International relations

Rasmus Giertz (SD)

Madam Speaker! In today's security policy situation, we see how conflicts are increasing in the world and how states are becoming increasingly authoritarian. The war in Ukraine has extensive effects, and during the week we have seen how drones have encroached on Estonia's territory and how Ukraine has succeeded in attacking Russian oil facilities in the Gulf of Finland.

The war in Iran also affects Sweden. So far, we have primarily noticed it economically. But the Iranian threat against Sweden is clear, among other things through terrorist attacks that the Islamist regime sponsors and through the ability to attack states with long-range ballistic missiles.

The threats against Sweden do not appear to be subsiding. On the contrary, we are entering a time where it looks less and less like the world would return to a more stable and predictable international order. For a country like Sweden – a small and export-dependent country – a stable and predictable international order is absolutely crucial. When great powers advance their positions with threats and violence, it becomes clear how dependent we also are on international law, international rules of the game, and strong relations with like-minded countries.

Madam Speaker! That is why it is very important in the current situation to nurture international relations with like-minded states. This applies in particular in Asia, where we see how China is building up its strength ever more.

China has a clear goal to become a dominant world power by 2049 at the latest. To reach that goal, the country pursues an offensive policy both globally and regionally. It is investing in building up its military capability and is expected to become a nuclear power on par with Russia and the USA within a few years. The country is also expanding its fleet and has more ships than any other country. At the same time, it is trying to gain influence in the Arctic and in other places around the world. In Africa, it is investing heavily in economically binding different states to itself.

Madam Speaker! The developments in Asia do not only concern the region's own countries. They affect global security, world trade, technological development, and supply chains, and thus also Swedish jobs, Swedish companies, and Swedish preparedness. Sweden must therefore pursue a clear and realistic policy towards China. We must not be naive towards a country that uses both economic and political influence to advance its positions.

Madam Speaker! China also has a clear goal to incorporate Taiwan and erase its democracy. Taiwan is a developed and very successful democracy and has a well-established high-tech industry. Sweden stands to gain much from developing cooperation with Taiwan and thereby, among other things, securing our deliveries of microelectronics, which the country is a world leader in. It is also very positive that Taiwan stands up as a clear obstacle to the People's Republic of China's expansion.

Madam Speaker! There are reasons to speak plainly here. Taiwan is a living democracy and an important partner, not least technologically and economically. A deepened cooperation with Taiwan therefore clearly lies in Sweden's interest. It is about both values and concrete benefits for Sweden.

It is therefore very pleasing that Business Sweden's office in Taipei has been strengthened since the Riksdag's announcement. The Sweden Democrats see this as a step on the way towards developing our relations with one of the most advanced democracies in Asia.

More needs to be done, and it is important that Sweden – including all companies – accounts for a period of increased conflict levels towards China. It is unfortunately difficult to see a positive development for the relations with the country, at least in the near future. Sweden therefore needs to continue to broaden its relations with reliable partners in the Indian Ocean/Pacific region and simultaneously reduce strategic vulnerabilities. Dependencies that may appear rational in peacetime can quickly become problematic in a sharper security situation.

Madam Speaker! I also want to say something about the Ministry for Foreign Affairs and Sweden's need for good international contacts.

We in the Sweden Democrats have submitted proposals to develop embassies and consulates in several places around the world, as we consider it very important that Sweden can develop cooperation primarily with democratic states. This constitutes an important part of the security policy, as well as a good opportunity to develop business connections.

The assistance of the foreign authorities to Swedes is also very important, and the embassy staff make very good efforts to both develop Sweden's connections with foreign states and help Swedes abroad. This applies in particular to the consular assistance in war and crisis. For that, I think we should thank all those posted abroad who work in the service of diplomacy for Sweden, who often do this under very difficult circumstances.

Madam Speaker! In an uncertain world, the value of a Swedish presence abroad is increasing. Embassies and consulates are not just administrative functions. They are tools to promote Sweden's security, support Swedish trade, and help Swedish citizens when crises arise.

The consular work is particularly important. At its core, it is about the state's ability to be there when Swedes need help in war, disasters, acts of terrorism, and other serious incidents. Therefore, Sweden needs a foreign administration with the right resources and the right presence.

The Foreign Affairs Administration is also important for asserting Swedish interests in the world. For a trade-dependent country like Sweden, good relations, functioning diplomacy and strengthened export promotion are of great importance. Security policy, diplomacy and trade are today more and more clearly interconnected.

Madam Speaker! Sweden also needs to continue to have good relations with several parts of the world, not least with countries in Africa where authoritarian actors are trying to win increased influence. Even there, Swedish foreign policy must be characterized by realism, long-term perspective, and a focus on Swedish interests.

In summary, this report shows how closely intertwined issues such as security, trade, diplomacy, and international law have become.

For the Sweden Democrats, the starting point is that Sweden shall pursue a foreign policy that puts Swedish interests and Swedish security first but also builds strong relations with free and responsible states. We shall deepen relations with democracies and stand up against authoritarian regimes, strengthen our foreign administration and safeguard Sweden's opportunities to act safely and independently in the world.

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

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Madam Speaker! I listened carefully to Rasmus Giertz's speech. I noted that he did not say a word about the USA and Trump, so he shall be given the chance to do so now.

The Sweden Democrats are Trump's party in Sweden. The Sweden Democrats are part of the MAGA movement, which has a number of parties, not least in Europe, in its branches. It is Fidesz in Hungary, Alternative für Deutschland in Germany, Le Pen's party in France and Reform UK in Great Britain. There is a network of those types of parties.

You have long been strong supporters of the MAGA movement and Trump. The Sweden Democrats have thus nominated Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize – twice. The second time you nominated Trump for the peace prize, Mattias Karlsson said that "no honest judge can deny the enormous contribution he has made for a more peaceful world."

My question to Rasmus Giertz is really just what he thinks about it today.

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

Rasmus Giertz (SD)

Madam Speaker! What do I think about it today? I do not know that I would have expressed any other opinion earlier. When it comes to just Trump and the transatlantic relations, the Sweden Democrats have been incredibly clear when we have criticized Trump for, among other things, his actions in the Greenland issue and also much else that comes from the Trump administration.

Claims that the Sweden Democrats as a party would have nominated Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize are not true. Here, Morgan Johansson is speaking falsely. That an individual Sweden Democrat has done so is one thing, but the Sweden Democrats as a party have never nominated Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize.

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Madam Speaker! There was a strange turn at the end here. Mattias Karlsson, who was the one who nominated Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize, was chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs not all that long ago, so he probably has a certain status among the Sweden Democrats.

Furthermore, we see that you have a close cooperation and exchange with the Magarörelsen. Representatives for the Sverigedemokraterna travel back and forth to their conventions and cultivate close contacts with Magarörelsen. But I understand that it may have become a bit harder to defend it now, not least after the Greenland crisis.

It was the same when you cultivated contacts with Russian nationalists. You did that until it started to become troublesome. Then some of your members were told that one should not do that anymore, and so they resigned from the Defense Committee. Perhaps it is something similar we see today.

The reason I am asking the question is that the Sweden Democrats claim to be entitled to a seat in the next government. Should you win the election, the Sweden Democrats, as the opinion polls show today, could have eight to ten cabinet ministers in the next government – and one of those positions could be the post of Minister for Foreign Affairs.

Given the close relations you have with Donald Trump's MAGA movement, I want to ask: Will the Sverigedemokraterna really be able to stand up to Donald Trump in such a situation? If there is anything we have learned from the Greenland crisis, it is precisely that one must not back down when he challenges and causes trouble in the way he does, but one must be very clear in its responses back.

My question to Rasmus Giertz is: What are the conditions for you to be able to stand up to Donald Trump if you were unfortunately to end up in such a situation?

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

Rasmus Giertz (SD)

Madam Speaker! If we were to look more closely at which contacts the Social Democrats have had historically and also have today, we would find a great deal of what is remarkable, above all connections to antisemitism and Islamism. I think Morgan Johansson should keep a low profile on this issue and not throw stones in a glass house, as the saying goes.

Now Morgan Johansson is once again coming forward with allegations of contacts with Russian nationalists. It is completely made up, because it is not true at all.

The Sweden Democrats have been extremely clear regarding the Trump administration and the Greenland crisis. When it comes to this, I can promise Morgan Johansson that he can be calm.

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

Kerstin Lundgren (C)

Madam Speaker! I also listened to the speech by Rasmus Giertz, and I heard quite a lot about China and about Taiwan. I have read the report from the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and both I and some others within the Center Party and other parties – the Green Party and the Left Party – feel that stronger wording is required when it comes to Taiwan and House of Sweden, which we have been prepared to demand together.

The committee says that preparation is ongoing. The decision on announcement was made during the 2021/22 parliamentary session. Now the government has been in power for four years, and they have not managed to prepare whether the government should step in and transform Business Sweden into House of Sweden to demonstrate the importance of broader contacts and stronger support. This is something several other countries have actually done.

There is a policy of caution from the government's side towards China. The expression used by Rasmus Giertz was "clear and realistic", but I would like to say that "cautious" China policy is the right word. It is the same thing when it comes to what is said about the South China Sea.

We are trying to assert that the government must push forward to uphold court decisions and stand firm when Philippine fishermen are affected, but the government is silent, and the committee here only refers to the EU's statement policy. It is weak.

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

Rasmus Giertz (SD)

Madam Speaker! The Sweden Democrats have long championed the issue of a House of Sweden in Taiwan. I believe that we and the Center Party are actually in complete agreement on that issue, and I fully agree with Kerstin Lundgren that the government needs to be proactive in this matter. Here, the Sweden Democrats are also proactive towards the government.

When it comes to the preparation itself, it is a question that should rather be asked of the government, because we in Sverigedemokraterna cooperate with the government but do not ourselves sit in the Ministry for Foreign Affairs.

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

Kerstin Lundgren (C)

Madam Speaker! No, but the Sweden Democrats are in the Committee on Foreign Affairs and had the opportunity to vote. Next week, when we make a decision here in the chamber on the basis of this report, one also has the opportunity to vote for the reservation that speaks clearly about House of Sweden and does not say that preparation is ongoing.

I actually think it is weak not to have achieved more in four years. You are exiting this mandate period without having gotten anywhere when it comes to House of Sweden and that presence, or when it comes to the issue of the South China Sea and speaking plainly towards China on a number of issues. It is a policy of caution that prevails, and neither Putin, Trump nor Xi Jinping listen to such – we know that.

One must speak plainly. That the EU is not succeeding is tragic and understandable, because there are a number of actors – Orbán and others – who are also playing tricks here, and there are many different political interests. It is precisely for that reason important that Sweden, together with a number of other countries, shows clarity.

Some of our Baltic neighbors have been able to be much clearer towards China. We should be able to speak with a clearer voice – and the Sweden Democrats have obviously not succeeded.

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

Rasmus Giertz (SD)

Madam Speaker! I agree with Kerstin Lundgren that we must speak plainly when it comes to China and Taiwan. I thought I was clear in my speech regarding that matter.

We have, as Kerstin Lundgren is well aware of, a cooperation within the framework of the Tidö Agreement where work is ongoing. It is rather within the framework of that which the Sverigedemokraterna have a real chance to exert pressure and be proactive in this issue.

