International cooperation

Aron Emilsson (SD)

International cooperation

Madam Speaker!

The Earth speaks: Soon I am tired of glowing like a red flare through the nightly space. Hidden in clouds, moon, your somber chariot, clear, sun, obscured by nauseating vapors.

The man speaks: Heavy is my arm from weapons, battered is my foot from shards and fence wire. I want home from the camp and captivity, home to fields and vineyards standing in dew.

So Karlfeldt chanted in 1919 in the work, or rather the speech, Inför freden. These are words that in a vivid way speak to us and depict the time of war and suffering we see today, this year of grace 2022, when war rages in Europe.

Last week, I was together with my fellow chairs of the Committee on Defence and the EU Committee on site in Washington D.C. at the Transatlantic Forum, which is a security policy conference in cooperation between NATO's Parliamentary Assembly, the National Defence University, and the Atlantic Council. The program and the conversations we held spanned everything from Russia's unprovoked warfare in Ukraine, including the nuclear threat and the preparedness for it, to China and the geopolitical and geo-economic challenge in Asia, as well as, of course, both energy and Sweden's and Finland's ratification processes before NATO membership.

If there is anything I take with me from there, it is the strong cohesion and the shared assessment of the situation regarding these security policy challenges that existed there – not to mention the support and interest for a Swedish and Finnish NATO membership. Our knowledge and capability, in combination with our geographical location and our special knowledge of the conditions in the Arctic and the Baltic Sea region, are very impressive, as is our technologically advanced and innovative defense industry. We should be proud of that – all of this, as well as the ability on our part to see what unites us and drive a Swedish line across party lines and express goals of what unites us in the nation's interest, rather than what we do not agree on domestically. In this context, when we talk about international cooperation, it is of great importance.

We are now debating the Committee on Foreign Affairs' report UU1 International Cooperation and the corresponding expenditure area in the state budget, and I initially move for approval of the committee's proposals in the report. The committee approves the government's proposal for appropriations for 2023 within expenditure area 5, which amounts to approximately 2.1 billion kronor. Accordingly, the committee also rejects the alternative budget proposals submitted in motions. The committee also approves the government's proposal regarding certain authorizations for financial commitments.

During the preparation of this matter, the committee has obtained information from UD, the Inspectorate for Strategic Products, and the Institute of International and Strategic Studies. Also, the Swedish Institute, the Folke Bernadotte Academy, and the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute have informed the committee members. This has, I would like to point out initially, provided a good overall picture of the actors' work and the assessment of Sweden's international cooperation.

The Riksdag has decided on the goal for expenditure area 5, which is to ensure Sweden's interests in relations with other countries. For the expenditure area, there are result indicators for the following five areas: international crisis management and peace-promoting efforts, research on security policy, disarmament and non-proliferation, export control, Nordic cooperation and Sweden-promotion.

Madam Speaker! Our responsibility as the nation's highest decision-making body is to ensure Sweden's interests in relations with other countries. What compass direction do we then take, and through what terrain do we have to orient ourselves? The Sweden Democrats are used to putting Sweden's interests first. It is our idea, whose time has now finally come, and the Tidö Agreement and the government's statement of intent signify a historical political sobering up that we have not seen for a long time.

The compass needle and our responsibility begin in our immediate surroundings. The terrain varies globally, and our hand is extended to those most in need. Our ability to defend ourselves against internal and external threats is being restored, nationally and in international cooperation with others. Slogans are no longer empty words, and promises are not expressions but meaning. Priorities are being shifted, and the map is updated according to the terrain we have to handle.

Madam Speaker! In my capacity as Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, I can state that there is broad agreement on the importance of Sweden's membership in international organizations. The Committee agrees with the government's assessment that the priority areas in the UN work shall be to address the war in Ukraine, to manage crises and conflicts, also in our immediate vicinity, to uphold the rules-based world order, to promote human rights and democracy, and to meet global threats.

The Sweden Democrats also welcome the coalition partners' including the government's focus on measures in support of Ukraine and on safeguarding the global and European security order, as a full-scale war of aggression is ongoing on our continent and great powers such as China challenge the rules-based world order both geoeconomically and geopolitically.

We also share the government's view that Sweden shall maintain a strict, effective and modern export control. It is also becoming increasingly clear ahead of Sweden's NATO accession that such a regulatory framework will serve an additional and particularly clear purpose when the conditions for the export of war materiel change.

The Committee approves the Government's proposal to increase the appropriation to the Inspectorate for Strategic Products in light of the fact that the authority's existing tasks have been expanded and grown. We also see how more and more civilian products and dual-use products are being utilized in entirely new ways, not least by a desperate Russia in the war.

ISP is expected to further be given the mandate as a review authority in a new system to review foreign direct investments, which is highly important given foreign powers' interests in our country and not least our society-critical infrastructure.

Madam Speaker! The Baltic Sea is an important part of Sweden and our immediate vicinity. It is a home for people and marine ecosystems, and it is a sea and a hub for what can be called identity industries, such as fishing, agriculture, and environmental efforts with associated occupations. The Baltic Sea shapes nature, environment, culture, and people - from barren skerries in the outer archipelago to fertile lands and oak forests in the inner archipelago. Residence and employment in and around the Baltic Sea have changed over time, but the Baltic Sea region has not decreased in significance, on the contrary.

The Baltic Sea region is now a security policy hotspot, a geopolitical field of tension in a time when the Russian regime encircles our continent in spheres of interest and its own imperialist great power ambitions. The new concept of seabed warfare is particularly prominent here and is a burning issue as well as exercise patterns both at sea and in the air. Our Baltic neighbors, as well as our brother country Finland and likewise Poland, have a high state of readiness for both influenceable and non-influenceable factors in our Baltic Sea.

In the budget proposal signed by Sverigedemokraterna, Moderaterna, Kristdemokraterna and Liberalerna, it is proposed not only for a high pace for the expansion of the total defense in the area but also that international cooperation is strengthened and promoted further to invest in measures for freedom of expression, cybersecurity, contacts with civil society and countering disinformation.

Madam Speaker! In summary, the committee finds that the government's proposal for the allocation of funds is well-balanced, and the committee therefore proposes that the Riksdag allocate the appropriations for the 2023 budget year within expenditure area 5 International cooperation in accordance with the government's proposal. The committee thus approves point 1 in the bill and simultaneously rejects the motions from the Socialdemokraterna, Vänsterpartiet, Centerpartiet, and Miljöpartiet in the report.

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Madam Speaker! This report concerns Sweden's contribution to international cooperation and international collaboration. It is also a good opportunity to comment on the general foreign policy situation, not least the dramatic changes in Swedish foreign policy that the right-wing government now wants to push through.

Let me however begin with the area where, by all indications, there is broad consensus, namely Sweden's position on Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine. When this war broke out in February this year, the Social Democratic government responded immediately and sharply. Russia's actions were condemned, and support for Ukraine began immediately. Sweden pushed internationally in the EU and the UN for sharp sanctions against Russia and the Russian leadership.

Russia did not expect this rapid action from the rest of the world. On the contrary, Putin and the rest of the Russian leadership most likely believed in a quick military victory and that a divided world would be unable to either mobilize a resistance against them or the support for Ukraine that subsequently became a reality. But they were wrong on this point. They had hoped to be able to take Ukraine in a few weeks, but after almost ten months of war, Russian forces are still standing and stalling. They have even been driven away from areas that they had previously seized.

In these areas, one also clearly sees the appalling atrocities that the Russian army has committed. There is probably not a single crime in the penal code regarding international law that Russia has not committed in Ukraine. It is crimes against international law, it is crimes against the laws of war, it is indiscriminate killing of civilians, it is massacres, it is illegal kidnappings of children to Russia, it is sexual abuse, and it is terror bombings of homes, industries, and important infrastructure - all to torment the population in the most brutal way possible.

There is only one reasonable approach to this, and that is to stand firm against Russia. Ukraine must receive the support needed to drive the Russian army out of the country. It is about continued economic, humanitarian, and military support. It is about expanded sanction packages against Russia and the Russian leadership. It is about gathering evidence so that in the future they can be prosecuted and convicted who today are committing war crimes. It is about providing protection for the tens of thousands of Ukrainian refugees who have been forced to flee their homes and seek refuge in other countries, including ours.

All this was initiated by the Social Democratic government, and by all appearances, the new government intends to complete this. We Social Democrats welcome this, and the government will have our full support for such a policy.

