Improved conditions for operational military cooperation

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! Tonight we are debating yet another matter as a result of Sweden's NATO membership. And it is once again a matter where decision-making power is shifted from this Riksdag to the government – or to NATO. Once again, the Riksdag is taking a position on a proposal whose effects and consequences are fundamentally quite unclear. It is yet another part of the "Americanization" that we have seen the right-wing government carry out during this parliamentary period. We have moved from broad consensus in Sweden's Riksdag to giving the government executive decision-making power.

Nevertheless, this is a change in legislation that we in Vänsterpartiet have put forward, demanded, and actually welcomed. We have de facto over the past years had legislation in Sweden that treats foreign soldiers in Sweden differently depending on which country they come from. It has led to the unsustainable situation that a Finnish soldier, an American soldier, and a soldier from some other Natoland have had three different sets of rights and obligations that our Supreme Commander, ÖB, has had to take into account. The legislation therefore needs to be unified, and reasonably, the same laws should apply regardless of which Natoland the foreign soldier comes from. With today's decision, it will at least be the same legislation for all three soldiers. That is the wise part of today's decision.

But of course, had Sweden not signed the DCA agreement with the USA, yes, in practice with Donald Trump, then parts of the changes would never have needed to be made.

Mr. Speaker! Vänsterpartiet was clearly opposed to Sweden joining Nato. We considered – and we still consider – that such a decisive decision as the Nato decision should have been preceded by a referendum where the Swedish people had been given a say.

We view with concern the development where Sweden risks being drawn into wars and conflicts that we ourselves have not chosen. It is a development that increases the risks in our immediate vicinity and which benefits neither Swedish citizens nor our surrounding world.

At the same time, Nato membership is now a reality. This means that large parts of the Swedish defense's activities in the future will have a clear connection to Nato. Vänsterpartiet sees the need to adapt the legislation so that Sweden can live up to what follows from the membership.

But it is crucial that we proceed cautiously. We believe that there are strong reasons to be restrictive in the parts that are not absolutely necessary.

For Vänsterpartiet, it is of the utmost importance that Sweden, as a member of Nato, shall also in the future be able to act independently in its foreign and security policy. We must be able to decide for ourselves on the development of our defense, safeguard our national self-determination, and make our own analyses and positions. And equally important is that we maintain a lively and popularly anchored debate on defense and security policy.

Mr. Speaker! The current legislation gives the government the right to request military support from NATO countries or EU countries if Sweden is subjected to an armed attack, if Sweden is in danger of war, or to stop violations of Swedish territory.

In the proposal for the new law, it is suggested that the government may decide that Nato countries or EU countries may carry out military activities for deterrence and defense on Swedish territory. In doing so, administrative tasks are delegated to Nato or to other states. The difference is, therefore, that it no longer needs to be about the defense of Sweden for the government to grant other countries the right to act on Swedish territory. It is also not required that Sweden be in a state of war or at risk of war. This means in practice that the government can grant a foreign actor decision-making power regarding military activity, in Sweden, in peacetime, which does not aim to defend Sweden.

The Instrument of Government requires a decision from the Riksdag for a foreign body to be able to perform administrative tasks and the exercise of public authority in Sweden. That a foreign power is given such far-reaching powers in Sweden can have consequences both for the individual Swede and for us as a country purely in terms of security policy. In the event of an armed attack against Sweden, there are reasons to be able to make decisions promptly to defend the citizens. The proposed amendment, however, gives the government the mandate to make decisions that previously lay with us here in the Riksdag.

Vänsterpartiet has long warned that a Swedish membership in Nato risks drawing us into wars and conflicts that we have not chosen ourselves. That the right to decide on measures that can have far-reaching security policy consequences for Sweden and Sweden's citizens is shifted from Sweden's Riksdag to the government is inappropriate. We therefore believe that decisions concerning other countries' right to act on Swedish territory should also continue to be taken by Sweden's Riksdag.

We believe that the law should continue to be about supporting us in accordance with international law to meet an armed attack against Sweden, if Sweden is at war or in danger of war. In other conceivable situations, it is reasonably the Riksdag that should make that decision, not solely the government.

Mr. Speaker! As a number of referral reports have noted, foreign military are given a mandate to use force, so-called use of force mandate, within their own forces but also towards the Swedish civilian population. How this mandate looks is, however, more unclear. Vänsterpartiet therefore considers that the government should return with a clarification in the protection law, to clarify where the boundaries for the authorization of the use of force mandate lie.

Mr. Speaker! In the current bill, the government proposes changes to the Military Material Act. The proposal means that the government shall be able to grant exemptions from the requirement for permits when exporting military material to all Nato countries. Previously, only the USA had that exemption. Now it is being extended to all of Nato. In practice, this means that additional countries are included, such as Albania, Montenegro, North Macedonia, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Turkey.

This raises important questions. Stockholm University's Faculty of Law has pointed out in its referral response that export of war materiel to some of these countries in certain cases can conflict with both international law, the arms export treaty, and the EU's common rules. Stockholm University therefore proposes a so-called safety valve, an opportunity for the government to stop exports when they risk violating our, Sweden's, international commitments. It is a reasonable and responsible proposal.

Vänsterpartiet has warned of the risks of applying for membership in a military alliance that includes countries such as Turkey. That other states should in practice be able to influence or dictate the terms for Swedish politics is unacceptable. We have already seen examples of arms exports to Turkey being multiplied since NATO membership became a reality.

Turkey is a country that has on repeated occasions violated human rights and international law. President Erdoğan has launched harsh attacks against opposition members, journalists, and political opponents. The imprisonment of Istanbul's mayor Ekrem İmamoğlu in the spring of 2025 is a clear example. The arrest of the Swedish journalist Joakim Medin is another. The lack of respect in Turkey for democracy and freedom of expression is deeply concerning.

