International relations etc.

Ann-Sofie Alm (M)

Madam Speaker! We are dealing with a motion report on international relations, and as always with great commitment. A total of 110 motions have been processed, and that is a sign of health!

It also shows that Sweden is in a new development, a new geography and a new time. Sweden's engagement in the world shall be characterized by a coherent line that takes its starting point in Sweden's interests and in our values. Sweden is not an isolated and alliance-free country far up in the north. Sweden has a strong global voice with an economy that for large parts is about exports. It requires close and good international relations to be able to maintain flows with other countries and regions.

The pandemic, the blockage in the Suez Canal, and the war in Ukraine demonstrate both the importance of these flows of goods, people, and human contacts and how sensitive they are to conflicts and other disruptions. Under all circumstances, we shall defend Sweden's freedom, security, and right to self-determination, as well as promote stability and security in our immediate vicinity.

Sweden assumes a major European leadership and is a strong international force. Sweden will contribute greatly to the defense alliance Nato. Sweden and Europe need more cooperation, not less.

Madam Speaker! Sweden and the world are in a new era. It is a game of foxes taking place in the world, and wolves are being discovered in every corner of the playing field. In Sweden's direct vicinity, our neighbors are fighting for their lives and for their country's continued existence. Russia's illegal war of invasion in Ukraine shows a boundless contempt for international law, the European security order, and the most fundamental rules of the UN Charter. We must therefore be extremely clear-sighted in this wolf winter.

Russia's goal to replace the European security order and bring us back to a time where violence takes precedence over justice requires Sweden to change course in the overall foreign, security, and defense policy. Sweden's interests and democratic values must be at the core of that policy.

Russia's despicable war against Ukraine has shown two things with all clarity: firstly that alone is not strong and secondly that if we stand together and united we are unbeatable. Russia believed that they could split the Western world through unbridled violence and terror-like war against civilian targets and against Ukraine's population, but Russia's war has made that the Western world has never been more determined in its unity. It is an enormous strength, and it will help Ukraine to win peace.

Madam Speaker! Unity is strength. In an ever more restless world, where Iran has been caught by the IAEA enriching uranium to levels far exceeding those agreed upon under the JCPOA and where monitoring from the IAEA has not been resumed until now, the EU needs to stand united - but not stationary - to prevent an escalating conflict and a military confrontation.

The continuous review being conducted within the UN and the EU regarding which measures are appropriate, legally feasible, and effective needs to be intensified. Sweden supports the Iranian people's demands for human rights. Sweden condemns, individually and together with the EU, the excessive violence that Iranian authorities use against their population and others. Accountability must be demanded from those responsible for the death of Mahsa Jina Amini.

Only 6 percent of the world's population live in democratic states, and that proportion is decreasing. The democratic retreat in the world in this serious global political situation requires a great focus on precisely democracy, human rights, and the principles of the rule of law. It is important that Sweden stands united with the world's democracies in the common endeavor to engage more countries for democratic development. Therefore, it is important that within the China policy, contacts and cooperation with Taiwan continue to be developed.

Taiwan has well-functioning educational institutions for teaching both Chinese culture and the Mandarin language without a communist imprint. The world has much to learn from Taiwan. Not least within WHO, these skills can be utilized. The Moderates want Sweden to create opportunities for increased contacts within research, trade, civil society, and business with Taiwan and look forward with confidence to what will emerge from our new government's preparation of a House of Sweden.

Madam Speaker! I want to emphasize that Dawit Isaak and Gui Minhai must be released immediately and that the work regarding other complicated cases of imprisoned Swedes in the world continues. I also want to mention Vladimir Kara-Murza, who was sentenced to 25 years in a Russian prison following an illegal trial. He has, like the already imprisoned Aleksej Navalnyj, exposed the corruption within Putin's party and inner circle. They must both be released immediately. It is instead Putin and his accomplices who should be convicted and imprisoned for the horrific war crimes and crimes against human rights they have committed in their illegal war against Ukraine and against oppositionists in Russia.

Sweden has a strong defense of democracy and thus equality. An important part of countries' sustainable security and democratic development is precisely equality. To safeguard girls' and women's right to empowerment, to a strengthened position in society and to freedom is a strong guiding principle in the strategic equality work moving forward. It also means combating all forms of oppression and sexual and gender-related violence.

There is an immense injustice in that a large part of the world's population lives under harmful customs such as the oppression of honor culture, where young girls are torn from their mothers' arms to be married off under coercion. The forced marriage of a child can also occur with the mother's blessing, which perhaps is even worse. The absolute worst is that daughters are murdered in the shadow of a lost family honor.

We are all in here painfully aware that female genital mutilation occurs, whereby girls are harmed for life only because men's desires and the family's alleged honor are placed before the girl's life. Sweden shall work with SRHR and always be a clear voice for equality and for girls' and women's rights and opportunities.

Some call it feminist foreign policy, others strategic equality work. The important thing is that the words do not remain as words, because during this time, Madam Speaker, women are raped and mutilated, girls are forced into sex slavery under religious blessings, and women are denied the right to education and economic empowerment.

Woman, life, freedom - the cry is heard loudly from Iran, but they apply to the whole world. If this we are in agreement, Madam Speaker. I move for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision.

(Applause)

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Madam Speaker! Ann-Sofie Alm mentioned the importance of equality work and support for SRHR, and I absolutely agree with her there. But that makes it even more strange that the government has removed the feminist foreign policy. For me, it is very strange because it sends signals that feminism is no longer important in the same way. It is very regrettable when equality retreats significantly in the world as a result of the corona pandemic, the climate crisis, the wars and the conflicts. Women and girls are particularly hard hit.

Women's economic opportunities have decreased, and child marriage is increasing again, as is female genital mutilation. Girls' opportunities to attend school have declined. All of this is a sign that equality is retreating. To remove the feminist foreign policy is to send the wrong signals to girls and women out in the world and to the rest of the world.

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

Ann-Sofie Alm (M)

Madam Speaker! I know that the member and I share the commitment to girls' and women's right to their own bodies, empowerment in society, education, and the opportunity to choose for themselves exactly how they want to live. We share that view.

What we do not agree on is what label we should put on this. For me, it does not matter all that much. Under the label feminist foreign policy, there was a foreign policy that contained action plans that had no effect.

We must be able to work with these issues and see an effect. A strategic equality work was needed that extends far beyond Sweden's borders, because we who are born and raised in Sweden have an incredibly privileged position in society. We are incredibly privileged and must be able to share the equality we see here and which pays off in the form of a more democratic society. It pays off. Companies that are equal become more profitable. It pays off in every way that an equal society exists and delivers for everyone in society.

It seems to just be a label that we are arguing about. I firmly believe that the Vänsterpartiet representative will understand that strategic gender equality policy will do great good.

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Madam Speaker! I thank Ann-Sofie Alm for the answer.

I still do not think it is just a question of labels. When I was Deputy Speaker and traveled around representing the Riksdag in the world, I was asked many times about precisely that feminist foreign policy. There were many who were interested in it and in our equality work. Then I explained that the feminist foreign policy is something that should permeate the entire foreign policy agenda and also the aid.

