Humanitarian aid

Olle Thorell (S)

Mr. Speaker! This will be my very last speech in this chamber after nearly 20 years as a member of the Swedish Riksdag. All these years I have sat on the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

When I was elected in 2006, the world was in many ways completely different. Barack Obama was a rather anonymous senator from Chicago. There was a hope in the world for peace, disarmament, and democratization. Democracy was moving forward in country after country. Fredrik Reinfeldt had just become Prime Minister, and Göran Persson was packing the moving boxes in Sagerska palatset.

Since then, the world has changed dramatically. We now live in a time characterized by war, growing authoritarian forces, increasing nationalism, climate crisis, and widening gaps. We see how international law is challenged, how human rights are questioned, and how the political conversation hardens and becomes vulgarized. We see how populism and racism try to convince people of the lie that solidarity is naive and humanity a sign of weakness. That is why this very debate feels important to me.

Mr. Speaker! Before I proceed, I must ask to say thank you – first and foremost to my family, of course, for the support through all these years. You have let me realize my dream of becoming a Member of Parliament. I also thank the voters in Västmanland and my party for the trust I have received in five elections. Thanks also to the colleagues in the Committee on Foreign Affairs, current and through all these years, as well as to the committee secretariat's staff and all civil servants in the entire Riksdag Administration, who through the years have professionally helped us to make our work for democracy better! It has been a great honor to represent Sweden in this role.

Mr. Speaker! During these 20 years, I have had the opportunity to travel a lot and meet people from all over the world. If there is one thing I have learned, it is this: We humans have much more that unites us than separates us. Regardless of religion, culture, ethnicity, and education level, regardless of whether one is rich or poor, the vast majority of people want roughly the same things around the world: We want to live in peace. We want to be able to provide for ourselves and live dignified lives. We want to be able to think and speak freely. We want to find someone to love and be loved by. If we have children, they immediately become the most important thing in the whole world, and we want to do everything we can so that they can have security and a better future.

We are much more alike than different. I believe that politics would benefit from reminding itself of this fundamental fact more often.

There are, in fact, political forces that do the opposite – forces that want to exploit differences between people, who want to fuel conflicts and suspicion, who see a culture war behind every corner and who build political support on people being afraid of one another, on nurturing prejudices and on dividing people into us and them. It is a wrong and dangerous path to take.

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating the Swedish National Audit Office's report on Sida's work with humanitarian aid. It is fundamentally about efficiency, follow-up, and transparency. These are important issues. For the sake of form, I want to move for approval of reservation 3, our statement of grounds in the matter, where one can read more about our position.

We Social Democrats naturally stand behind high requirements for professionalism, quality, results, control, and follow-up within humanitarian aid and all other forms of aid.

Aid funds must be used correctly, corruption must be combated, and decisions must be transparent and legally secure. This is crucial for the legitimacy of aid. But it is also important to say the following clearly. Requirements for efficiency are not in opposition to a strong and large-scale aid. On the contrary! We can demand both order and clarity and at the same time stand up for solidarity and international responsibility.

For me, aid over the years has not only been about budget tables, policy documents, and reform agendas. It has also been about what kind of country Sweden wants to be. I am very proud that for a long time Sweden has been a country that has done good in the world – and still does good in the world. Sweden is a country that understands that solidarity does not end at the national border, a country that realizes that the fight against poverty, hunger, and oppression is not only morally right but also lies in our strategic long-term interest. A world with less poverty, less desperation, and fewer wars and conflicts is also a safer world for Sweden.

Mr. Speaker! Over 300 million people in the world today are in need of humanitarian support. Children are starving in Sudan and in southern Ethiopia. People are being driven into flight in Gaza, on the West Bank, in Ukraine, and in Myanmar. Women are being brutally oppressed in Afghanistan and Iran. Climate disasters are tearing apart already fragile societies.

At the same time, we see a trend where the rich countries as a group are making historically large cuts in international aid. The USA has made enormous reductions. Several European countries are doing the same. Sweden has also made large cuts during the mandate period. Sweden has abandoned the one percent goal. Aid has been terminated in some of the world's poorest and most conflict-affected countries, for example South Sudan, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Liberia, Mozambique, Zimbabwe, Mali and Myanmar.

This, Mr. Speaker, we Social Democrats consider to be the wrong path to take. We want to gradually restore aid to 1 percent of GNI, not because aid, or Swedish aid, alone can solve all the world's problems, not because every aid effort is always perfect, but because with less aid, fewer people receive help. Fewer children get to go to school, and fewer people receive healthcare, food, and protection from violence and abuse.

Mr. Speaker! There are forces in Swedish politics that would prefer to cut off aid entirely. There are forces who argue that we should not care about people outside Sweden's borders, who see every krona for poor people out in the world as a loss for the Swedish taxpayers and who sometimes seem to think that human value weighs a little less the further away from Sweden you happen to be born.

I do not share that view of humanity, and I actually do not believe that the majority of the Swedish people do either. Despite troll armies and loud campaigns on social media, I know that the will to provide aid is still strong in Sweden. Most people intuitively understand something fundamental, namely the idea that all human beings have equal value and that human rights apply to all people everywhere. A child starving in Sudan or in southern Ethiopia is worth just as much as a child in Surahammar or Sundbyberg. We who live in one of the world's richest and most prosperous countries also have an obligation to do what we can to alleviate distress, combat poverty, and stand up against oppression.

Mr. Speaker! In a time when the world is in turmoil, we must hold fast to certain fundamental principles: international law, the UN Charter, human rights, democracy, equality, international humanitarian law, the principle of the equal value of all human beings. It is those principles that hold the world together when cynicism grows. It is those principles that distinguish civilization from barbarism, and it is those principles that Sweden must always stand up for, even when other winds blow in the world. If we begin to compromise on human dignity when times become difficult, then perhaps they were not principles to begin with.

Mr. Speaker! As I now leave the Riksdag, I do so with concern over much in the world, but I also do so with hope. During these 20 years, I have met so many people in Sweden, here in this chamber, out in the world, and internationally who every day work for democracy, for peace, for equality, and for human dignity. It is about people who refuse to accept that the world must be brutal and cynical, and it is about people who continue to fight for solidarity and justice – despite everything. It gives me hope for the future.

That is why I also leave the chamber with a strong conviction, namely that Sweden shall never become a country that turns its gaze away when people suffer. Sweden shall be a strong voice for international solidarity, human rights, and peace. It has been important for me during my years here in the Riksdag. I hope that they continue to be important values for the Swedish Riksdag long after I have left it.

(Applause)

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Mr. Speaker! It is not common for me to request a reply to Olle Thorell's speeches, but I did so now because I want to take the opportunity to thank Olle Thorell for very good cooperation in the Committee on Foreign Affairs, especially when it comes to the aid policy issues. Olle Thorell is always well-read, knowledgeable, and well-informed on the issues. He has an ability to deliver sharp criticism in a friendly manner. It is not easy every time!

I also think that we have cooperated well in the committee. We have raised the aid policy issues, and we have many times been critical of the government's aid policy. We have had a good cooperation with civil society and stood up for the Palestine issue and other important issues in the aid policy.

I would like to express my warmest thanks and wish you all the best in the future.

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

Olle Thorell (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Lotta Johnsson Fornarve for the kind words. I can reciprocate in kind, not only to you but to more Left Party members whom I have collaborated with over the years in the Committee on Foreign Affairs – Hans Linde, Håkan Svenneling and several others – who have done a good job for their ideals and values and fight on for international solidarity.

We will surely see each other again in the future. Thank you and good luck!

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

Aron Emilsson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I listened with interest to Olle Thorell's speech. Despite the fact that we belong to diametrically different parties, there is a part of international aid that has great consensus and great support both in the Riksdag and among the Swedish people at large, namely humanitarian aid and the difference Sweden can make with humanitarian aid.

Today we are debating the Swedish National Audit Office's review of humanitarian aid and the government's communication on this. I would still like to ask a question from an overarching perspective. During a long period of Social Democratic-led governments, the criticism has often concerned a lack of follow-up and control of aid funds.

This has been recurring over time in the reports from the Swedish National Audit Office and Sida. It has concerned unclear decisions, a lack of transparency in the selection of recipients and general problems, also under Social Democratic-led governments. Corruption has occurred in recipient countries and incorrect use of funds, but also difficulties with control in conflict and high-risk areas where humanitarian aid is central.