Sweden should not export weapons to states that lack such basic democratic principles.

We must also remember that Sweden, following a decision by a unanimous Riksdag, in October 2019 stopped all arms exports to Turkey on the grounds of the country's military offensive in Syria. But in connection with the application for NATO membership, this position was changed. Export licenses have been granted again, not because Turkey has made any democratic progress or shown greater respect for international law, but it is a direct consequence of the political process surrounding NATO membership. It is this development that we in Vänsterpartiet strongly question.

Mr. Speaker! In a time when Russia is violating international law in an unacceptable and dangerous manner, Sweden must stand up for international law with full force. We cannot compromise on these principles depending on which countries it concerns.

Accepting violations of international law simply because they were committed by allies risks undermining the international legal order. Against this background, Vänsterpartiet considers that the Riksdag should reject the government's proposal to amend the Act on War Materiel.

Mr. Speaker! Several referral bodies have requested a clear statement from the government on the view regarding nuclear weapons on Swedish territory. It is a highly reasonable request. In the bill, the government asserts that Sweden applied for membership in Nato without reservations and that this line remains firm.

It is certainly written that there are no grounds to station nuclear weapons on Swedish territory in peacetime. But let us be clear: This is not a prohibition. It is an assessment, and an assessment that can be reviewed and changed. The wording practically opens up for the situation to be reconsidered.

The Sweden Democrats have already signaled that they want to change this assessment. At the same time, the issue is not being addressed otherwise, even though nuclear weapons are such a central part of Nato. Nato is fundamentally a nuclear weapons alliance, where the American nuclear weapons constitute the ultimate weapon.

Mr. Speaker! For the Left Party, this is unacceptable. Sweden must not become part of a nuclear arms race. There should be no doubt about where Sweden stands on this issue. We have long pushed for Sweden to introduce clear legislation clarifying that we do not accept nuclear weapons on our territory.

We therefore propose that Sweden should adopt national legislation prohibiting the import, storage, and transit of nuclear weapons both in peacetime and in wartime. We also believe that Sweden should immediately sign the UN convention on the prohibition of nuclear weapons and actively work to establish nuclear-weapon-free zones in our surrounding area.

If Sweden is serious about safeguarding peace, security and international law, we must also be consistent in our opposition to nuclear weapons.

Mr. Speaker! With that, I move for approval of reservation number 2 regarding the export of war materiel.

I wish the Speaker, all the civil servants and my colleagues a pleasant summer.

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

Jörgen Berglund (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is still refreshing to hear Håkan Svenneling's and the Left Party's view on defense and security issues. I do not agree, but it is wonderful that we can rely on a member of the Left Party in that regard, that one stands firm by their principles. I think it is good.

With that said, I want to ask Håkan Svenneling: If Vänsterpartiet joins a red-green government after the election, what line will that government pursue regarding Nato? Either one pursues the Socialdemokraternas and Centerpartiets line, or one pursues the Miljöpartiets and Vänsterpartiets line. One cannot pursue two. A government is collectively responsible.

I would like to hear how Håkan Svenneling thinks about that. If it is the case that one will stick to the line that today constitutes a broad majority of the Swedish Riksdag, Håkan Svenneling is standing here saying empty words. It will not have any effect.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! It is also refreshing that Jörgen Berglund, at this late hour, wants to take the floor to reply to me and discuss these issues. It is somewhat impressive, however, given that we expected to have this debate about 24 hours ago.

When it comes to how a government should act regarding Nato, Sweden's parliament has decided that Sweden shall be a member of Nato, and Sweden became a member a little over two years ago. There is a clear majority here in the chamber. I expect that majority to remain after the election. There is also a majority among Sweden's population.

We know that the question of Swedish Nato membership, whether Sweden should be a member or not, is not on the table of the next Riksdag nor on the table of the next government. Swedish Nato membership is now a reality, and Sweden will continue to be a member of Nato during the next mandate period.

However, the next government, just like this government, will have the right to submit propositions, i.e., bills, to the Swedish Riksdag. This government has submitted this product. I fundamentally thought it was good that a product was submitted for this legislation, because it needed to be changed. But when I see the product, I think I would have done it differently if I had written it myself. I think it will be the same for the next government. It may need to be adapted to Nato further.

Jörgen Berglund has personally led the Defense Committee's work, which has now concluded with a first interim report. A final report will follow after a change of power has hopefully occurred in this country – the opinion polls point to that in any case. At that point, we may need to make other adjustments linked to Sweden's NATO membership. And then we will discuss it within the framework of the red-green government that I hope the Vänsterpartiet, Miljöpartiet, and Socialdemokraterna can form after the election. For the time being, all opinion polls point in that direction.

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

Jörgen Berglund (M)

Mr. Speaker! I must point out that the only opinion poll that matters is the one that takes place on election day, so I do not intend to comment on that specific one.

I would like to take the opportunity to point out that Håkan Svenneling in his speech actually raised two direct inaccuracies. One was that he said Sweden has practically signed a DCA agreement with Donald Trump, and that is naturally not true. We have signed an agreement with the United States of America – I think it is important to point that out.

But just as Håkan Svenneling says, the NATO membership itself is not in focus. That question is already settled, and that is very good. My question was more about the fact that such questions as those we are dealing with today will arise. In that case, a government must have a clear answer.

I pose my question to Håkan Svenneling as follows: What signal does Håkan Svenneling believe it would send to our allies if this or a similar issue arose and Sweden hesitated and did not agree to this? What we are debating today is a necessity – a practical circumstance that is a consequence of the NATO membership. It is clear that one, just as the Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet in this report, can complicate it. What signal does Håkan Svenneling believe it sends to our allies that we do not wholeheartedly stand behind our membership?

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Jörgen Berglund, for this exchange of remarks!