Many countries have listened to this. Furthermore, several countries in the world have begun to discuss in the same terms and want to implement a feminist foreign policy. It concerns about a dozen countries, such as France, Chile, among others. To now remove the feminist foreign policy is to send the wrong signals to the rest of the world.

It is clear that one must see that it is not possible to get support and impact for all of this at once, but we still had our sights set on increased equality in a structured and good way.

We in Vänsterpartiet would like to see Sweden, for example, allocate 50 percent of the aid to equality and 10 percent earmarked for SRHR to demonstrate how important equality work and women's participation are. I wonder how Ann-Sofie Alm views this.

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

Ann-Sofie Alm (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank Lotta Johnsson Fornarve for further questions.

The Chairperson said in her first remark that the signs of equality are decreasing in the world and that equality is in decline. Nevertheless, she claims that the government's policy provided the benefit that was desired.

In my speech, I spoke quite a bit about honor culture and the violations of human rights that honor culture entails. Here in Sweden, we also have honor culture, which we try to address and show zero tolerance towards.

During the previous parliamentary term, we dealt with a report that proposed that we should deport more people who had committed crimes. The report contained a rather strong demand that gained traction and concerned that more people who commit honor crimes should be deported. This report, this demand, and this stance, the Left Party (V) said an outright no to.

If one does not want to show at home that honor culture is something that is wrong and constitutes a violation of human rights, how then can one show it out in the world and be the role model that the member says they want to be? We must show with good examples. And we must have a strategic equality work that is useful and that helps women and girls to a better life.

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

Kerstin Lundgren (C)

Madam Speaker! I had not intended to touch upon the issue of strategic equality work, but when I listened to the previous exchange, I had to take it up anyway. It is clear that it is about structures and about seeing the structures in the world where they try to push back women. They do it with clothing and by ensuring that women are not allowed out. They do it by asserting traditional values and so on. This is the important part. My reflection is whether the government sees it as a strategic effort to try to counter this.

I perceive, Madam Speaker, that strategic equality work is almost as much a label as feminist foreign policy is. What does it actually stand for? "Strategic" sounds exciting, but we have not seen exactly what it stands for. It would be interesting to see what it is.

If one has a feminist basic view, which I as a liberal member of the Center Party do, one naturally sees the whole thing clearly and wants to address it.

The reason I requested the floor was the positive words I heard from Ann-Sofie Alm, Madam Speaker, when she touched upon the importance of developing relations with Taiwan and standing up for Taiwan. I heard something that I cannot read about in the committee report, namely the great expectation that seems to be in the air somewhere between the Chamber and the UD regarding a House of Sweden. Can Ann-Sofie Alm confirm that there will be a House of Sweden and that the M stands up for it? They did so a year ago when we dealt with the issue. Do they stand up for it today?

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

Ann-Sofie Alm (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank Kerstin Lundgren for the questions. There were a few to answer.

Let me begin with House of Sweden. Taiwan is a democratic country and shows that one can have a full democracy and at the same time speak Chinese.

In the report, the proposal for a decision of which I move for approval, we state that we are awaiting the preparation of the announcement that the Riksdag directed to the government during the previous parliamentary term. I look forward with confidence to the preparation and hope that we will truly increase our contacts and international relations with Taiwan.

We hear how it is rumbling across the Taiwan Strait right now. Taiwan is being subjected to quite threatening movements from China. This perhaps must also be taken into account when it comes to how large steps one should take. But that Taiwan should have an observer status in WHO is absolutely clear.

I look forward with confidence to how the new government will prepare the whole thing in the Government Offices.

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

Kerstin Lundgren (C)

Madam Speaker! I received an answer from the Minister for Foreign Affairs today regarding the observer status in the World Health Organization's assembly, and it was not very clear. I perceive that caution has taken over.

Against that background, I wonder, Madam Speaker, if Ann-Sofie Alm can tell us something that gives substance to a positive expectation. If it is to become a House of Sweden, it is not just a matter of developing some relations; it is actually a matter of putting the spade in the ground and deciding that a House of Sweden shall be established here. It is about something much more than just a few international relations. To do this is also about strengthening and protecting the democracy that we agree characterizes Taiwan.

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

Ann-Sofie Alm (M)

Madam Speaker! Unfortunately, I do not have more meat on the bones. But the Moderaterna stand up for Taiwan having an observer status in the WHO. The government obviously has a different negotiating position. I can understand that the Foreign Minister's position was cautious.

Let us look at the benefits that exist for the rest of the world if Taiwan has an observer status in the WHO. Taiwan has succeeded very well with the pandemic. Despite having a fairly low GNI, they have succeeded in extending their life expectancy over time in a way that is difficult to find in any other country with the same conditions. In research, Taiwan is incredibly interesting, and we shall never deny the research.

Madam Speaker! I want to return to the first question Kerstin Lundgren asked me: what strategic gender equality work stands for. Strategic gender equality work means having a greater understanding of what women's empowerment is. One works, for example, with humanitarian aid, education, and women's economic empowerment. There is, of course, much that needs to be addressed to achieve equality in a country that lags far behind. A strategic work is about having the long lines for feminist foreign policy, so to speak. They need to be even longer if one wants to find utility and do good in the strategic gender equality work.

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

Alexandra Völker (S)

Madam Speaker! For the first time in several decades, we see how poverty seems to be increasing instead of decreasing. Democracy is in retreat and authoritarian forces are on the advance. At the same time, we see only the beginning of the consequences of climate change, such as extreme heat, drought, famine, and in other places, major floods.

The increasingly tough situation affects large parts of the world's population. But time and again we see that it is women and children who are hit hardest. It is their conditions that deteriorate first. It is their opportunity for livelihood that is made more difficult first. It is their opportunity for influence that is actively restricted. When the economic situation worsens and when authoritarian forces come to power, it is always the women who are hit first.

In Afghanistan, we see how the Taliban regime restricts women in area after area: closing the door to education, restricting the possibility of livelihood, and closing the door for those who want to be able to move freely. The very latest announcement is that no women are allowed to work for the UN in the country. In December, the announcement was that no women were allowed to work in the non-governmental organizations. In a gender-segregated country like Afghanistan, decisions that women are not allowed to work in aid organizations mean in practice that women also cannot receive support from these organizations.

In Iran, over the past half year, we have seen how women are fighting for their own freedom and to live freely in a democracy. But we also see with what brutality the struggle is being suppressed.

UN Resolution 1325 concerns the specific vulnerability of women and children in conflicts and the importance of women's participation in conflict resolution and peacebuilding. Even though the resolution is well-known, not least in this house, its actual content seems to be constantly forgotten. It is about women's participation in decision-making power. It is about the fact that security, stability, and peace for the entire population cannot be created by parts of the population. Therefore, not all peace-promoting soldiers can be men. Nor can all peace negotiators be men. Those who sit at the table and make the security policy decisions cannot all be men. And this does not change by itself. If women are to be included at the decision-making tables, we must constantly promote female candidates.