Against that background, I wonder what lessons Member Thorell has drawn. How would he, as a long-standing spokesperson for the Social Democrats' aid policy, want this to be improved in the future?

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

Olle Thorell (S)

Mr. Speaker! I had intended that my final speech in the Riksdag would be kind, friendly and pleasant, but Member Emilsson forces me to be sincere and honest.

I am sure that Aron Emilsson has a good heart and wants people out in the world and in Sweden well. But unfortunately, I must inform him, if he hasn't discovered it himself, that he belongs to a party with a finance minister candidate who went out publicly in the election campaign this week and said: I think it should be zero in aid. It does no good for Swedes. We maybe can give a crown or two to Ukraine, but the rest we can ignore. It does no good for Sweden and the Swedes.

It is this party that Aron Emilsson belongs to. He walks around like a wolf in sheep's clothing in the Committee on Foreign Affairs and says beautiful things about international solidarity and humanitarian aid, but it is just a show for the galleries. I don't buy it. I don't think the Swedish voters buy it either. International solidarity is something for internationalists, not for nationalists.

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

Aron Emilsson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Let me put it this way: No one has escaped noticing lately what company the Social Democrats and Olle Thorell himself find themselves in. One of the biggest scandals in international aid during this parliamentary term has been how the Left Party's aid foundation had connections to DFLP. These have themselves confirmed that they were involved in Hamas's attack on October 7, which is the largest massacre of Jews since World War II.

I just said that I can sign off on much of what Olle Thorell spoke about in his speech, not least on a philosophical level in the sense of what difference we can make. But are these the winds he is pointing to when he says he is worried about the winds?

Are it such opinions and values among Left Party members in Sweden, regardless of whether it is in municipalities, in regions or at the national level here in the Riksdag, that can be accommodated in a future government? Is it such a cleanup work that Olle Thorell wants to do to ensure that Swedish values are spread across the world? Or what is it that he is referring to?

We know very well that this is a comprehensive problem. It seems to be a patchwork, a pattern, where the seams are getting tighter and tighter in regard to the Left Party's collusion with terror-promoting forces and organizations, both internationally and in our country.

I think one is answerable for whether one paves the way for such forces, both in a future government and in a cooperation with Vänsterpartiet.

Regardless of whether Olle Thorell chooses to call me a wolf in sheep's clothing or something else, my commitment during this parliamentary term has been about being attentive, respectful, and responsible for the Foreign Affairs Committee's important work. I know that Olle Thorell has also been that during his many years in the Riksdag and in the Foreign Affairs Committee. For that and for his actions, I would still like to thank Olle Thorell.

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

Olle Thorell (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for that, Aron Emilsson! I want to thank Aron Emilsson for good chairmanship in the Committee on Foreign Affairs. He has handled it in an excellent way, but I still think that Aron Emilsson stands for a policy and an ideology that is deeply flawed. It is a policy with a cynical view of the world and people, and it is narrow-minded and unsolidary in its core.

Regarding the criticism against Vänsterpartiet and their connections – what is it that people say in Jeopardy? "Can I get stones in a glass house for 500 kronor, please?"

It is silly to hear this. All parties should, of course, keep their contacts with the outside world clean. One should, of course, exclude members who show sympathy for terrorist organizations. That is what the Vänsterpartiet has done. I trust that they will continue to keep their side clean.

Aron Emilsson belongs to the largest party in a government coalition that has managed to make the world's second most corrupt country, Somalia, even slightly more corrupt by sending 100 million Swedish tax kronor to someone in the vicinity of a prime minister in a Hamas-supporting antisemitic prime minister's office so that they will do what they are obligated to do according to international law.

Aron Emilsson's party's aid foundation Hepatica funnels money to abortion opponents in Brazil. His party ensures that starving children in southern Ethiopia are left completely without support when they arbitrarily cut the support entirely to Islamic Relief. This is done on completely arbitrary grounds just because they happen to have something with "Islamic" in the name. I think that is unworthy and has nothing to do with Swedish values.

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

Kerstin Lundgren (C)

Mr. Speaker! I also wish to join in the thanks. Olle Thorell and I have sat for the same number of years in the Committee on Foreign Affairs so far. It has been an interesting journey. It was a different time 20 years ago, just as Olle Thorell described. We have had our disputes, among other things during the alliance period and thereafter, but we have also had respect and joy in listening, I believe, to the different opinions that we around the round table in the Committee on Foreign Affairs can convey to one another.

I appreciate Olle Thorell for his great commitment. I know that he has a special commitment to Asia, and I have listened particularly when we have discussed it. It is naturally valuable with that commitment, the knowledge, and the points of contact that Olle Thorell has brought into the committee's work.

Once again, I want to express a big thank you for the years we shared and for the joint work for Sweden, but also for the world out there and for people who need support and a hope for development.

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

Olle Thorell (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you very much, Kerstin Lundgren! We have fought together in the Riksdag for 20 years. You are a notch above me on the seniority list. I would not want anyone over me on that list more than Kerstin Lundgren, who represents her party and the center movement in an absolutely excellent way. She is incredibly well-read and knowledgeable, and no one knows formalities and order and discipline in the committee and in the chamber like she does.

It has been very educational and rewarding to fight together in opposition and majority, and it has also been something in between for both of us. We share many experiences.

Think how much has happened in 20 years! I said that Barack Obama was an unknown senator from Chicago when we came in. Donald Trump was a strange figure on TV with a strange hairstyle, odd opinions, and a loud style. He hasn't changed much since then, however. The only thing that has changed is that he has become president.

War in Europe, a pandemic, Russia's increasing aggression and Sweden's accession to Nato, where our parties changed their views at slightly different paces but still moved in the same direction – all of this has led to incredibly many large, difficult and heavy decisions.

I do not least want to mention the decisions we make together in the Committee on Foreign Affairs regarding sending Swedish soldiers out to conflict zones. We make those decisions. It is great and responsible, and I feel that Kerstin Lundgren, C, we Social Democrats, and actually all parties in the committee, no exception, have taken this task very seriously and are doing what we can so that the world will be safer.

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

Kerstin Lundgren (C)

Mr. Speaker! I did not intend to continue this rosy dialogue but simply wish you good luck in your continued work. I expect that we will hear from Olle Thorell from other scenes and perhaps also from other countries – who knows. Best of luck and thank you for these years!

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

Olle Thorell (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you very much to Speaker Forslund as well, for good cooperation through the years! I wish Kerstin Lundgren and all members here in the chamber a happy summer and various degrees of luck in the election campaign. And all the best!

(Applause)

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

Magdalena Thuresson (M)

Mr. Speaker! It feels extra special for me as well to stand in this speaker's chair today. I believe, in fact, that it will be the last time I do so. This autumn, a new Riksdag will convene, and since I am not running for re-election, I believe this will be my last committee debate in the chamber of the Riksdag.

For me personally, it also feels nice and special that my last debate is about aid. That was also the case for my very first debate here in the chamber. But enough about me.

This debate concerns an audit that the Swedish National Audit Office has conducted of Sida's work with humanitarian aid, the communication that the government has submitted to the Riksdag in connection with the audit, and the subsequent motions that have been raised in connection with the communication.

Short: What is humanitarian aid? Simply put, one can say that there are two different types of aid.

Long-term development aid can be support for institution building or vaccination programs or support aimed at creating more jobs, increased equality or the like. These are projects aimed at long-term change and improved living conditions for people in poverty and oppression.

Humanitarian aid is more short-term aid. Sometimes it can be called disaster relief; it is about saving lives. It involves food, water, blankets and medicines for people living under catastrophe-like conditions. It is about preventing death and alleviating distress.

It is therefore the work surrounding humanitarian aid that the Swedish National Audit Office has audited and which today's debate is about. Let me begin by stating that it is a very welcome audit that the Swedish National Audit Office has conducted. Sweden allocates very large sums of taxpayers' money to aid. It is important that the money is used in the best possible way and that it is clear why a certain organization is awarded aid funds. Therefore, this type of audit with recommendations on what can be improved is very welcome.

Just this review does not concern the effects of the aid itself, but rather it concerns Sida's choice of cooperation partners, i.e., which organizations shall be allowed to receive Swedish tax funds, and Sida's work with the distribution of funds and follow-up.