Madam Speaker! Russia's attack on Ukraine also meant that Sweden had to reassess its security policy line. Sweden has been militarily neutral for 200 years. That line was established during the reign of Karl XIV Johan and aimed to keep Sweden out of the wars on the continent, and it has aimed to maintain stability in our part of the world, maintain peace and ensure that Sweden is not drawn into other countries' wars.

This policy has been successful and had great support among the Swedish population. 200 years of military non-alignment became 200 years of peace.

But Russia's attack on Ukraine placed us in a completely new security policy situation. The European security order that was established in the 70s collapsed in practice.

We Social Democrats have always and will always stand for a policy that aims for security, stability, and peace in our part of the world. The safety and security of the Swedish people and our country's independence shall be protected, and this takes precedence over everything else. We do not engage in adventure politics.

After Russia's invasion of Ukraine, we Social Democrats concluded that NATO membership is now what best contributes to peace and security for Sweden, now and in the future. The same conclusion was drawn by the Social Democrats in Finland, and thus the course was changed for both our countries. It was right, it was necessary, and we support the current government in the NATO process that we are currently in the middle of. It is important that it can reach its goal.

It is also important that the process is handled with judgment and, not least, that the promises made before the election are kept. One such promise was that Sweden should issue the same reservation regarding nuclear weapons as both Norway and Denmark have had for decades. We shall not have any nuclear weapons on Swedish soil. We shall also not have any permanent NATO bases on Swedish soil.

We Social Democrats were clear about this before the election. So were the current government parties. Therefore, we and many with us were very surprised when both the Prime Minister, the Foreign Minister, and the Defense Minister began to waver on that issue and made statements that could be interpreted as them opening up for nuclear weapons in Sweden.

Even more surprising is that the government, despite repeated prompts from us, has not managed to correct these statements, but on the contrary has instead become entangled in wordplay after wordplay. This does not build confidence. It is now urgent that the government settles this issue through a clear and distinct statement. We shall not have any nuclear weapons in Sweden. Perhaps we can get such a notification today during this debate. That would be very welcome.

Now, everyone certainly knows that this government is failing on almost all its election promises. We have seen that during the autumn – just ask the electricity customers! It becomes easy to do that when one is struck by election fever and promises too much before the election. But this, Madam Speaker, is a promise that the government cannot break. It is far too important. We need a clear statement from the government. Close the door on nuclear weapons in Sweden once and for all!

Madam Speaker! We Social Democrats always seek consensus in foreign policy. It is an asset for a country to have broad support for its foreign policy. At the same time, we have never hesitated to break new ground and take a stand on controversial issues. The policy that Sweden has pursued for decades has garnered great respect in the rest of the world.

Sweden is one of the countries in the world with the highest reputation. This is shown in countless surveys, where Sweden is considered to be one of the world's best countries to live in. It is shown quite concretely when we apply for various international missions, for example to the UN Security Council. It is shown by the fact that the Swedish passport is one of the world's strongest passports, providing access to the most countries visa-free.

Our good international reputation benefits Swedes' interests in all sectors, contributes to Swedish companies' export successes, attracts international investments to Sweden, and ensures that innovative power grows when talents in various fields seek out Sweden. The positive effects that Sweden's good reputation brings with it cannot be overstated.

The good reputation that Sweden enjoys, far-right, racist, Nazi, Islamist, and Russian smear campaigns on Twitter have not succeeded in changing, despite the fact that they have really tried. Everyone who follows social media knows what a sewer of racism and hate they can be.

When it comes to the far-right smear campaign against Sweden, it often involves troll accounts with links to Sverigedemokraterna, Alternativ för Sverige, or Nordiska motståndsrörelsen. It can also be accounts linked to Russia. When it comes to Islamism, it is, for example, about the deceitful campaign against Swedish social services, which we have now seen ongoing for almost a year.

Sweden is a target for extremist movements, but they have not succeeded in tearing down our good reputation, so far. One cannot, however, escape the fact that the image of Sweden has taken a serious hit after the election. Sweden is the country that has stood at the forefront against racism and xenophobia for decades. Just take the fight against racial segregation and apartheid in South Africa during Olof Palme's time! The first thing I did as a young SSU member in the 1980s was to collect money for the ANC.

But that was then. Now the Swedish flag is being depicted in international media as a yellow swastika on a blue background, due to the bizarre statements that the government base made directly after the election. Sweden is now being lumped together with countries like Hungary and Italy, where authoritarian and right-wing extremist movements have gained success. This damages our image.

It is the same thing with the climate. Sweden was the country that spearheaded the climate transition and a progressive environmental policy, under Göran Persson's leadership with the vision of the green folkhemmet. That was then. Now, Swedish environmental policy is in reality governed by climate deniers, and the Ministry of the Environment is to be abolished. At the climate summit in Egypt earlier this autumn, the observers were in agreement that Sweden has moved from exercising leadership in climate issues to instead constituting a brake, despite the fact that the climate crisis is worse than ever and despite the fact that the world is boiling over.

When it comes to equality, Sweden was the country that, more clearly than any other, pushed for the rights of women and girls. Under the leadership of Margot Wallström and Ann Linde, the feminist foreign policy was created, which aimed to work in all parts of foreign policy to ensure that women have equal rights, equal resources, and equal representation as men. That policy was successful and garnered great approval, and soon more countries joined: Germany, France, Canada, Mexico, and a large number of other countries.

But that was then. Now the right-wing government is abandoning feminist foreign policy, while women are rebelling in Iran, while women's rights are being challenged more than in a long time, while the right and religious extremists are pushing forward their positions, fighting against the right to abortion and other sexual and reproductive rights, while more and more girls around the world are denied schooling, and while we around the world see how girls and women suffer the most and are subjected to the worst abuses in connection with war and conflict. Exactly then, the Swedish government chooses to make a sharp turn to the right and abandon feminist foreign policy.

In the same way, we have it with aid. Once, Sweden championed an order where the world's wealthy countries would at least be prepared to allocate one-hundredth of their incomes to the very poorest in the world, to food for those who are hungry, to schools in poor countries so that all children, including girls, can go to school, to humanitarian efforts to provide healthcare and shelter during disasters, and to democracy movements in dictatorships to push for change. It was a policy that had enjoyed broad support for more than 50 years. The one percent goal is an expression of the solidarity that we, as a country, want to show to the people who live in poverty and oppression.

But that was then. Now the right-wing government is abandoning the one percent goal, even though a couple of the government parties, Kristdemokraterna and Liberalerna, promised solemnly before the election that they would uphold it. Also this promise was broken, like so many others, even though the needs are greater than ever, hunger and poverty are increasing and democracy is in retreat worldwide. Sweden has taken off the leader's jersey, one of the civil society organizations expressed it at the hearing on aid that we had a few weeks ago.

And then we have the UN. Since Dag Hammarskjöld's days and long before that, Sweden has been a country that in all respects has stood up for multilateral cooperation, for international law, and for a rules-based world order. We have contributed to the UN and its organizations - Unicef, UNDP, UNHCR, World Food Programme, UN Women and many more - because we know that a strong and stable UN is absolutely necessary for many of humanity's challenges to be addressed, such as wars, the climate crisis, poverty, and the deeply morally offensive inequality.

But that was then. Now the right-wing government is announcing dramatic cuts to Sweden's contributions to the UN. I can hardly imagine anything more thoughtless. Precisely at a time when we have a major war in Europe, the government chooses to weaken the UN.

Madam Speaker! All of this taken together – the extreme right in the government base, the abandoned climate policy, the downplaying of women's and girls' rights, the cut aid, the cuts regarding the UN – is noted in the outside world. It does not pass unnoticed. Much of what has previously distinguished Sweden in foreign policy is being thrown overboard. Sweden simply becomes less as Sweden. Sweden withdraws from the international scene, becomes passive and provincial. From having been a country that has had an active global agenda for equality, for climate transition, for international solidarity, for reduced gaps between the poor and the rich, and for democracy and human rights, we now see how Sweden loses its leadership in area after area. From having been a country with a strong profile in world politics, which many other countries have looked up to, we now become a country that cowers in a corner and only tries to scrape by. It harms Sweden.

Madam Speaker! There will be reason to return many times during the coming years to the sharp rightward turn that we are now seeing in foreign policy. We have developed our positions in the committee motion that we have submitted in connection with the budget bill, but these requests will be dealt with at a later time. I will therefore content myself today with referring to the specific statement that we have in the report.