That I say that in practice it is an agreement with Donald Trump and not with the USA is because the DCA agreement runs for a period of ten years. Then it can be extended, but ten years is the first term. We know that Donald Trump will be president during four of those ten years. There is a great risk that a similar Republican presidential candidate will take over after him.

We also see now how Trump is changing the rules of the game on the European continent by withdrawing troops that the USA has had here. That Trump decision now leaves a vacuum that we, due to Sweden's Nato membership, need to be involved in managing. It is a reality that our entry into Nato means an increased dependence on the USA in various ways. The DCA agreement reinforces that dependence, and it is something that I have pointed out and will continue to point out. I believe it is important that we conduct our own, thinking foreign and security policy that takes a stand based on our own circumstances.

The unambiguous answer is that I do not believe our allies are particularly concerned that Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet may end up in government. Miljöpartiet has previously sat in government for seven years. At that time, Sweden was not a member of Nato, but we were a reliable friend and colleague to our neighboring country Finland, for example. We have now made a decision on an FLF operation where we will be the framework nation, and Vänsterpartiet voted for this. A few political wildcards who have left our party were the only ones who voted against that operation.

We see that left-wing parties have sat in governments in Norway, Spain, and a lot of other countries, and they are still Nato members. If one is to really dive deep into the history, the Norwegian left-wing party was formed because they broke away from the Labour Party specifically because of the Nato membership issue. Then, one still sits in a government 30–40 years later and takes responsibility for the Norwegian Nato membership; Norway was, after all, one of the founding nations when Nato was formed. So that is probably what I worry about the least at night.

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

Björn Söder (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Tonight we are considering the Committee on Defence's report on improved conditions for operational military cooperation. The Sweden Democrats support the committee's proposal and welcome the government's proposition.

Sweden's security policy situation has fundamentally changed during recent years. Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine demonstrated with all desired clarity that peace and stability in Europe can never be taken for granted. As a consequence of this, Sweden has chosen a new security policy path through membership in Nato.

Membership does not only mean that we are covered by the alliance's security guarantees. It also means that we have a responsibility to contribute to the alliance's collective defense capability. For this to work, it is required that the legislation is adapted to the reality we now operate in. It is precisely this that the bill is about.

Today's regulatory framework has largely been designed from a time when Sweden stood outside Nato. Now we need to create the legal conditions required for Sweden to be able to fully participate in the operational military cooperation within the alliance and together with our European partners.

Mr. Speaker! Defense is ultimately based on credibility. A potential attacker must know that Sweden does not stand alone and that our allies can act quickly and effectively together with us. It is about deterrence. The clearer our ability for collective action is, the lower is the risk that anyone will attempt to attack us at all.

The proposition therefore contains several important changes. It creates better opportunities for Nato and other allied states to operate on Swedish territory within the framework of deterrence and defense. It also removes practical and legal obstacles that would otherwise risk delaying or complicating joint military operations.

In a crisis or conflict situation, hours can be decisive. In such cases, bureaucracy or unclear regulations must not stand in the way of necessary defense measures.

Mr. Speaker! From some quarters, objections have been raised against the bill. There has been talk about national sovereignty and about risks with giving foreign forces expanded opportunities to operate in Sweden. I mean that these fears are exaggerated. Sweden does not abandon its sovereignty by cooperating with its allies. On the contrary, we strengthen our ability to defend it.

It is still Sweden that makes the decisions regarding Sweden's security. But we do so as part of a defense alliance where the strength lies in our ability to act together when the situation requires it. The alternative, to stand with legislation that is not adapted to our new security policy reality, would be significantly more risky.

Mr. Speaker! The Sweden Democrats have for a long time emphasized the importance of a strong national defense. We have also highlighted the importance of close cooperation with our partners and allies. These two perspectives are not in opposition to each other. A strong national defense constitutes the basis for our security. But in today's Europe, it is also necessary to be able to cooperate effectively with other democratic states that share our interests and our values.

The ability to give and receive support, plan jointly and act quickly together is a central part of modern defense capability. This has been an important part of the Swedish-Finnish defense cooperation for many years and is now an obvious part of Sweden's role within Nato.

Mr. Speaker! The bill we are discussing today is therefore not just a technical legislative change. It is an important step in adapting Sweden's defense to the security policy reality prevailing in Europe in 2026. It strengthens Sweden's defense capability and NATO's collective deterrence and thus also the security for Swedish citizens.

With this, I wish to vote in favor of the committee's proposal. I would like, just like Håkan Svenneling, to wish the Speaker, the officials, and my colleagues here in the Riksdag a very pleasant Midsummer.

(Applause)

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

Emma Berginger (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Miljöpartiet supports the need for a strengthened total defense, both civil and military, and the need for Sweden to strengthen its ability to cooperate with our allies.

As a consequence of Sweden's NATO membership and participation in NATO's collective defense planning, legal and practical arrangements for foreign forces on Swedish territory need to be in place. Simplifying operational military cooperation is important.

At the same time, the proposal we are now debating implies unreasonable shifts of power from the Riksdag to the government in a situation where the government is not prepared to ensure through legislation that nuclear weapons do not enter Swedish territory. As long as Sweden lacks clear legislation prohibiting nuclear weapons on Swedish territory, we do not want to let the government decide that Nato or a state that is a member of Nato or the EU, during the execution of military activities for deterrence and defense, may take military defense measures on Swedish territory.

Mr. Speaker! Miljöpartiet considers that nuclear weapons should never be allowed on Swedish territory, whether in peacetime or wartime. Nuclear weapons are devastating weapons of mass destruction, and should a single such weapon detonate, it would have unforeseeable consequences, both humanitarian and for the environment. In a larger war with these weapons, the conditions for human life could be destroyed and obliterated. Nuclear weapons on Swedish soil would also make Sweden a target, raise the threat level, and could be seen as an escalation.

