International aid

Yasmine Eriksson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Initially, I would like to express my approval of the committee's proposal for a decision in the report.

Expenditure area 7 International aid, which is being debated today, is part of the state budget that the Sverigedemokraterna and the governing parties have agreed upon. It has been known since earlier that our four parties have slightly different views on what the aid policy should look like. However, we have coordinated with each other and landed on a good product that all four parties can stand behind.

Like, the budget cooperation, aid is a part of the Tidö Agreement. We have agreed to focus the aid policy so that it constitutes a tool to counter irregular migration, increase returns, and contribute to effective work for voluntary return.

The aid shall include effective measures to counter the root causes of migration themselves. Now, some are certainly thinking, not least the opposition, that of course it is all about migration when it comes to the Sweden Democrats. But one can refrain from misinterpreting and actually try to listen to what this reprioritization means. I mean that there are strong synergies between aid and migration. There are direct links such as aid for refugee assistance, but even practically all other aid has these synergies. The aid shall include measures to counter the root causes of migration themselves.

What then are the root causes of migration? Some of them are war and conflict, lack of human rights, lack of healthcare, a too weak rule of law, poverty and climate impact. All of these constitute root causes of migration and are simultaneously areas where aid has the potential to make a difference.

Mr. Speaker! Development cooperation is an important tool within foreign policy to safeguard Swedish interests and meet the challenges that Sweden and the world face. The coordination between development policy, foreign policy, trade policy, climate policy, and migration policy shall be strengthened. This is stated in the budget bill and has now also been clarified through the reform agenda for aid.

The thematic priorities focus on the areas where Sweden has interests. It is about strengthening humanitarian support to save lives and alleviate distress. It is about promoting freedom and combating oppression. Furthermore, it is about strengthened synergies between aid and migration policy, about improved health for the most vulnerable, about poverty reduction through job creation, trade, and education, and about expanded and streamlined climate aid. It is also about strengthening the freedom, rights, and empowerment of women and girls.

All these thematic areas are parts of the reform agenda that the Tidö parties have developed jointly and which will form the basis for the continued governance of the aid policy.

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Mr. Speaker! The Government and the Sweden Democrats have already abandoned the one percent goal and thus reduced aid at a time when global crises overlap and the needs are greatest of all. We see how extreme poverty is increasing again in the world. The World Bank estimates that approximately 700 million people are poor today. We also see how democracy and equality are retreating.

To then cut back on aid is obviously an incredibly hard blow to the people in the world who are the most vulnerable. The Sweden Democrats have also previously pushed for aid to be halved. Is this something that the Sweden Democrats still stand by?

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

Yasmine Eriksson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I think it was a fully reasonable measure that we took during the previous year when we departed from the one percent goal for aid. We have instead a fixed sum that is predictable, which facilitates the planning of future interventions.

Unfortunately, poverty has increased in recent years, but if one looks at the whole in a longer time perspective, one sees that it has decreased. In the history of humanity, it was not long ago that Sweden was a poor country.

I understand that there are incredibly great needs to reduce poverty around the world, and we address this through our policy and through the poverty-fighting measures that we present. It is about expanded trade, job creation, and so on.

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Yasmine Eriksson for the answer. However, I did not quite receive an answer to my question.

My question was whether the Sweden Democrats still stand by the position that they want to halve the aid at a time when the needs are greatest, when crises and conflicts succeed one another, and when poverty in the world is increasing again after having decreased for a number of years.

You have also previously said that people should stay where they are, and you would preferably stop all refugees from reaching Europe. But if you want people to stay in their countries, you should instead increase aid so that the opportunities to do so will increase. People flee for a reason – it can be due to war and conflicts or to crises caused by the climate crisis, with drought and hunger as a consequence. You say that you want to remove the causes of migration, but then you should increase aid instead of decreasing it.

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

Yasmine Eriksson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! When it comes to aid policy, everything is about priorities, and that is what we do. Lotta Johnsson Fornarve implies that we would not make interventions that align with the policy we actually pursue, but this is quite unrealistic.

In both the Tidö Agreement and in the budget and reform agenda for aid, we specify that migration policy measures need to be taken into account. We need to counter the root causes of migration, which I also mentioned in my main speech. Everything that underlies why people are forced or want to migrate is also what we work with through our aid policy.

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

Olle Thorell (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Yasmine Eriksson for the speech.

I am becoming a bit confused and can also ask about what Lotta Johnsson Fornarve did not receive an answer to. Do the Sverigedemokraterna still stand by that 0.5 percent is the goal for aid?

But that was not why I requested the floor, my question concerns using aid as a tool or a lever to pressure and force governments to take back their citizens.

We Social Democrats are for regulated immigration and that those who do not have the right to stay in the country shall leave and return. We are also for what is stated in the reform agenda regarding countering the root causes of migration. Everyone agrees on that, so there are no surprises.

The problem with SD's influence over the reform agenda is this: using development aid to force governments to take back their citizens. How is this supposed to work when only 2 percent of the aid goes to governments? Most of it, 98 percent, goes through multilateral organizations and civil society, and these often work against the government and for human rights and so on. How is one then supposed to force governments with the help of development aid specifically? I want to know how that is supposed to work.

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

Yasmine Eriksson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The short answer to Olle Thorell's first question is: No, we do not want to see 0.5 percent of GNI in aid, because we have completely moved away from the principle of a one percent target. Instead, we work with fixed appropriations that are predictable so that over time one knows how much will be used, which makes it easier to plan.

The question of other states and their repatriation of their citizens is fundamentally a matter of international law. Naturally, Sweden shall stand up for it and work to ensure that it is implemented worldwide. This applies in particular in cases where people are in Sweden without the right to be here but are also not admitted into their home countries. They end up in a gray zone and grope in the dark when they do not have a country to reside in legally. I therefore think it is perfectly reasonable that we set requirements that these countries accept their own citizens.

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

Olle Thorell (S)

Mr. Speaker! There was no answer as to how it shall be done. We agree that if one does not have the right to stay in Sweden, one shall return and that countries have responsibility for their citizens. There is no difference of opinion on that.

But how can development aid be used as a lever, a tool, or a method of blackmail against a regime that does not want to accept its citizens? How is that supposed to work? Development aid goes to 98 percent to organizations, to Unicef, Rädda Barnen, UNDP, World Food Programme and all possible local organizations that often work for human rights, increased democracy and a functioning rule of law in opposition to the regime's will. No one will be happier than a general in Myanmar or a deputy minister for migration in Iraq if Sweden stops sending aid to organizations that work to promote democracy and human rights. How is this means of pressure supposed to work in practice? I would like to have an answer to that.

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

Yasmine Eriksson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Just as Member Thorell mentions, there are different types of aid, and what we have agreed upon is to condition a part of the development aid. This will form the basis for which we choose as partners in development issues. If one wants to achieve a change and contribute to development in these countries, there must be a willingness to cooperate from their side. It cannot just be one-sided, because then we will not get anywhere. I think this is a fundamental step on a better path.

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

Anna Lasses (C)

Mr. Speaker! I completely agree that we should work to ensure that the conditions where people live are as good as possible and that no one should have to flee, whether it is due to famine, conflicts, or other reasons. But I am a bit puzzled, because one of the best ways to prevent flight is to provide development aid to long-term projects. In the reform agenda, it is stated that the proportion of humanitarian aid relative to development aid should be increased. At the same time, a concentration towards the neighboring area is being made. In many countries affected by both conflicts and climate change, development aid was needed, but there it will now decrease. Companies can absolutely provide a leverage effect, but in many authoritarian states, it is not feasible for companies to establish themselves. There, one is therefore more dependent on development aid, and now that proportion is becoming smaller. How does this add up?

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

Yasmine Eriksson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! That humanitarian aid is increasing in these turbulent times is a self-evident and well-chosen priority. We have more wars than we can count, and the humanitarian needs are increasing. It is a matter of prioritizing, which I have pointed out before, and now we are prioritizing those in the greatest distress who are in great need. We know that the world has infinitely large needs on many levels, and if we were to scrap humanitarian aid and only provide development aid, we still would not be able to meet these needs.

We make priorities and narrow down something in order to be able to make better efforts more concentrated on the places we choose. We are reducing, for example, the number of national strategies to increase concentration and focus and thereby hopefully make a proper effort.

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

Anna Lasses (C)

Mr. Speaker! I agree that disasters are becoming more frequent and that humanitarian aid must increase. We see, however, that even other major donor countries are making exactly the same assessment and increasing humanitarian aid, while development aid is being sidelined. This is reasonable in the short term, but in the long term, there could be more disasters because fewer people will have the opportunity to participate in development aid.

Shouldn't Sweden look long-term and instead counteract or at least maintain today's level of development aid?

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

Yasmine Eriksson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! As I have mentioned earlier, it matters what is done with the aid funds. When that budget decreases or increases, it has a certain effect on individual projects in many different places, because we have very many collaborations with different organizations all around the world.

I still believe that our model is much better, because regardless of whether we direct more funds to the humanitarian, the money that actually goes to development aid will be more targeted. Work shall be done to mobilize more private capital, try to get leverage, and increase the grants that we can provide through guarantees, which, when it lands correctly, is an extremely good instrument for mobilizing private capital when one otherwise might not have dared to make investments in, for example, developing countries.

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Member Yasmine Eriksson mentions the root causes of migration in her speech, and we share that view.

The question has already been asked here several times as to why one then reduces the support that goes to the root causes and instead sets requirements and threatens in a way that one can also question if it works. I do not, therefore, intend to ask the same question again, even though I perhaps think we would have deserved a slightly better answer.

Yasmine Eriksson also says in her speech that it is not all about migration when it comes to the Sverigedemokraterna. Nevertheless, that is what her speech is largely about.

I have a question regarding the proposals that came yesterday in the government's reform agenda concerning imposing greater requirements on returnees and on states - this has Olle Thorell also developed and asked about. According to the OECD's regulatory framework, it is not permitted to impose such requirements as the government and the Sweden Democrats now want to move forward with. How have the Sweden Democrats intended for this to work?

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

Yasmine Eriksson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! It is a bit funny that Janine Alm Ericson nevertheless returned to the question that she had not intended to ask.

I have mentioned it before: For us to have a development cooperation with another state, it requires exactly a cooperation and that it goes both ways. If we notice that a state is not willing to cooperate, the question is whether our aid will actually do the most good there or if it can do better use somewhere else with countries that are willing to cooperate with Sweden.

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Mr. Speaker! That was not the question I asked. It is also a bit of a chimera that it is possible to set those kinds of requirements.

It is in the states that do not want to have their citizens back but instead hold them back that our development cooperation is needed most. It is there that we need to strengthen democracy movements, and it is there we must ensure that girls have more rights and so on in order to promote development.

What I asked concerned the fact that the government's and the Sweden Democrats' policy right now does not seem to be compatible with the DAC rules. This means, therefore, that we are not allowed to use aid funds for this. My question was how this is to be handled.

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

Yasmine Eriksson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I want to briefly say that the aid policy presented in the reform agenda is compatible with OECD-DAC. Janine Alm Ericson does not need to worry about that.

I still think that I answered that question in my previous reply. I really do not understand in what other way I can describe how this is to proceed. That is how it is to proceed, and it is compatible with Dac.

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

Olle Thorell (S)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating an important issue, namely the aid budget, expenditure area 7. I want to begin by moving for approval of our reservation together with V and MP under decision point 2 regarding the reform agenda. Otherwise, we refer, as is customary in the budget debates, to our special statement which describes our position in other areas of policy.

Sweden is a part of the world, and what happens on the global arena affects us all. We see how the needs in the world are increasing. Humanitarian crises such as those in Yemen, on the Horn of Africa, in Myanmar, and in Gaza cause inhuman suffering. The number of refugees in the world is over 100 million. Democracy is being pushed back, and fewer people live in democracies than several decades ago. The war in Ukraine and Russia's terror shake Europe and the rules-based world order in its foundations. The Covid pandemic has caused development to have gone backward in time in large parts of the world. The successes we previously saw regarding poverty reduction, increased health, better education, and equality are in many places back to the levels we saw in the 80s and 90s. Multilateralism, global cooperation, is challenged by authoritarian regimes, trumpists, and populists who push for increased nationalism, less cooperation, and eroded democracy.

In this situation, we mean that the Swedish government is choosing the wrong path in development policy. What Sweden and the world need is more cooperation, more long-term development aid, and more countries that take global responsibility and work according to Agenda 2030 to achieve the development goals.

What does Sweden do then? Well, the right sits in the same boat as the nationalists in SD and lowers their ambitions on the global arena. They abandon the one percent goal that has been a guiding star in aid for over 50 years. They abandon the feminist aid and foreign policy. They use Ukraine as an excuse to turn their backs when it comes to other large parts of the world where Swedish aid does great good.

Instead, the government and the government base contribute to spreading myths about aid that are not true, such as that Swedish aid makes no difference at all, that countries are held back in their development by aid, that most of it either goes into the pockets of corrupt governments or disappears in general corruption. None of this is true.

It is clear that we should fight corruption and that every tax krona we give in aid should do the greatest possible good. But that is what all parties think, and review after review in both Swedish and international analyses shows that Swedish aid is among the most effective in the world.

The government coalition paints a picture of aid that is incorrect, and we fear that it is being done to gradually erode the will for aid among the Swedish people and proceed with further cuts further ahead. This budget is far from the one percent goal, and for every year that passes where SD has a decisive influence, we will probably move further and further away from that goal.

We Social Democrats want to restore the one percent level in aid. We want Sweden to be a significant global actor. We want Sweden to take the lead in the world and lead by example in terms of how large a share we allocate for aid and how we act for the climate transition, for respect for human rights, for international law and for peace and disarmament. We see no shame in wanting to be a humanitarian superpower. We are proud of Sweden and want to invest in Sweden making a difference on the world stage.

Yesterday, the government launched the reform agenda for aid. We have been very critical of the process that has been in the development of this agenda. We have demanded that the government submit a special communication to the Riksdag. We have wanted to see a much more open process, where civil society, researchers, authorities, experts, and not least representatives for the recipients should be given a voice. We would have liked to have a real dialogue with the government from the opposition. We would have liked to see consequence and risk analyses.

All these, which we consider very reasonable demands from us and a number of others, the government has completely ignored. We think it is unserious and a nonchalant handling of such an important policy area as aid. It deserves a more serious handling.

Instead, this has been developed around the negotiating table behind closed doors and between parties that have very different views. SD and M on one hand have had to push through compromises with L and KD on the other. It shows in the final product that it diverges in very different directions.

Even though we haven't even had a day to read this reform agenda - which is part of the problem; we would have liked to see it earlier and be able to participate in a debate - there is, of course, at first glance something that is good in it. It is also not strange that a new government wants to put its mark on such an important area. We Social Democrats do not want to see any status quo, that aid should be unchangeable. The world is changing. The Covid pandemic, the advance of authoritarian states, the climate crisis and the increasing gaps between and within countries also mean that aid needs to be flexible and open to change.

The feminist aid policy was an example of how we developed the aid policy during our time in government. The view on workers' rights and the importance of socially sustainable growth are other areas where we believe the policy needs to be developed. The climate transition is, of course, another decisive factor that must influence future policy even more.

What did it actually become in this reform agenda? It is, as said, diverging in different directions. On one hand, it is said that the OECD-DAC rules shall be followed. On the other hand, Aron Emilsson says in interviews that the OECD-DAC rules shall be a starting point, but one could also imagine deviating from them. In the agenda, you open up for tied aid linked to Swedish companies, which goes against the OECD-DAC rules.

On the one hand, one wants to see more transparency in aid, on the other hand, one has cut back on the information budget, which means that the scrutiny of and transparency in the aid decreases. On the one hand, one says that one shall strengthen multilateralism, on the other hand, one cuts back core support to many UN organizations.

The agenda is therefore moving in different directions.

It is also not possible to discern what will be deprioritized. What is to be removed? If one now wants to redirect the aid to the surrounding area, what is to be removed? If one wants bilateral aid to only 30 countries, which ones are to be removed? Is it Somalia, Guatemala, Mali, South Sudan, Myanmar or Palestine?

We fear that Sweden will abandon countries where we have provided aid that has done good and been decisive in improving the living conditions for millions of people. We wish that the government could be clearer about what is being de-prioritized and removed.

Latin America and Africa are mentioned very little, and important themes such as socially sustainable growth, reduced inequalities, workers' rights and trade union rights are hardly mentioned at all.

We are critical of aid being used as a tool to force greater returns. Of course, countries should take responsibility for their citizens, but to believe that aid is the tool is wrong. It is only 2 percent of the aid that goes to governments, while 98 percent goes to organizations that work independently in countries, often against the local government's interests. Many authoritarian countries would only be happy if Swedish aid to organizations that want to strengthen democracy and human rights disappeared.

When it comes to prioritizing Ukraine and that continued support there must be a large part of the aid, we agree. Already during our government's time when the war broke out, we redirected resources to assist Ukraine. Ukraine was already then, if not the largest, at least one of the very largest aid countries.

There is no political conflict here. But it is not possible to use support for Ukraine as an excuse to completely abandon countries and crises where Swedish aid is needed. The support for Ukraine needs to come from more sources than the aid budget. It is about private investments, giving access to the European market for Ukrainian products and so on.

An international Marshall Plan will be needed for Ukraine's reconstruction. Sweden must, of course, be a driving force and be involved, but it must not mean that we turn our backs on the rest of the world and abandon poverty reduction and the fight against oppression on a global level.

Mr. Speaker! I also want to say a few words about the government's management of the aid to Palestine.

To begin with, we Social Democrats, of course, condemn the terrorist organization Hamas and the heinous attacks against civilians that took place on October 7. Nothing can excuse or legitimize this.

Now we see how the violence is escalating with over 15,000 deaths in Gaza, of which almost half are children. All parties in the conflict have a responsibility to protect the civilian population and follow international law.

The Swedish government has, in this, according to the UN, apocalyptic situation, stopped aid to Palestine that works against extremism and radicalization.

Sida was ordered to conduct a review of the aid. It is now complete and shows exactly the same results as Switzerland, Germany, and the EU previously came to when they reviewed the aid to Palestine, namely that no aid money has gone to Hamas.

One would think that Sweden would resume aid after Sida's review - but no. Instead, the government rejects its own agency's investigation and continues to freeze aid to Palestine. I wonder: What is the problem with aid that goes to forces that oppose Hamas and provide Palestinians with alternatives to extremism, terror, and radicalization? What is the problem with projects that provide women in Palestine with legal aid when they want to divorce or otherwise claim their rights?

