International relations etc.

John E Weinerhall (M)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are to debate the Committee on Foreign Affairs' report on international relations with MERA. It is a comprehensive report that spans central parts of foreign policy. Even though I cannot, for natural reasons, go through every single issue here today, I want to highlight some important issues that collectively reflect the direction of Swedish foreign policy.

Mr. Speaker! We live in a time when the global situation has become increasingly serious. The war in Ukraine, the war between Israel and Hamas, Iran's aggressions in the Middle East, the United States' withdrawal from the world stage, and the great power politics in Asia are putting the entire rules-based world order under great pressure.

In this situation, Swedish foreign policy must be both principled and responsible. It is therefore welcome that the government, as the Foreign Minister stated in the foreign policy declaration, anchors foreign policy in a clear defense of the rules-based international order and of democracy and human rights. This also has Nordic-Baltic, European and transatlantic anchoring.

Mr. Speaker! The committee is considering a number of motions in this report. Several of these concern the aid policy, where some parties want to increase the level of aid. Certain parties – or should I say one party – appear to have more money than they let on.

The committee is clear: Swedish aid policy shall be long-term sustainable, result-oriented, and prioritized based on what provides the most benefit. It is not reasonable to simply increase the aid framework without consideration of what the aid is intended to achieve. The Government has already clearly stated that Sweden shall be a strong aid actor, but we must also ensure that the aid is used effectively and with real impact. That also requires prioritizations.

I probably do not need to mention to this assembly that Ukraine is and for a long time will remain the highest priority.

Madam Speaker! One of the most serious global challenges we face concerns China's growing influence. China is not only an important trading partner but also a systemic rival that in many ways threatens the stability of our world. This concerns the country's pressure on Taiwan, its illegal claims in the South China Sea, and its aggressive technological and economic expansion.

China's actions in the Taiwan Strait constitute a direct threat to the world economy. A conflict there would have consequences far beyond the region, not least for the access to semiconductors, which are crucial for modern industry and technology.

Therefore, it is crucial that Sweden, together with like-minded countries, stands up for Taiwan's right to self-determination and international presence, for example in the World Health Organization.

The Committee emphasizes in the report that we shall deepen the cooperation with Taiwan and review the possibility of opening a House of Sweden in Taipei. This is being prepared in the Government Offices, as it is called, and we naturally hope that the government quickly gets this in place. It would be an important milestone to promote democracy, trade, culture, and academic exchange between Sweden and Taiwan.

Madam Speaker! We must not turn a blind eye to the abuses occurring within China's borders. A cultural genocide is taking place in Tibet. Chinese authorities are attempting to erase the Tibetan language, Tibetan culture, and the Tibetan religion. Sweden must continue to be a strong voice for the rights of the Tibetan people. The same applies in Xinjiang, where the Uyghurs are subjected to extensive human rights violations. And it applies in Hong Kong, where the democratic opposition has been brutally silenced.

Madam Speaker! We have Swedish citizens who are being held deprived of their liberty abroad. Among others is Gui Minhai, the Swedish publisher, who is being held captive in China after being kidnapped in Thailand. Now it is also the journalist Joakim Medin, who has been convicted and is charged with crimes in Turkey and risks a long prison sentence. We must continue to demand the release of our citizens and be a strong voice for freedom of expression and human rights throughout the world.

Madam Speaker! We are convinced that foreign policy must be pursued with a free-trade-friendly perspective. It is important, not least now when the USA's trade war challenges free trade. In that case, it becomes even more important to seek cooperation and more free trade agreements with more countries all around the world. Trade builds prosperity and creates bonds between countries.

Madam Speaker! It is a very restless time in a restless world. Then we must stand strong together with our like-minded allies. We cannot meet the world's challenges with symbolic politics or ill-considered proposals. We need a clear, stable and principled line where we defend freedom, promote trade and stand up for democracy and do not hesitate to confront authoritarian regimes when they threaten human rights and international law.

It is the line that the committee expresses. Therefore, Madam Speaker, I would like to conclude by moving for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision.

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Madam Speaker! I shall begin by moving for approval of reservation number 1 under the item on international cooperation.

It is in a sense completely right to have this debate on international relations just today, for just today is exactly 80 years since World War II ended in Europe.

On May 8, 1945, Nazi Germany capitulated to the Allies, and today this has been commemorated throughout Europe. But the war was not over with that – in the Pacific region, the war raged for another three months before Japan also capitulated.

World War II is the worst catastrophe that humanity has experienced. Over 60 million dead. Millions more people injured, mutilated, and traumatized for life. Europe in ruins, Japan in ruins, many other war theaters across the world in ruins. And then the world's worst genocide of all time: the Holocaust. The systematic killing of Jews, Roma, homosexuals, and many other groups that the Nazis hated and who were not to be a part of the Aryan Third Reich they fantasized about. But on the Nazis' death lists were also their political opponents: social democrats, trade unionists, and communists. Not to mention prisoners of war, whom they killed indiscriminately.

The war had been driven forward by far-right nationalist forces in Germany, Italy, and Japan who for years had incited against minorities and what they considered inferior peoples and taken it upon themselves to make claims on other countries' territories.

It was after this total catastrophe and devastation that the world's countries said with one voice: Never again. We can never again lose control in this way.

That feeling was further intensified by the new weapon that had entered the world stage in the final stage of the war: the atomic bomb. With that weapon, humanity could, in practice, wipe itself out.

The outcry over "never again" resulted in the establishment of international institutions and an international regulatory framework with associated courts.

The UN was formed. The Council of Europe was established. We got the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the World Health Organization and many more institutions. And we got regulatory frameworks – the UN's Declaration of Human Rights, the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights, the Geneva Conventions and the Genocide Convention to name just a few.