According to the Swedish National Audit Office, it is possible to simplify Sida's selection processes and still make well-founded decisions. The Swedish National Audit Office also notes that Sida's decision-making is not always sufficiently clear and transparent. Sida is an administrative authority, and it must therefore be precisely clear and transparent why the decisions on the allocation of funds that are made are made. The Swedish National Audit Office does write that the new partner selection process for the strategy period 2025–2029 is clearer and more transparent than the previous one, but that some lack of clarity regarding the decision-making remains.

The Swedish National Audit Office also notes that Sida's follow-up is not sufficiently systematic and that it is difficult to see a common thread between risk assessments and follow-up. The Swedish National Audit Office notes that humanitarian personnel at embassies facilitate the follow-up but notes that there are challenges in the distribution of personnel resources and that Sida should coordinate better to streamline the work.

The Swedish National Audit Office, on the basis of the audit, has submitted a number of recommendations to Sida to ensure that the agency works in accordance with administrative law principles and to streamline the agency's work regarding the selection of partners and the monitoring of humanitarian aid.

The Swedish National Audit Office has not submitted any recommendations to the government. The government notes, however, just as the committee does, that it welcomes the Swedish National Audit Office's audit and agrees with the recommendations that the Swedish National Audit Office has submitted to Sida.

Mr. Speaker! I want to lay out the text regarding two areas: humanitarian aid as a proportion of the aid budget and that aid must not come anywhere near extremism. I will start with that aid must not come anywhere near extremism.

In the government's communication in connection with this review, the government writes that it agrees that the process for selecting partners can be simplified, but it simultaneously emphasizes the importance of conducting adequate quality assurance. The importance of thorough quality assurance is also highlighted in the government's strategy for humanitarian assistance. In the strategy, it is emphasized that partners shall respect democratic values, international law and humanitarian principles, as well as have systems to prevent sexual exploitation, abuse and harassment. Support may not be given to actors with links to violent extremism or activities that oppose the rules-based world order and Swedish interests. In case of doubt, the precautionary principle shall be applied.

I actually think it surprises many listening to the debate that there is no political consensus regarding this very last sentence: In case of doubt, the precautionary principle shall be applied. The government has a responsibility to ensure that tax money is used in the best way. In that case, it is also perfectly reasonable that 1) no funds may be given to organizations that have links to extremism and 2) the precautionary principle shall be applied in case of doubt. I think that hard-working taxpayers have the right to expect that.

Mr. Speaker! I also want to say a few words about humanitarian aid as a share of our aid budget. Humanitarian aid is life-saving interventions. It is about preventing death and alleviating distress. It concerns aid to people in catastrophe-like situations – food, water, blankets and medicines to people in absolute distress. I believe that most people, when they think of aid, primarily think of humanitarian aid.

But even though it concerns aid aimed at preventing death and alleviating distress, humanitarian aid constitutes a relatively small part of all aid. During the years 2014–2024, it accounted for around 10 percent of all aid, to for the year 2025, increase to 17 percent of all aid.

I believe that many are surprised that we spend so much money on aid, but despite this, it is such a small proportion of all aid that goes to these types of life-saving interventions. I believe there would be broad popular support to increase humanitarian aid as a proportion of the aid budget. But then, naturally, the processes for how Sida chooses partners and follows up on results and evaluations must function very well. Therefore, the type of scrutiny that we are now debating is so important.

I wish to vote in favor of the committee's proposal in the report with these words.

Mr. Speaker, let me be a little personal since I will likely stand in this speaker's chair for the last time. When a new Riksdag convenes here this autumn, I will of course miss my party colleagues, but I will also miss many from the opposition.

Around the Foreign Affairs Committee's round table sit many wise and knowledgeable people. When it comes to today's topic for debate, aid, we land on different priorities, just as it should be in a democracy. But I admire your knowledge and your commitment, and it may be noted in the minutes that I will miss you. Thank you!

Thank you also to the committee offices, the parliamentary chamber office, the Riksdag's investigation service, keys and cards, security guards, restaurant staff – yes, to all of you who go to this workplace every day and help us members in our mission!

Thank you to the Speaker's Bureau! I hope that you will soon have a lovely summer together with your loved ones.

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Mr. Speaker! I want to begin by thanking the member for good cooperation, even though we have different opinions. Many times and in many issues, I nevertheless think there has been a fine and good respect between us members in the Committee on Foreign Affairs. Thank you for that!

Now I will come to my questions. Magdalena Thuresson says that the aid should go to the most vulnerable and those with the greatest needs. We agree on that. One can then ask why the support to the organization Islamic Relief, which has had a very well-functioning aid work in difficult contexts and has received aid for a long series of years without any remarks, is being withdrawn. Now, the support is being withdrawn against the background of the so-called precautionary principle. This has led to that their projects in the refugee camps in eastern Ethiopia, which have aimed at saving the lives of malnourished infants, are being completely withdrawn. That support disappears. No one is going to step in and replace it. There is therefore a great risk that these infants will simply die.

I think it is appalling and immoral to do so. One could ask what is most important: Is it the precautionary principle or saving the lives of small infants?

Magdalena Thuresson says that no tax funds should come anywhere near extremism. One can then ask why the government uses double standards. Why, then, is 100 million being sent to the Hamas-supporting Prime Minister in Somalia? It is therefore about projects related to the Somali Prime Minister, who has so clearly expressed support for Hamas. This does not add up at all! Why is the precautionary principle invoked in one case but not in the other?

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

Magdalena Thuresson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Lotta, for good cooperation in the Committee on Foreign Affairs, even though we often disagree! There were two questions, and I will try to answer both.

The first question was about Islamic Relief. When it comes to this specific organization, there are many different opinions. I will try to avoid going into the individual case without further explaining how it works.

Politics sets the frameworks and goals. It is not politics that chooses which organizations should be given funds. That is done by the agency. Politics sets the goals and directives, and based on this, it is the agency that makes the decisions.

I argue that we should have a precautionary principle. I believe that hard-working taxpayers can expect us to ensure that taxpayers' money does not come anywhere near extremism.

Mr. Speaker! I am happy to give the Left Party the opportunity to answer the question: Does the Left Party think we should have a precautionary principle to ensure that aid money does not come anywhere near extremism? In that case, one could start by looking at your own aid organization. But I am happy to give the Left Party the opportunity to answer this. I defend the principle that no money should come anywhere near extremism.

When it comes to Somalia, as the member pointed out, no money is given to the Prime Minister of Somalia. Money is given to UNDP.

Aid to Somalia is in itself nothing new. I did a quick Google search before this debate because I suspected the question would come up. In 2019, Sweden gave nearly 800 million in aid to Somalia. In 2020 it was 390 million and in 2021 nearly 600 million. Aid to Somalia is therefore nothing new. Aid to UNDP is nothing new. What is new is a requirement for return.

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the answers, Magdalena Thuresson! Of course, no tax funds and no aid should go to extremism. But that is also not the case when it comes to Islamic Relief. There is no such connection at all. This has emerged in Sida's review. It has also been reviewed by the Center against Violence and Extremism. No connection to extremism has been found at all.

Here, reference is made to the, in my opinion, legally secure precautionary principle, which is largely impossible to live up to for an organization working in these very difficult contexts. I believe that Islamic Relief has been scrutinized harshly precisely because the organization has the word "Islamic" in its name. It is an organization that has done an immensely important and good job. It has, for example, concerned the malnourished children, as I spoke about, and about girls and women exposed to violence in Sudan and so on.

It is a very good piece of work that support has now been withdrawn from due to a principle which, in my view, is very legally uncertain. There are also senior managers at Sida who have warned that it can have very serious consequences when this support is withdrawn. It can lead to starving children risking death and that the support to women exposed to violence will cease.

When it comes to Somalia, aid money that previously went to, for example, equality has been moved. It has been moved to projects close to the Somali prime minister. That is a fact. And the Somali prime minister has made a large number of statements where he supports Hamas. It is very strange that one can have such double standards.

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

Magdalena Thuresson (M)

Mr. Speaker! If one reduces or completely ends the aid to a certain organization, it does not mean that the aid to that place, that conflict, that country or that context disappears. The money is channeled to other organizations. For us, it is the results that matter, not individual organizations.

