International aid

Yasmine Eriksson (SD)

Madam Speaker! International aid is one of the policy areas that evokes strong feelings, and that is perhaps not so strange. It is about people in extreme vulnerability and people living in countries that, in the name of honesty, do not function particularly well. And it is about a lot of money. Sweden's aid for 2026 amounts to 53 billion, of which just over 43 billion is distributed within the framework of the expenditure area we are discussing today.

Madam Speaker! Functional aid saves lives, gives children a future, and creates stability where chaos would otherwise risk spreading. But when aid does not function, when the money does not reach its destination, when the interventions lack clear goals or follow-up, it is not only the results that are damaged, but also the trust in the aid. A damaged trust is exactly what many Swedish voters have received regarding aid. Therefore, it has been important for Sverigedemokraterna and the government to reform Swedish aid. We have laid the foundations, and the work of change is still ongoing.

Madam Speaker! In order for the aid to be defensible politically, morally and economically, order and clarity are required. Every aid krona must be justified, every intervention must have clear goals and every partner must be audited. We shall have a focus on results, efficiency and transparency.

Madam Speaker! In situations such as when war breaks out, when natural disasters strike, and when diseases, hunger, and water shortages threaten people's survival, humanitarian aid is extra important. But aid cannot, and must not, stop at just putting out fires. If we are serious about poverty reduction, aid must also build societies, strengthen institutions, and create conditions for self-sufficiency. Here, for example, trade and education are central.

Yes, it is true, trade is a large part of Sweden's aid priorities. This is often criticized by the opposition. But we know that Swedish companies have great competence, and trade cooperation is specifically requested by many countries.

Education is important for children but also for adults, in order to create conditions for economic security. When children get to go to school, not only do their future prospects increase, but entire societies change. Many children grow up in conflicts they have not chosen, in poverty they cannot influence, and in societies where they lack both protection and the chance to shape their own future.

When Swedish aid reaches children, it makes an enormous difference. Vaccinations save lives, and nutrition programs prevent malnutrition from becoming permanent. Safe school environments mean that girls and boys get to learn, develop, and dare to dream, and they reduce the risk of teenage pregnancies or child marriage.

This is not just a question of social measures, but it is a question of security policy investments. Children who receive an education are at less risk of being recruited by extremist groups. Children who receive safety and stability grow up to be adults who can contribute to peace, democracy, and functioning societies.

Madam Speaker! International aid must also be understood in a larger context. The world today is more uncertain than it has been in a long time. Conflicts, geopolitical rivalry, and instability affect us all. Aid that contributes to stability is therefore not just a matter of solidarity, but it is a matter of preventive policy. Stable societies reduce the risk of armed conflicts, reduce the space for extremist movements, and reduce the pressure on irregular migration.

Madam Speaker! I also want to mention Ukraine, which is currently our primary foreign policy priority and our largest recipient of Swedish aid. Support for Ukraine is not just a matter of humanitarian aid, but it is also about reconstruction, demining, functioning energy systems, and institutions that can sustain the country after the war.

Sweden's aid to Ukraine and our neighboring region is therefore part of our overall security policy. To invest in stability there is to invest in security here.

Madam Speaker! Sweden cannot do everything everywhere. The goals within Swedish aid have been far too scattered. Sida had over 400 goals to work towards. Aid that is already complex does not benefit from having so many goals. This is something we must reduce. Strong aid requires priorities: geographically, thematically, and in the choice of partners. We must achieve efficiency and shorten the chain because at every intermediary, resources that would benefit the recipient are lost.

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the speech.

Yasmine Eriksson says that there should be order and clarity in the aid and that the aid should be scrutinized thoroughly. It then becomes strange when we see how the government has done its best to obscure the aid agreements between Somalia and Sweden. The government has been extremely clear that no aid funds may go to any organization that has even the slightest connection with Hamas or other Islamist organizations. The government even froze the aid to Palestine and demanded that Sida carry out two separate investigations to ensure that not a single Swedish krona went to any organization that had any connection whatsoever with Hamas.

On the other hand, there does not seem to be any problem at all with sending aid to Somalia's Prime Minister Hamza Abdi Barre, despite the fact that he has been noted for having made gross anti-Semitic statements and praised the terrorist organization Hamas. Against that background, it is at least remarkable. Should Swedish aid funds go to a corrupt Prime Minister who has made anti-Semitic statements and praised the terrorist organization Hamas? How can this be compatible with Sweden's policy of not supporting any organizations that have dealings with Islamist organizations, and how does it promote the work against corruption that the Minister for Development Cooperation has been so clear about wanting to intensify? Do the Sweden Democrats really stand behind this?

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

Yasmine Eriksson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I want to point out that I am not aware of any minister having concealed any aid agreement at all. Regarding aid that may have benefited Hamas, I completely agree with the member, namely that it is appalling and that it absolutely must not happen. That is why it is so important for us that we allocate resources to audit the aid. Transparency and visibility are important so that we can maintain trust in the aid. It is precisely in line with how we work, and it is deeply regrettable that aid may have reached extremist groups.

Regarding Somalia, the Sweden Democrats think it is extremely good that we had an agreement with Somalia that they would follow international law. That is what the discussions seem to have touched upon. We welcome that they have started to open up to taking back their own citizens. Then we will see how it goes moving forward, but we hope that it will still happen.

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the answer.

That the government has tried to obscure the agreements is incredibly obvious. It was only after the thorough investigations by Dagens Ekot and Dagens Nyheter that this became obvious and clear. Dagens Nyheter showed this, among other things, through an email conversation with the former Swedish ambassador in Somalia that they obtained. In the email, the ambassador clearly writes that the agreement that has been put in place should be kept secret, so it is obviously something they are ashamed of.

I do not think I am getting good enough answers to my question. Are we really going to give aid to a prime minister who is clearly antisemitic and who hails Hamas? Is that not going against Sweden's principles that we should not give any form of support to organizations that have any connection whatsoever with Islamist organizations?

I think it is highly remarkable that one proceeds in this manner. I would very much like to have an answer to that question.

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

Yasmine Eriksson (SD)

Madam Speaker! It was with the UNDP and the World Bank that Sweden signed agreements, and I assume that it is completely transparent, correct and public.

Regarding Somalia, it becomes a rhetorical question since the member cannot answer, but I wonder if the member does not want us to have any aid to Somalia or if Somalia should not be developed. It sounds almost like that from the member.

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

Anna Lasses (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you very much, Member Yasmine Eriksson, for your speech!

I perceive that the Sweden Democrats are very clear in the fight against Islamism and the fight to ensure that women's and girls' rights are not violated. I therefore wonder why the Sweden Democrats do not want support to go to Afghanistan. I am thinking of the long-term support, above all for girls' and women's education, and also the support to parts of Africa, where we know that Islamism is growing stronger. Education for girls and women is one of the absolute best tools to address this, which the member also highlighted in his speech.

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

Yasmine Eriksson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I assume that Anna Lasses' question concerns concluded land strategies. It is correct, as the member says, that we are against Islamism and that we do not want to see it emerge. We also want to support women and girls.

Even if we discontinue a country strategy or do not create a new country strategy when a strategy expires, the thematic strategies can still apply globally, even in countries where we discontinue a country strategy. This concerns, for example, the thematic strategies for human rights, democracy, and sexual and reproductive health.

That concluding a country strategy does not mean that no aid will reach, but we have, as the member knows, different types of strategies.

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

Anna Lasses (C)

Madam Speaker! At the same time, we know that large parts of the projects working with specifically girls' and women's education and rights in, for example, Afghanistan have been concluded, and we can also expect the same in large parts of Africa when it comes to Sweden's aid to these countries.

Then it may be the case that we have core support that possibly also reaches these areas, but then it is not a conscious strategy from Sweden. Therefore, my question remains: Why does one not want to build on-site – something that the Sverigedemokraterna often emphasize – when it comes to the education of girls and women in these countries, which have these problems?

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

Yasmine Eriksson (SD)

Madam Speaker! When it concerns larger organizations that Sweden has as partners, it is a conscious action, where we see in advance how they work and with whom they work. A prerequisite is also that we accept and believe in their competence and that they know where the needs are greatest and can direct the funds there. Therefore, the core support works well within the framework of those strategies.

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

Olle Thorell (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank Yasmine Eriksson for her speech. There were many beautiful words and commitment for children and girls in the world. I praise that – it is just a pity that Yasmine Eriksson's words have a very weak connection to her party's de facto policy.

The Sweden Democrats are the party that is at the forefront of dismantling Swedish aid and which has the lowest ambitions for what proportion of our gross national income should go to aid. The Sweden Democrats demonstrate in action something completely different than the words that Yasmine Eriksson stated.

In this statement, I also want to dwell on the obvious hypocrisy that exists regarding the fight against Islamism and the zero tolerance for aid to the terrorist organization Hamas. It does not add up. The Sweden Democrats want to stop with frenzy all support that can even be suspected of coming anywhere near Hamas, but at the same time, they are very proud of the agreement with Somalia, which turned out to be written after all.

The office of a Hamas-supporting prime minister has had an ATM installed by Sweden, where over 100 million kronor have been spent according to a deal between Sweden and Somalia. How does the zero tolerance relate to the total tolerance for corruption that one has towards Somalia?

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

Yasmine Eriksson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I think it is regrettable that the Social Democrats make it sound as if the Sweden Democrats and the government are doing something terrible when we provide aid. Sweden is the world's fourth largest donor of aid. That is not a small amount. We take an enormous global responsibility. I do not agree that we should have to be ashamed of the share we allocate to aid.

