(cont. from § 13) International cooperation (cont. UU1)

Morgan Johansson (S)

Madam Speaker! I intended to return to the question regarding Somalia. It has been revealed that millions of kronor from Swedish tax money have gone straight into the Somali Prime Minister's office. These are funds that have been diverted via aid – 100 million kronor, of which more than 11 million have gone straight to the Somali Prime Minister's office. An additional 5 million kronor have gone directly from the Ministry of Justice to the Somali Prime Minister's office. The Somali Prime Minister is also a Hamas supporter and an antisemite.

Now everyone is wondering where the money has gone. It doesn't matter who you ask – you get no answers. We have asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, but she knew nothing. We have asked the Minister for Development Cooperation Benjamin Dousa, but he also knew nothing. We have also asked Sida's chief Jakob Granit, but he knew nothing.

According to Dagens Nyheter's revelation, the money went to three gentlemen in the Somali Prime Minister's office. They are acquaintances and relatives of the Somali Prime Minister who have now received salaries of over 100,000 kronor per month. Today, another revelation came: It has turned out that they were probably already employed near the Prime Minister but had only received a share of the 5 million kronor, at least. Last week, a unanimous opposition requested that we invite IOM, the World Bank, and UNDP, who have been intermediaries for the money that has been funneled under the table to the Somali Prime Minister's office, to ask them questions as they might be able to clarify where the money has gone. But we were voted down by all government parties as well as the Sverigedemokraterna.

My question to Margareta Cederfelt is quite simply: Now that she has seen today's revelation that it is obviously corruption, is she then prepared to reconsider her position so that we can get to the bottom of where the money has gone?

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

Margareta Cederfelt (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank Morgan Johansson for the question. I wonder if Morgan Johansson lacks confidence in UNDP and the World Bank, just to mention two of the organizations that Morgan Johansson brought up. It is they who have been actors. Why should we listen to them? I do not understand that, quite frankly.

Furthermore, it is not our committee that is to scrutinize the government, but the Committee on the Constitution does that. This Morgan Johansson knows, as he has been a member of the Committee on the Constitution, and I know it, as I have also been a member of the Committee on the Constitution. We sat there at the same time.

It is not the Foreign Affairs Committee that scrutinizes the government, but it sounds that way when Morgan Johansson speaks. It seems that the member is mixing up the concepts here when it comes to who is responsible for scrutiny and who is not. I will stop there.

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Madam Speaker! No, I do not lack confidence in the organizations. On the other hand, I can state that when the media seek them out and ask questions, no answers are given. In that case, it would be appropriate for the committee to be able to ask them questions. Just as Margareta Cederfelt says, they have been actors in this entire mess, and there is every reason for us to ask them questions.

The government has provided very misleading information. Johan Forssell has claimed that the individuals exist and that they are working on these cases, i.e., people who are to be sent back from Sweden to Somalia. But no Swedish authorities know who they are.

According to today's article in DN, Migrationsverket has been asked if they have any contacts with these people in Somalia. The police's national operational department has been asked, but they did not know anything about this. Kriminalvården has been asked about these people. The Ministry of Justice, i.e., the department that distributed the money, has even been asked if they know which individuals have been employed in the office. Not even they know, despite the fact that they are the ones who paid out the money.

There is something fishy here; it is completely obvious. If one knows that Somalia is the world's second most corrupt country, it is quite easy to put two and two together. Here, money has been funneled under the table via IOM, UNDP and the World Bank, and today we cannot find out where the money has ended up. As mentioned, there is information that they have ended up with three individuals, and that was exactly why I asked the question.

Margareta Cederfelt is wrong. We in the Committee on Foreign Affairs also have a responsibility to follow up on where Swedish tax money is going. It is not only the Committee on the Constitution's mandate, but it is actually also the committee's responsibility to sort out these issues.

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

Margareta Cederfelt (M)

Madam Speaker! I note that Morgan Johansson lacks confidence in the UNDP, the World Bank, and several others. Otherwise, Morgan Johansson would not have expressed himself as he does.

Then I want to say that aid to countries that are corrupt has been distributed for a long time. I am thinking, not least, of the fact that the Social Democratic government distributed 600 million kronor in aid in 2021, when Morgan Johansson was minister. But this time, I must, to Morgan Johansson's credit, say that for once he shows a great interest in how the money is used. This is not something I have always heard when it comes to Social Democratic representatives.

When I was in Cambodia a few years ago and visited the prison where Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge held people captive, the first thing I saw was a portrait of Pol Pot and Lena Hjelm-Wallén together, where Pol Pot thanked for the aid that Sweden paid out. At that time, it was the Social Democrats who sat in the government.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Cederfelt, for a speech that I agree with in many and many respects!

It was very nice to hear that the Moderaterna stand behind a lot of things that we also stand behind. Accountability in conflicts was something that Margareta Cederfelt returned to several times. She spoke about support for international courts, which is very good. It is good to stand up for their independence. I want to remember that the member also said that international law stands firm, and she also referred to the UN Charter.

This is very good! I believe it is something that we all in here, in principle, stand behind. We are, of course, quite united when it comes to Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine. International law must apply. Those who commit war crimes must be prosecuted and punished.

Let us look at another conflict in the world. I am thinking of the conflict between Morocco and the occupied Western Sahara. It is a conflict that has been ongoing for almost exactly 50 years.

In October last year, the European Court of Justice chose, in a unique judgment, to annul a trade agreement, namely the trade agreement between the EU and Morocco. It was said that the trade agreement violates international law. It is primarily two things that the judgment says.

The first thing is that the agreement violates international law because Morocco does not have sovereignty over Western Sahara's territory. Goods coming from there may not be traded duty-free with the EU, and Morocco does not have ownership rights over them.

The second is that Western Sahara shall be represented through Polisario and participate in all negotiations regarding agreements concerning resources from their own territory.