We got courts belonging to this: the International Court of Justice in The Hague, the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg and eventually the International Criminal Court, also in The Hague.

We received regulatory frameworks, institutions and courts to uphold international law and international law in order to try to ensure that what happened during World War II could never ever happen again.

Now, 80 years have passed, and we can state that it has actually worked so far. It is not that we have not seen any wars, for we have – in Korea, in Vietnam, in Afghanistan, in the Middle East, in the Balkans, and countless times in Africa. One could continue to list the horrific wars we have seen during these 80 years. The point is that we have not seen an escalation to an almost global war in the way we saw before the Second World War. We did indeed see an enormous buildup during the Cold War, not least of the nuclear arsenals. They have not been put into use so far, for if they had, we would not be standing here today. But in short: The systems we set up after the Second World War have, in all important respects, functioned – so far.

The problem is that now, 80 years later, it looks as if these lessons are somehow starting to fade. We can see it in the world regarding the position of democracy. Democracy is being pushed back in the world. The number of democracies in the world is decreasing. The number of authoritarian states and pure dictatorships is increasing.

We can see it in Europe. The far-right and xenophobic nationalism has grown in countries such as Germany, France, Italy, Austria, Hungary and even Sweden. When one listens to the rhetoric from some of the parties, one thinks that one is back in the 30s. It is the same hostility against minorities and the same desire to lay the blame for all problems on a specific ethnic group. It is the same racist lies and prejudices that are spread. It is the same desire to exploit contradictions and pit ethnic groups against each other. It was precisely this that led up to both the first and the second world war. It is precisely this that leads up to all wars.

Add to that the developments in the USA, where one now has a president who does not respect election results, who does not respect courts, who does not respect the opposition, who does not respect national borders, who shamelessly tries to profit from the misfortune of war-torn Ukraine instead of helping it, and who allows himself to be impressed by all the world's dictators.

Then also come the attacks on the rules-based world order and on the institutions that uphold it. The USA lays claim to Greenland and wants Canada to become a state. The USA withdraws from the World Health Organization and shuts down its entire aid work. That alone can risk the lives of over 30 million people who today are dependent on humanitarian aid, food, water, and supplies.

Israel, in order to move towards the Middle East, seems to have been given free rein to displace and kill Palestinians almost indiscriminately both in Gaza and in the West Bank while the world stands and watches. Russia has for a long time in every conceivable way shown that it does not respect international law and international law, most clearly through its attack on Ukraine.

That is what this debate on international relations is really about. The experience of the Second World War functioned as an injection of a vaccine against far-right madness. Now, one can almost believe that the vaccine is about to wear off. But it is not certain either, for we have also seen that it can be reversed. Far-right nationalism has been pushed back in countries like Spain and Poland. Even in Canada and Australia, the right lost. With Trump, voters in the West have seen how right-wing populists rule countries in reality, and it scares them. Right-wing populists promise order, but they always deliver chaos.

Madam Speaker! I wish I could say that Sweden is also taking the fight against those who try to undermine the rules-based world order. Unfortunately, it is the opposite. Sweden is silent and passive and instead exacerbates the problems. Sweden does not increase support for the UN, the organization that most clearly upholds the international rules-based world order. On the contrary, Sweden is cutting the appropriations. Sweden does not push for Israel to cease its war crimes. On the contrary, the government blocks all concrete proposals to increase the pressure on Israel, for example by freezing the trade agreement between Israel and the EU. Sweden does not increase aid. On the contrary, Sweden is cutting aid and withdrawing from countries in Africa and Southeast Asia. These are just a few examples.

We Social Democrats believe that it is more important than ever that Sweden stands up for the rules-based world order, supports the UN and its organizations, asserts in all situations that international law applies to everyone everywhere and never accepts double standards.

Madam Speaker! This report also concerns the international work for equality and the equal rights of women and men. Here, unfortunately, the Swedish government has also taken many steps backward. The first thing the right-wing government did was to abandon the feminist foreign policy, despite it having won great acclaim in the international community, despite many countries having joined the same line of thinking, and despite the Expert Group for Aid Analysis having established that it had had a strong impact, for example in how aid funds are distributed.

The policy that we launched during our government's period was simply that foreign policy must always be based on women's equal rights, equal resources, and equal representation. Now, even that has been abandoned. We think it is a big mistake, and we will re-establish the feminist foreign policy at a change of government.

Madam Speaker! Lastly, I would like to say a few words about the consular affairs, which we also have a reservation about. Sweden must continue and intensify the efforts to free Swedish citizens who are imprisoned. This concerns Dawit Isaak, Gui Minhai, and Ahmadreza Djalali. It also, of course, concerns our latest case: Joakim Medin. We have seen how Turkey has acted. One has obviously stood and waited for the Swedish journalist to land on Turkish soil in order to intervene against him. So, a rule of law simply does not operate there.

I mean that Sweden must do everything it can to ensure that Joakim Medin is released immediately. We cannot accept that people behave in this way. I naturally see how the government has acted, but I mean that one must intensify their efforts further. If one is serious about this being a priority issue, the matter must be brought up at the level of heads of state and government. Direct contact should be made with the Turkish head of government in this matter.

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

John E Weinerhall (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank Morgan Johansson for the opportunity to further delve into some issues. As I said in my opening speech, it is a large and broad report that spans many different areas. One cannot address everything in one's speech. In large parts, I agree with Morgan Johansson regarding the international rules-based world order and so on. But I must say that it becomes a bit ridiculous when he, for example, talks about the aid.