Regarding Somalia, I wonder: Does the member mean that he does not trust UNDP or the World Bank's efforts? Should we terminate our cooperation with the World Bank and UNDP if the member considers that they cannot convey aid in a way that is transparent and correct?

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

Olle Thorell (S)

Madam Speaker! UNDP and the World Bank are important organizations in the international infrastructure for development and aid. We shall, of course, cooperate with them, but not on anything, anywhere, and everywhere. We shall base our actions on projects that provide the greatest possible benefit for the tax money that we send out via, for example, the World Bank and UNDP.

The project in Somalia was advised against by the expert authority. It is Sida that is the expert authority and which makes assessments of which projects are viable, which have too great a risk of corruption, and which are worth investing in. Sida advised against the projects. The expert from Sida who was stationed at the embassy in Somalia was declared persona non grata when she waved the warning flag all too intensely for Somalia's taste. She was deported from there.

Of course we should cooperate with the large international organizations, but that does not mean that all projects that have ever been channeled through those organizations are okay. These projects are not okay. The World Bank was supposed to administer this entire sum of 100 million from the start, but they backed out when they found out that it was not a development project but a deal under the table with Somalia to repatriate deported Somalis "tit for tat". The World Bank did not want to be part of that, so they left it. But you in the majority of the Committee on Foreign Affairs refuse to let the World Bank and UNDP come and make observations about why it turned out the way it did.

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

Yasmine Eriksson (SD)

Madam Speaker! Regarding the World Bank, I have a completely different picture than Olle Thorell. What I have gathered is not that the World Bank withdrew in any way, but rather that the fund was fully subscribed and that it was therefore not possible for Sweden to top up the existing fund.

The member argues that we should not support all of UNDP's projects, that some are not good and that they have many projects that one might not want to support. I then assume that the member also means that he does not want to provide any core funding to UNDP.

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

Olle Thorell (S)

Madam Speaker! We Social Democrats have no reservations regarding the report. As is customary in the budget debates, we instead refer to our specific statement in the report and our positions in the committee motion we have for expenditure area 7. It is there that we have our alternative priorities and our general direction, and there our proposals are gathered. I will therefore hold this speech on a more general level.

Let me begin by describing the reality we now face. When one reads the government's budget for international aid for 2026, one thing is clear: This is not reforming, streamlining, or reprioritizing. This is a straight retreat and a dismantling of Swedish aid and development policy. It is a shift. Sweden is abandoning what has made us respected in the world: long-term perspective, solidarity, and an unwavering focus on fighting poverty, promoting human rights, and combating oppression.

Let me be clear from the very beginning: We Social Democrats stand wholeheartedly behind strong, long-term and comprehensive support for Ukraine – militarily, civilly, humanitarily and of course politically. Ukraine is fighting for its and Europe's freedom and must receive all the support that is needed.

But, Madam Speaker, it is something else entirely to say that the support for Ukraine is now to be financed by Sweden turning its back on the very poorest countries. Soon, over 20 percent of the entire Swedish aid budget will go to a single country. Ukraine receives more Swedish aid than all of Africa combined. It is, of course, not Ukraine's fault. It is the government's choice and prioritization that the price shall be borne by the world's most vulnerable people.

Madam Speaker! The Government has now concluded all long-term development cooperation with countries such as Liberia, Mozambique, Zimbabwe, Tanzania, Burkina Faso, Mali, Afghanistan, Myanmar, Cambodia and Bolivia. These are countries where Sweden has been present for decades and where Swedish efforts have done great good in reducing maternal mortality, strengthening girls' education, keeping democratic movements alive and building civil societies that have been able to withstand authoritarian forces.

What is happening now is not a responsible phasing out but a hasty abandonment that has enormous consequences. The government calls it focusing. Focusing does not have to be wrong – Sweden does not have to be in all countries at the same time. But if a focusing is to be serious, it must rest on reasonable criteria. Consequence analyses must have been carried out. It must be based on what needs exist and on the parliamentary goal to combat poverty and oppression.

This is not what is happening here. 10 of the 13 countries that Sweden is phasing out are so-called LDC countries – the least developed countries in the world, the very poorest. 7 of them are in Africa south of the Sahara, where 75 percent of the world's poorest children live. At the same time, the government has not touched the more prosperous program countries. Of 14 countries in the category of middle-income countries, only one has been phased out. This is not needs-based. It is not logical. It is not responsible. It is a systematic shift away from the very poorest countries.

Madam Speaker! This is a fundamental breach of the tradition that has made Sweden respected in the world. It is geopolitically unwise and security-politically ill-considered. When Sweden turns its back on these countries, there are others who step forward to fill the vacuum: China, Russia, and the Gulf States are gaining ever greater influence there. That is the last thing Sweden and an unstable world need when the rules-based world order is in turmoil and democracy is in retreat.

I want to move from the general plane to being very concrete about what this means in reality for real children now. Save the Children runs an extensive program in six provinces in Afghanistan. The program takes children out of child labor and into safe activities. They offer psychosocial support and "catch-up education" so that the children can get up to speed with their schoolwork. They register children in formal schooling, help parents secure income by starting small businesses, build child protection networks, and handle protection cases where children are particularly vulnerable. They support internally displaced persons and returning children. These are life-changing interventions in the most difficult imaginable environment: the Taliban's Afghanistan. They are doing real good.

But now this is being concluded hastily and very sadly. The agreement with Sida was valid until June 2026. All funds had already been paid out in May 2025. There were no reasons to terminate the program. The government nevertheless chose, through a change in the regulatory letter, to force Sida to stop the program as early as December 31, 2025, half a year ahead of schedule.

The consequences are brutal. Children who have been removed from child labor are not allowed to complete their education. They do not make it in time to be registered in school; the registration does not begin until March. Small business owners, mothers and fathers are left without help and funding. Child protection cases are terminated before the children have received help. Local networks are broken apart. 2.3 million people have returned to Afghanistan from Iran and Pakistan just this year, and Sweden is cutting off support just as the needs are exploding. This, Madam Speaker, is what an irresponsible phasing out entails. It is not worthy of Sweden.

All this is happening at the same time as the government shifts the purpose of aid from being based on the needs and rights of people in poverty and oppression to being based more on narrow Swedish self-interests: to stop migration, to promote exports, and to use aid policy as a means of blackmail, which is what is done in, for example, Somalia. This is not modern and reform-minded. It is old-fashioned, inefficient, and short-sighted. It will not make the world or Sweden safer.

I must mention this Somalia affair in this speech, because it is such a remarkable event. The government and the minister have repeatedly assured the Committee on Foreign Affairs that there is no written agreement between Sweden and Somalia. But what happened on Friday? Well, DN published this document – a seven-point agreement, in black and white – with writings on how approximately 100 million kronor shall be used, how IOM shall be involved, how Somali authorities shall receive deported persons, and how the aid money shall be channeled. The document is not signed, but it is quite obvious that it has been used as a steering document. Sweden's ambassador in Mogadishu asked the Government Offices to keep it secret because it was sensitive.

This raises important questions. Why did the government withhold the document from, among others, the Riksdag? On what legal basis were decisions regarding aid funds made based on an unsigned document? Transparency and traceability are not just technicalities, but they are the foundation for all serious foreign and development policy.

Madam Speaker! Aid policy is not just an expenditure area in the state budget, but it is also about Sweden's identity. What kind of country do we want to be, really? Do we want to be a country that takes responsibility for global challenges, such as poverty, hunger, pandemics, war, the climate crisis, and a lack of human rights? Do we want to be a country characterized by international solidarity and that takes its responsibility to create a fairer and more stable world? Do we want to be a leader and a pioneer among the world's countries? Or shall we be a country among others that lurks and only looks out for narrow national interests, that cuts back and withdraws, and that engages in aid at a level where we do not stand out, where we do not lead, and where we do not inspire and motivate anyone else? Shall Sweden choose to be a country that follows along on the international slippery slope, with lower aid, less responsibility, and lower ambitions, or shall we be a country that wants something more?

We Social Democrats believe that Sweden is not predestined to hang on the international slippery slope. We can choose another path. We can be a country that chooses to be a role model, that takes the baton, that mobilizes and inspires others, and that shows that international responsibility and solidarity actually mean something. We can choose to be a country that stands up and fights for a world order built on human rights and the principles of the rule of law – a country that fights poverty and inequality on a global scale because we know that it makes the world and Sweden safer and more stable. We can be a country that understands that aid is not money one throws away on feeling sorry for people far away, but an investment in a common fairer, more peaceful, and safer world, and that this, to the highest degree, benefits Sweden.

Madam Speaker! We Social Democrats want to gradually return to the one percent goal, not for nostalgic reasons but because the world needs a Sweden that takes responsibility, not a Sweden that cringes and backs down. That is the fundamental dividing line in this debate: a Sweden that withdraws or a Sweden that wants to continue to have high ambitions and make a greater difference. We choose the latter, because that is how we build both global stability and our own security.

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

Anna Lasses (C)

Madam Speaker! The Social Democrats will therefore gradually return to 1 percent. Is there a timetable for this? That is my first question.

The second question I have concerns Ukraine. We all agree that Ukraine should receive the support that Ukraine needs. It is absolutely necessary for the democracy of the entire of Europe. But the question is how one is to solve this with the support to Ukraine.

For the Center Party's part, we have proposed that there should be an external fund that lies outside the budget and is loan-financed, which we can well afford because we have a stable economy in Sweden as it looks right now. It would correspond to approximately 1 percent of bni, and approximately one-third of the support would be civil and include, among other things, aid funds. Is this something that the Social Democrats could consider in order to guarantee Ukraine long-term support as long as Ukraine needs it?

