International aid

Yasmine Eriksson (SD)

Madam Speaker! Today, or rather this evening, we are debating the state budget for expenditure area 7 International aid. The Riksdag has already decided that the framework for the expenditure area shall be 44 ½ billion. Sweden's total aid next year shall amount to 56 billion kronor. It is a very generous aid.

I know that billions are large sums and difficult to put into perspective, but if you compare this with other parts of the state budget, you see that we spend approximately half as much on aid as on the justice system and five times more on aid than on the business sector. The expenditure area is more than double the size of the expenditure area for the countryside. You have to decide for yourself whether you consider it much or little, but it is clear that Sweden is one of the world's most generous countries when it comes to international aid.

Madam Speaker! We in Sweden have a long tradition of taking global responsibility, and our international aid has been an important part of this. But the world is changing, and our aid must change with it. For most who are interested in aid, it is no news that the Sweden Democrats, together with the government parties, have developed a reform agenda for aid, Aid for a New Era. It describes the changes our parties see as necessary. The aid shall become more effective. It shall be relevant and more responsible.

Madam Speaker! Sweden's aid is, as has been said, very generous. It is, however, our duty to ensure that every krona is used as effectively as possible. I stand by the position that effective aid is the aid that, in the long run, is no longer needed.

Priorities are necessary when resources are limited. Therefore, we have developed clear thematic priorities in the reform agenda. These priorities should also be seen as Swedish interests. I know that this is sometimes criticized, but the fact is that all the aid we provide - regardless of form - is fundamentally part of Sweden's interest. Promoting stability in our surroundings, reducing the factors that put people on the run, and contributing to peace and security globally is not only morally right but also aligns with Swedish interests.

What we decide that Swedish aid shall go to is Sweden's interest regardless of the government. The priorities we are now making for the aid are possible thanks to the mandate that the government parties and the Sweden Democrats have received together. We have received the voters' trust to reform and streamline the aid, and that is exactly what we are doing.

Madam Speaker! It is impossible to escape the fact that aid is one of our most important foreign policy tools for meeting the complex challenges that we and the world face. A clear example is our aid to Ukraine. It is of great importance both for Ukraine's resilience and for Europe's - and Sweden's - security in large.

Sweden's support for Ukraine is an investment in our common security and stability. Through humanitarian aid, support for reconstruction and direct efforts to strengthen Ukraine's institutions and social structure, we contribute to strengthening Ukraine, not only against Russia's war of invasion but also as a sustainable and democratic country in the future.

We provide aid in many areas, including education, health, and the reconstruction of critical infrastructure. But we also contribute to ensuring that the aid is used to strengthen Ukraine's resilience against corruption and to develop rule-of-law institutions, which is crucial for the country's long-term success.

Ukraine is a clear example of how aid can be used both to meet acute crises and to create conditions for a better future. It is an aid that benefits both the Ukrainian people and Sweden's interest in a stable and secure world.

Madam Speaker! We live undeniably in a time when the needs are enormous. People live in oppression and poverty and have their homes destroyed due to climate change. Wars rage, and people are forced to flee. Therefore, I believe that we have landed on reasonable priorities for aid. It shall go towards promoting freedom and combating oppression. It shall go towards humanitarian efforts, climate-related efforts, poverty reduction and health initiatives, as well as towards empowering women and girls. We see that aid policy and migration policy often go hand in hand.

Far too many people live in flight. It does not help to only alleviate the symptoms, but we must also try to prevent them from arising. We shall help people in flight. We shall also assist in order to reduce the very causes of why people are put into flight. We shall, as we often express it, reduce the root causes of migration.

There is no universal solution, as different needs exist in different places. In some countries, strengthened domestic institutions are required, in others, trade and education are needed in the fight against poverty. In some cases, peace solutions or resilience against climate change are needed. Regardless of the reason, from Sweden's side, we shall contribute where we can do the most good. We shall contribute in an effective manner where the aid can be delivered transparently and securely. It is a matter of solidarity towards the recipients and a matter of legitimacy towards the Swedish taxpayers who are the funders. Both have the right to expect that the funds are used in the way that is most effective and in a way that yields good results.

(Applause)

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

Olle Thorell (S)

Madam Speaker! I would like to thank Yasmine Eriksson for her contribution and ask a little about the false contradiction that the Sweden Democrats constantly play up as an excuse to be less generous with aid and cut it to the lower limit, wherever that is for the Sweden Democrats. Is it at 0.7, 0.5, or 0.001? I would like to have an answer as to what is the lower limit for when the Sweden Democrats think the aid is too large.

I would also like to ask the Sweden Democrats about that false contradiction. What is it that says something becomes more effective because it becomes less? That is not the case. It just becomes less. One can have an aid of 1.0 percent that is super-effective or aid of 0.7 percent that is super-effective. There is no difference of opinion here in this chamber between the parties on how we view effective aid. We all want effective aid. We all want the tax crowns that have been hard-earned and paid into the state to go to exactly the right things.

It is a false contradiction that you are playing up. One question is: Where is the lower limit? In the other question, I intended to give the member an opportunity to clarify what is actually the Sweden Democrats' line when it comes to one of the humanitarian crises in the world, namely in Syria. The government and the Ministry for Foreign Affairs say that Syrians in Sweden and everyone else should also avoid all travel to Syria. But the member's party leader, Jimmie Åkesson, thinks that this is an excellent opportunity for Syrians to pack their bags and go home.

What is it that actually applies for the Sweden Democrats and the government?

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

Yasmine Eriksson (SD)

Madam Speaker! Olle Thorell is asking questions about how the Sweden Democrats view efficiency in connection with our departure from the goal of 1 percent of GNP for aid.

When the government took over and the Sverigedemokraterna entered into a cooperation with the governing parties, they took over for a period when the needs in Sweden were enormous. They are still enormous after eight years of Social Democratic rule.

We need to prioritize, and we have enormous needs in Sweden. What we are doing is that we succeed in lowering aid costs and simultaneously making the aid more efficient, which means that we get more per invested krona and can use money in Sweden for other interventions that help the Swedish population. We are therefore using the same amount but for different things. We can provide aid more efficiently, and that is exactly what we are doing.

Would you, Olle Thorell, have wanted to see the same methods as those you used when you joined the government, or would the Social Democrats, in the event of a takeover, retain the efficiency solutions that we have now initiated? Do the Social Democrats and Olle Thorell not consider the efficiency plans and the restructuring of them to be effective, or does one want to return to how it was previously and spend more money on aid and have as a goal to pay out as much money as possible instead of having as a goal to use the money as efficiently and result-oriented as possible?

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

Olle Thorell (S)

Madam Speaker! I am terribly sorry, but I actually did not understand the member's reasoning. I therefore give her a chance to answer the question of whether there is any contradiction between something being large and it being effective? It does not.

We think that aid should be as effective as possible, and everyone in here thinks so. You are painting a false contradiction between size and effectiveness. It does not exist.

I do not expect to be able to convince Member Eriksson, but perhaps someone who is listening can also see through the false contradiction.

On the second question, I received no answer at all. I understand that it is mined ground, but I still ask the question, because this is important. Should Syrians in Sweden pack their bags and go home, as Jimmie Åkesson says, or should Syrians in Sweden avoid all travel to Syria, which is in an incredibly volatile situation, as the Foreign Minister, UD, and the government otherwise say? What is it that applies? That is my question.

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

Yasmine Eriksson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I notice that Olle Thorell does not understand the difference between size and efficiency.

To have a sum and be able to do more with the same is to be more efficient. To put in a larger sum means that you get less out of it if you use a previous model that was not streamlined. That is the difference.

Regarding Syria, we do not decide who wants to live in Syria. Very many people live in Syria today. We do not forbid them from being there. The people who have fled from Syria and come to Sweden, and who are now very happy about how the situation is in Syria, it no longer looks like there are any grounds for protection. That is the reason why we consider that they could move back.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the speech.

There were several things that Yasmine Eriksson said that I could actually agree with. It is very much about reducing the causes that force people to flee, reducing climate emissions and unrest in the world, and increasing democracy and human rights. I believe we are quite much in agreement there.

I must nevertheless agree with the previous speaker from the Socialdemokraterna, because I also cannot quite make sense of this regarding the efficiency.

We all know that cuts are now being made to aid. The member argues that it is simultaneously being made more efficient. But what exactly is it that becomes more efficient? What is it that will make us lift more people out of poverty? What is it that will prevent more oppositionists from being imprisoned? What is it that makes you increase the proportion of human rights and reduce abuses in the world? What exactly is it that will get more children into school? What exactly is it that will lead to more safe births around the world? In what way do you increase it with the change of aid to, for example, sexual and reproductive health for women when you simultaneously cut it so drastically?

You keep saying that the aid is becoming more effective. But we have not seen anything that has made things more effective and that more people will actually benefit from the aid. That would be the only way to be able to see if the aid has become more effective, so I would very much like to have an answer to that.

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

Yasmine Eriksson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I can mention some parts where we have made reprioritizations that make the aid more effective.

We are reducing the number of countries to which we provide aid. It is about how well Sweden cooperates with the countries. The needs are, as we all know, enormous. Even if we were to give our entire state budget in aid, it would not cover the world's needs for aid.

We prioritize and choose to carry out the aid where we see that it yields the best results. We remove strategies or aid projects that we see do not yield such good results in order to channel the aid to other projects or organizations. That is one part.

Since then, we have had a guarantee system where we provide guarantees for companies that want to invest in developing countries. It is a very good lever for mobilizing more capital, and we are now expanding the amount the guarantee instrument can guarantee to those companies and actors who want to make investments.

We also have the private sector. We want to see greater involvement of capital mobilized from the private sector so that it does not come solely from the state. That there is a collaboration also increases the efficiency of the aid. From the state's side and with the taxpayers' funds, one can contribute a smaller amount, but the total still becomes larger.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the answer, Yasmine!

