The UN in Swedish foreign policy

Yasmine Eriksson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The UN is an extremely large organization. Sweden is a very large donor to the UN despite being a relatively small country.

The UN may have a more important role today than in many, many years. We know and see that the rules-based world order is in flux. It is not a given that it is followed, even though countries have agreed to follow the same rules.

For Sweden's part, it is important that the UN is a platform where we can seek alliances with like-minded [nations]. But it is also important that we can meet and discuss with those who disagree and that we have a common platform where we meet and hopefully can reach an agreement.

A large part of the costs that Sweden has when it comes to the UN are the billions we give to the UN's aid organizations. It can be considered a lot of money, and it is. But all these organizations have a very high level of trust, reach far into different countries, and have long experience. When we can have confidence in an organization, it becomes easy for us to do the right thing. But we in Sweden also, of course, want to get something back. It is not just about cooperation and security; we also want to have influence. That influence needs to be reflected in and represented by the size of what we give. We want more positions both at the headquarters and at the country offices around the world, partly to contribute our knowledge, and partly to uphold our common values.

Not everything in the UN is simple. The budget does not hold, and reforms must be implemented. Right now, work is being done on UN80, where ways to streamline and save funds are to be found. We believe this is an important task. When it concerns such large sums of money as those provided by the member states, we must also know that they are used in an efficient way and that we can maximize the impact.

Another major reform that should take place concerns the Security Council. Right now, the Security Council has permanent members who can block proposals that would contribute to making the world safer and more peaceful. It is the exact opposite of what the Security Council should be.

In today's report, it is also discussed that we want to see more women participating in peace processes. We know that if women participate in the work, the peace processes become more sustainable and long-term. That question is already included in the UN's work and in Sweden's policy. Therefore, we consider those questions already answered and reject the motions.

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

Alexandra Völker (S)

Mr. Speaker! The report we are debating today concerns issues related to the UN based on the motions submitted during the general motion period.

The UN is an organization that is currently being severely tested but is just as important today as when it was formed. During the 80 years that have passed, the common challenges have not become fewer but rather more. The number of armed conflicts in which states participate has not become fewer either – on the contrary, we now have the highest number since World War II. Every fifth child in the world lives in a conflict zone.

The consequences of climate change are constantly being reminded. They exacerbate the humanitarian situation in several of the ongoing conflicts, not least in Africa and the Middle East. Severe situations become outright catastrophes. In Sudan, famine has been observed in several places, and in Somalia, the risk of famine is now great as a result of the severe drought, a drought that has had major consequences for the entire Horn of Africa.

Mr. Speaker! The UN is far from perfect, but it is the most important institution we have for collective responsibility and diplomacy. The UN also becomes what we member states make it, no more and no less.

To change the UN, commitment is required. There is now a unique opportunity to influence the future of the UN. The UN is, as we heard earlier, in a reform process under the slogan UN80. This provides both an opportunity and a responsibility to act.

The government's signal is, however, the opposite. Support to the UN agencies is being significantly reduced and the UN's high-level meetings are being deprioritized, for example, the UN summits on development financing. These are about following up on the joint commitments that the member states have made and ensuring that they can be financed.

When the fourth summit was organized this summer, the first in ten years, this government did not send a single minister. When we Social Democrats held government power, the delegation was led by then Prime Minister Stefan Löfven.

When our neighboring countries participated with their heads of government at the General Assembly's 80th anniversary, Sweden's Prime Minister instead prioritized a table tennis event in Eskilstuna.

When the UN later in the autumn organized its 30th climate summit in Brazil, not a single Swedish minister was present during the negotiations themselves, when it really mattered.

Time and again we see how this government does not prioritize either the UN or the platforms the UN provides to manage our common challenges. It is directly contrary to how Sweden should act.

Madam Speaker! Resolution 1325 on women, peace and security recognizes women's role in preventing and resolving conflicts. It recognizes the specific vulnerability of girls and women in conflict situations and the responsibility states have to take preventive measures.

Resolution 1325 also implies a recognition and highlighting of the fact that military interventions have for a long time been formulated by and for men – interventions that are then also carried out by men – and that peace processes are also consistently dominated by men.

The particularly important thing about resolution 1325 is that it also states that when women participate in peace processes, the result becomes more sustainable.

Resolution 1325 and the resolutions that followed are extremely important for peace and equality and should be guiding both in the implementation of military operations and in decision-making processes. The years that have passed since resolution 1325 was first adopted show, however, that this does not happen automatically. It must be included in every decision. It must be included in long-term planning.

In order for women to have an equal place at the negotiating table, they must have been given the opportunity to acquire relevant experience. That is why, during our time in government, we specifically prioritized the work with female mediators, among other things through the mediation network that the current government has abolished.