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

Olle Thorell (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Anna Lasses, for relevant and important questions!

When it comes to the one percent goal, we had a congress this spring, where we also had this debate. There are those who have thought that we should have a very rapid plan to return to the one percent level, while others have said that this should be done in stages. We landed on a decision to do it in stages, and we have not stated exactly how long it should take.

As an example, we can look at how it went last time. In the 90s, we lowered the aid – with great distress, we departed from the one percent goal when we sanitized the state finances after the 90s crisis. We lowered pensions, and we lowered child allowance. We went forward with a chainsaw in the welfare society, and even the aid was lowered. It was then restored after the 90s crisis. In 2005, if I remember correctly, we were back at the one percent level. So that took six or seven years. That perhaps can give an indication. I am no fortune teller – I have no working crystal ball. But one can learn from history, and one can trust that we Social Democrats will do what we say, namely restore the aid gradually.

Regarding the support for Ukraine, we are critical of the fact that the world's poorest countries are the ones paying for the increased support for Ukraine. A long-term strategy is needed for how Ukraine should be rebuilt. This does not only concern the humanitarian, acute support with blankets, food packages, and protective equipment. It also concerns opening up markets and ensuring that a stable business sector is built so that they can support themselves. We are open to proposals there. When we have won the election on September 13, we can sit down and talk about how we can both have global ambitions and strengthen Ukraine.

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

Anna Lasses (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you very much, Olle Thorell, for the answers!

How the election goes, we shall see, and how the negotiations will look, we shall also see. But I still hope that the idea of the Ukraine Fund, regardless of the formation of government moving forward, is something that the Social Democrats and also other parties take to heart.

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

Olle Thorell (S)

Madam Speaker! We agree that we need to do both things. We need to take a greater global responsibility. We shall not turn our backs on the poorest countries in the world, and we shall do everything we can to do our part when it comes to rebuilding Ukraine after the war. With that starting point, I believe that we will be able to find a good solution characterized by both of these things. It is not either one or the other, as for this government, but it is possible to do both.

Since I forgot to do so in my speech, I would like to take this opportunity to wish Anna Lasses, the Speaker, the Presidium, and my other fellow debaters a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

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

Yasmine Eriksson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I reacted to a formulation that Olle Thorell had in his speech when it came to the fact that we are concluding certain land strategies and increasing our support to Ukraine. He said: It is not Ukraine's fault. It is Sweden's fault.

I mean that it is right of Sweden. It is right of Sweden to secure our and Ukraine's safety and security. If it were anyone's fault, it is not Sweden's fault; in that case, it is Russia's fault. I would just like to ask this control question and get an answer from Olle Thorell. Is it Sweden's fault, or is it Russia's fault?

I do not find the Social Democrats to be credible when it comes to the support for Ukraine. If one puts it this way – can we really trust that the Social Democrats want to see continued support for Ukraine? Will the Social Democrats support Ukraine in the country's accession process to the EU? It does not sound that way when one hears Olle Thorell.

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

Olle Thorell (S)

Madam Speaker! Yes, one can trust the Social Democrats when it comes to the support for Ukraine. Yes, one can trust that we will continue to be one of Europe's and the world's strongest advocates for the support that is required for Ukraine.

I cannot do much about the fact that Yasmine Eriksson does not trust what I say. I do, however, believe that those watching the broadcast of the debate understand that we Social Democrats stand for Ukraine. We were in government when the invasion of Ukraine began in 2022, where we were lightning-fast in, together with all parties here in the Riksdag, standing up for Ukraine in the way that was needed. There is no doubt whatsoever about this.

When it comes to the question of whose fault it was, I must apologize if I had an unclear and perhaps poor formulation in my speech. I understand that it can be perceived as the member did. What I mean is that it is wrong to weigh Ukraine's needs against those of the very poorest countries. One does not need to choose either one or the other, but one can choose both.

I do not want these two groups to be pitted against each other and for one to be excluded for the sake of the other. We can be in solidarity with the poorest countries in the world. We can maintain and develop the relations we have and the important work that has been done in the poorest countries while simultaneously having strong and stable support for Ukraine's reconstruction.

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

Yasmine Eriksson (SD)

Madam Speaker! What I hear from Olle Thorell is that we can do everything, but we cannot do that with limited resources. We have 53 billion to distribute, and then we must make priorities. Even if we want to help everyone, it will be impossible. Even if we were to use the entire Swedish state budget without even taking responsibility for Sweden, we would not be able to help everyone in the world who is in need of help.

What I heard in Olle Thorell's speech was that he complained about us wanting to spend 10 billion on Ukraine. Then I must still ask myself: Does he mean that the Social Democrats want to reduce the aid to Ukraine, or how else are they going to do it? Are they going to maintain the same and invest in everything else when they only increase the aid budget by 1 billion compared to ours?

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

Olle Thorell (S)

Madam Speaker and Yasmine Eriksson! No, it is clear that one cannot do everything. Sweden will, of course, never be able to cover all the needs that exist in the less developed part of the world.

That is a false contradiction. No one has ever said that Sweden should solve all problems. This is a debate technique just as vulgar as saying that "you Social Democrats and Green Party activists want to accept all the world's refugees." Of course we don't want to! No one has ever wanted that. That is an exaggeration and an unserious debate strategy that I do not think deserves much attention.

To manage this dilemma – that one cannot do everything and cover all needs here in the world – we have been in agreement for nearly 50 years. Until Yasmine Eriksson's party entered the Riksdag, we were in agreement to devote one-hundredth to fighting poverty and oppression in the world. That was what we agreed on, and in that way we managed the dilemma that one cannot do everything one wants. But one can do what one considers reasonable and decent.

We Social Democrats think that the reasonable and decent thing is 1 percent of our total revenues, but the Sweden Democrats and the Moderates do not think so. Beautiful, isn't it – that is for you to bear – but do not pretend as if we are trying to solve all the problems in the whole world! We Social Democrats have a reasonable and good policy to handle this dilemma.

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

Katarina Tolgfors (M)

Madam Speaker! The debate on Swedish aid evokes emotions, and it is an area where the differences between Moderate politics with a Moderate-led government and a Social Democratic aid policy become very clear.

Madam Speaker! We live in the most serious security situation in Europe since the Second World War. Right now, we are in a decisive phase regarding Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine. Russia continues its aggressive warfare against Ukraine, against civilian targets, against people, against homes and against energy supply. We are heading towards a cold winter. It is responsible to do as the Swedish government does and prioritize Swedish aid to Ukraine in the situation the country finds itself in.

As has been said in this speaker's chair many times since the war broke out, also in today's debate, support for Ukraine is a support for our own security and stability and, in the long run, a support for Europe's security.

The government takes responsibility by prioritizing in a rapidly changing world, where old recipes and old clichés about aid are no longer sufficient. When the world changes, aid and foreign and security policy must also keep pace.

Madam Speaker! The government is making tough but necessary priorities with the reform agenda. When cuts are made and aid is reduced, it is because Swedish interests must be guiding for Swedish aid policy. The war in Ukraine has caused enormous needs. The country's resources are going towards defending freedom, and the gaps in the civil treasury amount to over 200 billion kronor. It is therefore up to us who support Ukraine to ensure that schools can continue their teaching and that emergency rooms can remain open.

In addition to the energy sector, which is severely affected, the Russian attacks have damaged millions of Ukrainian homes, railway and road networks, agriculture, industry, and trade. How much longer can Ukraine endure? They are dependent on the continued support of the international community. Sweden is a partner to Ukraine, and we provide strong support which we will continue with as long as it is necessary.

Madam Speaker! Let me be clear. The Moderate-led government and we Moderates safeguard the aid that saves lives, and Sweden remains one of the world's largest donors of humanitarian aid. With its aid budget of 53 billion kronor per year, Sweden is therefore still one of the world's largest donor countries of international aid. It is aid that continues to reach and help people in the world who live in poverty and under oppression.

Many organizations, in Sweden and in other countries, contribute to more people being able to begin lifting themselves out of the most acute situations. However, there are also investigations and reports showing that development aid does not always yield results in the long run.

Member of the Board Olle Thorell mentioned Afghanistan in his speech. My colleague Stefan Olsson and I participated in the parliamentary committee that investigated Sweden's 20-year engagement in Afghanistan. There, all participating parties agreed that the development aid that Sweden provided, which was the largest aid for a long period, unfortunately did not provide the long-term structural effects that one can expect when we invest billions of Swedish tax dollars.

The investigation was handed over to the Minister for Foreign Affairs last Christmas, and it is clear and distinct that when dealing with countries like Afghanistan, with a Taliban rule, corruption occurs. There is also discrimination against girls and women, which has been mentioned here. It is a terrible situation. They are not allowed to speak in the public sphere, and again, there are more girls who are not allowed to go to school.

Sweden continues to support countries such as Afghanistan; there are more strategies than just land strategies. I am, for example, very proud that this government is investing in the rights of girls and women. SRHR, sexual and reproductive health, is a clear and distinct priority in the aid budget that the Moderate-led government is presenting.

When the USA withdraws from important efforts, especially within SRHR, Sweden strengthens its commitment. Support for the rights of women and girls, not least in Africa, remains a priority. We cannot fill all the gaps that others leave behind, but we can try to help where the needs are greatest.

Madam Speaker! Humanitarian assistance is a significant part of Swedish aid, in the reform agenda. Preventing death and alleviating distress remains a priority. When disasters occur, when people flee from war and oppression, and when children are starving, Sweden shall be there.

But at the same time as we safeguard humanitarian aid, we must also acknowledge the shortcomings in traditional development aid. Therefore, we continue the implementation of the reform agenda in a responsible manner. We phase out aid step by step and give organizations and authorities the opportunity to manage the phasing out.