For eight years, Sweden pursued a feminist foreign policy. For eight years, it was women's particularly vulnerable situation that guided foreign policy. In order to live up to the commitments in resolution 1325, the Folke Bernadotte Academy was, among other things, tasked with establishing a mediation network. Over these years, it has gathered 19 women with extensive experience in dialogue and peace mediation. Now, the new government has chosen to pause that work. It is dormant awaiting an investigation, as it is called.

Since Sweden was the first country to introduce a feminist foreign policy, several countries have followed in Sweden's footsteps. But since the change of government, Sweden is no longer a country that conducts a feminist foreign policy. To say that Sweden stands up for equality and that one might eventually develop a new plan for sexual and reproductive health is not the same as a feminist foreign policy. The current policy is, at best, symptomatic treatment. Feminist foreign policy is to act actively to meet the fundamental problem.

Madam Speaker! Nearly 700 million of the world's population live in extreme poverty. Around 55 armed conflicts are ongoing. Only 14 percent of the world's population live in democracies. The poverty, drought, and famine that are spreading have enormous consequences. To, in that situation, reduce the Swedish engagement to focus only on one's own immediate vicinity is irresponsible.

Tigray, Sudan and Somaliland are just some of the places where armed conflicts with horrific human rights violations are currently taking place, where people have their rights violated and where people are killed every day. Together with drought and famine, these conflicts create completely horrific situations for the people living there. The consequences extend far beyond the geographical areas and also affect future generations.

Focusing unilaterally on our immediate surroundings and reducing our engagement in the rest of the world will have enormous consequences. We must work to fight poverty, promote democracy and strengthen women's rights. We must stand up for human rights and democratic principles and safeguard multilateralism. Therefore, I move for approval of reservation 1.

Madam Speaker! Imagine coming home from school one day and being met with the fact that your home has been demolished! The entire house has been demolished, and all your belongings have been destroyed. For far too many Palestinian children, this is their reality. The UN Secretary-General has been clear that the Israeli settlements are illegal under international law and has expressed that every new settlement on occupied land is an obstacle on the path toward peace.

The development that we are seeing right now is very worrying. It is important that we, from the Swedish side, maintain our commitment, stand up for international law, and safeguard Swedish aid to Palestine. We Social Democrats are proud of the decision to recognize Palestine as a state, which was taken by the Social Democrat-led government in the autumn of 2014. The goal is a two-state solution where the states of Israel and Palestine can live in peace side by side. It is also from that objective that we must weigh our own decisions.

Jerusalem has been given special status by the UN, and all questions concerning Jerusalem's status must be based on international law with a party-negotiated two-state solution as the goal. For the USA, under Trump's presidency, to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital has serious consequences and complicates the peace process. In that context, we must be particularly careful about the messages we send from Sweden. To say, in response to a motion where it is urged that Sweden should recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital, that it is not currently relevant to do so opens up for unfortunate interpretations, for example, that it is something that Sweden's Riksdag could consider in the future. Therefore, I would like to conclude by motioning for approval of reservation 14.

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

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! In this report on international relations, I propose that the committee suggests that the Riksdag reject all motions, primarily with reference to ongoing work and previous positions. We Christian Democrats stand behind that assessment.

In the government's foreign policy declaration for 2023, which the Foreign Minister presented on 15 February, it is stated, among other things, that Sweden shall continue to be engaged in arms control and non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

It also expresses a concern over Iran's actions in the nuclear field and its role in the region. With regard to the developments in Iran but also otherwise, it is important that the EU circle acts both directly and in the UN. A continuous review must be made of which measures are most appropriate, legally feasible, and effective against the regime.

In the foreign policy declaration, it is also clarified that Sweden shall continue to be engaged in the Middle East, on the Horn of Africa, and in Southeast Asia. Regarding Israel and Palestine, Sweden shall work for a two-state solution based on international law.

I would, however, like to take this opportunity to emphasize that we Christian Democrats see Jerusalem as Israel's capital. Our highest body, the Riksdag, has therefore decided that the party shall work to move Sweden's embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. However, there may be steps to take even before we are there.

When it comes to China, the foreign policy declaration states that Sweden's interests are best served by close cooperation between the European side and our transatlantic friends. Therefore, I want to emphasize that France's president Macron spoke for neither Europe nor Sweden during his latest visit to China. His statement is particularly unfortunate given China's tone towards Taiwan and actions in the Taiwan Strait and the South China Sea.

Madam Speaker! That the heading of this report ends with an "etc." feels very natural as it touches on such disparate subjects as the direction of foreign policy, international democracy work, the United Nations and international law, as well as consular affairs. There is also mention of Sweden-promoting and international cooperation against terrorism.

The work on equality, the recognition of states, and the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations are discussed thematically. Geographically, we move across areas such as the Horn of Africa, Western Sahara, China and Taiwan, the Middle East, including Israel and Palestine, and Eastern Europe.

The government parties consider that Sweden should be a responsible and engaged member in the international organizations. Membership in these organizations enables influence for Swedish foreign and security policy.

However, we want to work for an even more effective, results-oriented, representative and transparent UN and to counter all forms of irregularities within the UN system. We also want a foreign policy to be pursued where Swedish and European interests and democratic values are at the core.

Respect for the rules-based international world order based on international law is central. It is currently being challenged. Sweden must be clear in its commitment to the fight against terrorism, safeguard democracy and a functioning rule of law, and be a proactive and constructive partner in the EU, which we have shown during the presidency.

Sweden shall also conduct strategic gender equality work in aid and foreign policy, work to create alliances within the UN and long-term and purposefully push for effective solutions that meet the needs of, among others, global climate actions and sustainable development.

Sweden will also continue, individually and together with others, to act so that Dawit Isaak and Gui Minhai are released. At the same time, work is also ongoing with other cases involving deprived of liberty Swedes.

Madam Speaker! With this, I move for the approval of the committee's proposal for a decision in the report UU7.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the speech, Magnus Berntsson!

I heard that you have made a congress decision that you will work towards Sweden recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital.

There are two states that would like to see Jerusalem as their capital. There is a UN resolution that there should be an international presence pending a formal peace agreement where they jointly decide where the capitals shall be located. The Palestinians also want Jerusalem as their capital.

I wonder if the Christian Democrats have thought anything about where you have intended Palestine's capital to be in the future.

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

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the question, Jacob Risberg!

As I emphasized, it is obviously a two-state solution that we want to see. It is such a thing that needs to be discussed in the future.

My party is, however, very clear that we want to see Jerusalem as Israel's capital. But there are also solutions to that which I would think are possible for the future.

It is the discussion one needs to reach on the day peace negotiations are resumed and we ensure that we obtain a long-term solution where we simply have a two-state solution. That is where we must get to.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the possible clarification. I do not think, however, that I became particularly much wiser.

On the one hand, you want to preempt the peace negotiations by saying that Jerusalem shall obviously be Israel's capital. But you do not want to preempt the peace negotiations and say the same thing regarding the Palestinians.