Against this background, I believe that the Riksdag should reject the government's proposal for an amendment to the Act on Operational Military Cooperation in the part concerning that the government shall be entitled to decide that Nato or a state that is a member of Nato or the European Union, during the execution of military activities for deterrence and defense, may take military defense measures in accordance with international law on Swedish territory and, by that decision, delegate administrative tasks to Nato or that state.

Mr. Speaker! In addition to this, I also want to say that decisions on military defense measures on Swedish territory can have far-reaching security policy consequences and must be subject to clear democratic control. The government's proposal means that the government is given a very broad mandate to decide that Nato or that a state that is a member of Nato or EU may take military defense measures on Swedish territory.

Sweden needs to be able to cooperate militarily with allies, but it must take place within clear legal frameworks and with respect for Swedish sovereignty and with the Riksdag as the central democratic actor.

Mr. Speaker! In the bill, the government also proposes that the authorization in the Act on Military Materiel be amended so that the government may issue regulations on exemptions from the requirement for permits for the export of military materiel and the provision of technical assistance to Nato or a state that is a member of Nato. The proposal gives the government the opportunity to, in principle, bypass the laws we have regarding military materiel exports.

We oppose this. Sweden's Nato membership must not mean that democracy, human rights, or Sweden's obligations under international law are given less weight in export controls. Previously, the government's regulatory authority regarding exemptions applied only to the USA and countries within the EEA. Now it is being expanded to apply to all of Nato, and in practice, this means that additional countries will be covered. This applies, as mentioned here earlier, to Albania, Canada, Montenegro, North Macedonia, the United Kingdom, and Turkey.

Let me mention what some of the referral bodies say about this. Stockholm University emphasizes in its referral response that the export of war materiel to these countries may in some cases conflict with international obligations. Svenska Freds warns that the proposal risks eroding and in practice undermining the Swedish war materiel legislation and its fundamental values. They specifically point out the risk that consideration for the alliance or its members may outweigh in the assessment when it concerns whether war materiel should be allowed to be exported to undemocratic states, states that seriously violate human rights, or countries in armed conflict or with a risk of armed conflict.

We share this concern and believe that Swedish exports of war materiel should be restrictive and not be eroded through exceptions that in practice create loopholes. The Riksdag should therefore reject the government's proposal for an amendment to the Act on War Materiel.

Mr. Speaker! Miljöpartiet also wants to reject the bill in the part concerning foreign military personnel who exercise authority in Sweden according to the Act on Operational Military Cooperation and shall be protected according to Chapter 17, Sections 1–4 of the Penal Code in the same manner as if it had been a case of Swedish exercise of authority. This means, among other things, that the new offense of insult against a public official would be covered.

Persons who perform official duties in Sweden should of course be protected against violence and threats, but we in Miljöpartiet opposed the government's broad sentencing increases in proposition 2024/25:141, which among other things includes sentencing increases regarding insult against a public official. We argued then that sentencing increases should be evidence-based and proportionate. The government did not demonstrate with sufficient clarity that the proposed sentencing increases were expedient or had support in research and experience. When the government now wants to extend the same criminal protection to foreign military, Miljöpartiet stands firm on the same principled stance.

Mr. Speaker! There may be practical reasons for foreign forces to be able to maintain order within their own forces and participate in the guarding of protected objects under clear forms. I therefore support the government's proposal on this but want to point out at the same time that there are significant reasons to exercise caution.

The government needs to ensure that the powers are clearly delimited, proportionate, and legally secure. Foreign military personnel shall not be given vague powers to intervene against the Swedish civilian population. It must also be ensured that the personnel understand Swedish laws, proportionality principles, and limitations. An arrangement where foreign military personnel are given public authority powers in Sweden requires clear lines of responsibility, functioning cooperation with Swedish authorities, and the possibility of follow-up.

Mr. Speaker! I further believe that the Armed Forces should work to ensure that camera surveillance conducted by foreign military forces is used in a manner that is reasonable and proportionate and that information about the surveillance should be provided when possible. This should be the starting point for the application. The Armed Forces should be given a clear responsibility to work for proportionality, restraint, and transparency where possible, even when the legislation allows for exceptions.

Mr. Speaker! I would like to conclude by repeating that Miljöpartiet stands behind the need for a strong total defense and a good ability to cooperate with our allies. But it requires reflection when we make changes such as these. We naturally stand by all our reservations, but to save time during the voting, I move for approval of only reservation 1.

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

Jörgen Berglund (M)

Mr. Speaker! I actually have a short question for Emma Berginger. She described what we propose in the report regarding giving the government a regulation concerning arms exports. She was concerned that this would not be good and that the current Swedish arms legislation would be bypassed.

Let me first point out that the fact that we provide an opportunity through the regulations does not mean that it will be done. But my question is quite simple: Does Miljöpartiet therefore expect that the countries that Emma Berginger lists will come here and defend us if necessary, while at the same time we are not allowed to export weapons to them? What is the logic in that?

(Applause)

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

Emma Berginger (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Miljöpartiet supports a Swedish export legislation that has its basis and its focus in that we shall export weapons only when it lies in our security policy interest to do so and that we shall be very restrictive. This involves that we shall consider issues such as democracy. Miljöpartiet has been a driving force for the democracy criterion that lies in the Swedish weapons export legislation.

I would like to ask a counter-question to Jörgen Berglund. I wonder if Jörgen Berglund sees all our allies as full-fledged democracies. Does he not acknowledge that there are certain problems in some of the countries that are now also our allies, for example when it comes to democracy, when it comes to the courts' freedom to operate, when it comes to how one handles journalists' opportunity to operate and how one handles the opposition's opportunity to operate?

(Applause)

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

Jörgen Berglund (M)

Mr. Speaker! I shall answer the question. It is clear that it looks very different in the different countries. I can certainly have views on some of those countries, but that is not what we are discussing here today.