Comprehensive aid requires strategic management with a clear focus on results, efficiency, long-term perspective, and transparency – exactly what Member Thorell calls for in other contexts. It should be something that the Social Democrats think is good and right regarding all aid, not just sometimes.

The government is working to ensure that aid reaches organizations directly in the partner countries to a greater extent, instead of financing a number of different organizations where the money travels through several levels before possibly reaching the recipient and the ultimate goal, namely the people and countries we provide aid to. It is also reasonable that Sweden, with Swedish tax money, sets requirements on the countries to which we provide aid.

Madam Speaker! In conclusion, I want to say that we have repeatedly pointed out that Ukraine is Sweden's most important foreign policy priority. Swedish interests will, of course, come first in Swedish foreign policy. What other priority would Sweden have?

We in the Swedish Riksdag agree that Ukraine is in a critical stage. Ukraine is a three-hour flight from Sweden. We have a security policy situation in our immediate vicinity that requires priorities and actions so that Europe can continue to be an actor in the world where we have the opportunity to continue to support, cooperate with, and trade with others.

It is investments in a security order that, in the long run, protect ourselves, our children, and future generations. It is responsible, it is necessary, and it is right.

(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 Speaker says that it is important to prioritize. Then I wonder how one has prioritized when one chooses to conclude a secret agreement with the Somali regime.

On October 1, Ekot, Sveriges Radio, revealed a secret agreement between Sweden and the Somali government, where aid funds have been redirected in exchange for Somalia accepting citizens who have been denied residence permits in Sweden. It was also revealed that there is a written agreement but without signatures or binding guarantees. 100 million of Swedish aid funds have been transferred to projects close to the Somali Prime Minister Hamza Abdi Barre and the circle closest to him. Additionally, tax money has been used to pay high salaries to three people close to the Prime Minister.

The government often speaks about the importance of transparency in aid, but this agreement has, in fact, been attempted to be kept secret. It is completely obvious, and I can understand that because this can be likened to nothing other than a major scandal. But thanks to skilled journalists, the scandal has been revealed.

This resembles corruption and must be called what it is: a bribe. Does the member really believe that we should use aid funds and tax money to bribe a corrupt prime minister? Is that really making the right priorities?

I regret that the Minister for Foreign Affairs is not here to answer my questions. The Member who represents the Moderaterna must therefore answer.

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

Katarina Tolgfors (M)

Madam Speaker! If we are to talk about corruption, I think perhaps the representative and member of the Left Party should sweep in front of their own door.

DFLP is a Palestinian organization that has received aid from the Left Party. It is an organization that, for example, has gone out and stated themselves that they participated in the massacre on October 7. The Left Party has also over the years been involved in supporting social democratic governments that have given billions in aid to countries that are riddled with corruption.

When it comes to the cooperation with and assistance to Somalia, it is entirely reasonable that one, as a donor country, sets requirements on the countries that receive a very large amount of Swedish aid. I do not intend to speculate here in the chamber based on media reports, but I proceed from facts and from how the government acts entirely within the framework of what is correct and possible.

We are setting requirements for the countries that are to receive Swedish aid. Now we are talking about the possibility of the return of grossly violent criminal Somalis who are in Sweden, who commit murder and who commit rape of children. This is something that should have been done a long time ago.

It is entirely reasonable that countries that receive Swedish aid also receive their own citizens. It actually falls within international law and international law that a country should receive its own citizens.

(Applause)

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Madam Speaker! Very briefly regarding the Palestinian organization and the project that the member refers to: It was a project that took place several years ago and concerned a youth organization. We have conducted our own investigation which quite clearly shows that no money has gone to anything other than what it was intended for. No money has gone to support any form of terrorism or terrorist organizations in any way.

If we return to the Somalia issue, Somalia obviously has an obligation under international law to receive persons who have committed serious crimes and have thus been deported. But Somalia has, in order to favor its own regime, been able to demand that Sweden redirect the aid. To speak plainly, this is nothing other than a bribe. Aid money should not be used as a bribe. Of course, aid money should not end up in the pocket of a corrupt prime minister and his associates. That should be a matter of course.

Somalia ranks in second to last place in Transparency International's annual global corruption index. The fact that the government has wanted to keep the agreement secret suggests that they themselves perceive it as dubious.

The government has been clear that no aid funds may go to organizations that have the slightest connection with Hamas or any other Islamist organization – but sending aid funds to Somalia's prime minister does not seem to be a problem, despite him having been noted for making gross anti-Semitic statements and praising the terrorist organization Hamas. It is remarkable, to say the least.

Should Swedish aid funds really go to a corrupt prime minister who has made antisemitic statements and praised the terrorist organization Hamas? How can this be compatible with Sweden's work against corruption, which the Minister for Development Cooperation has been so clear about wanting to intensify?

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

Katarina Tolgfors (M)

Madam Speaker! It is true that the government is addressing issues concerning transparency, governance, clear goals, and clear follow-up so that aid funds from Sweden do not end up in the wrong hands. Social Democratic red-green governments have for decades poured out grant money to countries with very questionable governance. One can never guarantee that every single tax krona ends up correctly, but it is precisely that we are tightening up now.

Does Member Johnsson Fornarve have something against the World Bank and UNDP? These are recognized organizations that manage and channel aid funds and have long experience in that. These are organizations that the member himself highlights in many other contexts.

Of course, Swedish tax money should not go to corruption. That is exactly what this government is now tackling. It is as obvious as that countries should receive their citizens when they are deported – in this case due to very gross and serious crimes.

It is possible to go into Openaid, which is now updated. There, one can follow the Swedish aid figure by figure.

(Applause)

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

Anna Lasses (C)

Madam Speaker! It is impossible to overstate how important the issue of Ukraine's security is. We are completely in agreement on that. It is about the future of all of Europe and the security of all of Europe. An important part is the aid support to Ukraine. We are also completely in agreement on that.

It is good that we compete to be the most active in this issue. It promotes Ukraine, and it promotes democracy. But with that said, we cannot give all aid funds to Ukraine. We also need to see the rest of the world. In particular now that US aid has been completely slaughtered, the Swedish aid has an even more important role in the world, not least from a security perspective. The question is how we are to do both things at the same time.

The Center Party has, as I have mentioned earlier in the debate, a strategic proposal for a solution. It is to create a Ukraine fund that corresponds to 1 percent of the GNI where the aid can be included. Now I naturally wonder if it is a solution that the Moderates can imagine considering to achieve a long-term sustainable alternative, where we can invest in both Ukraine and the rest of the world without Ukraine eating more and more of the aid. Ukraine will, after all, need more and more.

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

Katarina Tolgfors (M)

Madam Speaker! It is good that we agree on Ukraine and the support for Ukraine. The situation is becoming more serious with each passing day. It is good that there is support in the Swedish Riksdag from all parties present in the chamber.

Sweden does not give all aid to Ukraine, even though we are reprioritizing because the situation there means we must increase the support there. I believe it is obvious to everyone why we must do so. Sweden continues to give a large contribution to many other countries, but contributions and aid must be given where there is the most opportunity to do good and when one can link development aid to economic development and trade. That is how you help countries out of poverty in the long run.

This could be a domestic debate about how, according to a socialist model, one provides grants to those in need instead of having a policy and governance that allows individuals and countries to lift themselves out of poverty and create economic empowerment, security, and so on. It is the policy that the Moderate-led government stands for. It does not mean that we are pulling the rug out from under other countries.

Sweden is still one of the largest donors in the world, but we are making tough priorities right now. It does not mean that countries we withdraw from could not be subjects of aid in the future.

When it comes to the proposal regarding the fund, I am not the right person to close any door to such a discussion. It would be very interesting to hear a bit more technically about how that fund would be designed and financed. The Government has presented a budget and made responsible prioritizations within the framework of the aid budget of 53 billion.

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

Anna Lasses (C)

Madam Speaker! We absolutely must prioritize, but at the same time, we are still one of the world's largest aid donors. We are actually even larger now that the USA has more or less left the arena. It also gives us an even greater responsibility.

Just as Member Tolgfors says, it is obvious that the aid should go to projects that are effective. Then we must also discuss what effectiveness means. In this situation, it is of course very much about building resilience. It can be about democracy. It can be about children's education, which in the long term leads to development, security, and all that we want to achieve. Entrepreneurship and empowerment are of course also very important. I know that we are in agreement.

It is very important that we do not leave the arena so that China and Russia get a larger piece of the cake. They are ready to jump in when the democratic donors leave the arena. That risk exists. Therefore, we really need to remain on both arenas.

I am glad to hear that the member does not reject a reasoning regarding the fund. We are not to have any technical discussion here, that can rest in the future, but I hope that all parties can reflect on how we can achieve good long-term financing when it comes to the support for Ukraine. We need to do both – that is, also build resilience outside of Europe so as not to leave the field free for authoritarian countries.

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

Katarina Tolgfors (M)

Madam Speaker! Sweden cannot fill the gap that the USA leaves behind alone. Sweden works in international contexts, very often within the EU. We can gain more muscle and provide support by cooperating with countries with similar priorities in those cases where we see that it is necessary for various reasons. This applies to aid issues, for example. South Africa received a large amount of aid regarding climate issues last year, I believe. One can look area by area.

Another area that Sweden prioritizes in the aid budget is organizations that work to support democracy development, human rights, and the principles of the rule of law. That, together with SRHR, is two fundamental pillars in the government's aid agenda. They contribute to alleviating distress through humanitarian aid but also to stabilizing countries that still receive development aid and where other tools are also needed. Countries must themselves have the will and the ability to cooperate and develop. If one does not even want to receive one's own citizens, one has a long way to go.