Morgan Johansson pointed out in his speech that the government is reducing aid to certain regions such as Africa and Southeast Asia and to the UN system. Yes, that is correct. We have made reprioritizations. We have different priorities than the Social Democrats. But we have at least the money we are talking about. The Social Democrats, on the other hand, often say in debates that they safeguard the one percent goal, but they do not present any budgets that are anywhere near a one percent goal, either in the short or long term. They continue, however, to argue as if they still had budgets with 1 percent of GDP for aid. Well, that is not the case. You cannot cherry-pick the raisins from the cake.

Since the Social Democrats are hardly allocating more than the government in their budget for aid, I would like to ask Morgan Johansson: Where are these funds for the UN agencies? Where is the money to be found for new embassies and embassies that are to be reopened? They are, in any case, not in your budget, which you have presented here in the Riksdag.

Even though we have cut back on aid and no longer have a percentage target but rather a target for what we are to achieve, and even though we have a fixed framework so that we have predictability regarding the aid, we shall remember one thing: I would not believe that more aid money went out when you sat in the government, Morgan Johansson, but it was perhaps less. You made, in fact, enormous deductions on the aid in favor of migration.

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Madam Speaker! It is not ridiculous to speak of aid when the world looks the way it does now.

I just said in my speech that the lives of 34 million people are at risk when the American aid organization USAID now completely shuts down and withdraws over 40 percent of the world's total humanitarian aid. John E Weinerhall can go to those people and say that it is ridiculous to talk about aid. It is not. It is about life and death for millions of people.

When this is compounded by other countries following the exact same path – such as Sweden, which is also cutting back on its aid – it just becomes even worse. I am not talking about opening any embassies. I am stating that Sweden has withdrawn when it comes to aid in a number of countries in Africa and in Southeast Asia. This applies, for example, to Mali, Burkina Faso, South Sudan and Cambodia. The Social Democrats would have had more money there, for in every budget we have presented, we have allocated more money to aid.

We have also presented a ladder to reduce the distance that now exists up to 1 percent, and we will complete that ladder. We shall return to the one percent goal. But now you are lowering the aid so much and so quickly, John E Weinerhall, that the gap up to 1 percent may amount to up to 20 billion kronor. Everyone understands that one cannot add so much from one year to another. Therefore, one must try to have a direction where one increases the aid again.

If we continue with the right-wing government we have now, it will, as I understand it, continue to cut back on aid. As I understand it, the Sweden Democrats want to reduce it to half a percent, and the Moderates want it at 0.7 percent. And even though the Christian Democrats and Liberals, as usual, will stand and promise 1 percent in the election campaign, they will back down.

With our policy, aid will be scaled up, and it is needed in the world right now. It is not in the slightest ridiculous.

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

John E Weinerhall (M)

Madam Speaker! Now, it was not the aid itself that was ridiculous, but the Social Democrats' foul play in this issue.

One pretends that one is investing 1 percent or at least that one is some kind of boy with gold pants who has more money in his pocket to spend on aid than one actually has. If anything, it is well to not do all the people that Morgan Johansson speaks of justice – those who risk starvation because the USA is withdrawing from the world stage. If anything, I actually think it is a bit ugly, if I am to be honest.

It is true that we have cut back. We have concentrated the aid to fewer regions, fewer countries and fewer strategies in order to be able to work more concentratedly, which we believe improves the quality of what we do. The Minister for Development Cooperation usually says that we should water where it grows, and I think that, fundamentally, is very sound.

We have, as we have said, made clear priorities: We are cutting back on a number of UN bodies, we are cutting back regarding certain countries, and we have withdrawn in other countries. Not least, we have done so in order to be able to invest those funds in Ukraine. It is an existential issue for Ukraine. A full-scale war of invasion is taking place on our own continent on a scale that we have not witnessed since the Second World War, which Morgan Johansson rightfully pointed out in his speech earlier.

I must say that it becomes a strange debate when we are constantly supposed to pretend that there is more money in the budget than one could reasonably spend. I will think of Bagdad-Bob somewhat unprompted when I hear the Social Democrats in the aid debate.

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Madam Speaker! Foul play? I assume that John E Weinerhall has read our budget motion, and I assume that he has been able to read from it that we have a staircase.

We add 1 billion the first year, 2 billion the second year and 4 billion the third year – on the way up to 1 percent, to close that gap that the Moderaterna ensure is increasing all the time. I actually do not understand what John E Weinerhall is talking about. He simply seems not to have read our budget. Year after year we have increased appropriations to aid.

Then I must point out that we do not have a different opinion regarding the aid to Ukraine. What we have a different opinion about is that Sweden must also do more for the most vulnerable. When the Moderaterna talk about watering where it grows, they are actually just showing that they are not interested in helping the most vulnerable. In that case, one should actually formulate it in a different way; it should be formulated as creating a breeding ground so that something can grow. If you water where it grows, you focus the money on areas where the most vulnerable may not be located. That is part of the core problem itself.

Then I also believe that you in the Moderaterna are thinking completely wrong geopolitically, John E Weinerhall. By cutting back on aid and withdrawing from countries in, for example, Africa, you instead give countries like China and Russia free rein to advance their positions. If the rest of the Western world does the same, I fear that we will eventually end up in a situation where the Western world no longer counts globally.

I mean that we must go in the exact opposite direction. Now that the USA is behaving as it does and now that Russia is breaking all international rules that exist – yes, then we have the EU which can stand up for international law and international law. Then one must also be able to extend a hand to other parts of the world to create just this support, and assistance is an important part of that.

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

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Sweden's foreign policy is being shaped in a time of growing tensions and new threats. Our values are being challenged and can no longer be taken for granted. Authoritarian states are attempting to redefine international norms, question international law, and shift boundaries with the language of power instead of with diplomacy.

In that situation, it is more important than ever that Sweden's foreign policy is consistent, clear, and values-driven. It should be based on freedom, democracy, human dignity, and solidarity with those living under oppression.