The committee majority, that is to say the Tidö parties, write in the committee report text that the government is actively working to ensure that the goals in UN Security Council Resolution 1325 are met. The fact is, however, that when we have now for two consecutive years handled propositions on Sweden's contribution to NATO's deterrence and defense, resolution 1325 has not even been mentioned.

It is not enough to refer to action plans. For the intentions of resolution 1325 to become a reality, it is required that it is part of all decisions where it is relevant. Decisions on military interventions are definitely such.

Madam Speaker! The world's five richest men have doubled their wealth since 2020. At the same time, 5 billion people have become poorer. The pandemic, inflation, the recession, and not least the growing number of conflicts in the world have led to sharply increasing gaps. This is occurring in a situation where inequality had already increased for a longer period, not least as a result of changed tax systems and increased tax evasion.

The development has led to a strong concentration of economic power: 1 percent of the world's richest now own 43 percent of all global financial assets.

Within the corporate sector, we see an increased market concentration. Many of the world's markets are now dominated by only a few large multinational companies that almost have a monopoly position.

We Social Democrats want Sweden to be a driving force for a just and equal world order and to be a voice and an active actor in the international debate that is currently taking place. Sweden should therefore take the initiative for an international equality commission within the UN system for the purpose of creating a unified international effort for a more just world order.

I therefore wish to conclude by moving for the approval of reservation 1.

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

Magdalena Thuresson (M)

Madam Speaker! We are now debating the committee report on the UN in Swedish foreign policy, which deals with motions from the general motion period.

Let me begin by stating a few things: the UN is in many ways more important than ever. At the same time, the UN has many and large problems. The UN needs to be reformed. However, there is no other forum where all the world's countries gather that can replace the UN today. The UN is far from perfect, but it is the best forum we have for the world's countries to gather in. Therefore, the UN is a completely central part of our foreign policy.

Sweden defends and stands up for international law and the rules-based world order, including the UN's important normative mandate and human rights. The Government also attaches great importance to equality, women's and girls' enjoyment of human rights as well as sexual and reproductive health and rights, what is commonly called SRHR. These are clear priorities in the Government's foreign and aid policy.

The Government stated in the foreign policy declaration that the UN is a central platform for Sweden's work together with countries outside our immediate vicinity in defense of a rules-based world order with the UN Charter as its foundation. Our support for the UN, the UN Charter, and a rules-based world order is manifested particularly through our extensive support for Ukraine and the Ukrainian people.

Madam Speaker! Work is currently underway to reform the UN and, in particular, to reduce the bureaucratic organization. This is a necessity for the UN's legitimacy to be maintained. Sweden supports that work.

Sweden has long been a very large donor to the UN system. Our current government has chosen to reduce the funding to several UN bodies and to a greater extent focus our support on fewer organizations than before. Sweden's resources are not infinite, and we must focus our support on organizations that we see as particularly important for Swedish priorities and where Sweden can have great influence.

The Social Democrats and the left want to make it appear as if the world will collapse just because Sweden is not the top financier in every single UN organization that exists. That is not the case, and I believe everyone actually understands that regardless of political affiliation.

Madam Speaker! Yes, we are reducing the financial support to the UN – but from what levels? A couple of days ago, I leafed through a report from the Riksdag's investigation service regarding Sweden's support to the UN. The report was several years old, but there I found a compilation of countries' support to the UN system for the calendar years 2015–2017.

Sweden's total support to the UN system over the three calendar years placed Swedish taxpayers in the position of being the fifth largest donor to the UN system in absolute terms. During the years 2015–2017, it was only the USA, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Japan that gave more money to the UN system than Sweden – and again, Madam Speaker, in absolute terms. Swedish taxpayers therefore gave more money to the UN system during those years than, for example, Canada and France.

Madam Speaker! One can have two thoughts in one's head at the same time. The UN is extremely important, a cornerstone of our foreign policy. There is nothing that can replace the UN. The UN Charter and the rules-based world order must be defended. But that Swedish taxpayers in absolute terms should be the fifth largest financier of the UN system, when Sweden is hardly the fifth largest economy, I think very few will consider reasonable.

Madam Speaker! Part of the report concerns equality in foreign policy and UN resolution 1325 on women, peace, and security. Equality is a matter of freedom and a Swedish core value that permeates our foreign policy. Equality is a matter of human rights, and it is a highly prioritized area for Sweden in the UN. Sweden is a strong voice for the rights of women and girls, and during the past year, Sweden held, among other things, the presidency of the UN Women board, which provided a platform to strengthen global equality work.

Regarding resolution 1325, the government adopted a new national action plan in November 2023 for the implementation of the UN agenda for women, peace and security. The action plan states, among other things, that Sweden shall be a driving force in the work to implement the agenda and that Sweden shall make visible and support particularly marginalized groups such as women with disabilities, hbtqi persons and young and old people.