I do not feel that I became particularly wiser, because I still do not understand in what way things become more efficient. The only thing I hear is that you are relocating a lot of money. I hear no direct measures that make it more efficient.

The Chairman claims, among other things, that by removing some projects or strategies that do not yield sufficient results, it becomes more efficient. In that case, I would like to know which projects or strategies it is that you consider do not yield sufficient results and which you are therefore cutting out now.

The members of the committee also point out that more money is channeled by trying to achieve more trade. There may be points to that, but one has adjusted the regulatory letter to the Export Council. There is a lot of talk about the aid being effective and transparent. Those were also words that Yasmine Eriksson took up here. But when it comes to efficiency and transparency, I become a bit thoughtful.

It states in the regulatory letter to Exportrådet that when it reports back, business confidentiality may apply. That is to say, the transparency decreases regarding the aid that goes to Exportrådet.

Then one must report every year what the money has been used for, but it also states that one does not need to report based on the aid's goals. We therefore do not know whether the aid's goals have been met. We simply do not know if that money will at all make the aid more effective.

It is still aid money that is being taken and moved over to the Export Council. At the same time, the aid is to be made more effective. But how can we know if it becomes more effective if it is not to be reported based on the aid's goals? That is something I would very much like to have an answer to.

I also wonder which strategies or projects it is that have not been good enough and are simply scrapped.

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

Yasmine Eriksson (SD)

Madam Speaker! Regarding which strategies did not work and which work: It is not we from the Riksdag's side who decide that, but the Ministry for Foreign Affairs in consultation with, for example, Sida. They also take in information from EBA and so on. Those are decisions that the government side makes and not we.

I am sure that this is being taken seriously and that there is a desire to be transparent. The goal is for the aid to be as effective as possible, which is the reason why reprioritizations are being made.

I believe that Jacob Risberg also agrees that aid that does not work is not aid that we should give. It helps many more if it is actually functioning aid, so I believe we are in agreement at the core.

I apologize for not being able to state exactly which projects have been less effective off the top of my head.

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

Olle Thorell (S)

Madam Speaker! The aid policy is heading in the wrong direction. The government has abandoned the one percent goal, and Sweden even risks falling below the UN's recommended level for developed countries of 0.7 percent in a few years.

Sweden is turning its gaze away from the poorest and most vulnerable countries in the world, for example Burkina Faso, Mali, Cambodia and South Sudan. Bilateral aid cooperation has been terminated in countries where conflicts, extreme poverty, democratic regression and climate change hit the hardest.

Sweden also turns its gaze toward another direction when humanitarian crises of immense force strike countries such as Sudan, Yemen, eastern Congo, Syria, and Myanmar.

We in this Riksdag agree on the support for Ukraine, but it must not be an alibi for ignoring other crises.

The support for civil society organizations that convey aid to the world has been cut and thrown into a state of disorder of rarely seen proportions.

The government also deliberately violates OECD-DAC's rules in this budget, which determine what may be counted as aid. This undermines Sweden's credibility as a donor.

Sweden's commitment in Guatemala is also in the balance. Guatemala is a country where we are finally seeing a brightening after years of authoritarian rule and corruption. The people there have chosen a government that wants to fight corruption and strengthen democracy. To even consider leaving Guatemala now, precisely when support is needed most, would be a serious mistake that I hope the government does not make.

Another misstep is that the government increasingly allows aid to be driven by narrow Swedish self-interests instead of by an enlightened self-interest. An enlightened self-interest means that we realize that our security and our prosperity are built on a just and sustainable world. It is about putting the needs and rights of the poorest and most vulnerable people as the starting point and at the center instead of short-term Swedish gains.

The government has also chosen not to continue the work with a feminist foreign and aid policy, a policy that takes a holistic approach to strengthen the rights of women and girls and give them power over their lives and the opportunity to contribute to their societies.

Aid also needs to become better at protecting children's rights. Aid can be the difference between a child going to school and a child being forced to work. Aid can prevent child marriage, female genital mutilation, and sexual violence.

We Social Democrats believe that aid also needs to be a powerful engine to strengthen workers' rights. It is about fair wages, secure working conditions, and the fight against trafficking and exploitation. These are rights that not only strengthen individuals but also lay the foundation for more stable and just societies. It is clear that trade and entrepreneurship are important, but we believe that the government ignores the workers' perspective in building prosperity and sustainable growth.

I could speak much longer about all these things, but I also want to have time to say something about the change of the aid to Palestine.

Before I proceed, I want to clarify that we Social Democrats, in the usual order, abstain from voting regarding the budget proposal itself. However, we demand approval of our reservations 1 and 2 regarding the abolition of PGU and how the government relates to the OECD-DAC rules.

Regarding Israel-Palestine, Sweden has for a long time been a strong international advocate for international law, for human rights, and for a two-state solution in the Israel-Palestine conflict. Sweden has had a balanced position.

We Social Democrats have condemned Hamas's horrific acts of terrorism on October 7 and at the same time stood up against the violations of international law that Israel has committed.

Sweden has over the years supported organizations such as al-Haq, al-Mezan Center for Human Rights and Palestinian Centre for Human Rights. These are organizations that document crimes against international law, against international law and against human rights regardless of who stands behind them, whether it is Israel or Palestinians.

Now the government is withdrawing the support to these organizations. These are organizations that have done an incredibly demanding and important work in presenting evidence to the international judiciary in the form of the ICC and ICJ. It is short-sighted and historically irresponsible to withdraw that support. Another example is that when the Head of Foreign Affairs visited Israel and Palestine for three days last week, he met with no Palestinian organizations at all.

At the same time, support is being withdrawn for the organization Defence for Children International in Palestine, which is a sister organization to Save the Children. This organization does the important work of documenting and visiting Palestinian children who have been imprisoned in the West Bank under inhumane conditions. This sometimes involves children as young as 12 years old. Sweden should no longer be involved in and contribute to this.

Support for the Ecumenical Companion Program is also being removed. It is a program that since the beginning of the 2000s has ensured that more than 2,000 international observers – some actually former members of Parliament – monitor how civilians are treated on the West Bank. They protect Palestinian children on their way to school so that they do not have to endure harassment, be spat at, be assaulted, or be forced to stay home from school. To weaken or completely remove the support for that program is to turn one's back on the most vulnerable.

The government also seems to have completely misunderstood and underestimated the importance of the support to UNRWA, the UN's aid organization for Palestinian refugees.

Madam Speaker! One might ask how the government can be so strategically naive. How can one undermine Sweden's credibility as a voice for international law and human rights in this way? It is also a direct threat to Sweden's reputation as a constructive, balanced actor in this conflict. To not stand up for the ICC and the ICJ, which are the fundamental pillars of international law enforcement, is a betrayal of Sweden's tradition. That the government, moreover, can do nothing but mumble when the question arises whether Netanyahu would be arrested if he set foot in Sweden is a further sign of this.

Madam Speaker! We Social Democrats are clear that Sweden's aid shall be based on the needs and rights of the most vulnerable. Rights-based aid must be restored, and Sweden needs a policy built on the fact that we are solidary, fight poverty and injustice, and create opportunities for those who are hit hardest by conflicts, climate crises, and inequality. The Social Democrats want to see an aid policy that stands up for children's rights, strengthens the influence of women and girls, and works for fair conditions for the world's workers.

We want to reintroduce a policy for global development, PGU, which was the unifying force that ensured that trade, climate, and aid together contributed to a sustainable global development. We stand firm on the principle of an enlightened self-interest where we say that an equal world is safer for all of us.

We Social Democrats stand firm on the one percent goal. We are proud that Sweden has long been an example in the world regarding generosity and solidarity, and when we regain government power, we will gradually restore the one percent level.

Madam Speaker! This debate is not really just about aid policy. It is about what kind of Sweden we want to be. Shall we be a Sweden that stands up for justice, solidarity and international law, or shall we be a Sweden that fails when it matters? I know which choice we Social Democrats make.

(Applause)

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

Katarina Tolgfors (M)

Madam Speaker! Member Olle Thorell has something that I actually do not have, and that is a wallet with an inexhaustible fund for various state expenditures.

We see that the need in the world is great, but at the same time, the means the Swedish state has at its disposal are not infinite. I therefore have a question for Member of Parliament Thorell: How and in what way does a larger aid budget and old, discarded aid methods guarantee that one can meet a rapidly changing world where one might have to look at new strategies and ways to meet today's challenges to combat poverty and alleviate distress? I would greatly appreciate it if the Member of Parliament could give some concrete examples of this.

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

Olle Thorell (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Katarina Tolgfors, for the opportunity to continue debating these important issues!

When it comes to the one percent goal, Katarina Tolgfors repeats the talking points and one-liners that we often hear Benjamin Dousa repeat – but unfortunately not in this chamber since he cannot participate in the debate. It is said, among other things, that the needs are infinite but that Sweden's state budget is finite. Yes, that is so. And the sun is yellow and warm and rises in one direction and sets in another. That is also true. But the thing is so clever about the one percent goal that precisely because the needs in the world are great, we have agreed on a level that is a share of our prosperity. We did that over 50 years ago so as not to end up in populist debates about whether a certain need in Sweden is much more important than some foreigner somewhere else whom we do not meet or know and have no direct contact with.

To avoid having a populist vulgar debate, we decided over 50 years ago that we shall allocate one-hundredth of our wealth to the poor and vulnerable out in the world. I am proud of that. I think it is good. I have nothing against Sweden being the best in the world at being generous and solidary with other countries. It is the Sverigedemokraterna and the Moderaterna who have problems with being so generous.

Regarding rejected methods and that we should return to everything as it was before, I hope to return to that in my second speech, because we Social Democrats also truly want to reform aid. It needs to change in a changing world and time, but it is not in opposition to how generous we want to be.