I argue that we should have a precautionary principle and that we should ensure that the money of hard-working Swedish taxpayers does not come anywhere near extremism. And I recommend that Vänsterpartiet introduce such a precautionary principle for its own aid organization.

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

Kerstin Lundgren (C)

Mr. Speaker! This is a mixed Foreign Affairs Committee debate on humanitarian aid and on members who are leaving the chamber, the Riksdag, and the committee.

I also want to say thank you to Magdalena Thuresson, who has been in the committee practically ever since she entered the Riksdag in 2018, albeit in somewhat different positions. She has naturally been an important voice in the committee. She has also had a responsibility for the group for a period of this term. Many thanks for the good cooperation around the round table!

Mr. Speaker! It is not just a question of thanks in this case. I also become a little curious, as I know that Magdalena Thuresson will not be included during the next parliamentary term.

If one considers that humanitarian aid should have a larger share, this can be achieved in different ways. One can increase humanitarian aid by increasing aid and prioritizing. One can also choose to lower the aid budget and remove the long-term development work. This in itself leads to the humanitarian share becoming higher. It is a choice one can make.

I am a bit curious to hear what the Moderates have said during their talks about how to work to strengthen humanitarian support, if this can be revealed. Is it by lowering the aid?

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

Magdalena Thuresson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I have no secrets to reveal for the future. I can state that a coming government and a coming Riksdag, in their budget negotiations, will face tough priorities. One needs to prioritize aid based on other needs, but one also needs to prioritize within the aid budget.

I think that the aid budget has for a long time been about how much money one should spend rather than how this money should be spent. I have many times in this speaker's chair spoken about what I believe should be prioritized in aid – and I took the opportunity to do so now as well as I stand here for the last time. Humanitarian aid is one such part. It is a type of aid that will always be needed and that most people feel directly in their heart and stomach that it is reasonable to be part of and contribute to. I believe that many people actually are surprised when they understand how small a share of our aid goes to just that type of life-saving intervention.

I asked the question to the responsible minister some time ago and received the answer that he would like to see the humanitarian aid as a share of the aid budget increase along with the support to Ukraine. How large a future aid budget will be will be decided by a future government and a future Riksdag. One must prioritize in the state budget but also in the aid.

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

Kerstin Lundgren (C)

Mr. Speaker! Yes, a lower aid budget can increase the humanitarian part if there is anything left of the aid at all if the Moderaterna are in government. Historically, a long-term perspective in aid is needed, which the majority also emphasizes in the report, otherwise it will not be effective.

Just providing food, blankets, and medicines is not a solution to the underlying problems. If the USA had introduced the model of only distributing food, blankets, and medicines to Western Europe after the Second World War, I do not think we would have had any aid dialogue at all. Then the aid would not have existed. Then it would have been something completely different.

The USA chose to see that if one invests and achieves a development in Western Europe – with reconstruction, opportunities for people to rebuild their lives, entrepreneurship, jobs and trade – everyone will benefit from it. That was the entire basis for why there is aid globally.

The humanitarian alone is not enough, Mr. Speaker. At best, it alleviates distress and prevents death, but it does not help the people further. The risk is what we see, namely that the problems recur and recur, and it is not an effective use of the taxpayers' money, neither in Sweden nor anywhere else.

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

Magdalena Thuresson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Member Kerstin Lundgren is right in a way. The humanitarian aid is not enough. However, humanitarian aid is a type of aid that I believe will always be needed. Natural disasters and things that cause that type of acute life-saving intervention will always occur. However, it is not enough, and development aid naturally also has a role to play.

When it comes to development aid, I would like to continue on the theme that Kerstin Lundgren was touching upon, namely that the goal must be that development aid will no longer be needed. The strategy cannot be that we shall continue with support for all time; instead, the aid as a whole and every aid effort must have the goal of being help for self-help and be able to be phased out.

What I think we need to talk more about is how we can move from aid dependency to aid independence, that is, from aid to trade. This is not the theme of today's debate, but I have mentioned it many times in the Riksdag's speaker's chair and naturally still think so. The goal of development aid is that it will one day no longer be needed, but I unfortunately believe that situations will arise where acute humanitarian aid will temporarily be needed around the world.

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

Olle Thorell (S)

Mr. Speaker! I will devote my first contribution to questioning and posing questions to Member Thuresson in order to perhaps have a somewhat friendlier tone in the next contribution.

I would like to thank Magdalena Thuresson for her contribution. It bothers me somewhat that she paints a picture of false contradictions – contradictions that do not exist. It is as if there were one group here in the chamber who thought it was good to have an audit of the aid and another group who thought it was bad. It is as if there were one group who thought it was good to have an effective and results-oriented aid and another group who wanted bad results and an inefficient aid.

This contradiction does not exist. We all here in the Swedish Riksdag think that aid should be scrutinized, that tax crowns should be used in the right way, that aid should be scrutinized thoroughly and that there should be clear criteria for when it is paid out. Sometimes it goes too far, as it has with this precautionary principle.

It is clear that one should have a principle of precaution. If one is unsure, one should not pay out money. But a principle of precaution cannot just be applied to Islamic Relief. From what I understand, they are the only ones who have been subjected to this principle of precaution. It means that one must exclude all conceivable, possible risks in the future so that money should not come anywhere near extremism. You don't just check those who work in the operation, the board, or the organization, but also the likes on social media of their relatives of what a cousin thought ten years ago. It is completely insane. What other organization would pass such a scrutiny? None! Not the Moderaterna, not the Socialdemokraterna, not the UN – none at all. Why is this principle of precaution used only on the organization Islamic Relief?

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

Magdalena Thuresson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Olle Thorell for the question.

I do not think I have painted any false contradictions. I understand that the Social Democrats also welcome reviews and proposals on how aid can be improved. The difference is perhaps what one does in practice, and above all, what priorities one lands on when it is finally time to prioritize.

Chairman Olle Thorell mentioned that the aid should be used in the best possible way and that it must not come anywhere near extremism.

I do not want to go into a single organization. I do not work at the agency Sida, but I am a deputy member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. It works in such a way that politics sets frameworks and goals and gives directives, and based on that, it is the agency that makes decisions regarding the allocation of funds.

As I pointed out in a previous exchange: That a certain organization is not awarded funds or is awarded fewer funds does not mean that the aid in that context decreases. In that case, it is other organizations that the authority, based on the policy's goals and directives, considers to be better suited to carry this out. I do not wish to stand in the Riksdag's rostrum and comment on the assessment in individual cases. On the other hand, I fully defend that a precautionary principle should be applied.

Mr. Speaker! I gladly let Olle Thorell answer on behalf of the Social Democrats. Do you Social Democrats think that this precautionary principle should remain? Or will it disappear if you join the UD after the election?

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

Olle Thorell (S)

When we enter the Government Offices after the election, we will, of course, do everything we can to ensure that tax money is used in the best possible way and in the most efficient way. It is clear that we must have a principle of caution when it comes to the disbursement of tax funds. Regardless of whether it is to aid organizations, agencies, or whatever it may be, it is clear that we will have such a principle. But I can guarantee Member Thuresson that it will be a legally secure principle of caution – not an arbitrary principle of caution, as the case seems to be now. That is all on this matter.

I would like to thank you for the answer. I appreciate Magdalena Thuresson in her actions. She always tries to answer the questions when we have debates – I appreciate that. It is not entirely common in political circles to answer the questions one is asked, but Magdalena Thuresson has always made a point of doing so.

I think she has been a good representative for the Moderaterna and the Moderaterna's ideology and values in the Committee on Foreign Affairs and a fine colleague to work with. We must remember – I say this to the youth in the stands – that we are not just opponents. We are not enemies. We are political colleagues working here in the democracy factory with different ideas on how we can make Sweden and the world better. I have never doubted Magdalena Thuresson's ambitions and belief in this, based on her ideology and values.

I wish Magdalena Thuresson warm success in whatever she undertakes in politics. You are welcome to Surahammar for a cup of coffee when you are passing by.

(FIRST DEPUTY SPEAKER: Despite having 20 years of experience in the chamber, there is always room for improvement. I remind the members to begin their speeches by addressing the Speaker. It may well be that the member requests a few more remarks later today, and in that case, it may be useful to remember that.)

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

Magdalena Thuresson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Before I thank you for the invitation, I note that I did not quite receive an answer to the question I asked – whether there should be a precautionary principle or not. It was a bit of both and neither: We shall have it, but perhaps not. That answer was noted.

