International law, including human rights

Rasmus Giertz (SD)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the Committee on Foreign Affairs' report on international law, including human rights. For Sweden, these are not just matters of principle. Respect for international law, human rights, and the international legal order has direct significance for our security and for the stability of our global environment and our immediate neighborhood. When international rules are eroded, when abuses do not have consequences, and when authoritarian regimes are allowed to advance their positions, it also affects Swedish interests.

Therefore, it is also an important starting point that the committee establishes that international law is a cornerstone of Sweden's foreign policy and that an international order in which the UN Charter is respected is crucial for our country's security and for stability in the world.

For Sweden, as for the other Nordic countries, this is particularly important. We are small states that cannot rely solely on weight, size, or power politics to assert our interests. Precisely because of that, we are dependent on a stable and predictable international order where rules apply, where borders are respected, and where even smaller countries can make their voices heard. It is a line that we Sverigedemokrater stand behind.

Madam Speaker! The international judges have an important function in upholding international law and the international legal order. The International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court are central to countering impunity and ensuring that gross abuses can be tried legally. Sweden shall therefore safeguard their independence and integrity.

Accountability is a central part of a functioning international legal order. If abuses are not documented, if perpetrators are not held accountable and if crimes are left without consequences, the international legal order is undermined. Sweden should therefore continue to work broadly in various forums to promote accountability.

When it comes to international courts, Sweden's position should be clear and principled. The international legal order presupposes that acceding states live up to their commitments and cooperate with the courts. At the same time, we must be vigilant against politicization that risks weakening the courts' legitimacy and undermining confidence in their mandate.

Madam Speaker! When it comes to human rights, there is one issue that deserves special attention, and that is freedom of religion. The report states that discrimination, harassment, and violence linked to people's religious and non-religious identities have increased in line with the global retreat for human rights, democracy, and the principles of the rule of law. Religious minorities in many parts of the world live under strong pressure and not infrequently under direct threat of violence, persecution, and discriminatory legislation.

It is important that the committee does not stop at general formulations but also explicitly states that Christians today constitute a particularly persecuted religious group in the world. The government's work to highlight this in the UN and EU is therefore important, not least to clearly show support for Christian minorities around the world.

This is also close to a motion from Sverigedemokraterna that is addressed in the committee report. There, we highlight the need for Sweden to clearly show its support for Christians who are subjected to violence, persecution, or oppression, as well as that fundamental freedoms and rights shall be guaranteed for Christians and other minorities. Even though the motion's requests are rejected, it is simultaneously confirmed in the committee report that the problem is real and serious.

Madam Speaker! Freedom of religion is a fundamental freedom and right. The right to believe, not to believe, to change one's belief, and to practice one's faith without threats or coercion is a central part of a free society. This right also has clear protection in international conventions.

When Christians in different parts of the world are subjected to violence, threats, discriminatory laws, attacks against churches, or repression from the state, it is not only an attack on a religious group but also an attack on a fundamental human freedom. Therefore, Sweden must take a clear stance. Freedom of religion cannot stop at general formulations but must also be defended in practical policy.

This means that Sweden, in the UN, the EU and other international contexts, shall be clear towards governments that do not protect religious minorities. It also means that from Sweden's side, we shall not be afraid to specifically highlight the vulnerability of Christians when it is documented and recurring.

Madam Speaker! The report also addresses other important issues of rights. For example, the death penalty is rejected – rightly so – as incompatible with fundamental human rights.

The report also addresses the serious situation in China. Against the background of reports of extensive human rights violations, Sweden needs to continue to raise the issue clearly, both bilaterally and in multilateral contexts. A strong and common European line is also needed here. This applies, for example, to Hong Kong, where the democratic space has diminished significantly and the restrictions on individuals' civil liberties and rights have become increasingly numerous.

Freedom of expression is fundamental in this context, not least because it is also a prerequisite for other freedoms and rights, including freedom of religion.

In this context, there are also reasons to touch upon the issue of ecocide. Extensive and intentional environmental destruction in connection with war, conflicts, or state oppression can have devastating consequences for both people, societies, and future generations. When nature, habitats, and livelihoods are destroyed on a large scale, it is not only an environmental issue but also a question of responsibility, justice, and human security. This is a discussion that will likely become increasingly important in the future.

Madam Speaker! Overall, the report contains several important positions. International law is rightly described as a cornerstone of Sweden's foreign policy. The independence of the international courts shall be protected. The importance of accountability is highlighted. Freedom of religion is given a central place. The report also explicitly states that Christians today constitute a particularly persecuted religious group and that the government should continue to draw attention to this in the UN and the EU.

The Sweden Democrats support the committee's proposal in the report. Sweden needs a clear and principled line that defends international law and the international legal order, which safeguards the independence of international courts and establishes that abuses must have consequences. It is also a line where Sweden clearly stands up for freedom of religion and for Christians and other minorities who are subjected to violence, persecution, and oppression.

With this, Madam Speaker, I move for approval of the committee's proposal in the report.

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Madam Speaker! The Member spoke well about the defense of international law and the international courts. That is good. The international courts exist to defend international law and human rights. Sweden has also signed the Rome Statute and thereby committed itself to, for example, assist and investigate when persons are suspected of genocide. This includes Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu.

The ICC, the International Criminal Court, has issued an arrest warrant against Netanyahu, among other things for war crimes. It concerns, among other things, the use of starvation as a weapon and crimes against humanity.

Does the member answer that Sweden has done enough to assist and support the international courts in their work, particularly regarding Netanyahu's crimes but also regarding human rights violations in general? Should not Sweden increase the resources to the international courts so that the courts are given the opportunity to carry out their mandates in a better way and be able to investigate all the crimes committed? I am referring to human rights violations, war crimes, genocide and so on, including the allegations against Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu.

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

Rasmus Giertz (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thought I was quite clear in my speech. I explicitly stated that international courts must be able to work independently without political pressure and that abuses must have consequences. This applies in principle and universally. International law cannot be strong in some conflicts and weak in others depending on which actors are politically convenient at the moment.

The difference between us is rather that I try to hold fast to the principles of the rule of law, while Vänsterpartiet often wants to make foreign policy more signal-oriented. I have no problem at all with saying that international law should also apply in Gaza, but I do not intend to turn the court's work into a matter of political slogans in the chamber. My line is that legal processes must take their course, that accountability must be demanded, and that Sweden must stand up for the independence of the courts.

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Mr. Speaker! That sounds good. But for the judges to be able to do their work, resources and support are required, and I then wonder if the member believes that Sweden should increase the support to the international courts so that they can do their important work of investigating crimes against humanity, genocide and other crimes, including Israel's crimes. It is obviously not the only crime to be investigated, but it is one of all the crimes to be investigated. Here I think that Sweden could have done significantly more to push so that this really comes to fruition.

The USA has attempted to undermine international law by imposing sanctions against the International Criminal Court, ICC. Does the member believe that Sweden should take a stronger stand against this and protest against the USA's actions when it tries to undermine international law, and that the EU should activate the blocking statute against the USA's sanctions to protect the ICC and its judges so that they can do their work in a better way?

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

Rasmus Giertz (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The Sweden Democrats naturally stand behind the Rome Statute and safeguard the independence of the courts. In my opinion, Sweden should do what we can to assist these courts so that any crimes against international law and human rights can be investigated and those responsible and guilty can be prosecuted.

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

Linnéa Wickman (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for the speech.

In last year's debate on international law and human rights, the issue of ecocide was raised, and then the Sweden Democrat member received a question about how the Sweden Democrats view that Sweden needs to act and more clearly raise its voice. I note that in the report, the proposal to add ecocide as a separate crime in the Rome Statute is again called an innovative proposal.

Ukraine is our most important foreign policy priority, and it is there, not least, that we see extensive ecocide crimes. The issue of ecocide is also included in Ukraine's own peace plan.

How are the Sweden Democrats and the government driving the issue of ecocide? Over the last year, it seems that zero and nothing has happened, and it is difficult to find any information at all that any initiative has been taken in this area. I mean that it is not enough to call it an innovative proposal, but here Sweden needs to be an important driver as a party to the Rome Statute.

My question to the member, in light of the year that has passed, is quite simply: What initiatives has the government taken, and what are the Sweden Democrats driving?

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

Rasmus Giertz (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I did not participate in last year's debate, so I do not know exactly what was said then. But I agree with Linnéa Wickman that Ukraine is our greatest foreign policy priority and that the crimes committed by Russia in Ukraine are serious and appalling.

I raised the issue of ecocide in my speech because large-scale environmental destruction must be taken seriously. I do, however, believe that one must be serious about the issue. It is not enough to add another word to a debate. The important thing is to build sustainable international law, not to pretend that a new criminal classification solves the accountability. This needs to be investigated further so that progress can be made on the issue.

As I also said in my speech, this is an issue that I believe we will have reason to return to frequently in the future.

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

Linnéa Wickman (S)

Mr. Speaker! The issue of ecocide is not new, and the concept of ecocide was coined in 1972 by Olof Palme in connection with the UN environment conference here in Stockholm. Since then, the issue of ecocide has been up for debate and discussion in international forums, and it was also close to being added to the Rome Statute once upon a time.

International law is complex and challenging, and it is also contested. I mean that Sweden must be active and push forward on the issue of ecocide, but in the debate and the report, the committee majority says that it shares the government's analysis. However, it is very unclear what the government's analysis is and what is being done to move the positions forward.

I agree that what matters is not what is said but what is done, and what I am trying to get an answer on from the member is precisely what the Sverigedemokraterna and the government are doing in this issue. The fact is that nothing seems to be happening at all. But I am happy to be convinced, because there is indeed broad support in the Swedish Riksdag regarding the ecocide issue since we see, not least in Ukraine, how Russia's war leads to extensive environmental destruction.

That is why it is important to hear what ambitions exist and what steps one is prepared to take. I am the first to say that it takes time to develop international law, but it will never be developed if we do not do something.

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

Rasmus Giertz (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I agree with the member that it takes time to develop international law. Therefore, it is also important that it is done in a carefully balanced way. I also agree with Linnéa Wickman that the government needs to be proactive in this issue; that is something I am the first to sign on to. However, I am not in the government, so it is probably better that the member poses that specific question to the responsible minister.

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

Linnéa Wickman (S)

Mr. Speaker! We are now debating the Foreign Affairs Committee's motion report on international law and human rights.

Few questions are so crucial in the time we live in. Rarely, if ever in modern times, has the rules-based world order that was built up in the ruins of World War II been so strongly challenged by authoritarian leaders and countries that want the law of the strongest to prevail over international law and human rights. For the first time in two decades, we have more dictatorships in the world than liberal democracies, and that is something that threatens the security of us all.

That is also why we Social Democrats have registered two speakers in this debate to address our reservations. My colleague Azra Muranovic will later highlight children's rights, the Middle East, and the developments in Gaza and the occupied West Bank.