So, in the beginning of my speech, Madam Speaker, I would like to take the opportunity to congratulate the millions of Catholics who have now had a new Pope appointed – Robert F. Prevost from the USA. I hope that he is a person who will be able to help lead the world toward a better place.

Another issue I want to talk about, where it becomes particularly clear how these authoritarian states behave, is Taiwan. In a single motion, I have raised that Sweden should work towards Taiwan being granted the right to meaningful participation in international organizations, especially in areas such as global health and aviation safety. It is not just my position but a self-evident part of the Christian Democrats' foreign policy.

Taiwan is a democratic partner that wants to contribute to solutions. Excluding the country from international cooperation is to deny valuable expertise and to yield to authoritarian oppression. Resolution 2758 is often used as a pretext, but it only states that it is the People's Republic of China that represents China in the UN. It does not explicitly exclude Taiwan. To claim that it does is to act as a mouthpiece for China and its strategic agenda.

Madam Speaker! Sweden must also develop a more realistic and principled relationship with China. It is no longer a question of merely trade and diplomatic pleasantries. China is today a regime that systematically violates human rights. We see it in the internment of Uyghurs in Xinjiang, in the restrictions on freedom of expression in Hong Kong, and in the surveillance and persecution of religious minorities.

But the threat does not end at China's borders. China is working purposefully to influence and reshape international institutions in its own authoritarian direction. It demands linguistic adjustments in UN documents, attempts to block critical resolutions, and uses its economic weight to silence voices, both in states and in global forums.

We see how Beijing exerts political and economic pressure on other countries, companies, universities and even sports organizations to make them align with the leadership. It is not just about geopolitics. It is about shaping a world order where power takes precedence over right, where silence is rewarded and where fundamental freedoms are eroded step by step. It is not only a threat to security but also a threat to our values.

We must not meet this with silence. We must speak plainly from Sweden's side, not only for the sake of our own credibility but also for all democratic voices around the world who hope that we will be clear. Sweden shall be a country that stands up for freedom of expression, freedom of religion, and every person's right to live without oppression, regardless of who is on the other side of the negotiating table.

Value-based foreign policy is not only about resisting what threatens but also about building what strengthens. Therefore, I want to highlight the importance of equality in Sweden's foreign work. Women's rights are a fundamental prerequisite for sustainable peace, economic development, and human security. That is why we Christian Democrats want Sweden to consistently promote women's freedom, girls' schooling, and protection against gender-based violence in all dialogue. This applies in both bilateral and multilateral contexts. Equality must not be reduced to a symbolic issue in international contexts. It is a core part of security policy.

We must also strengthen our own foreign administration. Swedish citizens must be able to rely on consular support during crises, whether it concerns conflicts, disasters, or pandemics. At the same time, we must prioritize our diplomatic presence where it truly makes a difference – in strategic relations and democratic collaborations where Swedish foreign policy can have real influence.

Our embassies and envoys shall not only be representatives, but they shall also be carriers of our values. Our foreign policy must reflect the Sweden we want others to encounter: a country that stands up for justice, freedom, and responsibility.

Madam Speaker! Today we see how the rules-based world order is being questioned, not only by isolated dictatorships but also by growing alliances where authoritarian regimes seek to rewrite what is right and wrong in international relations. They use their economic power, their technological influence, and sometimes outright threats to silence opposition, undermine cooperation, and replace law with power.

It is in this era that countries like Sweden must choose a path. Either we bow to the pressure, or we stand consistently up for international law, human rights, and every individual's inviolable worth. Our voice in the world must not be afraid, vague, or tactically silent. It must be clear and carry the same values that our social construction rests upon: freedom, solidarity, human worth, and responsibility.

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

Angelika Bengtsson (SD)

Madam Speaker! We are debating the Committee on Foreign Affairs' report 7 International relations etc. I would like to begin by moving for approval of reservation 8 regarding the relationship with China.

In this report, we focus on four areas based on motions from the general motion period. These areas are international cooperation, equality and women, peace and security, relations with China and consular issues.

The Foreign Affairs Committee's work during the year has reflected a world in rapid change. Issues regarding international relations and cooperation have been in focus beyond the pure budget questions. Through recurring information from the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Cabinet Secretary, we members have kept ourselves updated on our global surroundings. Travels to, among others, the UN in New York as well as to India, South Africa, Vietnam, and the Philippines have provided important insights into issues of peace and security, development policy and trade, as well as global cooperation. These travels and contacts have not only enriched the report's content but also concretized the committee's role in the international dialogue.

Madam Speaker! Sweden has for a long time borne a heavy responsibility in the service of international cooperation. We are not only a strong voice for peace, human rights, and sustainable development. We are also – and have long been – one of the UN's largest financiers. Our country has invested resources, knowledge, and commitment, not just as an end in itself but in faith in a world where cooperation triumphs over division and where justice takes precedence over power.

In times when the international community is being tested and when authoritarian forces attempt to push aside the rules-based world order, we must, however, ask ourselves this legitimate question: Do we in Sweden get enough back for what we give?

Therefore, we believe it is high time that Sweden works towards a UN agency being established on Swedish soil. In Copenhagen, for example, they have succeeded in gathering UN organizations in an environment that both promotes synergies and offers thousands of qualified jobs. Sweden, with its strong international profile, its universities, and its technological development, is at least as suitable to host a similar establishment. It is not just about jobs. It is also about creating pathways into international work for Swedish students, researchers, and experts, and about ensuring that Swedish values such as equality, transparency, and democracy are clearly represented in the corridors of the UN. That is something needed more than ever today.

We therefore propose that the government develops an action plan to increase the number of Swedes in the UN system. It is a tool to strengthen individuals' opportunities and to strengthen Sweden's position as a global actor. Internships, mentorship programs, and targeted training are not only investments in future leadership but also investments in our international relevance.