The government has now chosen to sign a new agreement with Morocco without involving Polisario. I therefore wonder what the status is regarding this matter of following the rulings of the courts.

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

Margareta Cederfelt (M)

Madam Speaker! When it comes to agreements, it is, as I said, something that the government signs. The agreements that we have entered into from the Swedish side shall follow international law. We shall safeguard the independence of the courts; it is of utmost importance.

When it comes to Morocco and Western Sahara, I must admit that I need to read up a bit more on the agreement. I follow above all Russia and Ukraine, I follow what is happening in Central Asia, and I follow what is happening in Israel and Gaza. But it is not possible to follow all areas in detail. I believe, Madam Speaker, that Jacob Risberg can agree with that.

These are extremely important issues, and out of respect for the parties involved, I say that I will read up more. I cannot say more than that, Madam Speaker.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Margareta Cederfelt, for the honest answer! I truly hope that you read up on this, because this is a conflict that needs more attention.

Speaking of keeping focus on all areas, I can also say that we in small parties are forced to keep track of practically all areas.

I want to agree with Member Cederfelt that it is the government that signs agreements. But this specific agreement has also been signed at the EU level, which means it has gone through the EU Committee. There, the governing parties have given support to the government for this, so it is something that the parties in the Riksdag have also stood behind.

I move on to speak about another court, namely the International Court of Justice. In July last year, the International Court of Justice, that is, the UN's highest judicial body, ruled that Israel's occupation of Gaza, the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights is illegal. It ruled that Israel must dismantle the settlements and remove all settlers.

It was also established that another thing, namely that the rest of the world, of which Sweden is obviously a part, has a responsibility. One has a responsibility not to support Israel's settlement policy or the settlements, either economically or politically.

I think this is a self-evident matter, and it should be a self-evident matter for everyone who speaks of a two-state solution. But even today, it is permitted to import goods from Israeli settlements. There are countries in the EU that have stopped this import. But I have not yet seen the Moderaterna stand behind a ban on the import of goods from settlements, and the government has not done a jot to stop it.

It is almost a year and a half since the judgment was delivered, and Sweden is still providing economic support to the settlements by allowing trade with settlement goods. How is that?

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

Margareta Cederfelt (M)

Madam Speaker! First, I want to say that, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, according to the IPU, there are 120 armed conflicts ongoing around our globe. It is not possible to keep track of and have exact knowledge of every single one of these conflicts; I do not even think that Member Jacob Risberg can manage that.

What concerns Israel and Palestine is something that Sweden stands behind. There have been presentations in the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and matters have been handled in the EU Committee. Sweden stands behind the agreements that exist, but we also say that we shall be open to trade with Israel as long as this is something that is agreed upon.

I would however like to emphasize that it was Hamas that started it. It was Hamas that attacked. I have met the people who were subjected to Hamas. It was small children who were killed and kidnapped, women who were raped and homes that were burned down and destroyed. This is terrible. I am very grateful that the hostage who was taken has been returned, even though it took a very long time to get back both the living and the dead.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Madam Speaker! A worrying trend that we see globally is a more open questioning of international conventions. Right-wingers and authoritarian leaders are increasingly violating or ignoring signed conventions.

The leader of the Sweden Democrats, Jimmie Åkesson, did not hesitate for a second to question the International Criminal Court's arrest warrant for his friend Benjamin Netanyahu.

The next convention that one was busy questioning was the one regarding landmines. With vague arguments that mines would protect Sweden, they want to destroy land and nature for generations, with great risks especially for children and wildlife. There are good reasons why humanity should ban landmines and cluster bombs. Previous wars and conflicts where these have been used are clear examples of that. 40 percent of all cluster weapons do not explode but remain, and 97 percent of all victims have been civilians, many of whom were children.

Sweden signed and ratified the Ottawa Convention on mines in 1998, and in 2012 the same happened with the convention against cluster weapons. The Riksdag has decided this. We have committed ourselves to following these conventions.

International law must apply. That is what creates human security and ensures that war criminals can be held accountable. In the long run, the right's erosion of international conventions can have consequences for how we can condemn and demand accountability from those who violate international law. We cannot cherry-pick from the cake; the entire international law applies regardless of who commits the crime. Therefore, we need to maintain our support for international bodies that uphold international law so that they are strengthened.

Vänsterpartiet has therefore, by reason of Russia's unjust war of aggression against Ukraine and by reason of Israel's war against Gaza, raised that the International Criminal Court, ICC, shall receive increased resources to be able to investigate all war crimes. Those responsible for the crimes, on all sides, must be held accountable. Therefore, Vänsterpartiet wants to allocate 15 million kronor to the ICC.

Vänsterpartiet also stands behind South Africa's application to the International Court of Justice, ICJ, and that the question of Israel's genocide is investigated legally. We believe it is time for Sweden to, like other countries, join South Africa's application regarding genocide. Vänsterpartiet has repeatedly highlighted the importance of providing the International Court of Justice in The Hague with more resources so that they have all the necessary conditions to investigate the crimes that have been committed. Therefore, the ICJ should also receive 15 million kronor.

In total, we therefore want to allocate 30 million kronor for 2026 to uphold international law.

I also note with pleasure that the Social Democrats this year have a similar proposal of 10 million and the Green Party one of 15 million. This is required for accountability to be demanded from political leaders globally, whether they are in Russia, in Israel or in Sudan.

During Putin's time in power in Russia, the country has moved from nascent democracy back to hardline dictatorship. Today we see a reactionary, conservative and patriarchal rule that oppresses dissidents and human rights defenders, acts aggressively against its neighboring countries and plays a destabilizing role in world politics. The authoritarian development culminated in Russia's unjust war of aggression against Ukraine on 24 February 2022. Russia has thus shown that it is a real security policy threat to its surroundings.