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

Katarina Tolgfors (M)

Madam Speaker! I did not hear a single concrete answer on how a one percent goal guarantees that one meets the world's challenges as they look today better and more effectively. I would appreciate it if I could get at least one or two concrete statements on that.

I want to inform Member Thorell that the one percent goal under the Social Democratic government did indeed mean that the aid budget was at a lower level than it is today. One only has to look at the statistics that show this.

I would also like to return to the fact that it is not always about how much money is allocated. All of you here who have at some point been a municipal politician or a regional politician – I guess there are a few of you – know that the solution is not always more money. It is rather about how it is done, that one has clear goals that can be followed up, and that one knows that one is hitting the mark.

Once again, Member of Parliament Thorell: We pretend that we have a one percent goal. What strategies are used, and in what way do they contribute to ensuring that more are reached, more are helped, poverty is combated, and countries can stand on their own feet and develop?

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

Olle Thorell (S)

Madam Speaker! The whole point is that there is no contradiction between efficiency and size. I feel very repetitive saying this, but there is no such contradiction. Nothing becomes more efficient by becoming smaller, or larger for that matter. But it is clear that one can do more for more money. It is a fact that I believe municipal and regional politicians also recognize.

If, for example, there were 180 million kronor more for development research via the Swedish Research Council, which the government removed last year, one could do more development research that could be to the benefit of poor and vulnerable people. Then, through research and scientific methods, one could find out what is actually effective and how to best combat poverty.

The government removed that with a stroke of a pen - 180 million. 600 researchers wrote protesting op-eds in Aftonbladet. I don't think I have ever seen so many sign one and the same op-ed.

It is clear that it shows if there is less money. But it is also clear that we must be as efficient as possible with the money that exists. There is no contradiction between the two.

Regarding the reform and development of aid, we Social Democrats have in recent days issued a letter to aid organizations and other interested parties about participating and contributing to a reform agenda 2.0, a Social Democratic reform agenda. We see, in the wake of the pandemic and as the world order changes with Russia's occupation of Ukraine, that poverty, polarization, and inequalities are skyrocketing in the world. In that case, a new policy is needed. We will take responsibility for formulating that.

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

Yasmine Eriksson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I reacted to a passage in Olle Thorell's speech about how Sweden and the government have departed from the feminist foreign policy. Good! That is true. But in the same passage, Olle Thorell stated that we also do not stand up for the freedom and empowerment of women and girls.

Just that part is a prioritized thematic area in the reform agenda. It explicitly states that it is one of the government's and Sweden's priorities. And we have aid that goes toward promoting exactly that. We have aid that goes toward helping women survive pregnancies and childbirths and toward education for girls. We have aid that goes toward increasing women's and girls' participation in the digital environment, aid that goes toward countering violence against and oppression of women, aid that goes toward helping women increase participation in politics, and so on.

I wonder if Olle Thorell's intention is to mislead by claiming that the government and the Sweden Democrats do not stand up for women's and girls' freedom and empowerment, and also do not have aid or policies in that area. That is not the case.

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

Olle Thorell (S)

Madam Speaker! This exchange feels like déjà vu. I know we have had it before; we have spoken about how it is good that the government nevertheless engages in some equality work. And of course, it is good. It is very good.

But the government has scrapped the feminist foreign policy, and it was more than just individual projects. It was more than a bag of money going to aid somewhere. It was a holistic view, a mindset of changing our foreign and aid policy so that the perspective on feminism and gender issues would permeate all foreign and aid policy. It no longer does that.

The government has abolished the mediation network for women, which FBA had, without making any evaluation of it. The government no longer ensures that the embassies out in the world have in their instructions to incorporate the feminist perspective in all their work. It no longer exists. Then priorities are different. And then there is less bang for the buck. There is less feminism.

It does not surprise me that the Sweden Democrats want less feminism, but one should not pretend that it is the same as before they abolished the feminist foreign policy. It is of course good that one works with equality and that it is still a part of the government's reform agenda and aid policy.

But I say as I said the last time we had this exchange. You can have a fine sports car, rip the engine out of it, slam the hood shut and say: Look what a fine sports car! It is very good. We are engaged in sports car driving here. But it doesn't go particularly well without an engine.

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

Yasmine Eriksson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Olle Thorell for the clarification. In his speech, it sounded, as it was said, as if the government is not providing any such aid at all.

I also have a question regarding PGU. The proposal is that we should deviate from those goals. They are currently included in the work with Agenda 2030. The work with Agenda 2030 in Sweden is a parliamentary-bound goal that is fixed, even though we are now changing this with PGU.

The goal for PGU was decided in 2003 and today has no formal effect. I therefore wonder why Olle Thorell considers that PGU should remain. It has no real function as, among other things, it is included within the work for Agenda 2030 and is reported in connection with the reporting for Agenda 2030. To have a double objective, is it not just double bureaucracy in the traditional Swedish spirit? I do not understand why one wants to prevent a simplification and a clarification that is in line with reality, with the year we are actually in and with the status in that work.

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

Olle Thorell (S)

Madam Speaker! How nice that I get to say something about PGU in relation to Agenda 2030 as well. I did not have time for that in my speech.

Sweden presented the world-unique policy for global development in 2003, following solid referral work with dialogue with civil society, conversations with researchers, and a large anchoring effort. We were then a pioneer in the world in conducting a coherence policy where all policy areas should move in the same direction and contribute to global development. It was in the wake of Agenda 21 and the Rio Meeting. It was unique and world-leading and has had others follow suit. It was good.

Then we can think that Sweden did not do enough of it under both Social Democratic and other governments. But it is a good guideline.

It would be simple if one could just remove it and replace it with Agenda 2030. If it is to have even a little bit of credibility, this government needs to invest something in the Agenda 2030 work. But that is not what is being done. The national coordinator has been removed and the office has been shut down. The instructions are being changed so that the same mandatory writings to departments and agencies regarding the follow-up of the Agenda 2030 work are not included at all. It is gravely deprioritized by this government. Yasmine Eriksson's point therefore falls quite flat, unfortunately.

There should be a common understanding in this chamber that the policies should move in the same direction in order to be more effective and purposeful.

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

Katarina Tolgfors (M)

Madam Speaker! Let me begin by moving for approval of the proposal in the committee's budget report UU2 on expenditure area 7 Sweden's international aid.

The world is changing at a rapid pace, and we live in times of unrest with conflicts and wars in our immediate vicinity and in other places in the world. In just the last five years, major geopolitical changes have occurred that affect developments in the world, in Europe, and in Sweden. We have had a global pandemic. Russia's illegal war of aggression against Ukraine will soon have been ongoing for three years. We see an escalating level of conflict in the Middle East after October 7, 2023. In Syria, a dictator has fallen, but the uncertainty over what will come instead is great.

The high inflation means that large parts of the world are experiencing economic decline or stagnation and low growth. In the USA, the incoming president signals that increases in trade tariffs may become relevant, which could have a major impact on the world economy. These factors contribute to uncertainty and protectionist trends.

As a necessary consequence of these geopolitical changes, the government is carrying out a much-needed reforming of Sweden's international aid. Freedom, empowerment, and sustainable growth are the guiding principles.

Madam Speaker! In the Swedish National Audit Office's audits and in analyses by the Expert Group for Aid Analysis, EBA, serious deficiencies in aid management have been pointed out repeatedly. Insufficient follow-up, too many and unmanageable strategies, as well as insufficient reporting of the long-term effects of the aid, have long been a problem. Recently, Svenska Dagbladet revealed how a lack of control has previously led to millions of kronor in aid funds being used in a way that contravenes rules and intentions. It is unacceptable and undermines trust in the aid.

I am therefore pleased that the Swedish National Audit Office has now stated that a new audit of Sida should be carried out regarding how and whether Sida conducts the humanitarian aid in an effective manner according to the intentions that exist in the new reform agenda.

During 2024, it is estimated that almost 300 million people will need humanitarian support and assistance. This is far beyond the total pool of money that the rest of the world can provide. It is therefore important that all resources are used in as effective a way as possible, according to the Swedish National Audit Office.

Madam Speaker! With the reform agenda, the government is reducing the number of strategies to provide clearer guidance to authorities and to improve and facilitate follow-up. The number of bilateral cooperation countries is reduced from 37 to 30 countries. The number of intermediaries and middle-men will be fewer so that we reduce bureaucracy and can achieve better efficiency and accuracy. Sweden's efforts shall be directed where the support is most needed and where the conditions to do the most good are best.

Old aid strategies are being replaced with new, sharper country strategies. These will contain clearer objectives and increased requirements for the partner countries. We expect from the recipient countries that we can see concrete progress in necessary reforms, that they support democracy, human rights and the rule of law principles, and that they conduct an active work against corruption.

Madam Speaker! Let me give a few examples of how Swedish aid is used, and let me start with Ukraine.

Ukraine is the largest recipient of Swedish aid due to the horrific war currently taking place there. Russia is conducting terror and a deliberate warfare to destroy cities, people, and infrastructure. The Government and the Riksdag have so far decided on 17 support packages to Ukraine containing military, humanitarian, and economic support. The total amount of Swedish support to Ukraine amounted at the end of October this year to around 60 billion kronor. And in recent days, the Government has decided on an additional targeted support of 110 million kronor to Ukraine's humanitarian initiative Grain from Ukraine. It is a support that goes to the UN's food program World Food Program, WFP, which is the implementing partner in the initiative.

Russia has during the late autumn increased and intensified its attacks against several areas and cities in Ukraine with the aim of knocking out the energy supply. An important part of the Swedish support to Ukraine is aimed at strengthening the resilience of Ukrainian society, and Sweden's and the EU's assistance goes, among other things, to investments in the country's energy systems.