My question remains. If you intend for Israel's future capital to be Jerusalem, where then do you intend for Palestine's future capital to be?

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

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Jacob Risberg!

During the previous parliamentary term, a number of decisions were made prematurely in this area. It was primarily that Sweden recognized Palestine as an independent state despite the fact that Palestine did not meet all the criteria according to international law.

Furthermore, requirements were then set that a follow-up should be conducted and the Palestinian authority should be monitored to ensure that it would continue with democratic elections. There are quite a few things that have not been done.

In order for us to achieve more balance in that, we see it as a good step for the future. I am convinced that these are issues that Jacob Risberg and the undersigned will continue to discuss a number of times ahead. But at the current moment, we probably do not have the same view on that question.

In this speech, Markus Wiechel (SD) agreed.

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

Markus Wiechel (SD)

Madam Speaker! As we now debate the important report on international relations, I just want to start by saying that it feels fantastically fun that so many necessary and good changes are underway within Swedish foreign policy.

Just as the Sweden Democrats write in their special statement in this report, Swedish foreign policy has for many years been properly mismanaged, much like much other policy in Sweden. There is therefore no lack of necessary changes and reforms.

We see with pleasure how the intention in our foreign policy has partially gained traction in several parts of this report. The cooperation between the government and the Sweden Democrats is therefore working very well, so also within this area, why we closely follow our most important issues during the mandate period and look with optimism at what the government and the Sweden Democrats can do together moving forward.

Madam Speaker! For the sake of clarity, I intended to highlight some of the most important issues for the Sweden Democrats in this report, but also to flag some other important issues that necessarily have not been addressed in the committee but which are nevertheless related to just this. In addition, I intended to comment on significant improvements in certain areas.

Let us begin with the international democracy work. It is no secret that the Sweden Democrats have for a long time placed great emphasis on clearly promoting the international democracy work.

In our motions, we have highlighted the need to, among other things, support people's embassies and to learn from how other countries, for example the United Kingdom and Portugal, do in order to facilitate active democracy work in accordance with the Vienna Convention. In these countries, we see how they have found ways to freeze assets belonging to illegitimate regimes, and they also enable legitimate people's embassies to take over physical property from illegitimate regimes.

We are therefore pleased that the committee also recognizes the importance of learning from other countries so that representatives of an organized democratic opposition that has fled authoritarian states shall receive the support they need.

Where do we see examples of this? There are two very clear examples, which we have also raised on a number of occasions: Belarus and Venezuela. In both of these countries, we see a relatively well-organized opposition that is prepared to take responsibility. When it is so, we must do our utmost to ensure that they also get that opportunity.

Madam Speaker! Another area where the Sweden Democrats have stood out significantly is the issue of Somaliland. There are several good reasons for this. The violence and the many problems in Somalia have, as is known, been ongoing for a long time now, without the slightest sign of improvement. In many cases, it is unfortunately the opposite. It affects in particular the people who live there, but it also affects the rest of the world, including Sweden. Therefore, from several perspectives, it is in our interest to work for improvement.

We see, however, how the committee has now taken a significantly more reality-based step in its view of this entire region, while acknowledging the relatively positive development in Somaliland specifically, with the exception of the violence we see there right now and which we truly regret.

Furthermore, the committee now notes that a reassessment of the recognition of Somaliland presupposes a clear improvement of basic human freedoms and rights. In that regard, I see that this particularly concerns freedom of religion. I certainly hope that this will be a clear signal to the government in Somaliland, which should receive our support when they have taken the right measures and are thus also ready for the support.

Madam Speaker! Taiwan is an increasingly pressing issue when we see how Taiwan, which is one of the world's leading democracies and can be regarded as an example in almost every area of society, is threatened by an authoritarian state that lacks basic respect for fundamental values such as human freedoms and rights.

Thanks to the change of government, we see how a significantly healthier stance towards Taiwan is taking shape, and I assume that within a near future we will be able to visit a House of Sweden in Taipei. It is a matter that is currently being prepared.

The committee can now clearly clarify that we view positively that cooperation with Taiwan can be further developed and that we have an interest in them participating in various international organizations. I cannot emphasize enough how important it is that we, hand in hand with the USA, ramp up cooperation with Taiwan.

And so we come to Israel, Madam Speaker. There is very much that can be said here. There should be no doubt whatsoever that Sweden's recognition of the State of Palestine was hasty, and it is pleasing that the committee can also state exactly this.

The recognition of this area, which has never met the requirements to be recognized as a state, has not contributed to improving the conditions for a sustainable peace. In context, one could have thought that at least such a thing would have been important for the Social Democrats when they were in power and when they suddenly betrayed and broke their own principles in order to satisfy the animosity that obviously exists within the Social Democratic party towards Israel.

Some international law requirements have also not been met since the recognition, and the decision was made without the broad cross-bloc parliamentary majority that this type of symbolically important issue should rest on when such decisions are made. The decision to recognize the state of Palestine was particularly unfortunate because the then left-wing government did not simultaneously distance itself from Hamas by declaring that the terrorist organization Hamas cannot be seen as a party in a legitimate Palestinian state leadership.

It should be reviewed whether it is possible to revoke the recognition of Palestine and publicly declare that a Palestinian state leadership in which Hamas is included cannot be regarded as legitimate. Furthermore, we argue that the Swedish representation in Israel must increase in Jerusalem, which should also be regarded as Israel's capital.

Last, but certainly not least, Madam Speaker, I intended to raise Iran and in particular that which is addressed in the committee report, namely the nuclear energy program Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, JCPOA.

It is actually downright shameful that I stand here alone and that it is only the Sweden Democrats who are working to have this agreement finally scrapped. Since the protests broke out after Mahsa Jina Amin's death in Iran, we have seen several members of parliament from almost all parties join the demands for significantly tougher measures against the Iranian rogue regime. Yet, it is only I who stand here today and work to scrap the agreement that binds the EU and thereby also makes a number of important sanctions impossible.

In February and March 2023, the IAEA announced that the enrichment level far exceeds the JCPOA agreement. Anyone can therefore state that Iran is not fulfilling its part of the agreement. The mere fact that Iran has not fulfilled its obligations means that the agreement should be considered breached.

Madam Speaker! Another matter: the Sweden Democrats have championed that the government should exert maximum pressure against the Islamic Revolutionary Guard, IRGC. This is also the government's official position, and it has occurred with the consent of the entire opposition.

But where is the credibility of this position when the same parties, from right to left, who claim to stand for this, simultaneously accept the JCPOA? It does not add up. One cannot advocate for maximum pressure against the IRGC and simultaneously accept the JCPOA.

In conclusion, Madam Speaker: We are content with having only one reservation in the report - reservation 11, which I also move for approval - despite the fact that we have several motions within a number of different areas.

We do this because we understand that it is not possible to carry out everything we would like to carry out all at once. But at the same time, we look with optimism at the foreign policy progress that is now being made thanks to the good cooperation that exists between us and the government parties.