The action plan specifies four priority areas such as strategic orientation and guidance for Sweden's work with women, peace and security. It is to contribute to women's and girls' equal participation in conflict prevention efforts, inclusive and gender-equal peace processes and peacebuilding, strengthened protection of women and girls, leadership and expertise. The action plan states that measures contributing to the implementation of the agenda for women, peace and security shall be integrated into all relevant activities nationally and internationally.

Madam Speaker! Let me conclude by saying that the UN is a central part of Swedish foreign policy and an immensely important platform, not least for driving the issue of strengthened rights for girls and women globally. I would like to move for approval of the proposal in the report.

(Applause)

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for approval of reservation 6.

Today we see how international law and the UN Charter, our framework for peace in the world, are sidelined, attacked, and violated in many places. Russia's illegal war of aggression against Ukraine is an example of this, but it also applies to Trump's threats against Greenland and Morocco's occupation of Western Sahara. We watch the developments in the Middle East with concern. Israel's continued occupation of Palestine and oppression of the Palestinian population, as well as the attacks by the USA and Israel against Iran, are not compatible with international law. Neither are Iran's counterattacks. The Iranian people have a right to a future in peace and freedom.

Now de-escalation is needed and diplomacy must take over, and measures must be taken immediately to protect the civilian population. The regime in Iran must give way to a democratic development and the military attacks must cease. The Iranian people have suffered enough and need all our support.

When the UN and international law are threatened, countries like Sweden must defend and strengthen the UN and seriously stand up for international law and condemn all violations that occur against international law. I see the UN as a central actor in the work for global peace, security, and solidarity, and I want to emphasize the organization's role in protecting international law and human rights. Unfortunately, we see how the Swedish government instead is reducing support to a number of important UN bodies, for example UNRWA, UN Women and UNFPA. It is serious and the wrong path to take.

Madam Speaker! The UN is the most important international organization for issues concerning conflicts, security, and disarmament, even though we see that there are certain shortcomings within the UN that must be addressed. The Left Party argues, for example, that the UN Security Council needs to be reformed, including limiting the veto power, in order to increase the capacity to act against war crimes, genocide, and climate crises. I, however, see the UN as the hub for equality, poverty reduction, and disarmament, especially when it comes to nuclear weapons.

Vänsterpartiet wants Sweden to actively strengthen the UN organization through a national UN strategy with a focus on diplomacy and feminist foreign policy. It is important to prioritize the Swedish core support to UN agencies such as UNRWA, UN Women and UNFPA.

Violations of women's rights are the most common and extensive crimes against human rights. All over the world, women's lives are restricted and threatened by discriminatory legislation and social norms. Women's rights are a prerequisite for peace, security, and development.

Vänsterpartiet wants all policy areas to rest on a feminist foundation. Foreign and security policy is no exception. That the government, with the support of Sverigedemokraterna, has abandoned the Swedish feminist foreign policy is a failure. We know that the feminist foreign policy worked and was effective.

War and armed conflicts affect women and men in different ways and to different extents. A peace process that leads to the cessation of violence against men does not automatically mean that the violence against women ceases.

Madam Speaker! Women's participation shall not be conditional or temporary. To build real and sustainable equality, it is required that women can actively participate at all levels of society. The gender perspective shall permeate all areas, whether it concerns infrastructure investments, trade agreements, or arms exports. The work shall be goal-oriented and possible to evaluate and follow up.

Since security threats against women are rarely included on the security policy agenda, Vänsterpartiet wants to change the concept of security to also include women's security. Lack of power, influence and freedom of movement, lack of sexual and reproductive health and rights, as well as violence against women, are important security issues both nationally and internationally. It is against that background that it is serious that support for equality and SRHR is decreasing in Swedish aid, while at the same time we see how support for equality and SRHR is decreasing drastically globally.

Madam Speaker! UN Resolution 1325 on women, peace and security is, among other things, about precisely strengthening women's rights and participation in peace processes. An increased proportion of women in, for example, peace-promoting efforts is an important goal in itself. Representation is an important building block in democracy and is rooted in demands for justice. It is fundamental to emphasize women's crucial tasks and roles in peace processes, peacekeeping troops, the judiciary, electoral processes, the security sector and reconstruction processes as they are described in resolution 1325 and the subsequent resolutions, for example resolution 2122.

Equal participation between women and men in peace processes is necessary for sustainable peace and human security. Foreign and security policy has traditionally been considered a male domain, and thus also processes aimed at leading to peace and reconstruction. The UN Development Fund for Women, Unifem, estimates that women in peace processes between 1992 and 2019 constituted 13 percent of the negotiators. Around 70 percent of the peace processes during the same period contained neither female negotiators nor female signatories. It is obviously completely unsustainable.