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Madam Speaker! Before I begin my speech, I would like, by reason of the exchange of remarks I just had with Rasmus Giertz, only to point out that it was a number of Sweden Democrats who became involved with their contacts with Russian nationalists. This concerns former party chairman Mikael Jansson, it concerns Roger Richthoff, who sat on the Defense Committee, and it concerns Erik Almqvist, who traveled to Crimea in 2020 to legitimize Russia's takeover of Crimea. You have indeed been deep down in that mess – it is probably unfortunately so for you.

This debate is about international relations, which is a very broad subject. I will focus on multilateral cooperation and our proposal for a specific Africa Strategy. My colleague Johan Büser will later touch upon the issue of Western Sahara and some additional questions.

I will begin by moving for approval of reservation 1.

Madam Speaker! We live in a time characterized by major international conflicts. These conflicts are driven by the great powers' growing power claims and their unwillingness to accept international law and international law.

We see it in Russia's actions. In 2022, they launched a direct attack on Ukraine with the aim of abolishing the democratic system, killing or displacing the elected representatives, dissolving Ukraine as a state, and incorporating the entire country into Russia. Long before that, they had for decades undermined democracy in their neighboring countries and manipulated, threatened, and seized parts of their territories.

We see it in the United States' actions. We see recurring proclamations that the entire Western Hemisphere belongs to the United States' area of interest, regardless of what the people there think. We see claims on Canada and on Greenland that are contrary to international law. We see interventions in Venezuela and blockades of Cuba.

We see it in the Middle East with Israel's war crimes in Gaza. It is an indiscriminate killing of civilian Palestinian men, women, and children, a complete destruction of an entire territory where millions of people live, and a traumatization of an entire population.

We also see it in the violence of the Israeli settlers against Palestinians in the West Bank, where the purpose is to torment the population so severely that it can eventually be displaced. The terrorist organization Hamas's horrific crimes do not justify the Israeli government's extensive abuses, which the International Criminal Court now classifies as war crimes and crimes against humanity.

We see it in the ongoing war in Iran. The attacks by the USA and Israel against Iran violate international law and the UN Charter. Here it seems as if Trump has allowed himself to be drawn into a war that he doesn't quite know how to end or even manage.

We also see it in Iran, which has for a long time violated international law through its refusal to let the UN investigate the country's uranium reserves and ensure that the nuclear weapons program is halted, through its support for Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthi movement in Yemen and through its appalling oppression of its own population. Just a few months ago, the regime killed tens of thousands of demonstrators whose only wish was to live in peace and freedom.

Madam Speaker! 80 years ago, those who survived the madness and insanity of the Second World War decided to establish a new world order. It became a world order based on international law and international humanitarian law, which aimed to ensure that what happened during the First and Second World Wars could never ever be repeated.

There are those who say that the world order is now dead and that we must come up with something else. What we have now doesn't work anyway, there are those who say. Rules and laws, court rulings and resolutions – they aren't followed anyway, so it might as well be that we get rid of them. That is a dangerous argument. It is defeatist and resigned. It is like saying that we might as well legalize theft because there are thieves.

What is the alternative to a rules-based world order? If we are not to have institutions, courts, conventions, and regulatory frameworks, what shall we have instead? It is precisely this that has ensured that we, during these 80 years, have not had to experience any third world war – even though we have, for our part, been very close a couple of times. We do not need to reinvent the wheel, but we must ensure that the wheel can start spinning again. We must return to the rules-based world order and demand that everyone lives by it. There is no other way.

Here, the small and medium-sized states have a special both responsibility and interest. For all of us who live in small and medium-sized states, this regarding international law and international law is no academic seminar exercise, but for us, it is an existential necessity. We know that the alternative to what we have today is a world completely dominated by the great powers, and if it becomes so again, all other states are poorly off. For small and medium-sized states – for a country like Sweden – international law is our first line of defense, as Olof Palme used to express it.

Therefore, it must be defended, not only with words but with action and resources, and the most important organization in that work is the United Nations. The UN has during these 80 years been crucial in the work to manage conflicts between states, to defend and develop human rights, and to combat poverty. For some decades, the UN has also been crucial as a leader in the work to reduce climate emissions.

It is not an easy task. It has never been an easy task, not least against the background that many of the world's states are in fact not democratic states governed by the rule of law. On the contrary, it is only a small minority of the world's population that has the privilege of living in a functioning democracy. But as Dag Hammarskjöld expressed it, the UN's task is not to take us to the kingdom of heaven, but the UN's task is to save us from hell.

It has worked so far. We have certainly seen many wars during these 80 years, but none of them have escalated into world wars, and none of them have been fought with nuclear weapons. The atomic bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki are so far the only ones that have fallen, even though the great powers now have enough nuclear weapons to destroy all of humanity many times over. The UN has therefore been decisive.

Now, however, the United Nations is in crisis. The challenges are greater than they have been in a long time: poverty is increasing again in the world, the number of dictatorships and authoritarian states is increasing, climate emissions are escalating, and we see more and more war and arms racing. In that situation, a number of countries are cutting back on the UN's resources – including the USA, which now owes the UN over 4 billion dollars in mandatory fees. It has gone so far that the UN Secretary-General António Guterres has warned that the UN faces an immediate economic collapse.

Then one would think that a country like Sweden, with its long tradition of commitment to the UN, would go in the other direction – that Sweden would stand up for the UN – but it is unfortunately precisely the opposite. During this mandate period, the Swedish government has cut support to almost all UN organizations that Sweden has previously supported.

When it comes to the UN Population Fund, which among other things works with women's health, the government has reduced Sweden's support by 25 percent. When it comes to the UN's food program World Food Programme, which is crucial for starving people in poor parts of the world to be able to survive, the government has reduced the Swedish support by 33 percent. For the UN refugee agency UNHCR we see a reduction of 86 percent, and when it comes to the UN's development work within UNDP we see a reduction of 90 percent. For the UN's fund for the least developed countries the government has withdrawn every single penny. I can continue for a long time on the same list.

In the situation where the UN is most important, where the challenges are greatest and where the UN faces economic collapse, Sweden therefore chooses to do as Trump does and cut back on the support to the UN. It is, in my opinion, straight-up irresponsible.

Madam Speaker! The report also addresses the Social Democratic proposal for a new Africa strategy. Africa is Europe's neighboring continent and will be for all time. Our two continents are in that way forever interconnected.

Africa is a continent with fantastic conditions. It has enormous potential in the form of a young population, large natural resources, and a fantastically rich culture. It is a large continent, so it naturally looks very different in different parts, but one thing is common to the entire continent: There are immense growth and development opportunities. Africa could be a continent where its 1.4 billion people lived well.

That is not the case, however. Africa is also a continent that is still plagued by the legacy of colonization, racism, and the slave trade. It is also characterized by war and internal conflicts today, for example in Congo and in Sudan. It is now also being hit hard by climate change – and on top of that, by the Western world's reductions in aid.

There is, however, a way forward, and in my opinion, it is about increased cooperation. We believe that there is very much to be gained both for Europe and for Africa by linking the continents even more closely together through close trade cooperation, aid cooperation, cultural exchanges, climate and environmental cooperation, and political relations.

South Africa is a good example of how cooperation can benefit both of us. Sweden has had long and deep relations with South Africa since the time of Olof Palme and Nelson Mandela. When the committee visited South Africa this spring, we were informed that Sweden exports 8 billion kronor to South Africa and that Swedish companies simultaneously employ 12,000 people in the country. Both of our countries benefit from this.

So Sweden can do that in more places. That is why we in the Social Democrats propose that Sweden develops a new broad Africa strategy with the aim of deepening relations with a number of countries in Africa. That is also why we are strongly critical that the Swedish government is now doing the opposite and withdrawing from Africa. Aid has already been cut in Mali, Burkina Faso, and South Sudan. Now they are also cutting in Tanzania, Mozambique, Zimbabwe, and Liberia. In Zimbabwe and Liberia, they are also closing the embassies.

This is completely the wrong way to go. It is completely wrong to now turn our backs on Africa, not only because it has extensive humanitarian effects but also because it has geopolitical effects. When the West withdraws from Africa, Russia and China take the opportunity to advance their positions instead. That must also be considered.

This government seems to believe that the world only consists of Europe, Madam Speaker, but it is both a short-sighted and dangerous view. If one seriously wants to defend international law, combat poverty, and promote democracy and the rule of law, Swedish foreign policy must see the whole world. It must be global, not provincial.

(Applause)

In this speech, Johan Büser (S) agreed.

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

Rasmus Giertz (SD)

Madam Speaker! The report deals with a motion from the Social Democrats on reintroducing the feminist foreign policy. I did not hear Morgan Johansson mention anything about this in his speech, but what we saw of the Social Democrats' so-called feminist foreign policy last time was, in practice, very many words and very little action. It was grand labels, high demands, and constant self-righteousness, but when it really mattered, the result was mostly symbolic politics.

The clearest example was, of course, what happened in Iran in 2017. Social Democratic ministers traveled to Tehran and stood there dressed in hijabs before the reactionary and misogynistic mullahs. It was a scene that rightly aroused disgust far beyond Sweden's borders. This became almost the perfect symbol of the Social Democratic double standard. One spoke loudly and clearly about women's freedom but showed submission when standing there eye to eye with one of the world's most anti-woman regimes.

The difference now is that the government, with the support of the Sweden Democrats, has changed course towards a results-oriented and effective equality work with less brand-building and posing and more focus on actual resistance against Islamism, oppression, and anti-women structures.

My question to Morgan Johansson is therefore: What is it that you actually want to go back to? Is it the hijab trips to Tehran, the empty slogans or the symbolic political projects, which looked good in reports but made very little difference for women who actually live under oppression?

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Madam Speaker! When we launched the feminist foreign policy in 2014, it gained immediate traction, not only in Sweden but in a long line of countries. A large number of countries, for example France, Canada and the United Kingdom, joined more or less immediately, because they saw this initiative as a way to move the positions in politics forward. They saw that they suddenly received a framework to be able to promote the interests of girls and women worldwide in a much more effective way than before.

What have we been talking about all the time in connection with feminist foreign policy? Yes, we have talked about women's rights, resources and representation. Now Rasmus Giertz says that it has had no significance.

Below is an evaluation from the Expert Group for Aid Analysis, which had looked at what effects this had had for aid. The Expert Group for Aid Analysis stated that it had had very tangible effects, that aid activities – money and resources – had been directed towards women's and girls' rights in a way that had not occurred previously and that in all situations, representation and rights had been raised, also with countries where such things are very far off and where the oppression is very severe.

Iran is an example of such a country. When the delegation was in Iran – it should be emphasized that this was a government delegation – they negotiated not only trade agreements but also about getting out a number of political prisoners, especially prisoners with a trade union background. They succeeded in that at the time. It is clear that one could have stayed home and said: We do not care about having any such contacts; let it be so. One chose, however, to go there, face those conflicts, and raise those issues. One also got results in that one got out a number of political prisoners from prison. I actually do not think the previous government should be ashamed of that.