The committee member asked a question about a fund. It is not relevant at the moment. The government has a direction for its aid policy. When it comes to Ukraine, none of us know what will happen next week, in three years, or in five years. The effort that we countries in Europe and several others must provide to assist Ukraine will be multi-year. Perhaps new tools must be found further ahead, but right now Sweden's government supports Ukraine clearly and distinctly. And it is in Sweden's interest to do so.

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

Olle Thorell (S)

Madam Speaker! I had hoped to be able to direct my question to Benjamin Dousa, but he is not participating in the aid debate this year either. I regret that. But Katarina Tolgfors represents the Moderaterna, a government party, so I will direct the question to her instead.

I am sorry, but I want to return to the Somalia deal. This is about something more than an individual project or an agreement.

For a long time, the government and the Minister for Development Cooperation have assured the Riksdag that there has been no written agreement between Sweden and Somalia. This has been said repeatedly. I believe that Katarina Tolgfors was present at the Foreign Affairs Committee's hearing when the minister, asked if there is any agreement, answered "No, there is no agreement, but there is an arrangement".

Later I received a written response to an interpellation. In it, it stated that there is no written agreement with Somalia. After that, I had an interpellation debate with the minister. It then emerged that there apparently was an agreement anyway, but nothing that was written and no agreement.

The latest turn of this mess appears in DN's meritorious and persistent scrutiny. They show that there is a document with a written agreement containing seven concrete points. There, it is regulated how Swedish aid funds shall be used and how the aid is linked to returns, to IOM and to third-party channeling.

On the one hand, the government is very proud of having reached an agreement with Somalia, and on the other hand, the government has done everything to hide that there is a written agreement. Why, I wonder. If this is a legitimate and defensible agreement, why keep it secret? Why deny its existence? Why describe it as so sensitive that it should not be communicated? I would like to have answers to this.

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

Katarina Tolgfors (M)

Madam Speaker! This cannot be so incredibly secret because Member Thorell seems to know an incredible amount about what the agreement, the arrangement or the steering document looks like.

We have received the same information in the committee. There is no secrecy here and nothing to hide. The government allocates funds so that Somalia can receive its own citizens who have committed crimes in Sweden and who are to be deported from here. Exactly what it looks like technically is not our task to determine. It could be a conversation where hands are shaken, a steering document, or an agreement.

I do not usually rely on media reports when I debate in the chamber. The government has accounted for this. One can go into Openaid and see exactly how the whole thing works. Since the government prioritizes transparency, Member Thorell will be able to follow this.

What is good is that the government is now addressing issues that are extremely important regarding countries that receive Swedish aid, namely that they shall receive their own citizens when they must return home or when they have been deported because they have committed very serious crimes in Sweden.

If we made a list of the countries that the Social Democrats, during their long periods in government, have given billions in aid to, we would see corrupt regimes and socialist dictatorships. I could stand here until tonight counting up these countries. I would like to hear how Member Thorell views this, since we are talking about giving tax money to other countries.

(Applause)

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

Olle Thorell (S)

Madam Speaker! Of all bad debating techniques, I think whataboutism is the laziest of all. It is not fair.

Regarding the matter: It is clear that all countries should receive their citizens. There is no difference of opinion on that. The new thing is not to set requirements on Somalia in order for them to receive a share of aid money. We have always set requirements on all countries that the money should be used in the right way. It must not go to corruption, and it must yield clear, measurable results. It must be kept away from corrupt institutions and instead go through other organizations. We have done this at all times, even when it concerns Somalia.

The new thing is that Sweden has yielded to Somalia's demand: If we are to accept our deported citizens, we want cash. And the government has naively and wide-eyed yielded to this and said: Here. You are welcome! Now they have received their money and have stopped accepting their deported citizens. One can ask what the plan is now. How much more money must be paid for them to do something that is an international law commitment?

In conclusion, I want to say something about the debate. I do not accuse Katarina Tolgfors specifically, but generally in the debate on the Somalia affair, it sounds as if everyone who is deported to Somalia is a terrible criminal who has committed horrific crimes. That is not the case. There are criminals among these, but there are also ordinary people who have sought asylum in Sweden but who have not had sufficient ties here. They do not deserve to be portrayed as criminals and dangerous types.

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

Katarina Tolgfors (M)

Madam Speaker! Now it becomes even clearer, Olle Thorell, what distinguishes Social Democratic foreign, security, and aid policy from that of the Moderate-led government and the Tidö parties. We are restructuring Swedish aid so that it becomes more transparent and more accurate, and so that the aid money – billions of tax kronor – that goes to countries in need hits the mark as accurately as possible and goes through as few intermediaries as possible.

Regarding Somalia, I repeat what I said: There is no secret deal. But there is also no secret money tree for people to be allowed to stay in Sweden. Therefore, it is reasonable to deport persons who have committed serious crimes. No, not everyone who is deported from Sweden has perhaps committed serious crimes; there are also people who want to return home.

But in this case, we have taken hold of an issue that has remained stagnant for far too long while you have given millions and billions to countries such as Somalia, Zimbabwe, Tanzania, Liberia, Mozambique and Bolivia. Often, it has concerned socialist-ruled countries where socialism has lain like a wet blanket over people's opportunities for development, democracy and economic prosperity. You have done this without the follow-up that this government is now introducing through various control mechanisms and a transparency in aid. It is responsible, it is right and proper, and it is just.

(Applause)

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! I got stuck a bit on something that Member Tolgfors said here towards the end. It concerns the country Liberia. She mentioned it in a context where she accused countries of having a socialist rule.

Liberia is one of the world's poorest countries. Sweden has been very active there since the end of the 1950s. It is a country that has contributed very much to Swedish prosperity, among other things through the world's largest iron mine during the 60s and 70s, which was partly Swedish-owned.

Sweden has had a long work in the country. The country was characterized by a terrible civil war during the 90s and the beginning of the 00s, but since 2003, there has been peace in the country.

Since 2003, we have had four different governments in Liberia. Democratic elections have been successfully carried out despite the problems that exist with, among other things, corruption and weak institutions. The country has achieved a feat that few other countries have achieved, partly due to Swedish support.

The Folke Bernadotte Academy has been there for a long time and built up peace work. They have trained young peace workers in every province in Liberia. It is an enormously important work that has been there.

Other Swedish organizations have worked with SRHR. Their work may now come to nothing. A large SRHR network that is very active may perhaps be shut down. The upcoming abortion law, which was intended to strengthen the right to abortion, also risks disappearing because we are reducing aid to Liberia.

I want to try to understand how the Moderates reason. They say one thing when they speak broadly about aid. But when it comes to how they actually act, it is something completely different.

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

Katarina Tolgfors (M)

Madam Speaker! Now the representative for Miljöpartiet is up in the speaker's chair, and it shows. Thank you for the question!

Sweden has been in many countries and supported, for example, SRHR and human rights, and it continues to be so. If one takes just those countries that I listed earlier and looks at where those countries are today compared to some time in the middle of the 70s and 80s, when Swedish aid began and then grew in these countries, it is unfortunately depressing.

It can be observed that they are still countries that have not lifted themselves out of poverty. They still have major problems with human rights, the situation for girls and women, equality, democracy, the rule of law, and so on.

We have a war in our immediate vicinity and a security policy situation and a humanitarian situation in our absolute immediate vicinity that affects Sweden. Then one must prioritize.

When I read the Green Party's shadow budget, I see that it states that aid should remain at 1 percent of GNI. That is approximately 72 billion for 2026. It is fantastic. There is not that much money for aid even in the Social Democrats' budget.

Countries that are in need of help, support and development do not depend solely on Sweden. Sweden continues to be a major donor in the world. We continue important efforts all over the world in different countries and in these countries.

We see now, for example, in Latin America, where Sweden has been involved in many of the democratic processes and peace processes, that more and more countries there are now moving from socialism to something else. It is perhaps an opportunity for economic development, human rights, and a rule of law that is worthy of the name.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Katarina Tolgfors, for the praise for MP's aid budget from the member in the speaker's chair!

Aid actually works. Sweden has been active in Liberia since the 60s. The conflict that existed was one of the world's absolute worst civil wars, which continued until 2003. Look at what aid has done since then! We have built up prosperity, democratically functioning institutions, and a peace process.

The Moderates refer again to Ukraine and that more support should be placed on the conflict in our immediate vicinity. We will absolutely provide the support that we can and that is needed for Ukraine. But to withdraw it from a country such as Liberia is simply counterproductive.

And by now cancelling the aid to Liberia, one also closes the embassy in Liberia. It is closely linked. Then we look at how the relationship looks in just Liberia.

Liberia is perhaps the country in Africa that supports Ukraine the most politically. In February this year, it voted against the USA in the UN General Assembly and with the EU states to condemn Russia's actions in Ukraine. The USA is a country that one has had a very close connection with for a very long time.

From January 1, 2026, Liberia will also be a member of the UN Security Council. Is it not precisely that type of ally that we want to have good contacts with? In that situation, Sweden chooses to terminate all aid and to close down the Swedish embassy. It is totally incomprehensible to me, especially if it concerns supporting Ukraine.

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

Katarina Tolgfors (M)

Madam Speaker! It is absolutely excellent. If Liberia can do all this, it is a sign that perhaps aid should be withdrawn so that Liberia can continue on a path where it does all those things that you are now listing.

One must be a little humble. Sweden is not some savior land that can go out and save the whole world. It may be that countries must continue to develop by their own power.