Madam Speaker! We are witnessing a new and alarming world order. The world is, as has been said, in change, and many changes are not for the better – on the contrary. A new geopolitical reality has emerged where China increasingly openly challenges democratic principles, threatens regional stability, and erodes the international norms that have sustained peace and prosperity. We see this in the surveillance state Xinjiang, in the oppression of Tibet, in the broken promises regarding Hong Kong, and in the threats against Taiwan.

Sweden adopted its latest China Strategy in 2019. For the Sweden Democrats, it is obvious that the strategy is no longer in line with the times. It is an important reason why we have a reservation on the issue in the report. We want to see increased engagement, increased activity, and reduced soft-pedal policy and naivety. That tactic has, in fact, not worked.

The Sweden Democrats therefore see that a new, updated and clear China strategy must be developed, not in protest but with the aim of making us more independent and strengthening our resilience. The strategy must clarify which risks are associated with economic dependencies, address cyber threats and espionage, and lay the foundation for a strategic trade policy with clear security dimensions.

It is also about strengthening our alliances with democracies that are on the front line against Chinese influence: Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, and the Philippines. At the same time, we should deepen cooperation with other constructive and like-minded states, not only militarily but also civilly, for example when it comes to space or critical infrastructure. Here, Sweden has expertise and interests that coincide with our partners and thus an obligation to act while the window is still open.

Madam Speaker! In an increasingly unpredictable world, Sweden's policy must be both principled and pragmatic. We must stand up for what we believe in and for Swedish interests and prepare for what we fear together with like-minded states in our vicinity.

To work for a UN seat in Sweden, to strengthen Swedish representation in the international community, to develop a new China strategy and to deepen cooperation with like-minded democracies are ways forward. The future does not belong to those who stand still; it belongs to those who dare to act in time.

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Madam Speaker! Angelika Bengtsson spoke warmly about the UN, which I also did in my speech. But it rhymes quite poorly in relation to the budget the Sweden Democrats stand behind where, on the contrary, cuts are made to the UN's organization. We can compare how large the appropriations were during the Social Democratic era and how large the appropriations are now. The right-wing government is cutting back on the fund for the least developed countries, on UN Women, and on UNFPA, i.e., the population fund that works with sexual and reproductive health. The government has also cut back significantly on the UN's fund for disaster relief. We gave 700 million; you are down to 100 million. Furthermore, you seem to have completely removed the appropriation to Unaids, which works to prevent AIDS.

Angelika Bengtsson says that we must strengthen the UN, because the UN is important. But in the next breath, she cuts back on the UN. How does she reconcile that? Angelika Bengtsson wants Sweden to move forward its positions in the UN and that more Swedes should work in the UN, but how is that going to happen when Sweden simultaneously cuts back on very important UN organizations? That is what I would like to know.

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

Angelika Bengtsson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Morgan Johansson for the question and the opportunity to clarify our position on the UN.

During my two terms in the Riksdag, I have visited the UN on two occasions and seen for myself how large and inefficient the UN system is. The Sweden Democrats are completely convinced that it is possible to streamline the UN system enormously. Furthermore, unfortunately, much of the funds we send to the UN disappear into pockets.

Many times an organization needs to be streamlined so that the money and the help end up where they are truly needed. Unfortunately, that is not the case with the UN today, as much of the money ends up in the headquarters in New York. I believe that much can be done to scale down and make it more efficient and thereby focus even more on those who actually need help.

We are reforming the aid policy, which was so inefficient during Morgan Johansson's time in government. Now we are making changes to do right. Let us remember that every krona we put into the state budget comes from Sweden's taxpayers.

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Madam Speaker! What evidence does Angelika Bengtsson have? After two visits to the UN, she can comment that the UN is ineffective and corrupt. I wish she had made a longer study visit and perhaps at some point even worked out in the field. Then she would see everything the UN does. For example, the World Food Programme distributes food to those who are hungry, and UNFPA, as it is said, works for sexual and reproductive health to stop female genital mutilation and to provide women with good maternal and child healthcare. If Angelika Bengtsson visited the UN not only in New York but out in the field and saw what UN officials do for real, she might change her opinion and not make sweeping comments that the UN is corrupt and ineffective.

Madam Speaker! One cannot stand in the speaker's chair in one moment and say that the UN is very important for upholding the international rules-based world order, only to cut back on UN organizations in the next moment. It does not add up. Take disaster relief! Why have you cut it from 700 million kronor to 100 million kronor? Do you mean that disaster relief is no longer needed? Does the world no longer have any disasters that need Swedish aid?

If Angelika Bengtsson really wants Sweden to show its teeth and be present in the UN context, she must also be prepared to invest in the UN. But if the government cuts back and withdraws, no one will count on Sweden anymore, and unfortunately, that is probably where we are now.

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

Angelika Bengtsson (SD)

Madam Speaker! If the UN system has done anything, it is to take Swedish tax money for granted. That is exactly why I emphasized the Swedish values in my speech. They are, in fact, lacking in the UN system today. If we had incorporated more of equality, transparency, and democracy, we would have had a much more effective UN system than the one we have today.

Mr. Johansson can rest assured that with our policy, we will continue to ensure that Swedish tax funds within the UN go to those most in need. We do receive accounts of horrific stories, and precisely for that reason, it is so important that Swedish tax funds go where they do the most good. I believe I have been clear enough on that issue.

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

Kerstin Lundgren (C)

Madam Speaker! As has been pointed out earlier, today marks 80 years since the Second World War ended. I also want that entry point into international relations, because much of what we have built up after the Second World War is based on the experiences we have gained after two world wars – how we can work together without using military means to attack other countries and assert one's right.