For there to be real and sustainable development, women's participation must increase significantly. It is a prerequisite for success. Vänsterpartiet considers it self-evident that the representation and participation of women and men in peace processes should be distributed equally. Sweden should, within the UN, work to increase women's participation in peace processes and to ensure that resolution 1325 on women, peace and security gains traction in all resolutions that the Security Council handles.

The Folke Bernadotte Academy, FBA, has since 2015 coordinated a women's mediation network with expert knowledge in diplomacy, peacebuilding, peace mediation, and peace negotiation. The network has an important role in promoting women's work in peace processes and in contributing to Sweden's work with resolution 1325. The Government has discontinued that activity. It is extremely regrettable if we mean business with the work for women, peace, and security. The support for the mediation network's work with 1325 must be resumed, and the support for organizations and authorities that work with 1325 must be strengthened if we mean business that women's rights are a priority issue.

The government has also cut the state financial support that has been given for a hundred years to Swedish civil society organizations working for peace and disarmament. That is also deeply regrettable.

A strong commitment within the multilateral organizations is central to the implementation of Agenda 2030, the climate transition, and the work for peace and equality. In a time of a hardening security and trade policy climate and increased polarization, multilateral arenas need to be strengthened and developed, not least the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.

Vänsterpartiet believes that Sweden should ensure that the organizations increase support for specifically equality work.

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

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for the approval of the Committee on Foreign Affairs' proposal in report UU16 in its entirety.

The report concerns Sweden's work in and through the United Nations. The UN is and remains the central institution in the international system. No other organization gathers the world's states or has the same legitimacy when it comes to formulating common rules for international cooperation, peace and security, and the work for human rights.

Sweden has for a long time been a strong voice for multilateral cooperation. In a time when the world is characterized by increased conflicts, geopolitical tensions and growing authoritarian tendencies, the need for functioning international institutions is greater than it has been in a long time.

But we must also be honest that the UN today faces significant problems. It is about economic challenges, bureaucracy and inefficiency, but also about political problems. One of the most obvious is that one of the Security Council's permanent members, Russia, has started a full-scale war of aggression against Ukraine. A country that, according to the UN Charter, has a special responsibility for international peace and security is thus itself violating the most fundamental principles in the same charter. That says something about the difficulties that the UN system faces.

There are also other problems. One of them concerns credibility and bias in certain parts of the UN system.

Madam Speaker! Let me mention some figures. During the period 2015–2025, the UN General Assembly has adopted 187 condemnatory resolutions regarding Israel. During the same period, 90 such resolutions have concerned all other countries in the world combined. This means that almost two-thirds of the General Assembly's country-specific resolutions over ten years have concerned a single country. Naturally, Israel's actions can be discussed and criticized, but when the focus becomes like this, it becomes disproportionate and risks undermining the entire credibility of the UN.

Yesterday, I had the opportunity to meet a human rights defender from Cuba, Yaxys Cires, who represents Observatorio Cubano de Derechos Humanos. His story serves as a reminder of how crucial international support is for people working under very difficult conditions. For human rights defenders in authoritarian states, UN mechanisms and attention can sometimes be an important protection. At the same time, it raises questions when the UN system sometimes directs its focus in a completely different way, which appears quite incomprehensible.

Last week, the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, Mary Lawlor, presented a report on Sweden. In it, concern is expressed over what is described as threats, hate propaganda, and stigmatization of human rights defenders, as well as over alleged restrictions on their freedom of expression and right to peaceful assembly. It is a description that is difficult to recognize when it concerns a country where freedom of expression is constitutionally protected, where demonstrations are common, and where civil society can freely criticize those in power.

In the report, it is simultaneously pointed out that climate activists risk legal consequences when they block roads or disrupt operations. The fact that the rule of law reacts when laws are broken is thus presented as a problem for human rights defenders.

The difference between being fined for blocking a road in a democracy and being imprisoned for one's work in a dictatorship should be obvious. When such issues are raised in a UN report on Sweden at the same time as human rights defenders in many parts of the world, not least in Cuba, are imprisoned, threatened, and murdered, there are reasons to speak about the need for proportionality.

Madam Speaker! The UN faces important crossroads. The choice of the next Secretary-General will be very significant. The organization needs a leadership that can prioritize, reform, and tackle the problems that exist, everything from inefficiency and overlapping structures to issues of politicization and bias.

The UN system has grown over a long period and today consists of a large number of different organs, programs, and funds. In some cases, the mandates and activities overlap while the administration has grown. There are therefore reasons to review how different parts of the UN system can be coordinated and, in some cases, merged.

The focus must lie on the core tasks: to contribute to peace and security, to defend human rights and to promote sustainable development. The UN's work must contribute to solving problems, not making them permanent.