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

Rasmus Giertz (SD)

Madam Speaker! Morgan Johansson talks about moving forward the positions for equality. Is that how Morgan Johansson describes the journey to Tehran where one bowed to the Islamist regime?

It did not stop there either. The government also concluded cooperation agreements with the ayatollahs' regime, even on the area of equality. That says everything about what this policy was. When reality met the rhetoric, the Social Democrats did not choose confrontation with the oppression, but instead chose cooperation with it.

Given what Morgan Johansson just said in his answer, I wonder: Can he distance himself from the way the trip to Tehran was conducted, or is this something we will see recurring if the Social Democrats, against all odds, take the Ministry for Foreign Affairs again after the election this autumn?

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Madam Speaker! The result of that journey was that it succeeded in negotiating the release of political prisoners. It is clear that one could have said: We abstain from this. I think, however, that there were reasons to take the chance when the opportunity was given. I therefore do not intend to distance myself from the fact that that journey was made.

No one bowed down in that context either. I have spoken with those who were present. At every meeting, democracy, equality issues, and women's rights were raised.

So, one must sometimes do as the government does. One must sometimes be prepared to meet even those from whom one stands furthest away and who have values that one absolutely does not share.

What Rasmus Giertz has devoted himself to when he has had influence over politics is to worsen the rights and opportunities of women and girls. He has, for example, contributed to that all aid to Afghanistan is withdrawn. This also applies to aid for women's and girls' schooling and health. I am thinking, for example, of everything that Rädda Barnen has done over many years. Rasmus Giertz has said that we should no longer have that but that we should instead withdraw all aid. It harms girls and women.

It is not easy to work in countries where the opposition is so harsh. There may be Taliban or mullahs that one needs to handle. It is not easy at all to do that. One must constantly look at what can be done on the ground to help the people who are oppressed. Rasmus Giertz has, as said, contributed to reducing the support for women and girls all over the world through his aid policy, and I actually think that he should take responsibility for that.

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

Margareta Cederfelt (M)

Madam Speaker! The matter we are now debating is the Committee on Foreign Affairs' report 2025/26:UU7 International Relations. Initially, I would like to move for the rejection of all reservations and for the approval of the proposal in the report.

The referral treats motions concerning international cooperation and international relations from the general motion periods during 2024 and 2025.

Sweden stands up for multilateral relations in order to safeguard the rules-based security order, the security policy architecture, the European security order, democracy, freedom, free trade, human rights and equality. Unfortunately, respect for these values is being put to the test.

In the foreign policy declaration and the budget, it is stated that the government is actively working within the EU, Nato, the UN, the Council of Europe, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe and the Nordic Council of Ministers to push through its policies and support the work for the rules-based world order. The government further emphasizes that international cooperation with like-minded countries strengthens Sweden's resilience and influence in an increasingly unpredictable world.

As has been mentioned here earlier, the UN was founded in 1945, after the Second World War, as a guarantor of peace, security, and respect for human rights and international law. Unfortunately, we can state today that the UN is dysfunctional and that major reforms need to be implemented to restore the UN as an organization for peace, security, international law, and human rights, and as an arena where the world's countries can reach agreements and consider the UN's fundamental value as their guiding principle.

I am pleased that Sweden is actively working to implement the UN's reform agenda and that the UN's budget problems are to receive a long-term solution. Of course, the arena where the world's countries are to cooperate cannot continue to be dysfunctional. This is important, because there are countries that want today's international order to cease and that smaller countries should not have the same access to the arena as the great nations. This is obviously wrong, because all countries should have equal rights to the UN and to negotiations and influence.

After the Second World War, the EU was formed with the aim of building a Europe that is large, strong, secure and safe. Europe's countries would not fight with one another but live in peace and harmony. Through partnerships, the EU has so far succeeded in ensuring that we have peace in Europe and has also worked for continued cooperation with the rest of the world. The EU is thus Sweden's primary international arena, where a large part of Swedish foreign policy, as well as other EU countries' foreign policy, is located. The purpose is to achieve a safer, richer, freer and more secure world.

But now there is a major war occurring near Sweden, namely Russia's aggressive war against Ukraine. It is an unprovoked war where several crimes against international law and against human dignity have been and are being committed. The government has stated that Sweden will stand behind Ukraine for as long as needed. I am also very pleased with the support the Swedish Riksdag has shown Ukraine, because it is important that we continue to support Ukraine.

Ukraine is fighting a war not only to defend its own country but also to defend Europe and the world as we know it. This is very important, but unfortunately, there is a great risk today that the focus will shift from Russia's war against Ukraine to Iran. This must not happen. The world must be able to focus on two wars at the same time. We must not betray Ukraine.

The Prime Minister has today again stated that Sweden's immediate vicinity is prioritized due to the security policy situation in the world. It should be obvious to everyone in here that when the world is on fire, we must defend Sweden and Europe and the values we stand for.

The development in the Middle East has been ongoing for several decades but has unfortunately escalated recently. The start of where we find ourselves today was on October 7, 2023, when Iran-backed Hamas attacked Israel. The terrorist organization Hamas took approximately 250 children, adults, elderly people, and soldiers as hostages and took them to the Gaza Strip. During the Hamas attack, 690 Israeli civilians, including 35 children, and 70 foreign citizens were killed. Since then, a long-lasting and protracted conflict has prevailed. Most recently, Israel invaded Lebanon with the aim of stopping Iran-controlled Hezbollah, and the development of events is still uncertain.

The Swedish government is clear that a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine is the only way forward and that a stop to the settlers' violations is needed. Let me mention that the government takes responsibility. 555 million Swedish kronor go to Gaza, and it is the second largest support in the world after the United Arab Emirates. Sweden's support goes to humanitarian efforts by, among others, UNICEF, the World Food Programme and UNDP. Sweden's aid shall provide stability to the 150,000 children who lack housing and need healthcare, education and food.

Regarding the hostilities in Iran, there is no doubt that the current regime is committing serious abuses against the population and does not respect human rights. However, Iran's actions do not justify a military invasion and the killing of civilians. Sweden needs to continue to be clear about what we stand for, namely sympathy and solidarity with the Iranian people's right to self-determination over Iran's future. The Iranian people shall not be imposed upon from the outside and shall not be kidnapped by violence and coercion.

In 2025, Sweden's government was the chair of UN Women and worked actively to strengthen girls' and women's rights – this by prioritizing girls' education and by strengthening girls' and women's rights to their own bodies and combating sexual violence and female genital mutilation. Unfortunately, these issues are more important today than they have been in a long time.

China has been mentioned previously. China is conducting aggression against its neighboring countries, and it is definitely not acceptable. Sweden wants to build further on the relations with Taiwan. Business Sweden is strengthened and constitutes an important foundation for the development of the relations between Sweden and Taiwan.

The large continent of Africa has also been mentioned earlier. The government has developed an Africa Strategy, but Sweden also works, primarily in the EU and the UN, to support and strengthen development in Africa. Important overarching areas are partly the Samoa Agreement, and partly the EU's partnership with the African Union. African countries are the EU's fourth largest trading partner. The conflict-affected region of the Sahel is high on the EU's agenda.

There are countries in Africa where development is moving forward, and we should speak more about them. It is important with hope and good examples where development is moving in the right direction. I am thinking of Senegal, which has held two elections, and it has gone perfectly well. The EU's Global Gateway also implies a work and a development in a positive direction.

In the Riksdag, we have many times debated the conflict in Western Sahara. It has now been ongoing for 50 years with all that it entails of humanitarian crises. Now there is a UN program that has been adopted by the Security Council, and it seems promising if it can be implemented. Sweden supports this.

Finally, I want to say that what is crucial for Sweden's security and stability in a world full of unrest is that the rules-based world order and international law, including the UN Charter, are upheld.

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Madam Speaker! Margareta Cederfelt spoke quite a bit about the UN and about Africa, and I thought I would follow up on that in my remarks.

When it primarily concerns the UN, I read in the report: That upholding the rules-based world order with the UN Charter at its core is absolutely crucial for our country's security and stability in the world. It also states that Sweden should be a driving, constructive and engaged member in these organizations. In that case, one is referring to the UN, among other things.

My question then becomes: Why is the government cutting back on the UN? Why are the appropriations being reduced?

For the UN Population Fund UNFPA, the government has since taking office reduced support by 25 percent compared to the Social Democratic budgets. For the World Food Programme, the government has, again compared to the Social Democratic government, cut by 33 percent. For the UN refugee agency UNHCR, the government has cut by 86 percent. For UNDP, the organization that works with the UN's development work, the government has cut by 90 percent. The latest blow came as recently as just before Christmas. For the UN fund for the least developed countries, the government has withdrawn every single penny, as well as for UNRWA. Taken together, these are draconian cuts across the board.

My question in this part to Margareta Cederfelt is: If we are now talking about how the UN must be strengthened – why is the government then withdrawing support?

The same applies to Africa, which Margareta Cederfelt touched upon towards the end of her speech, when she said how important Africa is. Why is it then that one withdraws from Burkina Faso, Mali, South Sudan, Tanzania, Mozambique, Liberia and Zimbabwe? And why is it that one closes the embassies in just Zimbabwe and Tanzania? That sends completely different signals than that Africa should be particularly important.

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

Margareta Cederfelt (M)

Madam Speaker! Morgan Johansson says that Sweden has reduced its payments to the UN. Let me tell Morgan Johansson that Sweden is among the ten countries that pay the highest share of its GDP to the UN. Is this not a lot? I think it is fantastic that Sweden is involved and pays large sums to the UN.

I wonder why Morgan Johansson does not say anything about the countries that are members of the UN but do not pay should pay. 1.6 billion is missing. 45 countries that are members do not pay.

Since Morgan Johansson has been a minister, he surely knows that a large number of countries pay their fees late to the UN. When the UN does not manage to spend the money during the year, the organization must pay the money back. Of course, countries should pay their fees early in the year so that the money can enter this year's budget. I think there should be much more talk about this, and Sweden is among the donors that give the most money.

I also mentioned Sweden's aid to Gaza, where Sweden is the country that gives the second most of all. It involves large amounts of money, which go, among other things, to the UN's World Food Programme, to UNDP and to other organizations that have proven that they work well during conflicts and achieve results. This is something that I think we should be proud of.

Let me finally say that a major war is taking place in our vicinity. We must also ensure that we manage to support Ukraine.

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Madam Speaker! I do not quite understand Margareta Cederfelt's logic. Would there be more countries paying to the UN just because Sweden reduces its appropriations? Was this the message?

In my post, I mentioned the USA, which is currently withholding its contribution. They owe the UN 4 billion dollars, I believe that is the amount. That is what has put the UN on the brink of economic collapse, which the Secretary-General just warned about. I hope that some order can be established there.

It is clear that everyone wants all countries to pay. But it won't get better because Sweden is cutting its appropriations? It will rather get worse? Isn't the risk for that quite large when one sees that countries that previously have always stood up for the UN – and Sweden is such a country – are now cutting back on the UN? Isn't the risk then that other countries draw the conclusion that support for the UN is not so important? That risk is large when Sweden, which has always gone first, now instead chooses to go last.

The Swedish government has, as stated, reduced support to a long series of UN organizations. I think one should be ashamed of that, quite simply. I do not think it is in line with the tradition that Sweden has had for many decades prior.