The question concerns the connection that Miljöpartiet is making. You say that we should not export weapons to any countries, without specifying which ones. You are welcome to clarify that. But at the same time, these countries are expected to come here and defend us. I do not understand the logic in that. I did not think I received an answer to that question.

Then I also wonder how the nuclear weapons issue entered this report at all. I understood that you are saying no to parts of the report because the government or a majority in Sweden's Riksdag does not want legislation that prohibits nuclear weapons. It is a very strange negotiation tactic: You say no to one thing because you did not get anything else through.

There is no broad support for such legislation as Emma Berginger advocates. Possibly Vänsterpartiet will stand on that.

Let me remind Member Berginger that Sweden joined NATO as a full-fledged ally without reservation. But the question remains: Does Emma Berginger think it is reasonable that our allies should come to our defense, but we should not equip them with weapons if they have a need for it?

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

Emma Berginger (MP)

Mr. Speaker! The Government emphasizes once again that Sweden joined Nato without reservations. At the same time, it is said somewhat vaguely that they see no reason to have nuclear weapons on Swedish territory in peacetime. It is therefore not a rule. It is not legislation. There is no prohibition. If the government wakes up tomorrow and feels that it is time for nuclear weapons, this stance could be changed. It could be changed if some other ally perhaps pressures the government. It is difficult for the population in Sweden to know if the government really intends to ensure that we do not get nuclear weapons on Swedish territory.

Now, there is a desire for the authority to allow our allies to take military defense measures on Swedish territory. In practice, nuclear weapons could actually be included in that exercise. That is what we are concerned about. That is why we want to emphasize once again that we want to see legislation that prohibits nuclear weapons on Swedish territory. We believe that is the best way to truly guarantee that we do not get nuclear weapons onto Swedish territory.

As I explained in my speech, it would entail great risks for Sweden if we were to get nuclear weapons on Swedish territory, and I want to work for the best interests of Sweden's defense.

(Applause)

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

Jörgen Berglund (M)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden has been a member or ally in the defense alliance Nato since March 7, 2024. Sweden has been safer since then, and Nato is stronger. We are 32 allies who stand up for each other if the worst should happen, namely war. Nato is a defense alliance where everything aims to avoid war through political and military means. But if someone were nevertheless to attack us or any of the other allies, we will collectively respond to that aggression.

Mr. Speaker! It is also worth reminding that Nato is a political organization where the decisive decisions are made by politicians, not by military personnel. Nato is an intergovernmental organization where decisions are made by consensus. Nato can therefore not do anything that Sweden opposes. That is why we today, completely independently in Sweden's Riksdag, are processing the report that we are now debating: Improved conditions for operational military cooperation. Had it been as the opponents to Nato want to imply, that it is Nato that decides for us, we would actually not have needed to stand here today and discuss this.

Mr. Speaker! In the report, there are proposals aimed at giving Sweden better conditions to participate in operational military missions within Nato. What we propose is that the government shall be empowered to decide that Nato or a state that is a member of that organization or in the EU may take military defense measures on Swedish territory when Nato or the state carries out military activities for deterrence and defense.

This is perfectly reasonable. That is what we do when we have a Swedish troop abroad. I have myself served abroad as an officer. I can only state that it cannot work in any other way. Or should we rely on the country we are in, which does not even have the ability to protect itself? Does anyone think it is possible to send Swedish women and men far away from their families to a hotspot where they risk their lives without them knowing that they have the right to take their own protective measures? Would we have relied on the Afghan or Malian security forces when we were in those places?

Let us remember that it is our allies who will help us if the worst happens. Should we not then trust that they take the necessary protective measures without going into a lot of "what ifs" and so on? It is about trust, and that trust, I mean, we should have.

When I listen to Miljöpartiet and Vänsterpartiet in here, I cannot interpret them in any other way than that they have certain reflections regarding this. It is worth noting that at least one of them is still against Nato. One has been defeated on the issue of a Swedish Nato membership but still continues with this opposition and with a bit of bickering. It is completely okay; we can have different opinions. But I mean that this damages Sweden's credibility as an ally. It sends the signal that Sweden wants to be included only as long as Sweden gets to share in the best parts. This also risks, I mean, giving Russia a small, small thread to unravel. They are, after all, looking for disagreement. I still want to emphasize that there is broad agreement regarding these issues.

I mean that this is very unfortunate. I do not think it is acceptable to continue like this with the uncertain world we have now, which furthermore risks worsening rapidly. We cannot have two parties claiming to sit in a government when they have a very unclear stance on Nato. A government makes collective decisions, where there is agreement. The question that I have also posed earlier in my remarks is: How will it work if Daniel Helldén is Foreign Minister and Nooshi Dadgostar is Defense Minister? Which line shall apply here? The current line is that Sweden is a stable, reliable and solidary ally. Shall we enter into a line where we are constantly complicating things and trying to evade?

Mr. Speaker! The report also proposes a number of legislative changes aimed at providing foreign forces with better conditions to carry out military activities in Sweden. This concerns, among other things, weapons and camera surveillance, which some others have touched upon.

All this is done so that Sweden can continue to be an active member, allied, in NATO's deterrence and defense. The ultimate purpose is to preserve peace in the Euro-Atlantic area.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal in the report.

I take this opportunity to wish the Speaker and the Deputy Director-General of the Riksdag, whom I see sitting here, and the other officials a happy Midsummer. I also wish my colleagues in the committee and all those who protect and defend our country during the Midsummer weekend – in Sweden and abroad.

(Applause)

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

Emma Berginger (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Jörgen Berglund so kindly invited a reply in his speech, so I could not help but do so.