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Olle Thorell, for the invitation to Surahammar! I also want to join in the praise you received from Member Lotta Johnsson Fornarve. We can have tough, hard, and substantive debates, but they are always in a good tone and respectful spirit. It has been a pleasure to have these exchanges with you. I look forward to seeing you in other contexts outside of this house in the future.

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Mr. Speaker! We are now debating humanitarian aid, but I intend to take the liberty of debating aid a bit more broadly in light of the fact that this is my last parliamentary debate as the spokesperson for aid policy and my last debate in the parliamentary rostrum at all – after twelve years.

I would like to start by thanking all colleagues in the Committee on Foreign Affairs for the good cooperation. Just as was said earlier, we have had tough debates, but we have still respected each other and even had a pleasant time together outside the speaking podiums. I truly appreciate that.

Of course, I want to extend a huge thank you to our fantastic office under the leadership of Chief of Staff Martin Brothén. Without the office, we members would not have managed our mission at all. I also want to extend a big thank you to the Chamber Office and to the Speaker's Office for all your hard work. I know from experience as Vice Speaker that it is sometimes incredibly tough to get everything to work. And I want to extend a big thank you to all other staff within the Riksdag Administration.

It has been a great honor to represent Vänsterpartiet in the Riksdag during these twelve years.

I will now return to the aid. I can state that we have a government that is, at quite a rapid pace, dismantling a well-functioning aid system. In December 2023, the government presented its reform agenda for aid. The agenda implies a complete reorganization of a previously well-functioning Swedish aid system. Furthermore, the government, with the support of Sverigedemokraterna, has decided to abandon the established one percent goal and has drastically reduced the aid. This is happening at a time when the needs are greater than ever, not least as a result of Trump's slaughter of American aid, something that will lead to millions of people risking death and even more risking being left without support.

That the Tidö government is then throwing the one percent goal overboard is a betrayal of the millions of people in the world who are in need of international aid. Those who are hit hardest are women and children, who are given poorer access to school and maternal and healthcare.

I can, however, promise that when Vänsterpartiet gains influence over aid, Vänsterpartiet will do everything it can to restore aid to the one percent level as soon as possible. Anything else is not worthy of a rich country like Sweden. We can afford to invest in both our own welfare and in good aid. It is a matter of making the right political priorities.

Aid should go to the poorest and most vulnerable people in the world. But in December 2025, the government decided to phase out Sweden's country strategies in Liberia, Mozambique, Tanzania, Zimbabwe and Bolivia. Previously, support to Cambodia, Afghanistan, Yemen, Mali, Burkina Faso and South Sudan has been phased out. This has enormous consequences for the poorest and most vulnerable people in the world. Important projects for human rights, democracy and equality are being withdrawn, and development risks being rolled back.

The aid to the Western Saharan refugee camps has also been withdrawn. It was not large, but every krona is important in the difficult situation that the Western Saharan refugees live in. For over 50 years, nearly 180,000 Sahrawi refugees have lived in the Sahara Desert under very difficult conditions. I visited the camps in the autumn and was then informed that the UN agencies on site had only had about one-third of their needs met. This can have devastating consequences.

The National Audit Office notes that humanitarian personnel at embassies facilitate the follow-up, but the National Audit Office also notes that there are challenges regarding the distribution of personnel resources and that Sida should coordinate better internally to streamline the work. The Government is actually doing the opposite and announces that several embassies, particularly in Africa, will be completely closed down. This will, of course, hit the aid hard.

When Sweden and other democratic countries turn their backs on Africa and, to some extent, Latin America and Asia, the field is left open for undemocratic forces such as Russia and China. It is a major global security risk that will strike back against us ourselves.

Aid has been moved from some of the world's poorest to Ukraine. Of course, Sweden must do everything to support Ukraine in all conceivable ways, but it should not happen at the expense of other life-saving aid. We must of course support Ukraine, but with funds that do not burden the aid. Sweden is a wealthy country. We can both support Ukraine and maintain good international aid.

It is important that Sweden's humanitarian aid maintains high quality, is effective, and reaches people quickly. At the same time, it is important to stick to what the Swedish National Audit Office's review actually shows. Sida has a clear focus on that the humanitarian aid should go to the crises where the needs are greatest, that is to say to the poorest and most vulnerable people in the world. That is, of course, completely fundamental.

In 2021, Islamic Relief was described by Sida as an organization with effective, high-quality operations. Despite this, the humanitarian support was recently stopped on the grounds of the government's clause that no funds may go to extremism or undemocratic forces. In Sida's review, no organizational links to violent extremism were found. Nor has the Center for Countering Violent Extremism found any such link. The support was stopped due to the precautionary principle and because one cannot completely rule out a very remote link. This is a principle that is largely impossible for any organization operating in difficult contexts to defend against.

Leading executives at Sida also warn of the consequences of the withdrawn support. The result is that Islamic Relief's project in Ethiopia, which aims to save the lives of malnourished infants, will be completely stopped without anyone taking over. The risk that small, malnourished children will die is great. What is most important: saving the lives of malnourished children or an arbitrary and legally uncertain precautionary principle?

I understand that we from Sweden cannot support all vulnerable people in the world, but we should at least be able to maintain the support we have in place. It is a well-functioning support that saves the lives of malnourished infants.

It is important to streamline, but streamlining should not become an excuse for increased political steering or for letting factors other than humanitarian needs weigh more heavily in the assessment. It is obvious to me that the government has increased the political steering of aid. The precautionary principle I referred to is a clear example of this. Even the Minister for Foreign Affairs' direct involvement regarding the support to Islamic Relief is a clear example. We have independent and autonomous agencies in our country. They have the right to make their own, independent decisions.

There are also other examples of direct involvement in the decisions of authorities. This includes, among other things, the minister's involvement in the incorrect decision to withdraw support for the UN agency UNRWA, which has the UN mandate to safeguard the interests of Palestinian refugees throughout the region. UNRWA is an entirely indispensable organization that needs more support – not less.

It is strange that the government employs an extreme precautionary principle in some cases to prevent aid from falling into the hands of any organization with links to extremism, but at the same time sends 100 million in aid to projects with close ties to Somalia's prime minister, who is one of the world's most corrupt leaders and a known Hamas-seller. The same government is in talks with the Taliban regime in Kabul and thus legitimizes one of the world's most harsh Islamist regimes. It is perhaps high time for the government to apply the precautionary principle towards itself.

The precautionary principle has also not been used regarding the Sweden Democrats' aid movement Hepatica. This organization was denied funds for a long time due to excessive deficiencies, but after pressure from the government, it suddenly went perfectly well. This happened despite the fact that Hepatica receives scathing criticism from the auditing firm Ernst & Young, which in its report writes that there are significant risks, or critical deficiencies, in the organization. It has also been shown that the organization has started a cooperation with an organization in Brazil that opposes abortion and fights the rights of LGBTQ persons, which completely goes against the principles for how Swedish aid may be used. Now that project is on pause, but the money has been paid out.

Sweden has signed the Grand Bargain, an international agreement aimed at making humanitarian aid more efficient and better. An important part of this is to increase the localization of humanitarian aid. This means that one should work for increased support and increased funding to local and national actors who are close to the humanitarian crises. Local and national actors are often the first on the scene to respond to humanitarian needs and are present both before, during, and after the crisis. They often play a decisive role in humanitarian crises, and it is therefore effective to increase the support to them.

The National Audit Office's report shows that Sida's work to increase the localization of humanitarian aid is progressing more slowly than the work to increase the proportion of multi-year and flexible support. This makes it even stranger that the support to Islamic Relief was withdrawn. The organization had a very good cooperation with precisely local actors, which made it easier to reach out in difficult contexts such as war-torn Sudan.

We also have a large number of other civil society organizations that do an excellent job and have very good contacts with local actors. I can mention, for example, Rädda Barnen, Röda Korset, Diakonia and Act Svenska kyrkan. The support for civil society actors must be strengthened.

The Government should return to the Riksdag with a consolidated report on how the National Audit Office's observations are addressed in the entire state management of humanitarian aid. We also believe that localization must have a concrete impact on how the aid is designed so that local organizations in humanitarian crises get better opportunities to receive funding and operate in the long term.