Mr. Speaker! Let me begin with Ukraine. Russia's full-scale invasion has now entered its fifth year. The Ukrainian people have stood up against Russian terror for four years. They continue to pay a very high price, not only for their own freedom but for the security of all of Europe.

Russia has met a common, European and Ukrainian resistance whose strength they have severely underestimated. We must continue to stand united in a long-term and purposeful manner, especially when it comes to standing up for what is being attacked: freedom, self-determination, and international law.

But there is a dimension of the Russian warfare in Ukraine that I want to highlight specifically, and that is the ecocide crimes. Russia's war involves not only a war against the people but also against nature and against the future. The deliberate environmental destruction aims to undermine the conditions for Ukraine's reconstruction. Ukraine is often called the world's breadbasket. The fertile soil contributes to feeding the world and reducing hunger and famine, while at the same time being central to the Ukrainian economy.

Mr. Speaker! The question of ecocide is not new. It was already raised in 1972 by Olof Palme during the UN environment conference here in Stockholm, with reference to the USA's use of the environmental toxin Agent Orange in the Vietnam War and its long-lasting consequences for people and the environment.

The Russian war of aggression has once again brought the issue of ecocide to the agenda. The destruction of the Nova Kachovka dam is the clearest example. Thousands of hectares of land were flooded, people were forced to flee, and large amounts of toxic substances and mines were spread downstream towards the Black Sea.

The environmental consequences of the war are also addressed in Ukraine's peace plan, and President Zelenskyy appointed a high-level group, led by Margot Wallström, which, before the two-year anniversary of the invasion, presented a series of recommendations both to Ukraine and to the international community. One example and a recommendation that was made to the ICC's parties, of which Sweden is a member, was to work towards introducing ecocide as a crime under the Rome Statute. The war against nature in Ukraine clearly shows the need to once and for all make it punishable and criminal to cause large-scale environmental destruction that is extensive and has long-lasting consequences.

A year ago, the Committee on Foreign Affairs debated this very issue here in the chamber. I can state that the government since then does not seem to have made any major efforts to move the issue forward – this despite the fact that there is still a broad political consensus here in the Riksdag and a clear momentum in the issue on the international arena. It requires a purposeful effort to convince more states to act. Sweden cannot be satisfied with just monitoring the issue, but we must actively push it forward.

Mr. Speaker! In a time when the attacks against international law are flagrant and occur with the aim of undermining and neutralizing it, we must stand guard over the international justice system and its processes. It is therefore completely unacceptable that the Trump administration has directed sanctions against judges and prosecutors at the International Criminal Court, ICC. It is a serious escalation in the attempts to jeopardize the court's independence, impartiality, and integrity.

Judges are being personally attacked because they have participated in decisions regarding arrest warrants against Israel's prime minister and the former defense minister. Others have sanctions directed at them because they have given the green light to investigate suspected war crimes committed by American personnel in Afghanistan.

Specifically, the sanctions mean that American companies and banks are prohibited from having any dealings with the individuals and that assets can be frozen. In a time when international impunity must be fought more vigorously, it is completely unreasonable that it is those who are trying to uphold justice who are being punished.

Mr. Speaker! The government has criticized the American sanctions, but what is also important moving forward is to act so that the EU activates the blocking statute. This means, in short, that European companies and actors are prohibited from following the American sanctions and that they are protected from economic and legal pressures. Here too, the Swedish government needs to step forward and push the issue toward the EU Commission, and it needs to be done together with other member states, especially since the government says it stands behind the activation of the statute and the European Parliament has also urged the Commission to do this.

Mr. Speaker! In January, an important milestone was reached when official negotiations began in the UN regarding an intergovernmental convention concerning crimes against humanity. It is an important opportunity to close the gaps that exist in today's international law regarding the most serious and egregious crimes specifically directed against girls and women.

A central part of this is the question of gender apartheid. Gender apartheid concerns inhumane acts committed to maintain an institutionalized system of systematic oppression.

We Social Democrats believe that Sweden should push in the UN and in other contexts so that gender apartheid shall be clearly defined and introduced as a crime against humanity. It is also important to follow the legal process that is already ongoing linked to Afghanistan, where the ICC has issued an arrest warrant for the Taliban's highest leader, the emir, and the country's chief justice.

The clearest examples of gender apartheid are seen precisely in the Taliban's Afghanistan and in the mullahs' Iran. In Afghanistan, girls and women are deprived of their human rights in a way that is unparalleled. They are not allowed to work, and they are not allowed to go to school after the age of twelve. Violence against girls and women has, in practice, been legalized. In Iran, the regime spares no means to retain power and suppress people's pursuit of freedom through extensive violence, the killing of tens of thousands, and a particularly harsh oppression directed against women and various minorities.

It was the women who went at the forefront of the protests under the slogan "Woman, Life, Freedom" after the morality police murdered Mahsa Jina Amini. Nobel laureate Narges Mohammadi, who is imprisoned in the notorious Evin Prison, is one of the voices that for a long time has pushed for gender apartheid to be recognized as a crime against humanity. It is important to listen to her and to all those civil society organizations and women's rights activists around the world who fight so that the abominable oppression of girls and women will never meet with impunity.

Mr. Speaker! It was with disgust and shock that we yesterday learned of the news that Iran has executed a Swedish citizen after a process without legal certainty, for there is none such in Iran. It is a country and a regime that carries out mass executions and completely lacks respect for the value of human life. Our thoughts in this difficult moment go to the family and relatives, whose sorrow, of course, cannot be imagined.

Mr. Speaker! I also want to particularly mention in this context the situation for political prisoners – the way dictators and regimes stifle resistance and silence political opponents, journalists, and all types of opposition.

Many of us welcomed it when the Russian opposition politician and journalist Vladimir Kara-Murza was released in a prisoner exchange and when Siarhej Tsichanoŭski was released from the regime's grip in Belarus. Efforts to also have Dawit Isaak, Gui Minhai and Ahmadreza Djalali released immediately must continue.

All around the world, thousands of political prisoners are imprisoned without trial for having exercised their human rights. In Turkey alone, there are over 6,000 political prisoners, and the number is increasing. To the names of Selahattin Demirtaş, Figen Yüksekdağ, and Osman Kavala, the name of Ekrem İmamoğlu, the Mayor of Istanbul, and the names of several other mayors in Turkish cities can now also be added.

We have also seen examples of how journalists are persecuted. The prosecution of the Swedish journalist Joakim Medin is a clear example of how it can happen. Sweden must never remain silent in the work to ensure that journalists, human rights defenders, politicians, and other political prisoners who are unjustly imprisoned are released immediately.

Mr. Speaker! International law and human rights do not defend themselves. They require us to stand up for them when they are challenged, when they are attacked, and when they need to be strengthened.

It is not enough to say that we uphold international law, we must defend it in practice. We must act when it is violated, and we must push to develop it where it is currently insufficient, but also where it is realistic to achieve improvements.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that we Social Democrats, of course, stand behind all our reservations in the report, but for the sake of time, I move for approval of only reservation 5.

I apologize for exceeding my speaking time, but I believe that this is such an incredibly important and decisive issue.

(Applause)

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

Margareta Cederfelt (M)

Mr. Speaker! The Foreign Affairs Committee's debate regarding UU14 International Law, including human rights, is, in my opinion, one of this year's most important debates here in the chamber.

Initially, I would like to move for the rejection of all reservations and thus for the approval of the majority's position in the committee report.

In UU14, motions on international law and human rights from the general motion periods 2024/25 and 2025/26 are being addressed.

International law and human rights are being put to the test. There is no doubt about that.

Let me look back. When the UN was founded in 1945, after the Second World War, it was as a guarantor of peace, security, and respect for human rights and international law. Today, we can unfortunately state that the UN is dysfunctional and that major reforms need to be implemented to restore the UN as an organization – an organization that stands up for precisely peace, security, international law, and human rights. The UN should be an arena where the world's countries can reach agreements that are respected by the member states – with the UN's fundamental value as the guiding star.

I am therefore very happy that a reform process is underway and that Sweden's government is driving it. But unfortunately, I am extremely concerned that progress will not be made in the reform work. There are, in fact, too many forces that are opposed to a change. That is not to say that I do not want the UN to continue. We need the UN, and brighter times will always follow the dark ones.

I also want to mention another organization that was formed after the Second World War. It is the EU, Mr. Speaker. The EU was built up to ensure that Europe would be safe and secure and that Europe's countries would no longer wage war with one another. The EU is built on partnerships. I think the basic idea of the EU remains, as the EU's member states have not fallen into war with one another. And one continues to work for a rules-based world order.

I mention the rules-based world order because it is very important. We need it. I can state that when the rules-based world order is respected, the world does not just become safer and more secure. It also becomes wealthier and freer.

I also want to mention something about the need and importance of accountability for the war crimes committed in Ukraine, Mr. Speaker. Ukraine is a high-priority issue within the EU but also in Sweden. Today, we in the Committee on Foreign Affairs heard – several times, in several different sections – how important it is that Russia's illegal war of aggression, which began on 24 February 2022, continues to remain in focus. I say this in view of how it was regarding Crimea. Crimea was annexed in 2014. Approximately four years later, the world stopped talking about the illegal annexation.

It has now been more than four years, and Russia is in no hurry. Russia continues its illegal war. I say: We must not remain silent, Mr. Speaker. We must continue to highlight the crimes that Russia is committing against international law and how Russia attacks indiscriminately – civilians and civil infrastructure.

Since Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Sweden and other EU member states have worked to strengthen the ICC and the work of the Ukrainian law enforcement authorities. Sweden is one of the primary donors and provides additional financial support to the ICC. Sweden also provides prosecutors and experts from the Swedish Police Authority, who have seconded to the ICC. Sweden contributes personnel who support the Ukrainian authorities through the EU's advisory mission in Ukraine.

I also want to mention that Justice Minister Gunnar Strömmer has on several occasions repeated Sweden's and other EU member states' support for the ICC, as well as the importance of achieving full accountability for the war crimes and other gross violations of international law in Ukraine.

It is worth noting that the Police Authority is contributing investigators to the field office in Ukraine that the ICC – here I am unsure – is either currently establishing or is going to establish. I am unsure on that point and do not want to be quoted on it. But I think it is important that the Police Authority should participate there.

In this context, I also want to say that the developments in the Middle East in recent years are terrifying. For decades, the unrest in the Middle East has been extensive, but the current development is accelerating with the risk that all involved are losers.

I think it is important to remember history. On October 7, 2023, Hamas attacked Israel. The terrorist organization Hamas took approximately 250 people – civilians, soldiers, children, adults, and elderly people – as hostages and took them to the Gaza Strip. During Hamas's attack, 690 Israeli civilians were killed, including 35 children and 70 foreign nationals. Following Hamas's attack, a long and protracted war – or conflict – followed.

This is, of course, very, very sad. I also want to say that it took more than two years before the last of the hostages that Hamas had taken was returned to Israel, Mr. Speaker.