But Putin's regime is also a threat to all those inhabitants who oppose the rule or who do not fit into the society that Putin wants to build. The Russian opposition, consisting of brave LGBTQ activists, feminists, human rights defenders and environmentalists, needs support from the rest of the world. To support these fighters is to support a democratic development in Russia and to improve security both for them and for Russia's neighboring countries.

In a report from the Centre for Eastern European Studies at the Institute of Foreign Affairs, Stefan Ingvarsson and Ekaterina Kalinina describe how vibrant Russian civil society is despite the extensive oppression from Putin's regime. At the same time, they state that Swedish support for its actors is needed more than ever.

Russian civil society exists today both inside and outside Russia. Some have settled in Sweden, others in countries where it is easier for Russian citizens to obtain visas. At the same time, the risks remain that Putin's regime will reach oppositionists far beyond Russia's borders, as we have seen.

But the report above all kills the myth that the actors only exist abroad. Instead, it is stated that there is a myriad of actors in Russia. It is rather the case that it is difficult to see and place them on a map than that they do not exist. It is in closed rooms at safer distances from Putin's power apparatus that these actors operate.

Democratic initiatives exist all over the country, and they depend on our support, independent journalism and scrutiny that can give us increased knowledge about the actual situation in Russia. Often they are connected, as the link between domestic actors is often precisely actors who have been forced to establish themselves outside Russia's borders.

We therefore need a bold Swedish foreign policy that dares to support a living Russian civil society so that democracy may one day sprout in our neighboring country. For me, it is obvious that the government has not done enough, as it believes in the myth-making, and that a renewed approach is required to support the Russian opposition.

In August 2020, Alexander Lukashenko claimed that he had won the so-called election in Belarus. He had not. The Belarusian people rose in the millions and demonstrated. But Lukashenko spared no means and suppressed the people through brutal repression against everything and everyone. Above all, however, he remains in power thanks to support from his dictator friend Putin.

Europe and the Western world made many mistakes before the election, and after the election, it took far too long before sanctions were put in place. But the fight for democracy in Belarus is far from over. Lukashenko's challenger Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya has been clear about the support for the opposition.

In Belarus, the oppression continues at an undiminished pace, even though some more of the political prisoners have actually been released recently. Pleasing during this year was the release of Tsikhanouskaya's husband Siarhej, who was freed in June after five years of imprisonment. But there are still 1,300 political prisoners in Lukashenko's prisons – including Roman Protasevitch, whose plane was forced to land in Belarus before he was kidnapped.

We must not give up this fight, a fight that is clearly linked to Ukraine's struggle for freedom against Russian dominance in the region. The Belarusian people have had enough, and one day Lukashenko's regime will fall.

It is against this background – the developments in Russia and Belarus – that Vänsterpartiet allocates 20 million kronor for support to the Russian and Belarusian opposition in 2026.

Madam Speaker! The authority in the foreign policy area that is growing the fastest is the Inspectorate for Strategic Products, ISP, which behind the flashy name is responsible for permits regarding Sweden's arms exports. In recent years, several new assignments have been granted to the authority, for example the review of foreign direct investments, which means that the authority has been in a strong expansion phase for several years now.

Strategic acquisitions are a major challenge to a robust and secure society, as they risk giving other states power over society-critical activities in Sweden.

Even in this budget, the government is increasing the funding for ISP. But now the government is also starting to cut other important appropriations. Vänsterpartiet rejects the government's move of 5 million kronor from the appropriation for foreign and security policy strategic interventions to the appropriation for ISP. We believe instead that this should be financed through a rationalization requirement on ISP. We want ISP to investigate the relocation of parts of the operations from Stockholm due to the expansion and the high cost level prevailing in Stockholm for, among other things, premises and staff.

This year marks 25 years since Resolution 1325 on women, peace and security was adopted by the UN Security Council. It was the first time that the UN made a connection between security policy and women, both how women are affected and how they can influence security policy.

UN Resolution 1325 on women, peace and security is based on three fundamental principles: participation, conflict prevention and protection. Together with the subsequent nine resolutions, it is an important tool for assessing women's security.

Despite it being 25 years since resolution 1325 was adopted, it has proven difficult to turn the agenda into reality. Now it is time to take the next step. To achieve greater impact for the agenda's objectives, it is required that an ambassador for 1325 and the subsequent resolutions be appointed. Vänsterpartiet therefore proposes an investment of 3 million kronor for 2026, though formally within a different expenditure area than this.

With this, I want to say that Vänsterpartiet sees this budget as a whole – unlike the Sverigedemokraterna, which I touched upon earlier – and therefore we will not participate in the decision at today's vote. We do, however, stand behind our motion and our special statement regarding expenditure area 5 International cooperation.

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

Margareta Cederfelt (M)

Madam Speaker! Member Håkan Svenneling spoke warmly for the opposition in Russia. I share his view: The opposition in Russia needs all the support it can get. Therefore, I am very pleased with the work that the government is doing.

I am also glad that Vladimir Kara-Murza was finally released. Sweden was one of the countries that worked for Vladimir Kara-Murza's release.

I want to say, Madam Speaker, that Vladimir Kara-Murza is a brave man. He chose to go back to Russia and speak out about Putin's illegal war, despite it being forbidden, in an interview with CNN. Two hours later, Vladimir Kara-Murza was arrested.

From the Riksdag's side, we wrote a letter of appeal for his release. I know that other parliaments also did. It was an intensive campaign. This shows that pressures of different kinds are significant. It was however only when the USA intervened that there was an exchange of persons.

I wonder how Håkan Svenneling sees this work being carried out. It is important that work for the release of political prisoners can take place and that political prisoners, when they have been released, can continue to work for freedom and maintain their contacts. Otherwise, it is impossible to achieve a change.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Cederfelt for the question.

I omitted this in this year's speech, but in last year's speech I praised the government's work linked to Belarus. You have also appointed a special ambassador who works with the contacts with the Belarusian opposition.