We think it is shameful that Sweden is alone in the EU in stopping aid to Palestine. We were critical already last year when the government halved the aid to Palestine, and after the war has raged since October 7, the needs, as everyone knows, are greater than ever. Sweden needs to scale up its commitment, immediately stop the pause in aid, develop a long-term plan for aid to Palestine, and act on all levels to enable a peaceful two-state solution.

Mr. Speaker! In conclusion, the new direction that the government has launched is worrying in many ways. One aspect that is talked about too little is how the starting points now seem to have shifted.

The goal of the aid shall be to combat poverty and oppression and shall be based on the perspective and rights of the recipients and the poor. Now it seems more as if the government is proceeding from narrow Swedish self-interests. As someone wrote, it seems we have moved from having a policy for global development to a policy for Swedish development in the aid policy.

This is counterproductive, partly because solidarity is eroded, and partly because it is inefficient and yields poorer results. We know, for example, that tied aid linked to individual national companies is both more expensive and less effective. Another example is using aid as a tool to force return from Sweden; we had an exchange of remarks on this earlier.

We Social Democrats look forward to continued debate on aid in this debate and further next year and will continue to push for international solidarity and generous aid that combats poverty and oppression throughout the world.

Sweden is a part of the world. As a social democrat, I am proud of not being a nationalist but an internationalist. We believe in international solidarity. We believe that we all on this globe are dependent on one another.

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

Magdalena Thuresson (M)

Mr. Speaker! There are many parts of Olle Thorell's speech that I would have liked to comment on. But I will have to return to my speech later.

It is no surprise that the Social Democrats want to give everything to everyone and complain that there are shortcomings in the government's aid policy.

There are passages in the Social Democrats' special statement in this report that raise questions. And it was some of what the member said from the rostrum that raises questions. At the beginning of his speech, Olle Thorell, for example, said that the government uses Ukraine as a pretext to overhaul the aid policy. I believe that was how he expressed it. And I must say that this is a rather astonishing statement.

The Social Democrats claim in their specific statement that Sweden's reputation as a reliable and ambitious partner in development cooperation is threatened and that the government has a one-sided focus on the immediate vicinity.

To be clear: The surrounding area means Ukraine in this context.

This is what the Social Democrats say, while in the next sentence they say that it is reasonable to ramp up aid to Ukraine and our neighboring region, but that it is not wise to do this at the expense of support for other countries.

How does this equation add up? I wish that resources were infinite. The Social Democrats, in opposition, can pretend that one can do everything, but that is not possible. One must face reality, and one simply must prioritize.

The government makes the prioritization that Ukraine shall become the largest recipient country of Swedish aid. Do the Social Democrats share this prioritization?

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

Olle Thorell (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member Thuresson for the questions.

Regarding Ukraine, there is no difference of opinion in this chamber. It is something we as Swedish parliamentarians can be proud of, that the support for Ukraine is unanimous and long-term. And regardless of which government rules this country, in the coming years we will stand by Ukraine's side regarding military, economic, and political support in every way. I want to emphasize that. There is, therefore, no difference of opinion. It is a fact. We think the same here.

We also think it is reasonable that a large share of the aid budget goes to Ukraine. During our last year in government in 2022, one could see how we redirected resources in the aid budget to Ukraine. And I don't know if Ukraine wasn't the largest aid country in 2022. I will look to the former State Secretary to find out the facts. We have, therefore, shown in the sharp budgets that we have presented that we certainly prioritize Ukraine.

What we do not like is that Ukraine is being used as an excuse - I did not say nonsense - to turn one's back on global challenges. It is also a fact that this government wants a more regional foreign policy and de-prioritizes support to the UN and de-prioritizes the work with the global challenges. It is a fact. And we saw in last year's budget - it is not visible in this budget - which countries will be affected. During the past year, we have seen how support to countries has been cut. The further away from Europe these countries are, the less these countries receive of Swedish money. We think that is a pity. It should be possible to prioritize in a different way.

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

Magdalena Thuresson (M)

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

If we are to compare the government's budget with the Social Democrats' budget, the government allocates 0.84 percent of GDP to aid, and the Social Democrats allocate 0.85 percent of GDP to aid. So even the Social Democrats must prioritize and face reality.

The Speaker highlighted in their speech that the support for Ukraine must come from different parts. Let me then emphasize that a large part of the support for Ukraine is therefore outside the aid budget. But a war is ongoing in our immediate vicinity, and it must also have consequences for the Swedish aid budget.

I really do not want to seek conflict regarding the support for Ukraine. But when the Social Democrats accuse the government of having an overly one-sided focus on the immediate vicinity, it raises the question: Do the Social Democrats mean that we should not have a focus on the immediate vicinity, which in this context means precisely Ukraine?

I interpreted Olle Thorell's first remark as that the Social Democrats also share the priority that Ukraine should be the largest recipient of Swedish aid. Did I understand that correctly?

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

Olle Thorell (S)

Mr. Speaker! It is not unreasonable that Ukraine is the largest recipient country when we have an aggressive Russia pouring over Europe's second-largest country and attempting to whip them into submission using terror methods. In that case, it is clear that Sweden shall step up and that Sweden shall contribute. And a large part of the aid budget shall also go there. There is nothing strange about that.

What we criticize is not that one prioritizes Ukraine, but what we criticize is the one-sided focus. And I stand by the fact that it is a one-sided focus on Ukraine and the surrounding area and that not a sufficiently large interest has been shown for Myanmar and Palestine or for the situation in Guatemala, where Sweden has made an incredible difference with its aid funds. It is a country far away that not so many know about here in Sweden. But for the people in Guatemala, it is of immense importance that Sweden has been there during dark and repressive times and supported human rights activists, lawyers, and others who have fought to maintain some kind of rule of law under the oppression. And they have succeeded. To now turn one's back on these brave people in Guatemala, which one risks doing, we think is wrong.

It is clear that as a government one must prioritize, and not all needs will be able to be met. That is why we have thought it is so good to have a one percent goal. Then we know where the bar is set, and that is what we are to achieve.

There will always be needs in the world. We are not so naive as to believe that everyone will suddenly live in peace and freedom and that poverty will simply disappear like by magic. So that will not happen, and the needs will continue to exist.

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Mr. Speaker! I have listened to the Social Democrats' speeches and followed the Social Democrats' policy regarding aid issues and other political areas for quite a long time. And I have a question.

The Social Democrats have a very hard stance when it comes to the fact that one should not hold talks or negotiate with the Sweden Democrats in the Swedish Riksdag. For example, in 2019, the Social Democratic government invited talks on how we should tackle gang crime in Sweden. The government invited seven group leaders in the Riksdag but not the eighth from the Sweden Democrats. The Social Democrats have been very hard on this and have barked like guard dogs at me and my party because we have said that one should be able to talk with all parties in the Riksdag.

At the same time, the Social Democrats have a completely different view when it comes to dialogue and negotiations with Hamas. In that regard, the Social Democrats have for many years pursued the line that, if one reads the party's motions, one should strive for normalization, that one should negotiate with Hamas and that one should include Hamas.

Socialdemokrater have even been involved in inviting Hamas representatives. In 2006, for example, they met the refugee minister Atef Adwan. Assam Tamimi, a Hamas ideologue, was involved in a discussion series organized by, among others, S students. Even the Brotherhood movement and Socialdemokrater för tro och solidaritet have been involved in this.

Since this also concerns the attitude towards aid to Palestine, my question to Olle Thorell is: Why do the Social Democrats want that people like Yahya Sinwar and Ismail Haniya should be able to be normalized, negotiated with, and included? But Yasmine Eriksson, who sits five meters away, you are not even allowed to have a conversation with about how we create law and order in Sweden.

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

Olle Thorell (S)

Mr. Speaker! It is nice to see you in a foreign policy context again, Fredrik Malm!

It is, however, deplorable to hear a "liberal" - yes, excuse me, but nowadays one has to use quotation marks around that word when talking about the Liberals - accuse the Social Democrats regarding Hamas and in some way equate the issue with cooperation with SD. It is completely incomprehensible to me.

We stand up against the EU's, the current government's and previous governments' policies regarding Hamas. We distance ourselves fully and clearly from them. We condemn them. We do not want to have anything to do with terrorist organizations in any way. I know that Fredrik Malm's crusade against the Social Democrats' connections to Hamas is something he is very passionate about, but the claim simply does not match reality.

It is also not true that the Social Democrats do not engage in dialogue with the Sweden Democrats. We speak with them in the committee every week, we greet them in the corridors, and we show respect for the fact that their members have been elected to the Riksdag with votes that have the same value as the votes we have received. What we do not do, however, is bow down to neo-fascism. What we do not do is jump into the same boat as illiberal forces that aim to sort people based on origin and grade people based on what background they have.

What the Liberals are doing is shameful - to call themselves a liberal party and then join forces with their main opponent, whose greatest enemy is liberalism, I think is a great shame. Fredrik Malm should actually think so as well.

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Mr. Speaker! I am somewhat concerned when I listen to Olle Thorell's answer, because he does not touch upon what is the core issue here.

In Sweden, we have democracy and free elections, and then we have different opinions between the parties. But the Social Democrats are pushing the line that one should not be able to talk with all parties in the Swedish Riksdag about how we are to tackle gang crime - while it is very important for the Social Democrats that Hamas should be normalized and that one should open up for negotiations and inclusions with them.

The European Union had a common line after the Palestinian election, which Hamas won. It was said that, among other things, aid is frozen and restrictions are imposed against Hamas as long as Hamas does not meet the demands to recognize the state of Israel, recognize entered agreements, and not engage in terrorism. The Social Democrats broke that line by actively inviting Hamas representatives – who could then also travel on to other countries in the EU from Sweden.

During the recent parliamentary terms here in the Swedish Riksdag, for example, Peter Hultqvist, Urban Ahlin when he was vice chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and a number of other members who still sit in this chamber have signed motions arguing for exactly this. Somewhere, therefore, the question arises, to get to the heart of the matter once and for all: Why is it important to include and be able to negotiate with a person like Ismail Haniyeh, who for over 40 years has been the leader of one of the world's worst terrorist organizations, while one is not allowed to negotiate at all with Yasmine Eriksson, who sits five meters away here in the chamber? Why?

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

Olle Thorell (S)

Mr. Speaker! It is exhausting that such an experienced Member of Parliament as Fredrik Malm engages in such simple straw man rhetoric. One paints a problem and sticks an opinion we do not have onto me and the Social Democrats, and then attacks it. It is very skillful and fierce rhetoric, but it is still not true.

We condemn Hamas. We want Hamas to cease to exist. We want to fight them just as we wanted to fight Isis/Daish and al-Qaeda; there are many terrorist organizations that we want to cease to exist, and Hamas is one of them.

The claim that we would not be able to talk with the Sweden Democrats is not true. We talk with the Sweden Democrats every day, but that does not mean we bow down to them. It does not mean that we adapt our policy to them. It does not mean that we give up our ideals to gain power thanks to them. The Liberals do, however, and I think you should be ashamed of that, Fredrik Malm.

(Applause)

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

Anna Lasses (C)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Olle Thorell for an important speech.

Olle Thorell and I are somewhat in the same boat. We are, in fact, members of parties that both want to stand up for the one percent goal – while at the same time we have adapted our budget proposals according to the prevailing economic situation and also according to the budget that the government has chosen to present.

In the Center Party's budget proposal, we are very clear that we want to return to the one percent goal, and we have a clear plan for how it should happen by January 2027. My simple question is: If you in the Social Democrats were to get power tomorrow, Olle Thorell, do you then have a corresponding plan for how and when Sweden should be back on the one percent goal?

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

Olle Thorell (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Anna Lasses for the question as it gives me the opportunity to explain how we view the one percent goal and that vision.

It is true that in our shadow budget we do not reach the one percent goal. Neither does the Center Party, which however has a ladder up for the coming years. We have added 1 billion kronor more this year, next year, and the year after that and say clearly and distinctly that we will return to the one percent level. We do not say exactly when or in which steps it shall occur, but the goal is clear and distinct.

If one questions the credibility of that, one can look at how we acted during the 90s, when we also cut aid while we sanitized the Swedish state finances. At that time we were down to 0.7 percent, but we did not abandon the one percent goal. It was still the goal and the vision, and in the same way it is now. It took until 2004 or 2005 before we reached the one percent level again, that is to say, just in time for us to lose the election and the conservative government could reap the fruits of that work.

It depends, then - if we take government power tomorrow, it will go faster than if we win government power in 2026. And it will go even slower if we, God forbid, win government power not until 2030. In that case, it will take longer. But as soon as it is possible and can happen in a responsible manner both towards the state finances and towards our partners out in the world, we shall do this.

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

Anna Lasses (C)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the answer. I actually had no further question - it was mostly this that I was interested in - but as I sat here and listened, I thought of something else. Something I actually think is quite good in the model that now exists is the ceiling of 8 percent for deduction. I suddenly became curious to hear how the Social Democrats stand on that - is it something that will be retained if one gets the opportunity to decide on it?

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

Olle Thorell (S)

Mr. Speaker! We have not expressed an exact ceiling in percent for write-offs, but what we have said and have decided in our party is that one should be restrictive with this. One should follow the OECD-DAC guidelines, but it should be restrictive. We therefore welcome the ceiling of 8 percent; it makes it more predictable and easier for partner organizations and administrations to know what will happen.

We think it should be restrictive. We will return with exactly how we formulate this restrictiveness when we eventually get government power again, but it will be included.

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

Yasmine Eriksson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Initially, I would like to comment on an exchange of remarks where I was apostrophized quite many times. It may be appropriate to mention something about that. The Social Democrats harshly criticized the Liberals for cooperating with the Sweden Democrats. I think in all respects that the Liberals are the adults in the room, not the Social Democrats, who remain in some sandbox mentality and cannot converse with other parties. The Liberals have gained very much more from this. They get their policies through both in the Riksdag and in the government, something that the Social Democrats do not succeed with.

But that was not why I requested a reply from Olle Thorell; the reason was Olle Thorell's criticism regarding the removal of feminist foreign policy in the budget. Therefore, I would like to ask if Olle Thorell opposes the parts we have in this area within the Tidö cooperation's foreign policy. It is about reducing the digital divide with a particular focus on girls and women and about promoting women's entrepreneurship, inheritance rights, and ownership rights. It is about women's and girls' right to education and about having a focus on them in conflict situations, where we know they are more affected. Which of the opinions and proposals we have within this policy area is it that Olle Thorell so stubbornly opposes?

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

Olle Thorell (S)

Mr. Speaker! We begin with the debate on whether or not to talk. We are standing and talking now in the chamber of the Riksdag, Yasmine Eriksson. I treat you with respect. I understand that you have the right to be here. Your voters' voices are worth just as much as my voters'. You have every right to present all the proposals you want. You are part of the government base. We meet every week in the committees and debate together.

But we are not negotiating with you. We are, in fact, too far apart in terms of values. We do not want to compromise on our values and negotiate politically with you. It is not only we who are critical of the Liberals doing that. Even roughly half of the Liberals are critical of it. It is also the case that 97.6 percent of the Swedish electorate have chosen a party other than the Liberals. Their choice of path is not exactly a success.

Then Yasmine Eriksson asks me which equality measures we are against in the Tidö Agreement and in the reform agenda. The answer is that we are not against any of this. It is good that SRHR is mentioned and that there is a desire to strengthen women's and girls' rights, participation in political assemblies, and so on. It is clear that we are for that. But let me liken the feminist foreign policy to a fantastic sports car. You remove two tires and the headlights and say: What is wrong with the seat? What is wrong with the steering wheel? What is wrong with the engine? There is nothing wrong with any of this. But you have taken apart a complex, holistic policy for feminism in aid and foreign policy. It functions worse when not all parts are included.

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

Yasmine Eriksson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I can only state that the Social Democrats continue with their symbolic politics. For us, it is important what difference we can actually make for real, not what headline or what name it has.

Olle Thorell expressed criticism in his speech regarding our pause of aid to Palestine. I would like to ask the member if he does not agree that we must ensure that the aid funds we pay out do not go to terrorism or to corrupt actors. We paused the aid to ensure that no incorrect payments are made. We need to have a transparent and secure aid. We cannot pay it out lightly just because we have always done so, when we know that Palestine has major problems with corruption.

Olle Thorell requested a long-term plan for the aid to Palestine. Now Sida has received a supplementary government mandate regarding the review of the aid to Palestine. When the review is presented, the government will look at it to make an assessment of how we should proceed moving forward. What is it that Olle Thorell wants to see more than that we investigate this thoroughly and then make an assessment based on the facts we get on the table?

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

Olle Thorell (S)

Mr. Speaker! Once again, there is straw man rhetoric. A picture is being painted that we have perceptions that we do not have. It is clear that we think that all aid funds should go to what they are intended for. It is clear that all of us in here and the entire Swedish people think that tax money should be used for the right things. They should obviously not go to terrorism or disappear in corruption. No one thinks otherwise. Of course, it is good that one ensures that.

It is however the case that a report has already been received stating that the aid does not go to Hamas or other terrorist organizations. The same conclusion has also been reached by the EU, the UN, Switzerland, and German auditors when they have audited this. It is not the case that the aid to Palestine was completely uncontrolled before the war broke out. It was audited across the board in all directions, as it should be.

Now the government is alone in the EU in freezing the payment of the aid. These are funds that were intended to help women legally claim their rights and to ensure that cancer patients from Gaza received help in hospitals in Jerusalem are not hindered. The accompaniment program, where international companions accompany Palestinian children to school in the West Bank, is paused. This is what is wrong. Sweden is alone in dragging its feet in this way. I find that embarrassing. It damages Sweden's image. Above all, it harms the Palestinians. It harms innocent civilians who just want to live their lives, who want to be away from extremism and radicalization, who want to be able to support themselves, send their children to school and have a roof over their heads. This will become more difficult because of the Swedish government's actions, and I find that sad.

(Applause)

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

Magdalena Thuresson (M)

Mr. Speaker! We are now debating expenditure area 7. It concerns international aid, one of the most important foreign policy tools for promoting and defending Swedish interests as well as meeting the challenges that we and the world face.

What then are Swedish interests? They are, for example, to stand up for girls' and women's rights, to safeguard the rules-based international order and multilateral cooperation, to stand up for the principles of the rule of law, democracy and human civil and political rights, to combat climate change and its consequences, and to work for a rules-based and controlled migration to Europe.

It is often asserted in the debate that Sweden is cutting back on aid. This is a false statement, Mr. Speaker. What Sweden has done is that we have changed the budgeting principle for aid. Previously, we had decided, specifically for aid, that we should allocate 1 percent of the GNI in the budget. Sweden has now left that model, because we do not want aid to have disbursement targets without result targets. Instead, we have decided on a three-year budget framework for aid.