The Swedish government's position is, in my opinion, reasonable. It refers to accountability – an accountability so that a long-lasting peace can be achieved. But the Swedish government also says that a two-state solution is necessary. It says that the illegal settlements' violence and violations must cease.

What has happened after this is what we see today. Israel has invaded Lebanon in order to stop Hezbollah. Israel and the USA have jointly invaded Iran. Iran, for its part, has attacked Gulf states and plans and carries out acts of terrorism all around. This must stop. These are serious crimes against international law and against human rights – against everything, Mr. Speaker.

I wish that the world stands united to put an end to the illegitimate war that is now being waged. And accountability is required.

It is very tragic with all these people who are executed, murdered, in Iran. Iran is not a rule of law state and has not been. The EU has terror-classified the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, and it is a step forward when it comes to accountability. But it is not enough. More will come.

Mr. Speaker! It is also tragic for us all that we have today been reached by the news that a Swede was executed yesterday. It is a person who has been executed without a correct legal order and who has been subjected to an irrevocable violation. Just as has been said by previous speakers, our thoughts go to the executed person's near and dear. Let me mention that there are more who suffer. Therefore, the accountability is extremely important.

Time is running out. I would have liked to speak about the rights of women and girls. I would have liked to speak about abuses against minority groups in China. But, Mr. Speaker, out of respect for the speaking time, I conclude my speech here.

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

Linnéa Wickman (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thanks to the member for an important speech! I agree with much, such as when it comes to safeguarding international law. We share a common concern regarding the developments in the Middle East.

What I want to ask a question about is what the member mentioned connected to the importance of accountability for Russia's crimes during the war in Ukraine.

I return to the question of ecocide. The Moderates have stated that they are positive towards the issue of making ecocide a crime under international law. I have also noted that the Prime Minister has expressed a positive view.

There is an international momentum. A large number of countries that are parties to the Rome Statute have expressed themselves positively and said that they support the proposal.

Just based on the fact that we have a broad consensus in the Swedish Riksdag that we think it is an interesting proposal, the question is a bit about: What is the Swedish government doing to ensure that the issue is brought forward in international forums so that it does not just stop at some kind of seminar on international law?

In the report that we are debating today, the committee majority states that the government's analysis of this is being followed. My question to the member is then: What is the government's analysis, and what has the government done during the past year?

This question was up for debate in the corresponding debate a year ago. I do not think it is enough that we stand here a year later and it does not seem that much has happened.

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

Margareta Cederfelt (M)

Mr. Speaker! Linnea Wickman highlights accountability and specifically ecocide. Let me say exactly what I said earlier in the speaker's chair.

Sweden is the country in the EU that provides the most support to the ICC. This demonstrates Sweden's great support for the rule of law and for accountability. Sweden has also, through the Swedish Police Authority, contributed personnel on the ground. Sweden contributes expertise. I think this shows the strong support of Sweden and the government for accountability to be achieved.

I know that the member is part of the Swedish delegation to the OSCE. I hope that the Swedish delegation highlights the issue of ecocide there, as the OSCE has great reach and is something that many countries value highly. I therefore want to send the question back to the member.

I can mention that we have raised the issue several times within the IPU. I know that the government also does this. We must work on a broad front, just as the government does. Therefore, I would like to hear, Mr. Speaker, how the OSCE delegation is working with the issue.

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

Linnéa Wickman (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the question back from the member!

We are highlighting the ecocide issue in OSCE's parliamentary assembly. It is exemplary that it is also being done in IPU by the Swedish IPU delegation. What we do in various international forums is, of course, very important, but I will return to the question.

It is, after all, the Swedish government that has the opportunity to act. The next step could, for example, be that Sweden as a country formally stands behind a change of the Rome Statute just to include ecocide as a crime under the International Criminal Court's mandate.

This requires political will. I am actually not quite clear on why it is not possible to get any answer on what the government has concretely done during the last year since we last debated this.

Here the Swedish government can truly feel a broad support from the Swedish Riksdag. Furthermore, I truly agree that it is very good and important that Sweden contributes so much to the work of the international courts in various ways.

The strong support for Ukraine is backed by the entire Swedish Riksdag. That is why I wonder why we now cannot take the next step and more offensively drive the ecocide issue. It is, after all, a recommendation from the working group that President Zelenskyy himself appointed.

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

Margareta Cederfelt (M)

Mr. Speaker! Holding Russia and Putin accountable for their actions is one of the most important issues of our time, and it must not be silenced.

I have mentioned here that both the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Justice are driving the issue of accountability. Exactly what the ministers do and say I cannot say, as I do not participate in those meetings. But I can say that the government is pushing forward and acting.

I feel very proud that Sweden is the EU country that gives the most to the ICC. I am convinced that the more we debate the issue of accountability for Russia's aggression here in the Riksdag, the greater the chance we have to reach out.

We are not allowed to fall silent, and we must not let ourselves be confused by the fact that there are many other pressing conflicts to engage in.

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Mr. Speaker! We are now debating a number of motions from the general motion period with a focus on international law and human rights. I cannot address all human rights violations. I will focus on China, the Middle East, and some other issues, such as women's rights. I would like to begin by moving for approval of reservation number 2.

International law is the international regulatory framework concerning how states should act towards one another. It is based on respect for the UN Charter, the right to territorial integrity, and the prohibition of the use of force. International law includes, among other things, human rights and humanitarian law but also accountability for crimes such as genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes.

Unfortunately, a very serious development in the opposite direction is underway. Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the USA's attempts to lay claim to Greenland, Morocco's illegal occupation of Western Sahara, the world's silence in the face of Israel's genocide in Gaza, and China's work to erode central concepts are all examples of attacks against international law.

The USA's and Israel's bombings of Iran violate international law, but Iran's attacks on neighboring countries are also crimes against international law. Now, de-escalation is needed, diplomacy must take over, and measures must be immediately initiated 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 long enough. Human rights in Iran have been neglected for decades, and women have been particularly hard hit, which we know well. This must come to an end. The people of Iran have a right to freedom and democracy, and they need all the support they can get. Of course, the Swedish citizen Ahmadreza Djalali must be released immediately.

Without international law, an order is built where peace is established through strength. In practice, this gives the great powers global control and leaves the field free for them to divide the world among themselves. When international law is under attack, democratic countries like Sweden must stand up in a clearer way, defend it, and make no distinction as to whether it is a large or small country that violates it. The same clarity and the same principles must apply towards Russia, Israel, USA, China and Morocco, to name a few. Unfortunately, that clarity is often lacking in the Swedish government.

I see the UN as a central actor for global peace, security, and solidarity and emphasize the organization's role in protecting international law and human rights. Therefore, the UN needs to be strengthened. Unfortunately, we see how Swedish support for the UN is decreasing, which means a weakened UN as well as diminished Swedish influence.

It is also important that we do not forget the Palestinian people, against the background of the situation in Iran. The situation in Gaza is still alarming after at least 70,000 civilians have been killed. In large part, all of Gaza lies in ruins, and 90 percent of the population is completely dependent on aid and is forced to live in tents and shelters without protection against the weather and rain.

Despite the ceasefire, Gaza remains one of the world's worst and most dangerous places for children to grow up in. Even on the West Bank, the situation is serious. Palestinians are being terrorized, killed, and displaced by the thousands from their homes by aggressive illegal settlers while the Israeli authorities watch or even participate.

Of course, we also condemn Hamas's attacks on October 7, 2023. I want that to be said, so that there is no doubt about it.

Sweden shall defend international law and human rights and clearly signal against countries that violate them. When the Swedish government trades war materiel with Israel in the midst of an ongoing genocide in Gaza, it does the opposite. Sweden has signed the Rome Statute, which means that one has committed to investigating all persons who can be suspected of having contributed to genocide, including Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu. The International Criminal Court has issued an arrest warrant against Netanyahu.

Sweden should provide the international courts ICC and ICJ with more resources so that they have all the necessary conditions to investigate crimes. Sweden must condemn the USA's sanctions against the ICC, which undermine international law. Sweden should also work to have the EU activate the blocking statute against the USA's sanctions to protect the ICC and its judges so that the court can continue to investigate Israel and others who commit crimes against human rights.

The climate crisis is a fact we must take seriously. Unfortunately, serious environmental crimes are committed without sufficient consequences. For example, Russia is committing serious environmental crimes in the war in Ukraine. Sweden should therefore join the proposal to supplement the Rome Statute with a fifth crime – ecocide, i.e., large-scale environmental destruction. Such a criminalization would establish a common outer limit for large-scale destruction of the environment and constitute a global measure against global problems.

The violations of human rights are many all around the world. In this report, I place a lot of focus on China. China is a harsh dictatorship that systematically violates a long series of fundamental human rights such as freedom of expression, freedom of association, and freedom of religion. The ethnic and religious minorities in China are among those who are hit hardest by oppression from the Chinese state apparatus. The greatest pressure is against the Muslim Xinjiang – the Uyghurs – and the Buddhist Tibet.

The Chinese constitution guarantees equal rights for men and women, but in reality, there are major challenges regarding women's rights. China is also the country in the world that executes by far the most people per year. We believe that the Swedish government, in every form of contact with China, should demand a stop to the use of the death penalty.

China is also one of the world's largest markets for organ transplantation. There are reports that organs have been stolen from prisoners of conscience. Sweden should work to ensure that an international investigation is appointed in light of the reports on organ thefts.

There is no longer any reason to maintain a legal assistance agreement with Hong Kong. The justice system there can no longer be considered either free or rule-of-law compliant. Sweden also needs to work for democratic reforms in Hong Kong.

According to the ranking by the international trade union cooperation organization International Trade Union Confederations, China is one of the countries in the world where there is no guarantee for trade union rights. Sweden's government should work to strengthen trade union rights and workers' rights in China.

International companies must also take responsibility for ensuring that human rights are upheld. Global framework agreements play an important role for companies operating in states where there is no possibility of signing collective agreements at the national level, because the global framework agreements establish a common floor for which conditions must never be breached within a group regardless of where the operations are conducted. The Swedish government should work to ensure that Swedish multinational companies operating in China sign global framework agreements.

A country that has fallen into twilight is Turkey. The development there is heading in the wrong direction. A large number of democracy and freedom fighters are still in prison. It concerns journalists, human rights defenders and oppositionists, including members of parliament. A clear example is the former chairman of the democratic party HDP, Selahattin Demirtaş, who in 2024 was sentenced to 42 years in prison on false grounds, despite that the European Court of Human Rights has decided that he should be released. Sweden's government must push forcefully for the immediate release of Demirtaş and all those who have been imprisoned on incorrect grounds.

The violation of women's rights is the most common and extensive crime against human rights worldwide. Women's lives are limited and threatened by discriminatory legislation and social norms. The fact that women's rights are upheld is a prerequisite for peace, security, and development. To build real and sustainable equality, it is required that women can actively participate at all levels of society. Sweden's government should therefore intensify the work to promote an equal distribution of power in the world.