I would like to move for approval of reservation 1, which is common to Miljöpartiet and Vänsterpartiet. I would also like to wish everyone a pleasant summer.

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

Aron Emilsson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Lotta Johnsson Fornarve, for the speech!

I would like to thank the member for her work during her time in the Committee on Foreign Affairs. First, however, I would like to ask a question. Given that Lotta Johnsson Fornarve herself mentioned the precautionary principle, the need for aid to be followed up, the need to minimize risk so that aid does not end up in extreme environments, and so on, it would be almost a dereliction of duty not to ask the question that everyone else is asking these days.

It has been revealed that dozens and dozens of Vänsterpartiet's own candidates before the election have in different ways praised Hamas's terror attacks against Israel, and that they have connections to and associations with that type of organization, which has subjected the Jewish people to the worst mass murder since World War II. I would like to hear how Lotta Johnsson Fornarve views following up, minimizing risk, and demanding accountability when aid funds have ended up in the wrong hands.

We have previously seen how the Left Party's aid foundation has channeled funds to DFLP. The organization has itself confirmed that it has not only supported but also been linked to and participated in Hamas's terror attacks against Israel. Different answers have been given afterwards – that they were not aware of these links and distance themselves from them, and that the project has been concluded.

How does Member of Parliament Johnsson Fornarve and the Left Party want to ensure that aid does not end up in these types of environments or in pockets like these, and how does the party itself want to use the precautionary principle that we from the government cooperation side have established? Is it to remain, or is it to be removed in the event of an election victory for the left bloc?

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Aron Emilsson for the question. I would also like to take the opportunity to thank him for the cooperation in the committee; I think that Aron Emilsson has done a good job as chairman.

Just as Olle Thorell mentioned, the Sweden Democrats do not, however, stand up for general and good aid. There is much to criticize the Sweden Democrats for, just as I did regarding Hepaticas' aid activities. Aid has, for example, gone to an organization in Brazil that is anti-abortion and which fights against the rights of LGBTQ people. It is the exact opposite of how Swedish aid is allowed to be used, and it is incredibly strange that one could have ended up there.

Of course, I distance myself from all forms of extremism, and of course, no aid funds shall go to Hamas or other terrorist organizations. Aron Emilsson referred to the fact that our aid organization Vänsterns Internationella Forum has had a cooperation in Palestine. This aid project dates back several years. This was, therefore, long before Hamas's attack on October 7. The support was given through a cooperation with Enhetslistan in Denmark.

We supported various Palestinian youth organizations so that they would have the opportunity to meet, talk, discuss, and try to cooperate for a peaceful solution. In hindsight, we were informed that DFLP supported Hamas's attacks. However, this was long after the project had been concluded.

Sida has reviewed the project. We have seen that the funds that have been paid out have not gone to anything other than what was intended, i.e., support for youth peace work.

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

Aron Emilsson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I unfortunately believe that these questions will recur. It has indeed been shown, because there is an almost seamless patchwork of connections between those who sympathize with the Vänsterpartiet and the type of movements that are actually an existential threat to Jewish life and existence in the Middle East. This applies not least here in Sweden as well. But with that said, I still really want to express my thanks to Lotta Johnsson Fornarve for her work in the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

I think that Johnsson Fornarve, together with the other members of the Committee on Foreign Affairs who are having their final debate here in the chamber today, belong to those who are always constructive, objective, and honest in their argumentation and do their absolute best in a spirit that the round table in the Committee on Foreign Affairs' session hall still deserves. I think that one should have an eloge for that. Thank you for your contributions and your time in the Committee on Foreign Affairs!

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the kind words! I think, as I have said, that Aron Emilsson has functioned well as chairman. However, he represents a party that I do not have much respect for.

When it comes to our support for various organizations and so on, we have been very clear that no money shall go to any form of terrorism. We have taken a clear and distinct distance from Hamas. We have settled matters with the individuals who have shared things and expressed themselves in an incorrect manner. They are no longer on our lists and will no longer represent Vänsterpartiet.

Vänsterpartiet is a party that is clearly and distinctly anti-racist. We stand up for all people's equal value, against all forms of discrimination. That is more than can be said about the party that Aron Emilsson represents, which indeed has racist roots. That is something you have to carry with you.

(Applause)

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

Gudrun Brunegård (KD)

Mr. Speaker! For my part, it is not the last speech in the chamber. There will be more both this afternoon and on Monday in my role as a member of the Committee on the Constitution. But as the foreign aid policy spokesperson for the Christian Democrats, it is my last debate after five years.

I also want to thank my colleagues in the committee – regardless of party affiliation – for good cooperation and, in most cases, a shared commitment, even if it may have taken slightly different forms. In that, I want to include the former chairman, who just a moment ago sat here as acting chairman, Kenneth G Forslund, and of course also the very competent secretariat with all its dedication to the task.

A fundamental starting point for Swedish humanitarian aid must be to be able to quickly and effectively save lives and help people who have been affected by various humanitarian crises with clean water, food, warmth, and medicine. This can, for example, involve natural disasters or conflicts that force people to flee.

Sweden is one of the world's leading humanitarian donors. Swedish humanitarian aid amounted to a total of 9.4 billion kronor in 2024. That is almost one-fifth of the Swedish aid budget. The majority is managed by Sida, which conveys support to selected partners who carry out the humanitarian interventions around the world.

The subject of today's debate is the Swedish National Audit Office's review of Swedish humanitarian aid, how Sida selects its partners, how the funds are distributed, and how the interventions are followed up.

The choice of partner is significant, because as fellow human beings but also as taxpayers, we want our aid funds to suffice so that as many as possible can receive as good help as possible to survive the current crisis and return to a normal life. It is therefore an advantage that Sida cooperates with partners who operate in different parts of the world and have established contacts with the local communities and thereby access to areas that are often in the risk zone of being affected by natural disasters or conflicts.

The National Audit Office describes that Sida has developed a time- and resource-intensive process for selecting strategic partners and the distribution of aid among them. This process is followed by additional assessments, often several per year. The National Audit Office points out that it is possible to make well-founded decisions through simplified processes, not least from the perspective that many grants go to the same crises and the same partners year after year. In that case, one does not need to request the same types of information repeatedly.

Another thing that the National Audit Office points out is that Sida's decision-making is not sufficiently transparent regarding their choice of strategic humanitarian partners and the distribution of aid. It is something that I, as the spokesperson for aid policy, have encountered many times in my meetings with civil society organizations. On what grounds was one organization or the other selected, or why was it suddenly no longer relevant as a mediator of Swedish aid, despite many years of good cooperation? One such example is Act Svenska kyrkan, which some time ago lost its cooperation agreement within the humanitarian strategy.

There must be clarity regarding which criteria Sida uses to filter out potential partners, how one grades different qualities when mixing them to ultimately select which ones to sign agreements with, and how large amounts each respective organization is allowed to convey to those in need. Today, such distribution keys rest in obscurity.

In the government's communication in response to the National Audit Office's observation, the government states that it largely shares the overall observations and conclusions and agrees that there is room for streamlining in Sida's management through simplification of processes in the selection of partners and the distribution of humanitarian aid.

The Government also agrees with the National Audit Office's observation that Sida needs to review its decision-making regarding the administrative law principles that cases shall have clear justifications and be transparent when decisions are made, as well as the basis for the decision. Likewise, the government agrees that the follow-up of the humanitarian aid should be systematized. Sida needs to ensure that the distribution of personnel resources at the overseas agencies is purposeful in order to be able to monitor and evaluate the interventions. I interpret that as there is an opportunity for Sida to streamline the administrative work at the office and give more employees the opportunity to follow up on the aid on-site through overseas postings.

Mr. Speaker! A sign that the government and the Swedish National Audit Office are in agreement in the analysis is that the government, in its strategy for humanitarian support which entered into force on 1 September 2025, writes that transparency and efficiency, but also new thinking, shall be in focus when selecting partners and establishing new partnership models and technical tools for the operations. The importance of partner organizations having good knowledge of the contexts in which they operate is emphasized.

In the strategy's annual report, results and effects of the support shall be reported, including at an aggregated level. The reporting of results shall also include a well-founded analysis of how the strategy has contributed to countering aggravated or new disasters and crises. All of this shall be done in order to ensure that the support reaches the most vulnerable, to save lives, alleviate distress, and uphold human dignity even in the world's most forgotten and underfunded humanitarian crises.