In this speech, Johan Büser and Tomas Eneroth (both S) concurred.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Madam Speaker! I must agree with much of the criticism that Morgan Johansson directs at the government in his long speech. It is truly serious how the new Swedish government is changing the image of Sweden internationally. This is something that Morgan Johansson and I agree on and will be raised many times in this chamber during the mandate period.

Morgan Johansson also brings up the Social Democratic party's own shift regarding Nato and mentions, rightly, the historical dimension – that is, 200 years of non-alignment – and notes that a rapid shift then occurred. Even though he describes the process as thorough, I believe there are many Swedes who wonder how it could go so fast. It felt like it was a few Zoom meetings within the Social Democrats rather than a thorough process with a referendum, which we usually have for large and decisive issues. The question is why the Social Democrats were in such a hurry when it nevertheless turned out that Erdogan put up a major hurdle and we would have had plenty of time to discuss these issues if it had been a different timetable.

Before the Social Democratic shift, the security policy discussions took place between all parties in the Riksdag. I participated in these discussions myself. One of the things that was discussed was precisely this matter regarding the reservation. But it was dismissed by the Social Democrats and instead, the agreement between S and M was pursued.

Another matter that was raised during these talks was the risks with Turkey and that there was a risk that Turkey would put obstacles in the way.

I wonder how Morgan Johansson views the creeping behavior we are now seeing from the Swedish government towards Turkey in order to appease them in connection with the Nato application. I also wonder if he regrets that one actually did not make a formal reservation in May when we were in security policy talks, given that the government is now moving away and opening up for nuclear weapons and foreign bases.

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Madam Speaker! What happened earlier this year with Russia's attack on Ukraine was an immense event. It was the greatest change in the entire post-war period regarding the European security order, the one that had been established in the 1970s with the European Security Conference. This security order was now challenged by Russia in a way that we had not seen before. Then the conditions for Swedish security policy changed, in our opinion, and we had to draw our conclusions. The same conclusions were also drawn in Finland.

As I said in my speech, our starting point will always be to work for stability, peace and security in our part of the world. And we will make use of the collaborations that are needed to be able to achieve that.

This process was not about any short Zoom meetings in our party. I myself had a large number of meetings in our party districts and in our associations to discuss exactly this. It was an in-depth dialogue that we had within our party, and I am proud of that. I am also very proud that we were able to manage to land such an important and serious process in a fairly short time. It is rather a sign of a strength in our party to be able to do that.

We will have to see how the process goes. We will, of course, give the government's process full support moving forward. I have no reason to seek conflict with the government on the process issue. However, I demand a clear and distinct statement from the government parties that what they said before the election, namely that they will issue a reservation against nuclear weapons on Swedish soil, must also apply after the election. That is my prerequisite. That is, after all, how one does it when making agreements with other parties across the block boundary, i.e., that the handshake simply holds. One does not want to end up with one party suddenly starting to waver on very central issues afterwards. That is why we are asking these questions. Give us now a clear statement that this still applies. We shall not have any nuclear weapons on Swedish soil.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Madam Speaker! I stood many times in this chamber during the previous parliamentary term and criticized the Social Democrats for drifting towards Nato. At that time, they said several times that Sweden would never join. Peter Hultqvist, the then Minister for Defence, said this as recently as in November at a party congress. But instead, they changed their minds about Nato very quickly, and they never asked the Swedish people what they thought. They had to do this before the election instead of having a discussion and letting the people speak. They dismissed demands for a referendum.

The Social Democrats also did not ask the Kurds, those who now once again have to pay the price in foreign policy when different great powers are to settle their interests. In the new and secret documents that have just been published in Swedish media, the number of Kurds to be deported to Turkey is now listed.

Morgan Johansson now says that full support is given to the government's work. This also means full support for the Kurds to pay the price and be sacrificed for Sweden's NATO membership.

The then Swedish Social Democratic Minister for Foreign Affairs said in this chamber that it was a full participation in Nato that was envisioned, including the parts concerning nuclear weapons.

It is with these eyes that the Social Democrats have entered the NATO cooperation. There has never been a thought about not participating in the nuclear planning that exists in, for example, the NPG group. We also discussed in the security policy talks that one could, here, like France, make an exception. But that was never an option for the Social Democrats. And now that they have lost power, they also have to pay the price, namely that the handshake with the Moderates was worth nothing and that the Moderates love NATO even a little more than the Social Democrats and therefore absolutely do not want to close any doors, either for foreign bases in Sweden or for nuclear weapons on Swedish territory.

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Madam Speaker! We shall have to see how it turns out. This debate has just begun. We shall see if we get any information from the government parties on that point. It would be, as said, welcome.

I want to say one thing to Håkan Svenneling. No, we have never said that the Kurds in any way should have to pay the price for this – never. On the contrary, we have criticized the government when it has gone further than the formulations we have had previously. The Madrid Agreement, which was decided upon this summer, was very clear on this point, namely that Sweden would not provide support to YPG/PYD but would also not distance itself from them in the way that the government subsequently did and which then sparked the discussion we have now.

In the same way, we have criticized Turkey's warfare against the Kurds in Syria. We were out and directed sharp criticism towards Turkey's way of conducting that warfare - and that they took the chance to do so at all.

This does not mean in any way that we have said that we will not be able to criticize Turkey when the country, for example, violates international law, but it is rather the opposite. Regardless of how it is with the NATO issue, Sweden must be able to stand up for international law in all contexts. In that regard, we Social Democrats will stand strong.

Håkan Svenneling says that this has never been tested by the Swedish people. We have just had an election, and if this question had been significant then, I am sure that the parties that are against the Nato issue would have moved forward strongly. Now, this actually was not the outcome. It did not turn out that way, Håkan Svenneling.

Last but not least: We have not drifted towards Nato in any way, but rather it is the case that what happened in and with the attack on Ukraine in February was that the European security order collapsed. One must draw conclusions from that, just as from the fact that Finland made its choice. A government that always has Sweden's best interests and Sweden's security in mind must sometimes be prepared to reconsider even this type of stance.

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

Margareta Cederfelt (M)

Madam Speaker! Memory is sometimes short - very, very short. I noted it during Morgan Johansson's speech, Madam Speaker.

Let me, regarding Sweden's good reputation, mention that Sweden, during Morgan Johansson's government, ran for a seat on the UN Security Council. In the aftermath of this, the discussions and debates here in the Riksdag have been many and long, and we are still not in agreement. It is about which resources have been allocated and how, as well as what promises have been made - regarding Sweden's good reputation.

When it comes to Nato, I am proud that we Moderates have long spoken about the importance of a Nato membership. We see the significance of this. I do, however, recall that Russia, before its war in Ukraine, put forward that Sweden and Finland were buffer zones for Russia. We reacted here already: We spoke about that we must demonstrate concrete action and join Nato. It should not be Russia that dictates what Sweden shall do. At that time, the Social Democrats did not stand up for a membership in Nato at all.

We have been firm in principle on this issue, and we will continue to be. Alone is not strong. We need a membership, just like Denmark and Norway. Finland was the first out, and we are very happy about that. We will reach the result - a NATO membership - together.

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Madam Speaker! I actually did not understand the first part of Margareta Cederfelt's remark. Does Margareta Cederfelt mean that we do not have a good international reputation? We do, in fact. In almost all measurements where people are asked what they think about different countries, Sweden comes out on top.

It is also manifested point by point. Margareta Cederfelt mentions the election to the UN Security Council - yes, Sweden was indeed one of the countries that was elected first and with the greatest support. So it would not have happened if we had not had such a good reputation. It is also no coincidence that we have it, but we have built it up over decades. If Margareta Cederfelt claims that we do not have this good reputation and standing, I believe she is mistaken, because I assert that we do have it.

Naturally, the NATO issue is raised. I am glad that during the spring we were able to go through this process quite quickly and in good agreement. I am glad we could do it, but it depends on both parties actually ensuring that they keep what they have previously promised. In my speech, I asked for a clarification from the government parties: Stop wavering on the nuclear weapons issue! Give a statement! Margareta Cederfelt now has the chance to give a statement. Should Sweden have nuclear weapons on Swedish soil or not? Give such a statement now, Margareta Cederfelt. Close the door on nuclear weapons on Swedish soil!

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

Margareta Cederfelt (M)

Madam Speaker! I note that Morgan Johansson has not closed the door when it comes to Sweden's application to the UN Security Council - not in a single one of the issues that I highlighted here and which we have debated in the Riksdag ever since the application began.