As a member of the Left Party, I want to see a broadened concept of security that includes women's security. Lack of power, influence, and freedom of movement, failures in achieving sexual and reproductive health and rights, SRHR, as well as violence against women committed by men are important security issues from both a national and international perspective. I believe that all decisions within defense, security, and aid policy should be permeated by the concept of gender equality.

Sweden shall be a clear voice in the UN and other international contexts for SRHR and especially for the right to abortion and sex education and the rights of hbtqi persons. In Agenda 2030, the world's countries have established that all people in the world shall have access to sexual and reproductive health and rights by 2030.

Girls and women are affected by honor-related violence and oppression all over the world, but boys and young men are also exposed. A particularly vulnerable group is hbtqi-persons, and not infrequently this is legitimized by an oppressive, traditional or religious legal system or such a practice. Sweden should therefore increase support for equality and SRHR. Unfortunately, we see that the development is going in the wrong direction, but I can promise that when we get back power, we will restore the support for equality and SRHR among the first things we do.

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

Margareta Cederfelt (M)

Mr. Speaker! Lotta Johnsson Fornarve mentioned in her speech that Sweden should pay more to the UN. But let me mention that Sweden belongs among the top ten when it comes to how much is paid to the UN related to GDP. Is that not very much? What does Lotta Johnsson Fornarve think? Does not Sweden pay very well to the UN when we actually belong among the top ten when it comes to the share of GDP? I would like to receive the member's comment on this.

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

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

Yes, Sweden still pays quite a lot to the UN. But the fact remains: Swedish support to the entire UN system has decreased quite a lot.

We know how important the UN system is – the member also spoke about this in their speech. We see how the support for UN Women, UNFPA and Unaids has decreased and that the support for UNRWA has completely disappeared – UNRWA which is a completely crucial organization for the Palestinians' rights. So yes, there is much to restore when it comes to the support for the UN.

When we reduce our support for the UN system, our influence also decreases. Furthermore, we weaken the UN at a time when the UN needs to be strengthened. When we see how international law is under attack, the UN is one of the primary guarantors when it comes to standing up for international law and human rights.

We therefore need to do much more to strengthen the support for the UN in the future. That is my firm opinion.

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

Margareta Cederfelt (M)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden is among the top ten when it comes to payment as a share of GDP. I would like Member Lotta Johnsson Fornarve to express her opinion to all these 190 countries that do not pay as much of their GDP as Sweden does. I think that would be good for strengthening the UN.

Then there is one more thing. Some countries pay late; Sweden pays early. If the fee to the UN is paid late and the UN has not had time to spend it, it is returned to the member countries. So push that issue: that not only Sweden but all countries should pay on time. I think that should be a minimum requirement, and I hope that all members here in Sweden's Riksdag can stand behind it.

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Margareta Cederfelt, for further supplementary questions!

I truly agree that all countries should contribute to the UN and that we must work together to push and pressure those countries that do not pay what they should to the UN system, not least the USA. There are also many other countries that naturally must improve. Here we have a common task that I am happy to take on, for this is naturally very important.

But that does not mean that Sweden should withdraw, because we have actually done so when we have reduced support to a number of important UN organizations that work for, for example, women's safety, SRHR and equality – such as UN Women, UNFPA and many more.

In a situation where we see how international aid is decreasing sharply, not least due to the withdrawn American support, we also see how particularly women and girls are affected incredibly hard by this. In that context, Sweden must act as a counterweight. An important thing is to increase the support to the important organizations that work for equality all around the world, such as UN Women and UNFPA.

But also the support for UNRWA needs to be restored, for it is an indispensable organization in support of the Palestinians' rights.

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

Yusuf Aydin (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are dealing with a report on international law and human rights. International law and the rules-based world order are important both for stability and for the promotion of human rights and also facilitate international cooperation.

With a focus on these topics, it would be difficult not to touch upon the developments in Iran. Since 1979, the Islamic Republic of Iran has crushed all political opposition and denied the Iranian people the right to their most fundamental human freedoms and rights. Instead of freedom and protection, the regime has only been able to offer its population oppression and persecution.

The discussion surrounding international law should be placed in relation to the horrific crimes and human rights abuses that regimes commit against their own populations, in the same way as the Islamic regime has oppressed the Iranian people every day. This situation raises great and serious questions about how well adapted international law is to reality. What happens when states protected by international law begin to commit large-scale and serious abuses against their own populations and kill tens of thousands of civilians?

What we know for certain, at least, is that freedom is not given by oppressors. It is won by people with courage, perseverance, and faith in democracy. The Iranian people have shown a courage that has been inspiring for the whole world. We need to clearly stand on the side of the Iranian people, increase the pressure against the Islamic regime, and give our support to those who fight for human rights and democracy.

Mr. Speaker! Freedom of religion is one of the most fundamental human rights. This has, however, not previously been reflected in Swedish foreign and aid policy, despite extensive violations. Today, approximately three-quarters of the world's population live in countries where freedom of religion is severely restricted, either by states or by other groups in society. These restrictions prevent people from living their lives in freedom and counteract the creation of equal, peaceful, and democratic societies.

The Christian Democrats and this government have fortunately changed this. Through a targeted effort, freedom of religion has become a priority. In the latest foreign policy declaration, presented a month ago, freedom of religion is clearly prioritized: "Human freedoms and rights must be defended. Every individual's equal value regardless of gender, age, sexual orientation or religion is a matter of freedom. Violations of freedom of religion are a growing global problem. Freedom of religion and belief is therefore an integrated part of Sweden's work for human rights worldwide."

In the reform agenda and a number of strategies for aid, one can now also read that the aid shall promote freedom of religion and the protection of religious minorities, especially Christians who today constitute a particularly persecuted group in the world. This is also stated in the committee's position. The promotion of religious minorities' rights shall be prioritized, and a positive view is held on the government continuing to draw attention to this in both the UN and the EU and in this way clearly showing Sweden's support for Christian minorities around the world.

The increased persecution is extensive and particularly worrying. The Open Doors report shows that approximately 388 million Christians are subjected to persecution every year. Because of their faith, they risk threats, violence, torture, and even their lives. This trend is particularly noticeable in countries such as Nigeria, Sudan, Syria, and Iraq, to name a few examples.

Mr. Speaker! In the Middle East, Christians risk disappearing from their historical homelands. This becomes relevant not least in light of the developments in Lebanon, where the war has spread once again. During March, the fighting between Israel and the terrorist group Hezbollah has intensified. Over one million people have been forced to leave their homes, and the violence is spreading across more and more parts of the country. What began as a regional conflict has now become a direct threat to Lebanon's stability and civilian population.

Christianity in Lebanon has a continuous history since the time of the apostles, and Aramaic was previously the dominant language. For over 100 years, Lebanon has been one of the last places in the Middle East where Christians have been able to live as a natural part of society and not as a marginalized minority. Preserving the country's sovereignty and stability is therefore crucial to protecting the religious diversity and the historical Christian communities.

Despite the fact that Lebanon's Christians are not a party to the ongoing conflict, they often find themselves caught in the middle, trapped between regional powers and the terrorist group Hezbollah. Therefore, we should support the Christians who want to remain in their communities to protect their churches and preserve their Christian presence as a natural and indispensable part of the country. For us Christian Democrats, this will always be a priority in word and deed.

Mr. Speaker! For 2,000 years, Syria has been one of Christianity's most important core areas, where Paul's conversion in Damascus and the growth of the early church laid the foundation for much of the Christian tradition we know today. But in recent years, the country's historical Christian population has been hit hard by war, violence, persecution, and flight.

Simultaneously, and in recent days, a worrying development has been occurring in the al-Hasakah region in northeastern Syria, which for generations has been home to Syria's indigenous populations: Syrians, Assyrians, and Chaldeans. The authorities have now begun to remove the Aramaic language from public signs – only Arabic and Kurdish remain. Language is not just communication; it is identity, history, and culture. This is a measure that undermines and risks marginalizing one of the Middle East's Christian indigenous peoples and its linguistic heritage.

Sweden and the rest of the world must act to stop one of the world's oldest Christian languages, Aramaic, which Jesus himself spoke, from being pushed out. We must protect the people and traditions that have carried this heritage for over 2,000 years.

Mr. Speaker! The Christian Democrats want Sweden, via the UN and the EU, to push for the introduction of sanctions against persons, entities, and in some cases countries that do not respect freedom of religion in practice. We want action plans to be developed to protect and secure the continued existence of Christians where they are threatened, as in the example in the Middle East. We want Sweden to appoint a special ambassador for freedom of religion and use aid as a tool, directed so that a part of it can go through local churches and other organizations that best and most effectively reach the most vulnerable.

An uncertain and unpredictable world that is changing rapidly requires a values-oriented leadership. This government has shown that, and there is much more to do. The Christian Democrats will be the guarantor of a foreign and aid policy that continues to prioritize the fight against the persecution of Christians and the promotion of religious freedom.

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

Kerstin Lundgren (C)

Mr. Speaker! This is a debate that can take many different directions. This has perhaps emerged somewhat from the previous contributions.

We find ourselves in a time when international law, international law, is truly being tested and challenged by what is happening. We find ourselves in a world where we do not really know what will apply tomorrow.

It is clear that for Sweden, international law plays a central role. International law is actually both treaties and agreements but also customary law, and it is the customary law that is now developing or perhaps being reshaped due to what is happening in the world right now.

Russia's brutal attack on Ukraine was a clear violation of international law and the UN Charter regarding not taking territories by military force. In that situation, we too have had a discussion, often here in the chamber, about the fact that we must develop international law.

We think that in this situation, one should be able to have access to the frozen Russian assets. Even if it is said that this is not compatible with international law, it is a part of international law that we think needs to be developed. One must be able to meet an ongoing crime against the UN Charter with measures that respond to it, not just with judicial review in the International Criminal Court or the ICJ. We need other measures in that situation when crimes against international law were committed.

Many of us have noted that President Trump has stated that he does not need any international law. He is satisfied with his own morality. That is enough for him.

It is clear that in a world where a leader's morality is what is to define the development of international law, we will end up in a very dangerous position. It becomes as has been said before – that power takes precedence over right and that authoritarian leaders commit abuses of international law.

Fundamentally, what we are seeing right now is that authoritarian leaders are taking an ever greater grip on our world. We see it when media and journalists are attacked. We see it when academia is attacked. We see it when the rights of minorities, LGBTQI people, and women are targeted.

During the time this debate has been ongoing, I have noted that President Putin has delivered the message that women in Russia who do not want to have children should be referred to psychologists. There we see how women's rights are being attacked once again. It is something that is happening in many countries right now – people are trying to push back the gains we have achieved.