Sweden has been involved in countries like Liberia for a very long time. Now we must make other priorities. That does not mean that it is completely closed for aid efforts to be carried out in those countries if it becomes necessary.

You say yourself that Liberia supports Ukraine and that it has developed. That is exactly how it should be. Swedish aid should only exist where countries are in acute distress. But it should also go towards development in those countries where we see that it can actually have some effect.

The government does not have the cash box that the Green Party has. You are living in a fantasy world. You say that you have a budget of 70 billion. No other party here has that budget for aid in the situation that is in, for example, Ukraine. There are also many other political areas that must receive money in the budget.

Sweden works with many tools to ensure that it assists with stability, trade, development and cooperation. But pure aid must be prioritized. We only have one wallet with a limited amount of money in it. It is a matter of taking responsibility for how tax funds are used.

This is the prioritization the government is making. It is right and proper in the time we live in now, with a terrible war in Ukraine that will affect Europe for a very long time to come.

(Applause)

(THIRD DEPUTY SPEAKER: I remind you of the rules of conduct in the chamber. We do not use "you", but all members speak through the Speaker.)

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Madam Speaker! The government's and the Sweden Democrats' major cut and reallocation of aid is about to break a well-functioning aid system. That the government and the Sweden Democrats have already previously abandoned the one percent goal and lowered the aid at a time when extreme poverty is increasing and the needs are greatest is a blow to the people who are having it the hardest.

Vänsterpartiet stands up for the one percent goal, but in our shadow budget we do not have the possibility to restore the entire enormous sum that is required. We promise, however, that we will do everything to gradually restore the aid to 1 percent during the coming mandate period if we are given influence. We do, however, include 4 billion more than the government already in this budget.

The enormous cuts in American humanitarian aid mean that 14 million people risk dying by 2030, according to a report from The Lancet. One third of them are children. Even the Global Fund's important work with vaccination is threatened.

In this difficult situation, responsible countries need to cooperate with civil society and multilateral organizations and increase rather than decrease aid. It is particularly important to increase support for gender equality and SRHR. It is an area that has been particularly hard hit by the Trump administration's cuts.

The government abandoned the feminist foreign policy but emphasizes that equality is a core value. It is difficult to take this seriously when we see how aid for equality is decreasing.

In the current strategy, the appropriation is reduced by 240 million kronor compared to the previous strategy period. Support to women's organizations also decreases. Using aid to increase equality is extremely wise and successful. Investing in women's opportunities for self-sufficiency and empowerment is a key factor for favorable societal development.

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

Vänsterpartiet believes 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 and that 10 percent should be earmarked for SRHR, sexual and reproductive health and rights. We want to reintroduce the feminist foreign policy, which made a real difference. In a time when equality, the rights of LGBTQ people and the right to SRHR are under attack, Sweden needs to step up and act as a counterweight. Unfortunately, we do not see that.

It is serious that the government is also eroding aid by using aid funds for things that may not be counted as aid according to the OECD-DAC's rules. This applies, for example, to domestic costs for integration and repatriation.

Particularly serious is that the government has entered into a secret agreement without signatures or binding guarantees of aid in exchange for Somalia accepting deported Somalis. 100 million in aid funds have, via intermediaries, gone to projects close to the Somali Prime Minister, a Prime Minister who leads the country that ranks second highest on the list of the most corrupt countries in the world, who is explicitly antisemitic and openly praises Hamas. Aid must not be used as a bribe. The aid to Somalia is a pure scandal!

We are deeply concerned that the government, in the reform agenda, emphasizes to an all too great extent the importance of aid benefiting Swedish interests, trade, and business. There is a risk that we are moving towards a more tied aid, something that was abolished decades ago as both an expensive and inefficient aid. Aid should not stem from Swedish interests but from poverty reduction and the recipient's needs.

We also see that the government wants to transfer more resources to humanitarian aid, even though we know that it is the long-term development aid that is most effective. Even the core funding to UN organizations is being cut, even though we know that core funding is extremely important for the UN organizations' flexibility and ability to be quickly on the ground during crises and conflicts.

We see how the government is abandoning more and more poor countries in the world, something that goes completely against the objective of assisting the most vulnerable. It hits the work for democracy, human rights, women's rights, and the climate hard. Important progress that has been achieved risks being rolled back. Many examples can be highlighted of well-functioning projects that are now forced to end, such as support for poor farmers in Tanzania and Mozambique.

Another example is the phasing out of the support to Afghanistan, which affected Rädda Barnens successful project to support vulnerable children and their families. Extremely vulnerable children involved in child labor will no longer have access to the promised daily activities, psychosocial support, and education that take them away from child labor and into a safe activity. Support to the families is required over a longer period to create a sustainable household economy, so that they are no longer in need of child labor. The least one could ask for was that the project had been concluded in an orderly manner, but now it is being interrupted in the middle. This obviously undermines the trust in Swedish aid.

For over 60 years, Swedish civil society organizations and popular movements have played a central role in aid work. The government has developed a strategy for civil society – a strategy that was preceded by great concern and disorder when Sida terminated a large number of agreements affecting around 2,000 partners in 90 countries. The restructuring could have been managed much better if entered agreements had been allowed to run their course.

The new strategy contains some questionable phrasing that could mean that civil society's independence is threatened. Vänsterpartiet wants to see a strong independent civil society with strong support.

In our immediate vicinity, the war in Ukraine is raging, and the civilian population is being hit hard. Naturally, we shall continue to assist the Ukrainian people in all ways—politically, humanitarily, and militarily. The reconstruction of Ukraine will cost enormous sums, and here the rest of the world must find other solutions than solely burdening the aid.

Sudan is, with 11 million people fleeing war, rape, and famine, perhaps the worst humanitarian catastrophe in the world right now, according to the UN. In this situation, the international community must do its utmost to provide food, medicine, and supplies. The international community must also act to end the war, including by ensuring that arms deliveries to the parties are stopped. Sweden shall not sell weapons to countries that contribute to the conflict.

Despite the fragile ceasefire in Gaza, the need for aid will be enormous for a long time, as a result of Israel's genocide and total destruction of Gaza. Winter is approaching, and thousands of Palestinians live in miserable tents without heat. A key organization is the UN agency UNRWA, which has for decades had the UN's mandate to assist Palestinian refugees.

UNRWA is the organization with the best capacity to reach those affected and has thousands of employees on the ground. Despite this, Sweden's government has chosen to withdraw support for this indispensable organization. Vänsterpartiet earmarks 1 billion to UNRWA in its shadow budget.

At the same time, we see how the violence on the West Bank is increasing. Palestinians are being killed or forcibly displaced, and Palestinian communities are being destroyed. In October alone, aggressive Israeli settlers carried out over 260 attacks. In this difficult situation, the government chooses to take completely incorrect measures. Aid to Palestine must increase, the special strategy must be reintroduced, and support for the ecumenical accompaniment program and organizations working for peace, democracy, and human rights must be resumed, including support for UNRWA.

It must cost to commit war crimes. Therefore, Sweden must continue to press for sanctions against Israel and begin by freezing the association agreement between the EU and Israel.

Earth's resources are extremely unequally distributed today. 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. We see this clearly today. The figures come from the World Bank. The rich countries must therefore increase support to the poor countries. However, aid is not enough to meet the climate challenge; instead, significantly more resources must be allocated here.

Aid cannot solve all the world's challenges, but it can contribute to a positive development. For real and long-term change, it is required that the unsustainable debt burdens are managed and addressed and that measures are taken to achieve a fairer tax system and to stop the global flight of capital and taxes.

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.

The Left Party's budget must be seen as a whole. We therefore refrain from taking positions here and instead account for our investments in a separate statement.

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

Katarina Tolgfors (M)

Madam Speaker! Member Johnsson Fornarve is one of the members from the Left Party whom I respect. I know that she has a genuine commitment to aid issues. However, we have very different views regarding how to reach out to and support other countries and what effect one believes it can achieve.

Now you, Lotta Johnsson Fornarve, will have to take the heat for your own party, which you do represent here in the Riksdag. Vänsterpartiet talks about antisemitism and Hamas in contexts such as SRHR and hbtqi. Then I wonder: What proposals does Vänsterpartiet have when it comes to strengthening girls' and women's roles and situations in the types of conflicts we see in the Middle East? It is always those who are most vulnerable in wars and conflicts.

Their budget is actually not that much larger. I believe it is 4 billion over the budget that the Tidö parties and the government have presented. How would you concretely work to support hbtqi persons, girls and women in the vulnerable countries in the Middle East? There, culture and religion play a role for these persons' opportunities to live freely. It matters when it comes to human rights being able to be strengthened and so on.

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Katarina Tolgfors, for the questions and for the praise, one might still say!

I know that Katarina Tolgfors also has a commitment to issues of equality, but unfortunately, we do not see that in your budget. Instead, we see how the support for equality and SRHR actually retreats in your budget. It is 240 million less in the strategy when it comes to equality than before. I truly regret that. If one considers equality to be a core value, it must also be visible in the budget.

I mean that the most important thing for supporting women and girls is to clearly show in the reform agenda that equality must permeate all different areas. It should not be an area on the side, but this must permeate all areas. Equality must be included in all points.

I see that it is very important to support, for example, women's organizations in different countries that actually play a very large role in supporting the development of women and girls.

We can, for example, take RFSU's important support to women and girls in Liberia – this is now at risk as the aid to Liberia is being phased out. It has been incredibly important for strengthening women's and girls' opportunities and for strengthening women's opportunities for abortion. Diakonia's important work in Zimbabwe to support a democratic development for women is also an important project that is now at risk.