We have not become completely clear on what the announcement is from the Social Democrats regarding the cost, what arrangements have been made, and how the application process itself has proceeded. There have been investigations and KU reports, but the Social Democrats remain just as silent and firm as Morgan Johansson is here. It would be interesting to get a comment on this some time after. I am, in fact, assuming that the former minister can answer the questions.

I mentioned Denmark and Norway, which joined Nato without reservations. Morgan Johansson argues, however, that there should be a reservation in the Swedish membership application and that there should be a reservation in the Finnish membership application, which other countries have not raised. Is this what I am hearing? I would like to hear how Morgan Johansson views this.

I swear there are no nuclear weapons from Nato in either Denmark or Norway. That is the case, Morgan Johansson. It would be interesting to have a comment on this as well.

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Madam Speaker! This is pure nonsense. I am not quite sure what Margareta Cederfelt is actually after.

Does she mean that we should be ashamed of our time in the UN Security Council? Should we be ashamed because Jan Eliasson was able to sit as chair of the UN Security Council during a very critical period? Is that what she wants? Does she want us to be ashamed of our UN engagement, or what is it she is actually after?

Is it the process for the application to the Security Council she is asking about, as it has been scrutinized inside and out by a number of instances, including KU. If Margareta Cederfelt is not satisfied with that review, she is welcome to go to KU and ask these questions.

Margareta Cederfelt does not answer the question about nuclear weapons in Sweden. Norway and Denmark have stated that they will not have any nuclear weapons on their territory. That was also said by the current Swedish Prime Minister, Ulf Kristersson, before the election. When the application for NATO membership was discussed here in this chamber, he expressed himself in exactly the same way as Magdalena Andersson did, namely that we will not have any nuclear weapons. Then a few months pass, and then the election takes place. Then suddenly all three begin to waver – the Minister for Defence, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and the Prime Minister.

That is why I ask the question: Can we get a clear statement from the Moderates? If we cannot get it, it is actually serious. Do you close the door on nuclear weapons and permanent NATO bases in Sweden, Margareta Cederfelt, or do you not? Have you opened that door?

Our line is clear. I believe, in fact, that it would be very dangerous to open that door at all; I believe it would be destabilizing for our part of the world. One does not play with the issue of nuclear weapons in this way. It is actually serious matters we are talking about.

Margareta Cederfelt has a point in front of her. There, she can perhaps clarify what line this government actually has – whether it is the same line as before the election or if one has started to waver on this central point.

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

Aron Emilsson (SD)

Madam Speaker! It was a wobbly journey we were invited to follow during Morgan Johansson's speech - a bit like a wobbly van down rocky hills with attempts to balance a spirit of consensus against an unusual blackening of the national unity and the stance in Sweden's security policy situation. At that point, I haven't even mentioned the image of Sweden. I experience that it does not at all correspond with the image that the responsible authorities and organizations paint. They cannot see the large and serious change of the image of Sweden abroad after the election that the Socialdemokrater want to portray.

This may have to do with leaning on information that cannot be verified. Morgan Johansson devoted a part of his speech to troll accounts and the like, which I believe we all distance ourselves from in different ways. It is somewhat absurd that the Social Democrats, in the days before the election, held a somewhat circus-like press conference to portray the largest opposition party at that time – now the largest party in the majority – as a major security policy threat, and in the next breath, they referred to seeking consensus. This was terribly serious, and it was also pointed out by the collective security policy expertise in the country. It did not look good. I am, however, glad if lessons have been learned from this and now a spirit of consensus and community is being sought in Sweden's security policy challenges.

The Social Democrats usually point out the importance of being responsive to expertise and to authorities' reports as well as to research and facts. Therefore, my first and simple question is: What is Morgan Johansson's and the Social Democrats' basis for the Supreme Commander having such a terrible error when he is very clear with his recommendations to the Swedish Riksdag and government that Sweden should not include any clear reservations during the application process to Nato? Why is ÖB wrong and the Social Democrats right?

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Madam Speaker! During my time as Minister for Home Affairs, I was also responsible for the Psychological Defence Agency. I was involved in starting that agency, and I was involved in appointing its Director-General. Almost every week, I received information about the campaigns being conducted from various sides against Sweden on social media. This included, among other things, as I mentioned, the Islamist campaign about social services, which is still ongoing. It concerned campaigns with roots in Russia against Sweden.

It also concerned far-right and racist accounts that run campaigns every minute. It is enough to be on Twitter for two minutes; then you understand this directly. It is not difficult at all – I have, after all, spent some time on Twitter – to see where these accounts come from. It is very often accounts that in one breath engage in hate, threats, and vilification of Sweden and in the next breath promote Sverigedemokraterna, Alternativ för Sverige, or Nordiska motståndsrörelsen. There are very clear connections, which, moreover, were revealed during the election campaign when their troll factories were exposed.

We were not born yesterday, Aron Emilsson. We actually see what you are doing, even though you are trying to hide it.

I move on to the issue of nuclear weapons. This is politics, quite simply. I believe it is important that a question as central as whether Sweden should allow nuclear weapons on Swedish soil is decided by politics, with joint statements from the politicians who govern, or are involved in deciding, Swedish foreign policy. It is their assessments that should be guiding in that regard. So it was before the election, and I hope it is so even after the election.

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

Aron Emilsson (SD)

Madam Speaker! Let me shift the focus.

Another important part of the Social Democrats' special statement in this report is that they accuse the government of a one-sided focus on the immediate vicinity and Europe. They even state that Swedish foreign policy becomes passive and provincial instead of active and international. This was repeated by Morgan Johansson in his speech.

Given the history of the ministers who reflect the committee's areas of responsibility and how it has looked with their planning, travel, and presence regarding cooperation and presence internationally as well as promotion in other countries and on other continents in recent months, the question arises how the Social Democrats define the term "passive". Is it that it has been too provincial to maintain and mark a very clear presence in Ukraine or in Finland, which is our brother country? Tradition dictates that we travel to Finland first, partly because it is our neighboring country, partly because this constitutes some form of show of strength when a clear Nordic dimension is now to be built ahead of the upcoming NATO membership.

What is the Social Democrats' concern that the collective prioritization from the majority is based on our immediate vicinity and that our commitment there fulfills a particularly important function? This sits somewhat poorly with the reasoning that other Social Democrats put forward, not least the reasoning of Peter Hultqvist from the Committee on Defence, that Sweden should focus on building a strong and clear Nordic branch under a Swedish NATO membership. This makes our provincial presence particularly important.

Our responsibility towards those we represent, that is, the Swedish people, also means that special requirements are placed on us to take a special responsibility in our local area.

This is a clear prioritization. It does not mean that one leaves all other areas behind, but one must prioritize in order to gather strength and do the right thing in the right place at the right time. Why are the Social Democrats preoccupied with being everywhere but to a lesser extent in what is most important right now, namely our immediate vicinity and the surrounding area, not least Ukraine and Europe?

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Madam Speaker! Aron Emilsson does not need to teach me about the importance of having a strong commitment, whether it concerns European issues or when it concerns the Nordic countries. Finland was one of the countries that we practically traveled to by shuttle service throughout the spring to coordinate policy. I have sat in the EU's Council of Ministers for twelve years. I have sat in the Council of Europe.

It is clear that all of us Social Democrats who have been active on the international scene know that engagement in the immediate vicinity - the Nordic countries, Europe and other countries in Sweden's proximity - is extremely important.

The problem here is that the new government is deprioritizing other parts of the world at a time when these parts may be more important than ever. Let me take Africa as an example. There, we see how Russian and Chinese interests are advancing their positions. We just discussed the developments in Mali and why Sweden is withdrawing from this engagement. Why is Sweden doing that? Well, because Russian interests have made this mission impossible. We also see that Chinese interests are equally engaged. In this situation, it is wrong to deprioritize Africa.

Latin America and all countries there have for many years been a very important partner for Sweden in many different ways. Why should one de-prioritize that part of the world?

There is no contradiction here. The problem is that the new government only focuses on the immediate vicinity and does not care much about other parts of the world. It is this that we criticize, and we will continue to do so during these years.

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

Margareta Cederfelt (M)

Madam Speaker! I begin my speech by moving for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision and rejection of the motions included in the report.

The Riksdag decides on the state budget in two steps. The first step was the decision on the frameworks for the 27 expenditure areas in the budget. This decision was made yesterday, December 13. The second step is to debate and decide how the money shall be distributed within each expenditure area.