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

Martin Melin (L)

Madam Speaker! Sweden's role in international relations shall be firmly anchored in the values and principles that permeate our liberal democracy.

Just as stated in the government's foreign policy declaration, we shall prioritize conducting a primarily Swedish and European foreign policy. This has become even more important due to the serious security policy situation we find ourselves in following Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine.

At the same time, we must remember that it is nothing new that Swedish foreign policy shall be based on safeguarding Swedish interests and standing up for democratic values. We have always done that, and we shall always do so.

Sweden shall be a responsible member in international organizations. Our commitment shall be visible and audible. We safeguard the European security order and believe in a world community built on the rules-based international system. We believe in an effective and results-oriented UN, and we believe that it is the democratic principles that build the common international system strongly.

It is important that the work to break the pattern that fewer and fewer countries are counted as democracies continues. We need democracies, not regimes.

The work that the Liberals and the coalition parties in the government carry out within foreign policy must also be intensified in other areas. The fight against terrorism, the fight against authoritarian tendencies in certain states, and the fight against oppression based on ethnicity or sexual orientation, to name a few, are all areas where Sweden must take the fight every time.

Madam Speaker! We shall also fight for democracy and equality. For us liberals, equality is freedom. That is why it is of great importance to us that the government's foreign policy declaration states equality as a priority area.

Different labels on foreign policy have been discussed here in the chamber. We have previously heard that there is a desire to see more labels of the type feminist foreign policy. For some parties, it seems to be more important to discuss words and labels than content. I mean that no book should be judged by its cover. If one opens the book and does not fixate on the cover, one can read that Sweden, with the new government, is actually pursuing an active foreign policy for equality, where feminist values are found.

It is, for example, about continuing to focus on increased freedom and a strengthened position for women and girls, among other things by Sweden promoting women's and girls' empowerment through the right to education, for example in Afghanistan. We also support women's struggle in Iran. We note and work to ensure that work is carried out to counter and, in the worst cases, investigate rape committed in Ukraine due to the war.

International work is an abstract expression that can be difficult to put into words. Let me therefore relate it to what I and other police officers notice and frequently encounter in our work, namely violence against women and the effect it has.

Sweden must also, in international contexts, work to curb all forms of gender-related violence and also atrocities such as child and forced marriages as well as honor-related violence and oppression. This is something we must all stand up for, regardless of party affiliation. Equality in international work is a priority for this government.

I and the Liberals share many of the views and values in these issues that the Green Party, the Social Democrats, and also the Left Party put forward, but I mean at the same time that these values are actually taken care of by the current government through the foreign policy being conducted. Then it can always be done more if one is not satisfied with it.

Mr. Speaker! Oppression is palpably present when we discuss international relations. We follow with interest the Iranian people and their struggle against the brutal regime in the country. It is extra present for us Members of Parliament when demonstrators weekly meet us outside the Riksdag and point out and spread information about the regime's ruthless policy towards its own people, not least towards women.

It is brave women who take off their veils. It is brave men who support their struggle. And this is not a struggle against religion, it is a struggle against an authoritarian regime that wants to impose its interpretation of religion on a country with 88 million inhabitants. Religion and religious rituals should be a free choice, not someone else's decision or coercion.

Sweden and the EU must be tough against the Iranian regime in the way that best benefits Iranian women here and now, and also in the long term. We believe in tough, targeted sanctions against leading figures within, among others, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. In the long run, we will have to see if more may need to be done and in other forms than through sanctions. Sweden shall continue to be a strong voice so that the women in Iran shall get their freedom.

Mr. Speaker! Russia's brutal attack against a sovereign state's territorial integrity is a violation of international law that has no place in the international rules-based system.

It is often said that not all heroes wear capes. The hero in Kyiv wears a military monk's tunic. When Western leaders offered an escort, he asked where the support was. When they wanted to send rescue helicopters, he asked for ammunition.

But no heroes stand alone. I do not believe one is a hero until one has inspired others to be heroes, and that is what Zelenskyy has done. The Ukrainian people have shown the true definition of resilience and the longing for freedom. Let us never forget that they fight for their people, their families, their country, their democracy - but also for Sweden's and Europe's freedom and future.

It is a privilege to be able to stand here and speak in the Riksdag without fear of falling bombs. Our colleagues in Ukraine cannot take their freedom for granted. Our words here in this chamber must therefore not be just words. Let us promise each other that our big words will also lead to big actions in the future. We must continue to deliver economic, military, and civilian support packages to Ukraine until peace.

In this speech, Ann-Sofie Alm (M) agreed.

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

Alexandra Völker (S)

Mr. Speaker! It is interesting with the right and feminism – this fear of this word and at the same time this desire to stick on us that it is we who are attached to labels. If feminist foreign policy really had only been a label, you could just as well have kept it, because it was also something we received quite a lot of praise for internationally.

Therefore, my reflection is this: Women are constantly left out in peace negotiations, in the formation of governments, and actually in all direct influence in the world. It constantly goes the wrong way. Even here in Sweden, it is going terribly slowly.

A concrete matter that was part of the feminist foreign policy was the mediation network, where we gather experienced female mediators and contribute to promoting other female mediators around the world. If we are to achieve resolution 1325, which everyone says we agree on, we need to ensure that we lift up women and give them a place at the table.

Then I ask: What is the Liberals' view on the future of the mediation network, given that it has now been put on hold and it is very unclear what future it will have?

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

Martin Melin (L)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you very much for the question. I received the question about the network last week as well in connection with a debate here in the chamber, and I have the same answer now as then. The answer is that I have no answer. It is regrettable that things that work are being shut down, I think that too. Therefore, I say: Continue the fight to ensure that things that work continue to work! I cannot help the member with this here today, unfortunately, but never stop taking that fight!

When it comes to whether it should be called feminist foreign policy or perhaps called strategic equality policy, the most important thing for me is still what the policy delivers, not what it is called. It will always be that. When I read through today's foreign policy and see what it leads to, when I read the aid budget and see what the money is to be spent on, I see a great deal of work for equality. I don't really know what it is that has disappeared.

It may happen that it is things that have decreased, and that is naturally because there is not enough money. We have an economic situation in the world that makes us reduce support for virtually everything. But I see how we spend money on helping maternity care all over the world, how we help to educate men in equality and how we, as far as possible, try to prevent forced marriages and child marriages. I see that this government supports a great deal of feminist work around the world. I do not know what is wrong with that.

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

Alexandra Völker (S)

Mr. Speaker! Exactly what the member says is the problem itself. It is the core of our criticism regarding the feminist foreign policy. When they abolished the so-called label, quite a lot of good and important policy actually went up in smoke, policy that aimed precisely at addressing the root problem and not just the symptoms. That is the difference between equality policy and feminist policy.

I understand that it is a bit troublesome with these questions. Somewhere, feminist politics is also about elevating women, ensuring that women have a place at the decision-making tables, ensuring that women sit in and make the security policy decisions and not just men.