I also want to highlight the humanitarian support that, through UN Women, has contributed to a total of 76,000 women and girls receiving help, including through safe space centers that offer women psychological, humanitarian and social services and support. Furthermore, Swedish aid to the International Planned Parenthood Federation, IPPF, has contributed to approximately 340 health workers receiving training in the clinical management of rape.

Other examples of how Swedish aid is used in Ukraine are contributions to the continuation of the country's EU integration. An important part of that is to focus on the Ukrainian decentralization reform, not least through support for local self-governments. Another important component in this is to strengthen transparency and combat corruption. The support for Ukraine's EU rapprochement is intended to contribute to democratization, stability, and security in our neighboring region. It is in Sweden's interest.

Madam Speaker! I also want to say a few words about the situation in the Middle East and in Gaza.

I may be able to calm Member Thorell a little by telling him that the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Benjamin Dousa, is currently in the area to visit both Israel and Palestine. I believe it is a good prioritization. The Member is welcome to join us others in the debate.

After Hamas' attack against Israeli civilians on October 7, 2023, a very difficult humanitarian situation prevails for the people in Gaza. Of the 250 people that Hamas took as hostages, according to Israeli reports, approximately 100 Israelis are still being held as hostages by Hamas.

Gaza is a geographically small area with a relatively large number of people. This contributes to the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza as a result of the conflict between Hamas and Israel, as well as the fact that Hamas has placed weapon depots and supplies at schools and hospitals where civilians stay. As in all conflicts, women and children are particularly vulnerable.

Sweden's support to Gaza has increased due to the worsening situation. Since October 2023, Sweden has contributed over 520 million kronor in humanitarian aid aimed at emergency relief for the severely affected people in Gaza.

Madam Speaker! I want to mention two strategies that are prioritized in the reform agenda. One is the initiative to strengthen girls' and women's empowerment and freedom. We see that rights for girls and women are being rolled back in many different ways, and this is happening, among other places, in Afghanistan but also in several other places in the world, not least in the Middle East.

Today, approximately 71 percent of the world's population live in countries that are not democratic. Therefore, the second strategy I want to mention is the one aimed at investments in projects and collaborations with countries where Sweden's aid funds can contribute to strengthening human rights, democracy, and the principles of the rule of law. Defending freedom and democracy is important for stability, peace, and security.

In conclusion, Madam Speaker! It is clearly stated in the government's reform agenda that we link trade issues more closely to development aid. We are convinced that this is what provides the most sustainable and long-term effects in the fight against poverty.

A positive example is that the EU, including Sweden, signed a free trade agreement with the Mercosur trade coalition, which includes Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay and Paraguay, in early December. Sweden also continues to direct engagement towards Latin America to support human rights workers and the work to strengthen the principles of the rule of law.

Madam Speaker! The need for support in the world is enormous, but it is not the Swedish aid. It is therefore both good and necessary that we reform the aid and that agencies such as Sida, under new leadership, are now making a comprehensive change and reviewing the structure, methods, reporting, and follow-up of the operations so that we can ensure that Swedish aid is effective and transparent and that the support reaches the countries and people who need it most - and reaches there where the aid has the best conditions to do good and be sustainable.

(Applause)

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Katarina Tolgfors, for the speech!

The government uses large sums from aid to fund things that are not aid. For example, it is 893 million for domestic integration and 3 billion for return in this new strategy.

According to the OECD's framework, only voluntary, safe and dignified return of refugees from one developing country to another can be considered aid activity. Repatriation from Sweden can never ever be financed with any form of aid funds.

That such a large amount of aid money is used for things that are not aid, which violates the OECD-DAC rules, is deeply serious. It is actually deceiving the Swedish people, I think.

How does the member view this? Should Sweden not stand up for the regulatory frameworks that we have actually been involved in approving?

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

Katarina Tolgfors (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the question!

The government has been clear that the aid policy shall focus, among other things, on being a tool to counter irregular migration. We shall increase returns. We shall contribute to effective work for voluntary return and sustainable reintegration.

This can be linked to the aid and the objectives of the aid. Many people, of course, want to return and come back to their home country, where they have their family, where they grew up and where they have their roots. It is also about being able to participate in rebuilding one's country and living under much better conditions than one does when one is in flight.

The starting point for the government and the Tidö parties is that they shall work with a safe and orderly regular migration that contributes to making development and welfare in our partner countries possible. It is also a reasonable requirement, when we receive people here and provide aid to other countries, that there is a will from these countries to actually take care of their own citizens.

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Katarina Tolgfors, for the answer!

The problem is that the things I listed are actually not aid. It is incorrect that aid funds are used for things that are not aid, I mean. Does the member not see that it is a problem that we do not follow the regulatory framework that exists for how aid funds may be used? This is a fact.

Since then, I have another question. The member spoke very well about equality. I know that the member is passionate about these issues, and I think that is good. But unfortunately, we saw how Swedish aid to SRHR, which had long been at around 7 percent of the total aid, dropped to 5.6 percent in 2022 and continued downward in 2023. We also saw how the appropriations to the UN Women system were halved in the last budget. Even the support to UNFPA, which does very important work for equality, has been cut significantly. We also see how equality issues and SRHR are under attack globally. In that case, Sweden needs to step up and not cut the aid.

It is said that equality is a core value, but that is not quite true when one actually cuts the aid to equality and SRHR in figures.

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

Katarina Tolgfors (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the questions!

Sweden has committed to the OECD-DAC, but it is not a law that stands above how the Swedish government prioritizes.

As I mentioned earlier, this can be linked to the work of securing a good, safe, and happy return for those who have migrated here, when the countries have developed in such a way that they actually have the possibility to take their citizens home again. This is perfectly reasonable. In that way, this meets the goals we have for Swedish aid, at least the goals that the government and the Tidö parties have.

Regarding SRHR, the member knows that I am the chairperson of the network in the Riksdag, where the member themselves is active. If we are to achieve equality and help other countries achieve equality, one must use the entire toolbox. It does not necessarily become better because one puts a label on it and says: Now we have a feminist foreign policy.

This government, with this reform agenda, has a number of prioritized strategies. Each strategy can be linked to measures to strengthen girls and women. As I mentioned earlier, this applies, for example, to the work on democracy. Democracy activists are increasingly being subjected to reprisals. Often, they are women.

We had Julia Navalnaya here in the Riksdag. We heard her story about the importance of free speech, of being able to practice democracy, of free journalism and free media.

These are measures that also strengthen girls and women.

I also mentioned how we direct aid in order to specifically strengthen education and to strengthen girls' and women's health and so on.

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

Anna Lasses (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you to Katarina Tolgfors for a very engaged and genuine speech! I can really identify with a great deal of what Katarina Tolgfors raised.

But I simply have to ask a question, because I just can't quite make sense of this. Now the government and the government base have chosen to cut the aid budget. Then, within the aid budget, a redistribution has also been made. It is said that a larger share than before shall go to humanitarian aid and that a slightly smaller share than before shall go to the more long-term development aid. This means that in some way it becomes double cuts in development aid.

This is happening at the same time as all organizations, researchers, and others working with aid emphasize that one should now, more than ever, invest more in precisely long-term development aid, not least in order to prevent further conflicts and crises in the world.

It is not only Sweden that does this, I want to say. But my question is: Why does one choose, in this situation, to make this redistribution between the acute aid and the more long-term?

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

Katarina Tolgfors (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the questions!

I will be honest that the level of aid will decrease somewhat. But it is still higher levels than it was, for example, during the first S-led mandate period eight years ago.

The level goes down somewhat, but there is still a large reform space and still space to continue to invest to get it right. But one cannot have 70 strategies, as there were for a while. We are reducing it to be able to focus, and we must prioritize.

If it had been possible, I believe that many in here would like to give more to even more and do even more. But it is not only Sweden that is to contribute to this. We are still one of the largest aid donors in the world, and we shall continue to be. We shall continue to be engaged, but we must prioritize.

The government and the Tidö parties prioritize the immediate area of Ukraine. But there are initiatives out in the world that continue. I just gave an example with South America. There, countries have been able to lift themselves out of poverty. A lot of work is still being done there regarding democracy issues, the principles of the rule of law, and human rights defenders.

Many countries are so-called middle-income countries. There, we believe that trade and growth in the economy is what, in the long term, enables countries and people to lift themselves out of poverty and gain agency over their lives and their economy.

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

Anna Lasses (C)

Madam Speaker! Absolutely, trade is good. The member knows from before that the party Centerpartiet agrees with that investment. Everything the member says is good, absolutely.

But my question is still: Why is the redistribution being made from more long-term development aid to the more short-term acute aid in a world where most agree that one should do exactly the opposite? That is my question.

It is not so much about us being the largest aid donor or so. It is precisely the distribution that is the big question.

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

Katarina Tolgfors (M)

Madam Speaker! I shall try to elaborate on that, the member.

One example is the investments in Swedfund. There we see that we get a leverage and a development where many projects point towards a more sustainable result.

Giving more money is not always what yields the best effect. One example is Afghanistan. There, Sweden and other countries in the world provided a lot of aid for a very long time. It was the largest recipient country for Swedish aid for a long period.

Today, one is dependent on aid. It is 60 percent of the Afghans' economy that is international aid. It is not a sustainable development and not a sustainable investment.

We must ensure that every Swedish tax krona achieves the greatest possible return where there are the best conditions to develop a country, develop people and give them empowerment, and where we see long-term results that Sweden is part of and contributes to.

That the humanitarian aid is increasing is precisely due to the increase in conflicts and crises. There we see that the money goes out directly. They are to reach the most distressed directly in order to alleviate distress and to ensure that people survive the day.

We have a large number of conflicts. We have people in great need of receiving assistance, of getting help and support with health, water to survive and food for the day. It is something that I am proud that the government and the Tidö parties prioritize.

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

Olle Thorell (S)

Madam Speaker! It is quite true, Katarina Tolgfors, that we appreciate one another in the debate. Even though the Minister is absent for other important assignments, it is we who are here debating, and I think we are conversing in a good way. I shall have to ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs in writing when he returns how he experienced the whole of it in Israel and Palestine.