The decision we are debating now concerns the second step in the process. Since the direction of foreign policy is handled by the government and is not primarily a budget issue, and since the budget was adopted yesterday, I will focus on the content and not on the crowns in expenditure area 5.

Madam Speaker! We live in an unpredictable and uncertain time. War is raging in one of our neighboring countries.

Several of the cornerstones of Swedish foreign policy and in our cooperation are changing and being challenged. This applies as much to our EU cooperation as to the transatlantic link and how the rules-based world order, which has prevailed during the post-war period, looks today. This uncomfortable insight, that neither democratic development nor democracy can be taken for granted, has also sunk in with all of us.

The security situation in Sweden's immediate vicinity has deteriorated, and the responsibility lies with an increasingly threatening Russia. Let me mention the Georgia war in 2008. Two areas in Georgia, South Ossetia and Abkhazia, are still annexed. This also applies to Transnistria in Moldova. And since February 24 this year, a war is ongoing in Europe, a full-scale war of aggression where Russia is attacking.

The foreign, security, and defense policy challenges that Sweden and Europe, but also the rest of the world, face today are greater than they have been in a long time. They are quite simply the greatest in modern times. All of this is due to Russia's illegal war of aggression against Ukraine. It is about security, but it is also about the availability of food, the availability of energy, and about what everyone is struggling with today: inflation and skyrocketing prices.

This shows how important it is that we, together with other countries, stand firm on the fact that the war in Russia is illegal and must be fought with all available means. I am thinking, not least, of the unity within the EU, which I see as important. But I am also thinking of the decisions that have been taken in other international organizations. I am very pleased that the UN has succeeded in voting down several of the proposals that have been put forward regarding Russia's war in Ukraine. There has not been agreement, but a majority of the countries stand behind condemning the war.

I note that the government's intentions with the budget are to safeguard Swedish interests, as a result of the deteriorated security situation in our immediate vicinity. The focus is primarily on Sweden and Europe standing united and being secure. Sweden's foreign policy should be based on Swedish interests. That should be obvious and nothing that we would need to debate here today. Included in the work, of course, are our common values regarding human freedoms and rights, democracy, the rule of law, and a market economy. This shall be guiding for the government's foreign policy. The fundamental interest must be the security of Sweden and our population, as well as our common prosperity.

Sweden has been, is, and will continue to be a voice to be reckoned with in the international organizations of which Sweden is a member. In the international work, the focus will be on international law, human rights and democracy – in short, a rules-based order.

Madam Speaker! The world I describe places demands on Sweden as an international actor. We need international cooperation that works. It cannot be overemphasized here in Sweden's Riksdag. We need to be active and pursue a more active foreign, defense, and security policy than before. We shall take the positions we can to push forward.

To meet the deteriorated security situation in Sweden's immediate vicinity, continued investments in Sweden's defense and a Swedish Nato membership are required. Over the last 70 years, Nato has contributed to peace and stability in Europe but also in other parts of the world. Nato is more important than ever for security in northern Europe after the Russian aggression against Ukraine. Together with a stronger national defense, membership in Nato is our primary priority to increase Sweden's security.

Sweden's application for membership in Nato, which began as early as the spring of 2022, is a high priority on the agenda. The paradigm shift for Swedish defense and security policy that membership entails will be guiding for the government's work. The application process is taking place in parallel with Finland, which is important for our two countries. No country shall be left alone to its own fate.

Madam Speaker! Let me, as a historical anecdote, mention that this is not the first time that Sweden has cooperated with other countries and organizations. We can go back to the Russian ravages in the 1700s. Sweden actually stopped these thanks to a cooperation with the neighboring countries around the Baltic Sea. Cooperation has been important and will continue to be important.

European cooperation is also crucial for peace and freedom in our part of the world. The EU is Sweden's most important foreign policy platform. It is, of course, required that Sweden pursues an active foreign policy to influence the EU's positions and that the EU pursues an active policy to influence the rest of the world.

During the first half of 2023, in a couple of weeks, Sweden will take over the presidency in the EU. We are many, a majority in the committee, who welcome that the government intends to further develop the EU's foreign policy instruments such as diplomacy, trade, aid, stabilization efforts, civil and military capabilities, and crisis management. These are issues that are important for meeting today's and tomorrow's challenges. Central to the Swedish presidency will be to create security for all EU citizens and to support Ukraine's energy supply. This also applies to the climate transition and to strengthening the union's competitiveness.

Furthermore, the majority in the committee welcomes the government's priorities for the UN work, where Russia's illegal war of aggression in Ukraine and conflict management in our immediate vicinity are prioritized areas. A central issue is, of course, to stop Russia's war and to work so that the grain that exists in Ukraine can be shipped out to where it is needed in the world.

I mentioned that there are also other organizations and I must mention the OSCE, Madam Speaker. Since I have the pleasure of holding the mandate as president of the OSCE's parliamentary assembly, I see the importance of the government side's work. Unfortunately, Russia also here uses its mandate to block the OSCE, because the decision-making format is consensus minus one. I look forward to and hope that Russia comes to its senses so that Estonia's candidacy for the chairmanship in 2024 does not continue to be blocked. It would be very welcome if Estonia could be chair in 2024, that a neighboring country to us can hold the important post. It is about the European security order and 57 countries.

I also want to mention the Council of Europe, which is an important organization. I welcome the Council of Europe's decision to block Russia in March 2022. It gives the Council of Europe the opportunity to focus on core issues.

I also want to mention the OECD, because the OECD has a central role in the rules-based multilateral world order by developing background material and analyses that are central to the ongoing work with support for Ukraine. It is important to know what we do, how we do it, and what happens after we have taken action.

Madam Speaker! Common solutions are needed to succeed in moving forward. I see the Nordic region as an important part of the work ahead. In order for us to work socially sustainably and be leaders in the green transition, we must cooperate with other countries. We cannot do that alone. I am pleased that the government has stated this.

I also want to mention that the government intends to continue the work within the framework of the so-called Stockholm Initiative for nuclear disarmament, which means that the IAEA's mandate to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons as well as for radiation safety and radiation protection is safeguarded. This stands clearly and distinctly in the budget documents.

Madam Speaker! Let me finally mention the fine work that Sweden did the last time we held the government position in the UN. Sweden was a driving force for the Arms Trade Treaty, ATT, a treaty for trade in arms. Sweden was also among the first countries to sign the agreement as it stood then, on 3 June 2013. This clearly shows that Sweden, under a bourgeois government, has worked very purposefully and clearly in the UN and will continue to do so.

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Madam Speaker! I listened carefully to Margareta Cederfelt's contribution to try to hear if there were answers to the questions I had posed regarding nuclear weapons. She has had three opportunities to answer: two rejoinders to me and then a main speech. In this round of rejoinders, she gets two more opportunities to clarify this issue.

I must honestly say that from the Social Democrats' side, we initially thought it was a misunderstanding when this discussion arose and first the Foreign Minister, then the Defense Minister, and subsequently the Prime Minister wavered on such a central issue, namely whether we should have nuclear weapons on Swedish soil or not when we join Nato. It was so clearly stated before the election that we would not. But every time we have asked questions about this now after the election, we have been met with evasions, quibbling over words, and attempts to avoid the core issue itself.

I want to remind that this is not just any issue. Immediately after the Foreign Minister had expressed himself in this way, a discussion was raised in Russian media that one might now need to redirect their nuclear warheads towards Sweden. That the first statement the Foreign Minister makes on these issues means that a discussion of this character is raised in Russia is not a good start. Our security policy must contribute to increased security, not decreased security. One does not play with these types of issues.

My question is once again: What is the government parties' line actually now? Do you stick to what you said before the election, that is to say that we are not to have any nuclear weapons on Swedish soil, or are you wavering now? If you do the latter, it is actually quite serious.

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

Margareta Cederfelt (M)

Madam Speaker! Let me mention to Morgan Johansson what his party colleague, the Social Democratic Finnish Prime Minister, answered to a journalist's question about whether Finland and Sweden will make reservations regarding nuclear weapons in the Nato application. The Social Democratic Finnish Prime Minister answered: That question will become relevant when we have become members. We maintain that we do not want to close any doors.

We stand on exactly the same line, because it is important that we make a joint application together with Finland and that Sweden and Finland can become members simultaneously. This is needed given the security situation. We have the same opinion as the social democratic Prime Minister in Finland, Madam Speaker, no other.