International efforts must aim for people to be able to live in freedom, security, and dignity in their home countries, not for generation after generation to be stuck in refugee status without long-term solutions.

At the same time, we see how authoritarian regimes, especially China in this situation, are increasingly trying to advance their positions within international organizations, including the UN. They are trying to influence norms, language, and institutions in directions that risk undermining the work for democracy, human rights, and the principles of the rule of law. It is a development that democratic countries must meet with clarity and commitment.

Madam Speaker! The UN is an indispensable organization. Precisely because of that, we must dare to speak plainly about its shortcomings. For a strong UN, reform will, credibility, and respect for the principles the organization itself is set to defend are required.

With this, I would like to once again urge approval of the proposal in the committee's report and thank you for the floor.

(Applause)

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! I did not quite recognize my committee, as there have been very few reservations so far. I wondered where the Committee on Foreign Affairs had gone. But then suddenly a question arose that I feel I must raise.

I believe that Berntsson and I are quite in agreement that there are certain principles of international law that we must follow. One of them is the UN Charter, which clarifies what all countries should do.

Then there are also interpreters of all these principles and laws. We have, among others, the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court.

Then we also have the UN Security Council. It is a security council that the government refers to, for example, when one pivots on the question of Western Sahara, which has been raised here in the chamber earlier. It is said that international law is no longer as simple, because now the UN Security Council says this. This implies a new international law practice. It must mean that even what the Security Council says is something that we are to follow in terms of international law, if the government is serious.

Magnus Berntsson correctly stated that Israel is the country that has received the most UN resolutions against it. This includes, among other things, resolution 242 from 1967 regarding the withdrawal from occupied territory, which has not been done, and 2334 from 2016, where the UN Security Council clearly states that Israel's settlement policy in occupied territory is illegal. Nevertheless, they have continued to expand the settlements.

I therefore intended to ask a simple question to Magnus Berntsson: How many of all the UN's resolutions, which you are so opposed to, has Israel actually followed?

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

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Jacob Risberg, for the question! I am not surprised that Member Risberg requested a reply from me; it is usually that way.

I pointed out a problem that the UN as an organization has when, in two-thirds of the cases, one speaks about one country, Israel, but not about others when speaking about problems that exist in the world. If there, which would have been quite natural, had been significantly more resolutions about Russia, about how Iran violates the UN Charter, about how North Korea behaves or how Venezuela's regime has behaved over the years – I can continue with that rather long list – we would not have the bias that we unfortunately see in today's system.

I think it is very important that the UN dares to seize the opportunity for reforms that actually exists right now. Now, very late in his term, the Secretary-General has presented a proposal called UN80, which is intended to address some of the economic problems. But I mean that one must also address the political problems.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the answer – very interesting! However, the core question was not answered: How many of the resolutions has Israel followed? Can the Member mention any of them and also perhaps speak about which of the resolutions are superfluous, if there are too many?

Questions are raised regarding certain other countries, for example Russia, Iran, North Korea and Venezuela. We have introduced sanctions against Russia, Iran and North Korea. We have also had sanctions against Venezuela. For all countries that in different ways violate international law, international law or human rights, we usually have the ability to introduce different types of sanctions – that is, some form of possibility to punish these countries for not following the UN's resolutions.

I wonder what sanctions we have introduced against Israel so far. If one is to be honest, the resolutions are just words on paper if no one follows them and no one does anything to ensure that others follow them. In all the other cases that Member Berntsson mentions, the rest of the world has introduced different types of punishments, for example sanctions, because the countries in question do not follow international law. On the other hand, we have not done so when it comes to Israel.

The question is rather: Is it not unfair that we introduce sanctions against all these countries that violate international law, but when it comes to Israel, it just remains as words on paper? In that case, it actually doesn't matter whether it is one, ten, a hundred, or thousands of resolutions, because they still will not have any effect if the country does not follow them and if the rest of the world does not in any way do anything to implement them and ensure that the country follows them.

But again: How many of the resolutions has Israel followed?

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

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Risberg, for the question! It was quite a long way to the question, which meant that I perhaps did not quite have time to answer all parts.

My point and the important thing I was trying to say was that I do not think we are really tackling the problems in the world as it looks when a proportion as large as two-thirds of the resolutions in the General Assembly over the last ten years concern a single country.

Sweden has two different ways to proceed with sanctions: one through the UN system and one through the EU system. Through the EU system, we have introduced a number of sanctions against extreme settlers and groups of extreme settlers. Furthermore, Member Risberg knows that the government is pushing for sanctions to also be introduced against extreme settlers who are also ministers, of which we have a couple in the Israeli government. This is something that Sweden is pushing for.

But for the UN system to continue to be relevant, one must also address other issues. It cannot only be Israel that is constantly discussed without addressing the fundamental problems. In that case, I have much greater confidence that the Abraham Accords path will yield results in the conflict between Israel and Palestine than that the UN will manage to handle it.