It is the entire starting point for what we have achieved in Europe, not least when it comes to building up the EU, which is the model for resolving conflicts at the negotiating table instead of on the battlefield and in a functioning rule of law. It is extremely important to remember exactly this.

The order or model that we have worked from is today subject to immense challenges. We have all seen that. From the Center Party's side, we want to see a foreign policy that 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. That is how we want to work.

Lack of freedom characterizes more and more societies. Today, around 70 percent of the world's population lives in an autocracy. We are back in 1985, the time when the Soviet Union still existed and communism characterized large parts of Europe. We do not want to go back there.

The fight for freedom and democracy needs strong voices, and Sweden has the opportunity to take the lead in such a fight. What many expect is not a silent Sweden, but an active and engaged Sweden that works together with like-minded people to show everyone out there that there is actually hope. There is an alternative path to take. One can form coalitions as a counterweight to the clear authoritarian currents that permeate the entire international system today.

When I listened to the debate earlier, I heard about the UN. We also say that we want to strengthen the UN as an organization and its role in the multilateral world order, because that is the core. Here we have seen that we must make a change based on the reality we are now facing.

We have perceived that we are defending our liberal world order together with our transatlantic friends, but now the USA is creating question marks regarding whether one stands firm. We are still waiting for the evaluation that is to come in June this summer. What is happening? Will you withdraw your support for the UN, the World Bank, and the IMF? What will remain, and how do we solve this?

In this situation, when we face the type of challenges – that the USA is cutting humanitarian support in its aid by 40 percent and is sending signals that it is leaving Africa – we have, dear colleagues, every reason to consider whether we do not have to do something differently based on the new reality.

If everyone withdraws and says "Our model, otherwise we are not in," we will destroy the system that we have created together. We will not be able to replace the USA's financial muscles. That is undoubtedly the case. But we must show that we are ready to take our responsibility.

Now, this is not a development aid debate, but in the posts it has sounded as if it is very much about aid. From the Center Party's side, we have different views regarding aid than those that the government has presented. There are things that are good in the reform agenda, and there are things that we stand behind. But there are also things that we do not agree with. Above all, we think that we need to go back and still aim for 1 percent of GNI.

It is, as has been said, extremely important that we reflect anew. What applied when the motions were written and the budget was presented last autumn and the reform agenda was adopted does not apply now. There may come to be a significant change when the USA lands in its analysis of the support for the UN and the international structures.

Madam Speaker! We have some reservations concerning, among other things, the relationship with China. I would like to move for the approval of our reservation 9 under point 3. When I listen to this debate, it sounds as if everyone should, in principle, stand behind our reservation. I hear about the House of Sweden in Taipei, but why is it taking so long to make progress? It was a long time ago that we, in broad agreement, decided that it should be implemented, but we have still seen nothing. Now the government has one year left, and still, nothing has happened.

Why is it perceived that it still works in the same way as before the national security law was introduced, when it comes to the power in Hong Kong? We were and are prepared to support Hong Kong, but when democracy activists and students are imprisoned and the entire democracy movement is brutally silenced, we see that one China, two systems no longer applies. Then we must also take action there.

When it comes to the legal assistance agreement which was a signal to strengthen and mark Hong Kong's special status, this special status no longer exists. Then we should also mark back and terminate the legal assistance agreement.

We have already touched upon consular issues. I agree with what Morgan Johansson said in that part. These are our joint proposals, and we have a joint reservation there. It does not, of course, capture Joakim Medin, but we are all clear regarding the need for him to be released.

In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I just want to comment that we have a specific statement on equality. Even there, it is important to be clear and stand up for it. The American administration wants to essentially stop the support for women and thinks that the type of support we have seen as self-evident is no longer okay. They are even signaling here in Sweden what is okay. Then we must, from our side, be clear and stand up for equality.

I am glad that the government in that part was also prepared to supplement the support to SRHR, where the result was a consequence of USAID's change. More of that will be required. That was needed.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! I shall begin by sending a greeting from our liberal colleague Joar Forssell, who is apparently in Tirana and therefore probably will not have time to return here before the debate is over.

Tonight we are debating the Committee on Foreign Affairs' report International Relations etc. It feels as though the subject is more topical than ever, as many of the relations we have taken for granted for decades are being loosened due to power-hungry men in some of the world's great powers.

Relations with the USA are being shaken to the core due to trade wars. Relations within the EU are also, to say the least, shaky as consensus is difficult to reach regarding, among other things, sanctions against Russia and Putin. But there are also other relations that are in flux – even our government has contributed to a diminished trust from a long line of countries in, among other places, Africa.

Since the Second World War, a rules-based world order has emerged with common rules for how states should behave towards one another and a number of conventions regulating how states should behave towards their own inhabitants. A number of international courts have been established to settle disputes between countries or to prosecute individuals who commit war crimes or other serious violations of international law.

One of these courts is the International Criminal Court, the ICC, which was established through the Rome Statute, adopted in 1998. The court has long been criticized, primarily by African states, for almost exclusively convicting African leaders for war crimes. Therefore, it was very welcome when the court in March 2023 issued an arrest warrant against Putin for the war crimes committed in the war of invasion in Ukraine – an arrest warrant that was welcomed broadly by all parties in Sweden's Riksdag.

But when the same court, one and a half years later, issued an arrest warrant against, among others, Netanyahu for the war crimes committed in Israel and Gaza, it suddenly became a different tone for many. Among others, leading representatives for the Christian Democrats questioned the court's legitimacy and independence and claimed that the arrest warrant was more political than legal.

The questioning can be seen as mild compared to the attacks by the USA and, above all, Trump against the court, but it nevertheless contributes to a questioning of the common rules we have agreed upon, and it undermines, above all, the trust from those countries that previously thought the court had been too one-sided in its prosecutions.