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Madam Speaker! Once again, an attempt is being made to mix up the cards. I did not ask any questions to the Finnish Prime Minister. I asked questions to Margareta Cederfelt. Do the messages you gave before the election also apply now after the election?

Ulf Kristersson stood in this chamber during the debate in May and underlined that we had the same line on this. Our line from the very beginning, from the very first messages from the Social Democratic government that we were open to NATO membership, has been precisely that we shall not have any nuclear weapons on Swedish soil. The Moderates agreed to this then. Now, after the election, you suddenly try to mix up the cards and say: That is perhaps not what we mean. We shall have to see what it becomes in time.

It is precisely this that is so dangerous in foreign policy. One cannot keep sliding along in this way. It becomes dangerous when those signals are sent out. Foreign policy is sometimes digital – it is either zero or it is one. The impression of a country's stance and how it is received abroad is of very great importance.

Unfortunately, it is the case that the new government has been unclear. That is why I ask the question again and again. I understand that I am not getting any better answers, at least not from Margareta Cederfelt. We will have to ask the same question again to the Foreign Minister when he comes to the committee tomorrow, because we will not give up on this point. It is important that we clarify that what applied before the election actually also applies after the election.

Once again: One does not play with this type of message, because it is noted in the outside world and leads to increased risks for our country. Do not play with this type of issues!

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

Margareta Cederfelt (M)

Madam Speaker! I do not understand why Morgan Johansson stands here and repeats and repeats this. Is it to create his own truth and his own image? I have answered the questions. Morgan Johansson should listen to what I say. It is not so bad to listen sometimes, even for a former minister. I have referred to Denmark and Norway. I have referred to how the situation looks in our northern region. I have referred to what Morgan Johansson's party colleague in Finland has said. I have also said that we are making a joint application. To enter with a reservation in an application process is nothing that other countries have done - Denmark and Norway - and nothing that Finland wants to do. We are applying at the same time as Finland. What more can I answer Morgan Johansson? I can say nothing other than that it is time to start listening to the answers that are given and not repeat empty words.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Madam Speaker! Margareta Cederfelt has made herself known as a champion for the rights of the Kurds. It is interesting to be that, as a Moderate, at a time when one is applying for Swedish NATO membership and Erdogan has succeeded in putting a stumbling block in the way of the Swedish application. He has brought Sweden into an agreement in Madrid and then de facto made everything about Kurds in Sweden instead of about Swedish security.

I am myself an advocate for the rights of the Kurds, in Sweden, in Turkey, and in other parts of the world, and I wonder how other advocates think. I wonder how Margareta Cederfelt views the deportations that are now occurring from the Swedish side. Increased cooperation between security services leads to the perception from the Kurdish side that one is being hunted again in the same way as one once was, and with that, the so-called PKK track in the Palme investigation. Above all, Erdogan, with his lack of democratic vision, has shrunk the democratic space in Turkey and in its neighboring countries during recent years. I simply wonder how Margareta Cederfelt views this situation.

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

Margareta Cederfelt (M)

Madam Speaker! That is correct. I stand on the side of the Kurds. I have done so for very many years, and I will continue to do so. I also stand for an order where terrorist organizations such as the PKK are terrorist organizations and nothing else. These are, for me, two principles that are to the highest degree compatible.

Let me mention that when the Social Democratic government concluded an agreement with Turkey in connection with the summit in Madrid, the Social Democrats promised there that Sweden shall not support PYD or YPG. The Moderates, as is known, have no other opinion on that matter.

Of course, it must be a legally secure process. There are many more issues involved now that Turkey is blocking Sweden's membership. I would like to say that there are ways forward.

This is because the government is discussing with Turkey. If there is to be cooperation, if there is to be a way forward, one must be able to discuss, meet, and see where there are viable paths. I believe that is the only way forward.

Since then, I have been immensely proud of and have managed the capital where I was appointed this year as the year's curve-friend. I intend to continue to be that.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Margareta Cederfelt, for your intention to continue, and congratulations on the wonderful prize!

The reporting we have seen about Nato during the spring was very much about how many centimeters Sweden has moved closer to Nato membership every day until the government applied. If one looks at the reporting we have seen during the autumn, one can observe that it is rather about how many human rights we have given up today to be allowed into Nato membership. That is what worries me as a Kurdish friend, and I also hope Margareta Cederfelt as a Kurdish friend. One sees how Erdogan utilizes the Swedish application to fight Kurds and not terrorists.

Erdogan throws around that concept all the time. For example, he has not been interested in an independent investigation of the bomb that was tragically detonated in Istanbul when it was demanded. He has already decided who the perpetrator is and, through that, bombed and threatened northeastern Syria, an area called Rojava.

Sweden has now opened for arms exports to Turkey. This means that we de facto, if Erdogan makes reality of the threat to attack the Rojava area, also become co-responsible for his possibilities to attack. It will be a complete Kurdish bloodbath when the Kurds intend to defend themselves to the last person in that area.

It also makes one worried for all the Kurds here in Sweden who risk deportation. We have seen how Turkey and Turkish media make a thing of it every time it happens. One can absolutely, like Margareta Cederfelt, want to join Nato. But if one is to be a Kurdish advocate, one must also be able to stand up against the despot Erdogan.

Then the agreement and, above all, the consequences of the agreement that we have now been discussing since June are very serious. I hope that Margareta Cederfelt's voice will be strong internally within the Moderaterna and in the government cooperation precisely to stand up for Kurdish rights as Margareta has done previously.

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

Margareta Cederfelt (M)

Mr. Speaker! Now it must be noted that Håkan Svenneling has a view of the NATO membership that causes the debate to lose its balance.

I still maintain that it is important with the conversations held between Sweden's Prime Minister and Turkey's President. I believe it is the only way to reach peaceful solutions that move forward. We know that it is in all other contexts, and it will be here as well.

I also know that the USA has commented on these issues and that the United Kingdom has commented. That is how it works. That is also why I look forward to the future with confidence.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! Russia's unforgivable war against Ukraine and questioning of the European security order creates political unrest and challenges in our immediate vicinity. Over the last nine months, the Ukrainian people have shown that they refuse to let themselves be subdued by despot Putin's imperialist ambitions. With support from the rest of the world, they have heroically stood up and defended their country against a ruthless and brutal aggressor who does not hesitate to daily commit war crimes that can now be counted in the thousands.

Comprehensive sanctions against Russia, together with our military support, have been important for the Ukrainian military's successes, such as the retaking of the city of Kherson. But now the long-term nature of our support is being decided. More than military resources are now required to endure the cold winter, especially as the Russian military deliberately targets civilian goals such as energy supply. Therefore, unity in both Sweden and the EU is important for the Ukrainian people. In Sweden, I experience that the unity is great, while at the same time we see several signs that it is wavering within the EU.

Mr. Speaker! That is why I strongly dislike the Prime Minister's repeated attacks on Vänsterpartiet regarding the military support to Ukraine. All parties were in favor of the military support. The difference lay in the forms. Before the new Prime Minister was elected, it was important to emphasize the consensus among Swedish politicians in the support. We did that, for example, in the security policy deliberations between all parties in the Riksdag.

We must continue to do that. It is important to do it. The Ukrainian resistance does not become stronger from disagreement in either Sweden or the EU. I was pleased with the Prime Minister's words earlier today and also in the EU Committee yesterday, which now signal a different tone from our Prime Minister.

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. But above all, 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 struggle for democracy in Belarus is far from over. Last week, Lukashenko's challenger Svetlana Tikhanovskaya visited Sweden once again. One of her messages was that the support for the opposition, which is located in among other places Lithuania, Poland, and Sweden, must continue but above all increase in economic terms. For over two years, activists on a voluntary basis have fought for democracy in Belarus. Now our support for them must become more long-term and sustainable so that their strength does not fade.

The same applies to all Russians who are now turning their backs on the dictator Putin. They are fighting for a different Russia, a democratic Russia. If we support them, we also support the possibility of a safer immediate neighborhood.

During Putin's time in power in Russia, the country has moved from an emerging democracy back to a dictatorship. Today we see a reactionary, conservative and patriarchal rule that oppresses oppositionists and human rights defenders as well as acts aggressively towards its neighboring countries and plays a destabilizing role in world politics.

The authoritarian development culminated with Russia's unjust war of aggression on February 24 this year. 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 them is to support a democratic development in Russia and to improve security both for them and for Russia's neighboring countries.