In this situation, it is at the same time important not to give up on international law and international law. It is important to uphold treaties and agreements, and it is important to develop customary law in the right direction to strengthen human rights and to strengthen the fundamental parts of international law – to assert the norms when normlessness is about to become the rule.

If this is not about this report so much. The report is based on motions from last autumn, and they are the framework for how the committee responds.

I must nevertheless say that in the committee report concerning international law, there is reason to be clear that international law is not selective. The application and the basis in international law in the event of violations applies to both great powers and small states. It applies to both authoritarian leaders, dictators, and democratically elected ones.

We see how this is being violated. China chooses to opt out of the law of the sea, for example. They do not think it suits them that it should apply in, well, let us call it the South China Sea. There are those who claim that it is the Philippine Sea, so even that is disputed. But that is what they do.

Others choose to selectively ignore international law, whether it concerns the USA or Russia. We are also talking quite a lot about Iran here. I can agree with most of what has been said regarding Iran and Iran's crimes, but a signal is also being sent that what the USA has done together with Israel also does not comply with international law.

Before the Iraq invasion, an attempt was made to adhere to international law, for then one still chose to seek to convince the Security Council. One did not get the Security Council on board, but one tried. From our side, we see it as an important signal that one actually tries. We also know that the Security Council is blocked by either the one or the other – or third – who lays down their veto, but in any case, one has gone that way and tried. It is an important signal when it comes to not undermining the UN and the UN's norms by simply bypassing the system. I think, naturally, that there are reasons to point that out in this situation.

We have a number of reservations. There has been quite a lot of talk about ecocide, and we are very clear on our side that we believe one should be able to be tried and punished for having committed gross environmental crimes. One example is the dam in Ukraine, which was indeed totally damaged, which affected very many people and Ukraine's conditions within agriculture and so on.

From our side, there is naturally no doubt about standing up against the crime of ecocide. However, it must be handled in a way that does not sabotage the Rome Statute as such. We know that everything sometimes breaks down, and we do not want to do that, so it is that balancing act that is why we have our own reservation in this part.

I would like to move for approval of reservation 9 under point 3. It concerns the democracy movement in Hong Kong, which I do not think we should forget – there has also been talk about others we should not forget. We must not forget the democracy movement in Hong Kong but stand up for it.

We have now seen how, for example, the journalist and newspaper owner Lai has received a very long prison sentence simply because he has had a newspaper that has been free. This is an example that Hong Kong's law enforcement does not differ from China's and what applies from Beijing.

From our side, we believe that the legal assistance agreement that exists with Hong Kong must be revoked, and several parties have proposals regarding this. When it comes to this, the Riksdag has actually once in a while passed a decision that this shall be Sweden's position. The Government has chosen not to proceed with that issue, because they think that they do not need to do anything. We think, however, that it is extremely important to, where it is possible, also make a mark towards China. I therefore move right now for approval of that reservation.

In other respects, it naturally also concerns Turkey, human rights, journalists and so on – we have several reservations that we stand behind, but I choose to move for approval only of this one.

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

Margareta Cederfelt (M)

Mr. Speaker! Kerstin Lundgren raised several important issues in her speech, and what struck me was China. China is committing violent abuses. It is not just about the law of the sea not being respected, nor is it solely about Hong Kong not being respected. I am thinking of other minorities.

There are records of a large number of minorities in China who are suffering, and they are often discussed and debated in various contexts. It concerns Uyghurs and it concerns Tibetans. It is about human rights abuses but also about abuses against the environment, against nature and against religion – against everything!

I would very much like to hear how Kerstin Lundgren views the possibility, Mr. Speaker, of addressing the problem with China and its actions.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs has visited China. It is the first Swedish government representative in 16 years who has visited China specifically to use diplomacy to try to find a way forward when it comes to the imprisoned Swede.

It is important that we act in all ways to be able to reach the diplomatic path. One way is to visit the country and another is to put pressure on the country. I would very much like to hear Kerstin Lundgren's view on this.

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

Kerstin Lundgren (C)

Mr. Speaker! I do not believe that a visit by the Minister for Foreign Affairs to China changes anything other than in the issue of visa-free travel, which was indeed one of the reasons for the trip. There is fundamentally nothing wrong with this, as it was something that many entrepreneurs desired, but it is important not to give the impression that there was any major breakthrough in other areas.

Nothing of that sort has also emerged from the reports we have been able to hear regarding, for example, our imprisoned Gui Minhai. It is still the case that he is imprisoned. We do not know exactly where, and we are not allowed to visit him. We are granted no access because he is not recognized as a Swedish citizen, but is instead considered to be Chinese. We know that is the position held.

The starting point is to be clear where possible. One such thing concerns the fact that this is not a functioning rule of law, neither towards minorities nor towards political opponents – if there are even any who dare. It is also not a functioning rule of law when it comes to journalists or civil society in itself. We see how they shut down and how they have, in an incredibly powerful way, introduced a surveillance of every citizen, which is impregnated with the regime's propaganda.

It is something that we must be prepared to point out. Two ways to do that are to support Taiwan and to support the democracy movement in Hong Kong, for they were a force that inspired hope. They have, however, been silenced, and we do not stand up for them.

Please vote for our reservation, Margareta Cederfelt!

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

Margareta Cederfelt (M)

Mr. Speaker! I do not vote for your reservation, because I do not believe it will reach. On the other hand, I believe it was an excellent visit that the Foreign Minister made, and where Gui Minhai was also highlighted.

Just as Kerstin Lundgren says, it is very difficult to get through when it comes to China, but I believe that many small points of entry can lead forward, because China is also a country where the leadership is very proud. If we can puncture the bubble, I believe it can lead to small changes.

Let me also say that the Riksdag's MR-group has protested in the form of letters. I am convinced that China has reflected on the matter, as the letters have been returned. I think that is proof that China does not tolerate criticism even when it is justified – then it hurts!

It is also about Taiwan, and our government has raised the issue of Taiwan. It is the first government in Sweden that has taken up Taiwan's rights. Hong Kong needs to be highlighted more, and the Tibetans need to be highlighted more, as well as the Uyghurs. I believe that these are issues that will come forward, because totalitarian regimes do not take the side of human rights in any context, whether it concerns trade, development of Belt and Road and Silk Road or anything else.

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

Kerstin Lundgren (C)

Mr. Speaker! No, it is quite clear that China uses our language dress with Chinese translation. There are good examples; the Raoul Wallenberg Institute has, for example, developed a lexicon so that one can get a translation when talking about human rights – which China also does – and know what something actually stands for.

We must not be naive and believe that a trip to China changes or punctures anything. Now I probably cannot go there anymore – I have, after all, been to Taiwan, so it is probably the end of traveling to China – but I have also made trips there and had conversations, and of course it is interesting to make visits. But we must not be naive.

We have said that we must learn from what we have done with Russia. We thought that we could influence China with the help of trade and let them in, but now they are taking over. And we must be vigilant, because they also want to turn the UN system into a Chinese home turf, with their own interpretation of which of the UN's rules apply and what of international law and international law applies. We must not agree to that.

It is therefore extremely important that we are not naive when it comes to China – nor when we talk about environmental issues. Many times we say that we shall work with China where we have common interests, for example in the climate issue. But even then, one must see that China has its own interests, Mr. Speaker, and that they always prevail. China uses every policy area as a weapon to achieve humanity's shared destiny, namely the Chinese return to the world stage – not least by 2049.

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Mr. Speaker! I feel that for a very long time we have taken the world order that we usually call the rules-based world order for granted. It is not only crumbling but is rather being dismantled. However, it has also crumbled over time, and it is not actually because democratic states have wanted it, but because authoritarian regimes have systematically eroded it.

Since 2014, we have seen how Vladimir Putin's Russia has step by step violated the very most fundamental principles of international law, first through the annexation of Crimea, then through the war in eastern Ukraine, and then through the full-scale invasion in February 2022. We can add China's actions, Iran's destabilization of the Middle East, and an ever-growing contempt for international norms in Donald Trump's administration – it is well 31 UN bodies that one has left.

This is the reality, and I mean that it forces us to think more clearly. We in Sweden sometimes relate to international law as if it were static and almost sacred, but international law is not divinely given but shaped by humans. It is shaped by compromises between states, and it must also be able to change when reality does and when our ideals require it.

There is a certain conflict of objectives here: For a small state like Sweden, international law is immensely important, and at the same time we know that it sometimes also protects dictatorships and hinders democracies from defending themselves and others. Furthermore, Sweden would not have much use of international law if we ended up in a conflict with, for example, Russia, as long as they sit in the Security Council and have veto power.

The key to achieving an international world order that works is, therefore, to reform the UN system, from the MR-council to the Security Council. That is the decisive factor, I would say – that one manages to carry out a reforming of the UN system.

Mr. Speaker! I have listened to the debate, and there are some other issues that have been raised here which I think are very relevant. One of them is, of course, Iran.

Iran has a population of 90–100 million people who for decades have been tormented by a regime that, for example, gives people electric shocks to their feet and hangs people from lifting cranes. We can only imagine what such a regime could be prepared to do if it also possessed the world's most dangerous weapons, that is, nuclear weapons.

It is of course very unclear what will happen now. It is possible that the regime in Iran falls, but we do not know that. It is possible that it will return and laboriously try to rebuild its hegemony and control again. There are an enormous amount of weapons; it is the Basij militia and the Iranian military. The population is largely unarmed, except for certain Kurdish guerrilla units that are on the Iraqi side in the border areas. The Iranian population, however, naturally deserves to live in a different society, and we must do everything we can to support such a development.

Iran is also a pluralistic society with different cultures, different religions and different ethnicities, and everyone has suffered under this oppression. Women have suffered even more than men, and some ethnic groups live with an even harsher militarization in their areas than others. All Iranians have however suffered from this – except for the leadership, which persecutes the others.

One must be able to see the possibility that the Iranian regime falls and that the population can build a new society. It will not be easy, however, and it could become very bloody. One thing I have learned from world politics and the situation in the world during all my years in politics, Mr. Speaker, is that everything can always get worse. It is important to keep that in mind. But it also means that everything can actually get better, and we must hope for that.

The second thing I want to mention is what some previous speakers have raised, namely the Christian population primarily in the Middle East. It is an enormous tragedy that has been ongoing for 100–150 years. It actually began when one tried to centralize power in the Ottoman Empire, and it led to increasingly larger conflicts with Armenian demands for self-rule during the second half of the 1800s. It eventually led to the genocide of Armenians, Syrians, Assyrians, and Chaldeans – that is, Catholics within the same group – during the first world war.

We have subsequently seen an exodus of Christians from the Middle East. If we go back to the end of the 1800s, approximately every fifth inhabitant in the Middle East region identified as Christian, and today it is a few percent. There are some pockets; it is Catholic Maronites in Lebanon, it is for example some Copts in Egypt and so on. It is a total population of perhaps 10–15 million people. The Assyrian/Syrian group in the original areas is very small.