Madam Speaker! I must unfortunately refrain for a moment regarding the USA and Trump and the damage that his first 100 days in the presidency has caused to countries' relations and the rules-based world order and the actions that risk leading to the death of millions of people. When Trump leaves UN organization after UN organization, it does not only severely damage the funding of the entire UN system. It also contributes to worsened relations between countries and a legitimizing of criticism against the entire UN system as such.

The shutdown of USAID and the withdrawal of American aid effectively kills vaccination programs, HIV programs, and humanitarian support to a number of countries. In addition to the fact that millions of people's lives are now at risk, Trump's actions and the US withdrawal also contribute to major geopolitical consequences. The playing field is left open for countries such as China, Russia, and Turkey, all of which have large interests on the African continent.

The goal of Project 2025, which appears to be Trump's primary political blueprint, is a new world order built on traditional gender roles, where rights for women, hbtqi+ persons, and minorities are sidelined. In addition to withdrawn economic support, it has already led to the legitimization of a norm shift in many countries in Africa, where both Kenya and Ethiopia are now preparing laws that ban non-binary persons. The signals from the global hbtqi movement are very worrying. At an international conference last week, it was pointed out that there is a risk that only 6 percent of the hbtqi organizations will remain in a year.

Madam Speaker! The Green Party is firmly anchored in a solidary and feminist foreign and security policy, where we protect Sweden and democracy while Sweden actively contributes to the international community's efforts for global peace and development work. With a feminist foreign policy for peace, justice, and climate, Sweden can contribute to improving the lives of millions of women in vulnerable countries. With the Green Party in government, the budget for climate aid increased, which benefits women in poor countries. Furthermore, we contributed to there being more resources than ever for the human rights of women and girls, and we pushed for an equality focus within, among other things, trade policy.

Unfortunately, the development is going in the wrong direction with the current government's reform agenda. The proportion of aid that has an equality component has continued to decrease, and several agencies under the UD lack equality in their mandates and reporting requirements. And it is not likely to get better with the requirements that are now being set from, among others, American authorities.

It is clear that Sweden must return to conducting a feminist foreign policy that focuses on women's rights – it is about political participation, economic empowerment, influence in peace work, freedom from violence, as well as the right to reproductive health. The respect for the rights and opportunities of women and girls needs to increase. More women shall be involved in making the important decisions.

Madam Speaker! We see, as said, a very worrying development in the world, where right-wing winds are blowing that contribute to protectionism and diminished international engagement. With that, there is an ever-increasing mistrust towards our common rules and the importance of international organizations.

For the rules-based world order to function, a constant international dialogue on rights, peacebuilding, and democratization is required. That dialogue takes place in global organizations, such as the UN system, in regional organizations, such as OSCE and EU, and in bilateral contexts. To understand and be able to respect other states' actions or views on different situations, a constant dialogue is required. There, our Swedish and other countries' missions play a decisive role.

The Riksdag's and the government's understanding of the world and other states' actions is not based solely on media reporting. It also requires, to a large extent, diplomatic contacts and reports from our foreign authorities. To increase respect for the rules-based world order in this turbulent situation, it is required that Sweden allocates more resources to international cooperation, dialogue, and diplomacy – not less.

International cooperation and alliance-building in defense of the rules-based world order, democracy, and human rights are needed to meet an increasingly polarized world. To avoid conflicts arising or worsening through diplomatic and conflict-prevention efforts is central. It is also the cheapest option for promoting democracy and security.

Miljöpartiet is a strong advocate for conflict prevention measures and peaceful conflict resolution through civilian means. I mean that military means should only be considered when all other alternatives have been exhausted and that they must be kept within the framework of international law – not be used as an offensive tool for national self-interests abroad.

Madam Speaker! Foreign policy is our first line of defense, and there, diplomacy, mediation, and conflict prevention work belong to our most important tools to work for detente and peace.

With that, I move for approval of reservations 4 and 7.

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Madam Speaker! The world around us is in many ways darker and more threatening than it has been for a long time. With Trump in the White House and Putin in the Kremlin, we have received a world that is becoming increasingly unpredictable and insecure – a world where democracy is retreating and where international law, the UN, and the International Court of Justice are openly questioned.

Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine continues to claim innocent lives. We can never tolerate a world order where the big and strong take the right to attack and take over other countries if it serves their own interests. It is more important than ever to stand firm on the Ukrainian people's right to defend themselves against attackers. If we let the principle of the right of the strongest prevail in Ukraine, no country is safe from the great powers' imperial dreams. We must also note how the great power China is behaving increasingly aggressively, not least towards the democratically independent Taiwan. And Israel's indiscriminate killing of civilians in Gaza continues.

In that situation, it becomes all the more important that Sweden increases its global engagement for a more peaceful and more humane world in the UN and other multilateral bodies. Unfortunately, we see instead how Sweden's global engagement is receding. Global challenges must be met by increased global cooperation.

Madam Speaker! The development for equality is moving backwards. Violations of women's rights are the most common and most extensive crimes against human rights. All over the world, women's lives are restricted by discriminatory legislation and social norms.

Against that background, it is remarkable that the government abolished the feminist foreign policy at a time when it was needed most. The situation regarding the rights of women and LGBTQ+ persons has worsened significantly after Donald Trump came to power and, among other things, stopped all American aid and attacks sexual and reproductive health and rights, SRHR.

The lives of millions of people are at risk, and women, girls, and LGBTQ+ people are particularly hard hit. When the rights of women and LGBTQ+ people are under attack, Sweden must step forward and take the lead. But unfortunately, we see that Sweden's voice is not heard as strongly when it comes to global equality work.

It is also noticeable that the share of aid going to equality has decreased significantly in total. Against that background, it is difficult to take the government's ambitions that equality should be a core value seriously.