One can make a list as long as one wants of important projects that are now being risked by your phasing out of aid to some of the absolutely poorest countries – Afghanistan and so on. If one really wants to invest in women and girls, it would naturally have been incredibly much better to maintain it – and of course to resume the feminist foreign policy.

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

Katarina Tolgfors (M)

Madam Speaker! I actually did not hear a single answer from Member Johnsson Fornarve on the question of how you in Vänsterpartiet will use the billions that you have allocated in the aid budget – you have also increased it. I heard nothing concrete.

You wave the card of feminist foreign policy. Yes, I have understood that it is what you have supported previously – with the S governments. But what does it mean concretely? Does it mean that girls and women in the countries that you yourself are now pointing out have had it better since the 70s and 80s? What are the concrete measures you take so that hbtqi people, for example, should feel safe and be able to live freely according to how they want to live their lives? What concrete measures are they that you can come up with? I did not hear that.

Then I just want to say that the member must read the government's budget. We are therefore increasing support for SRHR and measures for equality and human rights – with a focus on the safety, security, rights, and freedom of girls and women. Likewise is it when it comes to democracy issues, the principles of the rule of law, and human rights defenders. These are two prioritized areas. That can be seen if one reads our budget.

I suppose I must leave here without a concrete answer on how you intend – in a better way, with more money that you have in some tax chest – to increase the feminist foreign policy, as you call it. I call it symbol politics.

This government ensures that we direct the aid where it is needed most. We make it more transparent. In that way, a better effect can be achieved with the aid money so that people, girls, women, and men can have more bearable lives and an economic development so that they can stand on their own feet.

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for further questions.

When it comes to the feminist foreign policy, it is not something that has been insignificant. The feminist foreign policy has truly yielded real results. We see this clearly and distinctly in investigations. More countries want to follow the feminist foreign policy, and we have seen that it has had an effect for the rights of women and girls. It is therefore very important to resume it.

It is not true that you are investing more in gender equality and SRHR. Overall, you are reducing the gender equality strategy by 240 million for this period compared to the previous period. That is how it is.

Vänsterpartiet wants equality to permeate the entire aid policy. We want to allocate at least 50 percent of the aid to women and girls and 10 percent to SRHR. I point to several different projects that we think are important to preserve and develop. It is very much about strengthening civil society organizations that work for democracy, human rights, and women's rights in vulnerable countries. That is how you make a real difference.

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

Gudrun Brunegård (KD)

Madam Speaker! I thought I would start by taking you to Bangladesh, the country that is most vulnerable to climate change.

The cyclones have become more powerful. They come more frequently and flood ever larger parts of the country. Seawater is, as is known, salty, and when the water masses retreat, the salt has poisoned the soils. The fertile land, which is to supply one of the world's most densely populated countries, normally yields two to three harvests per year. But few crops can manage to grow on the now saline soils.

The salt also seeps into the groundwater and makes it unusable, because in the bedrock, the salt releases high levels of heavy metals such as iron and arsenic. Many fathers leave their families in the delta area to try to find a livelihood in the already overpopulated cities or abroad, like around 10 million other Bangladeshis, while women and children are left behind to manage as best they can. When they wade around in the fish and shrimp farms and their meter-deep water, the contaminated water enters the body, and cancer cases increase, even among young girls.

Sweden has already saved thousands of lives through cyclone warning systems. Sweden assists through Water Aid, and surely also other organizations, with water purification systems, which are adapted to different environments and local conditions, providing people with clean water to drink.

Water Aid also works in schools to increase knowledge about the body's functions. This involves, for example, how the menstrual cycle works and the importance of menstrual hygiene. In this way, harmful traditions have been dealt with. An app helps the girls keep track of when their period is coming so that they do not get caught off guard during the school day and can stay in school even when they have their period.

Madam Speaker! We are now living in a time that will define existence for many years to come. It has become brutally obvious that Sweden is part of a world influenced by the decisions of other countries. But just as clearly, it is that we too can be involved in influencing, even though Sweden is a rather small country.

We are forced to contend with the outside world and make reprioritizations, not least as a result of Russia's full-scale war in Ukraine. This war, and the statements that the Russian state leadership has made about restoring the old empire's borders, constitute an existential threat both to our closest neighboring countries and to ourselves as a nation. We cannot stand by silently while our Ukrainian brothers and sisters fight for all of Europe's freedom, democracy, and self-determination. It is our duty to assist them. When their own budget goes toward holding the line along the front line in the east, we can provide funds for education, health care and rehabilitation, and energy systems when Russia bombs them to pieces.

At the same time, we note that countries with significantly larger economies than Sweden make decisions that have difficult consequences all around the world. It does not pass without consequence when the USA, which previously accounted for around 47 percent of all aid in the world, including as the main financier of HIV medication and various vaccination programs, withdraws the majority of its aid overnight. I was myself at the UN headquarters in Nairobi exactly when this was announced. It sent shockwaves.

Other large economies are also cutting back on aid. Germany is cutting the aid budget by 40 percent. France is reducing the aid framework by 37 percent. The Netherlands is reducing its aid by 30 percent and Belgium its by 25 percent. Great Britain is reducing its aid target from 0.7 percent of gni to 0.3 percent.

The large increase in support to Ukraine that Sweden is now making, from 5.4 billion this year to 10 billion during 2026–2027, requires extensive redistributions within the aid framework. Last week, the government therefore announced that Sweden is phasing out the bilateral development agreements with Mozambique, Zimbabwe, Tanzania, Liberia and Bolivia. With 53 billion kronor per year, Sweden is however still one of the world's four or five leading donor countries and continues to help people living in poverty and oppression around the world.

As appeared in a debate article in Svenska Dagbladet on the same day, humanitarian aid and support for women's and girls' sexual and reproductive health and rights, not least in Africa, remains prioritized. The global aid strategy for health as well as the strategy for democracy and human rights remain untouched, as does the support through civil society. Organizations shall, of course, be able to continue to operate within various strategies even in the countries where Sweden is now terminating the bilateral agreements.

Madam Speaker! The Government initiated a reforming of aid two years ago. The reform agenda's priorities will be guiding in the necessary redistributions that now need to take place. My example from Bangladesh illustrates why a certain part cannot be scrapped: Existence is complex. Everything is interconnected. The thematic priorities need to be followed even further.

I will now repeat the thematic priorities, the Swedish interests that shall be guiding even in our work through the EU's aid programs.

Poverty reduction through job creation, trade, and education – both basic education, not least for girls, and vocational training.

Improved health for the most vulnerable, with support for sexual and reproductive health, improved access to water, sanitation and hygiene, responsible use of antibiotics, vaccinations and other ways to prevent health threats.

Promoting freedom and combating oppression. Democracy is crucial for peace, freedom and security.

Increased and streamlined climate aid that contributes to reduced emissions, fossil-free energy transition, and climate adaptation.

Strengthening the freedom and empowerment of women and girls, where a woman's work efforts are valued and remunerated and where she has the right to own and inherit herself, the right to influence and participation as well as the right to her own body – for example, to empower girls to dare to refuse to be subjected to female genital mutilation, a project that some of us have studied at PMU in Kenya, or to not be married off against her will.

Strengthened synergies between aid and migration policy. It practically speaks for itself: In a society where one has the opportunity to educate oneself and support oneself, where one has access to healthcare, where one can express one's opinion or practice one's faith or conviction without being persecuted or oppressed, and where one does not need to flee from droughts or floods, there are conditions to live and develop as a human being. Where democracy, human rights, and the principles of the rule of law prevail, and where one can access free and independent media, stability also prevails, which reduces conflicts within the country and towards the surroundings. Support for the development of such societies reduces the root causes of irregular migration and simultaneously increases the motivation for refugees to return to their home country. The migration strategy shall also support host communities and strengthen migrants' and refugees' enjoyment of rights in partner countries. For example, refugee children have the same right to attend school as the host country's own children.

Strengthened humanitarian support to save lives and alleviate distress. This is a goal in itself. It is needs-based and is based on the humanitarian principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality and independence as well as international law.

Madam Speaker! The needs are gigantic and the resources are limited. Therefore, efficiency and precision need to increase further, while the donor base increases.

In this context, I would like to take the opportunity to mention that from the turn of the year, a tax deduction for legal entities of up to 164,800 SEK per year will be introduced for donations of up to 800,000 SEK per year to non-profit organizations. I believe that many companies, associations, and organizations may be interested in increasing the funds for aid through civil society organizations in this way.

With these reflections, I move for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision. I also thank you for the floor and wish both the chair and the House Secretariat and my colleagues in the Riksdag a very Merry Christmas.

(Applause)

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Madam Speaker! Unfortunately, many of the values that Member Brunegård listed – support for women's rights, democracy, human rights and other good things – risk being lost when the government now abandons some of the world's absolute poorest countries. This is also being done without any analysis whatsoever of what consequences it will have for some of the world's most vulnerable people.

It becomes extra serious in light of the substantial cuts in American aid, which mean that millions of people in the absolute poorest countries risk dying.

The government previously announced that aid to countries such as Afghanistan, South Sudan, Mali, Cambodia, and Burkina Faso would be phased out. Now, five more of the world's poorest countries are to be abandoned: Tanzania, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Liberia, and Bolivia.

Abandoning these countries goes against the goal of aid, which clearly states that aid should be used to combat poverty and go to the most vulnerable. The criticism against the phasing out is also extensive from a number of different aid organizations, whose important work now risks going to waste. This concerns, for example, Diakonia's activities in Zimbabwe, which work to strengthen local democracy from an equality perspective, as well as RFSU's activities in Liberia for sexual and reproductive health and rights, which now risk collapsing. Also, the support to small-scale farmers in Tanzania and Mozambique risks being lost.