Basically, I am not particularly critical of the work the government is doing linked to Belarus, but I think there are many parts of that work that are good. I also obviously think it is good that Kara-Murza has been released. One can, however, see other examples of returning Russian critics that show that being a Russian oppositionist is associated with danger to life. Like Navalnyj, whose life ended after he was first poisoned, then recovered from the poisoning, thereafter returned to Russia to finally die in a labor camp under mysterious circumstances.

The letters of appeal that Margareta is responsible for, which I have signed many times, play an important role in exerting pressure. We also take many other important measures for Swedish political prisoners who are all around the world. I am thinking of Gui Minhai and Dawit Isaak – there may be someone else – and also citizens from other countries whom we highlight in different ways.

The USA has had a special role. That can be seen in Belarus, with the releases that took place this summer. It was the USA that negotiated the release of the prisoners, but it is also important to remember that many are still in prison. We must not forget them simply because some exchange has succeeded. I do not know how the USA has acted, but it is clear that there is a bit of a difference in size between the countries and in what opportunities exist.

I want the government to continue to prioritize the work on human rights, the consular cases, over, for example, trade relations with different countries. I hope that the government takes the criticism to heart and works on the issue moving forward.

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

Margareta Cederfelt (M)

Madam Speaker! I can promise Håkan Svenneling that the government is capable of working on both matters, that is, both pressures for the release of political prisoners and working against dictatorships as well as working with trade-promoting measures. If Sweden is to manage to be a country with good growth and welfare for all, we must also have a good economy in the country. This is something that the government is working on.

Let me say the following: There is one more person who is extremely important when it comes to Russia, namely Boris Nemtsov, who was shot outside the Kremlin – executed. Russia is not releasing any information. Despite repeated pressure and persistent efforts, there is silence. It is completely unacceptable how a country can keep silent about the fact that their own citizens have been murdered and refuse to answer questions.

The same misery prevails in Belarus. Naturally, Sweden's government is working to achieve a change.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Madam Speaker! I share Margareta Cederfelt's concern that no information is coming from Russia regarding state-ordered murders. Putin himself is likely involved in murdering various opposition figures. I have personally visited the office of the journalist Anna Politkovskaya, which the newspaper has preserved in the same condition it was in when she left work on the day she was murdered – outside the newspaper or outside her home. She is one of many examples.

It is important to remember that in Russia, there are two words for the word opposition. In Sweden, I am in opposition and Margareta is in the majority, but in Russia, there are two concepts depending on whether it is the opposition allowed and controlled by Putin or whether it is the real, true opposition. It says something about the state of democracy in Russia as a country.

I would like to see a government where the Foreign Minister is a bit more careful when planning her calendar. Sometimes it sticks out. When Sweden's Foreign Minister lays flowers in Hiroshima on the same day that Sweden participates in a nuclear weapons exercise for the first time in history, it sticks out. It is a policy that does not hold together. When the Foreign Minister makes the first political visit to China in over ten years on the same day that Gui Minhai has been detained for ten years, it is not good planning, but it is incredibly offensive.

I have no problem with having diplomatic contacts or laying wreaths in Hiroshima, but perhaps one could do it on other days than precisely the days when it is the anniversary of significantly more important things.

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

Mattias Karlsson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I listened intently to Member Svenneling's speech and noted that Svenneling, in the beginning, built an image where he placed the Left Party in a position as an incredibly high-standing, moral, and consistent party that believes all crimes against humanity without exception should be punished – in contrast to the awful right, which is more characterized by double standards and other things.

In view of this, I would like to ask if Member Svenneling thinks that all terror organizations that participated in the massacre on October 7 should be punished for their crimes against humanity. Does Member Svenneling think, in general, that all terror organizations that have committed crimes against civilians on a large scale should be punished and brought to justice for their crimes against international law and crimes against humanity?

Why is it, in that case, that high-ranking representatives for Svenneling's party hail the terrorist organization PKK? Why does Håkan Svenneling's party want to remove PKK from the terror list? Why has Håkan Svenneling's party used Swedish tax money to finance the terrorist organization DFLP in Palestine? Why has Håkan Svenneling's party leader repeatedly sat in meetings in Sweden with DFLP's representatives, Group 194? Why has Håkan Svenneling's party placed representatives for the terrorist organization DFLP's Swedish branch, Group 194, on its own parliamentary list? Should those people not be punished, if Vänsterpartiet is so consistent and always wants to condemn crimes against humanity and other atrocities? Is Svenneling prepared to say here and now that Vänsterpartiet and Svenneling consider that DFLP's leadership should be punished and brought before international law together with other terrorist organizations that have committed crimes against humanity, for example PKK?

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Madam Speaker! I thought I was clear in the previous discussion that it is thanks to the Palestinians' accession to the Rome Statute and the International Criminal Court that crimes committed on October 7 and the time after that can be investigated and judged by the ICC based on either it being a question of Palestinian citizens or that the crimes have occurred on Palestinian territory. It is important that everyone who bears responsibility for the horrific attacks can be prosecuted in international courts.

It is not I as a politician who should act as a judge, but I will contribute by increasing the resources to international courts, so that they can do their job and judge those who are responsible.

I also want to comment on the aid project that I believe Mattias Karlsson is referring to. I have answered questions about that aid project previously when it has been up for debate in the chamber. But it is difficult for the member, who has changed committees and has not been part of those debates, to have full knowledge of what I answered then. It should be said that it was our own organization, Vänsterns Internationella Forum, that contacted Sida and alerted them about DFLP's participation in the attack on October 7. We have reviewed the project ourselves, and Sida has reviewed the project. It can be stated that nothing indicates that money has gone to the party in question, but rather the money has gone to the project where the party has been one of several parties. It was our Danish sister party that managed the project.