With increased equality, the risk of war decreases, and we get more democratic and prosperous societies. To build real and sustainable equality, it is required that women can actively participate at all levels of society. The gender perspective must therefore be integrated and permeate all areas. Equality should not be a separate and delimited strategy in development cooperation.

We in the Left Party want to see an integrated gender equality strategy that permeates the entire foreign and development policy. To achieve good and thorough gender equality work, a comprehensive action plan must be developed that can be reviewed and evaluated.

Finally, the government must increase efforts to have Joakim Medin released. Journalism is not a crime. Of course, the work to free Gui Minhai, Dawit Isaak, and Ahmadreza Djalali must continue. It is completely unacceptable that innocent Swedes are sitting in the prisons of foreign dictatorships.

I move for approval of reservation number 6.

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

John E Weinerhall (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Johnsson Fornarve, for the opportunity to discuss a few more questions that I did not have time to take up in my previous speech!

Madam Speaker! Equality is an issue that is close to the Moderaterna's hearts. It does not sound that way when one listens to the collective left in this debate.

But if that hadn't been the case, we wouldn't have invested so much in SRHR when USAID and the USA are withdrawing. We wouldn't have invested so much in girls' opportunities and rights to sexual and reproductive health and rights if it hadn't been for that.

Freedom issues are a core value in our foreign policy. But we do not see it as an ideological storefront, as the left seems to do.

I believe that issues of equality in foreign policy are far too important to become a discussion about only labels. We see it as a tool for concrete results in our foreign policy and in our aid policy.

That is why the government also works systematically and strategically for women's and girls' rights, their economic empowerment and protection against gender-based violence, both through aid and through work in the UN.

If it were the case that Sweden had now lost so much reputation in the rest of the world because we no longer designate our gender equality work as a feminist foreign policy, the UN would probably not have given us the role of, for example, holding the presidency of UN Women. I actually do not believe that.

I am proud of our policy. To me, the demands from Vänsterpartiet, Socialdemokraterna, and Miljöpartiet to reintroduce a so-called feminist foreign policy feel like nothing more than fine slogans that have no substantial content that differs significantly from the policy that the government pursues.

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member of Parliament John E Weinerhall, for the opportunity to discuss equality and feminist foreign policy! I naturally think that is very good.

I also think it is good that the member still says that he thinks equality issues are important. But we actually see how the aid that goes to equality is decreasing. Then it is difficult to take the talk about equality being a core value seriously.

The part of the aid that goes to equality is the lowest in 25 years. That speaks for itself. It is possible to speak very nicely about equality in words. But it must also be shown in crowns and öre that one truly means business in thinking that equality is important. Then one must allocate resources.

We also see how resources are being reduced to various UN bodies that work with gender equality issues. For example, you halved the aid to UN Women between 2022 and 2024. Then you increase it a little bit when you are the chair. But overall, the aid has decreased.

One has also reduced the core support that goes to gender equality in aid to other UN bodies. It is serious. If one is to take gender equality seriously, one must instead take the lead and increase the aid.

Now that we see that equality is under such a massive attack, not least due to Trump's large cuts, a country like Sweden, which has been a pioneer in precisely equality, must do more, take on the leadership role and unite countries that stand on the same side as Sweden in a strategy for how to counteract the enormous cuts that are now occurring in the field of equality.

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

John E Weinerhall (M)

Madam Speaker! We share the concern, not least regarding the cuts we see from the USA but also the direction that the USA is now taking regarding aid. It is with great concern that we view this.

It is true that the government has made reprioritizations. The explanation is Ukraine. Ukraine is our single largest recipient of aid. In that case, it is not just gender equality and certain UN bodies that have been cut. It is across the board.

One can say that we prioritize equality. We are increasing the money, as I just said, on SRHR. We are increasing the money to UN Women. Now that the USA is backing away and also other countries are doing the same, Sweden is increasing. But we cannot cover for everything. We cannot.

The committee chairman said it wisely. I hope that we can cooperate with more countries, not least within the EU. It is a matter of ensuring that we gather a European strategy to make up for at least a part of what the USA is now withdrawing from. I hope that we can do that. I know that the government is also working on that in a European context.

We can mention as many areas as we want within aid where the government has made reprioritizations to ramp up the support to Ukraine. It is an existential issue not only for Ukraine but for our continent.

It has been so since the war broke out, and it will certainly be the most important priority for Swedish aid policy and Swedish foreign policy for a decade.

I am not ashamed of that. One must be honest and say that one must be able to make priorities. Then some things have to be left behind.

But now we are ramping up the support. I cannot give any announcements here today. But there is certainly reason to return when further reprioritizations in the aid policy need to take place, given what is happening around us in the world and not least from the USA.

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Weinerhall, for further comments! But you have actually cut back significantly on aid. If you had not done that, there would be more resources left to invest in equality and SRHR in this difficult situation when equality is retreating so enormously in the world. Millions of women, girls, and LGBTQ+ people around the world risk dying because of the withdrawn aid from the US side. It is appalling.

Of course Sweden must continue to support Ukraine. That is what we think too. But it is interesting to see how the equality contribution to Ukraine in particular has fallen like a stone, from having been quite large to now being only a few percent. It is also a clear proof that what is said about equality being a core value is not quite true. If equality is to be a core value, one must show it for real and allocate the resources that are needed.

I must still say that the feminist foreign policy was successful. Surveys and reports show this, including from EBA, the expert agency for aid. They have conducted an analysis of the feminist foreign policy and concluded that it worked and was effective. It was good. It also led to several other countries following the Swedish example and beginning to adopt a similar policy. Now, the functioning feminist foreign policy is being withdrawn. It is truly sending the wrong signals at a time when it is needed more than ever.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 14 May.)

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