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

Kerstin Lundgren (C)

Madam Speaker! Yes, we live in a time of transition – not in the time that I believe most of us would have dreamed of. But countries have for a very long time given themselves the right to violate international law, against international law and the UN Charter, and thereby step by step also eroded the trust in international law. The UN is a mirror of today's world, so the UN cannot be better than what the world is. The UN is every country's voice and thus a very clear picture of how the world looks.

Nevertheless, we say – and that stance is shared by the Center Party – that the UN constitutes the basis for our foreign policy and is an important part of the security policy because it is there that the foundation for international law is laid, with the UN Charter which we have all signed – even though it was flagrantly broken by Russia when it invaded Ukraine already in 2014 but also in 2022. We have seen it even earlier.

Sweden must be clear and stand up for international law, despite all the crimes being committed by different countries. Sweden must stand up and assert it. If we remain silent and no one raises this, then the issue of norms is also gone. For the time being, the norms, which are the foundation of the system, still live on.

When we say that the UN must be defended, we know, not least in this chamber at this time, that defense costs. So does the UN if we are to get the UN to function. As we say, we find ourselves in a time of transition. We will face major demands for prioritization. Then we must be clear that the foundations of international law for international cooperation shall be asserted. We must work together with like-minded people to make them clear and stand up for them together. We must stand up against autocrats in the east, south, and west.

We have seen how President Trump has created a new peace council, which goes beyond the mandate that the security council gave. Some have said that it is an alternative UN, and President Trump does not seem to dislike that outright, if one could say so. We will have to see what follows from this. But therefore it is important that we still assert the common platform that the world's countries have.

We think it is important to prioritize human rights, which are a part of international law. It is fundamentally about freedom for individual people. People who dream of freedom are prepared to fight, even die, for their freedom or for their country's freedom. We must see how it looks in many countries. There are many forces, and very large economic resources are being invested in trying to push back human rights, women's rights, and hbtqi people's rights. They are also trying to push back religious freedom or freedom from religion – sometimes with religion as a weapon. It is naturally also something that we must be attentive to. We do not want to enter into new religious wars. We have a long history with that experience.

Madam Speaker! We therefore believe that we need to work together to elevate human rights and make them clearer and more visible in the debate. It is about international law in general – yes. But if we do not highlight human rights, they too will be eroded, more than what is happening today. We do not want to see a development where everyone is afraid of each other. We do not want to see a development where everyone's war against everyone becomes the rule. We want to see a development where the foundations of the UN system live on.

We are well aware that a new Secretary-General will play a major role and that there is a need for reforms. But we are also aware that part of the UN's problems are actually that the countries have wanted to give the UN their own interpretation. They have thus invested their money in their projects. It has required creating a Christmas tree and hanging many decorations on it. It has become part of the UN system.

If we are to succeed in reforming, the countries must be prepared to give up some of their own priorities and see that basic support is more important than project support.

Madam Speaker! I would like to move for approval of our reservation 2. It concerns precisely the UN and the importance of human rights. We also naturally stand behind the reservation regarding resolutions 1325 and 2250. It concerns women's participation in peace processes and ensuring that impunity does not prevail. To learn from history and ensure that inclusion is part of the solution and not part of a new conflict is extremely important. These are important resolutions for the future. But, as I said, I move for approval only of reservation 2.

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by expressing my support for the committee's proposal in the report.

Last year, the United Nations turned 80. Of course, there is much to criticize the UN for. The organization is in great need of reforms. But for a liberal, the struggle for freedom is global. Criticism must not make us blind to the successes that have sprung from the UN system.

Madam Speaker! Smallpox tormented humanity for thousands of years. During the 1900s alone, up to 300 million people died from the deadly disease. The World Health Organization ran a global program from 1966 to eradicate smallpox. In 1980, humanity could declare that the disease was eradicated. Smallpox no longer exists.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is the closest the world has come to a universal declaration of liberal fundamental values. It has roots in thinkers such as John Locke, who already in the 1600s asserted that every individual has inviolable rights precisely because they are human. Human value does not lie in the collective they belong to, or in a role assigned by the state, or in the dictates of tradition or religion. Every human being has a right to freedom.

Add to that the many peacekeeping missions that the blue helmets have carried out around the world. The World Food Programme has contributed to reducing hunger globally. Through Unesco, for example, more children gain access to education and learning.

It is through global cooperation, Madam Speaker, that we solve global issues. It concerns climate change, pandemics, trade, telecommunications, AI and armed conflicts. The UN will also play a very important role in the future but likely with fewer resources.