Before the Iran–Iraq War and before Saddam Hussein's takeover of power in Iraq, there were an estimated 1.5 million Christians – Assyrians, Chaldeans, Syrians – in Iraq, and today there are a few hundred thousand. The Iran–Iraq War drove people into flight. After that came the years of sanctions, Saddam Hussein's fall, the civil war in Iraq, the rise of al-Qaeda and what later became the Islamic State, attacks on churches and so on. It has resulted in that there are a few hundred thousand left today. Then also came the Islamic State's genocide against Yazidis and the purging of Christians, when they sprayed that sign – an 'r' in Arabic – on doors and so on so that people would leave their homes.

What we have, therefore, seen over a 100–150-year period in the area where the first churches in the world were built, Mr. Speaker, is that it has in practice been emptied of Christians. The area is today in practice almost empty of Christians, despite it being their original area. Today, these churches are instead being built on designated land in Märsta. That is the development we have seen, and it is clear that it is a huge tragedy. It is a civilization that has, in practice, been uprooted.

It is harder to see how one can create long-term security for minorities. This does not only apply to Christians. It also applies, for example, to Muslims in Myanmar – Rohingya – who are literally being pushed into Bangladesh. There are a number of different minority groups, including ethnic minorities, who are persecuted and oppressed in different ways.

In the end, Mr. Speaker, it is the state that has the responsibility to protect its citizens. If the state is not democratic but is instead totalitarian, or if there is chaos and the state collapses, it is always the minorities that are hit hardest.

A long journey is required in large parts of the world. What is required in the slightly longer term, Mr. Speaker, is de-radicalization. De-radicalization of religious sectarianism, of ultra-nationalism, and of – in large measure – entire regions in the Middle East in favor of pragmatism and some kind of live-and-let-live attitude that makes one accept differences. It is fundamentally about tolerance. A broader social development is required so that minorities are also protected. It is not possible to only have special arrangements aimed at minorities, but a much broader social change is required.

Everything we can do to contribute to this is, of course, very desirable. For example, there is now a window in that the new regime in Syria wants relations with other countries after the fall of the Assad regime. Then one must be rock-solid against the regime, for example when it comes to protecting minorities in the country.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to do what I forgot to do when I began my speech, namely move for the approval of the proposal in the report.

(Applause)

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! We live in a time when international law can no longer be taken for granted. The system of rules, principles, and institutions that are intended to protect states and people from abuses, which has been built up over a long period, is now being tested more severely than in a very long time. In this test, there is a decisive question: Is international law universal, or is it selective? Does it apply to everyone or only to some?

When Russia launched its war of aggression against Ukraine, Sweden's position was clear, powerful, and correct. We condemned the invasion. We supported Ukraine's right to self-defense. We stood up for the principle of territorial integrity and the prohibition of wars of aggression. This was not only politically correct but also a consistent application of international law. It is precisely here that the questions begin to become uncomfortable. When we leave Ukraine and turn our gaze toward other conflicts, the tone changes.

Mr. Speaker! In the question of Palestine and Israel, we encounter a completely different caution. This is not about a sudden conflict but about a long-standing situation characterized by occupation, settlements, and recurring violence. International bodies, including the UN, have on repeated occasions criticized Israel's occupation policy, which violates international law. Despite this, we do not see the same clarity in Sweden's actions. We do not hear the same sharp formulations. We do not see the same readiness to use political or economic tools. We do not see the same consistent line.

Mr. Speaker! This is not a question of equating conflicts, but it is a question of principles. If we are serious about the fact that international law prohibits occupation and annexation, we must be prepared to say so, regardless of who is behind it. If we mean that civilians should be protected in war, we must react consistently when civilians are affected, regardless of where it occurs. Otherwise, we risk creating a system where the rules are perceived as political tools, not as legal principles.

Mr. Speaker! The same applies to the relationship with great powers. When the USA acts militarily in Venezuela or Iran, Sweden's voice often becomes more subdued. There may be geopolitical explanations or security policy considerations, but the question remains: Are we equally clear in our principled criticism?

Small states like Sweden have a crucial interest in international law being respected. We do not have the great powers' military might or their global influence. What we have is the law. The law, however, only works if it is applied consistently. If it becomes selective, it loses its power, and then we lose our most important protection.

Mr. Speaker! It is also about credibility. When Sweden speaks of a rules-based world order, the world listens, but the world also observes what Sweden does and does not do. If we are perceived as consistent, our voice is strengthened. If we are perceived as selective, it is weakened. In a time when authoritarian forces are eager to question international norms, we cannot afford that type of weakness.

Mr. Speaker! Let me turn my gaze even further east. China, under Xi Jinping's leadership, has developed in an increasingly authoritarian direction, which is evident in the sharply increased restrictions on human rights in, among other places, Xinjiang, Tibet, and Hong Kong. The government lacks a long-term and well-considered China policy, which creates a lack of consistency in foreign policy. Sweden must act more resolutely, both individually and within the EU, in matters concerning human rights and violations of international law, even when they are committed by a great power such as China.

A recurring theme in our debates is the situation in Xinjiang, where we repeatedly see arbitrary deprivation of liberty, forced labor, ethnic and religious persecution, and mass surveillance of the civilian population. Sweden and the EU must act to prevent genocide against the Uyghurs. Sweden and the EU must also, in line with international law, demand that all persons who are deprived of liberty solely because of their religious identity be released immediately and condemn the persecution of Uyghurs and demand that the re-education camps be closed immediately.

Mr. Speaker! The Tibet issue has fallen somewhat into oblivion in recent decades. The Chinese regime is carrying out systematic abuses there. It is high time that Sweden defines Tibet as an occupied territory, that the government consistently condemns the crimes against international law that China commits there, and that Sweden, together with the EU, pressures China to guarantee the rights of the Tibetans, demands journalistic freedom and freedom of movement in Tibet, and develops a strategy to give Tibetans influence over decisions concerning their land, resources, and future.

Mr. Speaker! When it comes to Hong Kong, we have seen a constantly increasing repression since China introduced the new security law. Even regarding Hong Kong, Sweden and the EU must stand up for democracy and human rights, show their support for democracy activists and work against the increasing surveillance and the growing political influence over the judiciary. It is clear how China undermines the freedoms that were previously guaranteed under the principle one country, two systems.

Mr. Speaker! When it comes to technology, surveillance, and export control, Miljöpartiet wants a total ban within the EU against the development, production, and sale of facial recognition technology to authoritarian states, including China. We see how China leads the way to demonstrate to what extent advanced surveillance technology can be used to control the population in Xinjiang, in Hong Kong, and in the rest of the country.

Regarding China, we are quite in agreement here in the Riksdag, Mr. Speaker. Let me, however, return to the decisive point, namely consistency. We cannot credibly criticize violations of human rights in China if we are simultaneously silent or cautious when similar principles are violated by others. We cannot demand that China respects international law if we ourselves apply it selectively. Nor can we speak of universal values if they become relative in practice.

This is not a simple balancing act. Foreign policy is often about difficult trade-offs – regarding trade, security, diplomacy, and realpolitik. That is precisely why the principles are so important. They are what are to guide us when it becomes difficult.

Mr. Speaker! My colleague Rebecka Le Moine would be angry with me if I did not raise the issue of ecocide during this debate. The Rome Statute criminalizes genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and crimes of aggression, but it lacks a mechanism to handle large-scale and long-lasting environmental destruction in peacetime. This creates a legal vacuum in that even catastrophic ecological damages can fall completely outside international criminal law.

The concept of ecocide implies gross, extensive and long-lasting destruction of ecosystems. If ecocide were explicitly made into a crime, individual decision-makers – not just states – would become legally responsible for actions leading to irreversible environmental damage.

Mr. Speaker! Climate change, collapsed ecosystems and resource destruction drive conflicts, create refugee flows and undermine the stability of nations. International law therefore needs tools that can meet modern global risks, in the same way that previous generations created rules against war and genocide.

Already today, there are provisions in the laws of war that prohibit extensive environmental damage during armed conflict, but an ecocide crime would be a natural civil law equivalent, adapted also to peacetime and to the acute global environmental threats that the international community now faces.

Without global legislation, multinational actors risk exploiting countries with weak environmental laws. Ecocide as a crime under the ICC would create equal rules of the game globally and counteract companies and states moving environmentally hazardous activities to where the responsibility is at its lowest.

Mr. Speaker! Destroyed environment leads to lost habitats, impaired health, increased poverty and poorer future opportunities, thus direct threats to fundamental human rights. An introduction of ecocide crime would therefore also indirectly protect people, not just nature.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden has a long tradition of standing up for human rights and international law. It is a tradition we should be proud of. But it is also a tradition that must be upheld, and to uphold it means being consistent, even when it is uncomfortable.

International law is not perfect, and the universal declaration of human rights is not complete. But they are the best we have, and they only work if we believe in them and if we apply them equally for everyone.

A Sweden that stands up for principles in all situations is a stronger Sweden. A Sweden that dares to be consistent is a more credible Sweden. A Sweden that defends international law and human rights without double standards is a Sweden that contributes to a better world. It is that line we must always choose.

Mr. Speaker! I naturally stand behind all of the Green Party's reservations but spare the Chamber some voting time by only moving for reservation number 6.

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

Yusuf Aydin (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I had not intended to request the floor, but when the member spoke about the government's double standards and selective actions, I could not help myself.

Regarding the situation in the Middle East, the member mentions Israel but says nothing about how it all started, namely by the terrorist group Hamas carrying out perhaps the worst attack against Jews since World War II, which in turn started Israel's defensive war. The member also does not mention that Sweden is one of the largest aid donors to Gaza and provides 800 million kronor.

Earlier we heard Member Fredrik Malm describe how the Christians in the Middle East have been affected historically but also during the years the Miljöpartiet sat in the government. In 2014, when the Islamic State began ravaging the Middle East, occupied the city of Mosul and then continued to other areas, I did not see that Miljöpartiet stood up for the vulnerable and persecuted in the way that had been required.

The selective action that the member accuses the government of is perhaps more applicable to how the Green Party itself has acted, both historically and now.

I would like to hear a comment on this.

In this speech, Markus Wiechel (SD) agreed.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Yusuf Aydin for the question.

The conflict between Israel and Palestine did not start on October 7, 2023, at all. We know that this has been ongoing much longer than that. The latest war and the horrific situation we have seen over the last two years obviously started on October 7. But the occupation has been ongoing since at least 1967, and the displacement of Palestinians has been ongoing throughout the entire 20th century. To begin the historiography with October 7 is therefore incorrect.

It is very good that we provide a lot of aid, but a lot of aid is also required to manage this conflict. We are not discussing aid now either, and I did not have aid in my speech at all.

How have we acted previously? I am convinced that Miljöpartiet has also previously stood up for persecuted minorities and expressed sharp criticism when crimes against international law have been committed. It may very well be that we have missed opportunities to do this, but I believe that we have been relatively consistent when it comes to this type of issue.