For the years 2023, 2024 and 2025, we agree to allocate 56 billion annually to aid. If one looks at how much money Sweden will spend on aid during the three years we have agreed upon for this framework and how much money Sweden spent on aid during the three preceding years, one sees that aid is increasing. This is important to keep in mind in the debate.

Mr. Speaker! The need for assistance is great in many parts of the world. Particularly important and particularly great is the need for increased humanitarian support in several places, not least to the war-torn Ukraine and to the hard-hit civilian population in Gaza.

Sweden shall participate and take global responsibility through our aid. Humanitarian aid, or disaster relief as it is sometimes called, is about preventing death and alleviating distress. Humanitarian support in aid is one of the government's priorities in this budget.

The needs in the world are great, almost infinite. Many people live in flight. After the pandemic, there is both a global education debt with children who have lost time in school and a vaccination debt as many children did not get to participate in vaccination programs during the pandemic. Many countries, families, and individuals fell below the poverty line in connection with the pandemic.

At the same time, democracy is in retreat globally, and climate change is leading to both droughts and floods with devastating consequences.

We must ensure that the funds we allocate for aid are used in the best possible way. The Government has therefore, in connection with this budget bill and in other contexts, announced that it will present a reform agenda for aid. This is very welcome.

The government presented yesterday the reform agenda Aid for a New Era, which will serve as a steering document for how the government will manage and prioritize aid. The reform agenda establishes, among other things, that we shall have a reduced number of strategies and a principle of freedom in aid. Swedish tax kronor shall not go to countries that systematically undermine the international rule of law.

A mandate shall be given to Sida to develop the transparency guarantee so that it is easy to follow and track aid money all the way and see what result our aid leads to.

Mr. Speaker! It is welcome that the government shows a will to reform when it comes to aid. If you do as you have always done, then it will also become as it always has been. For far too long, aid has been characterized too much by a discussion about how much money we spend and too little by a discussion about how we should prioritize our aid.

What should we focus on and why? How do we increase the transparency and efficiency of aid? These are important questions not only in themselves but also for maintaining the public's trust in aid.

I believe there is a strong popular support for Sweden as a country having a large amount of aid, but it must not be about sending out tax money without any requirements. Everyone must be able to be confident that what we choose to prioritize in the aid is effective and leads to results.

Mr. Speaker! This debate is not, however, about the reform agenda but about the report where the committee deals with the government's budget for expenditure area 7 International aid.

However, there is a reservation in the report from S, V, and MP regarding the reform agenda. The opposition considers the process to have been hasty, with a lack of transparency and anchoring in the Riksdag. Let me therefore, by reason of this reservation, say a few words partly about the process with the reform agenda, and partly about how the aid is steered.

Regarding the process, I can state that all parties in the Riksdag, as well as many civil society actors and other actors, have been invited to the UD to provide comments and discuss the design of a future reform agenda.

Mr. Speaker! Since it is pointed out that there has been a lack of anchoring in the Riksdag: How is the aid actually governed? The aid is governed by the government through regulatory letters and strategies. That is how it has always been done. The reform agenda, in turn, is a kind of steering document that will affect and provide guidance on how the government will govern the aid going forward through, for example, regulatory letters and strategies.

I want to emphasize that the previous government never consulted the Moderaterna in every case when it was preparing new strategies for aid.

Mr. Speaker! Let me now return to the budget for expenditure area 7 and say a few words about the priorities for the expenditure area.

It is first and foremost Ukraine. Sweden has a moral responsibility to help Ukraine defend its sovereignty and its right to freely make independent security policy choices. Ukraine is now becoming the largest recipient country of Swedish aid. From the aid budget, we provide humanitarian support, support for reconstruction, and support in the reform process towards an approximation to EU membership.

As I have already mentioned in my speech, the need for aid in some parts of the world is very great, and aid can alleviate poverty. But, Mr. Speaker, in the long term, it is not aid but trade, growth and the rule of law that lead to sustainable development and increased prosperity. Trade and entrepreneurship as means for increased prosperity and reduced poverty are therefore an important priority in the budget.

Measures for freedom, peace and security shall be supported to meet Sweden's and Europe's challenges. EU rapprochement, promotion of democracy, human rights, equality and the principles of the rule of law shall guide Sweden's efforts in the EU's eastern neighborhood.

Democracy, human freedoms and rights, and the principles of the rule of law are intrinsic values in themselves. They are also crucial for peace, security, and development in our global environment. Support for human rights and democracy defenders shall increase, and a special initiative is made to create conditions for free elections, including support for actors who contribute to countering undue information influence.

Multilateral cooperation is of crucial importance. Sweden shall focus its multilateral cooperation within aid to organizations that work with the government's thematic priorities, humanitarian support, support for refugees and migrants, as well as for children's rights.

When it comes to Agenda 2030, Swedish aid policy shall focus on the issues where partner countries lag behind in goal fulfillment and which are prioritized by the government. This applies, for example, to human rights and freedoms, democracy, equality, environment and climate, as well as where it is deemed to be effective.

Aid shall be focused to be a tool to counter irregular migration and its risks, as well as to promote return, voluntary repatriation, and reintegration. The Government intends to condition parts of the development aid for the purpose that recipient countries shall follow international law principles on repatriation.

The aid shall also contribute to effective measures to secure the rights of migrants and refugees in partner countries, support host communities, and reduce the root causes of irregular migration and forced displacement.

Climate change entails ever-increasing humanitarian needs and contributes to forced displacement. Swedish climate aid shall increase in volume and increasingly contribute to investments that provide emission reductions, transition to fossil-free energy, and energy efficiency.

The catalytic effects of climate assistance shall be strengthened by an increased focus on the mobilization of private capital, for example by intensifying the work with guarantees and increasing Swedfunds climate investments.

Mr. Speaker! Let me say something completely obvious, which unfortunately in too many places in the world is not obvious. Girls' and women's rights are human rights. Through our aid, Sweden shall be a clear voice and force for equality and for women's and girls' opportunities and empowerment.

The budget also stipulates that our aid shall be used for health interventions for the most vulnerable, to strengthen health and healthcare systems and for strengthened health security.

It is about strengthened work with SRHR, access to vaccinations and access to water, sanitation and hygiene, as well as working for access to and responsible use of antibiotics in the world.

Mr. Speaker! When it comes to the priorities for aid in the budget, I also want to mention EU aid. The EU is an important channel for Swedish aid, and Sweden shall be and is a leading voice within the EU's development cooperation.

In conclusion, I want to say that Swedish aid cannot do everything. One must prioritize. But where Swedish aid is deployed, taxpayers should see results from their giving. The aid shall lead to better living conditions for people in poverty and oppression.

I would like to conclude by moving for approval of the committee's proposal in the report and wish the Chamber Office and the Speaker's Presidium a Merry Christmas.

(Applause)

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Magdalena Thuresson, for the presentation! The aid is strongly linked in the reform agenda to promoting trade, investments, and Swedish companies' interests.

If trade policy can be used to lift people out of poverty, it is of course welcome, but one must be careful that it is not the same as aid. Trade policy and aid policy have different purposes and goals. The needs are greatest in poor or conflict-affected countries, where the business opportunities for companies are small. Swedish interests and business opportunities, on the other hand, are most benefited in middle-income countries.

What happens then to people who live in fragile countries and who fight for democracy, equality, and the principles of the rule of law if we abandon them? These are countries such as Somalia, Guatemala, Cambodia, and Myanmar. Can the Moderates guarantee that people in the poorest countries will continue to be prioritized and not be abandoned through the new direction for aid?

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

Magdalena Thuresson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Lotta Johnsson Fornarve, for the question! It is a very welcome priority that the government intends to strengthen the synergies between aid and trade. Just as I said in my speech, aid can alleviate poverty. But in the long term, it is trade, growth, and the rule of law that lead to sustainable development and increased prosperity.

There are great synergies to be leveraged here, and it is important to take advantage of them. This can be done, for example, through Swedfund or through the guarantee instrument. There are many tools to work with, and there is much more to be done here.

These synergies are naturally not suitable for all types of aid. Another important priority for the government is to increase humanitarian aid, i.e., disaster relief. It is governed by completely different principles than development aid, and in that case, this type of synergy is not suitable. Humanitarian aid is directed at the most vulnerable people. It is about alleviating distress and preventing death.

This will, of course, not be suitable for everything, but there are large synergies to be exploited, and it is very important to do so in order to achieve aid that is as effective as possible.

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Mr. Speaker! I still think there is a great over-reliance on the market economy solutions linked to aid. When the OECD's aid expert evaluated Swedish aid, they warned precisely against abandoning the poorest countries. I do not think I received any real answer to this. Will Sweden continue to stand up for the poorest countries as well?

Export credits should also be linked to aid. It is a form of tied aid that is considered to both become more expensive for the recipient and reduce freedom of choice. This is offered to those who want to purchase goods from a Swedish company, but it has been pointed out that it is something that can contravene the OECD's rules on how aid can be used. Tied aid is in itself a form of aid that both the EU and the OECD clearly advise against as an outdated, expensive, and less effective form of aid. Tied aid can become up to 15-30 percent more expensive.

Aid policy should be permeated by a rights perspective and be based on the needs of the poor. Aid should benefit the recipient and not the donor. What is Magdalena Thuresson's view on linking aid to export credits? As mentioned, it is an aid that is both less effective and more expensive.

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

Magdalena Thuresson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I think it is important to think anew and try new tools in the aid policy. When it comes to the most vulnerable, I mentioned in my speech that one of the most important priorities is increased humanitarian support. In Sweden's aid, we shall, of course, stand up for the most vulnerable people.

Tied aid should naturally be reported as tied aid if it is. But it does not conflict with DAC's framework.

There are a number of different tools that can be used to link aid and trade more closely. One of the most effective tools is the guarantee instrument, where a single aid krona can create capital flows that otherwise would not have occurred. It can create perhaps seven, eight, nine, or ten new kronor. A single krona can thus become many more. This is an incredibly effective aid and something that we really should use more of. This government intends to do so, and I think that is very positive.

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

Anna Lasses (C)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Magdalena Thuresson, for a contribution that is in many respects very important! There is a great deal that I absolutely agree with.

I do, however, have a question. We leave the humanitarian aid aside, because now it is about the development aid. This is something that I have reflected on throughout the autumn for various reasons, not least in connection with the Palestine issue.

On the one hand, it states in the reform agenda that there should be a will to reform as some kind of condition for a country to be able to receive development aid. On the other hand, there is a lot of talk - just as Magdalena Thuresson pointed out - about supporting interventions for democracy, for freedom, and all such things.

Let me take a practical example. There is a project in Afghanistan where Rädda Barnen, together with Sida, are running schools for girls. In my opinion, this is an example both of promoting women's and girls' rights and opportunities to grow up, and of a country that is anything but democratically, without any doubt, governed.

Is this a project that will gain momentum, or does it fall into the category that we cannot commit to?

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

Magdalena Thuresson (M)

Mr. Speaker! The example that Anna Lasses highlights with Afghanistan is an example of an extremely difficult context. I naturally want efforts to strengthen girls' opportunities and empowerment and those types of projects to be able to continue. This is, as all parties in this chamber know, an extremely difficult context to work in. We must collectively in the EU and the UN ensure that it becomes as good as it can be in this extremely difficult context.

When it comes to the general question of countries that are heading in the wrong direction and what type of cooperation one should have with them, the principle is that Swedish taxpayers' money should go to countries where there is a will to reform and where development is moving in the right direction.

Not all support looks the same, however. I have mentioned the humanitarian aid. Anna Lasses asked me not to mention it now, so I will not do so. But support for human rights defenders and democracy defenders, for example, is what is most important in this type of context, and it is not about a huge amount of money either. It is a fairly small, targeted support.

The answer is, therefore, that the design can look different. But when it comes to the specific example of Afghanistan, we simply have to follow the developments and ask to be allowed to return.

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

Anna Lasses (C)

Mr. Speaker! I am well aware that it is an extremely difficult context, and that is also why I bring this up as an example. It is very difficult to make the general statements about the will to reform and so on, because it can occur precisely in situations where people need assistance the most and find themselves in an extremely difficult context.

But I will not ask further, instead, I will follow the developments and see how it turns out with the new strategies and how the government chooses to continue to act in those contexts that are very difficult but where it is so very important that the projects remain.

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

Magdalena Thuresson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Yes, we must follow the developments. On a general level, I think it is very important that there are guiding principles, and one such principle is that Swedish aid should not be entirely unconditional. It is about cooperation, and that also comes with certain expectations and discussions regarding different requirements.

Swedish aid cannot be everywhere, and we choose whom we cooperate with. One issue that has been raised earlier in the debate is that of migration and return. It is perfectly reasonable, right, and correct that Swedish development aid also comes with certain expectations regarding a joint cooperation.

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

Olle Thorell (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Magdalena Thuresson, for a speech with many important points!

There is much that we agree on in the Committee on Foreign Affairs, such as that Sweden has an important role to play and that aid can make a great difference for poor and vulnerable people around the world. What we do not agree on is, for example, the level of aid. We have discussed that several times before.

Magdalena Thuresson is not lying and is not making things up; it is true that during these three years there is more money in kronor and öre than during the preceding three years. So one can do the math if one wants. It is, however, a somewhat dishonest way of calculating, I might think, because GDP and GNI change and inflation changes. One got more for that money then than what one gets now. The share has therefore decreased.

It is just a matter of being honest about it from the Moderates: You do not want to be as generous with Swedish aid as we in the opposition, as well as the Christian Democrats and the Liberals, want. You are entitled to think that. I can understand that one makes that prioritization, even though I think it is completely wrong. I do, however, think it is a bit inappropriate to fudge the calculations in that way.

My question concerns the anchoring of this. Magdalena Thuresson thinks that the government has had meetings with various organizations and that we parties have been given the opportunity to provide opinions. That is true to some extent, but it is not the case that we have been allowed to see any proposal that has existed. No proposal has been sent out for consultation to the parties where we could have provided input. It has mostly been mandatory meetings so that one can subsequently say that meetings have been held.

My question is: What is the problem with having a motion in the Riksdag regarding this important policy area?

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

Magdalena Thuresson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Let me begin by commenting on the level of aid. We have, as stated, agreed to allocate 56 billion annually to aid, and it is 56 billion kronor that we do not allocate to the justice system, to railway maintenance, or to healthcare. It is 56 billion – an incredible amount of money – that we instead actively choose to allocate to aid. As stated, it is also more money over these three years than the three years before.

We have higher ambitions for aid than to just pay out a certain proportion of GNI. We want more focus on content. We want more discussion about what we should do and why, and about how we strengthen the efficiency of the aid.

Regarding the process surrounding the reform agenda, I naturally understand that Olle Thorell desires a greater influence in Swedish aid policy than what one has the possibility to have in opposition. It is a natural feeling for a Member of Parliament. But we won the election and received a mandate to change this policy area as well.

There have been countless meetings. All parties in the Riksdag have been invited, and a number of other actors have been involved and given the opportunity to provide comments on how a future reform agenda should be designed.

As I said in my speech, the aid is governed by the government. I was, in any case, never consulted by previous aid ministers when strategies and so on were to be reviewed. I felt then, just as Olle Thorell does now, that I would have gladly been involved and shared my views. However, there is nothing strange about this process given how the aid is governed.

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

Olle Thorell (S)

Mr. Speaker! It is not true that we, in previous government positions, have not requested the opposition's views. The last time such a major shift in aid policy was made was before both Magdalena's and my time in the Riksdag, namely 2002/03 when we launched Sweden's policy for global development. It is perhaps comparable to this, at least with your view that this is such a large paradigm shift and such a major reorganization.

It is difficult for us to be able to analyze whether it really is that. We received the text yesterday afternoon, so it is a bit difficult to do a total analysis. It also shows the problem: We cannot assess it because we have not seen it until today, and today we are supposed to stand here and debate it.

We would have liked a memorandum to be submitted to the Riksdag regarding the aid reform agenda so that we would have had the opportunity to analyze it properly, submit reservations and specific statements, and describe our policy in comparison with it. But it seems that the government is afraid of that.

When we developed the policy for global development, it was a very extensive process where all the parties in the Riksdag were involved and were able to provide comments, and where we had round-table discussions during the design. We took help from academia, from research, and from other countries' authorities and did a solid piece of work, a work that was groundbreaking and world-leading and received many followers out in the world.

The reallocation of aid deserves such a handling. I think this handling has been closed. It doesn't matter how many meetings you have had where you have only said "What do you think then" in the broadest sense. It has not been a serious handling of this, and we regret that.

What is it that is so dangerous about a communication to the Riksdag regarding this?

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

Magdalena Thuresson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Why not a written inquiry? Ultimately, it is a question that should be posed to the government, but I share the assessment.

This will serve as a steering document for the government's management and prioritization of the aid. Therefore, I and a majority in the committee believe that the government's handling, to decide on the reform agenda as a government decision, is reasonable.

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Mr. Speaker! When I listened to Magdalena Thuresson's speech, I also heard much that we agree on. There are several things that the previous government did within aid that continue, and that is, of course, welcome.

But the chairman also said something along the lines that one should not just send away money without requirements. I would like to ask Magdalena Thuresson why she says so. Is it because she wants to make it sound as if that is how Swedish aid has been handled through the years, that it has been sent completely without requirements, without transparency and efficiency?

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

Magdalena Thuresson (M)

Mr. Speaker! We must not send off tax money completely without accountability. I am not saying that it has occurred to a large extent previously, but on the other hand, we have had quite a lot of debate in the committee and in this chamber regarding core funding. There, I mean that the previous government has used the core funding in a way that aimed to reach the payment target. Large payments have been made at the end of the year to reach the "correct" amount of spent money on aid. That, I mean, is not a responsible way to handle the taxpayers' money.

Core funding plays a very important role in the multilateral system. But Sweden cannot be among the top three among the largest core funding donors in how many organizations as it may. Where we provide core funding, it must go to our thematic priorities where Sweden has an active influence and is involved in influencing the governance of the organizations.

This is an example of irresponsible management in aid where, in my opinion, the payment target has had irresponsible consequences. At the end of the year, large payments are made solely to reach the "correct" amount of spent money on aid in order to be able to report it.

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the answer.

Still, the members surely know that among the most effective things we can do is to provide core funding to the large multilateral organizations and the UN organizations. Then we ensure that it enters a system that works and where there are opportunities to actually help where it is needed. Those organizations say that large core funding and flexible financing are incredibly important. Few provide it. But it does not tie up or bind their hands.

I believe it was the former head of the World Food Programme who said: I have as much money as I want. I only see water, but I have nothing to drink. That means that all countries have tied up their aid and conditioned it on different projects. Then another catastrophe happens, and none of what he has can be used. It is not an effective use of aid money, I think.