Madam Speaker! That is why I am particularly distressed by the USA's decision to in practice withdraw from large parts of the UN system. On January 7 this year, Donald Trump signed a presidential order to leave 31 UN bodies, many linked to democracy initiatives, global health, and climate issues. Add to that the cuts in the aid budget through USAID and previous decisions to leave the World Health Organization.

The pattern is clear. This American administration is not interested in multilateral institutions. It is a devastating approach. It gives a walkover to China and weakens the effectiveness of life-saving programs and humanitarian efforts.

At the same time, Madam Speaker, the UN is an organization with significant problems. It reflects its member states, as Kerstin Lundgren said. I believe Alexandra Völker said: It will not become more than the member states make it. Both observations are very wise, and I naturally agree with them.

When the interests of the great powers pull in different directions in the Security Council, crucial decisions are often blocked, even in situations where the principle of responsibility to protect should be able to be applied.

Madam Speaker! I experience that in Sweden, one sometimes treats international law as if it were a kind of holy scripture – untouchable and perfect in its current form. But international law is fundamentally the rules, compromises, and agreements that guide the relations between states. It is not static.

When dictators can hide behind the principle of non-intervention and when the only thing a brutal regime needs to fear is its own population, we must dare to discuss how international law can be developed.

Would it have been a violation of international law to precision bomb the Wannsee Conference in 1942, where the Nazis decided on the Holocaust? Yes, probably. But would it have been morally justifiable? Yes, without a doubt.

We can take a specific UN body as an example: the UN Human Rights Council. Sweden was a candidate for the council for the period 2013–2015 but was not elected, in practice because we value human rights too highly to be elected to the UN Human Rights Council.

Today, 47 countries sit in the council. Among them is China, which puts Uyghurs in concentration camps and denies its citizens basic political and human rights. There sits Cuba, a totalitarian communist dictatorship since the beginning of the 1960s. There sit Qatar, Egypt, and Congo, where the tragic war in the country's eastern parts makes the enjoyment of human rights impossible.

States or regimes like these should not be allowed to sit in global bodies that are to be watchdogs for human rights. The Liberals therefore argue that a democracy requirement should be introduced for membership in the UN Human Rights Council.

But the problems go deeper than that, Madam Speaker. After having initiated Europe's largest war of aggression since 1945 through the invasion of Ukraine, Russia still has a seat in the UN Security Council. The entire machinery actually grinds to a halt when Security Council members act in that manner. The UN is too important to be taken hostage by undemocratic states. We must discuss how the organization can be reformed so that the UN can once again be a truly strong voice for peace, freedom, and democracy in the world.

Madam Speaker! A few weeks ago, I was appointed by the government as the new chair of the Swedish UNESCO Council. UNESCO is the United Nations' organization for education, science, and culture. This is truly an honoring assignment. I noted some concern from Kerstin Lundgren, Jacob Risberg, and a few others, but I can reassure you: This is only a side assignment and not a full-time assignment. I will therefore remain in the Riksdag, at least until the election.

When one hears Unesco, most people spontaneously think of the world heritage sites, in Sweden for example Skogskyrkogården a bit from here, Laponia, Birka and the rock carvings in Tanum. But there is also a public international law, foreign and security policy aspect of this.

The protection of world heritage is regulated in the Hague Convention of 1954, and the responsible UN body is Unesco. Already then, the obligations of states to protect historical monuments, buildings, schools and a number of other things in peacetime and in conflicts were established.

When the Rome Statute was introduced shortly before the turn of the millennium, a criminal law basis for individuals was also introduced. For example, if one destroys a historical monument in a conflict, one can therefore become a case for the International Criminal Court. This has also occurred in a case in Mali, if I remember correctly.

Madam Speaker! Of course, human life is the most important thing to protect in war and conflicts. But next after that come state functions and cultural heritage. We now see a number of wars around the world where cultural heritage is threatened. This can be seen clearly on Unesco's website if one googles "Unesco armed conflict enhanced protection". For example, there are several dozen designated world heritage sites in Lebanon and in Ukraine that are now threatened due to the wars.

According to international law, therefore, both states and individuals can be guilty of war crimes if one attacks these. We all remember what happened to the Buddha statues in Afghanistan under the previous Taliban rule in the 90s and Palmyra in Syria during the conflict there.

Regardless of whether it is a designated world heritage site or not, there is a very strong protection value, because cultural heritage has an enormous significance for people's identity and understanding of their history.

(Applause)

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! I do not wish to prolong the debate too much, but I can take the opportunity to reply to one thing that the member just said, and it concerns precisely the deadlock in the UN Security Council at the moment.

The UN was in the same situation in 1950 when the Soviet Union simply blocked the Security Council. Then the General Assembly passed resolution 377, which gives the General Assembly quite a lot of power to, in some cases, even deploy military forces on the ground. It is a resolution that one could very well use in these days when we see a blocked Security Council. The UN is not completely locked; it just requires that there are states that take the lead and raise these types of issues in the General Assembly.