I want to emphasize to Jörgen Berglund that Miljöpartiet and Vänsterpartiet are two different parties, which have different starting points here in the world. We have different policies. Miljöpartiet has chosen to accept the Nato membership. We naturally have views on Nato as an organization. We want Sweden to be active in that organization and push for, for example, democratic values and openness and transparency. Miljöpartiet also wants Sweden to be a stable, reliable and and solidary ally, which we have pointed out on several occasions. And we safeguard the broad consensus in Swedish security policy.

But with that said, Sweden is also a democracy, and in a democracy, one is allowed to have different opinions. This applies in particular when we discuss how to apply the legislation in the best possible way so that we can have a country as secure as possible and so that our allies can operate here. It is also about us knowing what the frameworks look like and who makes the decisions – whether it is the government or the Riksdag. Then we must be able to have different viewpoints. We must be able to discuss them.

These are very important and serious issues, Mr. Speaker. That is precisely why I believe it is even more important that we actually take the time to reflect. What do these different decisions mean? With that, I want to say that I think it is reasonable that we can have different positions on this issue. I would, of course, wish that the government had been clearer, for example, that one actually wants to close the door on nuclear weapons on Swedish territory. But we see again tonight that is not the case.

Mr. Speaker! I wonder if Jörgen Berglund sees that Miljöpartiet and Vänsterpartiet are two different parties and if it is okay to have different opinions in Sweden's Riksdag.

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

Jörgen Berglund (M)

Mr. Speaker! I shall answer Emma Berginger's question. I absolutely think it is okay that we have different opinions. We should have them in different issues; that I want to emphasize. If I expressed myself in any other way, it was not intentional.

What I said, however, was that it is unfortunate that, in the matter of NATO membership, there is a constant desire to dispute things, even though the issue is settled. It is this that awakens my curiosity or concern, as I would put it. That is why I asked questions earlier to Håkan Svenneling about how it would work with a red-green government and whether you will continue to pursue a different line in these issues than what a broad majority of Sweden's current Riksdag wants, or – to quote Håkan Svenneling – most likely an equally large majority of the next Riksdag wants.

This worries me, because I think it sends an unfortunate signal to our allies, and it risks giving our opponents a small thread to unravel, which would be very unfortunate.

Then Emma Berginger went back to the nuclear weapons issue. I still do not understand and received no answer as to why it has ended up in the committee report. I do not think it belongs there at all. But when it comes to the nuclear weapons issue, situations can nevertheless change, and we do not know what the future holds.

We have a broad agreement that there shall be no nuclear weapons on Swedish soil in peacetime. We stand by this, and it is the agreement we have. I must take the opportunity to ask Emma Berginger: Who does the Green Party see who wants to place nuclear weapons on Swedish soil? I have never heard anyone show interest in that. It is expensive, and furthermore, it is not necessary for the nuclear weapon powers that exist.

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

Emma Berginger (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I am more concerned about the yes-men – those who say yes and amen to everything that is put before them – than about parties that have slightly different viewpoints on the question of how we should implement and execute our NATO membership.

Miljöpartiet wants to safeguard the broad consensus in defense and security policy. This is what we want to do now – today, while we are in opposition. We could actually have lived out the opposition role to the fullest, but we have taken responsibility in this situation and, together with the government parties, have discussed our way to broad consensuses in the Defense Preparation Board.

I also, of course, want to safeguard the broad consensus if we are in government after the election, which the opinion polls currently suggest we might have the opportunity to do. In that case, it is important that Jörgen Berglund also considers how he will act in a potential opposition role, in order to be able to stand up for and work towards us maintaining a broad consensus.

The members of the committee wondered why nuclear weapons had ended up in consideration at all. It has ended up there because it is mentioned in the government's bill. For that very reason, it is perfectly reasonable that we address that question in our follow-up motions. It is actually the government itself that repeatedly emphasizes that they have no reservation against nuclear weapons, even if they currently see no reason to have them on Swedish territory.

No, I also do not see anyone coming to Sweden and wanting to hurry to place nuclear weapons here right now, but as we know, a lot can happen quickly in security policy. We can look at how this issue is discussed in general. There are actually parties that bring it up in different contexts and wonder if it would not have been reasonable with Nordic nuclear weapons. This is something that we in Miljöpartiet say a firm no to.

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

Jörgen Berglund (M)

Mr. Speaker! I may have expressed myself unclearly regarding the nuclear weapons issue. I meant that I think it is a very strange position. I perceived Miljöpartiet as saying no to this because they want a statutory ban on nuclear weapons. I may have expressed myself a bit unclearly.

When it comes to the question of how I would function as an opposition politician on defense issues in a hypothetical world, I will continue to be a very constructive person who seeks broad cooperation.

I will also always put Sweden as an ally first and do what I can so that we continue to be a solidary, reliable and appreciated partner. That, I mean, is not something you do by constantly scheming and tweaking, as I express it in English, that is, twisting things around. I believe our allies perceive this as that we are not really involved and are not really willing to do the less fun things but just want to take advantage of what is best with the alliance, that is to say the collective defense, if the worst were to happen.

The whole point of my objections or questions to Miljöpartiet and Vänsterpartiet is that you in the four red-green parties agree on three things: You want to increase immigration, you want to increase aid, and you want to raise fuel prices. The rest is shrouded in gloom. When it comes to issues of defense and security policy, one must – in the world we find ourselves in – have a clear and distinct line. That is what I believe the Swedish people deserve.

I am worried about what would happen if Miljöpartiet or Vänsterpartiet moved into the Ministry of Defence or the Ministry for Foreign Affairs. I must also say that.

(Applause)

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

Anders Ekegren (L)

Mr. Speaker! Today we will debate legislative changes in four laws. The purpose is to give Sweden better conditions to participate in the operational military cooperation within Nato and to give foreign forces better conditions to carry out military activities in Sweden.

The Liberals decided at the national meeting in 1999, after a few years of internal debate, to be the first parliamentary party to propose that Sweden should become a member of Nato. If one has advocated for Nato membership for over 20 years before Sweden became a member of Nato, today's decision is completely in line with being a Nato member.