Then Margareta Cederfelt says that one is moving forward with money to Gaza. That is very good. But you have withdrawn all support to UNRWA, the organization that has 12,000 employees in Gaza and that has been able to provide food, supplies, water, medicines and so on to those who really need it. Sweden has, as one of few countries, withdrawn the support to UNRWA. It is actually only Sweden and USA that have done that, while the EU, Great Britain, Germany and France have maintained their support.

We can hope that the money that Sweden allocates to Gaza can reach there, but when you cut the legs out from under UNRWA, you rather worsen the situation for the people of Gaza.

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

Margareta Cederfelt (M)

Madam Speaker! Morgan Johansson did not comment with a single word that Sweden belongs to the top ten countries that pay the highest share of their GDP to the UN. Is this not fantastic? Why can Morgan Johansson not say that it is good that Sweden pays so much to the UN?

Then Morgan Johansson mentioned embassies and so on. Let me say that in 2025 Sweden opened an embassy in Dakar – this precisely to promote Swedish interests in the French-speaking West Africa, in the Sahel, in Burkina Faso, which was mentioned, and in Mali, Mauritania and Niger.

Sweden is present, and Morgan Johansson is certainly aware that governments usually both close, open, and restructure embassies depending on both the security situation as well as needs and resources.

When it comes to Gaza, I mentioned that 555 million Swedish kronor is spent in aid. It is second most in the world after the United Arab Emirates. Sweden pays to UNICEF, to the World Food Programme and to UNDP. All three are organizations that are well-known and well-reputed when it comes to reaching out.

War is ongoing in our immediate vicinity, a war in Ukraine. It is a matter of prioritization. What would Morgan Johansson want to cut back on in order to increase the allocation to the UN? It is, of course, the opposition's full right to mention what it wants and how it wants to prioritize. But it is also the majority's right to prioritize.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Madam Speaker! I requested the floor because I felt that Member Cederfelt employed a certain historical revisionism, which I wanted to discuss. It was also about how international law is followed today.

I note that Margareta Cederfelt said that Morocco's occupation of Western Sahara is a 50-year-old conflict and that Sweden supports the UN plan. The problem here is that the government has taken an additional step and also supports the autonomy plan that Morocco de facto presented once upon a time when Spain withdrew as the colonizer of the then occupied Western Sahara, which makes Western Sahara Africa's last colony.

But that was not actually what I reacted to; instead, I reacted when she brought up Israel and Palestine and spoke about the conflict as if it began on October 7. I would like to ask Margareta Cederfelt whether nothing happened before October 7 in Israel and Palestine that caused the situation we have there today.

Furthermore, I am considering Iran. If I understood correctly, she still condemned in some kind of soft wording the USA's and Israel's attack on Iran – that it was not right to attack, I think comes somewhat close to what she said.

However, I heard nothing about Lebanon, a Lebanon that Israel is currently attacking. In the same way that one has leveled Gaza, one is currently leveling Lebanon. Despite the fact that Lebanon's government, parliament, and defense forces are clear that they do not want war and that they do not want Hezbollah stationed in Lebanon, Israel's attacks continue both against Beirut and against the southern parts of Lebanon. This is creating a completely horrific humanitarian situation with refugee flows. People who have nothing at all to do with Hezbollah are also being killed in the attacks.

I wonder where the clear condemnation of this is. I do not hear it from the right wing. We must stop Israel by restricting them and criticizing them for all violations of international law that they commit.

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

Margareta Cederfelt (M)

Madam Speaker! When it comes to Western Sahara, I hope Håkan Svenneling heard me say that it is the Security Council resolution that forms the basis for the government's position on the autonomy plan. What the UN has said is that there is support for Morocco's autonomy plan and that the plan is seen as a credible basis for achieving a solution that is consistent with the UN Charter, which is mutually accepted by the parties and which satisfies the Western Saharan people's right to self-determination. This is something that the government has stood behind.

If there is now an agreement and a decision, it is important to continue working for peace and, naturally, to follow up to ensure that the result is precisely respect and fulfillment of the Western Saharan people's right to self-determination. But a 50-year conflict takes time to resolve, and it must be resolved between the parties. Now it looks as if the Security Council resolution can serve as a basis for a solution.

Yes, the conflict in the Middle East is a long-standing conflict. One of the foundations of the problems is that Iran supports the terrorist organizations Hamas and Hezbollah. Therefore, an attack is occurring against Iran. But I also said very clearly that it is not compatible with international law.

We will have to see what comes out of the war. I truly hope that we can achieve peace in the Middle East. I hope that the terrorist organizations stop attacking and using their resources to harm humanity.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Madam Speaker! It is very good that Margareta Cederfelt so clearly links this with international law. It is still very clear that both the USA's attacks against Iran and Iran's responses against its neighboring countries violate international law. I believe it is very important that we say that when we see this war deepening, prolonging, and involving more parties.

There is also a risk that these do not remain two wars, one between Ukraine and Russia and one between Iran, Israel and USA. The interconnection between them can have different types of consequences.

I would still, in Margareta Cederfelts closing remark, like to hear more about Lebanon. Just as Israel did in Gaza, where they employed a rhetoric that everyone in Gaza supported Hamas, they are now using the same type of rhetoric towards Lebanon and saying that everyone there would support Hezbollah. None of this is true. There are many in Gaza who suffered under Hamas's rule. There are also many in Lebanon who are currently suffering as a consequence of Hezbollah having been financed by Iran for a long time and thereby also attacking Israel to trigger this conflict – when Israel had attacked Iran, it should be said.

We need to work for diplomacy in this region. I think so far that the government has not been clear enough on how to achieve success with diplomatic tools rather than with the type of rhetoric that we have seen.

I believe that the most common mistake that Margareta Cederfelt and other right-wing politicians make is to see October 7 as the start of the Israel–Palestine conflict instead of stating the fact that Israel has occupied Palestine for a long time and displaced Palestinian refugees.

Then there are also crimes committed by Palestinian terrorist organizations throughout history, but we must reach a two-state solution by looking at more than just October 7.

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

Margareta Cederfelt (M)

Madam Speaker! I want to remind the left-wing politician Håkan Svenneling that a Russian war against Ukraine is ongoing. A great threat today is, just as I said, that the war falls into oblivion. This is what Russia hopes for, because it was what happened when approximately the same amount of time had passed since Russia occupied Crimea.

Russia's economy is strengthened by the war in Iran. Russia earns money through its gas sales and its oil deliveries. In that way, they can retain weapons and missiles to further attack Ukraine. We must continue to stand clearly and strongly behind Ukraine and continue to speak about Russia's war.

When it comes to Israel: Yes, I am a right-wing politician, and I stand for the fact that the war started by the terrorist organization Hamas on October 7 must be condemned. It was nothing other than a terrorist attack. But I also stand behind what the government says: A two-state solution is necessary for long-lasting peace. I stand behind the government providing 555 million to Gaza to support Gaza humanitarily. It must lead to a long-lasting peace for all who are located on the Gaza Strip.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! I had intended to refrain from responding to Margareta Cederfelt today, especially when it comes to the Israel–Palestine conflict. We have debated that a few times, so I do not think we will take it up again.

I would like to take up one thing that Margareta Cederfelt said, and it concerned the conflict in Western Sahara. I believe she said something along the lines that the UN has adopted a program to resolve the conflict in Western Sahara. I am not familiar with that program. It would be good to get clarified whether it concerns the resolution that the Security Council has adopted or if there is a separate program based on this.

What is strange, regardless of what the Security Council says about the future, is that the International Court of Justice has been very clear since 1975 that Morocco has no sovereignty over Western Sahara. Morocco therefore has no right to decide over that territory or its resources. That judgment has been followed by several rulings from other courts, even from the International Court of Justice after that.

As recently as 2024, even the EU Court of Justice annulled the trade agreement that the EU had entered into with Morocco, because this violated international law and included goods that Morocco extracted from Western Sahara. It is quite unique that the EU Court of Justice annuls an EU law. Obviously, it was the first time ever that it happened, which shows how strongly the EU Court of Justice wanted to emphasize that this agreement was illegal because Morocco has no sovereignty over Western Sahara.

Now I have heard the member say several times that the Western Saharan people shall have the right to self-determination. What I wonder is: Does the member consider that the Western Saharan people shall have the right to independence?

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

Margareta Cederfelt (M)

Madam Speaker! I return here to Gaza and the terrorist organization Hamas. We have debated it several times, Jacob Risberg; that is quite correct. But I have never heard Jacob Risberg comment on Hamas. Does Jacob Risberg consider Hamas to be a terrorist organization or not? I ask the question again, and I have asked it before, but not as explicitly. I cannot help but ask the question again.

The terrible, long-standing conflict over Western Sahara has been ongoing for more than 50 years. Now, the UN Security Council has finally adopted a resolution, which Sweden supports. The resolution concerns the Western Saharan people's right to self-determination. The government has therefore expressed support for Morocco's autonomy plan as a credible basis for achieving a solution that is compatible with the UN Charter, which is mutually accepted by the parties and which satisfies the Western Saharan people's right to self-determination.

This is important, but it is not the same as independence. We speak of self-determination even in many other contexts. Within international law, there is no explicitly stated independence, but there is explicitly stated self-determination. That is what the question is about, that is to say a self-determination that is respected. It has not been done during the last 50 years, and that is where we have the long-standing conflict.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank Margareta Cederfelt for the answer.

I have several times in this speaker's chair said that Hamas is a terrorist organization, and I have several times in this speaker's chair – even in the other speaker's chair here in the chamber – condemned the horrific terrorist attacks on October 7, 2023.

Back to Western Sahara. The Swedish government supports the plan because it is believed that it will be mutually accepted by the parties. But the plan is only accepted by Morocco. The Western Saharawis have not at all accepted that the plan means they will come one step closer to a solution to the conflict.

What is good about the resolution is that Minurso's mandate has been extended once again. Minurso's primary mandate is to monitor the fragile peace that has existed since 1991 but also to carry out the referendum that Spain promised to the Western Saharans even before Morocco entered the country in 1975. I would very much like to see the referendum carried out. It would be interesting to know whether Margareta Cederfelt considers that the census that the Spaniards carried out in the early 70s should be the basis for who should be allowed to vote on independence and Western Sahara's future, or if all settlers from Morocco who moved in should also be included in that referendum. It is essential for how one views the conflict.

Then it was the question of self-determination and independence. When it comes to self-determination, people talk about the Basque Country and Catalonia. They have a certain degree of self-determination. But it is when one rules over its own territory that one can talk about independence. It is here that both the CJEU and the International Court of Justice have said that Morocco does not have sovereignty over the territory. It is the territory of the Western Saharawis.

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

Margareta Cederfelt (M)

Madam Speaker! A 50-year conflict may find a solution through the UN Security Council's resolution. I sincerely hope that can be the case, but of course, the path to a peaceful solution is long and winding. Otherwise, there would not have been a 50-year conflict behind it.