I want to ask Katarina Tolgfors about the cuts that have now been made to the aid to Palestinian organizations. It is an event that looks like a thought. When Jakob Granit visits Israel and Palestine, he meets no Palestinian organizations, and there has been much skepticism about providing support to UNRWA.

Support is being removed for the Ecumenical Companion Program, which, for example, protects school children on their way to school. Support is being removed for Defence for Children International - Palestine, which visits Palestinian children in prisons and ensures that they are not subjected to abuse and other such things, and documents it. It is very serious.

But the most serious thing is that one is removing support for organizations such as al-Haq, which document and present evidence of abuses, violations of the laws of war, crimes against humanity, and what could be designated as genocide at some point in the future, which are committed by both sides. One is removing that support. Why? How can one stand for such a policy?

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

Katarina Tolgfors (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the question, Member Thorell!

It is a very difficult situation in Gaza, which the member, who also sits on the Committee on Foreign Affairs, is aware of. It is difficult with the accessibility for aid workers and for aid to reach.

It can be equally difficult to assess that the money reaches where it is supposed to and that the measures the member mentions can actually be implemented in a safe manner.

As you know, it is not the case that individual members of Parliament control where the aid money goes. I mentioned in my speech that Sweden has, since October 2023, increased the humanitarian aid to Gaza because the situation is acute.

It is urgent for the people and the civilians who are affected. On one hand, you have a terrorist organization that does not hesitate to use Palestinians as human shields. On the other hand, you have Israel, which has the right to defend itself but which must, of course, stay within international law and within the rules and laws of war.

It is an incredibly complex, deep and far-reaching conflict. I cannot judge whether it is one effort or the other that is the best. There, I trust that Sida and other organizations, which work with this and have done so for a long time, can themselves say where the support is best needed.

Sweden has increased the support that we believe is the most acute right now, and that is the humanitarian support. The conditions for working with aid for development are quite poor right now.

If UNRWA is as good as I hear from the opposition in many debates, and they are the only ones said to be able to operate in Gaza, I hope that UNRWA ensures that the safety of children is guaranteed and sees to it that the aid reaches where it is needed.

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

Olle Thorell (S)

Madam Speaker! I am somewhat dismayed when I hear my colleague Tolgfors here tell that it is so very difficult to know that the money is going to the right things because Gaza has been bombed to rubble.

What I mention – al-Haq, the Ecumenical Companion Programme, Defence for Children International - Palestine – we know is useful and good. It is effective and heart-warming, and a good thing to do. We know that. It is not about it being completely impossible to carry out that work under the state of war.

UNRWA may not be the perfect organization. But it is the organization that exists to distribute humanitarian aid.

It is clear that the government has increased the humanitarian aid to Gaza, and it would be damn well something else if it weren't, when one sees what it looks like in Gaza. We see that tens of thousands of people have died and that the majority of houses are rubble. So it is clear that one needs to increase the humanitarian aid.

What I think is wrong is that development aid, good projects, and useful interventions other than humanitarian aid have been unilaterally cut. Because a society needs to be built when the war is over, and even when the food parcels have arrived, a future is needed on the West Bank and in Gaza. In that case, it is not enough to say that one sends so much money in humanitarian aid. We need to build trust, and we need to build a long-term future that the children there can believe in. And we do not do that by cutting back.

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

Katarina Tolgfors (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Thorell for this. It is actually very good that we are now standing here in the chamber in the evening so that I know that it is not an avatar or some AI-generated Olle Thorell that I am speaking with. Jokes aside, this is a very serious subject.

I am completely convinced that the government has no other intentions with its priorities for the aid, help, and support to Gaza than that they should reach and that they should reach what is the most acute right now.

There may come a time for the reconstruction of society by the people of Gaza. But that time is not right now, for now it is obviously the most urgent aid that is needed.

I also believe that we can be honest and say that regardless of which party we belong to, we stand here and are engaged in these issues because we see that there is very much that needs to be done all around the world. Sweden has increased its support. Sweden stands behind a two-state solution. There is a hostage who must be released and who is probably living under appalling conditions. There are hopefully opportunities for peace talks for the people in Israel and for the people in Gaza.

Sweden is not the only country providing support to Gaza. More countries are needed. We do what we can in cooperation with the EU to gain more muscle and ensure that the people who are affected right now survive the day.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank Katarina Tolgfors for her speech. I had not intended to highlight the Palestine aid specifically. But given the answers we have received, I am nevertheless forced to do so. A good number of the organizations that Member Thorell speaks about are organizations that primarily work in Israel and the West Bank and not at all to the same extent in Gaza. This applies especially to the Ecumenical Companion Program, which has had no activity in Gaza since 2006 or 2008 because it has been too unsafe to be there. I am a bit unsure of the year.

In the government's new Palestine strategy, the word occupation is not mentioned as much. They do not place as much weight on it. On the other hand, they talk very much about a two-state solution, which is positive. They are also very concerned about the increased settler violence. The settler violence is primarily the violence that occurs in the West Bank and in East Jerusalem. In those cases, it is organizations such as Breaking the Silence, an Israeli organization, and the Swedish Ecumenical Companion Programme, which is part of the church in the world, that act there and monitor what the settlers do. They report and also have a calming effect on precisely the settler violence.

At the same time, there are some of the Palestinian organizations, such as al-Haq, which primarily investigate human rights violations occurring from the Israeli side but especially from the Palestinian Authority.

Should we have a two-state solution? Should there be a possibility for it? If we set aside the aid to Gaza for the moment and only consider how we would like society to develop in the rest of Palestine, then it is required that we have these types of organizations that work with human rights, that work with democratization, and that work against the settlement violence that even the government says it is opposed to.

I wonder therefore: How are we to invest in this when this aid is being withdrawn?

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

Katarina Tolgfors (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the question.

I will go back to what I said earlier. The government prioritizes the support that is believed to be most acute right now, and that is humanitarian support to the affected people in Gaza who need food, who need water and who need medical care.

There are a number of other organizations operating in the area, but the possibilities for them to actually operate in a way that yields results right now are uncertain. I believe that what needs to be done first is to demand that Hamas release the hostages. That is number one so that one can, above all, be able to open up for peace discussions and so that it will become safer in Gaza.

When it comes to the settlers and the violence, I think it is good that the government sees this. The EU and other countries are working much closer to the area than Sweden. Sweden supports, and we work through other organizations. But it is not only Sweden that does this. I believe many agree that if a solution is to be reached in this area, neighboring countries in the region must contribute. And right now, we unfortunately see an escalation of violence, unrest, and conflicts. It is spreading instead.

Again: In this situation, I am very confident that the government is making the right priorities regarding the Swedish support and aid. Then much else needs to be done, and there Sweden can be involved in various international forums - EU and others - to ensure that also the other problems that exist in this situation are solved, but not with Swedish aid and not right now.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! We will not agree here. I believe we have somewhat different views on which measures are best to reduce settler violence.

But I want to highlight another issue that has been raised in the debate, and it concerns the effectiveness of the aid. Some of us in the Committee on Foreign Affairs were in New York at the beginning of the autumn and met with several UN bodies there. Something that was very telling from several of them was that they are receiving more and more mandates and that there are more and more things they are supposed to do, but they have less and less money. And these funds are often earmarked for specific projects.

At the same time, we know that core funding to a good number of these organizations is sometimes what is most effective. It allows these large organizations to be agile, to be able to shift their positions, to be able to coordinate, and so on. We saw it when the full-scale invasion of Ukraine occurred. Then UNDP was there very quickly and organized things. We saw it in Afghanistan when the Taliban took over. Then UNDP was one of the few organizations that remained at all. We see roughly the same thing in Syria now. Rapid world events mean that it is required that some of these large organizations have enough money to be very effective and very flexible.

At the same time, we see that the Swedish government is removing all support from one of the largest organizations, Unaids. There will be reduced support to UN Women and reduced support to UN Peacebuilding Fund, UNFPA and also to UNDP, while the government says it wants to increase the efficiency of the aid.

I wonder therefore: How does this actually add up?

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

Katarina Tolgfors (M)

Madam Speaker! I have also had the privilege of being in New York at the UN women's conference, where one stays for two weeks. The first week was a conference, and the second week was dedicated to speed dating, where I met 18 UN organizations in a week. It was educational and good.

The UN is a global platform where Sweden still has a great commitment. We see that the UN provides opportunities that no other organization can have. At the same time, I must say that a reflection I had after the speed dating with the UN organizations was that they all sat in their own skyscraper on Manhattan. I saw opportunities for efficiency already there.

Information is emerging showing that UN organizations are releasing facts and reports that are incorrect. Even researchers say that figures lack evidence. We see that the highest representative of the UN chooses to meet Putin but not Zelenskyy.

For me, the UN is an important organization, but it is also a large ship. It is absolutely necessary to review what the UN does and how the UN can work better, more transparently, and more accurately. Then, I know that very many UN organizations do a fantastic job. They have muscles and opportunities that many small organizations cannot have.

But back to the core issue in the reform agenda: Yes, we are reducing the core support, and I believe that the UN will survive this. I believe it is an opportunity for the UN to ensure that it streamlines, focuses, and becomes its very best.

(Applause)

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Madam Speaker! I want to begin by moving for the approval of reservations 1 and 2, which we share in the opposition. I also refer to our special statement, which means that we do not support expenditure area 7 and will abstain in that vote.

The Swedish government has, since taking office, initiated a paradigm shift regarding aid, among other things with the justification that it should become more efficient. It is, however, difficult to see how large cuts lead to efficiency. Swedish aid, which in global comparisons has received top marks, is now instead being torn apart, something that creates concern not only in Sweden but also internationally.