On 23 October 2023 we reported this to Sida, and they concluded the review on 21 February 2024. Sida had no confirmed suspicion or consequence, but it was concluded that those as the project organization had done everything correctly.

I think we acted clearly and decisively and were transparent about what we had discovered, how we reported back to Sida, and what lessons we drew from the mistakes that had been made in the project.

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

Mattias Karlsson (SD)

Madam Speaker! It was not very clear, but I still sense that Member Svenneling thinks that if it turns out that the DFLP participated in the massacre on October 7, which they themselves have boasted about, the leadership of the DFLP should be punished according to international law. If so, that is pleasing. I would like to hear Håkan Svenneling say straight out if he considers that the leadership of the DFLP should be punished for their participation in the massacre on October 7.

Does that mean, in that case, that Vänsterpartiet will terminate its cooperation with DFLP's Swedish branch, Grupp 194? Or will we see representatives of that group, which is part of DFLP's international structure, on Swedish parliamentary lists in Vänsterpartiets name even in the next election?

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Madam Speaker! I want to return to Mattias Karlsson's question about Turkey. Let us talk about it. In Turkey, a peace process is underway. We can actually, in addition to peace in Syria, also achieve peace in Turkey. It would truly be a boon for the Middle East in this situation.

I have even submitted an interpellation on the matter to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, which we will debate on January 23. I believe, in fact, that Sweden and the rest of the world are not doing enough to contribute to peace in Turkey and in the Middle East as a whole.

PKK as an organization has, arbitrarily and without any concessions from Turkey's side, decided to disband its organization. They have openly burned their weapons to show that they mean business with being prepared to disarm the organization. And they have now withdrawn from all positions they have held in Turkey to Iraqi territory.

It is an organization that, in an incredibly tense Middle East, takes responsibility for achieving peace and finding a solution to the Kurdish question, as it is called in Turkey. This has led to a process being started in Turkey's equivalent to the Riksdag, the Turkish parliament, where the speaker leads a large parliamentary delegation with 64 members from all parties. There is something very positive here.

We can stand here in the Swedish Riksdag and shout: That person and that person is a terrorist! But here there is an opportunity for peace and reconciliation. That has also existed in other places around the world where people have committed grave crimes. I am thinking, for example, of Northern Ireland, where the IRA laid down their weapons, disarmed themselves and entered into political processes. Today, Sinn Féin represents Ireland's president.

There are solutions if one wants them. But the Sweden Democrats want to live in a world with an evil side and a good side. Then one is unable to see the possibility of building peace in the long term.

(Applause)

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

Gudrun Brunegård (KD)

Madam Speaker! We are debating expenditure area 5 International cooperation. It concerns something of the most fundamental we do: how Sweden takes responsibility in the world, how we build our own security together with others, and how we stand up for democracy, human rights, and international law when these are challenged.

For the Christian Democrats, the starting point is clear. Sweden is a small country, but we have a great responsibility. In a time characterized by Russian aggression, war in our immediate vicinity, increased geopolitical tensions, and information influence, we cannot afford either naivety or symbolic politics. We need a well-considered, funded, and long-term sustainable policy for international cooperation. The Committee on Foreign Affairs' proposal for a parliamentary decision fulfills this, and the Christian Democrats stand behind it.

The budget for the expenditure area amounts to just over 2.5 billion kronor. These are not huge sums in the context of the state budget, but they are strategically important. Approximately two-thirds of the funds go to fees for international organizations. This cost item is an investment in our own security and our influence. Without membership in the UN, EU, Nato, OSCE, Council of Europe, OECD and the Nordic cooperation, we have a significantly harder time influencing and defending the values that are important to us: democracy, human rights, the rule of law and respect for international law.

Madam Speaker! Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine has changed Europe's security order. The Riksdag has previously announced that Sweden needs a new approach to Russia. The Government has now established a counteraction policy. It is a long-term, unified line to prevent Russian power expansion, counter Russian influence, and limit the regime's opportunity to cause harm. It is a necessary direction.

This budget is part of making that policy operational, through our membership in international organizations and through strategic actions, sanctions, and investments in knowledge, export control, and investment screening.

At the same time, the government asserts that support for Ukraine is the primary foreign policy task. Here, in expenditure area 5, we create the conditions for diplomacy, sanctions, peace-promoting work, and the type of international cooperation that makes it possible to hold Russia accountable and to support Ukraine politically, economically, and legally. The Christian Democrats welcome this prioritization. We shall stand by Ukraine's side until the country has won peace and freedom.

Madam Speaker! An important part of the report concerns the government's reporting of results. The Committee on Foreign Affairs has for several years requested a better connection between goals, efforts, results, and appropriations. The goal for expenditure area 5 – to ensure Sweden's interests in relations with other countries – is broad and difficult to measure. Therefore, it is positive that the government has now taken clear steps forward.

Grouping the policy under five orientations linked to respective appropriations – from influence in international organizations to Sweden-promoting and strategic interventions – provides a more logical and transparent structure. That one also clearly reports and justifies the use of the Nation Brands Index as an indicator for the image of Sweden, and now follows the Riksdag's guidelines with ten-year time series, is a step in the right direction.

The Christian Democrats share the committee's assessment that the challenges remain, but that the reporting of results is clearer than before. We expect that the continued development work with more relevant indicators continues. With limited resources, it is extra important that every tax krona within foreign and security policy provides maximum benefit.

Madam Speaker! Let me also say something about the central appropriations. The fees to international organizations are increased by just over 240 million kronor, primarily as a result of increased fees to the UN and Nato as well as increased legal costs in international legal proceedings where Sweden is a party. In an increasingly uncertain world, this is not a luxury. It is fundamental security policy. Of course, Sweden shall pay its fees and be an active, constructive member state.

It is also important that the purpose description for the grant is now corrected so that it matches the 2025 formulation. It provides the flexibility needed to be able to handle consular crises, support for Swedes in distress, the work with abducted children, and our participation in international court processes. It is about concrete responsibility for Swedish citizens and for the principles of the rule of law.