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

Yusuf Aydin (KD)

Mr. Speaker! The horrific attack by Hamas on October 7 lies behind the latest escalation in the conflict between Israel and Palestine.

Sweden has supported and continues to support a two-state solution, condemns extremist settlers, acts against the abuses Israel sometimes commits and works within the EU for various types of measures.

I would have liked the Green Party to have been consistent in the same way when terrorist groups or others in the Middle East carry out attacks or otherwise act against minorities such as Christians, Yazidis and others and also created the instability that may have initiated many of these conflicts.

If I remember correctly, Christians were perhaps mentioned in one of the foreign policy declarations during the eight years the Miljöpartiet sat in government, and during those years, the Islamic State raged as worst against Christians and Yazidis in the Middle East. They were not mentioned in any other policy documents either. In that case, it is difficult to say that one has acted consistently.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I have not gone through the previous government's foreign policy declarations and therefore do not know if it is correct that this has only been mentioned once.

Once again, the government says that it supports a two-state solution and condemns settlements and settler violence. The government uses words, but when it comes to certain other countries, more than words are used; then other types of political tools are used, such as sanctions. Sweden has stopped trade with a multitude of countries around the world when these have violated human rights. It is that type of action we can take when it comes to violations of human rights.

But when it comes to Israel and Palestine, it usually stops at words: We support a two-state solution. We condemn the settlement policy. We work to blacklist the most criminal settlers. But the steps Sweden could take, the government has not taken at all.

I know that representatives for the member's own party have been on trips organized by organizations that run these very settlements, so perhaps one should start by reviewing one's own activities.

I agree with Yusuf that it is very problematic that Christians are subjected to persecution all around the Middle East. This also occurs in Israel and in Palestinian territory. For example, some settlers recently destroyed a church in the village of Taybeh. This therefore occurs in many places.

I think we agree that we must raise our voices here. But start by looking at your own house, Yusuf Aydin.

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

Markus Wiechel (SD)

Mr. Speaker! This is undeniably an incredibly interesting topic that branches out in many different directions, which is not so strange.

I intend to speak mostly about Iran, which has been an important topic for me, not least during the last ten years when I have been involved with foreign policy.

Iran is now also, perhaps second only to Russia, the most important foreign policy issue we have. The illegitimate Islamic Republic that currently occupies Iran is a poison for the entire region and the world. They have been since they seized power in the country in 1979.

After the people last rose up against the brutal regime, starting in December 2025, we saw a completely new level of the regime's barbarity. It was not only executions, rape, mutilations, torture of political opponents and so on that we saw, but now we also saw how they completely massacred civilians on the streets all over the country. We have seen how tens of thousands of people, including women, children and the elderly, have had and are having their lives taken because they demand something as simple as being allowed to live in freedom.

The villains' regime's power holders have also planned this for a long time. That is why they shut down the internet before they began their worst massacres. They shut it down in the hope that no one would see what was happening. But we know very well what is happening and what the regime is capable of.

Mr. Speaker! When the USA and Israel finally struck against the regime in Iran on February 28, 2026, many of us felt a spark of hope – not because we like war, absolutely not, but because someone finally intervened against the horrific murders and abuses that the mullahs' regime continues to inflict on its own and other countries' populations.

Let me therefore be extra clear: What Israel and the USA did and are doing is not aggression. It is not a war against Iran but rather a war for Iran. It is actually self-defense according to Article 51 of the UN Charter. International law is, in fact, there to protect individuals' right to life, health, and security – not to protect a terror regime.

The regime has for decades financed terrorism. Missiles have been fired at neighbors, threats have been made to annihilate Israel, and efforts have been made to build nuclear weapons. Neutralizing this threat is entirely consistent with international law. It protects lives and prevents worse catastrophes.

I, and surely many others, therefore hope that what we are now seeing is the end of the Islamic Republic. The people of Iran deserve to live in a free, democratic and secular state. Hopefully, this is what we will see in Iran moving forward.

Mr. Speaker! If it so happens that the Iranian people are liberated from their oppressors, other positive side effects will occur that also affect us here in Sweden. The greatest military threat to us today is, in fact, Russia, and Russia loses one of its closest and most important allies.

Putin's Russia has now for over four years waged an illegal war of invasion that completely crushes the UN Charter. Civilians are being killed in masses. Hospitals and schools are being bombed. Children seek shelter in theaters that nevertheless become ruins. Starvation is used as a weapon. We have seen this before. It is a tactic we recognize from the Soviet era, when Ukraine was subjected to something similar. It is an aggression without excuse.

Therefore, for my part, it has been very easy to represent a line that has constantly and fully supported Ukraine to 150 percent, I would like to say. Ukraine shall continue to receive weapons, supplies, and other things needed to strike back. In addition, no concessions whatsoever shall be made to Putin.

Mr. Speaker! I did not intend to speak so much longer in this debate, but I could of course continue for as long as I wanted – unfortunately, one must still say – because it is serious issues we are discussing.

International law, as has been said, is intended to protect the vulnerable, not for left-wing parties to wave it like a flag when it suits their agenda. I noted, for example, just now that we have Jacob Risberg here, who still cannot stand up and distance himself from Hamas's actions.

The Social Democrats, the Left Party and the Green Party often preach about international law when they want to condemn Israel and the USA. This has also become very clear in this report.

Condemnations must come sometimes, even from this side, against for example the rogue state Iran. But the extent differs. This is extremely strange, I would think. How is it that the focus on the rogue states is not more important, but instead one focuses on the free states we have all around the world that are democracies? How often are, for example, Israel and the USA not mentioned in the report that we are debating today? Is it not quite telling, considering the many transgressions we see from pure oppressive states that do not respect democracy and basic human freedoms and rights? I think, therefore, that it is worth highlighting that, Mr. Speaker.

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

Azra Muranovic (S)

Mr. Speaker! Today we have seen member after member, from all parties, stand up and speak about how important it is to stand up for international law and our most fundamental values, human rights. But ultimately, the debate will be about something very concrete. For when the world is on fire and when people are oppressed and living in war, the question is whether they receive the protection that international law is supposed to give them. Today, reality shows something completely different. It is also about who is hit hardest when rights are weakened.

We live in a time where we see increased threats to fundamental freedoms and rights. It is a time when Sweden must also be crystal clear. When democracy and human rights are dismantled, we can see how Islamophobia and antisemitism spread, just as how Christians in many parts of the world are subjected to persecution. The same applies also to other minorities, religious and ethnic, who live under threat and discrimination.

We see how the rights of LGBTQI people are being questioned, restricted, and in some cases actively rolled back. Hungary, Georgia, and Turkey are clear examples. But even in our own immediate vicinity, LGBTQ people are being made targets.

These are not actually separate issues. They are about the same thing: the right to live in safety, without fear of violence, discrimination, or persecution. It means that we as a country must also be consistent in our work against all discrimination, all abuse, and all exploitation. We must ensure that these rights apply to everyone regardless of religion, identity, or sexual orientation.

It also means that Sweden needs to use the tools that exist to make abuses visible and counter them. One such tool is the Moscow Mechanism within the OSCE. It should be used more consistently also when threats against LGBTQ+ persons or religious minorities are imminent, to ensure independent scrutiny and lay the foundation for accountability.

Mr. Speaker! We also see a development where gross abuses against children in conflicts are increasing. More and more children live in the direct vicinity of war. They are killed, injured, and displaced. They grow up in a reality where rights are eroded step by step. It is no longer about temporary crises. It is a development that challenges trust in the international legal order.

Save the Children's report War on Children shows that every fifth child in the world today lives in a war zone. That is, more children today live in war zones than during World War II. We see how entire societies fall apart and how the children are the ones who actually pay the highest price. This debate is huge, and there is much to say. I will take a few examples.

In Sudan, millions of children lack access to water, healthcare, and education. They are forced to flee, often several times over. In the shadow of the conflict, we see how they are drawn into the violence and recruited to become armed soldiers – not because they want to, but as a consequence of entire communities collapsing.

In Ukraine, the war penetrates every part of children's lives. Children live under constant air raid sirens, in shelters and in uncertainty. Millions have already been forced to flee. They have left their homes and their schools. Many live separated from their parents. Teaching takes place in basements, remotely or not at all. In Ukraine, children are also kidnapped and transported to Russia.

Mr. Speaker! The conflict between Israel and Palestine cuts straight into the core of international law and tests the laws of war, international humanitarian law, in practice. When children are killed and injured on the scale we have seen, it raises serious questions.

On the West Bank, we also see how violence against civilians has increased, not least settlement-related violence which repeatedly occurs without sufficient protection or accountability. Recently, we could see a family with children who were shot in their car after Israeli forces opened fire – two parents and two small children.

In Gaza, over 20,000 children have been killed since the war began. The actual number may in fact be higher. The children who survive these conflicts will have to live with severe injuries, trauma, and an everyday life marked by insecurity.

In parts of the Middle East, we see a broader development where states are weakened, social structures are broken down, and civilians are left without the protection to which they are entitled.

In Lebanon, we see a deep economic crisis, and as the violence increases, the humanitarian situation and the political instability are also deepening.

Syria is a country that, after many years of conflict, is divided. The state's institutions are severely weakened, and basic societal functions do not function at all in many parts.

Common to these situations is that the state's ability to maintain security, the rule of law, and basic social services has eroded. This creates a power vacuum, where armed groups and terrorist organizations are given space to establish themselves but also to recruit.

Mr. Speaker! These are different conflicts with different backgrounds but with the same consequence. It is actually the children who are hit hardest. It raises a decisive question: Do we have a regulatory framework that works in practice, and how do we comply with it?

The problem is not that we lack rules – they are there. The problem is that they are not upheld and that politics does not do enough to ensure that they actually apply. This also places demands on us. It places demands on Sweden, and it places demands on the world's states.

It is indeed states that have an obligation to respect international law, to protect civilians and to ensure that abuses are investigated and have consequences. But for this, a strong international legal system is also required – a system that does not only formulate rules but also ensures that they are applied.

It is not enough to demand things from others. States must also themselves respect judgments, decisions, and the rules that they have committed to follow. Sweden also has a special responsibility here. Sweden has a long tradition of safeguarding international law, international humanitarian law, and human rights. It is a strength that our country has, but it also imposes an obligation. It means that we must be consistent and that we must judge according to the rules. We must actively support the international justice system and contribute to ensuring that its processes are upheld, strengthened, and respected even when it concerns our friends.

Regarding this report, we see a broad consensus regarding the importance of international law, and that is very positive. But the practical policy remains stuck. The problem becomes clear when one looks at this report. I see that the children's perspective exists in the committee, but it doesn't bite. The Convention on the Rights of the Child is mentioned and children's rights are highlighted, but it does not steer the policy.

When we know that half a billion children in the world are growing up in a war zone, it requires that there are clear priorities. This has not gained enough traction today.