Of course, the aid can be developed, and it should be developed and improved. But why not start from what actually works?

That the government and the Sweden Democrats have already previously abandoned the one percent goal and reduced aid at a time when extreme poverty is increasing and the needs are greatest is a blow to the people who are having the hardest time. The government has also signaled that it intends to reduce aid by an additional 3 billion from 2026. Sweden will then quite soon fall below the EU's recommendations that 0.7 percent of GNI should go to aid. It is quite frankly shameful!

Vänsterpartiet stands up for the world's poor and still allocates 1 percent of GDP to aid, while we make large investments in school, healthcare and elderly care in our budget. It works with the right priorities.

It is serious that the government is eroding aid by using aid funds for things that may not be counted as aid according to the OECD-DAC rules. This applies, for example, to domestic costs for integration and return migration. The Swedish Migration Agency receives a large sum from the aid and thus becomes one of the largest aid recipients. This does not benefit the goals of the aid, and it undermines Sweden's credibility.

The Riksdag's overall goal for aid is to create conditions for better living conditions for people living in poverty and oppression. We are therefore deeply concerned that the government, in the reform agenda, to an excessive extent emphasizes the importance of aid benefiting Swedish interests such as trade and business.

In the autumn budget, the government is investing 800 million kronor in special Ukraine credit guarantees and a total of 1.2 billion in a financing instrument that is not yet finished, something that does not meet the goals for aid and thus can hardly be called aid. There is a risk that we are moving towards more tied aid, something that was abolished decades ago as both expensive and ineffective aid. Aid should not stem from Swedish interests but from poverty reduction and the recipient's needs.

The government abolished the feminist foreign policy but simultaneously says that equality is a core value. It is difficult to take this seriously when the government reduces the financial support for equality and SRHR.

The risk is great that when Trump comes to power, he will choke off all funding to organizations that even mention family planning and abortion. In a time when equality, LGBTQ+ rights and the right to SRHR are under attack, Sweden needs to step up and act as a counterweight.

Access to clean water and basic sanitation is also an important equality issue. Every year, over 1 million mothers and newborns die due to infections linked to a lack of clean water, sanitation, and hygiene in connection with childbirth. This is shown by a report from Wateraid.

Vänsterpartiet considers that the gender perspective should permeate all aid activities, something that is missing in the reform agenda, and that half of the aid should go to women and girls as well as that 10 percent should be earmarked for SRHR, sexual and reproductive health and rights. We know that investments in equality benefit the entire social development.

For over 60 years, Swedish civil society organizations and popular movements have played a central role in aid work. The government has developed a new strategy for civil society - a strategy that was preceded by great concern and turmoil when Sida terminated a large number of agreements, which affected around 2,000 partners in 90 countries worldwide who work for democracy, human rights, women's rights and so on.

Now organizations have been informed about who can apply again, but many questions and much uncertainty remain. The reorganization could have been handled much better if, for example, entered agreements had been allowed to run their course. It has, in other words, not been handled particularly efficiently.

It is also noteworthy that the government is abandoning PGU, for which there is a broad political agreement. This is being done without any debate. The government refers to Agenda 2030. It is an area where the government has done far too little.

It is also deeply worrying that aid is being reduced or completely withdrawn to some of the poorest and most vulnerable people in the world. This concerns countries such as Cambodia, Mali, South Sudan and Burkina Faso. Those who are hit hardest are women and children, who get poorer access to, among other things, maternal and healthcare.

Cambodia celebrates the regime over the withdrawn aid. The losers are the brave women and men who, despite threats of imprisonment, dare to stand up for democracy and trade union and human rights. The aid to Afghanistan has been cut. In Afghanistan, two-thirds of all children depend on emergency aid to survive. It is serious. This is done despite the fact that there are organizations on the ground that can make a difference and, for example, contribute to providing girls with a safe education - organizations such as Save the Children and Unicef.

In our immediate vicinity, the war in Ukraine is raging, and the civilian population there has been hit hard. Of course, we shall continue to assist the Ukrainian people in all ways—politically, humanitarily, and militarily. But we must also not turn a blind eye to the conflicts taking place in other parts of the world.

The reconstruction of Ukraine will cost enormous sums. Here, the rest of the world must find other solutions than solely burdening aid.

War and conflicts have greatly increased the need for humanitarian support. The world faces a hunger catastrophe in several places. The situation is worst in Sudan and in Gaza. Sudan, with 11 million people fleeing war, rape, and famine, is perhaps the worst humanitarian catastrophe in the world right now, according to the UN. In this situation, the rest of the world must do its utmost to assist with food, medicine, and supplies, among other things through the UN agency World Food Programme. The rest of the world must also act to end the war, among other things by ensuring that arms deliveries to the parties are stopped. Sweden shall not sell weapons to countries that contribute to the conflict.

In Gaza, the situation is beyond catastrophic. 44,000 civilians have been killed, of whom 70 percent are women and children. Hospitals, schools and residential buildings are leveled, and the shortage of food is acute. Children are dying of starvation at this moment.

Of course, we condemn Hamas's crimes on October 7, 2023, but that does not justify the genocide that is currently taking place in Gaza - something that is also confirmed in a report from Amnesty. The war must come to an end, and I am pleased that Sweden finally voted for a permanent ceasefire in the UN. However, words are not enough. Now, Sweden must work for sanctions against Israel and start by stopping the association agreement between the EU and Israel. It must cost something to commit war crimes.

In the shadow of Gaza, the oppression and persecution of Palestinians has significantly worsened in the West Bank. Over 50 Palestinian communities have been destroyed, and the population has been forcibly removed by aggressive settlers with active or passive support from Israeli police and military. At the same time, 41 illegal Israeli settlements have been added, according to the Israeli human rights organization Kerem Navot. Extensive aid to Palestine will be needed for a long time.

In this difficult situation, the government chooses to take completely incorrect measures, such as phasing out the strategy for Palestine, choking off support to Palestinian organizations that work for human rights, and withdrawing support for the important accompaniment program. Support for organizations that work for democracy is more important today than ever. Aid to Palestine must instead increase, especially the support that goes to organizations that work for peace, democracy, human rights, and women's rights. The special strategy must be reintroduced.

Earth's resources are today extremely unequally distributed - between classes, between rich and poor countries, and between women and men. The world's wealthy people have caused the climate crisis and still have the greatest negative impact on the climate. But it is the developing countries that will have to bear 75-80 percent of the climate crisis's damages and costs, according to the World Bank. The rich countries must therefore increase support to the poor countries to meet the climate needs. In that work, it is important to include indigenous peoples and local communities as well as to support environmental defenders, who today are among the most vulnerable human rights defenders.

However, aid alone is not enough to meet the climate challenges; significantly more resources must be allocated here. Aid cannot solve all the world's challenges, but it can contribute to a positive development if used correctly. For real and long-term change, it is required that unsustainable debt burdens are managed and that measures are taken to establish fair tax systems and stop global capital and tax flight. Every year, developing countries lose more money due to corporate tax evasion than they receive in aid – money that is needed for investments in, for example, schools and healthcare.

With that, I thank you for the floor and wish the Speaker, the Chamber Office, the Foreign Affairs Committee's office, and my dear colleagues in the committee a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

(Applause)

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

Gudrun Brunegård (KD)

Madam Speaker! I am convinced that we all, from our different perspectives and starting points, want to work for a better world. Therefore, the recent years have been heavy.

First came the pandemic, which drove us all into isolation. In many countries, entire societies were shut down. Children were kept at home and were often deprived of a nutritious meal a day. Many families lost their income and were additionally affected by higher living costs, with more mouths to feed.

Since Russia's war against Ukraine began, which further drove up the cost of living. We feel it here in Sweden, but it became far more palpable in countries where a large part of the population already lived in poverty.

Every year, it is estimated that 12 million girls under the age of 18 are married off and also most often taken out of school. The UN estimates that 13 million more girls will be married off by 2030 as a consequence of covid-19, in order to reduce the families' burden of support.

Attending school generally constitutes a protection against early pregnancies and childbirth. Likewise, there is a connection between mothers who are too young, with bodies that are not fully developed, and complicated births, with increased mortality for both mother and child. The younger and less mature the mother is, not only physically but also in terms of mental maturity, the less ability she also has to take care of her child. In many countries, girls are not allowed to return and finish school if they have given birth. Their future thereby becomes even more difficult.

To this problem picture, the fact that violence in the home increased significantly during the pandemic should also be added.

At the same time, it is also well known that women's entrepreneurship strengthens the family and improves children's opportunities to attend school and shape their future. It is not without reason that a couple of the government's thematic priorities are to strengthen girls' and women's freedom and empowerment as well as to combat poverty through measures for job creation, trade, and education. For example, Swedish support to Unesco strengthens countries' education systems and increases countries' ability to provide education even to children affected by crises and children on the move. This contributes to combating poverty. This also applies to investments in vocational training in countries such as Liberia, Tanzania, and South Sudan, which have given closer to 600,000 young people and adults the opportunity for vocational training.

Give a man a fish, and you give him food for the day. Teach him to fish, and you give him food for the rest of his life. But educate a woman, and you develop the entire society. So goes a saying.

Education is the very backbone of human capital. Global Partnership for Education estimates that approximately half of the world's total economic growth can be linked to education. Improved education contributes to approximately two-thirds of the growth among the world's poorest. Furthermore, a higher level of education lies behind more than half of the reduction in inequality that has occurred since 1980.

Furthermore, education plays an important role in promoting economic development, peace and stability, and resilience against climate change. Together, these factors constitute a powerful spiral that simultaneously reduces the drivers behind migration.

Every dollar a government spends on education increases the country's GDP by 20.36 US dollars. A child who stays in school for one year longer increases their future earnings by 10 percent. The economic return that education provides is higher for women than for men in almost all countries.