When it comes to peace and security-promoting activities, no changes other than price and wage adjustments are proposed. Here, the Social Democrats and the Green Party want to increase the appropriation, while the Centre Party instead wants to decrease it. It is an interesting fact that we see in many places in the budget proposals and shows the difficulties with a realistic red-green government alternative.

The Inspectorate for Strategic Products is being strengthened for the review of foreign direct investments and export control of war materiel. It is completely correctly prioritized. Today, strategic investments, technologies, and sensitive infrastructure are part of the security policy playing field. Hostile regimes use economic tools to influence and undermine the security of other countries. In that case, Sweden must have a strong and well-functioning control authority.

Madam Speaker! The Swedish Institute plays a key role for Sweden's image, cultural exchange, democracy work, and talent attraction. The Government proposes that the grant to the Swedish Institute be increased specifically for talent attraction, while funds are moved from an export promotion grant to another area of expenditure. It is wise policy. Sweden needs to attract competence that strengthens both our business sector and our research, not least within green transition and digitalization.

The budget item Foreign and Security Policy Strategic Initiatives is broad but central. It includes, among other things, initiatives for human rights, democracy, the environment in the Baltic Sea region, work towards Russia and Belarus, information and pro-Sweden initiatives, as well as support for arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation, including relevant activities at FOI. That the purpose description is corrected back to the 2025 formulation is important to ensure continuity in this work.

Madam Speaker! The Government requests authorization for multi-year commitments within peace and security-promoting activities and within the foreign and security policy strategic efforts. The Christian Democrats support this. Long-term perspective is a prerequisite for credibility towards our partner organizations, partner countries and not least civil society actors, who often work under very difficult conditions.

The Social Democrats, the Left Party, the Centre Party, and the Green Party have chosen to refrain from taking a position on the budget decision itself within the expenditure area and instead present their considerations in separate statements. It is their choice. We Christian Democrats choose to take responsibility for the whole.

Madam Speaker! In a more dangerous world, Sweden needs to be a reliable partner, a clear voice for democracy and human rights, and a country that takes responsibility for its own and others' security. Expenditure area 5 is not a large area in terms of kronor, but it is of great significance. With this budget, we strengthen Sweden's international engagement, our security, and our ability to work for peace, justice, and human dignity. The Christian Democrats will vote for the committee's proposal in the report in its entirety and against all motions.

(Applause)

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! In July last year, the International Court of Justice issued an opinion regarding Israel's occupation of Gaza, the West Bank including East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights. The Court made it clear that the occupation is illegal and must cease, and that Israel must dismantle the settlements and remove the settlers from the occupied territory.

But the court was also very clear that the rest of the world, which of course includes Sweden, must not support Israel's settlement policy either politically or economically. Despite that, we still see today that our Swedish government, for example, has not even banned the import of goods from the illegal settlements.

A couple of months after the International Court of Justice's ruling, a judgment from the European Court of Justice regarding the EU's trade agreement with Morocco arrives. The Court annuls the trade agreement because it violates international law. The Court establishes that Morocco does not have sovereignty over the occupied Western Sahara and that it is the Western Saharan people, through Polisario, who should be involved in agreements where products from Western Sahara are included. Despite the clear court ruling, the Swedish government chooses to sign a new trade agreement with Morocco a year later, even though the Western Saharans have once again not been allowed to participate in the negotiations.

Madam Speaker! Despite the government's recurring mantra about safeguarding international law and standing up for the rules-based world order, it is clear that when it comes down to it, they disregard international law to favor economic interests.

Even more worrying is that the government party Kristdemokraternas foreign policy spokesperson has called the International Criminal Court's arrest warrant against Israel's prime minister scandalous and claimed that the decision will lead to "the ICC's legitimacy and independence being undermined and questioned." The leader of the largest party in the Tidö government made a statement where he called the arrest warrant incomprehensible. If we do not live up to the rulings of international courts ourselves and if we also actively slander the courts' decisions, how can we then expect other countries to live up to the decisions?

But it is not only our government and its support party that are going against the courts. The situation becomes even more serious when those in power, such as US President Trump, actively withdraw support for international courts. USA's sanctions against the International Criminal Court have hindered the court's work, as staff and partners have withdrawn or limited their cooperation for fear of reprisals.

Miljöpartiet wants instead to strengthen the position of the courts and increase both the political and economic support for them by providing additional funds to the International Criminal Court, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, and the Permanent Court of Arbitration.

Madam Speaker! In a time when the world is characterized by war, conflicts, and increased tensions, it is more important than ever that Sweden is a clear voice for peace, democracy, and human rights. For Miljöpartiet, it is extremely important that Sweden is a global voice for democracy and human rights, for a rules-based world order, and for a peaceful world where we can together tackle global challenges, such as the climate crisis, extreme poverty, and inequality.

Sweden shall be a leading actor in the international work for peace and security. In a world with hybrid warfare, terrorism and climate-related disasters, we must prepare to prevent and manage conflicts before they escalate.

Before 2024, the government cut the state financial support that has been given for 100 years to Swedish civil society organizations working for peace and disarmament. Several of these organizations also perform an immensely important work in promoting dialogue and peacebuilding internationally. In a time of deteriorating security situation, the peace-promoting work is more important than ever. Miljöpartiet therefore wants to see both an increased investment in the Ministry for Foreign Affairs' peace and security-promoting activities and a resumed and doubled support to the peace organizations.

Madam Speaker! At the same time as we need to invest in peace-promoting work and diplomacy, we also need to be prepared for the challenges of the future. Russia has threatened to use nuclear weapons against Ukraine, and the development of new weapons systems, including autonomous weapons and chemical weapons, is proceeding at a rapid pace.