I understand, and I support, that Sweden's government supports the UN security resolution. It is a serious attempt to bring peace to the region and to support the Western Saharan people's right to self-determination. It is important to emphasize.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Madam Speaker! Africa is a continent in profound change. We see an impressive economic development that creates new opportunities for millions of people. But at the same time, we know that the development for democracy and human rights does not follow the same positive curve. In several West African countries, military coups have succeeded one another, and that raises important questions about what future democracy is actually heading towards.

Many of us feel concern. We feel concern that the democratic process is moving too slowly and concern that there are no clear signs that military leaders actually intend to hand over power to civilian governments. If a sustainable democracy is to be built, free and fair elections are required, and a fundamental respect for human rights is required. Therefore, military regimes must be replaced – and it must be done through democratically elected governments.

Sweden has an important role to play. We shall stand up for international law and human rights – always. Both as an individual country and together with the EU and the UN, we shall be a voice for democratic development in West Africa. We shall contribute to ensuring that military transitional governments are replaced by elected leaders and that people are given the opportunity to shape their own societies.

In many West African countries, the civil society's room for maneuver is limited. Therefore, we must strengthen the organizations that work for freedom, justice, and human rights. Through development aid, Sweden should support civil society in West Africa – not in the form of charity, but as a way to give people the tools to change their societies and their future themselves.

Let me take Gambia as an example. When Adama Barrow was elected in 2016, hopes were high. He promised economic reforms, a democratic future, and to overturn previous undemocratic decisions. But the promises have not been fulfilled. Instead of strengthening democracy, Barrow has consolidated his own power and postponed the central reforms that were promised. In that situation, Gambia needs the support of the international community more than ever. Sweden should therefore, both through the EU and the UN and on its own, work for a peaceful, democratic and stable development in Gambia.

Another important country in the region is the neighboring country Senegal – a country that has never had military rule and which has made several democratic advances. At the same time, the challenges are great, that is, a more just distribution of resources is needed, and respect for human rights must be strengthened. That Sweden is now reopening its embassy in Dakar is an important step to deepen the cooperation with Senegal and all of West Africa.

But we must not forget the long and often forgotten conflict in Casamance. Peace agreements have been signed time and again, but the process is fragile and the promises have often been broken. Here, the international community must do more. Sweden should take initiative within the UN to support the peace process and contribute to a stable and democratic development in Senegal.

Madam Speaker! The path of democracy is rarely a straight line, but that makes our work all the more important. By standing up for human rights, supporting civil societies, and working for peace and stability, Sweden can make a difference. Together, we can contribute to a future where democracy is strengthened, not weakened, in West Africa.

Madam Speaker! Western Sahara is called Africa's last colony. Since 1975, Morocco has occupied the area in defiance of international law, in defiance of several UN resolutions, and in defiance of the International Court of Justice in The Hague. All of this is crystal clear. Nevertheless, on January 19, the Swedish government chose to give its support to Morocco's autonomy plan. It is a position that goes against both international law and our values, for Morocco has no sovereignty over Western Sahara. An occupying power can also not decide over an occupied people's future. It is that simple.

In the occupied part of Western Sahara, the Western Saharawis live under constant threat. Every day, the civilian population is subjected to harassment, violence, and arbitrary arrests. Morocco rules the area with the help of a state of emergency, with total control and with a border that is closed to independent journalists, observers, and human rights organizations. When no one is allowed to observe, no one is allowed to report, and no one is allowed to testify – then, in practice, the civilian population becomes completely defenseless.

That this can continue has a very concrete reason spelled MINURSO, that is, the UN's peace operation in Western Sahara. It is the only peacekeeping mission in the world without a mandate to monitor and report on human rights. It is an inconceivable construction. Without a human rights mandate, there is no one who systematically documents Morocco's abuses, no one who provides protection to the population, and no one who can hold the perpetrators accountable.

It is therefore high time that the world acts with force. Sweden must be a clear voice. We believe that the government should work to have MINURSO's mandate expanded, so that the mission finally receives the right and obligation to monitor the situation and report on the crimes that occur against human rights. It is one of the most important measures to give the Western Saharawis the protection they have lacked for so long.

At the same time, thousands of Western Saharan refugees live in the desert in western Algeria. For five decades, they have waited for a political solution in what is now the world's second-longest refugee situation, in a place where almost nothing can be cultivated, where water is a scarce commodity, and where survival is entirely dependent on aid from the rest of the world. At the same time as more refugees are now arriving at these refugee camps, the world's humanitarian support is decreasing sharply. It is a crisis we must not let continue.

Despite these circumstances, Polisario has built a functioning democratic society with local assemblies, parliaments, governments, and departments. It is on that basis that a free Western Sahara can be built. But a democracy cannot stand on empty stomachs and have failing healthcare. Therefore, Sweden must guarantee long-term support to the refugee camps in the form of food, water, medicine, and other life-saving supplies.

In the short term, humanitarian aid must increase. In the longer term, the Western Saharans' right to self-determination must be realized. A free Western Sahara is not just a vision. It is also a right according to international law.

Friends! We must be clear that the world cannot allow an entire people to be displaced to a desert and made dependent on aid for half a century. Sweden must stand up for justice, democracy and human rights. We must be a voice that never hesitates to defend the Western Saharan people, so that Africa's last colony shall disappear.

Madam Speaker! China is pursuing an increasingly aggressive foreign policy. In this report, we have therefore supported a number of motions from other parties criticizing China, including regarding the actions against neighboring countries in the South China Sea, especially Taiwan and the Philippines.

Vänsterpartiet has submitted a new China motion this year. In it, we highlight the negative development for both democracy and human rights in China. Among other things, we demand a stop to the use of the death penalty. China actually carries out the most executions in the entire world.

We also highlight the situation of minorities, for example when it concerns the Uyghurs in Xinjiang and the Tibetans in Tibet. But we also highlight the threat that China poses to its neighboring countries. In the motion, we also highlight that the Swedish citizen Gui Minhai shall be released.

These petitions are, however, dealt with in several other reports of the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Madam Speaker! With that, I move for the approval of reservation number 9 regarding Western Sahara.

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

Margareta Cederfelt (M)

Madam Speaker! Håkan Svenneling mentioned China, which is undoubtedly a country that does not respect international law or other countries. China has shown itself to be aggressive when it comes not only to Taiwan but also to Japan and Nepal and regarding Uyghurs and Tibetans. It is actually also about China's actions in the rest of the world. I am thinking in particular of Belt and Road and Silk Road.

For me, this shows how important it is to work for countries' independence and for their economies to be built up. Countries need to be able to both manage their economy and invest in infrastructure, so that people can eat their fill, children can go to school, and so on. For me, an ordered market economy is the solution to move forward here.

I hope that Håkan Svenneling agrees on the importance of other countries being able to build themselves strong and independent and that aid should help build independent countries, not aid-dependent countries. If countries cannot stand strong, the field is left open for countries like China, which abuses its power, and other countries.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! I agree with several parts of Member Cederfelt's reasoning. I also stated in my speech that China pursues an aggressive foreign policy and that we must have a strategy for how we handle it.

In my opinion, the reduction that this government has made to Swedish aid has the diametrically opposite effect when it comes to China. When we withdraw from the UN system and from country to country, we open up for China to step in and create the dependency that China wants to create. Then one becomes de facto aid-dependent and ends up in the arms of China.

Swedish aid, both multilateral aid and aid to individual countries, was instead based on the recipient also deciding what should be done with the aid and setting the agenda. Now it has shifted. Now it is instead Swedish interests that steer.

The market economy has many positive effects. But when we granted China market economy status in the WTO about ten years ago, the exceptions that previously applied to China also ceased to apply. It was a bad decision. The British–Chinese agreement has also proven to be bad. The intentions of the agreement signed with the United Kingdom are not followed, and Hong Kong is occupied in practice.

I perceive that this government is making a shift in policy regarding China. It is said that one stands for the same China policy as before, but in practice, one has moved into the companies' arena. The criticism is decreasing, and the Foreign Minister has, as the first Foreign Minister since Gui Minhai was imprisoned, traveled to China. I am concerned that much is happening in secret, which I, as a member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, do not see.

Concessions are being made to China. It is something that I think this government should take much more seriously than it is doing right now.

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

Margareta Cederfelt (M)

Mr. Speaker! First, I want to say that Sweden lives up to the UN's levels for aid. 0.7 percent of GDP is a lot of money. Sweden is also among the ten countries at the top when it comes to contributions to the UN, related to our GDP.

Sweden gives the second most of the world's countries to Gaza. And Sweden supports Ukraine. Just as the Prime Minister has said, we must think about our immediate environment. It is about a war in another European country and a war that also threatens our existence. We must work for peace and freedom in our region.

We must also be responsible for the taxpayers' money, and we are. But we provide aid, and we provide a lot in aid – aid that is intended to lead to an independent economy.

I am glad that the Minister for Foreign Affairs went to China. Just as the Minister for Foreign Affairs said, it is about conducting a dialogue, and that is what was done regarding Gui Minhai, whom we all want to be freed. I know that work has been ongoing and continues to be ongoing, both from previous governments and from the current government, in various ways to get Gui Minhai freed. The Minister for Foreign Affairs' visit was one step in that. All paths must be tried.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! I still think it is remarkable that this government beats its breast because it is on a top-ten list when, in practice, it has lowered the Swedish aid to 0.7 percent from 1 percent – or in any case, a little over 0.9, which the previous government achieved in practice. It is said that one is so happy that it is 0.7, even though one knows that in its own budget, it will already be 0.68 in 2028 and that one does not even achieve its own goal.

It is also said that one thinks about our immediate environment and stands up for Ukraine. In that case, one clearly shows that it is the least developed countries, the poorest countries, that should pay the price for the war in Ukraine, by our aid going there instead of to the least developed countries.

What happens then? Well, then China comes. Then China's influence de facto increases in those countries by being able to step in and put those countries into a debt dependency to China. The countries end up in a debt trap. Through that, those countries also vote with China in the UN General Assembly and in other places, and they support China's policies.

It is a policy that we do not want to see, precisely because it is based on a different logic than the policy that we want to pursue – with democracy, a free economy that is not controlled by the state, and de facto human rights. It is this that worries me about the consequences of this government's policy.

I would much rather return to an order where 1 percent of our gross national income goes to aid and we actually dare to stand up for human rights everywhere in the world and do not leave the field free for China.

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

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! When we discuss Sweden's international relations, we do so in a situation where the global security order is under pressure. Russia's full-scale war against Ukraine continues to shake Europe's security. In the Middle East, we see how conflicts risk spreading instability across an entire region. At the same time, international law is increasingly challenged by authoritarian states. The rules-based world order that for a long time has contributed to stability, trade, and development is no longer a given.

This means that foreign policy today is not only about relations between states. It is also about defending the principles upon which the international system is built. For us Christian Democrats, the starting point is clear: Sweden shall stand up for democracy and human rights. This applies in Europe and in Africa, and it applies in the Indo-Pacific region, which the report primarily covers.

Mr. Speaker! The Indo-Pacific region has become increasingly important for both global security and the world economy. At the same time, tensions are increasing, not least in the Taiwan Strait. Taiwan is a vibrant democracy and a central actor in the world economy, not least within advanced semiconductor technology. When military exercises are conducted around Taiwan and the rhetoric sharpens, the risk of destabilization in the entire region increases. Stability in the Taiwan Strait is therefore of great importance for both regional and global security.