Madam Speaker! The Christian Democrats make a difference in a government position. The largest category of partners that Sweden's development aid has are the civil society organizations. In total, the support mediated through civil society corresponds to 43 percent of Sida's total payments. 35 percent of the thematic support for human freedoms and rights and democracy has gone to efforts to strengthen civil society in countries where democracy may be under pressure. This is largely the Christian Democrats' achievement.

Through the Swedish partner organizations, closer to 1.8 billion kronor are mediated. The community of values that exists between the Swedish organizations and their sister organizations in the partner country guarantees long-term perspective, transparency, and efficiency through short decision-making paths and frequent, close contacts.

A transition of civil society support is currently being carried out. I have great understanding for the frustration that many have experienced during the process. Uncertainty is among the worst things there are. Now the strategy has been decided since the middle of September, and all organizations will have the opportunity to apply for grants. They will have a total of one year for the transition, until September next year. The purpose is to coordinate and streamline the assistance so that what is decided primarily is quality, efficiency, and transparency in combination with the extent to which the projects follow the government's thematic priorities.

Sweden is one of the world's most generous aid donors in relation to GNI. Only five countries achieved the UN goal last year of allocating 0.7 percent of GNI for aid. Sweden has therefore, through its support to and through multilateral organizations, been able to exert an influence that de facto exceeds the contribution itself. The Christian Democrats are the guarantor for continued generous Swedish aid of world-class standard.

Madam Speaker! By necessity, Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine has brought about major changes to Swedish aid. We cannot ignore the distress caused by systematic bombings of civilian social structures such as hospitals, shopping centers, and electricity production, or by the fact that 1.4 million homes have been destroyed. The human suffering of people who have been forced to flee is great.

Moldova, Armenia and Georgia are also countries that lie within the Russian sphere of influence. Sweden wants, with its contribution, to strengthen the countries' resilience against Russian influence, among other things by strengthening civil society, supporting free and independent media and combating corruption.

One of the government's thematic priorities is improved health for the most vulnerable. Every day, approximately 13,400 children die under the age of five around the world, and the leading causes of child mortality are diseases that, in most cases, can be prevented.

The development is moving in the right direction; child mortality has more than halved since the year 2000. Vaccinations, access to clean water and sanitation, and nutritious food are crucial. Through Swedish support, Unicef has contributed to 11,000 healthcare facilities and almost 33,000 schools gaining access to clean drinking water, toilets, and the possibility of handwashing.

Through the Global Fund, Sweden contributes to preventive measures against and treatment of three of the largest groups of diseases - malaria, tuberculosis and HIV/AIDS - in 120 countries, including by distributing impregnated mosquito nets in malaria-affected areas. An innovative Swedish research program is working on genetically modifying malaria mosquitoes so that the parasite cannot develop in them and thus is not spread further.

Sweden also plays an important role in the fight against antimicrobial resistance. Our contribution has led to several countries developing national action plans against AMR.

Madam Speaker! I apologize for exceeding the allotted speaking time. A number of issues have arisen during the debate that I need to comment on or provide supplements regarding.

The Freedom House reported two years ago that the democratic progress of the last 32 years had been erased after the pandemic. In 2023, a sad trend break occurred: For the first time in two decades, there are now more dictatorships than democracies in the world. Half of the 60 countries that have held national elections this year are in a democratic decline, and free and fair elections are threatened in several of them.

Democracy and human rights constitute the second largest thematic area at Sida. Swedish support has contributed to several countries being able to carry out free, peaceful, and fair elections, and Swedish election observers have been deployed through several different organizations to strengthen transparency and the possibility for civil society to demand accountability. A pleasing example in this case is Guatemala, where Sweden has supported civil society for many years. The country has now become a new democracy after a long period of authoritarian rule.

In light of previous segments in the debate, I also wish to alert the Chamber that the government on 10 December published a communication regarding the implementation of and Sweden's fulfillment of Agenda 2030. For each goal, there is an overall summary of the goal fulfillment and thereafter an account of thematic areas under the respective goal which the government assesses as having a significant impact on the fulfillment of the goals. In several cases, Sweden's efforts from a global perspective under the various goals are also included.

Finally, Madam Speaker, I want to address the developments in Syria over the past weeks. We Christian Democrats view a pluralistic society where different perspectives exist side by side and complement each other positively. Therefore, we view the developments in Syria with great concern, where a fundamentally fundamentalist Islamist - and terror-classified - organization has taken power after the previous dictatorship.

Christians were in Damascus when Paul came there around the year 35, some years after Jesus' death. A large Christian population has existed in the area ever since. Before the devastating war in Syria ten years ago, 10 percent of the population was Christian. Today, the figure may be as low as 2 percent. Due to the widespread persecution that prevailed under IS rule, most Christians left the country; of 1.5 million in 2011, only 300,000 Christians remained in 2022. Many of them are now worried that the atrocities from the time of IS will be repeated.

Here in Sweden, we need to use all available channels to ensure that this does not happen. It is our humanitarian and moral duty.

With this, I wish to support the committee's proposal in the report.

(Applause)

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

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

I want to return to the ecumenical companion program. For 20 years, companions have come to West Bank through the ecumenical companion program. They have come to protect the civilian population, mitigate violence, document human rights violations, and provide support to Palestinian and Israeli organizations and individuals working for a peaceful solution to the conflict. Companions have walked with Palestinian schoolchildren past military checkpoints on their way to school, provided international protection for livestock herders and families harvesting their olives, and documented when families have had their homes demolished or their land confiscated.

Sida has been one of the most important contributors to the ecumenical companion program, but now it seems that the money will be frozen. It appears that the support for this incredibly important program is stopping, and 20 years of experience of this important work risks being lost. How does the member view this?

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

Gudrun Brunegård (KD)

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

This is a tricky question. Personally, I have seen some examples of the escort program, and as far as I have been able to judge, it has contributed with protection and calm in areas where the ordinary civilian population has been squeezed a bit – perhaps had difficulty getting past roadblocks and such things. It has contributed to children and young people being able to go to school.

I have no closer knowledge of why the support has been withdrawn, but in parallel with this, I want to point out that the violence that has been raised during the debate and which some settlers stand for is something that we view very seriously - just as seriously as we view the violence and excessive violence that occurs from other sides. Settlers have also been subject to sanctions from the Swedish side.

Of course, the civilian population in Palestine must be able to live their lives in peace and tranquility, and that balance is important to maintain.

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the answer.

Is the member prepared to stand up for the ecumenical companion program and work to ensure it receives support in the future? It is, in fact, a very important contribution to the work of calming the situation in the area and supporting vulnerable people. Whether there are companions on site or not can make the difference when it comes to whether children dare to go to school or not. Since Sida has been one of the largest contributors, it is possible that the entire ecumenical companion program is now threatened.

I would like to know if the member is prepared to stand up for the companion program and work to ensure that it receives support in the future.

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

Gudrun Brunegård (KD)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the follow-up question.

I must, of course, find out what reasons lie behind the fact that the support has been withdrawn. If it is the case that there are good reasons to maintain the support and Sida does not provide new funding, I naturally hope that the various organizations can prioritize this through their own funding, if it is as good as it seems to be.

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

Anna Lasses (C)

Madam Speaker! Actually, this shouldn't be so difficult. The world is in chaos. Women's rights are decreasing, LGBTQI people's rights are decreasing, and children are being killed and mutilated with reference to the fact that there are things that are more important than their lives. This is happening at the same time as the climate, for some strange reason, follows the laws of nature and is changing due to human irresponsible behavior.

I will never forget the girl from Ukraine who, more than anything else, wished to be able to sleep one night in safety. To my ears, that sounds like a quite reasonable wish. But what do we who live in those parts of the world that are still comparatively quite well off and where we have democracy do? Well, we occupy ourselves with arguing over who is right and wrong instead of collectively standing firm and taking action. One might think it should be so simple, but of course, it is not. The world is complex, and in the midst of all this, we stand here today and debate Sweden's budget for Swedish aid.

Thus it is stated in the report that forms the basis for this debate: "The committee agrees with the government's assessment that aid is one of the most important foreign policy tools for meeting the complex challenges that we and the world face, as well as promoting and safeguarding Swedish interests. Swedish aid shall lift more people out of poverty and oppression and, in the long run, create prosperity."

I do not know how you interpret it – or yes, I know now after this debate. I think it sounds like aid is incredibly important for all of us, not only because it is morally right and proper that Sweden, as a prosperous country, should support those who are vulnerable, but also because it is about our own security in the restless world we live in. A secure world gives a secure Sweden.

I would like to go back to that day in September when the government presented its budget for 2025. I must admit that I was quite appalled when the Finance Minister looked as if she had found a treasure chest to pour out when she showed the graph to illustrate how many billions the government had found by cutting and saving on aid. Is this really how the government base views aid? I do not believe they see it as a burden that at least some want to cut completely, in a situation where aid is, on the contrary, more important than ever. This is what we have discussed here today, and we actually seem to agree on it.

Madam Speaker! There is quite a lot that I agree with the government base on regarding aid. Aid needs to be reformed, and aid policy needs to take into account how the world looks today and meet the world that will come tomorrow. Much of what is in the reform agenda is also good, but the conclusions on how this should be implemented in the best way are very different.

Right now, Sweden, together with many other large donor countries, is heading in the wrong direction. When those who work with aid and those who research aid agree that what is important in this situation is to invest in long-term projects, especially in the most vulnerable areas, Sweden, in company with many others, is doing exactly the opposite. We are removing development aid from the most vulnerable areas. Broadly speaking, the aid is now being redistributed so that a larger proportion goes to acute humanitarian aid instead of to long-term development aid.

Do not misunderstand me - the humanitarian aid is obviously extremely important. But Sweden as a leading country perhaps should not do exactly like all other countries. We perhaps should do the opposite: increase development aid and focus on the most vulnerable areas. In the short term, it will be challenging, and it might give the appearance of inefficiency in the national economists' graphs. In the long term, however, it can pay off. It is about how one views that matter of efficiency; it can be somewhat different things.