Swedish research on disarmament and non-proliferation must increase. Therefore, Miljöpartiet wants to strengthen research through grants to the Alva Myrdal Centre for Nuclear Disarmament, FOI's CBRN activities and other projects, both in Sweden and abroad, that are carried out in the field. It is also high time that Sweden joins the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, TPNW.

Madam Speaker! Our world is characterized by multifaceted crises. Hybrid warfare, terrorism and extremism, as well as natural disasters resulting from climate change, are some of the crises that we are forced to handle in parallel. When our government prioritizes repatriation and Swedish trade over poverty reduction, diplomacy, peacebuilding, international cooperation, democracy strengthening, support for opposition, free media, human rights, and the guarantor of the rules-based order in the form of international courts, there is a risk that the cooperation that has been built up internationally is set aside and that we see diminished consensus and diminished understanding.

There is also a risk that conflicts will increase when resource shortages, threats, and other crises need to be managed. For Miljöpartiet, it is extremely important that Sweden is a global voice for democracy and human rights, for a rules-based world order, and for a peaceful world where we can tackle global challenges.

Madam Speaker! Since the Green Party's budget proposal for expenditure area 5 exceeds the framework budget that the Riksdag passed last week, we cannot reserve ourselves against the Foreign Affairs Committee's proposal for a decision. I must therefore instead refer interested parties to the Green Party's special statement as well as our entire budget motion for 2026.

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Madam Speaker! Miljöpartiet wants to see a more peaceful world, says Jacob Risberg. I read the section Peace and Security in Miljöpartiet's party program and struck upon some writings there.

For example, it says there: We want to see a policy that puts human security before territorial. If we disregard the linguistic error, the fact is that people live on territory. Miljöpartiet does not seem to have any major problems with keeping these two things separate.

Swedes have lived here for ten thousand years. Does it not matter for Miljöpartiet? Ukrainians have lived in Donetsk and Luhansk. Does it not matter? One cannot separate human security and territory in the way that Miljöpartiet wants to do.

Madam Speaker! Furthermore, it is written as follows: Sweden should take the lead and disarm – that is the goal – based on current and politically anchored threat assessments.

It cannot be interpreted in any other way than that Miljöpartiet wants to see assessments of the threat situation that justify a disarmament. We are therefore to make incorrect assessments of the threat from Russia in order to justify Miljöpartiet's higher goals of disarming our defense.

Furthermore, it states: Miljöpartiet's goal is therefore a phased out arms export. The leasing of Swedish land to Nato and other foreign military forces for war exercises shall cease.

We shall disarm ourselves and not seek help from others.

It states: The export of weapons and other war materiel to countries that are in armed conflict – for example Ukraine – shall be abolished.

Madam Speaker! This cannot be interpreted as anything other than a total capitulation from the Swedish side even before we have been attacked. Furthermore, they say no to receiving help from others and say no to helping others.

Is the Green Party's security policy updated, according to Jacob Risberg?

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Fredrik Malm, for the question!

I can agree with much of what is written there. But one must also see the party program as a vision for the future. It is not about here and now.

As Fredrik Malm is very aware of, Miljöpartiet has stood behind every defense agreement that has been made during the latest parliamentary term, which includes, among other things, the upgrading of Sweden.

Regarding human security, we want to see that people all over the world enjoy the same type of security. It is a security where one is not harassed and does not risk being killed by bombs. It is a security where one is not exposed to climate change, because that is also a part of security. It is a security where one has enough food, healthcare, and so on. That is also a part of security.

It is not only about having solidarity with the Swedish population, which we obviously do. Our solidarity extends beyond our country's borders. We cannot act as if there are no people beyond Ukraine. There are.

The way Sweden acts in the current situation will contribute to increasing areas of conflict between different countries. We do that when, for example, we withdraw support for healthcare in Africa and when we withdraw support for development aid. When we withdraw all that support, it increases the gaps in the world and in those societies.

It will contribute to increased insecurity and uncertainty for precisely those people who live there. In the long run, it can also have serious consequences for Sweden.

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Madam Speaker! The Green Party's starting points in the party program mean, as I summarized it all, in practice a total capitulation even before we have been attacked.

We are going to downsize our own defense. We are going to actively divest ourselves of the possibility of being able to receive help from anyone else. We are going to actively say no to helping others by being able to export weapons, if, for example, a democracy is attacked by a dictatorship.

The Green Party says: This is not what we want right now, but it is our vision. Then I become even more alarmed. Is that the Green Party's vision for Sweden? Then it must apply moving forward in time. Those are quite long lead times.

It will be a continuous disarmament and a continuous process where Sweden must expose its throat towards deeply destructive, authoritarian states that wish us harm.

Madam Speaker! It is becoming very messy here. Jacob Risberg speaks of us having global solidarity. Where is the global solidarity when we say no to helping others?

It is clear that it is very good to help people with healthcare and humanitarian efforts. We all think that here. But if a country like Ukraine or in the future Taiwan – or any other country that is an independent state and a democracy, or in practice a de facto state, as in the case of Taiwan – is attacked by a deeply destructive, authoritarian neighbor, such as China, shall we not stand up for Taiwan?

The entire meaning of the Green Party's policy is that we should dismantle our defense. We shall say no to receiving help from others. We shall say no to helping others. Jacob Risberg says it is a vision for global solidarity. I cannot quite make that add up, Madam Speaker.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! I am a bit unsure if it is the latest version of the party program that Fredrik Malm has read from, the one that was adopted just a few months ago. I do not quite recognize some of the things.

We have made other writings regarding, for example, support with weapons to precisely those states that are being attacked, such as the case with Ukraine. It risks having enormous consequences for precisely the rules-based world order. That is also the reason why we have made a departure when it concerns Ukraine. One should not be able to take over parts of other countries' territory by force.

But one must also have a vision for the future. I know that Fredrik Malm and the Liberal Party have for a very long time fought for us to join the nuclear weapons alliance Nato. One swallows everything whole, and one also swallows the nuclear weapons doctrine.