Madam Speaker! There are moments in a nation's history when we are forced to ask ourselves the most fundamental questions: Who are we? What do we stand for? How do we want to be remembered by the world?

Right now, Sweden finds itself at such a crossroads. For decades, we have built our international standing on a simple and proud idea: that Sweden is a country that reaches out a hand when others hesitate, a country that stands firm when the storms blow, a country that understands that solidarity is not charity but security policy in its purest form. Today, however, we see a change of course that risks erasing the legacy that generations before us have built up.

Madam Speaker! For decades, Sweden has been one of the few countries in the world that has consistently lived up to, and even exceeded, the UN goal of 0.7 percent of GNI in aid. This has made us an international role model. But now the government is allowing this level to fall below the goal for the first time in a very long time.

This is not just a budgetary adjustment but a symbolic act – a signal to the world that Sweden is no longer the country that others can count on. When we no longer live up to the principles that we ourselves have demanded of others, what remains of our own credibility?

Madam Speaker! Sweden has been one of the largest donors of precisely that form of aid that the UN values most, namely core funding. These are flexible, predictable resources that enable the UN to act quickly during pandemics, disasters, and conflicts. The Dag Hammarskjöld Foundation warns that the reduction of these resources undermines the entire UN's crisis management capacity.

What is the government doing? You are reducing support to UNAIDS, UN Women, UNDP, UNHCR and a number of other UN agencies. All these vital institutions are now receiving less Swedish support. And let us be crystal clear: When a country reduces its core support, its influence also decreases. It is not just about money; it is about our seats, our voices and our opportunities to shape the future of international work. It is a bit like resigning from your membership on the board but believing that you will still have the same influence. The world does not work that way.

No decision, however, symbolizes this change of course more clearly than the government's abolished core support to UNRWA – the organization that manages schools, healthcare, and humanitarian support for Palestinian refugees in Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan. The government has decided to completely scrap this support.

Madam Speaker! UNRWA is not just any organization. The UN asserts that it cannot be replaced. It is the only actor that has the infrastructure and legitimacy to reach out to millions of vulnerable people.

When Sweden breaks this support, we send a signal, not only to the Middle East but to the entire world, that we are abandoning a humanitarian, principle-based stance that has been our hallmark for decades. This does not strengthen Sweden's position but weakens it. We risk our role as an impartial actor. We risk our reputation as a humanitarian superpower. We risk relations that have taken generations to build.

Madam Speaker! Sweden has been a global leader in the work for women's rights, but now support for UN Women is decreasing at a time when women-led organizations already only receive 0.4 percent of the humanitarian budgets. It is more than a cut – it is a loss of identity. Our feminist foreign policy, which the world was inspired by, has been replaced by silence and dismantling.

Madam Speaker! Forum Civ describes it aptly: Sweden has taken off the leader's jersey. We know what happens when a leader steps aside: The space is filled by other countries, other agendas and other values.

Do we really want authoritarian states, not democratic countries like Sweden, to shape the international norms of the future? Do we really want to leave the arena to those who do not share our values of equality, human rights, and peace? If the answer is no, we must stop dismantling exactly that which has given us our influence.

Madam Speaker! The government says that Ukraine is being prioritized. But the world is not a zero-sum game. The support for Ukraine is absolutely very important; that is clear. But the world does not work in such a way that we must choose between supporting Ukraine and supporting human rights globally. It is not either-or, it is both. Saving lives in Gaza does not mean that one betrays Ukraine. Supporting UNDP does not mean that one turns a blind eye to Russian aggression. It is a false dichotomy, and it is a dangerous policy.

Madam Speaker! Sweden's strength has never lain in our military power, our population size, or our economy. Our strength has lain in something much greater, namely our ability to be a force for peace, for democracy, for justice, and for humanity. That is what has given us influence. That is what has given us respect. That is what has made Sweden Sweden in the eyes of the world.

When we now shrink our aid, when we reduce core support to the UN and when we abandon organizations such as UNRWA, we undermine our most important strength. We do not do it because the world demands it and not because the economy forces us, but out of political will.

Madam Speaker! That is what makes this so serious. Sweden shall be a country that other countries turn to in a crisis and not a country that turns away. Sweden shall be a country that shows the way and not one that veers off. Sweden shall be a country that stands for something and not one that compromises away its soul.

We still have the opportunity to regain the leadership position we are now losing. But then we must stop dismantling that which has made us strong. We must reinvest in the UN, in international aid and in global values – not to be kind but to be strong, and not for others' sake but for our own.

Madam Speaker! Sweden deserves to be a voice that the world listens to. Let us ensure that that voice does not fall silent.

With this, I move for approval of reservation 3.

In this speech, Katarina Luhr (MP) agreed.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 18 March.)

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