speaker! The EU is in a geopolitical tug-of-war in Central Asia. Russia, China, and Western actors are seeking influence. The region is important for energy, natural resources, critical minerals, and trade routes between Europe and Asia. It is understandable that the EU wants to reduce countries' dependence on Russia, but the answer to dependence on authoritarian powers cannot be to uncritically build new dependencies on other authoritarian regimes.

Mr. Speaker! Strategic autonomy is not just about raw materials, trade routes, and supply chains, but also about values. It is about not making oneself dependent on regimes that silence the opposition, restrict freedom of the press, and persecute those who defend human rights.

This agreement should have been used as a tool to press for concrete improvements. The EU should have demanded clear commitments on free and fair elections, the right for the opposition to operate, protection for journalists and human rights defenders, independent courts, a stop to torture, and strengthened freedom of association and assembly. That this has not happened is a political failure.

Mr. Speaker! Even equality and social rights are treated too weakly. The agreement mentions women's participation, improved standards of living, social cohesion, and workers' rights. These are important areas, but without clear indicators and follow-up, this risks becoming symbolic instead of governing.

The same applies to the role of civil society. The bill states that an information and consultation body with civil society may be established, and that is not sufficient. In a cooperation with an authoritarian country, civil society cannot be an optional choice. Independent organizations, trade union representatives, women's rights organizations, human rights defenders, and free media must have a central role in the monitoring of the agreement.

Mr. Speaker! The broader the EU's offer is, the clearer the requirements must be. If the EU deepens cooperation in trade, energy, investment, security, and climate without real conditions on democracy, the union risks giving the regime legitimacy rather than strengthening the people's rights.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden shall be a clear voice for democracy, peace, equality, and human rights. This applies even when it is geopolitically difficult, it applies even when there are strong economic interests, and it applies even when other great powers act in the same region. Miljöpartiet therefore believes that the Riksdag should reject the bill. Sweden shall not say yes to an agreement that deepens the EU's relations with an authoritarian regime without simultaneously ensuring that the EU's fundamental values are given real significance.

If the Riksdag approves the agreement despite this, the government must take significantly greater responsibility for how Sweden acts within the EU. The government must push for systematic monitoring of human rights, democracy, and the principles of the rule of law. It must work to ensure that civil society is genuinely involved, and it must repeatedly report to the Riksdag which demands Sweden is pursuing and what measures the EU is prepared to use if the agreement is not complied with.

Mr. Speaker! The EU's credibility is not measured by what the union says about democracy when it is easy, but it is measured by what the union does when trade, security, and raw material interests are at stake.

With that, I move for approval of Miljöpartiets reservation 2.

I also want to say that we unfortunately have another matter to debate before KU can debate its own.

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

Margareta Cederfelt (M)

Mr. Speaker! Yes, I just heard: "It is very much what they are talking about!" Indeed! It is not often that we get the opportunity to debate Central Asia here, and these are important countries.

Let me say that precisely the arguments that Jacob Risberg put forward for why we should not sign the type of trade agreement we have before us can be used to argue the opposite. If Jacob Risberg listens to what I am saying: This is about developing both cooperation, democracy, human rights and civil society as well as trade issues, economic development and security. All of these are important issues in today's society.

I previously mentioned a number of organizations that Uzbekistan is a member of. Uzbekistan is a member of an organization that Sweden was a member of before we became a member of Nato, namely Partnership for Peace. It is another organization that works for safety and security but where democratic issues are also included.

What I have mentioned, Jacob Risberg is welcome to elaborate on and answer. How is a country supposed to develop its democracy and its independence from dictatorships if democratic countries do not show a will for cooperation and economic development? That is, in fact, what has been the question and the reality for Uzbekistan when we from the West have closed the door.

This can be seen, at the very least, in how often Uzbekistan has been on the agenda and in the debates here in the Riksdag. During my three terms in the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Uzbekistan has never appeared, and I think that is a scandal. I therefore hope that there can be more debates in the future.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member Cederfelt, for the question!

I believe, however, that the member may not have quite listened to my speech, because I was very clear that Miljöpartiet would welcome a cooperation with Uzbekistan and other countries in Central Asia precisely in order to get rid of the dependence on Russia and China. That is what I emphasized. The problem is that we enter into a cooperation where human rights, civil society, democracy and so on are mentioned, but where there are no mandatory requirements.

This is admittedly not a pure trade agreement but a cooperation agreement, but if we compare it with the agreement that the EU entered into with New Zealand a couple of years ago, we see that there are considerable differences. In the agreement with New Zealand, there were, in fact, very many "shall" requirements, not "should" requirements, which means that the agreement does not apply if one does not meet the requirements.

What I miss is measurable improvements. There are no requirements for measurable improvements when it comes to free media, opposition, and a better civil society. There is also no requirement that civil society shall be given a guaranteed role in this. That is what I miss. Everything is mentioned, but no requirements are set. How can we expect there to be an improvement just through our cooperation if we do not simultaneously set requirements that the country must become better – and that we must be able to measure that the country is becoming better? That possibility does not exist in this agreement today.

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

Margareta Cederfelt (M)

Mr. Speaker! Jacob Risberg initially mentioned that the agreement is more than 300 pages. It is approximately 350 pages long, and precisely the questions that Jacob Risberg mentions are included on those pages. I see that as a guarantee that the questions will be addressed.

Let me say, however, that I find the neighboring countries to be very worrying. They are trying in different ways to infiltrate, influence, and weigh down. They are trying to create fears. This is happening at the same time as countries nearby are also trying to dominate trade, raw material resources, and infrastructure. This applies in particular to the New Silk Road and what it will entail; we have seen in Africa what Chinese investments have meant there, and I cannot see that it will mean anything else in Uzbekistan.

Here, however, the EU can contribute constructively by ensuring that there are other channels for development and an emphasis on democracy, which are not included in the cooperation with the non-democratic countries. I believe in the future, I believe in the EU's influence and I believe in Uzbekistan. I hope that Jacob Risberg does as well.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member Cederfelt, for further questions – or perhaps rather, allegations!

I agree with Margareta Cederfelt in very much, but again: To mention something in a cooperation agreement does not mean that one sets requirements for it. That is what I lack in this. It is not enough to say "democracy" for democracy to arise.

We can, for example, see parallels with how Germany acted towards Russia in the late 90s and early 00s. It was believed that if one started trading oil and established a deepened, increased economic cooperation with them, it would lead to democratization in Russia. That is not what happened.

There is always a risk of that. If we only talk about economic cooperation and that type of cooperation and exchange without requirements being set at the same time, I hardly think we will see the democratic development we want to see. Even if we, thanks to the agreement, get a deepened cooperation between the EU and Uzbekistan and probably also get a growing economy, we must also set requirements on Uzbekistan.

I would very much like that we continue to cooperate with Uzbekistan. I wish the Uzbeks all the best in the world. I hope and truly believe in Uzbekistan. But we must also dare to set demands on them.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 17.)

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