It is worth noting that in this strategy for humanitarian assistance, the government refers directly to the reform agenda, which forms the basis for all the strategies, and thus shows that development aid and humanitarian aid go hand in hand, something that was touched upon in an earlier exchange of remarks here today.

I read from the humanitarian strategy: To reduce humanitarian needs and the pressure on the humanitarian system, the reform agenda for Swedish aid, Aid for a new era – Freedom, empowerment and sustainable growth, emphasizes the importance of working to ensure that development actors, including the World Bank and regional development banks, further strengthen their presence and commitment and maintain basic public services in fragile states and conflict areas where humanitarian crises are ongoing, as well as building resilience, not least in protracted humanitarian crises, through development-financed climate adaptation in vulnerable communities.

Preemptive measures shall also include measures to build capacity, reduce and prevent crises such as early warning systems, risk reduction and disaster preparedness through development financing. Long-term efforts within development aid build resilience, stability and opportunities through democracy and growth. It creates conditions for people to build a future in their home countries.

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

(Applause)

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

Kerstin Lundgren (C)

Mr. Speaker! Many of the participating members are making their final debate for the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and this was about to develop into one long thank-you tour. I therefore chose not to take thank-you obligations on Lotta Johnsson Fornarve and Gudrun Brunegård, who are both making their final debate in the Committee on Foreign Affairs as spokespersons for aid policy.

Both have been significant, and I believe, Mr. Speaker, that there are more than just me wondering what will happen with the Christian Democrats' aid commitment when Gudrun Brunegård leaves. It feels quite empty beyond Gudrun Brunegård these days.

Many thanks for the commitment to aid but also around the round table and for people out there who need not only help in distress but also help for development!

Mr. Speaker! This is the National Audit Office's report concerning humanitarian aid. As I have tried to say before, humanitarian aid is temporary aid to alleviate distress and prevent death. But as can be seen in the report, humanitarian aid also tends to become more long-term, because conflicts, crises, risks for and threats to people, both regarding the risk of death and imminent distress, are so protracted that even these interventions become long-lasting.

Then one must naturally ask oneself if this is the optimal and most effective way to work. I have followed the aid issues for quite a long time, and I know that during the alliance government – I'm revealing no secrets, for there are several who know – there were problematic countries where we still needed to be present with interventions. Interventions in difficult countries involve a tough political discussion, and we chose instead to go via the UN. Then we could always have an intermediary and were not affected directly in that way. Then one could work in a slightly different way.

This is a method that we have seen used also by the current government, however for a different purpose than just to alleviate distress, prevent death or achieve development. I see with horror a development that leads to humanitarian aid taking over. It becomes more about distributing emergency packages than providing long-term, effective aid. With such a development, I believe that even the humanitarian support will not have the backing among the Swedish people that is being spoken about.

There is support today, but more is required, as said, for it to become long-term sustainable. It must be combined with development efforts. We also see that conflicts are becoming more numerous and more protracted. Even when a ceasefire or even a peace agreement has been achieved, the conflict tends to recur if one has not sorted out the underlying conditions. Therefore, more needs to be done.

From the Center Party's side, we have been clear that we will return to 1 percent as soon as possible. We believe it is an important commitment. It is an international commitment, and most in this chamber usually refer to the multilateral systems, the importance of international agreements, and that we shall stand up for this.

Naturally, there is an agreement here that is not at 1 percent, but it is still a clear level. We usually assert that we would like to see the EU go further than what the EU has done. Most parties have been pressing for this previously. Now the development tends to go in another direction. This will likely lead to the National Audit Office having quite a few observations in the future on how effective our aid is.

Mr. Speaker! Better transparency and clearer documentation of the basis for decisions have been desired, and we from the Committee on Foreign Affairs have therefore had reason to highlight the current government's micro-management. We hear about new monthly directives and new guidelines. We have been able to read in the media and also in other ways have been able to capture images from SMS or emails that have been sent between the Ministry for Foreign Affairs and Sida. It is clear that if Sida becomes part of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs' organization and not an independent agency, it will become a problem.

We had reason to note such a problem in the issue of emergency aid regarding Palestine and the situation in Gaza. There it became clear that it was from UD that the signal came that no emergency aid would be paid out, even though it was about saving lives and alleviating distress. It is, of course, only one example of exactly this.

Much has been said about the precautionary principle. It can be good to have. But it is also a question that should apply when looking at the new directives that have arrived. Now, the aid is to have a function, for example, when it comes to migration policy.

In the preamble, it was spoken of humanitarian diplomacy. One can then wonder if humanitarian diplomacy is what is taking place regarding Afghanistan, since Sweden has been pushing for contact with the Taliban regime. This is something many are deeply upset about, given what the regime does to girls and women, yes, to the people in Afghanistan. It is about oppression, sexual harassment and abuse, as well as a grave form of Islamism. We obviously do not see working in this way as a way forward for humanitarian aid or aid in general.

Mr. Speaker! I conclude by moving for approval of reservation 2 under point 1.

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Mr. Speaker! The report deals with the National Audit Office's review of the humanitarian aid Sweden provides through Sida and how effective it is.

The National Audit Office is not KPMG or Deloitte; rather, the National Audit Office is one of our oldest institutions. It looks at reforms being implemented and is one of the agencies that falls under the Riksdag. Originally, it was called the Räntekammaren and was established by Gustav Vasa. Over the years, it has changed names, and it eventually merged into the National Budget Office when Karl XI established it during the era of the Great Power. Later, it obviously had to be called something with "verket" in it, when the Social Democrats had a bit too much to say regarding naming issues. But now, it is called the National Audit Office.

After having looked at how effective the humanitarian aid is, the Swedish National Audit Office has no recommendations for the government, but it has a number of recommendations for the aid agency Sida. This involves, for example, that when choosing cooperation partners, one should be clear in the information and allocate resources correctly to our foreign agencies and embassies so that there are not too many in one country and too few in another country. It also involves truly following various administrative law principles, etc.

The authority has reported back here. One also visited the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the Riksdag a few weeks ago and accounted for how one is proceeding with the recommendations, which is good.

Mr. Speaker! There may not be much more to say here in the chamber about how specific resource allocations to individual Swedish embassies abroad should take place. We have an agency that makes these assessments. I will instead speak a little more generally about humanitarian aid.

Sweden is one of the larger donors of aid in the world. Even after the reductions of recent years, we rank third in the world when it comes to the share of gross national income. Norway and Luxembourg give about 1 percent, and then we and Denmark follow. In terms of amount, it is of course less because countries like Germany and Japan are significantly larger economies than Sweden. In terms of amount, these countries therefore give more, but in share, Sweden gives more. We should be proud of this, and it is important that we do this.

However, global efforts are required to be able to alleviate the distress, and if one wants to get a grip on how much is missing, one can go to fts.unocha.org. The UN body OCHA coordinates the humanitarian aid for emergency relief and has the function financial tracking service. OCHA issues appeals to the world's countries when there are earthquakes, famine catastrophes, civil wars, and so on. Different amounts are requested, and on the website, one can clearly see what the underfunding looks like.

We are now almost in the middle of June, and by then, approximately 45 percent of 2026 will have passed. That means that the appeals should be financed to approximately half.

For Sudan, the UN has requested 2.9 billion dollars, approximately 30 billion Swedish kronor. A terrible civil war is ongoing in Sudan with enormous hardships for the civilian population. The appeal has so far been funded to 23.5 percent, i.e., to approximately half of what it should be. For Yemen, 2.2 billion dollars have been requested, approximately 25 billion kronor, and that appeal is now funded to 14.8 percent. For South Sudan, 1.6 billion dollars have been requested, and that appeal is funded to 29.6 percent. For Haiti, 880 million dollars have been requested, and that appeal is funded to 23.1 percent. For Burkina Faso, 660 million dollars have been requested, and that appeal is funded to 14.6 percent.

There is a positive example when it comes to the financing of humanitarian emergency aid through the United Nations, and that is the Democratic Republic of the Congo. That appeal is now financed to 51.7 percent. It is the only appeal for humanitarian emergency aid that is on track and even slightly over.

Ukraine is also interesting in this context because it is located near us and a war is taking place there. The Ukraine appeal from OCHA is funded to 42.6 percent, so it is almost on track. One is asking for 2.3 billion dollars here.