For the two parties that are not yet in favor of membership, it could be a difficult decision. After tonight's debate, one also notices that it is something that is gnawing at two parties.

The most important thing about a Nato membership is the mutual defense guarantees that exist and which are central to the membership. The defense guarantees mean that an armed attack against Sweden shall be considered an armed attack against all member states in Nato. The other member states then have an obligation to assist Sweden with measures deemed necessary.

Sweden built up a large defense capability after the Second World War, and Sweden can probably be considered to have had a strong defense until at least the beginning of the 80s. The subsequent decisions on unit closures during primarily the 2000s had devastating consequences – closure of regiments and units, dismissal of officers and other personnel, and scrapping of equipment. This led to the fact that we now must upgrade quickly and hire personnel.

Sweden made the same mistake as at the 1925 defense decision, even though we already 20 years ago saw where it would lead with Putin as Tsar Vladimir. To the delight of the Liberals, we were not part of two of the defense decisions.

Mr. Speaker! In terms of defense policy, we are no longer an isolated island, but we are part of a larger community. We would not be able to withstand an attack from Russia on our own. We must cooperate.

We must not be naive. We must proceed from the assumption that a Natoland can be attacked. It could be Finland, the Baltics, or another country that at some point was part of Tsarryssland or the Soviet Union. More can be added.

The current legislation, which restricts foreign forces to only defending Sweden, is also restrictive for Sweden in a broader perspective.

If, for example, Estonia is attacked, it must be possible for NATO countries to have Sweden as a base for operations. Otherwise, there is the risk that the war will eventually move over to Sweden. The risk is significant since Gotland has a major strategic position, and whoever controls Gotland controls very large parts of the Baltic Sea.

Waiting for a parliamentary decision when Gotland is already occupied is not serious. Sweden applied for membership in Nato without reservations.

In the proposal, it is suggested that the government should be able to quickly make decisions on whether other states may take defensive measures on Swedish territory for the defense of Swedish territory or other Natoland. Both the government and the committee consider that there is no need for permanent foreign bases in Sweden.

Furthermore, the government considers that other countries' defense forces can be in the country in both war and peacetime. This should not be controversial given the many exercises that have been conducted in our country.

Sweden has now been a member of Nato since March 7, 2024. The changes that are now being proposed are a natural part of the membership and in order for us to achieve the best possible defense of Sweden and other Nato countries.

Mr. Speaker! I wish to move for approval of the Committee on Defence's proposal for a decision.

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

Lorena Delgado Varas (-)

Mr. Speaker! To begin with, I want to turn to those of you who are worried, to those of you who see how world developments are unfolding, to those of you who worry about how easy it is to start wars and how little room there is for another way.

I want to turn to you who are daily affected by the shrinking of the welfare state and to our children and young people who, instead of getting a future where we stop the climate crisis, are getting a future where they are to be a part of the militarization. They shall study in relation to it, work within the expanding weapons industry and receive NATO flags during Järvaveckan.

It is happening fast now, and it is happening undemocratically and without transparency. Many are now preparing for war, and we are paying the price with our lives and our welfare.

Tomorrow, the Riksdag will vote on something that should make every one of us stop and ask: What are they actually doing? The government wants to give itself the power to allow foreign military forces to conduct activities in Sweden for deterrence and defense.

If one reads the fine print, however, one can become worried. Namely, there does not need to be any threat against Sweden. It does not even have to be about defending Sweden. With the government's approval, foreign forces could carry out military operations from Swedish territory against other states even in peacetime.

Think about what it means! Swedish soil can become a base for others' wars without the Riksdag getting to say yes or no and without debate and oversight. Sweden can be drawn into conflicts that have nothing to do with us. The government calls it cooperation. I call it giving away our independence.

We must not forget that NATO is a nuclear weapons alliance. Through the DCA agreement and this proposal, the door is opened for nuclear weapons to be brought into Swedish territory. To allow that is to make Sweden a target in a nuclear war. It is not responsible, but rather it exposes us to danger.

We say: Lay down your weapons! Raise the wages! We want welfare, not war. We want jobs, not conscription. We refuse to finance the rearmament that threatens our world.

That is why I say no to foreign combat operations from Swedish soil, no to Sweden being drawn into others' wars, no to nuclear weapons in Sweden, and no to the power being moved from the Riksdag. Instead, we should terminate the DCA agreement, leave Nato, build a defense that defends Sweden and not other countries' wars, and put the money on welfare, where it belongs.

To all of you who recognize yourselves in this: There are many of us who want to prioritize life over violence and death. We will see each other at the peace conference in London on June 20, where thousands from all over the world gather to speak out, from trade unions to political parties. I know that there are many of us who want to prioritize life over violence and death.

I move for approval of motion 4171 and rejection of the entire proposition.

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

Daniel Riazat (-)

Mr. Speaker! I agree with every word spoken from the rostrum by Lorena Delgado Varas.

Today we are here to discuss what is wrongly called improved conditions for operational military cooperation, but which is about strengthening the war machine that Nato is – a nuclear weapons alliance that has caused suffering for millions of people all around the world.

I raise the question because I know that while the majority of the parties in the Riksdag vote for this type of war alliances, expanded weapons and military cooperation, the next day people talk about not wanting people who have fled because of this war machinery to come to Sweden.

This is a hypocrisy without equal. But on the other hand, one knows that this is hypocrisy, because the purpose is actually only one thing. It is not to defend Sweden, but so that the companies that sell weapons and that have enriched themselves on this industry shall become richer.

Why else would Sweden appoint the same people from the same group as envoys to the dictatorship Turkey to negotiate the Nato agreement for Sweden? Then they saw to it that they received all the agreements for the arms trade. It is about the Wallenberg family.