It is against this background that Vänsterpartiet allocates 10 million in support for the Russian and Belarusian opposition for 2023. We then hope that the support can be scaled up further in 2024 and 2025 to 30 million.

During this year's general motion period, Vänsterpartiet has also submitted a new motion regarding its policy on the authoritarian development in Russia. I hope that more parties in the Riksdag will notice the need for support for the Russian and Belarusian opposition and that we can see these proposals become a reality in the future. I know that, for example, important and good work is being carried out in the Riksdag's Belarus network.

Mr. Speaker! This report also concerns the payments we make to international organizations. Few international organizations globally are as important as the UN and the UN system with its various sub-organizations. It is an important support from Sweden that contributes to a better world.

That is why it is so worrying that the government is now signaling a deprioritization of the UN, primarily by reducing Swedish aid to UN organizations and, in the long run, to the world's poorest. This, however, is not within the framework of this expenditure area, but it will be debated next week in the aid debate we will then have.

Few organizations operate in so many places in the world as the UN's organizations. They remain on the ground in countries that other organizations leave, for example in Afghanistan. They do, however, sometimes create a dependency on regimes in order to be able to operate in countries such as Burma and Iran. Since not all UN chiefs are Swedish puritans, it can lead to them acting weakly towards the regimes they have contact with.

So that is unfortunately the situation with Iran. The Iranian regime commits human rights violations daily, something that has intensified since the murder of Jina Mahsa Amini in September and which has led to arrests, assault, torture, killing, and executions of protesters. Many of them are young people fighting for their freedom and for their human rights. Therefore, it is important that the UN system does not back down against the regime but stands up to and criticizes regimes regardless of where human rights are violated.

The UN system has also shown decisiveness now that the UN Human Rights Council has initiated an investigation of Iran. The regime has, of course, responded by not allowing the UN to come to the country, but in a digital world where video clips are spread on social media, this is of less significance. The investigation will take place anyway, and hopefully, it will lead to those responsible being punished one day. Impunity shall not prevail. One day these murderers shall be judged.

With that, I want to say that Vänsterpartiet sees the budget as a whole. We will not participate in the decision at today's vote, but we 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)

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by approving the committee's proposal in the Committee on Foreign Affairs' report regarding expenditure area 5 International cooperation. I also move for the rejection of the motions listed on the area.

The Riksdag has decided that the objective for the expenditure area is to ensure Sweden's interests in relations with other countries. It is something that I believe everyone sees has become more important in light of our very troubled present time, which is characterized by accumulated crises created by Russia's unjust and illegal war in Ukraine.

In my, in my opinion, forward-looking and offensive budget proposal in this area, the government emphasizes that measures financed through the expenditure area should be seen in a context where the effects of other measures or cooperation also contribute. It is therefore important with relationship-building at different levels and in different forums.

The expenditure area contains five different areas: international crisis management and peace-promoting efforts, research on security policy, disarmament and non-proliferation, export control, Nordic cooperation and Sweden-promoting.

All these parts must be seen as a whole. Sweden is facing the greatest foreign, security, and defense policy challenges in modern times. Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine means that foreign and security policy must be reprioritized to meet the threats that Sweden and Europe face. Safeguarding Swedish interests and standing up for democratic values in cooperation with the EU and through active diplomacy and international cooperation is the very core of Swedish foreign policy.

A responsible and engaged Swedish membership in international organizations ensures that we are heard regarding this policy. Respect for the rules-based international system, which is based on international law, is central and has been put to the test by Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine and by an offensive China. We also see what is happening in Iran, to mention one further area.

It is important that Sweden also continues to safeguard the European security order and respect for human rights. It must simply be seen as fundamental to foreign policy.

I also think it is good that the government points out the obvious that one intends to work for equality and women's rights and participation as a prerequisite for sustainable security.

The upcoming Swedish presidency of the EU should also be mentioned, given that we here in the chamber today have listened to the Prime Minister as he presented the Swedish presidency's priorities. Security and unity is one area. Resilience and competitiveness is another very important area. Prosperity, green transition, and energy transition is a third. The fourth is democratic values and the rule of law principle, i.e., our foundation.

The Presidency's priorities reflect positions that Sweden has long advocated for within the EU, but they also respond to the current geopolitical and economic challenges that the union faces.

Mr. Speaker! I, along with the complete unanimity we have had here in the Riksdag regarding the extensive support package for Ukraine with both air defense and winter equipment, as well as the broad support here in the chamber for the Nato application, think that there should be good conditions for continued good consensus on issues within the expenditure area also in the future.

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

Anna Lasses (C)

Mr. Speaker! Ukraine, Iran, Afghanistan, Myanmar - the list of countries where war is raging and where human rights are violated in an inconceivable way every day can be very long.

We are all aware of the new situation prevailing in the world. We know that the pandemic, together with escalating conflicts, is causing poverty to increase worldwide. We know that we have a large and growing proportion of children all around the world who have hardly attended school for a single day, which within a couple of years will result in serious consequences in the form of unemployment and exclusion and that girls are married off – and so the spiral easily continues.

The climate crisis, which is here and now, risks increasingly getting caught in and exacerbating the conflicts that we humans create. Together, this drives people to flee from areas affected by drought, floods, and damaged infrastructure.

At the same time, we have countries such as China, which are working long-term and strategically to increase their influence in the world.

Sweden is an open and generous country that stands up for and defends every individual's rights. We are a country that is ready to take responsibility and take action where it is needed and that does not settle for making the minimum effort and at every moment only looking at what benefits us best just here and now. It is an image that I and the Center Party are proud of and in all situations intend to continue to defend and work for.

I must admit, however, that I am still a little worried. It may be unnecessary; we shall have to see. But it may still be the case that the government takes a bit too lightly the unique position that Sweden has.

After the discussions we have had in the committee, I know that we all share the view that we need to strengthen our preparedness. Cooperation in the Nordic region and the surrounding area must be strengthened and prioritized. All countries within the EU must do their utmost so that the EU becomes the unifying force to defend democracy and the principles of the rule of law. When it comes to the genuine and authentic support that exists regarding Ukraine, both in the short and long term, there is absolute consensus.

The majority of us are also very keen that Sweden becomes a full member of Nato as soon as possible in order to increase our security.

But one must be able to keep several things in mind at the same time. We must not forget the rest of the world. We must not end up in a situation where we strive to take the minimum possible responsibility, outside and in the immediate vicinity, a situation where we do as little as possible and constantly stare blindly at what benefits Sweden in the short term here and now.

This may be where our concern lies. The government emphasizes the immediate vicinity within international cooperation, which I absolutely think is important. But at the same time, they are shifting domestic policy – migration and integration policy – from welcoming those who need safety to deterring people from trying to reach Sweden. They are also cutting, or rather, removing the one percent goal for aid. There are also many of us who feel that the responsibility for the climate is being cast aside. When all this happens at the same time, it risks transforming the image of Sweden to that we are a country that instead builds walls against the outside world and that we leave the leadership position behind in a situation where we need to do exactly the opposite.

But I may have misunderstood everything, because there are absolutely good parts in the government's expected policy. Hopefully, it is those parts that will be in focus. I hope so. For the time being, much is quite unclear, and that perhaps is not so strange since it is a new government. But we wait with anticipation for the regulatory letters which hopefully will clarify a great deal.

Centerpartiet's budget proposal focuses on Sweden being an active partner on the international arena. We shall contribute to peace, security, democracy and climate transition through trade, exchange of experience, diplomacy and aid but also through military interventions. For we believe that what is good for the world will benefit Sweden, even if it happens on the other side of the globe. What is good for democracy will benefit Sweden, regardless of where in the world it happens. What is good for the climate on the globe will also benefit Sweden. Therefore, Sweden must continue to take responsibility, take up the leadership jersey again and stubbornly fight for what we are best at - finding solutions and standing up for the climate, democracy and the principles of the rule of law.

Just like the others have been involved, we see the budget as a whole. We therefore do not participate in the decision but stand behind our own proposal.

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

Martin Melin (L)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden has a long tradition of being an engaged member of the United Nations. To this is added an active membership in the EU and OSCE.

Our interest in international affairs and our credibility regarding foreign and security policy has made Sweden respected in the rest of the world. Sweden also has a tradition of quickly being on the spot with personnel and material resources in disaster areas and in crisis areas. Just last year, Sweden participated in 40 civilian and military operations, something for which we received international recognition.