Mr. Speaker! Why do I rattle off all these figures? Well, because it makes it so incredibly clear that humanitarian aid on a global level is chronically underfunded by approximately 50 percent. That is where we stand, and that is the challenge we have.

What will then be the consequences of this? Well, the consequences for people will obviously be enormous when the help is withheld. But it also means that in refugee camps, sanitation issues cannot be managed, and then epidemics can spread. It also becomes harder to maintain order, and there is a risk of radicalization. The pressure to emigrate and go somewhere else also becomes much greater, while the possibility for people to return decreases. I mean that there is therefore a great self-interest for all countries that are in a better position to give more, and I foresee that the debate will continue.

Mr. Speaker! It is several members who are now making their final debate in the chamber. It is highly unclear if it also applies to me, for I must probably step in later in June and speak for one minute during the Prime Minister's report from a meeting in Brussels. But I want to thank all colleagues in the Committee on Foreign Affairs who are not standing for re-election to the Riksdag this autumn. It has been a great honor to cooperate with you from all the different parties.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

(Applause)

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I can begin by stating that there are great opportunities to continue the debate today if one wishes to debate the cooperation agreements with Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan. That debate will come directly after this one, for members who may finish and who want to continue debating for a while. That opportunity still exists, therefore. I believe that it will be a very lively debate between me and the Moderate Party member.

Mr. Speaker! When a person is in acute distress, there is something deeply human that emerges. Before we have time to weigh interests and before we have time to analyze consequences, an immediate will to help enters – to save lives, to alleviate suffering and to uphold dignity.

It is this instinct – this moral reflex – that forms the basis for humanitarian aid. It has also been shaped into principles: humanity, impartiality, neutrality and independence. It is not just any principles. It is the very prerequisite for aid to reach its destination.

Mr. Speaker! Miljöpartiet welcomes the Swedish National Audit Office's review of Sida's work with humanitarian aid. The review is important. Taxpayers' money must be used effectively. The aid must reach its destination quickly and do maximum good. But it is equally important that we are careful about what the review actually shows. It shows that Sida has a clear focus on letting needs drive – that resources should go where the need is greatest. This is not a detail in the margin, but it is the very core of a principled humanitarian aid.

Mr. Speaker! We live in a time when the humanitarian needs are greater than ever. Conflicts are becoming more protracted. Climate changes are driving new crises. Hunger is increasing. At the same time, we see how respect for international humanitarian law is being eroded. In this reality, it becomes even more important to hold fast to the principles.

We also see a worrying development. More and more often, humanitarian aid is described in terms other than just humanity. The act of saving lives is to be justified with other gains. Aid should also preferably serve security policy or economic purposes. It may sound reasonable in a world characterized by realpolitik, but it also entails a risk. If we begin to weigh lives against interests, we move away from what makes the aid humanitarian.

Mr. Speaker! In its submission, the Government highlights cost-effectiveness, transparency, and new partnership models. This is fundamentally positive, but the Government also emphasizes that support shall not be given to actors who are considered to counteract Swedish interests.

Here a significant line is drawn. Quality assurance is necessary, and responsible management of funds is a matter of course. But if the governance of humanitarian aid begins to be based on national interests instead of human needs, we risk eroding the legitimacy and effectiveness of the aid. Humanitarian aid shall not be a tool to achieve other political goals. It shall be a response to human suffering.

Mr. Speaker! The Swedish National Audit Office's criticism primarily concerns processes such as decision-making, follow-up, and organization. And yes, these parts need to be improved. But the government is content to state that Sida is already working on changes and therefore considers the matter closed. The Green Party believes that this is not enough.

Firstly: The responsibility does not stop at Sida. Almost half of the humanitarian aid is managed directly by the Government Offices. If we are to speak of efficiency, coordination, and transparency, the government's own management must also be scrutinized with the same rigor.

Secondly: The Riksdag needs a unified reporting. We need to know how the entire state governance changes, not just parts of it.

Mr. Speaker! Another central issue is how we actually meet today's crises. We face a growing gap between needs and funding, especially in twenty of the world's most vulnerable and conflict-affected countries. Today's aid models are not sufficient here. Miljöpartiet therefore wants to see that half of the bilateral aid is directed precisely towards these contexts. Resources shall be concentrated where the needs are greatest.

Mr. Speaker! Efficiency is often discussed in terms of control and follow-up, but for the organization standing in the middle of a crisis, efficiency is about something else. It is about being able to act quickly, about avoiding spending an unreasonable amount of time on administration, and about knowing that the funding remains next year. Therefore, the Riksrevisionen's recommendation regarding multi-year initiatives is very important.

In prolonged crises, which are becoming increasingly common, perseverance is needed. Short-term projects risk creating jerkiness and inefficiency. Simplifying processes is therefore not just an administrative issue, but it is about how many lives we can actually save.

Mr. Speaker! The government also highlights localization as an important principle. It is welcome, but it is not enough to write it into strategies. Local actors are often those who reach the furthest. They are on the ground when international organizations leave. They have knowledge, trust, and legitimacy. Yet, they are often disadvantaged by complex application processes and high administrative requirements. If we are serious about localization, it must be reflected in how we design the support. This applies in particular to local women's rights organizations, which often play a decisive role but at the same time have the hardest time obtaining funding.

Mr. Speaker! Humanitarian aid is not just a budget item. It is an expression of who we are. When we encounter a person in need, a fundamental question is posed: Is the aid conditional, or is it unconditional? If we begin to hesitate and begin to ask who deserves help and why, we change something fundamentally. Then we risk losing more than efficiency. We risk losing the very idea of humanity.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden has long been a strong voice for principled humanitarian aid, aid that stands up for international law, that reaches even in difficult environments and that puts human dignity at the center. That role is more important than ever, but it is not self-evident. It must be defended, and renewed.

Miljöpartiet wants to see an aid that is both effective and steadfast in its principles, which simplifies processes without politicizing the content, which strengthens local actors and which clearly originates from the needs, not from self-interest.

Mr. Speaker! There are moments in politics when we must choose a direction. This is such a moment. Either we continue on a path where humanitarian aid is gradually linked to national interests and political priorities, or we stand firm on the fact that every person in need has equal value, regardless of who they are, where they are located, or what interests are at stake. Miljöpartiet chooses the latter. We do not do it because it is always easy. We do not do it because it is always popular. We do it because it is right.

I move for approval of reservation number 1.

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

Aron Emilsson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Today we have debated the Committee on Foreign Affairs' report on the National Audit Office's review of Sida's work with humanitarian assistance.

In summary, the committee notes that the government has actually reported how the Swedish National Audit Office's observations shall be addressed and that extensive development work is already underway within Sida. The Sweden Democrats view this work positively. We also view it positively that the agency is now strengthening its routines for follow-up, risk management, and accountability.

Sweden shall continue to be a humanitarian actor that helps people in need. The aid shall be characterized by responsibility, control, and a focus on results. Humanity and order are not opposites, on the contrary, but in order to help more people we must ensure that resources are used correctly and reach all the way through. It is also the underlying idea behind the reform agenda that the Sverigedemokraterna and the government have presented during the mandate period: aid that is more efficient, more transparent, and more focused on results than on symbols, aid that deserves the trust of the Swedish people.

The Swedish National Audit Office's review shows why the launched reform work is justified. Against that background, the Sweden Democrats move for approval of the proposal in the report and rejection of the motions and propose that the Riksdag place the government's communication in the records.

There has been a fair amount of talk from the opposition today about the need for a return to the one percent goal, i.e., that aid should constitute 1 percent of the gross national income. In that case, we land once again on the fact that volume becomes more important than impact, and intention more important than concrete results that must be evaluated continuously.

As has already been pointed out during the debate, this is the last committee debate in the chamber for several members and substitutes in the committee. In light of that, I would like to take the opportunity to thank Olle Thorell, Magdalena Thuresson, Lotta Johnsson Fornarve and Gudrun Brunegård for their long and faithful service in the Committee on Foreign Affairs and in the Riksdag.

In my capacity as Chairman, I also want to convey that I have valued your various contributions, your constructiveness, and in several cases your seniority, regardless of whether we have been on the same side or completely different sides in the political landscape. It is worth saying in a time when we need to value offices and not just the political game.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 17.)

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