Swedish aid, as it was developed with the Green Party's aid ministers, is ranked as one of the best in the world, with great transparency and high efficiency. Therefore, I am surprised that the Moderates continue to claim that it was not efficient.

Now it is supposed to become more efficient. It is repeated like an eternal mantra. Then I wonder why the Moderaterna, at least according to the rumors, are moving forward with things that risk leading to the opposite. Some of them we already see in the reform agenda, even if we have to analyze it a bit more. But now the strategy for the party-affiliated organizations is also to be reformed. It seems that it will be a support that is tied to the mandate in the Riksdag instead of the efficiency of the projects that are to be carried out. It thus goes straight against what Magdalena Thuresson has now been standing and speaking for.

Why are you submitting proposals that lead to the opposite of what you say you want to do?

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

Magdalena Thuresson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Core funding is a very important, an extremely important, tool within aid. But it must be used strategically. It must not be used as a way to reach a disbursement target for aid. Then it is irresponsible. Core funding is important, but it must be used strategically to reach the goals and thematic priorities of the Swedish aid policy.

Aid should become more effective, for example through the use of guarantees, which I raised several times in my speech. One aid krona can become more aid kronor and create capital flows that otherwise would not have occurred. It is incredibly effective aid and something we should use and will use much more within several different areas.

I refrain from commenting on various rumors from UD that have reached Janine Alm Ericson. I only state that the government's and the majority's absolute ambition is for the aid to become more effective, and the reform agenda presents several proposals for it to become so.

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Mr. Speaker! Yesterday, the government and the Sweden Democrats finally presented the reform agenda for aid. However, it is a major shortcoming that the agenda has not been anchored with the Riksdag and other relevant parties such as civil society and experts. Such a large reorganization of Swedish aid that is now being launched should have been given the opportunity to be discussed more extensively. We therefore, together with the Social Democrats and the Green Party, have a reservation, which I move for approval.

We must have a well-functioning aid that is based on poverty reduction and that takes place on the recipient's terms. The Government, with the support of the Sweden Democrats, has presented a policy that partly goes in the opposite direction. That the Government and the Sweden Democrats have already previously abandoned the one percent goal and thereby reduced aid at a time when global crises overlap, extreme poverty is increasing, and the needs are greatest, is a blow to the people in the world who are having it the hardest. The Left Party stands up for the world's poor in our budget proposal and allocates 1 percent to aid. It can be done if the political will exists.

In the reform agenda, aid is linked to a greater extent to promoting trade, investments, and Swedish companies' interests. If trade policy can be used to lift people out of poverty, it is of course welcome. But one must be careful that this is not the same as aid. Trade policy and aid policy have different purposes and goals.

The needs are greatest in poor or conflict-affected countries where the business opportunities for companies are small. Swedish interests and business opportunities, on the other hand, are best served in middle-income countries. What happens to the people who live in fragile countries and who fight for democracy, equality, and the principles of the rule of law if we abandon them, in countries such as Somalia, Guatemala, Cambodia, and Myanmar?

When the OECD's aid experts evaluated Swedish aid, they warned precisely against abandoning the poorest countries. They also warned against letting the export interests of Swedish companies steer Swedish aid. Using aid for export guarantees to benefit Swedish companies is, moreover, a form of tied aid that risks making the aid both more expensive and less effective for the recipient countries. A focus on Swedish interests puts aid policy in jeopardy. Aid should not stem from Swedish interests but from the recipient's needs. Aid policy should be permeated by a rights perspective and stem from the needs of the poor.

There is also a strong overconfidence within the government support that it is primarily market economic solutions that can create conditions for development. This shows a lack of insight into, among other things, the importance of a functioning rule of law, strong and independent institutions, developed healthcare, and children's opportunities for a good schooling. In Afghanistan, for example, 16 of 21 million children are in need of humanitarian support. The situation is particularly serious for girls, as child marriage and a lack of education are major problems.

The government and the Sweden Democrats also link migration and repatriation to aid and write that it is a special priority to safeguard the Swedish interest. Aid funds shall be used as pressure to compel countries to accept persons that Sweden wants to deport. It is highly unlikely that this will work in reality. Which countries should one influence? It is only a few percent of the aid that goes directly to countries. Most goes to civil society organizations and multilateral bodies such as the UN. A country like Iraq will probably not care very much if the aid to the women's organizations in Iraq receives reduced support.

Furthermore, using aid for migration goes against the OECD-DAC framework for aid. An activity cannot be reported as aid if it is associated with conditions to achieve the donor's own migration policy goals.

In the reform agenda, we can read that women's and girls' rights as well as democracy shall be prioritized in aid. This is of course very good, but it is difficult to see how it will become a reality with the cuts and reprioritizations of aid that are occurring. We know that it is a success factor to support girls' and women's opportunities for education and self-sufficiency and to give girls and women access to sexual and reproductive health and rights, SRHR. Supporting girls and women contributes to developing the entire society and is a prerequisite for real democratic development.

I recently visited Zambia together with the Riksdag's SRHR network and could see with my own eyes that our aid makes a big difference and contributes to, for example, preventing child marriages and teenage pregnancies. This type of aid must increase, not decrease. Vänsterpartiet therefore wants that half of the aid should go to women and girls and that at least 10 percent should be earmarked for SRHR.

It was also a big mistake to abolish the feminist foreign policy, which we know has made a difference. Furthermore, more and more countries have started to introduce a feminist foreign policy. To abolish it at the same time as equality in the world is retreating is to send the wrong signals to the rest of the world.

Reducing support to the UN and cutting back on core funding is also the wrong way to go. Core funding allows for a flexibility that is required in a changing world with escalating crises and conflicts, for example in Ukraine and Afghanistan. The UN also has an important coordinating role between different actors in the world. A large part of the funds channeled via the UN also go to support women and girls and SRHR.

In the reform agenda, it is stated that support for civil society and transparency regarding aid shall increase. It becomes difficult to believe when the government carries out enormously large cuts to the information support for the aid. It undermines civil society's possibilities to inform, scrutinize, and spread knowledge about Swedish aid. We have also simultaneously seen how the aid to civil society in total is decreasing.

In the reform agenda, the importance of research and of promoting health interventions for the most vulnerable is also mentioned. In that case, it is strange that research aid has been cut significantly. For the first time in several decades, access to clean water and resources to combat severe diseases such as malaria and tuberculosis is decreasing, and more and more children suffer from acute malnutrition. Reducing aid and research funds for projects affecting the very poorest and hardest hit is devastating. The important research aid must remain and be strengthened.

I also want to specifically address the aid to Palestine. It needs to be strengthened in light of the humanitarian catastrophe that we are now witnessing in Gaza. Of course, I condemn Hamas's attacks on Israeli civilians, but that does not justify Israel's punishment of an entire population. Over 15,000 have been killed in Gaza, of whom 7,000 are children. It must come to an end.

It was incorrect to freeze the development aid in the way the government did at the beginning of the war between Israel and Hamas. The Swedish aid goes to forces fighting against terror and for democracy, women's rights, and human rights. Strangling the aid only benefits Hamas. Both Sida and the EU Commission have concluded that no aid money has gone to Hamas. In other words, there are no reasons not to resume the payments with immediate effect. But despite that, the government continues to delay parts of the payments. Furthermore, the government transfers 80 million from the UN agency UNRWA to Gaza. It is good that the support to Gaza is increasing, but it must not happen at the expense of the most vulnerable Palestinians in the refugee camps.

The government will concentrate aid to a greater extent on Europe and, above all, Ukraine. The situation in Ukraine is acute. Russia's war of aggression, which violates international law, has caused extensive destruction. Thousands and thousands more civilians have been killed and injured. Ukraine naturally needs international support, and Sweden has every opportunity to play an important role when it comes to both humanitarian aid and support for reconstruction. We are in complete agreement on that. But at the same time, a number of other crises, wars, and conflicts are ongoing around the world. The conflict between Hamas and Israel, the hunger crisis in Somalia, and the poverty in Myanmar are just a few examples.

The needs in Ukraine are and will be gigantic. The world's combined aid funds will not be sufficient by a long way. Therefore, the support to Ukraine must take the form of additional funds, that is, beyond the existing aid budget.

Even the important climate aid should be financed as additional aid. It is the poorest part of the world that is hit hardest by the effects of the climate crisis. Climate goals must take precedence over short-term profit interests, and the wealthy part of the world must take its historical responsibility. To combine effective poverty reduction with ecological sustainability, investments are required in environmentally friendly and sustainable production of energy and food, as well as a transition to a more environmentally friendly transport and industrial sector.

It is sometimes spoken of completely incorrectly about aid as a black hole. Sweden today has a relatively good aid system that is both transparent and effective and which is seen as a role model globally. At the same time, there is next to no focus on capital and tax flight as a black hole, despite the fact that it deprives countries of hundreds of billions of dollars every year in lost tax revenues. Here, decisive action needs to be taken. We also need to introduce effective country-by-country reporting for multinational companies.

The government abandons both the one percent goal and a largely well-functioning aid policy without any serious dialogue. It is remarkable, to say the least. Sweden shall be a voice for solidarity, democracy, and human rights around the world. We shall have a well-functioning aid policy that is based on poverty reduction and that takes place on the recipient's terms.

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Mr. Speaker! Lotta Johnsson Fornarves' speech contained many big words about the poor in the world, human rights, democracy and such things. At the same time, the Vänsterpartiet has a number of its own concerns on that front.

For 70 years, the Left Party's goal was to introduce dictatorship in Sweden. It is important to include that. There is no party in Sweden that for such a long time has been blindly loyal to totalitarian regimes and practically all communist parties as the Left Party. When those parties split, the Left Party also split into Maoists, Stalinists, and so on.

The reason why Vänsterpartiet did not get to sit in the coalition government during World War II was that they were not loyal to Sweden. It is also the reason why Vänsterpartiet has never been allowed to sit in a government at all in Sweden. They have stood for dictatorship, not democracy, for many years. Vänsterpartiet was therefore also not allowed to sit in the Foreign Affairs Committee earlier.

Communism fell, and then the Left Party was reformed - but not of its own free will. It was done because the Soviet system collapsed. Then they arrived as laggards and wanted to moderate themselves and become democrats. That is good. But the problem is that even today we see some connections between the Left Party and totalitarian ideas.

Not least, Vänsterpartiet has links to the Swedish-Cuban Association, which is almost fanatical in its defense of the one-party rule in Cuba. Several of their representatives also have party assignments for Vänsterpartiet, for example, local branch responsibilities. A speaker some years ago represented both the Swedish-Cuban Association and Vänsterpartiet. Can one be a member of Vänsterpartiet and at the same time have assignments for the Swedish-Cuban Association? Is it compatible, Lotta Johnsson Fornarve, with your values?

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

FÖRSTE VICE TALMANNEN

I must remind that the subject of the debate is expenditure area 7 International aid.

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the reminder! I thank Fredrik Malm for the question. It is so typical of the member to go back in history and try to find points of attack against Vänsterpartiet. We have a number of things in our history that we are not so proud of, just like all parties. But we have made amends for those things.

Today, Vänsterpartiet is a modern, democratic, socialist party that stands up for democracy, human rights, and women's rights every day of the week everywhere in the world. We are the first to criticize when crimes against human rights are committed, wherever they are committed.

When it comes to Cuba, we are critical of the deficiencies in democracy and human rights, but we also see that there are things in Cuba that are good and that can be highlighted. This applies, for example, to healthcare. But we are, as said, critical of the deficiencies in democratic civil liberties and rights. That is obvious.

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Mr. Speaker! This has to do with aid, because the Left Party exoticizes several countries, for example Nicaragua, Venezuela and Cuba - at least they did it in the beginning. When they got socialist takeovers, one saw the light at the end of the tunnel. But when the socialists have gained power, they do not want to let it go. Then they do not want any elections. Then they change and manipulate the constitution in order to be able to stay in power year after year. Then we get, for example, the Sandinistas with Ortega in Nicaragua, who have introduced totalitarian dictatorship. Then we get Maduro in Venezuela, who has also introduced totalitarian dictatorship, and so the Castro regime with its successors to the bearded dictator.

It would have been much better if the Left Party had realized from the beginning that it would go completely south. Most others have understood that.

The connections are relevant because when Lotta Johnsson Fornarve says that Vänsterpartiet has settled this and that it was in the past, that is not quite correct. Vänsterpartiet today has political representatives who have stood on the ballots in the recent elections who are simultaneously representatives of an organization that is a direct lobby organization for the western hemisphere's last totalitarian dictatorship. How is that possible? Would it have been possible in Centerpartiet, Moderaterna, Miljöpartiet or Liberalerna? No, our party members do not seek out those environments. But Vänsterpartiet obviously has that problem.

(FIRST DEPUTY SPEAKER: Now Member Fredrik Malm must hurry to link this to the aid policy a bit more clearly than he has managed to do so far.)

This definitely belongs to the aid policy, because for many years Sweden has provided active aid to Cuba. It has gone to the regime. There are still aid collaborations that we in the Liberals want to phase out. This therefore definitely has to do with the aid - and with the democratic values.

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Mr. Speaker! We are discussing international aid here today, as said, and I think Fredrik Malm is moving quite far away from that subject.

As I said earlier, Vänsterpartiet stands up for democratic rights, human rights and women's rights everywhere in the world, and we are the first to protest when crimes against democracy and human rights are committed.

This does not mean that aid cannot go to countries that are authoritarian. In that case, the aid does not go to those countries' regimes, but it goes to democracy movements, women's movements, and civil society organizations that work to increase democracy and stand up for, for example, women's rights. It is an aid that we defend and think is very good, because it can also change the development.

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

Gudrun Brunegård (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Aid is a significant part of Sweden's commitment in the world. Aid shall create conditions for better living conditions for people living in poverty and oppression.

The humanitarian needs in the world have increased significantly in recent years, not least as a result of the pandemic. War and armed conflicts have driven millions of people into flight. Russia's illegal war in Ukraine but also climate change have made food supplies insecure. All this has increased human suffering with malnutrition, hunger, and famine.

Children are often those who are most vulnerable and are hit hardest by poverty, war, climate change, and disasters. Children are covered by all human rights but also have specific rights that must be protected. It is also by investing in the younger generation that aid can help lay the foundation for a more long-term positive change in the welfare of poor countries. Therefore, children's situation, their experiences and their life situation, should be taken into account when Swedish aid is implemented.

Education is a human right and a cornerstone for democracy and equality. Investments in health and education are important for a society's development and well-being and for giving individuals the opportunity to lift themselves out of poverty.

Sweden is one of the world's most generous aid donors with 0.88 percent of GNI. We can be proud of that.

During travels in many countries, we encounter positive reactions and gratitude for the efforts that have been made over several decades.

For example, I visited South Korea together with the Committee on the Constitution a month ago. Several South Koreans whom we met told us that their relatives had worked or been helped and cared for at the Swedish field hospital that was there in connection with and after the Korean War.

Another example is my own experiences as a nurse in Tanzania. We are always well received there, because even the poor rural population generally knows that Sweden has, for many decades, helped to build up the country with education and healthcare but also with industrial construction and successful companies with high-quality products - such as our Scania trucks, which could deliver both supplies and medical equipment even during the worst rainy season with completely destroyed roads when the domestic market did not function.

But aid has not always been uncontested, and it is not today either. From time to time, there have been revelations about aid funds that have been misused and ended up in the wrong pockets.

Independent evaluations by, for example, the OECD and the Swedish National Audit Office have also pointed out that Swedish aid over the years has been spread out and divided into more and more focus areas in more and more countries, which has made it difficult to monitor.

In connection with this and previous exchanges here in the chamber regarding the freezing of aid, I would like to make some comments in just this part.

First and foremost, my and the Christian Democrats' deep sympathy for Israel, which just over two months ago was hit by the worst terror attack with the most Israeli deaths on a single day since the gas chambers of World War II. Hamas showed no mercy towards infants, women, or sick elderly people, nor towards Palestinian employees or guest workers from other countries at the Israeli kibbutzim. All were killed mercilessly or taken away as hostages or were abused, mutilated, and raped.

We cannot risk a single krona from Sweden leaking away to this despicable terrorist organization or to organizations that stand close to it, either directly or indirectly. The freezing of the aid to Palestine was necessary and is necessary to ensure that.

Unfortunately, Sida's investigation did not live up to this. Instead of reviewing all the organizations that are their partners in the area, they only reported on a handful. Hence the renewed mandate to investigate what they had actually been asked to.

It is terrible that Hamas has in this way exposed its own population to the suffering that this war entails. The government has therefore increased the humanitarian support to those affected by the war in Gaza via multilateral organizations and released payments for healthcare, psychosocial support, and work already performed.

Madam Speaker! Due to this development, I will exceed my declared speaking time. I would like to apologize for this, but I saw it as important and necessary to provide these comments.

Sweden received yesterday a new aid policy for a new era, a reform agenda for freedom, empowerment, and sustainable growth. Just as is written in the Committee on Foreign Affairs' report UU2, which we are discussing today, it focuses on long-term perspective, transparency, and efficiency.

The thematic priorities from the four-party agreement Path for Aid from the autumn of 2022 are reproduced in the report. The priorities concern poverty reduction and health interventions for the most vulnerable, democracy aid to human rights defenders and democracy activists, expanded and streamlined climate aid, as well as the rights and opportunities of women and girls.

In the agreement from last autumn, it was also included to contribute to synergies between expanded trade and development, as there is no country that has been lifted out of poverty solely through aid.

By supporting democracy development, health and education, human rights and the principles of the rule of law, and by countering and increasing resilience against climate change, we also contribute to societies where people do not see themselves as forced to flee in search of a better life. At the same time, that type of intervention increases the motivation for people who are fleeing to return to their home country.

Madam Speaker! One of the strengths of the reform agenda is the way in which the civil society organizations' commitment and local knowledge are taken into account.

We can take the churches as an example. They have existed there for a long time and built up a trust among the population. In the vast majority of countries except Sweden, religion is very important for the population. People often listen more to the priest or the imam than to politicians or UN officials.

That is why it is important to be able to work together with these organizations. When a crisis occurs, perhaps a drought or a flood, the church is already there and can quickly implement efforts through its networks and collaborations with Swedish sister churches. And these civil society organizations will remain there even after the crisis has subsided. They are close to the people, they know the context, and they can contribute to real change on the ground, where the poorest and most vulnerable live.

In this context, I also want to mention the protection of human civil and political rights, to which freedom of religion belongs. In an increasing number of countries, it is dangerous to have the "wrong" religion in the eyes of the majority society. Christians are the group that is subjected to the most persecution in the entire world.

The most dangerous is to be Christian in North Korea, followed by Somalia, Yemen, Eritrea, Libya, Nigeria, Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan, Sudan and India. In these eleven countries, the organization Open Doors classifies the situation as extreme persecution of Christians. It is therefore associated with a danger to life to be Christian.