For us Liberals, respect for human rights, not least equality and women's rights, must be one of the cornerstones of foreign policy. We will always draw attention to oppression and injustices, and we support the struggle in countries such as Iran, Taiwan and not least Ukraine. Sweden is best served through continued engagement and as a strong and committed power within the EU, OSCE and other organizations, such as the UN.

In the budget for expenditure area 5 International Cooperation, the government allocates 1.3 billion kronor for international organizations. It is a well-considered sum, and it is adjusted according to need. I am pleased that this opinion is shared by most parties in the Riksdag.

The security situation in the world right now, not least by reason of the Russian unprovoked and ruthless war of aggression against Ukraine, has of course forced us to rethink and think differently than a couple of years ago. We must now strengthen our military and civil defense capability, but above all, we must continue to support the EU's sanctions against Russia and be involved in ensuring that the sanctions are complied with. This costs money, but even here, the government allocates a well-considered sum in the budget.

With a strong common EU, not least when it comes to foreign and security policy, we will be able to put pressure on Russia and give Ukraine the help they need, not least materially, financially and humanitarily.

We Liberals are also pleased to see that there is now broad support in the Riksdag for joining Nato, and we look forward to Sweden playing an active role within that organization as well.

I fully understand that there are those who want to help the whole world, protect everyone and fight all injustices. I, as a liberal, want that too. I also note that the number of democracies in the world is decreasing, that poverty is increasing and that the number of people who must flee from injustices is increasing. I see this, and I would also like to help everyone.

But just as in other budgets, we must prioritize. And with the current security situation, Sweden must prioritize security and efforts in our immediate vicinity and in Europe.

I therefore move for approval of the committee's proposal under expenditure area 5 International cooperation and for the rejection of the motions.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden is characterized by high energy prices, inflation, a climate crisis, and a significant loss of biodiversity, which create major parallel challenges. At the same time, a war is ongoing in Europe, and there are famines and extreme poverty all around the world.

The Green Party's budget for 2023 shows that it is possible to think anew. We can reach our climate goals despite tough economic times and an uncertain world, while simultaneously increasing equality, strengthening gender equality, and tackling our major welfare challenges. We want to build a new green folkhem.

The government's policy and budget bill unfortunately go in a completely opposite direction. Over one-third of the reform space is allocated to increased fossil subsidies, with increased emissions as a result. It does not strengthen welfare but depletes central activities for education and healthcare.

The Green Party's budget motion contains a historically large climate investment of 100 billion kronor per year for ten years. The package contains money for the transition of industry and the entire society, an expansion of renewable energy, and strong investments in energy efficiency and climate adaptation. We present a strong reinforcement of environmental work to stop overfishing, preserve living lakes and seas, rewet more wetlands, and create better systems to preserve valuable nature.

People must also have financial support in the crisis. Therefore, we propose a tax reduction for people living in rural areas, increased child allowance and student support, as well as an increased general pension. We also introduce a high-cost protection for dental care. That welfare functions is crucial for people's everyday lives and security. Education and care must maintain high quality for everyone. Higher general state grants to the country's municipalities and regions are therefore crucial. Violence must decrease, both on the streets and in the home. Increased support to the women's shelters must be implemented.

Our budget also takes for granted that cooperation builds strength. We solve common global challenges together. Therefore, we propose an aid budget where the goal is 1.25 percent of gni and 200 million kronor to the loss and damage fund within COP 27. In our proposal for the new green folkhemmet, there are solutions to several of the challenges we now have to face. Together we build the future.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden shall be an international voice for democracy, peace and human rights. Now is not the time to back away from our international commitments, on the contrary. The government's policy is a setback for Swedish foreign and development policy and a clear departure from the values that were upheld when Sweden pursued a feminist foreign policy. Cooperation is crucial in a difficult time with difficult challenges. Therefore, we want Sweden's fees to international organizations to increase from the level we have seen in recent years.

A strong UN is important for the transition to sustainable and democratic societies throughout the world. International cooperation is more important than ever. The UN is the only arena that includes and has legitimacy with the entire international community, and it is therefore important that international security issues, among others, are handled within the UN framework to the greatest extent possible and that Sweden is an active and engaged member.

That the UN consists of the majority of all the world's countries is a strength - but also an immense challenge, as many of the members' representatives are from brutal and undemocratic regimes. Miljöpartiet wants the UN to have a clearer and more powerful mandate to coordinate work on global issues such as climate change, nature and environmental destruction and poverty, as well as work for development, human rights and peace.

When the international community engages for peace, the armed conflict is often already a fact, and when a ceasefire is achieved, the engagement is often scaled down. Green security policy wants to break with that pattern. Peace is not just the absence of violence. Therefore, peace work is also about supporting the foundation for peaceful societies.

It is important that more states contribute to the UN's peacekeeping forces, and Sweden, as a non-aligned country, has particularly good reasons to do so. By participating in international peace-promoting missions, we can contribute to preventing, managing, and resolving crises and conflicts, as well as facilitating and supporting peacebuilding. The main purpose of such missions should always be to contribute to a better future for the local population. The missions shall aim to safeguard international peace and human security based on international law. Military means can only be considered when all other alternatives have been exhausted.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden shall also contribute to military disarmament in the world. Today's opportunities for exceptions for the export of war materiel must be abolished or severely restricted. ISP will need more resources to handle the increased number of cases that may become relevant in connection with Sweden's membership in Nato. It is of the utmost importance that ISP can continue to conduct a thorough assessment of, among other things, the democracy criterion, especially now when Sweden's international commitments open up for exports to countries that previously were not relevant. Swedish weapons manufacturing and weapons exports must not undermine the work for peace, democratization, and human rights.

In order to safeguard fundamental values in Swedish foreign and security policy, such as democracy, human rights, and respect for the principles of the rule of law, NATO membership must not dilute the Swedish regulatory framework for the export of war materiel. Consideration for the alliance or its members must not be allowed to outweigh the assessment of exports to undemocratic states, to states that seriously and extensively violate human rights, or to countries in armed conflict or that risk armed conflict.

Mr. Speaker! Swedish research on disarmament and non-proliferation in this new security policy situation must increase. Russia threatens to use nuclear weapons against Ukraine, and in recent years we have seen how chemical weapons have been used in warfare in, among other places, Syria. With a Swedish NATO membership, the government is expected to stand behind NATO's nuclear weapons policy. In order to offset these new threats of the use of chemical or nuclear weapons and in light of a potential new nuclear weapons line, it is necessary that research on disarmament and non-proliferation is significantly strengthened. We therefore want to see increased appropriations to the Institute of Foreign Policy, the Alva Myrdal Centre for Nuclear Disarmament, FOI's CBRN activities and other projects, both in Sweden and abroad, carried out in the field—particularly within nuclear weapons and disarmament policy generally as well as follow-up regarding follow-on deliveries and the use of artificial intelligence in weapons systems.

Mr. Speaker! Miljöpartiet has a vision of global disarmament and peace. In that vision is an overarching goal of an abolition of the world's nuclear weapons. Access to nuclear weapons constitutes one of the most serious security threats in our time, with the potential to completely wipe out humanity and other life on Earth. Therefore, we push forcefully that Sweden should join the UN convention on a global nuclear weapons ban and increase efforts in international disarmament work. We want the nuclear-armed countries to jointly and mutually disarm their arsenals.

Unfortunately, today the trend is moving in the wrong direction. In recent years, several important nuclear weapons agreements have been abandoned by nuclear-armed countries, while several countries have begun to upgrade and expand their arsenals. The ambitions for disarmament must increase dramatically to stop this development.

Sweden was one of the first countries to sign the non-proliferation treaty, and the Swedish government has signaled that we do not want nuclear weapons on Swedish soil. Sweden, however, unlike Finland, has not as strongly regulated in law that nuclear weapons on Swedish soil are prohibited, something that would be desirable to make the Swedish line even clearer and harder to change on short notice in the event of any pressure. Sweden should also, like New Zealand, enforce the ban through inspections of, for example, visiting warships, even if Sweden joins Nato.

International cooperation

Miljöpartiet wants Sweden to continue working for nuclear disarmament and for the principle of no first use, and that Sweden explicitly prohibits the import of nuclear weapons, both in peacetime and in wartime, into our country. We want Sweden to work for a democracy requirement within Nato, as well as that Nato shall not have permanent troops or bases on Swedish territory.

For more information, I would like to refer to the Environment Party's fantastic budget motion, which unfortunately fell when the budget frameworks were adopted yesterday.

Excuse me for running over time, Mr. Speaker!

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 13.)

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