If one looks at the Government Offices on the other side of the water, one can observe what it looks like. The Prime Minister is a man, the Foreign Minister is a man, the Defense Minister is a man, and the security advisor is a man. Until extremely recently, also every single state secretary in those departments were men. Pleasantly enough, a woman has now stepped in there, a woman in the horde of men.

I understand, then, that the work of empowering women and ensuring that women get a seat at the table when security policy decisions are to be made is troublesome for the government. I understand that, because apparently one cannot even begin here in Sweden.

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

Martin Melin (L)

Mr. Speaker! I have a daughter, and I can assure the members that I want my daughter to grow up in an equal world and that she should mean as much as men. I can guarantee the members that, 100 percent. I would be the first to stand on the barricades if it were needed.

I am also the first to regret that things are as they are in the world. I read somewhere that one in five parliamentarians in the world is a woman - one in five. It is appalling. I can also imagine that the figure is even lower in some countries. I do not think we will solve this here and now. But we can at least do what we can.

The Leader of the House mentioned that the fundamental problem with feminist politics is how it is conducted today. In that case, the question is whether it is a fundamental problem that has emerged during the six months we have had a new government, or if it is effects of a poor foreign policy conducted by the previous government. I do not know. A fundamental problem is a rather large problem. If it has emerged now, is it then effects? That is what I am trying to understand.

What has happened in six months that has made the world suddenly terrible and that equality in the world has completely deteriorated? I do not understand what has happened in six months. I am trying to understand, but I cannot quite grasp it. Is it a new fundamental problem?

More can always be done in all contexts and all situations, whether it concerns aid or work for international equality. This government will also try to do more. But right now, it looks the way it looks. We probably have to accept that.

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the speech, Martin Melin!

I will not speak about feminist foreign policy, even though I naturally think it is a very important issue. I intended, however, to raise an issue that Martin Melin did not mention at all in his speech. It concerns Western Sahara and Morocco's illegal occupation of Western Sahara, which has been ongoing since 1975. It is a many times forgotten but important conflict.

The Liberals are a party that has truly stood up for Western Sahara through the decades and fought for the rights of the Western Saharawis. That is why it is a bit disappointing that Martin Melin did not mention Western Sahara with a single word.

Now we see how the conflict is escalating. Since 2020, the ceasefire has been broken. It was established after the parties had agreed to carry out a referendum on Western Sahara's self-determination. But the referendum has never taken place, due to Morocco's sabotage during all these years.

The international community has not succeeded in solving that question in a good way. Sweden has a good reputation when it comes to Western Sahara. We have stood up for international law and for Western Sahara in many ways. But nothing happens.

I wonder if the Liberals are prepared to push in the government so that Sweden will act forcefully in the UN and in the EU so that the referendum that was agreed upon over 30 years ago will finally come to fruition.

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

Martin Melin (L)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the question, member!

I will willingly admit that I am not very well-informed on the situation in Western Sahara. I regret that. I did not mention Western Sahara. I also did not mention Taiwan, Venezuela or Sudan. There are many areas of concern in the world that I did not mention. Western Sahara is apparently one of them. I regret that. I will try to include all areas in my next speech. But one has to choose a bit during the few minutes one has at one's disposal.

The answer I can give, however, is that as a liberal, I of course want to resolve all conflicts in the world. I do not want there to be war, famine, or injustices anywhere, not even in Western Sahara. If I as a liberal can do anything about it, I will of course do it, even in this government constellation.

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the answer. It was positive nonetheless. I truly hope that the Liberals live up to that promise. The reason I took it up with specifically Member Martin Melin is that the Liberals have for a long time stood up for Western Sahara.

I understand that one cannot mention every single conflict. But it is a conflict that has been ongoing for a very long time, and it is important to find a solution. I believe there is a risk that the war that has flared up since 2020 will escalate and that it will become a more serious conflict in Western Sahara than before. It is undeserved.

We must fight to achieve a peaceful solution. In that case, the referendum must come to fruition. There, Sweden, which has a good reputation and a good standing in the matter, can truly contribute. I hope that the member will ensure that it becomes a reality.

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

Martin Melin (L)

Mr. Speaker! I can only clarify what I said earlier. I will absolutely do what I can to have that question raised within the Liberals and perhaps even even higher up. I promise the member that.

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

Ann-Sofie Alm (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the speech, Martin Melin!

Mr. Speaker! This is Martin Melin's last debate in the Committee on Foreign Affairs, for this time. Therefore, I would like to thank him. Martin has been fantastic to work with. He is a problem-solver without equal and always does it with a sunny and cheerful smile.

When we met the Canadian Foreign Affairs Committee, we had a pleasant gathering at Villa Bonnier. When the Canadian Foreign Affairs Committee stepped out of their bus, they shouted: The survivor! Martin's fame had reached all the way across the Atlantic.

Martin! We will miss you. And we really wish that you will come back soon. I want to hand over a small gift card during a quite pleasant evening with your favorite colleagues in the Committee on Foreign Affairs. A big and warm thank you!

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

Martin Melin (L)

Mr. Speaker! I want to thank you for the very kind words. It has been a pleasure to be in the Committee on Foreign Affairs. All the members are very knowledgeable and well-read. After having sat in the Committee on Foreign Affairs for half a year, I have gained great respect for the political work that is carried out in this house. This applies to all parties. What politicians who sit in the Committee on Foreign Affairs! They are knowledgeable, skilled, and driven. I do not agree with them in all matters. But they are incredibly knowledgeable.

Mr. Speaker! You can be proud of the Foreign Affairs Committee in the Swedish Parliament and the competence that exists there.

Thank you very much!

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

Ann-Sofie Alm (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you very much! My words naturally come from the entire committee.

(Applause)

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

Markus Wiechel (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I agree with everything that Ann-Sofie Alm has said. It has been a joy and an honor to work together with Martin Melin in the Committee on Foreign Affairs. Thank you very much!

(Applause)

In this speech, Ann-Sofie Alm (M) agreed.

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

Martin Melin (L)

Mr. Speaker! I will content myself with a short but great thanks for the kind words from the member.

(Applause)

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Mr. Speaker! I want to start by thanking Martin Melin for the good cooperation. I did not know that it was his last speech here.

I naturally stand behind all of our reservations - we have several. But I move for approval only to reservation number 9, which concerns Western Sahara.

We live in a world that is far from fair. The gaps are large between poor and rich people, between poor and rich countries, and between women and men. The richest one percent own as much as the other 99 percent combined. It is not reasonable. The Corona pandemic, the climate transition, and wars and conflicts have further contributed to increasing injustices and decreasing equality and democracy. Our world is unfair because there are those who profit from the injustices.

Vänsterpartiet argues that development and poverty reduction require a series of measures: a climate policy where the rich countries and the multinational corporations take their responsibility, a structured work for equality, fair trade rules, a stop to tax evasion, sharper regulations for arms trade, debt cancellations, and effective long-term aid where one sticks to the position that aid should constitute 1 percent of GNI.