In some countries, a person found with a Bible can be executed on the spot without a trial. Sweden needs to emphasize in its contacts with these countries that freedom of religion is a human right that must not be violated.

A vibrant civil society is also important for building democratic structures that can function even where the democratic space is narrow. When the situation eventually changes, there will then be democratically trained individuals who can step in and take on constructive leadership.

As a nurse, I also naturally want to highlight the government's intention to improve the conditions for good health in the world. This includes health interventions for the most vulnerable, vaccinations, access to life-saving treatments, and interventions for mental health, not least in humanitarian crisis situations.

As an example, I can mention the visit I made to Armenia a little over a month ago. I then met with several civil society organizations that, among other things, are engaged in quickly training volunteers in psychosocial care and crisis management for traumatized refugees, primarily women, from Nagorno-Karabakh.

Antimicrobial resistance is a global health threat. Think of the day when penicillin no longer helps against infectious diseases! The use of antibiotics needs to be limited, both in healthcare and in animal husbandry and food production.

In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I would like to highlight the government's focus on girls' and women's rights and opportunities, without using the symbolically charged term feminism. It is about supporting initiatives that strengthen women's and girls' self-determination, economic empowerment, and educational opportunities.

All forms of sexual and gender-related violence and harmful practices shall be countered, and protection of and support for victims of violence shall be strengthened. SRHR services shall be integrated into education, health, and healthcare systems. Access to trained personnel, especially midwives, needs to increase in order to be able to provide adequate care to pregnant women, mothers, and newborns. Initiatives that improve access to comprehensive and accessible sex education shall be supported.

We shall work for women's political influence and participation and promote girls' education, especially in crisis and conflict. During the pandemic, it was millions of girls who had to leave school prematurely and were married off so that the family would have one less mouth to feed. But the consequence was that the number of teenage pregnancies increased, with increased risks for both the child who became a mother before she was physically and mentally mature for this and for the newborn child.

Madam Speaker! There is incredibly much more to say about this area, which concerns international aid and the responsibility we have for our fellow human beings in other countries, but since I have already exceeded my speaking time, I will stop here.

I would like to wish the Speaker, the entire Chamber Secretariat and the Swedish Parliament Administration a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

(Applause)

(ANDRE VICE TALMANNEN: I thank the member for already being aware that the speaking time was exceeded by over 50 percent.)

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

Anna Lasses (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Gudrun Brunegård, for a very important speech!

I experience that Gudrun Brunegård and I stand very close to each other when it comes to the view on aid and what it should be used for, so there I question absolutely nothing.

What I am reflecting on is somewhat related to what I asked about earlier, primarily linked to the rights of women and girls which are violated, especially in areas with very difficult contexts. I highlighted, for example, the girls in Afghanistan and the school there. I wonder: How does Gudrun Brunegård view this, and how can we expect the new reform agenda to affect the projects?

I am glad that Gudrun Brunegård raised education as an incredibly important factor, again especially for girls and women. Thank goodness education is included in the reform agenda, even though for a while it was a bit uncertain how much space it would get. Now it is included anyway. I have a simple question: Should there not have been an even greater focus on education in the reform agenda, perhaps especially linked to women and girls?

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

Gudrun Brunegård (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Anna Lasses, for the questions!

Just as the member says, the rights and opportunities of girls and women are incredibly important. It has been witnessed many times that it is when girls and women are given the opportunity to develop as they should that things begin to happen in society and its development.

There is an old saying: If you want to help a man, give him a fish, but if you want to help him for a longer time - a week or a year - teach him to fish! But if you want to change a society, you must educate the women and the girls. There is much in this.

We must not abandon women and girls even if the surrounding circumstances are difficult, as they are in Afghanistan, which was mentioned earlier in the exchanges. There, we have the opportunity to deliver aid through various organizations. It is, as said, incredibly important that we do not abandon them.

When it comes to the education parts, I am very happy and proud that we have included them. Then, of course, it is a matter of taste how many words one thinks should be written. What is stated in the agenda is, however, extremely important.

The word "education" recurs in many different places, for example in connection with education as a prerequisite for entrepreneurship and education as a prerequisite for good health and medical care.

It concerns the education of healthcare personnel but of course also that people should understand how the body works, what happens when one becomes pregnant and so on and how one can protect oneself against unwanted pregnancies and such things. It also naturally concerns education to change one's own and others' lives and get the opportunity to realize one's potential.

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

Anna Lasses (C)

Madam Speaker! I do not have much to add, as I believe I have received a good answer from Gudrun Brunegård. I trust that there is a driving force for the government when it comes to defending the rights of women and girls.

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

Gudrun Brunegård (KD)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for a good debate.

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

Olle Thorell (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank Gudrun Brunegård for a valuable speech and for the work that the member and the Christian Democrats have done in the development of the reform agenda.

There are, as I said in my speech, good elements. There is a new way of thinking that can be very much needed. There are things that we have not debated here that are exciting. Land strategies that are interconnected with both aid and other policy areas, I think, sound like an exciting thing, for example.

Overall, when it comes to the management of aid, there are many good ideas. We Social Democrats just think it is a pity that we, civil society, organizations and academia, have not been involved in the design. Then it could have become even more innovative.

I would like to ask about the role of civil society. I know that it is a heart issue for the Christian Democrats. In the agenda, it states that an increased proportion of the aid should go to civil society organizations.

But what worries me are two things. One is that this is to occur at the expense of multilateral support. Why is multilateral support specifically being set in opposition to civil society?

The second thing that worries me is that the government said exactly the same thing in the budget last year, but however we and many civil society organizations calculated, we could not see that it resulted in any increased support to civil society organizations in total, so why should we believe this now? Those are my questions.

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

Gudrun Brunegård (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Olle Thorell, for the questions, which are very important, and for the acknowledgments of the good things that the member has also managed to take in during the day that the reform agenda has been public!

I understand the frustration of not having been able to be part of the work. It is deplorable to be in opposition. I know it from experience. But the reason for the rapid process was that we are keen for the transition to be able to take place as quickly as possible.

We have a lot of background material, and we have had many dialogues on many different fronts. I am convinced that this will turn out well when it is now launched.

When it comes to civil society and the increased proportion, I would like to clarify that it may have been a misunderstanding due to confusion of terms. The increased proportion is not about crowns and öre in gross sums but in relation to the other part. When one changes the whole, for example with increased support to Ukraine, it also has effects.

The reason why we emphasize civil society to a greater extent is that it concerns smaller organizations and less bureaucratic superstructure. It is easier to follow up. Just as I said in my speech, one has direct contact with one's sister organizations in the field, where one knows that there will also be greater efficiency and fewer funds that disappear along the way.

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

Olle Thorell (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Gudrun Brunegård, for the answer!

I am asking the question again because the member did not have time to address it in the first exchange of remarks. Why do you set the support for civil society against the support for multilateral organizations? Civil society organizations do not think there is any opposition here; rather, they know that the work of UN agencies, the World Food Programme, the IMF, and the World Bank is vital for them to be able to function. There is therefore no opposition between civil society support and multilateral support. I wonder why such an opposition is seen in the reform agenda.

Then it was spoken about long-term change. I believe in Gudrun Brunegårds and the Christian Democrats' will to achieve change. It is completely natural. This is not about me being bitter because we are in opposition, but it is because we want the aid to do the greatest possible good and have the highest possible quality.

If one wants to see long-term change, good anchoring is a prerequisite for it. If one decides quickly, shuts oneself in a negotiation room and comes out with a finished product, it is less likely that one will achieve a major impact than if one had included civil society organizations, agency representatives, academia, research, and partners in other countries in the work and also listened more to the opposition. Then the changes could have become more long-term. The risk otherwise is that the policy will switch again at the next change of government.

But the question of why civil society support is set against multi-support, I want an answer to.

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

Gudrun Brunegård (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Olle Thorell, for the opportunity to answer the question that I did not have time for in my previous contribution!

When we have a limited world with limited resources and incredibly large needs, it is a matter of making priorities. In the basic work we did when we developed the Christian Democratic aid policy program, we could see research evidence that money that goes through civil society organizations has a greater effect in the field than that which goes to the multilateral organizations. If a balancing is needed, we make a fine-tuning between these two actors.

With this said, I still want to emphasize the value and utility of the multilateral organizations. They are incredibly valuable with their expertise and their size. They have the opportunity to provide large resources from multiple countries combined. It was thanks to the core support that one could quickly step in and help, for example, Armenia when the refugee crisis arose there, and likewise when it comes to the war in Gaza.

One must have a balance. It is not that one should erase one at the expense of the other. But we still want to make an adjustment between them.

I mentioned the Christian Democratic aid policy program. There, we conducted a careful review of various research reports and such things that supported the changes we proposed. In many passages, the program and the reform agenda follow the proposals we put forward there. I trust that the research that was good one and a half years ago is also reliable today.

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Gudrun Brunegård, for a largely good speech! We also have a consensus in many respects when it comes to aid, for example when it concerns support for women and girls.

I intended to continue on the track of civil society. In connection with the previous exchange, I would like to say that the multilateral aid, the core support, and the support for civil society organizations are linked to one another. They are, so to speak, a prerequisite for one another and are not in opposition to one another.

What I intended to ask about concerns your emphasis that support for civil society will increase. I think that is good and welcome. But it is a bit difficult to believe that it will become a reality when one sees that there have been major cuts in, for example, the information support for aid, infokom. This is something that undermines civil society's opportunity to inform, scrutinize, and spread knowledge about Swedish aid.

Furthermore, we have seen how aid to civil society as a whole has decreased and not increased. How can one trust that support for civil society will be prioritized in the future?

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

Gudrun Brunegård (KD)

Madam Speaker! It is exactly as the member says: When it comes to support for poor and vulnerable people, there is a great consensus between the parties in the chamber. It pleases me that we can nevertheless state that when we clash in opinions.

I was touching on this regarding civil society in the previous exchange. Both the multilateral organizations and the civil society organizations have great value. But we see that the civil society organizations have a capacity to build up and increase their efforts. Through research, we know that those measures also often have a greater effectiveness. They reach out into the networks, out to the local communities where the most vulnerable and poor people are, and they have the opportunity to act and drive a change process there in a completely different way than the large multilateral organizations do.

I do not know how much this adjustment will mean between them, but it shall be a clear change.

When it comes to the support for civil society as a whole, the CSO support remains unchanged. There is no difference. As I said in the previous exchange of remarks, I believe it may be a matter of conceptual confusion. When we say that the proportion of the total aid mediated through civil society should be affected, it does not necessarily mean that it should increase in terms of crowns and öre, but rather in relation to the multilateral.

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Gudrun Brunegård, for the answer to the question! But I am still not quite clear on this. The aid platform Concord has actually calculated that aid to civil society has decreased. One becomes a bit confused when it says in the reform agenda that aid is to be strengthened and prioritized. One sees how it has decreased.

I would like Gudrun Brunegård to also comment on the fact that the info-support was reduced by 90 percent. It is a support that enables scrutiny, influence, and that the voices of international environmental and human rights defenders can be heard in both Sweden and Europe.

That it has decreased so drastically has truly been a hard blow to many civil society organizations in Sweden, especially the smaller organizations. Many of them have been forced to lay off staff and drastically reduce their activities. This is also something that in the long run can affect the view of aid in society at large. When fewer resources are provided to spread knowledge about how the aid is used, it can complicate the debate surrounding international aid.

I would like Gudrun Brunegård to comment on the information support to civil society organizations and how it has dramatically decreased.

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

Gudrun Brunegård (KD)

Madam Speaker! When it comes to the information support, a review was conducted at the department, and it was noted that parts of the information support were not directly used as intended.

The major change regarding the budget proportions occurred a year ago, when we moved away from the one percent goal, which I, moreover, want to continue working to reintroduce. We froze it at the 56 billion level. I want to remember that it was a reduction of approximately 4 billion. I have not reviewed the details, but I still conclude that it was there that the change occurred. This is what one sees in the proportions. It became a smaller total sum to distribute, and that was seen in what was received from Sida.

However, it is now fixed at 56 billion. That provides a completely different predictability and planability when one knows that it is 56 billion. That is the amount we have to work with, not just this year, not just next year, but throughout the entire budget period. For three years forward, one knows exactly how to allocate one's money. Then every organization has the opportunity to make the adjustments that one can, wants, and needs to make. I believe that is a success.

Furthermore, we have introduced a cap on the deductions, which prevents what the Social Democrats achieved one and a half years ago when they snatched 14 percent of the aid overnight. It will not happen.

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

Anna Lasses (C)

Madam Speaker! I don't really like whining and bickering, so let us simply state that after having tried to take a position on two budgets without more precise content, the reform agenda is now finally in place. In the name of honesty, it did contain pretty much exactly what we could expect from the signals and actions that the parties in the government base have stood for over the past year.

The wait has been worst for all the organizations that in different ways work with aid, both here in Sweden and out in the world, as it has been nearly impossible to predict which projects will remain and which will not remain. Therefore, it will now be extra interesting to follow this during the coming weeks, as the different country strategies are expected to start rolling out.

Let me say that I think there are many good approaches in the reform agenda that now exists. That trade and aid are linked more closely is very positive. There are great added values to be gained in the form of creating jobs and building societies but also in the form of cooperation in the business sector across national borders. When used correctly, this is a very strong tool to truly lift people out of poverty and exclusion. I admit that I have been and still am a bit worried that there might be too much focus on the profits of Swedish companies when the starting point should be the recipient's needs and conditions. This must be built from the bottom up.

It is particularly important here to highlight small-scale entrepreneurship and women's opportunities to run businesses. One example of this is the small-scale projects being carried out in food supply around the world. This is an area where, among others, We Effect and Act Svenska kyrkan are active. Here, small companies and producer cooperatives receive increased knowledge and capacity regarding cultivation techniques and business development. There is a strong environmental, climate, and equality focus in this. At the same time, they are given the opportunity to take out loans that allow them to develop their business models and gain access to new markets.

In addition to contributing to equality and sustainable food supply, it builds from the bottom up a resilient society with cooperation across national borders. A significantly larger proportion of the aid could go to precisely that form of project. That way, it could be instead of as it is today, when the larger supports for agricultural development end up in very large-scale projects.

Another positive part of the reform agenda is the desire to reduce the disparity and instead focus on the areas where Sweden is best and on having aid that is as effective as possible and reaches as many people as possible. But at the same time, it is perceived that there are many risks and contradictions in the agenda. That makes me truly worried.

At the same time as there is talk about the importance of long-term perspective, about the will to build people's own empowerment and about promoting democracy, a redistribution is being made from long-term development aid to short-term humanitarian aid. This does not mean that the humanitarian aid is not important. But it happens when many countries in the world are doing exactly the same, and the need for long-term support is increasing as a result of climate change and the retreat of democracy.

I know that the ambition is to get more for less money by pooling private capital with public capital. But we must remember this: How many companies are willing to invest money where security and infrastructure may be completely lacking? The answer given between the lines in the agenda and at the press conference appears to be that the development support should be focused on those countries that show a willingness to cooperate and work in democratic reform. That is good. But what happens then to the most vulnerable people in the countries where the governance is anything but democratic? What happens to those who live under oppression? Will Sweden withdraw those supports?

I will mention Palestine here and how the actions have been regarding the support for Palestine. In connection with that, I want to express my deepest condolences to Israel for what hit Israel on October 7.

We can see in the present how the government has chosen to freeze development aid to Palestine in a situation where support for those who work for democracy and equality is needed most of all. I and the Center Party welcomed the review that was to be conducted but would have preferred to see it carried out in parallel with the support continuing. But we said okay – now we conduct the review until December 1, but then the support must immediately resume, unless something strange is revealed.

One may have different views on the review that Sida carried out, but continuing the pause until February 15 is harmful. The projects that have been delayed are largely about giving women and girls empowerment. They are about education for children and about support for democracy development. To withdraw them is to withdraw hope and leads to nothing other than hopelessness, which Hamas and other similar organizations can gratefully exploit.

This action regarding the aid to Palestine also raises the question I have asked previously: Will Sweden withdraw development aid in countries with anti-democratic regimes that do not want to cooperate?

I have several times raised the example of Afghanistan, where Rädda Barnen, with support from Sida, runs schools for girls. It is a task where one can see clear positive results. It has led to fathers and mothers coming and asking if they can get a place for their daughters, so that they can get an education and have a more independent life. It becomes a people's movement. Is this not precisely an example of very effective aid?

Education is mentioned a number of times in the agenda; that is very positive. But it is always tied to something else. It is, as said, positive, because when we discussed this this summer, it was clear that education was an area that perhaps had not quite come to mind around the reform agenda. The focus was then instead mostly on trade.

Here, I would like to say in defense of the government that Sweden for a long time has been somewhat poor at prioritizing school and education in its aid, despite all research and experience showing that there are few tools, if any, that are so effective for building empowerment and lifting people out of poverty, especially girls and women. I therefore think it is a bit of a shame that the government did not take the chance to even more clearly include education as one of the major focuses in the agenda, alongside trade, democracy development, and climate. But as said, education is included, and there is great potential for development and improvement of the agenda.

That the climate is a main focus is obvious. Otherwise, humanity will have no planet to live on, and if it is something that can be linked to conflicts and mass migration, it is the consequences of a changed climate. Linked to this is access to clean water and a sustainable food supply, which the government will hopefully delve deeper into. There are also, which is also mentioned, great opportunities for synergies within trade and cooperation between the business sector, local communities, aid organizations, and research. But I have already touched upon this.

The biggest criticism that I and the Center Party have regarding the reform agenda, I have saved for last. It concerns making development aid conditional on the government's goals regarding reduced migration. Using aid as a way to force people to return after they have been denied asylum is not particularly palatable, and it is not in accordance with OECD-DAC. We therefore oppose a policy where aid is used in this manner.

That other countries do so is a poor reason to do the same. Sweden should, on the contrary, stand up for the purpose of aid: to lift people out of poverty and promote democratic development. This is in itself something that both Sweden and the rest of the world benefit from, as reduced poverty and increased health, democracy, and equality reduce the number of conflicts and increase cooperation.

Lastly, I naturally want to highlight Ukraine. The Centre Party naturally stands behind the support given in all areas and thus also within the aid. Therefore, in our own budget, we have stated that it is important that we return to the one percent goal and that Ukraine in that way receives a larger share, while we can maintain a sensible level for the rest of the world.

Russia's war against Ukraine is also a war against all of Europe, and we must take our share of the responsibility to support and rebuild Ukraine. The blockade tonight from only one of the EU's member states regarding the EU's long-term financial support to Ukraine is very regrettable and will naturally mean that we must find equivalent support in other ways. Here, Sweden needs to take the lead and do everything we can to reunite the EU countries. In this area, I have full confidence that the government acts wisely and thinks roughly the same way.