Sweden and the EU must clearly stand up for peaceful conflict resolution and international law. This also applies to the respect for the UN General Assembly resolution 2758. It concerns China's representation in the UN and does not provide support for attempts to isolate Taiwan internationally.

The increased tension in the Taiwan Strait is simultaneously part of a broader pattern in the region. China has in recent years become increasingly confident and, in many cases, more confrontational in its international actions. This is evident in military pressures against Taiwan, in the militarization of the South China Sea, and in how economic dependence is sometimes used as a political tool.

For us Christian Democrats, it is important that Europe meets this development with both realism and steadfastness. We shall cooperate where it is possible but also be clear when international law and democratic principles are challenged. To stand up for democratic societies such as Taiwan is therefore not confrontation – it is consistency.

The South China Sea is a clear example of why international law must be defended. There, territorial claims are combined with militarization and attempts to limit other states' rights under the law of the sea. It is crucial that the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea is respected.

Small and medium-sized states must be able to rely on the fact that international rules apply. If strong states are allowed to undermine these, the entire rules-based world order risks being weakened. Therefore, the EU must continue to be clear in its support for international law and for freedom of navigation in these waters.

Mr. Speaker! I also want to say a few words about the situation in Eritrea. Last year, Dawit Isaak turned 62. He did so in captivity. For over 24 years, he has now been imprisoned in Eritrea without charge and without trial. His state of health is unknown to the outside world, and no Swedish representative, nor anyone in his family, has been allowed to visit him. It is difficult to imagine the brutality this entails. The only right thing is that Dawit Isaak is released immediately.

Eritrea is today one of the world's most closed and repressive states. Political opponents are imprisoned and tortured, and basic civil and political rights are lacking. The UN has on repeated occasions directed strong criticism at the regime's extensive violations of human rights. At the same time, we see how the Eritrean state attempts to exercise control over its citizens even outside the country's borders.

The so-called two percent tax, which is collected from Eritreans in exile – even here in Sweden – means in practice that people are pressured to finance the regime that many of them themselves have fled from. The UN estimates that this tax is the regime's single largest source of income. It is unacceptable. Sweden must be prepared to exert pressure so that this tax collection ceases and continue to raise Dawit Isaak's situation in all forums where Sweden meets Eritrea. It is therefore also important that the Foreign Minister's visit to Eritrea in December was used to clearly convey Sweden's demands that Dawit Isaak be released. Sweden must never stop working for his freedom.

Dawit Isaak is one of Sweden's most long-standing consular cases. But unfortunately, he is not alone. We have, for example, also experienced how the publisher Gui Minhai was sentenced in China under circumstances that have drawn strong international criticism. These cases show how important it is that Sweden consistently stands up for its citizens and for fundamental rule of law.

Mr. Speaker! In a time of global tensions, it is more important than ever that democracies cooperate with one another. EU cooperation is central. Transatlantic cooperation is crucial. But foreign policy is not just about security. It is also about strengthening democracy, upholding international law, and building partnerships with other democracies around the world. Sweden is a relatively small country, but through clear values, strong cooperation, and an active international commitment, we can make a difference.

In a time when authoritarian forces challenge international law, democracies need to stand closer together, no longer further apart. Sweden shall be a clear voice for democracy, freedom, and human rights. It is not just a question of foreign policy. It is a question of what kind of world we want to live in.

With this, Mr. Speaker, I move for approval of the committee's proposal.

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

Kerstin Lundgren (C)

Mr. Speaker! When one listens to this debate, one might think it is a debate about a number of hotspots around the world, but it is a debate about a number of motions being treated in a report with the not-so-new name International Relations. As a report title, it may not be so exciting.

It is fundamentally about our world order. As has been said here earlier, it was built up after the Second World War, and it is characterized by multilateral cooperation, international institutions, free trade, security cooperation and, for us in the democratic countries, the strive to achieve the human rights that we have all signed on to in the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

The free movement within the EU and the Nordic countries that we celebrate is good to learn from. It has been a success with great gains for our economy and for people who have had the opportunity to study and work in other countries. It has led to an increased quality of life.

Mr. Speaker! The liberal world order is not without its flaws. But it has, despite everything, created prosperity, stability, and opportunities for both people and the world's states to solve common problems together. It is a world to fight for even in times of questioning, unrest, power struggles, war, and conflicts.

Liberal democracy is the core of the Center Party's foreign policy. It defends and promotes democracy and human rights, supports the building of the rule of law, counters corruption, strengthens women's rights and opportunities, and strengthens our cooperation with other democracies.

It goes hand in hand with a policy for development cooperation that stands up for Swedish aid policy and that it should return to the one percent goal and focus on human rights.

It is also about a foreign policy that is compatible with a trade policy that promotes precisely free trade and a security and defense policy that means we take greater responsibility as an ally for our and our partners' common security.

Swedish security policy must also be a voice for freedom, democracy, and non-negotiable human rights. The world will not become safer if we only focus on defense. It is important, but a world without human rights where we do not have freedom and democracy is a world that is insecure and which builds conflicts and creates conditions for war.

We speak in Sweden about resilience and building a robust country that includes and does not exclude people and that does not create divides and conflicts. We must also take that lesson further into the rest of the world and in our foreign and security policy.

We live in a world where authoritarian leaders have become more numerous. Unfreedom characterizes more and more societies and hits minorities hard in large parts of the world. Today, 70 percent of the world's population lives in autocracies. In 15 years, the development has gone back 40 years in time. We are back to how it looked in 1985 when the Soviet Union and communism characterized Europe.

The forces from the past are now dressing more fashionably in ethnonationalist and cultural nationalist attire. But it is the same oppression and the same language of power that we see in different parts of the world.

The fight for freedom and democracy needs strong voices. Sweden, as one of the few world-leading democratic countries, must be a beacon for the survival and growth of liberal democracy.

It is particularly relevant in a time where we increasingly see systemic rivals such as China, Russia, Iran – as we have spoken about earlier here in the debate – as increasingly challenging and undermining the foundations of liberal democracy.

The USA has carried the torch of freedom and the liberal world, and we now see with sadness how they are slowly extinguishing it. International cooperation is now being tested at its core by war and uncertainty and a lack of trust in agreements and settlements.

We must not go back to a time where the Wild West prevails, to the Yalta Conference, or to a time where power takes precedence over justice. We need to develop the world order through the path of diplomacy and not through war.

Sweden must in this world ensure that we do not let ourselves be blackmailed, or try to blackmail other countries, something that some countries are being subjected to today.

Diplomacy is always the first line of defense. Sweden shall in all cases stand up for international law and defend the legitimacy of our international judicial institutions.

Russia's aggressive war in Ukraine has overturned the European security order. If there are no question marks about this. Consequently, the conditions for Swedish and European security have also changed.

Ukraine naturally has a right to its territory. Russia must leave Ukraine, including Crimea, which has been illegally occupied since 2014.

We also had the Crimea Platform here in the Riksdag this autumn. It was an important signal precisely that we stand up for the territorial integrity of Ukraine.

The international law principles that every country has the right to defend itself, the right to its borders and the right to choose its future are fundamental.

Mr. Speaker! One could speak a lot about the international relations and the various reservations included in this report. Of course, we stand behind all our reservations. I have touched upon the direction of foreign policy.

We have a reservation regarding the organization of the foreign administration, which must aim for freedom from oppression with a liberal approach in order to strengthen individual rights. This applies in particular to children and girls.

We have also highlighted the relations with the African countries, which we see must be renewed and developed broadly. We must make a broad rethink. This also applies to Minurso's mandate, but also to the situation in Taiwan and the South China Sea.

Mr. Speaker! I move for approval of reservation 11 under point 6.

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Mr. Speaker! In recent days, a Ukrainian drone appears to have hit a Russian patrol ship in a port near Finland. The incident shows how the support for Ukraine affects Russian military capability even in our immediate vicinity. When Russia is weakened in Ukraine, the risks for us also decrease. It must be one of the most central starting points for Swedish foreign policy today.

Russia's war of aggression is the most acute security policy challenge in Europe, but it occurs in a broader context. China is pursuing an increasingly offensive power politics, and Iran destabilizes the Middle East region through its proxies. The war in Iran also drives up oil prices, which directly strengthens Russia's finances and thus its warfare. These are interconnected events that require a more unified strategy from democratic countries.

Mr. Speaker! Ukraine's ability to withstand will determine the development in Europe for a long time to come. A Russia that is not stopped will continue to test boundaries, politically and militarily. Therefore, the support for Ukraine needs to be characterized by tempo, perseverance, and clear objectives.

The frozen Russian assets should be seized to finance Ukraine's defense and reconstruction. That these funds remain untouched while Ukraine bears the costs of the war is in no way reasonable.

The question of Ukraine's long-term security must also be addressed already now. A country that is left outside the security structures in Europe risks becoming subject to recurring Russian influence and new conflicts. Ukraine therefore needs to be fully integrated into the European community.

EU membership provides economic stability and institutional anchoring. NATO membership provides security guarantees that reduce the risk of new attacks. This is crucial for a lasting peace. This development simultaneously places higher demands on Europe, Mr. Speaker.

American security policy has become more difficult to assess over time. Regardless of who sits in the White House, Europe needs to have a greater own capacity to act. This means increased defense expenditures. It means better coordination and a stronger European defense industry. It also means that more countries must contribute more to the support for Ukraine. The distribution of responsibility in Europe is too uneven today. European cohesion is central in this situation.

Economic and financial stability is part of our collective strength. Sweden should therefore take steps to join the euro. It strengthens our position in the EU and our ability to influence decisions concerning Europe's future.

The economic dimension of our foreign policy must not be underestimated. Europe's prosperity and growth are the foundation for our ability to assert ourselves in an increasingly tougher global competition and, ultimately, for our security. The EU therefore needs to pursue a more offensive trade policy with more and deeper free trade agreements.

Mr. Speaker! It is very pleasing that the work is now moving forward both in the negotiations with Australia and in the process regarding the Mercosur agreement. The opposition from parts of the European left and also the far right – also Swedish parties such as Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet have actively voted against or complicated these agreements – risks weakening Europe's economic position at a time when we need the opposite.

We also need, Mr. Speaker, to review how international regulatory frameworks affect our own freedom of action.

Agreements, such as the Ottawa Convention on landmines, were established in a different security policy context. When Russia consistently violates international law and uses all available means, we must analyze whether current limitations are expedient. It is about ensuring that democracies do not put themselves in a worse position when facing actors who do not follow the same rules.

Mr. Speaker! Let me move to approve the committee's proposal in the report.

I have listened to the debate. I would like to say a few words about the South China Sea, which has been brought up here. This is actually part of something much broader. It is about the concern that many countries in East Asia feel regarding China's destructive actions and increased demands for dominance. China has as its goal to be a globally dominant actor by 2049.

The South China Sea is an inland sea that connects the Pacific Ocean with the Indian Ocean. Through the Strait of Malacca and the South China Sea, practically everything that goes by sea to China, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and the Philippines is transported. There are enormous trade flows here. The goal must be that, in the long term, we can be sure that the right of free navigation at sea applies, but also that the countries that share this inland sea manage to find some kind of solution to this. But we do not live in a reality where that is possible as long as the Chinese position is that the entire South China Sea – according to China's nine-dash line, which I guess is called niopunktslinje in Swedish – shall belong to China.