Vänsterpartiet wants all policy areas to rest on a feminist basis. That the government has chosen to break with Sweden's feminist foreign policy is a severe setback for girls and women worldwide, while equality is regressing as a result of increased crises and conflicts. Sweden was the first country in the world to declare a feminist foreign policy. About a dozen countries, for example France, Germany and Chile, have followed Sweden's example. To abandon the feminist foreign policy is irresponsible while simultaneously sending the wrong signals to the rest of the world.

Vänsterpartiet has, as stated, several reservations in the report which I intend to account for, but I intend to focus on Western Sahara and the Palestine and Israel issue.

I begin with the reservation on Western Sahara, which we have together with Miljöpartiet and Socialdemokraterna. The Western Sahara conflict has been ongoing since Morocco illegally occupied Western Sahara in 1975, completely against the UN's directive that the country should be decolonized. The International Court of Justice in The Hague has also clearly stated that Western Sahara belongs to the Western Saharan people. In connection with Morocco's war of aggression, a large part of the Western Saharans were forced into flight to southeastern Algeria, where they still live in refugee camps in the Sahara desert under very difficult conditions. The Western Saharans who remain in the country are subjected to constant harassment and persecution by the occupying power.

The situation has further deteriorated after the ceasefire was broken by Morocco in November 2020. It was a ceasefire that was concluded in 1990 after the parties, namely Polisario and Morocco, agreed to hold a UN-led referendum on the country's independence. It is a referendum that has not yet taken place due to Morocco's constant sabotage.

The international community has so far failed in its mission, and Morocco's occupation and looting of the country's raw materials can continue. Now, the war risks being escalated as a result of these failures. It is high time that the UN and the EU begin to demand that Morocco accept the referendum and that the EU listens to its own court and stops entering into agreements that include the occupied Western Sahara and in that way legitimize the occupation.

Morocco's occupation of Western Sahara has continued without major protests from the rest of the world. The reservation states that the international community must take its responsibility in Western Sahara and ensure that the referendum that the parties agreed upon over 30 years ago takes place and that the Western Saharawis thereby get to exercise their self-determination. Sweden cannot alone be responsible for the referendum being carried out. Sweden does, however, have high trust in the region through a long-standing and principled stance for international law and against the occupation. With the support of this high trust, we believe that the government should act actively to accelerate the process for a referendum in Western Sahara.

I also assume that the Riksdag's position from 2012, that the Swedish government should recognize the Western Saharan state, remains unchanged.

We also have a reservation of motive together with S, MP and C regarding how we should view the status of Jerusalem. In the report, there is an unfortunate wording that it would not be appropriate at the current time to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital. It opens up for interpretations that could raise questions about the Swedish position when it comes to Jerusalem. We consider, in line with what the committee has previously expressed, that with reference to the fact that the UN has given Jerusalem a special status and that the EU clearly treats Jerusalem as a separate entity and as a future capital for two states, it is not current to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital.

Vänsterpartiet considers a peaceful solution to the conflict between Israel and Palestine to be impossible as long as Israel's occupation continues, the settlements are expanded, and the Palestinians are denied their human rights. This is not a provocation only against the Palestinians but also against the entire international community and international law. Israel's obvious violations of international law have simultaneously repeatedly passed without any consequences.

With the new far-right government, Israel's violations of human rights, international law, and the Palestinian people have not only continued but also become increasingly grave. At the same time, a serious dismantling of democratic rights is taking place inside Israel. The government has put forward a legislative package that entails major changes to the judiciary.

Vänsterpartiet is deeply concerned about the development, where Israel is now taking large steps towards a brutalized and increasingly authoritarian regime. The Swedish government has shown a limited commitment to the humanitarian situation in Palestine. For example, it has chosen to drastically cut the Swedish aid to the country. In the increasingly tense situation, the Swedish government must clearly stand up for international law, against the Israeli occupation, and for a two-state solution.

Another reservation we have concerns the war in Syria, which has been ongoing since 2011. The conflict is complex with different fighting factions within the country and involvement of other states. The main responsibility, however, lies with the Syrian regime. In the Syrian conflict, it has been difficult to get humanitarian aid to the civilian population. The Left Party believes that the international community must do more to protect healthcare in connection with conflicts. This applies in particular to the conflict in Syria. Sweden should therefore, as an individual country as well as a member of the EU and the UN, work to ensure that the warring parties respect international law, cease attacks on civilian actors, and allow the import of humanitarian aid to the civilian population.

We also have a reservation concerning Eastern Europe. Russia's aggressive actions and interference in the politics of the Eastern European countries and violations of their sovereignty and territorial integrity are, of course, completely unacceptable. Russia's unlawful and unprovoked war of aggression against Ukraine is, in that context, the clearest example.

There is a risk that more countries in Eastern Europe will be drawn into the conflict, for example Moldova and Georgia. It is therefore extremely important that Sweden supports Moldova in its efforts to secure its territorial integrity, democratic development, and the strive to reduce social inequalities and poverty in the country. Sweden must also, as an individual country as well as a member of the EU and the UN, stand up for Georgia's sovereignty and the principles of international law.

The Baltic states also find themselves in a particularly vulnerable situation in relation to Russia, partly because there are significant Russian minorities there. Recurring Russian influence operations also contribute to the strained relations. We believe that Sweden can play an important role for the development in the region. To do so, the government should, within the framework of cooperation in the Baltic Sea region, promote improved relations between Baltic ethnic groups and Russian minorities in the Baltics, as well as work to strengthen the Baltic states' resilience against Russian influence operations.

And so I would like to take the opportunity to briefly mention that we, even though we have no reservations about it, naturally stand up for human rights in China - human rights are violated daily. And we must never ever stop demanding an unconditional release of Gui Minhai. Of course, we shall also support Taiwan in its struggle for its self-determination.

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 get the impression that we are attending to all issues in the entire world, but that is not the case. We will return with reports concerning human rights, where Iran will have a very large presence and become a major part of the debate. There are other issues that will also emerge in those contexts.

If I do not touch upon all the issues where we, of course, stand up for freedom and fair conditions, it is because I am saving my powder for upcoming debates, Mr. Speaker.

We are starting from the motions we have. The direction of foreign policy is one of the issues included, and it landed in this report. It is of course so, as we say in the foreign policy debate, that foreign policy concerns very many policy areas - this is not just UD's but the entire government's and all of Sweden's mandate.

Our purpose is to protect both the Swedish population and Sweden's constitutional order and the foundations of how people live. In the world we see today, it is clear that democracy is retreating - 70 percent of the world's population lives today under authoritarian rule, and unfortunately, that figure is becoming higher. Against that background, democracy must be at the center of our foreign policy. It concerns foreign policy, security policy, trade, and climate issues. It concerns the entire breadth of what we can talk about.

Democracy must clearly be in focus here. From our point of view, it is about liberal democracy, for it is that which has created our prosperity and given us the conditions for freedom - for women's and people's freedom in our part of the world.

We consider it a matter of course that a liberal perspective - a freedom perspective or a democratic perspective - should be in focus for foreign policy. We believe that liberal democracy should be promoted. It is about human rights, about supporting the building of the rule of law, about combating corruption, about strengthening women's rights and opportunities, and about deepening cooperation.