With this, I wish to announce that Centerpartiet chooses to refrain from taking a position on the government's budget proposal for expenditure area 7 - we instead refer to our own proposal. We will therefore also not take a position on the reservation regarding the process for developing the reform agenda, even though I agree that for all of us who are not located in the Government Offices, especially all aid organizations, the process has been perceived as anything but open and transparent, even if the intention has been otherwise.

Looking ahead, I can suggest that the forms of openness and transparency are determined by the recipient, not by the one who holds the information. It can therefore be sensible to listen to which form the recipient prefers—if one wants to be perceived as precisely open and transparent, that is.

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by expressing my support for the committee's proposal in the report.

When Russia invaded Ukraine, everything changed for Sweden and Europe. This is a struggle that risks the entire rules-based world order that we have painstakingly helped to build since the end of the Cold War. It is absolutely crucial that Russia and its allies lose this war - that Ukraine wins. The most important task our continent and our country face in the coming years is to contribute to this.

We are in the midst of a change in the international system. Authoritarian states are gaining ground, and democracies are retreating. The outcome in Ukraine will dictate Swedish security, Swedish aid policy, and everything else for the foreseeable future. We now stand in the perhaps most important moment in modern European history.

The Swedish support for Ukraine has, Madam Speaker, been extensive and stable ever since the Russian invasion began. Sweden provides humanitarian, military, economic and long-term strategic support, while we have also been driving that Ukraine should be given status as a candidate country for membership in the EU and have been involved in deciding on a number of sanction packages against the Russian Federation. This government also, by this, truly reinforces Sweden's role as a humanitarian superpower.

At the same time, a Ukrainian state bankruptcy is not unthinkable if support packages from both the USA and the European Union are blocked. Right now, it looks like it will become so, unless a solution is found. The support to Ukraine must continue. It is right and proper to send Swedish aid and Swedish weapons to Ukraine. Ukraine also fights for us.

What is happening in Ukraine occurs in parallel with a myriad of other alarming trends, tragedies, wars, and so on. When Hamas again—I do not remember for which time in the sequence—started a war against Israel's population, this reminds us that death cults cannot be allowed to possess territory. Then they use that leverage to commit the most sadistic, brutal crimes that can be imagined. Hamas slaughtered 1,400 Israelis and was met with cheers, from the Gaza Strip to Malmö.

The Middle East's only democracy, Israel, needs our support, and any aid to Gaza must be scrutinized. Of course, we shall provide humanitarian aid; it can always be provided, regardless of regime. But other aid must, of course, be scrutinized carefully. Swedish taxpayers must be certain and secure that their money goes to good projects that develop societies, not the opposite.

Madam Speaker! The V-Dem Institute notes quite bluntly that we are now globally back at 1986 levels when it comes to democracy. The average world citizen enjoyed the same level of democracy last year as in 1986. We are thus back to the situation that prevailed before the fall of the Berlin Wall.

For the first time in two decades, there are more repressive autocracies than liberal democracies today. A clear "us" and "them" is emerging. It is a democratic and free West in a broad sense, if you will, with a partially new set of challengers, and then China stands out as the long-term threat. The Communist Party is trying to influence global developments to its advantage. Strategic cooperation between like-minded democracies is becoming increasingly important.

Swedish aid policy must be steered towards a broader context where geopolitical competition and democratic backsliding can, at worst, constitute threats, and in the long run, existential threats if things go really badly, even against a small, democratic and relatively stable nation like our own, Sweden.

Swedish aid efforts shall therefore always go towards promoting and rewarding democratic tendencies. Clear requirements and expectations of a mutual constructive willingness to cooperate are crucial. In cases where a country's leadership lacks a democratic will to reform, cooperation shall primarily take place via civil society.

We want to see an independent and pluralistic civil society in our partner countries. Swedish aid is and shall be an important part in combating unfreedom and promoting democracy worldwide.

Madam Speaker! There are many liberal victories both in the budget bill for the coming years and in the reform agenda the government presented just recently.

The reform agenda focuses on, which has been touched upon in previous speeches, long-term perspective, transparency, and efficiency. Add to that the common environmental and climate threat, where we now receive an expanded and streamlined climate aid. Swedish aid shall contribute to accelerating the green transition and strengthening adaptation work to support the implementation of both the Paris Agreement and the framework on biodiversity. We shall achieve increased efficiency through a greater focus on the countries that have large emissions, including middle-income countries.

Swedish aid shall also be a clear force for equality with a particular focus on strengthening the freedoms and rights, norms, values, and opportunities of women and girls. Equality is a matter of freedom and a liberal core value. It is a goal in itself and a means to also achieve other goals.

Sexual and reproductive health and rights, referred to as SRHR in the aid debate, are crucial for the active participation of women and girls in society. When conflicts flare up, the vulnerability of women and girls to both violence and abuse increases. It is rare that the perpetrators are punished.

Swedish development aid shall counteract outdated customs where young children suffer. Child marriage is one such example. Sweden shall prioritize work against child marriage in places where it occurs as a custom or is, which is a tragedy, outright legal. The Liberals support all efforts that counteract child marriage.

Madam Speaker! It is market economy and private ownership that create the conditions for long-term growth, employment, and prosperity while simultaneously reducing poverty in the world. Education also belongs to this. It is a human right and a cornerstone for democracy and equality, while at the same time it is an important prerequisite for economic development, for increased growth, for improved trade opportunities, and for the individual's freedom to grow as a person. The education sector must simply be well-functioning.

There is another major problem here, Madam Speaker. Covid-19 dramatically worsened the global conditions for a positive development within education, and this contributed to a deepened learning crisis. Therefore, it is pleasing that the government, through the reform agenda, has signaled that Sweden shall work towards a good, equal, and inclusive education.

We also need more pathways into the formal economy and into the labor market through self-sufficiency. Vocational training is in high demand in the local economy, and it is also something we can use the aid for to prioritize, while access to clean water and sanitation in schools creates safe and secure school environments.

Madam Speaker! In the historical situation we find ourselves in, a prioritization of free and democratic societies, the rights of women and girls, increased climate aid, education, and support going to Ukraine is completely correct.

(Applause)

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

Olle Thorell (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank Fredrik Malm for his speech. There are many things that we stand up for, and they are universal, namely support for Ukraine, human rights, democracy and so on. There are no differences of opinion there. It is also not surprising that Fredrik Malm wants to highlight the liberal victories in the long night-marathons during the work of preparing the reform agenda.

I would like to ask a question about something that I believe runs counter to previous liberal positions and which is found in the reform agenda, namely the OECD-DAC rules. They are governing for the aid, not voluntary. They are rules that we shall follow, not should follow.

In yesterday's reporting from the launch of the reform agenda, the Sweden Democrats said that they had to give in when it comes to compliance with OECD-DAC. The Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Aron Emilsson, says that the OECD-DAC rules shall be a starting point for Swedish aid, but it is possible that there will be projects that are not bound by the OECD-DAC framework.

Which OECD rules are the problem? Which projects do you have in the pipeline that are going to violate the OECD-DAC rules that you want to launch?

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Madam Speaker! It would probably have been better if the Social Democrats had requested a reply to the Sweden Democrats, as it concerns statements by the Sweden Democrats. I am happy to answer for the Liberals.

Our ambition is that it should be a generous aid. Now, the aid has decreased by a fair amount, and there is a slight difference between the government and the Social Democrats. The government allocates, I believe, 0.84 percent of GNI to aid, and the Social Democrats allocate 0.85 percent of GNI. It is a difference of one per mille. Then the Centre is another per mille above the Social Democrats. That aid shall correspond to ODA in the aid debate – the official development assistance. And it is very true as Member Thorell says, namely that it is determined by the rules within the OECD's Development Assistance Committee DAC. It is good that it is so.

One can have views on the DAC rules. One can think that they should be a bit broader or narrower. But it is good that the rules exist. Otherwise, aid can be used for whatever one wants and in the end, everything can be called aid.

We stand behind the rules. At the same time, Sweden is part of the DAC committee. If one has views on them, which the Sweden Democrats possibly do, it is reasonable to take up the discussion in that committee.

When it comes to deductions, a limit has been set at 8 percent. When the Social Democrats and the Green Party governed in 2015, during the refugee crisis, the deductions spiraled out of control because the reception was very large. But now a maximum limit has been set for how much can be deducted.

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

Olle Thorell (S)

Madam Speaker! Fredrik Malm thinks that I should ask the Sweden Democrats. But I can tell Fredrik Malm that you are in the same boat. You are parts of the same government base. You are a junior partner with only a few mandates in the Riksdag, and the Sweden Democrats are larger with a great influence on the negotiations. I understand that. I understand that they do not want the OECD-DAC rules to be followed. They have, after all, been a concession for them.

I am asking the Liberals because you have agreed to this – you are behind the reform agenda. In the reform agenda, opportunities are opened up to deviate from the OECD-DAC rules when it is stated that this shall be a starting point for aid. That means that there are also other starting points.

My question to Fredrik Malm remains: What is the problem? And which projects are it is that one wants to launch that do not follow the Dac rules?

When it comes to the level discussion, it is correct that the Social Democrats, with 0.85 percent, are slightly higher than the government. There are six parties – the Liberals, the Christian Democrats, the Left Party, the Green Party, the Centre Party, and the Social Democrats – who think it is reasonable that we allocate 1 percent of our GDP for aid. I assume the Liberals still think that. KD has indeed said it openly. The dividing line runs between, on one hand, these six parties and, on the other hand, the Sweden Democrats and the Moderates, who do not think we should have a one percent goal. That is where the major dividing line lies. It does not run between me and Fredrik Malm, but it runs between, on one hand, me and Fredrik Malm and, on the other hand, the Sweden Democrats and the Moderates.

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Madam Speaker! I did answer the question. I still personally think that it is reasonable to pose the question to the party that has said something instead of posing the question to another party, but I still answered the question. If one wants to develop the DAC rules or have aid projects that go outside of this, one should have that discussion within the OECD family, or within the DAC committee. I think that is a perfectly reasonable position to advocate for. Nothing is carved in stone, and of course, everything can be changed.

Furthermore, Madam Speaker, I would like to say that I would not divide the aid debate quite so schematically as Olle Thorell does.

I noted another thing. If you, for example, go to UN OCHA, the UN body that coordinates humanitarian aid in the world, you can see that they have a financial tracking service. There you can see that humanitarian emergency aid and relief aid have been chronically underfunded for decades. This is what the government is now taking hold of by focusing on the fact that the humanitarian challenges are so large.

At the same time, we know that we have a certain budget to adhere to; this applies in all activities and at all levels. It means that other things will need to be prioritized away if we want to prioritize this.

We also see the extent of the challenges in the surrounding area. It is not just Ukraine, but also North Africa, the Middle East, a number of collapsing states, major wars, and much more. This means that we – I mean at least I – whether we want to or not, will be forced into a stronger focus on Europe and Europe's surrounding area in the aid policy. I did not perceive that the Social Democrats were really on that trajectory in Olle Thorell's previous exchanges.

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Madam Speaker! The darkness this autumn has truly been more compact than in other years. The images from Hamas's heinous terror attack against Israel have etched themselves in, as have the images of the children in Gaza who are still being affected by the indiscriminate bombing. We also continue to see it in the war in Ukraine. We see children who count on dying from bombs or hunger. The world's aid shipments are not enough, if they even arrive.

International development cooperation is about meeting precisely this hopelessness with a belief that another world is possible and that we can succeed if we help each other. It is about giving people who believe in freedom the conditions to turn their hope into action. It is about saving lives and about giving others the opportunity to do the same.

It is about using our power, our freedom and our opportunities to also build this up for others. We do this because we can and because we would want others to do the same for us if the situation were different. It is about international solidarity and about us not just being able to see others' suffering without acting.

We are met every day with the images and stories from the wars in Gaza and Ukraine, but it is not only these wars that are ongoing. In the shadow of the wars, there are other conflicts that continue to claim lives every day. There are other children who do not expect to be able to eat until they are full and other families who flee for their lives. There are other families who dream of being able to return and live in freedom, but hopelessness creeps deeper and deeper under the skin day by day until it eventually becomes their entire world.

We know that children grow up in the refugee camps in Cox's Bazar or in the interior of Africa. Families live their entire lives fleeing war, oppression, and climate change. Their reality is not affected by other wars that are started, but it is affected when the world's gaze is turned elsewhere. Conflicts still persist in countries such as Congo, Syria, Afghanistan, and Yemen, and these countries continue to need the rest of the world. We in the rest of the world need to show that we stand on the side of the civilian population against brutal regimes that lack respect for human rights.

When we now see how the government focuses the aid, we also see that very many will be left to their fate.

This is the reality in the world. This is what we see. It is what is in our phones every day, in news broadcasts, and with the people around us. This is the world we live in.

I therefore find it difficult to understand how the government can look at the same reality and conclude that it is now that Sweden should do a little less. This is what one does. By cutting back on aid and abandoning the one percent goal, one de facto undermines democracy movements. One withdraws grants to organizations that work for peace and equality. One turns one's back on many people.

When wars have started, it is very difficult to end them. Working preventatively and then participating in the fragile peace processes that nevertheless develop is incredibly important, but here too, the government is cutting back.

We want to invest in peace work instead. The Folke Bernadotte Academy is the Swedish authority responsible for peace, security, and development. We know that there will be no development without peace. Sweden's expertise in this area is unique, and Sweden has long been associated with a strong effort to negotiate, achieve, and contribute to lasting peace. But here, the government is therefore scaling back.

Sweden can choose a different path. We in Sweden can choose to invest more in our world and in the common good to build a world where more live in freedom and peace.

We in Miljöpartiet want to meet the crises we see in the world by instead increasing aid. We want to reduce the deductions and strengthen the Swedish peace work.

For us, it is very clear that Sweden's support for Ukraine is completely necessary and incredibly important in an uncertain time. However, we do not want the bill for this support to be sent to the world's most vulnerable. We see that Sweden as a country has both the opportunity and the will to both support Ukraine and have an ambitious development cooperation in the rest of the world.

Almost 120 million girls around the world do not go to school. These are absolutely appalling figures. Some are allowed to start. Some are allowed to attend for a few years before being forced to drop out early. Others do not even get to experience that magical first day of school. These are girls whom the world fails, from the beginning and onwards.

The feminist foreign and development policy has had exactly these girls and their mothers in mind. It was for their sake that Miljöpartiet, during its time in government, moved forward with several major initiatives within development cooperation that focused on girls' and women's rights: the right to their own bodies, the right to their own livelihood, and power over their own lives. The path to peace and democracy also goes through women. It is by investing in girls and women that local communities are built stronger and more people are lifted out of poverty and oppression. Miljöpartiet stands firm that a feminist foreign and development policy is what creates the best conditions for peace and development.

Since the current government took office, a great deal has been made of wanting to deviate from the established line with the argument that feminist policy was merely a label. The label has now been removed, but one is still to invest in women and girls. I have heard several from the government side argue very well that the support for girls and women must continue. I hope that you gain traction, because this is incredibly important. But it was not just a label, because what we have seen so far from the government is cuts and reduced ambitions in this area. Sweden is no longer as strong a voice for equality, but I hope that the government soon takes its responsibility for this again.

It is clear that when we put girls' and women's rights first in both words and actions, it creates space for others to follow. It also creates space for everyone working in Sweden to work strategically and focused towards the same goal, and we need to continue to do that.

Alongside a feminist foreign and development policy, aid also needs to focus increasingly on climate, transition, and sustainable development. In recent years, heat records and extreme weather have succeeded one another around the world, with catastrophic consequences. People's houses and homes have disappeared, droughts have killed crops, and floods have made entire villages uninhabitable. War, conflicts, and shortages of both food and water occur in the wake of climate change, and unfortunately, we have only seen the beginning of the climate crisis we are in.

The government also says it wants to invest in the climate in aid, and that is good, welcome and necessary. But we still see none of it. Ahead of COP 28, which has now concluded, Sweden arrived completely without commitments, and it was the first time in over a decade. But climate aid must increase. The climate, environmental destruction, the extinction of biodiversity, pandemics as well as war and conflicts - our time's great challenges are global and cross-border and require collective efforts to be stopped.

Through climate aid, we support developing countries in their development and in the implementation of the Paris Agreement. While we and other Western countries have built our prosperity on a fossil basis, the growing economies cannot repeat our mistakes. Therefore, climate aid must increase in both quantity and quality. Large-scale financing for climate actions is required for investments in both reduced emissions and more climate-adapted societies in the poorer parts of the world. We need to support the development of sustainable food systems that can withstand climate change.

Climate and environmental investments in both Sweden and the rest of the world need to be put in place quickly if we are to have a chance to meet the climate goals.

There is so much to talk about within this budget item, but I will wrap things up and summarize. Miljöpartiet wants Sweden to allocate at least 1 percent of GNI to development cooperation and humanitarian aid. We want to invest in peace, democracy, and human rights. Development cooperation must be climate-proofed and climate aid must be expanded.

The government says it wants to continue the cooperation with civil society with undiminished force. This must be proven, because so far we have only seen cuts. I regret that the government promises much but delivers little on both the aid area and the climate area. It is not enough. Now it is time to show results.

(Applause)

In this speech, Jacob Risberg (MP) agreed.

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

Statsrådet Johan Forssell (M)

Madam Speaker, members and listeners! Yesterday, the government presented a comprehensive reform of Swedish aid in an agenda that is the result of many hours of work. I am very proud of what we have achieved together. We are presenting a broad reform agenda for Swedish aid to ensure that it better meets today's European and global challenges. We will simply make Swedish aid more modern and accurate than it has ever been before. This means, concretely, aid that not only alleviates poverty but also builds prosperity, and that not only counters oppression but also creates freedom. Here, Sweden has a moral responsibility to do its part.

Our goal must be very clear. Free countries must ultimately be able to stand on their own feet and be responsible for their own public services. It is precisely in free societies where people can stand on their own feet that individuals can best grow and realize their life dreams.

Unfortunately, the world does not look like that today, and we must also contend with this reality when we design the aid of the future. The war in Ukraine has changed not only our part of the world but also the global world and security order, and it places completely different demands on aid policy than before. Russia is responsible for a terrible humanitarian catastrophe, and it has created an enormous need for foreign capital to rebuild Ukraine. We also see an increased humanitarian need in the wake of many conflicts around the world, not least for many of the world's children. Hamas's terror attack and the subsequent war in Israel and Palestine have created a suffering that leaves no human being untouched.

At the same time, we see how geopolitical competition is increasing in the world. It is about raw materials and new technology and about authoritarian states that are advancing their positions in many developing countries and luring countries with economic and political means. This is a reality that Sweden and Europe must take seriously.