The Philippines have protested against this. The Philippines use other arguments. The Philippines use what one can call the habitat argument: When it comes to what lies west of Palawan and around the Spratly Islands and these coral reefs, Filipino fishermen and people have lived there since time immemorial, so to speak. That argument has the Philippines received support for in Germany – in Hamburg, where the Law of the Sea Tribunal is located.

Then we have Vietnam, Mr. Speaker. Vietnam has another argument, where they attempt to define their claims. It is sometimes called the continental shelf argument. Malaysia, Brunei and even Taiwan are part of this.

It is obviously completely unreasonable that China acts as it does. What is very important now for Sweden and for the EU is that we deepen our relations with those countries in East Asia that are more democratic.

The free trade agreement with Australia is very good. It is part of this. The agreements that are now being negotiated with, I believe, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines for example, are also very important in the long term to strengthen those countries.

Generally, it can be said that the countries that are islands and peninsulas in East Asia are more democratic than the countries that have a land border with China, for example North Korea and Myanmar.

We must understand this from our history, when Europe was divided and we had the Cold War and a conflict and a competition between democracies and dictatorships in Europe. It is precisely that which is happening in East Asia.

I believe I will stop there, Mr. Speaker.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Sometimes endings come very abruptly. This was a bit like when one wrote assignments in school when one was small. When one had to finish, everyone died completely suddenly. It was the fastest way to finish what one was busy writing about.

Well, Mr. Speaker! We live in a time when the world seems to tremble. Old truths are being questioned. Democracies are being pushed back, and conflicts that we thought belonged to history return with renewed force.

In such a time, we must ask ourselves a fundamental question: What kind of world do we want to live in – a world where strength takes precedence over right, or a world where even the smallest nation knows that the law stands on its side? For me, the answer is obvious. We must defend the rules-based world order – international law – not only when it is easy but, above all, when it is difficult.

Men, Mr. Speaker, before we even speak of states, laws and treaties, we must remember something simple but crucial: International relations work exactly like human relations. In a society where people stop talking to each other, mistrust spreads. There, conflicts are not resolved, but they are shelved. How long would such a society last?

Trust is the glue that binds people together. The same trust works between countries. If states stop talking to each other, if embassies are closed, if diplomacy is weakened and if aid is phased out without a plan, the foundation for peace is also weakened.

No human thrives in isolation, and no nation becomes secure by turning its back on the world. Relationships, whether they are between people or between states, must be cultivated, nurtured, and maintained. Otherwise, a vacuum arises, and a vacuum is always filled by other forces, often forces that do not share our values.

Mr. Speaker! There is an idea that is both fragile and strong at the same time: that law shall replace power. In large parts of history, it was the opposite. Conflicts were decided by who had the most soldiers, not by who had the best arguments. Maps were redrawn by conquests, not by agreements.

After some of history's darkest chapters, the world realized something crucial: that the logic of power politics always leads to new contradictions, while common rules provide a chance for stability and peace.

International law is therefore more than a document. It is our common compass. It says that conflicts shall be resolved at the table, not on the battlefield, that no state should have to fear being overrun by someone larger, and that small and large countries shall meet under the same principles.

But this order only works if we continue to believe in it. If countries begin to choose which rules apply and which can be ignored, the world risks sliding back towards a time when strength is the only currency. To safeguard a world where law replaces power is therefore not idealism. It is a prerequisite for international relations to function at all and for future generations to be able to live in a world where right, not raw strength, determines the direction of the path.

Mr. Speaker! In a world of cross-border pandemics, climate crises, and conflicts, no country can stand alone. Therefore, the UN, the EU, and other international organizations are not sluggish systems. They are our best tools for peace and development. Multilateralism is not a buzzword. It is civilization in practice. Regional organizations such as the African Union are taking an ever-increasing responsibility, and that is very positive. But it does not mean that we can abandon the global institutions. On the contrary, it shows how important they are.

Mr. Speaker! Let me say this clearly: A closed embassy is a closed door. It is difficult to influence developments in a country where one is no longer present. One cannot strengthen civil society if one disappears when the situation is most vulnerable, and one cannot build trust by abandoning a cooperation overnight.

The research is clear: When aid is phased out quickly, the projects lose effectiveness, relations deteriorate, and the partner countries feel abandoned. Diplomacy is a long-distance race. When you leave the track prematurely, someone else always takes your place, often an actor with completely different values.

Mr. Speaker! Democracy is under pressure, not only far away but also here at home. It is easy to believe that the decline of democracy occurs in the shadows, step by step, but for the people who stand on the front line, it is not felt as quiet changes. It is felt as threats, harassment and prison sentences and in all too many cases as silence where there were previously courageous voices.

Journalists who expose corruption and abuses risk their lives. Environmental activists who defend nature and water are being murdered at an increasing rate in several regions. LGBTQ+ people face systematic hatred, new repressive laws and violence, and women's rights activists, who often carry democracy movements on their shoulders, are subjected to both digital and physical repression aimed at silencing them.

These are not isolated incidents. It is a global pattern – a pattern where civil society's space shrinks, where free media is demonized, and where people who defend the rule of law are increasingly pointed out as enemies instead of as defenders of society's fundamental pillars.

That is precisely why the international community's response is so crucial, because these people do not just need our respect in hindsight. They need our support now. Words at conferences are not enough. Practical tools, long-term programs, and reliable partners are needed.

Ambassadors and EU delegations play a completely decisive role here. They can be a safe place for threatened activists. They can provide legal protection, open doors, and put pressure on authorities that violate rights. They can contribute with a legitimacy that often makes the difference between life and death.

But the support must be proactive, not reactive. Democracy is not built when the threats have disappeared. Democracy is built in the middle of the storm, by people who dare to stand up despite the headwind, and their struggle has one thing in common across the entire world: They are never stronger than when they know that the world sees them, hears them, and backs them. That is why it is so important that the international community never hesitates, that we do not turn away our gaze, and that we never accept that brave people are silenced while we passively stand by, for in the end, the defenders of democracy are not just heroes in their own nation. They are defenders of our shared values, of human dignity, and of the freedom to speak, think, love, and live. They are not a side issue in foreign policy. They are the core of foreign policy.

Mr. Speaker! For more than 50 years, Western Saharawis have lived in refugee camps in southern Algeria. Many have never seen the land that is theirs. Morocco's occupation violates international law; both the UN and international courts have established this. Yet, our government chooses to both support an autonomy plan that violates international law and approve a trade agreement with Morocco that clearly violates international law.

For the Western Saharan refugees, aid is their lifeline. At the same time as Morocco extracts and profits from the Sahrawis' resources, the world's aid to the refugee camps is decreasing, despite the fact that the needs are increasing. The UN mission MINURSO is still the only peacekeeping mission in the world without a mandate to monitor human rights. It is an absurdity. No peace can be built without crimes being documented and accountability being demanded.

Mr. Speaker! If we want to live in a more peaceful world, three things are needed: presence, principles, and courage. Presence is needed because diplomacy requires that we are there, principles are needed because international law is not negotiable, and courage is needed to stand up for people who are fighting for their freedom. We can never take peace, democracy, or human rights for granted. We must defend them together, not just in words but in action. Together we can build a world where law replaces power, where rights replace fear, and where hope replaces hate.

I naturally stand behind all the reservations in the report but choose to save some time during the voting by moving for approval of only reservation number 5.

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

Johan Büser (S)

Mr. Speaker! The hour is getting late, but it is very important issues that we have discussed today. My party colleague Morgan Johansson raised several of them in his speech earlier. It is about war in both Europe and the Middle East, and these are examples that clearly show that the rules-based world order is being challenged from several sides.

That is exactly why it is so crucial that Sweden stands firm on its principles. The report also states that international law is a cornerstone of Swedish foreign policy and that Sweden shall be an active, constructive and engaged actor in multilateral cooperation. That is good. It is important. But it is not enough to say or to write it. It must also be reflected in the policy that is pursued.

Mr. Speaker! I believe there is a growing discrepancy between what the Swedish government says and what it actually does. We see how the government speaks about the importance of international law, but in practice, the government acts inconsistently. We see how the government speaks about global responsibility, but at the same time, it is significantly reducing aid. We see how the government highlights international cooperation and international relations, but in reality, Sweden is now withdrawing from several important contexts.

This is problematic, not only for Sweden's role in the world but also for the credibility of our foreign policy, because if we are serious about defending a rules-based world order, we cannot choose when it should apply. It must apply consistently in Europe, in the Middle East, and also in Western Sahara, as we have spoken about here tonight.

Mr. Speaker! The report also highlights the importance of Sweden's relations with Africa and the need for long-term partnerships. It is absolutely crucial, and my party colleague Morgan Johansson mentioned the Social Democrats' proposal for a specific Africa strategy.

We see today how authoritarian forces and states are advancing their positions on the African continent, often without requirements for democracy, human rights, or the principles of the rule of law. In that situation, Sweden and Europe should increase their engagement, but instead we see how aid is being reduced and ambitions lowered. In practice, space is being left for other actors to define the development. This risks having long-term and dangerous consequences, both for democracy globally and for our own security.

Mr. Speaker! It is against this background that we must view the question of Western Sahara, for it is a test of whether we mean business with international law.

Western Sahara has been occupied since 1975. The UN recognizes the area as a non-self-governing territory. A referendum on independence was promised as early as 1991 but has still not been carried out. In the meantime, the situation has worsened. UN reports describe a tense security situation and recurring restrictions on basic freedoms and rights. Independent observers have difficulty gaining access to Western Sahara. At the same time, tens of thousands of Western Saharawis have lived for generation after generation in refugee camps in the Algerian desert.

Mr. Speaker! I have myself had the opportunity to visit these camps on several occasions over the years. I remember vividly how it felt to go there. I remember the dry desert and the simple tents and buildings, but also the dignity and organization that exists there. During one of my visits, I also participated in the Sahara Marathon.

Running through the desert together with West Saharans and people from all over the world is something special. It is not just a race, but it is a peaceful manifestation. I remember how every step in the sand became a reminder of something greater: of the struggle for freedom, of the right to return, and of a people's stubborn belief that the world will one day stand up for them.

Mr. Speaker! What makes the situation in the question of Western Sahara even more serious is that the Western Saharawis have chosen the peaceful path for decades. They have turned to the UN, they have trusted international processes, and they have sought support in international law. All too often, however, they have been met with silence, and now they risk being met with something even worse, namely that countries like Sweden begin to compromise on the principles that previously have been self-evident.

Mr. Speaker! The Government has now chosen to express support for Morocco's autonomy plan as a basis for negotiations. We Social Democrats believe that this is a problematic position, because this plan assumes that Western Sahara shall remain under Moroccan sovereignty. It means that independence in practice does not exist as an alternative. It is difficult to reconcile with what we have spoken about here tonight, namely the principle of self-determination.

This is the core of the criticism. One cannot say that a people has the right to decide its own future and at the same time support a solution that in advance limits this right, for it is a contradiction – and it is a contradiction that risks undermining international law.