Many people have seen through this. For me, this is one of the last debates in the Swedish Riksdag, and I want to raise the issue because my message to the people is not to fall for this.

I know that very many people out there want to choose school, reinforced healthcare, and reinforced welfare over billion-dollar investments, year after year, in a militarization that leads to death and misery for many people all around the world.

Mr. Speaker! I previously thought that Sweden had an order where, for example, the head of state came first. Then we have the Speaker who is to say who may explore the terrain to become Prime Minister. After that comes the Riksdag, which gets to decide.

It must feel incredibly bad that the boss is now a convicted president in the USA. He has been convicted at least 45 times in court in the USA for various things. He talks about women as if they were sexual objects. He talks about people from different parts of the world as if they were not human beings.

It must feel very bad when a dictator like Erdoğan has been allowed to dictate the terms for Sweden's Prime Minister, for Sweden's Riksdag, for Sweden's Speaker and for Sweden's Head of State regarding how we should act and enact laws to become members of that undemocratic war alliance.

It must feel bad to have traveled several times to both the USA and Turkey, to have bowed as much as the Swedish politicians did, and to have sold out so many so-called Swedish values as was done. Even today, we live with the consequences of this in the form of deportations of Kurds and other people.

They do this and then say that it is about protecting Sweden's interests so that we will fall for the idea that Nato is some kind of defense alliance.

No, I believe that very many people have understood what this is about. It does not take twelve years in the Riksdag, as for me, to understand what it is about. It is not about creating peace but about prolonging war. It is not about investing in security. Security is when people have a roof over their heads, food on the table and welfare they can rely on. Security is not when Wallenberg gets a few more billions in his account. It is tragic that all eight Riksdag parties have more or less lowered themselves for the majority of these proposals.

With that said, I would like to thank the Speaker for these years. I will, as I said, participate in a couple more debates. I want to thank all the staff in the Swedish Riksdag – they have been fantastic. I also want to thank a good number of the Members of Parliament.

I move for approval of the same motion as Lorena Delgado Varas.

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

Lorena Delgado Varas (-)

Mr. Speaker! Earlier in the debate it has been stated – by the Moderates, I believe – that there are very many in Sweden who truly support this proposal. At the same time, we see that the number of members in peace organizations is increasing exponentially. It is very much about the future prospects.

What do you, Daniel Riazat, want to say to Sweden's youth regarding the militarization? The two of us have discussed it here, but I think we can also take it openly. It will, among other things, involve the exercise of authority by foreign forces, which will, in other words, be able to do pretty much whatever they want. Perhaps we might also get nuclear weapons on our territory.

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

Daniel Riazat (-)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Lorena Delgado Varas very much for the question. There is an incredible amount to say about this. There has been a very undemocratic process from beginning to end throughout the entire Nato process, and the Swedish people have had nothing to say about it. There are parties that even went to the election on being against Nato but then were involved in pushing forward that we should become members of Nato etcetera.

For me, it is important that young people in this country – I am 35 today and was 23 when I entered the Riksdag – understand that Sweden's history, which we in many ways should be proud of, has been about standing up for peace and disarmament, about standing for stopping war and reducing the use of weapons. Now, instead, we see a rush for rearmament.

Sweden did not become the world's best country so that we could ensure the Wallenberg family became billionaires from arms sales. Sweden did not become the welfare state that half the world still boasts about today – wrongly, unfortunately – through the type of repressive politics that has been conducted recently and which continues to be introduced. Monuments are not erected to Olof Palme and other leaders in Latin America, Asia, and Africa because of this warmongering, but because Sweden once dared to stand up against the horrific politics of the type that has harvested millions of lives over the recent years. Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya – I don't know how many countries I should mention. Take the illegal bombings we have seen recently! Nato allies are committing genocide in Gaza, bombing Iran and bombing Lebanon. The list is endless.

What I want to say to the young people is: Do not fall for this! Do as many of our predecessors did: Stand up against the warmongering and the rearmament!

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

Lorena Delgado Varas (-)

Mr. Speaker! I also want to thank the Speaker. I didn't quite manage to do that at the end of my speech. It has been eight interesting and educational years. You have been a part of that journey, together with all the staff, who I must say are available 24/7 when help is needed. I hope that this is not my last debate, because we have a couple of interpellations left to debate. But one doesn't know if one will meet all of you then. I also thank Daniel.

(TALMANNEN: Thank you for those words!)

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

Daniel Riazat (-)

Mr. Speaker! It feels, of course, strange to stand here in a reply exchange with the one who is closest to me in the Swedish Riksdag. I want to thank Lorena for the fantastic work she has done. There are not many Swedish members of parliament who have found themselves on a boat to break an illegal blockade. That an illegal blockade of Gaza is occurring is not something that only we think, but something that the UN has stated. You actually will not find anyone else in this chamber who has sat on a boat and risked their life in their will to stand up for people who are in the middle of a genocide. Lorena was also subjected to one of the world's absolute worst states. I want to thank Lorena very much, as well as other members who have contributed to the debates.

I think that Andreas Norlén has been a fair Speaker here in the Swedish Riksdag. It does not happen so often that the entire Riksdag stands behind a Speaker, but we have done that, including myself and Lorena. We think that it has been a fair Speakership during these years.

I also want to, just like Lorena, thank the staff. I do not think people outside this chamber truly understand how this house runs. It runs thanks to people who answer the phone until 10:30 p.m. when they are sitting at home with their families. One of them is sitting here in the chamber laughing right now, because he knows that it applies to him as well. It is an incredible machinery that constitutes a cornerstone of democracy and which needs to function, and we are grateful that you make it function. Every time we have been harsh in the speaker's chair – I will be for a few more times – it is only against the members, not against you in the staff.

(TALMANNEN: Thank you for the kind words!)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 17 June.)

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