We also see a democratic regression. Human freedoms and rights have never been self-evident, but right now they are being threatened in very many places in the world simultaneously. Especially the opposition to girls' and women's freedoms and rights has increased. Add to that the climate change and the global transition we must carry out.

I was at COP 28 in Dubai just a few days ago, where I also confirmed Sweden's strong commitment to using aid for effective climate aid and also presented several new climate supports. But we can all see that we must become much better at mobilizing resources within both the public and private sectors to collectively ensure that we keep the temperature rise down and find new tools to better adapt our world to the reality we see.

It is in light of all this that I am convinced that our reform agenda will make a difference by us seeing the world for what it is and adapting resources so that we achieve the greatest possible impact for freedom, empowerment, and sustainable growth. Precisely for that reason, aid must be based on long-term perspective, transparency, and efficiency. There was a time when aid was more about spending as much money as possible, not what we actually did with the money. It was neither long-term nor efficient. Aid should not be a budget regulator, as it has been many times before. It should contribute to lasting change for the world's poor and oppressed.

But we must also acknowledge something to ourselves, namely that Sweden is a voice in the world. With the limited resources we have, we must dare to prioritize to ensure that our resources and our tools have as great an impact as possible and create a clear Swedish added value.

Therefore, we will introduce a new concept with country strategies, and we will limit them to a maximum of 30. The country strategies mean that Sweden's aid engagement is placed in a much larger and broader context than before. They shall be characterized by clear and consistent objectives for what Sweden wants to achieve, what we can contribute with in the individual country, and which reforms the partner countries are expected to implement. The strategies shall also provide an opportunity for phasing out the aid or other alternative measures to be revised if sufficient progress is not made. This could, for example, involve lack of results or a lack of will to reform or a will to tackle corruption problems from the partner country's side. In that case, one simply works somewhere else and hopefully achieves better results for the world's poor in that country.

Good intentions are good, but they are not the most important thing. The most important thing is what is done and what results are actually achieved. With these starting points, I would like to highlight a few things that I am extra proud of.

Firstly, we are now ensuring that aid becomes more of a part of Sweden's overall foreign policy. Aid shall achieve impact for Sweden's interests and foreign policy priorities. We are, for example, making a special effort on the image of Sweden. Through the Swedish Institute, we ensure that Sweden's aid efforts are flagged better than before.

Aid must be in line with Sweden's fundamental interests and principles. Swedish tax money shall not go to countries that systematically undermine the international rule of law. This principle exists, for example, in the United Kingdom and in Finland, and it is linked to aid as a foreign policy tool.

This also means that we will to a greater extent place demands on the countries we cooperate with. When Sweden cooperates with a country, it is followed by an expectation that that country will want to cooperate with us. Development cooperation is important. It is significant. It can play a larger role than today, but it can never replace necessary reforms that ensure well-functioning democratic and economic institutions.

We also open up for an entirely new cooperation regarding migration issues: to be able to condition parts of the development aid for countries that do not do what they have an international law obligation to do, namely take in their own citizens. This is actually about a double responsibility – a responsibility towards Swedish taxpayers but above all a responsibility to help the people who today live in poverty and oppression to ensure that the funds always go towards the goals that we actually want to achieve.

Secondly, this reform agenda lays the foundation for more trade and entrepreneurship in aid. In recent decades, we have seen how many poor countries have succeeded in lifting themselves out of poverty. That is very good. It has not been done solely with aid but primarily thanks to market economy, trade, investments, entrepreneurship, and the rule of law. We must begin to draw conclusions from this, also in the Swedish aid policy.

At the same time, we see that several of the global challenges require more investments. Take the climate issue alone – there it is completely obvious that aid alone will never be enough. This also applies to the part regarding succeeding in rebuilding Ukraine. We are convinced that aid can be used to bring in more capital for sustainable investments, for example for green transition or digitalization, which are precisely such things that are lacking in many of the developing countries.

Here we can also learn from our European neighboring countries. Just look at the Netherlands, which for many years has had a successful work with promoting investments and exports through aid, or Finland, which has had the same. Furthermore, they are two governments with a different political color than the one Sweden has right now.

We also need to position competitive, socially sustainable Swedish business solutions within the framework of the multilateral development banks, for example when it comes to procurement. Today, Sweden is one of the largest donors to many of the multilateral organizations. Despite this, Swedish companies win a vanishingly small share of the contracts awarded in procurements. Here, Sweden can become much better.

We are now giving an expanded mandate to Business Sweden to help companies contribute to the aid's goals and to green and digital transition in low- and middle-income countries. We will also further develop the guarantee instrument so that the state can take part of the risk for investments in countries with difficult conditions. We will also proceed with a pilot program for aid-supported export financing, that is, soft loans. With this, we believe that aid can become an important factor in enabling a positive, rule-based and market-economic development in many of the countries that are still struggling with poverty.

Thirdly, we must ensure that the aid actually reaches the goals we set. It is an obligation towards Swedish taxpayers, but first and foremost towards the people in these countries to ensure that the aid achieves clear results.

Earlier in September, information emerged from a UN report regarding widespread theft of food from the UN's food program in Somalia. In a world where humanitarian needs are increasing, we must have zero tolerance for this type of corruption. Corruption must be combated, but we must also become much better at constantly following up on the efforts that Sweden contributes to, and increasing the traceability of all aid. Therefore, we are giving a mandate to Sida to develop the transparency guarantee and modernize Openaid. Civil society support must also be traceable and its results followable.

Civil society is immensely important, and its share of the aid budget shall increase. Not least, we believe that civil society can play a decisive role in countries where development is heading in the wrong direction. In that case, we must also ensure that we support the right actors. We will ensure that actors receiving support do not have links to violence-promoting ideologies, extremism, or Islamism, and that they support democratic values and human civil and political rights. We will also introduce increased requirements for Sida and the Folke Bernadotte Academy to report on processes for selecting partners, as well as review the sub-granting of aid funds. Taxpayers' money must be able to be tracked all the way.

Madam Speaker! For the fourth, we point out clear priorities with this reform agenda where I believe Sweden can make a great difference. We will simply invest more in doing what we are really good at. We invest in rebuilding Ukraine again – it is the largest Swedish bilateral aid strategy in Sweden's history – but also in supporting the countries in the EU's eastern neighborhood. We accelerate Sweden's global work in a new way by trying to bring in more private capital and making more green investments in developing countries. We strengthen the freedom of women and girls by prioritizing sexual and reproductive health and rights but also by countering norms and customs that stand in the way of women's and girls' freedom.

We will, as said, increase support for civil society, because even in countries where development is heading in the wrong direction, Sweden must support the good forces that exist for reforms for increased democracy and freedom. Organizations that work for democracy and human freedoms and rights are particularly prioritized.

Sweden has a long history of global engagement. As Minister for Development Cooperation and Foreign Trade, I am very proud of the enormous work that our authorities, our companies, and civil society perform every day to contribute to more freedom, empowerment, and sustainable growth. With the reform agenda that we have presented for development cooperation, I am convinced that we will make development cooperation more relevant, more accurate, and more modern. That is how we can ensure that we achieve more freedom, empowerment, and sustainable growth in the world.

(Applause)

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for the speech. It is pleasing that the Minister is participating in the debate, even though I would have preferred to have seen the Minister participate throughout the entire debate. It is still good that the Minister is here.

I must begin by mentioning something that the Minister said in his speech and which I, to say the least, recoiled at. The Minister said that aid previously was about getting rid of as much money as possible. I find that quite upsetting. It is an arrogant view of how aid is used.

We know that today we have one of the world's best, most effective and transparent aid, an aid that receives very high ratings globally. It would not happen if the aid were not good, so yes, the aid has been used in a good way.

But that was not actually why I requested the floor, it was to return to a question that we have debated here earlier, namely this matter of linking aid to migration and repatriation. It is something that is being pushed in the reform agenda.

I wonder how one is to manage to report these funds so that they comply with the OECD-DAC rules on how aid may be used. An activity cannot be reported as aid if it is associated with conditions for achieving the donor's own migration policy goals, according to the OECD-DAC rules.

I therefore find it very difficult to see how this can be reported.

Which countries should one actually negotiate with when it comes to return? It is only a few percent of the Swedish aid that goes directly to individual states. Most goes to civil society organizations, multilateral bodies such as the UN and others.

I would like to have answers to these two questions.

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

Statsrådet Johan Forssell (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Lotta Johnsson Fornarve, for the questions!

When it comes to the discussion regarding the size of the aid, it is still a fact that the vast majority of the discussion so far has been about the one percent goal, that is to say, how much money we spend. I receive very few questions, for example, from Vänsterpartiet about how we can ensure that we make the aid more effective, increase transparency or increase the traceability of Swedish tax money and how we can find synergies with the important trade policy, while very much is about just how much money we spend.

I think it is a bit of a shame, because it hides many other important issues regarding this. What do we achieve? Do we ensure that we really make the difference in the world that is needed? Or is it perhaps more about us being able to say that we are a major donor so that it feels better for us?

Several evaluations of the aid have been received, for example, and we can see that it has received extensive criticism. It is Swedish authorities who have pointed this out. It concerns, for example, lack of governance and that the goals have been too many and sometimes too scattered and overlapping.

One can also observe that when aid in some of our recipient countries is evaluated – and then the time period is not one or two years, but we are talking about decades – research evaluations show that it is sometimes very difficult to find any results at all. It is in that way, so we think there is very good reason to develop the reform agenda and take it further, and that is what we are now presenting.

Regarding the question of migration, I have had the privilege of having perhaps five interpellation debates with Lotta Johnsson Fornarve on the matter, and I just want to say that I have not changed my mind since the last interpellation debate. Sweden always has a right to decide which countries we cooperate with. It is always Swedish decisions, and it is one hundred percent in accordance with DAC's rules.

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the answer, Minister!

There are incredibly many examples of how Swedish aid has been used in an effective way, for example to support girls' and women's rights, democracy-promoting activities, and a number of other important areas. This is seen in the evaluation of the Swedish aid where, globally speaking, we receive very high grades, and we would not receive those if the aid had not been precisely effective and transparent.

Back to my questions regarding this matter of migration. It is not clear. The OECD-DAC framework actually states, after the framework for how aid may be used was clarified, that an activity cannot be reported as aid if it is associated with conditions to achieve the donor's own migration policy goals.

I think it is very clear that it is precisely what one does in the reform agenda that has been presented, so I believe it will be very difficult for the government to report this type of activity as aid.

I also do not get any answers as to which countries we can imagine influencing with this regarding the re-immigration. It concerns countries such as Iraq, which are not eager to receive people whom we want to send out of the country. I do not think, however, that they will be influenced by, for example, a women's organization in Iraq receiving less money. On the contrary, they will probably be grateful for it.

As has been said, it is only 2 percent of the aid that today goes to states, so I do not understand how one can be able to influence countries with the form of aid that we have today.

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

Statsrådet Johan Forssell (M)

Madam Speaker! I think one should do one's best to see aid for what it is and look at it with rather open eyes. It is clear that there are aid efforts in many countries and in many time periods that have been important and successful. There is no doubt about that.

But that is not the question either. The question is whether the aid has been good enough. There, even Lotta Johnsson Fornarve can state that many of the countries that Sweden has contributed enormous sums of aid to, sometimes over a period of 40-50 years, are just as dependent on aid today as they were then. It is a fact. They even say so themselves.

Then one can reflect on that in a few different ways. Either one can do as we have always done, and then we – perhaps not Lotta Johnsson Fornarve and I but others – will stand here in 50 years and say that we have worked in these countries in the same way for 100 years and perhaps haven't achieved any significant results.

Or one could consider whether we perhaps should do something different. We perhaps should, for example, listen to the recipient countries themselves, which often ask to receive more investments, more trade and more job creation so that they can stand on their own feet and no longer be dependent on receiving aid from other countries every year.

It is much that has misled us and naturally the fact that there are, for example, few socialist countries in the world that have succeeded in becoming particularly wealthy and creating some greater prosperity for their citizens. The way is instead trade, market economy and the rule of law.

When it comes to migration, it is as I said: Every country always has its own responsibility and its own opportunity to decide which countries it wants to work with. Historically, a number of collaborations have been terminated.

It is completely in line with DAC's rules. It is always we ourselves - the government, which rests on a confidence in the Riksdag and ultimately on the will of the Swedish people - who can make that type of decision. Here, I think we differ a bit.

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Madam Speaker! I would like to thank the Minister for Foreign Affairs for being here and participating in the debate.

I would also like to continue regarding the questions about the countries we cooperate with. When we in many places support democracy activists and civil society in overthrowing a regime, it is not the countries we cooperate with.

I will not do that, however; instead, I have a question about the synergy effects between development cooperation, promotion, and trade policy. It is something we have heard during the year the Minister has held his post, and we had hoped for a clarification now that we have finally received the reform agenda and been able to read it.

But unfortunately, it does not become any clearer. We have talked about it before, and I stand completely behind what the government says about it being good to promote trade. It is a way to get investments, and people will get into work. On that, we have no other opinion. We were, among other things, involved in raising the guarantee amounts which we have talked a lot about here today several times, an incredibly important tool. But I do not think that is what it is about here.

Development cooperation is about being able to strengthen the recipient countries based on their own conditions, while promotion and trade policy is about how to strengthen Swedish companies. The Minister touched on that a bit in his speech as well, but it is still not clear.

Is it a procurement unit that is to be started at UD to help Swedish companies invest in other countries? Or will you, without saying it, demand a counter-performance in the form of trade to have cooperation in certain countries?

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

Statsrådet Johan Forssell (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank Janine Alm Ericson for the questions.

It is clear that not all answers are in the reform agenda. We have worked on this for a year, and we will further develop this in regulatory letters. Some think it should have taken even longer and that we should have had even more meetings. But then these answers would have been delayed even further.

We have therefore deliberately maintained a high pace in the work. If one compares it with, for example, the previous policy framework, it took two and a half years to complete. We have therefore maintained a higher pace, and we will continue to do so.

We believe that there are great opportunities, as I said, to better utilize our Swedish companies that are world leaders in this area. It is actually a very great waste of resources that we have not already done it better. I have met many who work within sectors such as green transition and healthcare who repeatedly describe that they have been met with quite a lot of lack of interest from various decision-makers and from authorities when it comes to contributing.

The slightly strange thing about this is that it seems to be okay for companies from other countries to take part in activities financed by Swedish aid. But as soon as one speaks about Swedish companies, then it becomes a big discussion. I have never received criticism for the aid being used to, let's say, finance a project with companies from other countries. But just when it is Swedish companies, it is obviously something strange, despite the fact that Swedish companies are world leaders in many areas. And they often work in a completely different way than companies in other countries.

We point out some things in the reform agenda, for example, making projects with Business Sweden in recipient countries - in developing countries - within sectors that are also DAC-eligible. We also point to the aid support and the export financing, what is usually called soft loans, with export credits as two ways forward.

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the answer.

I have absolutely nothing against Swedish companies and our world-unique ideas in very many areas being spread more in the world. I think that is good. When it comes to the promotion and trade policy: I'm all for it. But if Swedish aid money is to be conditioned on that, it is not so good.

This is about large multinational organizations, and it is procurement that is taking place. Does the Minister for Foreign Affairs mean that one should deviate from procurement rules and free competition, or does he mean that he wants to provide a little bit of support in other ways through a procurement department at UD?

Another thing I have thought a lot about is the talk about efficiency. Of course, no one wants anything other than to have an efficient aid. Sweden is also known for, which has been brought up very many times just in this debate, being one of the world's best countries in both transparency and efficiency. Still, the minister makes it sound quite the opposite.

The importance of civil society is also asserted, and the core funding to the UN organizations has been reduced. But these are dependent on one another. The reductions in UN support mean that civil society also has difficulty operating in the very toughest situations.

Even though the Minister for Development Cooperation has not brought it up that much, I read a bit between the lines that this was not so effective and that the money was being thrown into a large black hole. But what does the government actually consider to be the problem with the UN organizations and their work? Why does one not want to continue to provide a large core support to Unicef, which works with children, UNDP, which works with environmental destruction and the climate, and UNFPA, which works with women's rights and health, and so on? Why does one have such a negative attitude?

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

Statsrådet Johan Forssell (M)

Madam Speaker! I want to remember that all the organizations that Janine Alm Ericson listed receive extensive core funding from Sweden. We are de facto one of the world's largest donors in absolute terms, and in relative terms, we really are. The description that we would not give any core funding to the UN organizations is not correct. That is not the case. One has to go back and look at the budget where the figures are in black and white.

But, Madam Speaker, one thing is true, and that is that we must constantly evaluate where our resources do the most good. Do they always do the most good in these UN bodies, or can we achieve greater results by, for example, working more closely with civil society organizations? We are looking very closely at this.

I do not think one can generalize the UN bodies. There are over 200, and they are completely different. And they are also evaluated separately.

We have, for example, looked at UNAIDS, which is an organization that has received very extensive criticism for not being effective and for not addressing leadership problems and governance problems.

It is clear that change can hurt. But I think these are such important issues that we must take our responsibility and ask ourselves: Is it really reasonable that year after year we should continue to be such a large donor, or can we use these funds more effectively somewhere else? Our answer is that one can use these funds more effectively somewhere else. Therefore, we make this reprioritization, precisely to ensure that we achieve the results we want and so that Swedish taxpayers shall know that they can always get value for their tax money.

But Sweden is a major donor to the UN system, and we will continue to be so in the future. But I want to point out that there is no inherent value in things always looking the way they always have. We must constantly be prepared to adapt, not least against the background of the war in Ukraine.

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

Olle Thorell (S)

Madam Speaker! The Moderates and Johan Forssell are painting a false conflict between how large the aid is and how effective the aid is. They say that they do not focus on the size of the aid but on the effectiveness, as if there were anyone in here who does not think that we should have effective aid. Of course, everyone does. I shall try to illustrate this.

I take a piece of paper that is 100 percent of something. If I tear off 15 percent, it is 85 percent. Has the paper become more efficient then? No, it has become smaller.

It is clear that one should do what can be done to make aid more efficient. But to claim that aid becomes more efficient by cutting it is just nonsense. It is not true. That was a parenthesis.

I want to ask the Minister for Development Cooperation the following. We Social Democrats think that there are things in this reform agenda that are both good and bad. We think there are good ideas and initiatives. There is a need for new thinking within development policy, just as there is in all policy areas. We have nothing against that. We are critical of the lack of anchoring. We do not understand why it is so dangerous to submit a petition to the Riksdag. We wish, and not only we from the opposition, that other parts of society could have been more involved. There could have been referral rounds, so that we could have had a special treatment of this in the Riksdag. Today's debate is a debate about the development budget and not a debate about the reform agenda, which deserves a much larger preparation and analysis. We received this paper yesterday afternoon. I therefore wonder why it is so dangerous to send a petition to the Riksdag regarding the reform agenda.