Mr. Speaker! The report we are discussing emphasizes the importance of human rights and that Sweden should be a clear voice globally. Here is another deficiency in the government's policy. We know that the UN mission MINURSO in Western Sahara still lacks a mandate to monitor human rights. This is unique in comparison to many other of the UN's peacekeeping missions. We know that there are reports of abuses, harassment, and restrictions of freedom of expression. Despite this, the government is not pushing clearly enough for change, and it is something Sweden should do.

Mr. Speaker! Finally, I want to say that this is about something larger than a single conflict. It is about what role Sweden shall play in the world. Shall we be a voice for international law for real? Shall we stand up for multilateral cooperation for real? Shall we be an active global actor, or shall we withdraw?

For us Social Democrats, the answer is clear. We want Sweden to be a strong voice for international law. We want Sweden to contribute to a just and sustainable world, and we want Sweden to stand up for those people who do not always have the power to make their voices heard.

Mr. Speaker! The least we can do is stand by the principle that the Western Saharawis themselves shall decide their future – without double standards and without their rights being relativized. I would therefore like to conclude by moving for approval of the Social Democrats' reservation 8.

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

Margareta Cederfelt (M)

Mr. Speaker! I reacted to the fact that Johan Büser in his speech implied that the government does not participate and take responsibility when the world finds itself in a difficult situation. Let me remind you that Sweden provides aid in accordance with the UN level of 0.7 percent. Sweden also ranks in the top ten among countries when it comes to contributions to the UN related to GDP. I think this is fantastic. It shows that Sweden is engaged – but of course, it is not possible to be engaged everywhere.

Mr. Speaker! I want to ask Member Johan Büser if he thinks it is good that Sweden prioritizes Ukraine, that Sweden stands up for Ukraine, and that Sweden intends to stand up for Ukraine as long as it is needed. However, it entails that it is not possible to be everywhere. In the difficult situation the world is currently in, Sweden's government prioritizes Sweden's immediate surroundings, and Ukraine is there.

I would also like to ask how the member views the conflict with Western Sahara and Morocco and that a solution must be found for it. The Security Council has finally adopted a resolution, and Sweden supports it. We are talking about that we want a strong UN and that there should be an order. The UN Security Council has now produced a resolution with the aim of achieving peace, and Sweden supports this as far as it goes.

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

Johan Büser (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member Margareta Cederfelt, for the questions!

Let me begin by saying that we Social Democrats have been clear from day one regarding the issue of Ukraine: We support Ukraine until the day Russia withdraws. Ukraine has a full right to its sovereignty, and I am glad that there is a broad consensus in the Swedish Riksdag regarding the strong Swedish support for Ukraine. It does not look like that in all countries in Europe, but in Sweden, the support for Ukraine is strong, and I am pleased that we agree on that.

What I am sorry about is the discussion regarding aid, because for over 50 years Sweden and Swedish governments stood up for Sweden to have an aid level reaching up to 1 percent. It was Social Democratic governments, bourgeois governments, and Margareta Cederfeldt's party. This is the first government in over 50 years that now chooses to reduce aid in a situation where the situation in the world is very critical.

We see how the USA is reducing its core support for the UN. We see how the USA is withdrawing in many ways, and we see European countries reducing their aid. To break what we have stood up for for over 50 years in that situation is deeply unfortunate, and we Social Democrats are clear that we shall return to 1 percent and that Sweden, upon the change of government in the autumn, shall once again step forward on the foreign policy arena.

When it comes to the question of Western Sahara, the Security Council's resolution is not a decision that it shall be an autonomy plan, but it is mentioned as a solution. I regret the decision that the UN has made and can state that Morocco has been very active as an occupying power. I think it is very regrettable that Sweden's government is now joining Morocco's autonomy plan, which fundamentally violates the Western Saharawis and does not allow them the opportunity to be involved in defining their own self-determination.

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

Margareta Cederfelt (M)

Mr. Speaker! Yes, it is positive that Sweden stands behind Ukraine and that we collectively here in the Swedish Riksdag stand behind Ukraine. When it comes to Sweden as a society, the country's citizens, civil society, the institutions, and the defense, there is massive support for Ukraine. But just as the Prime Minister has said, this also means that the government focuses on our immediate neighborhood. When it now concerns war and concerns conflicts around the world, we must also be able to have security in our part of the world.

Let me say, however, that Sweden is not leaving the rest of the world behind, as 0.7 percent of GDP goes to aid, and Sweden is one of the countries in the top ten when it comes to paying to the UN related to GDP. Sweden gives the second most in the world to Gaza – 555 million – and only the United Arab Emirates gives more. I think this shows that Sweden is engaged in the world and that Sweden works for peace and security.

When it comes to Western Sahara, Sweden supports the Security Council resolution because a fifty-year conflict must reach a solution. The population of Western Sahara deserves that. But it is also a matter of ensuring that it becomes a solution that the parties agree upon, and that is something Sweden is working for.

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

Johan Büser (S)

Mr. Speaker! Again: Yes, we support the extensive Swedish support to Ukraine. The threat to the European security order is the greatest threat to our own borders and our own people, so there are no doubts there.

What I find regrettable is that in the debate about Ukraine, we sometimes end up using the strong support, which we agree on, as a reason to reduce support and back away from other parts of the world. One example of that is that this is the first Swedish government in 50 years to reduce aid, and significantly so. We regret that.

The government is closing embassies. That is not enough, and furthermore, Sweden's foreign ministers – I myself had a debate with the foreign minister a couple of weeks ago – are also absent from many important international meetings. I am active in the OSCE delegation, and at the last council meeting, the foreign minister did not participate. There are more examples of the foreign minister being absent, and Sweden also does not participate at climate summits.

This is a sign that Sweden is beginning to withdraw. My party colleague also accounted for all the embassies in Africa that are now being closed down. Sweden is moving its positions back, and other states and actors will move in. In the long run, that too will become a security issue for Sweden.

When it comes to Western Sahara and also the support for Gaza, the Swedish government unfortunately often ends up on the side of the occupying powers. Israel conducts an unlawful and illegal occupation of the West Bank. The government takes no measures in this regard; for example, they do not push to freeze trade agreements. And when it comes to Western Sahara, one is now accepting the occupying power's proposal for an autonomy plan for what is Africa's last colony unilaterally, even though Sweden for many, many years stood behind the fact that the Western Saharan people have a right to self-determination. This is what the Swedish government is now backing away from, and I regret that.

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

Jamal El-Haj (-)

Mr. Speaker! I have some motions in the report that I would like to highlight, but I can say for the sake of clarity that I have no motions for action.

Mr. Speaker! "The freedom of all peoples, the peace of the whole world," as Carl Lindhagen once expressed it. These are not just beautiful words, but they are a moral compass – a direction for how Sweden should act in the world. Sweden's foreign, security, and defense policy must be rooted in our fundamental values: peace, freedom, democracy, and respect for international law.

We have a long tradition of standing up for the rights of small states, international solidarity, and disarmament. It is a tradition that the Swedish people are proud of. We see it in Rickard Sandler's diplomacy, in Dag Hammarskjöld's uncompromising work for peace, in Anna Lindh's international engagement, and in Olof Palme's courageous voice for global justice. This is not just history to be remembered, Mr. Speaker; it is a heritage to be managed.

Sweden has long been a country that has built its international reputation on solidarity, justice, and peaceful cooperation. Sweden has been a country that has dared to stand up when others have hesitated and which has sought dialogue when others have chosen confrontation. But that image is being challenged today, Mr. Speaker. We see increasing polarization, a harsher tone, and a development where complex social issues are more and more frequently reduced to simplified oppositions. When nuances disappear and the conversation hardens, the trust that is one of Sweden's strongest assets risks being weakened.

I also see how politics in some cases moves towards symbolic issues and maneuvers rather than long-term solutions. It can provide short-term points but risks undermining trust in the long run, both among the citizens and in the outside world, and it is precisely trust that is crucial. Sweden is an export-dependent industrial nation. Our welfare is built on trade, investments, and international cooperation. If the image of Sweden as a stable, open, and rule-of-law nation is weakened, it will have consequences not only politically but also economically. It can affect investments, jobs, and confidence in the future.

Mr. Speaker! In a time of global unrest, strong international institutions are needed more than ever, but we must also dare to examine their shortcomings. Since the UN was founded in 1945, the veto power in the Security Council has given five countries – USA, Russia, China, Great Britain, and France – the power to block crucial decisions. It was a product of its time, but the world no longer looks like it did then. When individual states can block decisions supported by a broad majority, both justice and legitimacy are eroded. When humanitarian crises cannot be handled collectively, trust in the entire system is weakened.

When Russia blocks resolutions on Ukraine and when the USA stops resolutions on Palestine, the credibility of the UN is undermined and thus also the possibility of peace. When the controversial Trump and the crime-suspected Netanyahu, accused of crimes against international law and crimes against humanity, act on the world stage and set aside the UN's legitimacy, the entire rules-based world order risks being weakened. It is precisely that we see today.

Mr. Speaker! History reminds us of the importance of responsibility and consequence. On September 17, 1948, the Swedish UN mediator Folke Bernadotte was murdered in Jerusalem by the Israeli terrorist organization Stern League. It was an act that shook the world and reminded us of the risks that accompany peace work.

The four murderers were identified, and over the years, three of them confessed to the acts in several interviews, including in Swedish media. The primary person responsible was appointed as head of the bodyguard for the first Israeli prime minister, David Ben-Gurion. The one who was operationally responsible for the attack, Yitzhak Shamir, later became Israel's prime minister himself for the right-wing party Likud. Nevertheless, some clear accountability towards Sweden has never fully come to expression. This raises fundamental questions, because if international law is to have significance, it must apply consistently, regardless of time, place, or actor.

Mr. Speaker! The situation in Gaza is an acute humanitarian catastrophe where civilians are being hit hard and access to food, water, and medical care is severely restricted. At the same time, illegal settlements on the West Bank are expanding, where Palestinians are subjected to systematic abuses that often occur with military protection.

Parallelly, Israel's military actions in the region, including attacks against Iran and the invasion of southern Lebanon and Beirut, contribute to an increased escalation, which raises serious questions about international law. The consequences risk becoming far-reaching not only for the Middle East but also for global security and the economy.

International humanitarian law is clear: civilians must be protected, and starvation must never be used as a means of warfare. This requires the world's attention and accountability, because the principles we defend must apply universally. We cannot speak about children's rights in one context and remain silent in another. We cannot defend international law selectively. "The freedom of all peoples, the peace of the whole world" does not only apply to Europe; it applies globally, and it applies in our time.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden stands at a crossroads. Either we can let short-sightedness, division, and diminished trust characterize our direction, or we can reconnect with what once made us strong. I am speaking of a Sweden that stands up for international law, a Sweden that defends human rights consistently and credibly, and a Sweden that works for dialogue, cooperation, and peaceful solutions.

If we abandon our values, we lose not only our direction but also our credibility, and without credibility, we have no strong voice in the world. Let us therefore put Lindhagen's words into action: The freedom of all peoples, the peace of the whole world.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 1 April.)

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