For the Center Party, this is obvious: When democracy, human rights and the climate are threatened, Sweden must be brave, take on the leadership role and, for example, support long-term projects in the most vulnerable places. We must not be defensive, which the government currently is in many respects on the foreign policy arena. They wait and see what everyone else does. We shall do exactly the opposite. We shall be first.

Swedish aid is important and works very well. We are all proud of Swedish aid, but we also want to continue to be that. Here, naturally, Swedish civil society, and civil society around the world, plays an important role.

Investing in children's education and equality is one of the most effective things one can do to increase a society's prosperity. We know this, and we have talked about it here today. It is also included in the government's reform agenda. As we have previously noted, the government nevertheless chooses to cut support to, for example, UNFPA, UN Women and Unaids.

Not investing in aid is simply penny-pinching. The Centre Party therefore wants to return to the one percent goal and presents in its budget a ladder that ensures we are back at 1 percent by 2028.

A friend of order can see that we have extended the restoration period by one year. There are slightly different reasons for this. One of them is that we choose to handle large parts of the support to Ukraine separately. We see, in fact, that Ukraine's needs are becoming ever greater, and we do not think the government's budget for this is sufficient. Therefore, we want to collect the main part of the support to Ukraine in a special fund that lies outside the aid budget.

Madam Speaker! One of the most incomprehensible things the government does in its future budget is to invest 3 billion kronor on forcibly removing people from Sweden to their countries of origin. It is just as much as the amount that, going forward, the government will cut from aid. This is being done despite all experience saying that it is both an inefficient and very expensive investment.

At the same time, we find several examples in the government's aid budget that conflict with the OECD-DAC framework. For example, it has been chosen to link migration policy to aid. Therefore, Madam Speaker, I would like to mention the Center Party's reservation 2, which concerns the fact that what we call aid must also follow the OECD-DAC framework.

Let's call a spade a spade. If the actual aid were to fall below the magical 0.7 percent limit, the government should probably actually stand up for it as well.

Madam Speaker! Finally, I would like to offer some praise. It is good that the government highlights the crucial role of business and entrepreneurship in building a society. It is also good that we invest in cooperation between Swedish companies and local companies in the recipient countries, not least when it comes to technology for climate transition.

We in the Center Party believe that this should always be based on the recipient's conditions and needs. We therefore consider it somewhat inappropriate with all the writings stating that the aid should benefit Swedish interests. Do not misunderstand me - of course Sweden and Swedish companies also benefit from this cooperation. However, this is not what should be the starting point; it is the recipient's needs that should guide it.

In summary, the Centre Party views the government's budget proposal for aid in the following way:

We believe that aid should be restored to 1 percent of GNI and that the majority of the money should be placed in a special fund for Ukraine.

We want a liberal feminist foreign policy that takes equality seriously.

We want Sweden to take the lead and dare to invest in long-term measures in the most vulnerable areas as well as in climate transition and small-scale entrepreneurship.

We believe that the link between migration and aid policy should be removed and that the OECD-DAC framework should be upheld.

In addition to my motion for approval of reservation 2, I and the Center Party traditionally abstain from taking a position regarding the budget framework itself and refer to the Center Party's special statement.

Finally, I would like to wish the Speaker, the Chamber Office, and my dear colleagues in the committee a very good and peaceful Christmas.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! Sweden shall be an international voice for democracy, peace and human rights. When the world faces several crises, such as the climate crisis, the depletion of biodiversity and the pushback against the rights of women and girls, Sweden must be a strong voice internationally. When rights are restricted and the security situation deteriorates, it is not the time to back down from our international commitments. On the contrary, it is then that Sweden must step forward.

But unfortunately, we do not see that in this budget. The government's reform agenda is instead a setback for Swedish foreign and development policy and a clear departure from the values that were upheld when Sweden pursued a feminist foreign policy.

The crises of recent years have been toughest for already poor countries, and it is their inhabitants who have been hit hardest by the climate crisis, the pandemic, the war in Ukraine, and the increased raw material prices.

More support is needed on several fronts. It is the Green Party's political conviction that we in Sweden can manage to meet the crises in our immediate vicinity, including through our support for Ukraine, while simultaneously continuing to maintain a generous level of aid globally. We shall not send the bill for the support to Ukraine to the world's poorest, which the government is currently doing.

Madam Speaker! There is much to address in this debate, but I will concentrate on three points.

Firstly, we want to restore the aid framework to 1 percent. The government's announced reduction of the aid framework means that we will fall short of the UN goal of 0.7 percent of GNI in aid by 2028, according to current projections. It is nothing less than a scandal. That the government is lowering its ambitions to be part of creating a better world is not unexpected but deeply regrettable. The government's announcement is bad news for the work for democracy, equality, and human rights all around the world. The future for millions of people suddenly looks even darker.

Miljöpartiet rejects the government's reduction and instead restores the aid to 1 percent for the next three years. We want to use the aid to accelerate the phasing out of fossil energy and enable investments in renewables to also reach the very poorest. We also want Sweden to be a leading force for climate justice in the global climate transition and invest in climate and environmental work in poor countries.

We want Sweden to pursue a feminist development and foreign policy that focuses on women's rights, political participation, economic empowerment, influence over peace work, freedom from violence, and the right to reproductive health.

We want Sweden to continue to be a leading donor and partner for people on the move and people who risk starvation. We also want to stop tax havens as well as capital and tax flight from the poor.

Furthermore, we want to strengthen the Swedish peace movement. Before 2024, the government cut the state financial support that has been given for 100 years to Swedish civil society organizations working for peace and disarmament. In a time with a deteriorated security policy situation, the peace-promoting work is even more important. We restore and double the support to the peace organizations with an investment totaling 40 million.

Miljöpartiet also wants to increase support for the UN. Core funding for UN organizations is needed so that they can be agile and implement measures during acute crises. Despite this, the government has instead reduced support to several important UN bodies in recent years. The government is choking off all support to Unaids and has also reduced the funding of UN Women, UN Peacebuilding Fund, the joint fund for Agenda 2030, UNFPA and UNDP during 2023-2024.

Cooperation is crucial in a difficult time with difficult challenges, such as those we face right now. In that case, more support for UN bodies is required – not less. We reject the government's cuts to international organizations and invest an additional 200 million kronor to increase the support to UN bodies.

Madam Speaker! Secondly, we say no to offsets for asylum reception. Miljöpartiet is against a hollowed-out aid where costs for receiving refugees in Sweden are taken from the aid. We want the offsets to be minimized. The aid should go towards fighting poverty, not towards administrative costs or national work. We therefore reject the government's offset for asylum seekers and those in need of protection within expenditure areas 8 and 13.

The Swedish Migration Agency will become one of the largest recipients of Swedish aid in 2025, as 2.6 billion SEK will go towards, among other things, covering costs for housing, even though many refugee shelters are currently standing empty. The government has also launched its new strategy for migration. The strategy repeats how the operations shall reduce migration to Sweden and increase repatriation and the number of deportations. It is not the role of aid, and this violates the aid rules that Sweden is to follow through OECD-DAC. It concerns 350 million tax kronor that instead should go towards helping the hungry and combating climate change.

The government says that there should be strengthened synergies between aid and migration. That means, in plain language, that money that would be used to lift people out of poverty and oppression is instead used to pay for empty reception places for asylum seekers. It is inefficient and misses the target.

There are synergies between aid and migration, but in that case, one should invest in continued strong development aid. When people receive support and help to stay through cooperation despite tough challenges, then migration decreases. That being said, the challenges with the expected climate changes are enormous, so we must all work together on a broad front.

Madam Speaker! The third point I want to highlight is that the government is abolishing PGU, the policy for global development. The government is phasing out the policy that has laid the foundation for Sweden's global development responsibility and has been a cornerstone of Sweden's global engagement since 2003. PGU was a pioneering and visionary step to ensure that Sweden's policy in all areas, not just within aid, contributes to a more sustainable and just global development. The decision is justified by that the government's work with PGU is now primarily conducted within the framework of the implementation of Agenda 2030 and the global goals for sustainable development.

What this means in practice is highly unclear. The government, in fact, closed the Agenda 2030 office earlier this year. They have also removed the requirement that all agencies shall report on their work with Agenda 2030 and cut the budget for the follow-up of the goals.

The cuts for the work with Agenda 2030 and the abolition of PGU are just further signs that the government is turning its back on global challenges and refraining from letting Sweden play a leading role in that work.

Madam Speaker! Finally, I just want to point out that the significance of the government's reform agenda remains shrouded in obscurity. One says one thing with fine phrasing but does not follow up with initiatives. For example, we see clear writings and statements regarding gender equality and SRHR, but the reality is different.

No, the government's reform agenda is heading in a different direction. The feminist foreign policy has been abolished, the proportion of aid with an equality component is decreasing, and even the proportion of Swedish aid that goes to sexual and reproductive health is decreasing. Instead, it is Swedish interests, migration, and export promotion that are at the top of the agenda.

That the government backs down from global responsibility undermines Sweden's credibility and influence in international cooperation. Sweden needs a feminist foreign and aid policy that dares to meet the global challenges with strength.

Madam Speaker! I conclude with a striking quote from Sveriges Radio's Ekot this morning. There, an interview was conducted with a leader from the Cambodian human rights organization Licadho, who, from the turn of the year, will lose its support from Sida despite the fact that human rights and democracy development in Cambodia is moving significantly backwards. Naly Pilorge, who leads Licadho, says about the decision to end the support, freely translated: This is very un-Swedish. When are you going to find yourselves again?

Madam Speaker! I wonder that too.

With this, I would like to take the opportunity to wish my committee colleagues, the committee secretariat, the chamber secretariat and the Speaker a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 17 December.)

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