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

Statsrådet Johan Forssell (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank Olle Thorell for the question. It was quite excellent that Olle Thorell held up that blank piece of paper in the air, because it illustrates my point a bit. If it is only about a blank piece of paper and how large this piece of paper is, then it does not become so effective.

I was going to say: freedom, empowerment, and sustainable growth. Make sure to fill that blank paper with content instead – how we can work to achieve the results in the world that we want to achieve, so that it doesn't constantly just become a question of how much money we provide. Then we are back in quite a bit of the old aid policy discussion. Most countries have left that, I would like to say.

Let us together ensure that we develop the aid and achieve the results that we want to achieve. I believe that there is very much to do moving forward.

Regarding the process, we have held many meetings during this year. We have held at least as many meetings as the previous government. We have continued with all the meetings that have been held. But we cannot always measure success in how many meetings we hold. We must also achieve something, not least in the time we live in today. The previous policy framework took two and a half years to develop.

We have a war in Europe. Would our answer then be: We cannot reallocate the aid now. We cannot make these large investments in Ukraine because we are going to do our own aid work just as we have always done for 20 years.

Sometimes one has to look a bit at the outside world as well and wonder if it is perhaps the case that we must change.

We have had many debates about this. We have a debate about it right now, and we have had debates in the Riksdag several times. There have been interpellations and written questions. I am completely convinced that the debate will continue, but do not claim that there has been no debate or discussion about this! I welcome the debate, and I welcome more scrutiny. We will participate in all the ways we can in the work - just as we have done until now.

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

Olle Thorell (S)

Madam Speaker! As has been said, there are things in the agenda that we consider positive, and had we had more time, we could have conducted a deeper analysis. What is missing in the agenda, however, are concrete examples of what it is that we are to leave.

What is it that we are not supposed to do? What are the priorities that are to be removed? Core support to multilateral organizations is a priority that we have understood is to be reduced. But one speaks, for example, about reducing the number of countries - that one should go down to 30 bilateral countries from 36, 37, or whatever it is now. Which countries are those that we are to leave?

Is it Guatemala, where Sweden's embassy is an incredibly important sanctuary for human rights activists and lawyers trying to maintain some kind of rule of law under oppression? Is it Myanmar, where the military junta sits more firmly with its oppression and its ethnic cleansing and where the suffering grows every day? Is it from there that Sweden should disappear?

Or is it the Palestinian aid that is to cease? One can sense that when the government first halves the aid and then, when the war breaks out, freezes development aid and cuts the support to UNRWA to instead place it with other multilateral organizations. After that, they slash the review that their own agency provides and continue to withhold development aid. Is it, therefore, the Palestinian aid that is in the balance and that will be removed?

I understand that the reform agenda is not a detailed spreadsheet of where all the money will go, but it would be tasteful if the Minister could say something about which countries Sweden will cease to be active in.

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

Statsrådet Johan Forssell (M)

Madam Speaker! We govern Sweden in the same way as the previous government did, namely through regulatory letters. We have not changed that model, but we will return to this in our regulatory letters – just as the previous government did.

Does aid automatically become better because the money is divided among very many countries? It would have been easy for me to avoid this criticism by saying that we should be in as many countries as possible and then go home. But honestly: I believe everyone realizes that it doesn't work that way in reality. One must constantly weigh the pros and cons and consider where we can create added value. Perhaps it is that we should focus more on a few areas.

When we say that we are to reduce the number of bilateral development cooperation agreements, it implies something that Olle Thorell does not mention in his speech, namely that we can then actually do more things in those countries. We can then work with aid for more people – people who today simply do not receive help from Sweden. We believe that there is a great deal to be gained from this, not least an opportunity to increase the traceability of the aid. It also provides an opportunity to increase the transparency in Swedish aid, which has actually fallen sharply over the past year.

Then one must always ensure that there is funding for what one does. We have now agreed on a level of 56 billion kronor and are abandoning the one percent goal. I can note that the Social Democrats, after their speech about the aid being slaughtered, follow the government down to actually almost exactly the same level on the aid, even if one adds 1 billion. We are, therefore, not differing very much when it comes to the economic conditions.

Let us, however, talk more about how we can develop aid to make it precisely more accurate and effective! For it does not exist so that it should always continue as it has been, but actually so that we can achieve changes out there.

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

Anna Lasses (C)

Madam Speaker! I feel that I may continue right where the Minister ended, that is to say, on the question of whether everything really becomes better by providing aid to as many countries as possible. No, that is naturally not how it works. I want it said that I think it is good that one focuses the aid.

One can, however, wonder whether it should be exactly 30 countries. I have great sympathy for the idea that one has a holistic view—that it is not only about aid but also about trade and other policy areas—but that being said: Should it be exactly 30 countries? Is that the intention, or will it be possible to have bilateral cooperation with, for example, civil society organizations in a 31st country? The question, therefore, is whether it is decided that it really must be exactly these 30 countries. One can see, for instance, that it might be more effective to support a certain project in a 31st country, so to speak.

I thought it was extremely positive that some of the local perspective in trade finally came up yesterday. Trade and linking it to aid is a heart issue even for the Center Party. I am thinking a bit about how one works with bringing together the local perspective with civil society and, across national borders, the Swedish, so that it truly becomes a win-win situation where everyone is involved and one truly has the local perspective.

Then I would have very much liked to have talked about traceability, because I think it is super interesting. On one hand, it is very important, but on the other hand: How do you do it so that the whole thing doesn't become a super heavy-footed administrative dragon?

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

Statsrådet Johan Forssell (M)

Madam Speaker! What we have written in the reform agenda is that we shall limit the bilateral strategies to a maximum of 30. It is therefore not 30 per se, but it is a ceiling. We are going down from today's 36. I would, however, like to point out again that it means that one can do more within the framework of those strategies and that they will also have a much broader approach than before, where we include several different aspects. This is important when we move to country strategies.

In addition to that, we have other strategies, and something that has been pointed out in independent evaluations is that it is quite convoluted. I have tried to amuse myself by adding up all the goals that exist in the aid policy today, and I have arrived at two different results: One is that there are over 400 goals, and the other is that there are over 700 goals. I do not know which one is correct, Madam Speaker, but it is, in any case, very many goals.

We will continue to have regional strategies, and we will continue to have thematic strategies. We also have a large civil society flora that, in addition to that, will be able to continue to work broadly and globally. I believe, however, that we have reason to consider how we can better cooperate between both these strategies and different actors, because I can state that it is the case today that one hand does not always know what the other hand is doing. Yes, we are a large donor and will continue to be one, but our resources are not unlimited.

When it comes to traceability, as we have said, we are not interested in creating any bureaucratic monsters. But we have reason to consider whether the traceability today is sufficiently good. Ultimately, this is also about the trust from Swedish taxpayers. I am convinced that Swedish taxpayers want to be involved and contribute and want to see generous aid if they feel secure that the money is used correctly. There, we can do more to develop the successful work that the alliance government did.

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

Anna Lasses (C)

Madam Speaker! I agree that traceability is an important issue, but as has been said, it is a trade-off. The question is how to do it in an effective way.

I want to return a bit to this regarding the companies and the local perspective. Previously, the Minister has, as stated, primarily talked about the Swedish companies, so it would be interesting to hear how far one has come and how one works with the local and how to bring it together. It is then about involving not only companies but perhaps also civil society organizations - and naturally the local community.

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

Statsrådet Johan Forssell (M)

Madam Speaker! Anna Lasses is completely right regarding our idea of being able to use more of trade, market economy, business, entrepreneurship and innovations. We do not just have a macro perspective but perhaps primarily a micro perspective. To take an example, it is very difficult to travel to Monrovia in Liberia, a country where we have extensive Swedish aid, and believe that a whole host of Swedish companies will arrive and establish themselves tomorrow. It does not work in that way. Unfortunately, the conditions in quite a few of these developing countries are such that we probably rather have to build from the ground up instead.

Ideally, one would want to build in both directions simultaneously. We must get more people to dare to take the step to become entrepreneurs - dare to start companies and run companies. I want to point out, for example, Swedfunds important work. With a relatively small operation, for example with microloans, one succeeds in encouraging more small-scale entrepreneurship. I have personally looked at it in several countries.

One must remember that all large companies and large employers have at some point been small. Within the framework of the bilateral country strategies, we will press on what we know is important for both small and large companies to be able to grow, namely a good climate for investments. This involves, for example, the rule of law and initiatives against corruption. I am very happy to listen to good ideas on how we can get more companies, Swedish or foreign, small, in the long run medium-sized and perhaps at some point large, to flourish in these recipient countries.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the international aid in the budget for 2024. I would like to highlight a specific part of the budget, namely the aid to Palestine.

When Hamas carried out its horrific acts of terrorism against Israel on October 7 this year, many of us reacted very powerfully. The bestial approach, the ruthless killing and taking of over 240 people as hostages left few untouched.

A strong reaction from the outside world was expected, but in that reaction also lies a great responsibility. From representatives in the Swedish government, the immediate reaction was that all aid to Palestine must be stopped. One could think that they equate all Palestinians with Hamas. Admittedly, it is an expected reaction from some who are used to bundling people together into a "we" and a "them."

The next reaction was to ensure that no Swedish aid had gone to Hamas. Sida were quick to publish on their website which organizations in Palestine receive Swedish aid. Hamas was not on that list, nor was any organization with links to Hamas.

Within the world of aid, there is the important principle of do no harm. The principle was developed so that aid in conflict areas should take into account the local context and local needs so that the aid has the desired effect and, above all, does not cause any harm. The principle has applied in Swedish aid for many years and is also included in the OECD's recommendations on support to civil society. I say "has applied," because apparently the principle no longer applies. On two occasions since October 7, the government has made decisions that in a flagrant and harmful way have departed from the principle of do no harm.

First, it concerns the decision to pause all development aid to Palestine just when the need is greatest. When society is torn apart by war, civil society is needed more than ever. Education and healthcare must function. Organizations that work with legal aid, that train police, and that work with culture must function. Organizations that dig wells and secure the water supply must function. This applies both on the West Bank and in Gaza. But when the needs are greatest, the government stops the payments.

The spinal reflex that one must ensure that Hamas does not receive a share of Swedish aid money, despite Sida clearly stating that is not the case, makes the government simply make decisions that go completely against the principle of do no harm. The decisions simply cause harm.

Mr. Speaker! When the government then makes the long-awaited and much-needed decision to expand humanitarian aid to Gaza, it takes money that was already planned to go to the UN refugee agency UNRWA. And what does UNRWA do in Gaza? Besides schools and healthcare, one of the primary tasks for UNRWA is to distribute food. The organization that primarily works to distribute humanitarian efforts will thus receive fewer resources for its work when that work is more important than ever. How does that square with the principle of doing no harm?

When Sida has completed its review of the development aid and once again concluded that Hamas has not received any part of Swedish aid funds, the government is still not satisfied. Now, completely new requirements are being set for the aid. The recipients of the aid must have actively and publicly distanced themselves from Hamas.

It is now evident that the government does not understand the principle of do no harm. Aid must always be understood in the context in which the recipient finds themselves, especially in a conflict situation. Conditioning the aid can simply expose the recipients to direct danger. Publicly distancing oneself from Hamas, whether it is in the West Bank or in Gaza, can expose partner organizations and family members to great risks.

Mr. Speaker! Instead of talking about all the negative things that have happened regarding aid since the government took office, I would like, in these Christmas times, to highlight positive examples of what is being done by some of the organizations in Palestine that Sweden and Swedish aid organizations have supported.

The Gaza Community Mental Health Programme has been working with mental health for many years. The programme has been of great importance during and after the wars that have taken place in recent years. The activities are particularly significant for traumatized children. A study by Save the Children in 2022 pointed out that 80 percent of children in Gaza showed symptoms of post-traumatic stress. This was, therefore, before the terrible war that is currently ongoing.

The Augusta Victoria Hospital in East Jerusalem provides highly specialized care in areas including pediatric and adult oncology, palliative care, and diseases requiring dialysis. Patients from across the West Bank and Gaza come here. Currently, patients from Gaza are stranded at the hospital, while more than 500 Gazans have missed life-saving treatments because they cannot leave Gaza. Most small children from Gaza who are cared for at the Augusta Victoria Hospital are not allowed to be accompanied by their own parents due to Israel's restrictions.

The women's rights organization The Palestinian Working Woman Society for Development works to strengthen women's economic empowerment, reduce gender-based violence, and increase women's political participation and influence. The Israeli-Palestinian peace network Geneva Initiative primarily trains young people in dialogue and conflict resolution.

One of Kvinna till Kvinnas partner organizations in Gaza carried out the first-ever initiative regarding domestic violence that was directed specifically at men. The outcome has been very positive, and the participating men's attitudes and behaviors have changed. Several men were trained to change attitudes among other men, among other things, to resolve conflicts without violence. They became ambassadors to stop men's violence against women and were frequently hired to train teenage boys. The attitude change they underwent, and the fact that they also succeeded in influencing other men, also improved their own mental health.

Two Palestinian human rights organizations that have received a share of Swedish development aid are al-Mezan and al-Haq. al-Mezan works to document and prevent crimes against international law in Gaza. They advocate for issues such as the independence of the judiciary as well as documentation and accountability when assault and torture are committed by Palestinian authorities. They document and appeal judgments against innocent people and criticize the Hamas regime's frequent use of the death penalty. On several occasions, they have pointed out that the rocket attacks from Gaza directed at civilians in Israel are war crimes. It is a work that is both difficult and very dangerous.

al-Haq in its turn works systematically to document human rights violations committed by all parties in the conflict. This also applies to the Palestinian Authority and its arbitrary arrests and torture.

In addition to these examples, there are several organizations working with school and education or agriculture and food security that have received a share of Swedish development aid, but whose activities are now being jeopardized by the government's conditioning of Swedish aid money.

Mr. Speaker! I know that visual props are not allowed in the speaker's chair. But I saw that Minister Forssell stood here yesterday and referred to and waved the so-called reform agenda during the question period without being told otherwise, so I thought I would take the opportunity to refer to the report that I am holding in my hand.

It is the report "What does Swedish aid do in Palestine?", from which I have taken my examples today. It has been produced by the fantastic aid organizations We Effect, Olof Palmes Internationella Center, Kvinna till Kvinna, the Ecumenical Companion Program in Palestine and Israel, Centerpartiets Internationella Stiftelse, Act Svenska kyrkan, and Diakonia.

With these good examples of fantastic aid in Palestine, I would like to take the opportunity to wish my colleagues in the committee, the Speaker, the Chancellery, the committee staff, and Minister Forssell, who has now left, a Merry Christmas!

(Applause)

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Mr. Speaker! I listened to Jacob Risberg's speech. It is pleasant that he, at the beginning, mentioned so briefly in passing that something happened on October 7. What was it, actually, that happened on October 7?

What happened was that Hamas entered Israeli territory. It was in no way disputed territory and not inside the West Bank. They entered a number of kibbutzim around the border of the Gaza Strip and committed a complete massacre. They hacked people to death. They shot people to death. They mutilated 250 people - youths - who were at a rave party. They kidnapped 200 people and took them into the Gaza Strip.

Mr. Speaker! When I listened to Jacob Risberg's speech, it feels as if the Green Party resonates a bit as if it doesn't change anything. Now everything continues as before after that. That is not quite the case.

The aid to Palestine is very extensive from the Swedish side. It has been criticized for decades. There has also been criticism against the UN agency UNRWA for antisemitism in textbooks and teachers who in different ways express such sympathies. The other day, UNRWA was forced to dismiss six people, I believe it was, because they had praised Adolf Hitler on Facebook and such things.

There are aid organizations, including those that Jacob Risberg himself mentioned in his speech, where there are links to the PFLP, which is another terror-labeled organization.

What we say from the government is that one must manage to distance oneself from terrorism if one is to receive Swedish aid. I cannot understand why that should be so controversial. I cannot understand it.

It is also impossible to guarantee that the aid does not leak to Hamas. We have now seen how supplies, fuels, and so on, which are intended for the people on the Gaza Strip, have been looted. Why is Miljöpartiet against this being scrutinized?

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Fredrik Malm, for the question!

As the member is well aware, such a review is constantly carried out in the aid work that exists. Sida has a very in-depth work regarding the auditing of all aid.

When it comes to the abstention, it is precisely for those types of questions that the principle of do no harm has been developed. One knows how difficult it can be to publicly state certain things in this type of conflicts.

We have never demanded that, for example, aid recipients in Colombia should have distanced themselves from Farc for us to provide them with aid funds. We have not demanded that aid organizations in the Philippines should distance themselves from Abu Sayyaf. We have not, in our bilateral trade relations with Israel, demanded that Ben-Gvir should distance himself from Kach, an organization he was previously a member of.

Why should it apply in just this conflict? Why not in all aid in that case? It does not work that way. People expose themselves to extreme danger if, in certain situations, they are to go out and speak out against just Hamas, especially in Gaza.

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Mr. Speaker! It is obviously very strange if one does not demand that potential aid recipients in the Philippines distance themselves from Abu Sayyaf. It is an al-Qaeda-linked Salafist guerrilla group in the Philippines. Why have those who have governed for the last eight years not addressed that problem, for example, to Sida?

The truth is that the Swedish aid to Palestine must strive to achieve a two-state solution. I believe we can all agree on that. If we do not, Sweden will become part of a cycle of violence where Palestinian attacks lead to Israeli self-defense destroying what the Swedish aid is to be part of building up or has built up.

If we do not get our aid to strive for a two-state solution, we will become part of the vicious spiral. One must ensure that those who receive Swedish aid, and not least the actors who exist in Palestinian society, are crystal clear and explicit that it is a two-state solution they want.

Year after year, for decades, this criticism has existed. It is no coincidence that it has been so. It has to do with the fact that there is a kind of resistance culture in Palestinian society which means that the entire society is mobilized around the entire idea that Israel should not exist.

Hamas has used aid funds. How else do you think they have been able to build up the entire infrastructure to start another war? It has happened with money that has been obtained in different ways. They have either come from the Gulf states or from other actors but also via international aid.

Mr. Speaker! I cannot understand why the Green Party is so incredibly negative towards controlling aid so that the money reaches the people and not the terrorists.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! That work is done daily at Sida, and the member knows this very well. Furthermore, Swedish aid is monitored by both international organizations and by our own control authorities. The work is done daily. We do not need to do it over and over again by stopping the aid in order to monitor it. We already perform these controls daily.

International aid

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 19 December.)

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