We have a discussion about this. How can we then work? Will we be able to work together between democracies and in that way strengthen the counterforces? We do need to build counterforces if we are to succeed.

We see how the authoritarian states and the authoritarian leaders are trying to join forces to build their ideology stronger. We must be much smarter and much better and work in a clear way to become a counterforce.

We know that there is an attraction. There are very many people who seek out our part of the world and who see our societal model as a hopeful model, and it is clear that we must take advantage of that. Regardless of whether it concerns aid or whether it concerns other areas, this must be included.

Mr. Speaker! This report contains, as said, several images. From the Center Party's side, we have raised consular matters in this report. It landed here and became "and so on," which has been touched upon previously.

Consular cases are Gui Minhai and Dawit Isaak. It is very important that they are still included and that we bring up their cases. These are Swedish consular cases. Those who stand up for freedom of speech - journalists and authors - are part of those who are now being threatened and imprisoned in so many places.

Our Swedish citizen Gui Minhai has now been kidnapped since 2015. He was kidnapped in Thailand and taken to Chinese prisons. Dawit has today been imprisoned for 7,879 days. It is obvious that we must work both on highlighting their situation – that they are still in prison – and on the fact that they must be released. This is an immensely important task in the fight for freedom and democracy and in the fight for freedom of speech. Therefore, the Center Party raises this in one of its reservations.

The question of China and Taiwan has already been raised in the debate. For us, it is obvious to once again raise the question of House of Sweden.

We were in agreement - we had a broad consensus and an announcement. We expect to get a House of Sweden, and we want to see this during 2023. It is not a complicated task, so it should be able to happen.

An important part of the discussion is the permanent court of arbitration's decision from 2016 regarding the Chinese claims in the South China Sea. This is an interesting decision, Mr. Speaker. There, it is clear that the Chinese claims, which are based on so-called historical rights, lack a legal basis. This is naturally an important international signal, because there are many countries—for example, a large country that is at war in Ukraine—that consider themselves to have historical rights to another country. There are also others who have a corresponding stance, so it is clear that this is an important signal.

We believe there are reasons to bring this up. It concerns UNCLOS, and it is about standing up for international law in that part.

Since Israel, Palestine and Jerusalem have been raised in the debate, I want to emphasize that we are critical of the former government's recognition of Palestine in 2014. It happened in an incorrect manner, and we have criticized it. We are clear that this is a reservation of motive. We stand behind a reservation of motive.

The reason why we do it, Mr. Speaker, is that we are not to create a new policy but to stand up for what we have done for a long time. Jerusalem has a special status - both the EU and the UN have that position - as a separate entity and as a future capital for not one but two states. If one chooses to create doubt about this, or to go another way, one has neither international law nor the EU behind them.

We stand by this. Therefore, we do not want to create doubt, and therefore we will vote for a motive reservation.

With this, Mr. Speaker, I move for approval of reservation 2 under point 1 and reservation 10 under point 9.

I also, of course, like everyone else, would like to take the opportunity to thank Martin Melin for a pleasant time together in the Committee on Foreign Affairs. Who knows when we will see each other again?

(Applause)

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! The committee has processed a number of motions concerning Sweden's international cooperation. We in Miljöpartiet believe that Sweden's international cooperation is crucial for meeting the climate crisis, combating poverty, and safeguarding human rights. We want Sweden to manage the trust that Sweden has in order to push for peace and democracy and be a strong voice for justice, peace, and sustainable development in the world.

In my speech, I will touch upon the situation in Israel and Palestine and in Western Sahara.

To begin with, I want to say the following: I miss the feminist foreign and development policy. We see that threats are increasing and that violations of democratic and human rights continue in a number of countries in the world. As the climate changes, tensions and conflicts regarding access to water, food, and land also increase. These are enormous challenges we face. The government would rather focus on trade, on conditional and significantly reduced aid, and on letting foreign despots set conditions for freedom of expression and assembly in Sweden, including in Sweden's own parliament.

Mr. Speaker! On March 28, Foreign Minister Billström stood in this chamber and called Israel a living democracy.

"Israel is a living democracy. The EU's and Sweden's good relations with Israel are based on shared values such as democracy and respect for the principles of the rule of law. We proceed from the assumption that the principles of the rule of law will continue to be respected in Israel."

Since then, the situation in Israel has escalated, and Netanyahu's government has swapped a crazy reform agenda for an even crazier idea: to introduce a private militia. It is starting to become quite tiresome, but we really wonder how the moderately-led government views the definition of democracy, or if it is a way to avoid taking a stand when governments like Sweden cooperate with those who violate the principles of the rule of law and human rights.

The Swedish government and the EU need to take a firmer stand against Israel to de-escalate the situation. Both Israelis and Palestinians have a right to freedom, development, and security within secure and recognized borders. And the conversation about the path there needs to contribute to a peaceful solution. Miljöpartiet supports Palestine's right to exist and the two-state solution in accordance with the 1967 borders.

Miljöpartiet supports the committee's assessment that all questions regarding final status, including Jerusalem's status, must be resolved through negotiations between the parties and not through unilateral action. Israel must respect international law and seriously attempt to find ways forward for a two-state solution, instead of continuing to expand its settlements on Palestinian land. It is not enough to refer to the fact that Israel is a democracy and that we must hope for the best. It is a toothless foreign policy that the government conducts.

Mr. Speaker! Equally toothless is the silence prevailing in the question of Western Sahara. Morocco's occupation of Western Sahara has been allowed to continue without major protests from the rest of the world. It is now high time that the international community takes its responsibility in Western Sahara and ensures that the referendum that the parties agreed upon over 30 years ago takes place and that the Western Saharawis thereby get to exercise their self-determination over Western Sahara's future status.

International relations etc.

Sweden cannot alone be responsible for the referendum being carried out. But Sweden has high trust in the region through long-standing and well-considered assistance in combination with a principled stance for international law and against the occupation. With the support of this high trust, we believe that the government should act actively to expedite the process for a referendum in Western Sahara.

A recognition would put very strong pressure on Morocco to move forward in the peace negotiations. Sweden should recognize Western Sahara and work for more EU countries to do the same. Recognitions from EU countries are an important piece of the puzzle, and a Swedish recognition would send an important and clear signal to the rest of the world and the freedom movement that believes in peace and a democratic development in the region.

Mr. Speaker! While our and Europe's focus lies on the war in Ukraine - and do not misunderstand me, Ukraine needs all the support it can get from us - Israel is simultaneously advancing its positions in the occupied territories, even more settlements are being built and violence against the civilian population is increasing, and Morocco simultaneously continues to fish in Western Saharan waters, to extract valuable minerals from Western Saharan mines and to deny the Western Saharans the right to their land and self-determination. The suffering of Palestinians and Western Saharawis is not by any chance less just because a terrible war is taking place in our neighborhood.

International relations etc.

Mr. Speaker! I naturally support all of the Green Party's motions and reservations in the area, but for the sake of time, I move for the approval of only reservation 3.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 26 April.)

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