The nuclear doctrine in the world, which everyone lives by, has two possible outcomes. Either nuclear weapons will sooner or later be decommissioned, or human life on earth will be decommissioned because of nuclear weapons. There are no middle grounds.

Sooner or later, nuclear weapons must be phased out and dismantled if we are to have any future at all. There are only two alternatives when it comes to the buildup we have seen. There are no other alternatives at all.

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

Mikael Larsson (C)

Madam Speaker! That Sweden is a country that builds security together with others has been the foundation for Swedish security and defense policy since the days of the alliance government. But it is only now, through Sweden's Nato membership, that power is put behind just those words. Now we can collectively and in solidarity contribute to continuing to provide strong support to Ukraine and a powerful response to Russia's full-scale war of aggression against Ukraine. That, together with climate efforts, are the most important security policy issues right now. The Centre Party will continue to be a constructive voice of cooperation when it comes to Sweden's role in Nato.

Sweden shall be an active partner on the international arena. We shall contribute to peace, security and the development of people's life chances and rights in the world. Security we build together with others. Even that which happens far away affects each one of us. What happens globally affects locally.

The liberal world order has created prosperity and stability, but also an opportunity for the world's states to solve problems together. Now we see how this world order is under full-scale attack from those who claim to rule the world through great power politics: China, USA, Russia and a few others, who would prefer to decide the rules of the game behind the backs of the smaller states.

Madam Speaker! Sweden must not and shall not be silenced by the language of power of authoritarian leaders. Nor shall we have a foreign policy that is inward-looking and nationalist. A global outlook remains important. Swedish foreign policy must not contribute to countries in the global south distancing themselves from us or from other liberal democracies. It must also not contribute to us being weakened at the expense of, for example, Russian and Chinese influence.

Liberal democracy is the core of the Center Party's foreign policy. We want a foreign policy that defends and promotes democracy and human rights, counters corruption, strengthens women's rights and opportunities, and strengthens our cooperation with other democracies around the world.

In a time of great global upheavals, Sweden shall be a reliable, self-evident, and leading voice for freedom, free trade, democracy, the principles of the rule of law, and the multilateral world order. The multilateral world order must be defended and developed. It must not be further weakened. Sweden shall be a strong and leading voice for the UN and its courts, which are the backbone of the multilateral system.

Globally, the world faces new challenges. These include, among other things, new tensions between great powers, nuclear armament, and the effects of climate change. Russia's war in Ukraine is not only having dreadful consequences in Ukraine but is affecting all of Europe. The war between Israel and Hamas in Gaza has had immense civilian consequences and ripple effects. Other long-standing conflicts around the world also demand action from democratic actors, for example, the EU.

Madam Speaker! Overall, a long-term foreign policy is required where trade, security, and aid are interconnected and where the favorable conditions of diplomacy are allowed to take effect. But above all, a courageous foreign policy is required where Sweden stands up for human rights and a multilateral world order even when it is blowing really cold around us.

With this, Madam Speaker, I request to refer to the Center Party's budget motion as well as to our special statement which is in the committee report.

As it is my first time in the Foreign Affairs Committee's debate, I would also like to wish the committee members and the secretariat a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

(Applause)

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for the approval of the proposal in the report.

I am usually stationed in another committee, but I am stepping in for this debate. It is not the first time, however – possibly the last. Let that remain unclear.

The goal for this expenditure area, Madam Speaker, is to promote international cooperation, peace and security and such things. The most important goal is that which is defined as the overarching foreign policy goal for our country, namely to promote Swedish foreign and security policy interests.

In practice, there is nothing today that is more important for safeguarding our security and our foreign policy interests than that Ukraine wins the war against the Russian invaders and that a change is achieved in Russia.

We see a narrative, a doctrine, and an institutionalized chauvinism in Russia. It actually doesn't matter much, Madam Speaker, whether we speak of the Tsarist Empire under the Romanov dynasty, the Bolsheviks' Russia under communism, or Vladimir Putin's far-right regime today. We see the same pattern – that Russia takes it upon itself to torment its neighbors. It is fundamentally believed that the Russian Empire should be as it was at the outbreak of the First World War over 100 years ago, and that all the territory that then belonged to Russia shall always be Russian. That is why the territorial integrity, independence, or sovereignty of countries such as Ukraine, the Baltic states in practice, or even Finland when it comes down to it, is not accepted. The same applies to the Caucasian countries and others. In addition, there are a number of peoples and nations in Russia that for centuries have been colonized, assimilated, and persecuted.

A conclusion, Madam Speaker, of what is currently happening is that what is being attempted to demand of Ukraine is that Ukraine should surrender territories that Russia, after three years and nine months of war, has not yet conquered. It is completely unreasonable.

Today, it is approximately one-tenth of Donetsk that Russia does not control. If one were to take Pokrovsk, one could move towards Kramatorsk and Sloviansk. It would likely take a number of years, according to the assessments that exist.

In the same way, it was when Ukraine was forced to evacuate from Avdijivka barely two years ago, in February 2024. The analysis was made then that Russia would make continued advances at a rapid pace. That did not happen either.

In this protracted war of attrition, Ukraine has, given the conditions Ukraine has, in a heroic and successful manner protected the areas that Russia has not yet taken in Donetsk, even if they are small pockets. It is completely unreasonable to demand that the attacked country, Ukraine, surrender them. The same applies, of course, to Kherson and Zaporizhzhia and also Luhansk, where Russia today controls perhaps 75–80 percent.

The last thing I want to say, Madam Speaker, since I am short on time in this speech, is that we should be very grateful that there is such a broad consensus in Sweden and that all eight parties stand behind Ukraine in the way that is being done. The same is not true in other countries, for example Germany. It is a deeply problematic situation there. We must continue to maintain this unity.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 10 December.)

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