In this time, when international law is being challenged at its core and when children are hit hardest, it is not enough to manage what we already have. That all proposals are rejected and that the policy remains stagnant signals passivity when leadership is required. Sweden needs to push forward even more clearly and be even more active. We must also ensure that there is no restraint when it comes to accountability. We must ensure that we have a policy that makes international law take effect in practice. It is not enough that we agree on the principles. This must also be translated into action.

Mr. Speaker! I would like to take this opportunity to move for the approval of reservation 18.

(Applause)

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

Margareta Cederfelt (M)

Mr. Speaker! Azra Muranovic raised an important issue concerning those who suffer the most – the children – and the importance of ensuring that the rights existing under international law and human rights are upheld. I do not believe there is any difference in perspective on this. This is something that is leading in the Swedish Riksdag.

But I am thinking of other countries that do not respect this. Here is the entire reform package when it comes to the UN, an important issue. That is where the leaders of the countries meet. That is where the treaties are made. That is where the resolutions are adopted. I missed that perspective.

Sweden is a country that pushes forward and does a lot to ensure that international law is upheld. I accounted for that several times in my speech. But I would wish that more were said about what other countries should do. I have mentioned that as well. It concerns, for example, paying on time and contributing to the UN's reform work, which I cannot see so many other countries doing.

If we are to achieve a change, it will not help if only Sweden, which is among the best at driving these issues, works for international law and human rights. This must be done on a broad front. Here, I would like to hear more and stronger words from Azra Muranovic.

Do not say that Sweden should do more, because Sweden is doing very, very much!

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

Azra Muranovic (S)

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

It is a very important question that you raise – the UN system. I would have liked to see Sweden have had a more active role in the UN's work moving forward. You also ask what I think about other states. I still think I accounted for that in my speech – that the obligation to follow international law lies with all states. It is actually state actors who bear the primary responsibility. One must also demand accountability from state actors. I think that is what should be done when states violate international law.

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

Margareta Cederfelt (M)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to hear something more about what Azra Muranovic believes should be done.

Sweden was chair of UN Women 2025 and pushed issues regarding women's and girls' rights, SRHR issues, education issues, and economic issues. It was a very broad palette. Sweden is driving when it comes to the UN reform process in UN80. Sweden is among the leading countries when it comes to the UN's economy. Sweden is part of the group of ten countries that give the most of their GDP to the UN but who also set demands and want to be involved in deciding and driving the values that are important. Sweden is also driving within the EU when it comes to human rights.

I miss that perspective. It sounds as if Sweden alone is to bear everyone else's failures on its shoulders, and I do not think that is right because Sweden does a lot.

We can see how the regression regarding human rights is happening all over the world, which is of course terrible. It is something that we all must help to highlight. It needs to be done on the government side, and it is being done there. I know that it is also being done among parliamentarians in all these organizations where Swedish members of the Riksdag are included. But more needs to be done, and here it is about other countries.

Mr. Speaker! I would very much like to hear a little more about this.

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

Azra Muranovic (S)

Mr. Speaker! If it appears that it is only Sweden that is to rule here in the world and that it is only Sweden that is to take responsibility for how other states behave, that is wrong. It is absolutely not something that I am standing here and saying.

I say, however, that Sweden has signed a number of conventions, and Sweden stands up for international law and human rights. Sweden also has a responsibility to push forward in the world when we see that they are being violated.

We have a responsibility to follow the advisory opinions and the judgments that actually come. The governing governments also have a responsibility to use political and economic means when other states violate international law.

I do not think Sweden should do everything. But Sweden must be very clear in its position for or against international law. I do not think Sweden is that today.

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

Jamal El-Haj (-)

Mr. Speaker! Solidarity extends far beyond national borders. Fundamentally, it is about seeing humanity as a community where we all bear a responsibility for one another.

In a globalized world, this is becoming increasingly clear. What happens in one country quickly affects people in another, whether it concerns economy, climate, security or social issues. Our destinies are intertwined in a way that makes it so that no one can any longer isolate themselves from the rest of the world.

At the same time, we see how the world is on fire in Gaza, Ukraine, Lebanon and Iran. International law – which is intended to protect both states and individuals – is all too often not respected. People are subjected daily to war crimes, forced displacements and other abuses.

All too often, those in power can act without being held accountable. It undermines trust in international institutions, and it undermines faith in justice.

Occupation, oppression and systematic violations of human rights have become commonplace for millions of people. The Palestinians are a clear example of a people who for a long time have been subjected to severe and recurring abuses.

Mr. Speaker! Freedom of religion is a fundamental democratic right. It is established both in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the Swedish Constitution.

No human shall be denied the right to believe, practice, or express their religion. It is about fasting, praying, wearing religious symbols, and going to church, the synagogue, or the mosque.

These are fundamental freedoms. They should apply in Pakistan, in Iran, in Lebanon, in Sweden and everywhere in the world. These rights shall not be violated.

Mr. Speaker! Islamophobia is not an opinion. It is a reality. It has been documented by the UN. March 15 has been designated as the international day to combat Islamophobia. It is a recognition of the discrimination and the violence that Muslims around the world are subjected to.

When Swedish party leaders repeatedly use populist attacks against Islam and Muslims, they contribute to undermining respect for freedom of religion.

Freedom of religion is not only part of the Swedish constitution. It is a fundamental human right. To collectively suspect a religious group risks being in direct conflict with these principles.

Mr. Speaker! The Christian Palestinians constitute one of the world's oldest Christian populations. Generation after generation they have lived in the Holy Land, tended their churches and carried forward a living tradition that stretches back to the very earliest times of Christianity.

Today, many of them live under difficult and often unjust conditions. Nevertheless, they carry a heritage that is invaluable, not only for the region but for the entire Christian world.

They do not deserve the treatment they are subjected to. They deserve dignity. They deserve security. They deserve the right to live in peace, just like all other people. That is precisely why it is so remarkable when political representatives choose to legitimize forces that contribute to their vulnerability.

When the Christian Democrats and the Sweden Democrats repeatedly meet the extreme settler movement and the Israeli far-right, it appears as a mockery of Christian Palestinians and followers of Jesus.

Mr. Speaker! My vision is simple but far from obvious. It is an equal, free and just world. It is a world where every human being has the same value. It is a world where no one is silenced and where power is not abused.

It is a world where human rights are not a privilege for a few but a self-evident foundation for all of us. Such a world is built through solidarity, through courage, and through action. This applies from local decisions to international agreements.

Mr. Speaker! I want to remind of Nelson Mandela's words: We know all too well that our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians.

Mr. Speaker! Freedom is indivisible. My freedom is not complete without yours. Our freedom is not complete without the freedom of the Palestinians. No one is free until everyone is free.

Mr. Speaker! I would like to conclude by highlighting a subject that all too rarely is discussed here in the chamber. It is human trafficking.

Trafficking or human trafficking is one of our time's most brutal forms of exploitation. It can rightly be described as modern slavery. It involves people being recruited, transported, and held through coercion, threats, violence, and deception for the purpose of being exploited, often sexually but also in other forms.

Those who are affected are often people in particularly vulnerable situations, for example as a result of poverty, conflicts and a lack of future opportunities.

A notable example showing how this can also occur in the proximity of power is the case of Jeffrey Epstein. A system was exposed where young girls were exploited in a network characterized by power, money, and influence. The case clearly showed that human trafficking does not only occur in the shadows but can also be linked to society's most influential circles.

Human trafficking is a global problem that exists everywhere, even in Sweden. It is a serious crime against human rights and requires increased knowledge, greater awareness, and powerful collective efforts to combat. We have a responsibility to see, understand, and act.

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

Markus Wiechel (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I couldn't help myself. It is a bit ironic when a representative like Jamal El-Haj speaks about what signals it sends if one meets certain individuals during study trips. I haven't personally traveled to Israel and met settlers or such. I just want to say that. But this is a bit ironic given the contexts that Jamal El-Haj himself has found himself in. He has stood at Palestine demonstrations with Hamas flags around him. What signals does that send to all those people who have been affected by Hamas's horrific terror? It is a murderous sect, whose flags Jamal El-Haj has stood next to and demonstrated with. What signals does that send?

On this theme, I also wonder how Jamal El-Haj actually views the Palestinian movement. We repeatedly see flags belonging to the Islamic Republic, which currently occupies Iran, among its supporters and among these demonstrators. Does Jamal El-Haj distance himself from that flag? Does Jamal El-Haj distance himself from the Hamas flag?

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

Jamal El-Haj (-)

Mr. Speaker! There is a family called Nassar. They live outside Jerusalem. They have had their farm for over 100 years. The farm is older than Israel's existence. It is much, much older than that. The family is fighting to keep their farm.

In Palestine and Israel, barely 2 percent are Christians today. They are subjected to the worst persecutions ever. They are afraid for the sake of their churches and their congregations.

Your party leader Jimmie Åkesson is traveling to Israel and meeting the extreme right. You stand here in front of me and question that I am demonstrating for the Palestinians' rights to return to their homeland. They have lived in refugee camps for 76 years. My parents saw their village leveled to the ground. I was born in a refugee camp.

When I go out on the street and fight, I am fighting for my parents' right to return to their homeland in Palestine. You have not suffered as I have or gone through what I and my family have gone through. How can you stand in Sweden's Riksdag and accuse me of protesting for my family's and my rights? It is absurd.

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

FÖRSTE VICE TALMANNEN

I must remind the member that we do not use "you" as a form of address in the chamber.

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

Markus Wiechel (SD)

Mr. Speaker! No, I do not accuse Jamal El-Haj of demonstrating for his rights, for his family's rights, or for anyone else's rights. I accuse Jamal El-Haj of being in a situation where the flags of Hamas and also the Islamic Republic are visible. These are, therefore, symbols that can clearly be associated with a rarely seen oppression. It is appalling. That is why I ask the simple question that Jamal El-Haj did not answer: Does he distance himself from Hamas and the flags of the Islamic Republic?

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

Jamal El-Haj (-)

Mr. Speaker! I think the member should primarily direct his criticism towards his party leader Jimmie Åkesson, who, in the middle of the war in Palestine, in the middle of the catastrophe in Gaza, goes down and hits the extreme right in Israel. No one wants to hit them, but he does. That is where the criticism should be directed primarily.

I have distanced myself in debate article after debate article and interview after interview, including in SVT. Has the member gone through all the interviews I have done and read all my articles? If the member is to stand here and accuse me, he should read what I have written. I have written dozens of debate articles on this. Here in the Riksdag, I have written motion after motion regarding Hamas long before October 7. Still, the member chooses to accuse me today.

I would still like to thank the member for giving me the opportunity to tell the truth as it should be told. I am in this situation because of the troll factories and everyone who wrote on behalf of the Sweden Democrats and made a mountain out of a molehill. Go back to my debate articles and my parliamentary motions and to the interview in SVT! There the member will find the answer.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 25 March.)

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