These are just some of all the successful projects that are now in the danger zone.

How can the Christian Democrats defend Sweden abandoning some of the absolute poorest and most vulnerable countries and in that way also risk rolling back several important aid projects?

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

Gudrun Brunegård (KD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Johnsson Fornarve for this opportunity to delve a little deeper into what these changes entail.

It does not, of course, go unnoticed when we make these changes and terminate the bilateral cooperation agreements with five countries. But let me also clarify that this does not mean that the civil society organizations must also leave the countries. We are not abandoning the countries.

Just as I said in my speech, the strategies for global health, for civil society, and for democracy and human rights remain untouched. These organizations can continue to operate in these countries. It is extremely important that this is not missed.

When it comes to Liberia, I would like to take the opportunity to say that specifically Liberia, as was evident from a previous exchange of remarks, is on the right track. Sweden will continue to support Liberia, for example now within the framework of the upcoming membership in the UN Security Council. Sweden is therefore not abandoning these countries, but we are phasing out the bilateral aid strategy with them.

The support for human rights and the support for girls' and women's rights, which is conveyed through other strategies, will however be able to remain through various organizations – both the multilateral organizations and civil society organizations.

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

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

When these important strategies are abandoned, however, large resources disappear, and when embassies are closed, it becomes incredibly much harder for various organizations to operate in the absolute poorest countries. When resources decrease, it is clear that it affects the projects.

It must be possible to support Ukraine without it affecting the world's most vulnerable people and the poorest countries. It is also serious that this is happening without any actual analysis of the consequences; I have not heard or seen any analysis whatsoever of what it will mean when support is withdrawn to the absolutely poorest countries.

When Sweden turns its back on the poor countries in the way that we actually do, it opens it up for new forces, for example China and Russia, which can strengthen their influence over the African continent. It is very serious from a global security perspective. The phasing out of Swedish aid also means that the credibility of Swedish aid decreases sharply, which means that we will find it harder to make our voice heard as a credible aid donor.

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

Gudrun Brunegård (KD)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the continued questions.

As I said, Sweden is not abandoning these countries even if we phase out the bilateral agreements. Regarding the closure of some embassies, the work will be handled from other, nearby embassies – for example, the one in Dakar, when it comes to Liberia.

The member has no further reply, but I would really like to ask one thing. Vänsterpartiet wants to gradually return to the one-percent target, and they are adding 4 billion more than the government in this expenditure area. In another context, I would like to hear the member explain how they intend to carry this out. With the support of which parties will it be carried out, and when will they have reached it? They also want to support Ukraine, but how do they finance that? Do they not do that through some redistribution within aid?

There are, therefore, many questions that remain unanswered, but we will have to take those at another time.

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

Olle Thorell (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank Gudrun Brunegård for a speech in which, among other things, Bangladesh was highlighted. It is an important perspective to bring up that country as well. It is however sad that Bangladesh is the only country in Asia where Sweden remains with bilateral agreements, and my speech shall be about precisely that—that Sweden is leaving.

KD has historically had a deep and genuine commitment to aid issues, not least in Africa. This also applies, of course, to Gudrun Brunegård. People have spoken about human dignity, solidarity, and responsibility beyond Sweden's borders. For many years, despite political differences, we have been able to meet in the ambition that Sweden, through aid, shall fight for human dignity in the world. We have stood up for the one percent goal together, and the Christian Democrats still do so but have had to yield in the government cooperation.

That is why it is difficult to understand how the Christian Democrats can now stand behind a policy where Sweden completely abandons some of the world's poorest countries, not least in Africa: Tanzania, Liberia, Mali, Mozambique, Burkina Faso, South Sudan and Zimbabwe. Sweden is also closing embassies in Liberia and Zimbabwe, as well as in Bolivia.

I would like to ask Gudrun Brunegård how the Christian Democrats view the fact that Sweden is now de facto abandoning many countries bilaterally. Even if one remains in regional strategies, it will be an immensely smaller pat of butter to spread on the sandwich than before. How do the Christian Democrats view Sweden turning its back on the very poorest countries in the world, not least countries in sub-Saharan Africa?

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

Gudrun Brunegård (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for important and difficult questions, Olle Thorell!

As I said, it is not painless to leave countries where one has had a long-standing commitment, but precisely because of that, it is so important to continue to act in those countries with the help of different strategies. Just because one terminates the bilateral agreement with a country does not end the possibility for civil society organizations and multilateral organizations to work within the thematic areas and the different strategies that the government has. It is very important to remember that. We do not abandon the countries in that way.

I would like to ask a counter-question. As far as I can tell, the Social Democrats support the government's initiative of 10 billion SEK for support to Ukraine; I have at least not seen any opposition. But the parties finance it in different ways, with reallocations and loans. Who is going to pay for it and when, Olle Thorell? How does it add up that S wants to maintain the support to other countries but does not oppose increased Ukraine support when you only add 1 billion more than the government in the budget for next year? At the same time, you want to return to the one percent goal.

Despite being an opposition party and not needing to take any other parties into account, you are therefore only putting out 1 billion in addition to the government's budget, and yet you want to stick to the 10 billion in Ukraine support. How does that add up?

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

Olle Thorell (S)

Madam Speaker! Gudrun Brunegård does not need to lie sleepless during the Christmas holidays over worry about how the Social Democrats can both continue to support Ukraine and take a greater global leadership when it comes to the poorest countries in the world. After the election, we will negotiate a state budget together with parties with whom we share basic values.

It will of course not be easy. We do not believe that the one percent goal can be achieved in a state budget by snapping one's fingers, no, it will take time and be difficult – but it will be done. I also hope that KD, wherever they find themselves after the election, can be a party that continues to stand up for the one percent goal and that they can be a partner with us on the journey back to it.

When it then comes to whether Sweden abandons these countries or not: It is clear that there are regional strategies remaining, but there is much less money to share. Ukraine receives more aid than all of Africa combined.

Civil society organizations in Zimbabwe have had the Swedish embassy as a sanctuary and a breathing space where they have been able to meet, meet like-minded people, and feel practical, real support for their work to promote democracy. Now that Sweden is closing the door – when the gates are closed and it is not possible to enter because Sweden is not present – the organizations are hardly comforted by the fact that there is a small regional or thematic strategy where they can obtain funding.

I am therefore asking my question again: How do the Christian Democrats view this development?

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

Gudrun Brunegård (KD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Thorell for these perspectives.

It is, as has been said, not without pain and serious concerns that these trade-offs have been made. However, we have no other way when it comes to prioritizing Ukraine. We need to see if our house, but at the same time, we have ensured that the different strategies will be able to remain in these countries.

I note that Member Thorell has no clear way forward, but rather it is a matter of pious hopes of being able to negotiate with other parties after the election.

When it comes to the Christian Democrats and the one percent goal, it became clear in connection with the party's national convention just about a month ago. There were motions to abolish the goal, but an overwhelming majority stood up for the party board's response to retain it. This will be our starting point also in upcoming negotiations.

It is important that Sweden, as a wealthy economy, is involved and bears a share of the responsibility in the same way as before. We need to continue to be a strong advocate when it comes to human rights and the rights of girls and women. This is what we encounter, for example, in the UN House. Sweden continues, together with like-minded countries, to be a strong voice, even if the slogan "feminist" is not used to describe Sweden's foreign policy.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! This may turn into a somewhat unexpected exchange of remarks.

It is a long way off until September 13, but I have understood that Member Brunegård unfortunately will not stand for re-election. It has been fantastically fun to occasionally debate aid issues with Member Brunegård. I believe there are few members who have stood in the speaker's chair who know as much about aid. This is based on both practical experience and other experience. I want to say that it has been a true pleasure.

In this context, I must also express my great disappointment that one did not manage to stand stronger for the one percent goal. It almost should have been made into a cabinet question. In a government cooperation, all parties are equally important. I assume that we ourselves would have pushed significantly harder on this, but I understand that one is forced to prioritize differently in these negotiations.

I would like to take the opportunity to thank and say that I will miss member Brunegård in the aid debate. It is always refreshing to have someone from the Tidösidan who actually knows what she is talking about when it comes to aid.

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

Gudrun Brunegård (KD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Jacob Risberg very much for a very pleasant contribution and for the warming words. Just like Member Risberg, I de facto have a genuine commitment that is rooted in my own experiences.

I would like to comment on what the member said regarding the one percent goal. This was one of the reasons why the aid negotiations were broken off from the other Tidö negotiations. We stood so far apart, and it was only after we had secured other parts that we could move forward together in the Tidö cooperation in a good and positive way for Sweden and for the world. We succeeded in freezing the levels so that the whole ended at almost exactly the same level as in the Social Democrats' budget for that current year after they had withdrawn money for asylum reception in Sweden. There was de facto no change. We froze the aid at that level.

Furthermore, we have included the clause that a maximum of 8 percent may be deducted from the settlements for reception in Sweden, which provides a long-term planning possibility. One has its billions, and one knows year by year that they will be there. There will be no sudden jerks.

That which does not correspond to the Migration Agency's estimated forecast is paid back to the aid budget, which has never happened before. Furthermore, from the turn of the year, legal entities will be able to make extensive deductions for donations to civil society.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! It remains to be seen, when we add them up and see how the money is accounted for, whether one even reaches the levels that have been talked about here. I am a little worried that a good deal of the money that is used today in the aid budget should actually not be classified as aid. It remains to be seen what the OECD says about, among other things, how we have used money from the aid budget for Somalia.

I would like to take the opportunity to wish a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. I hope that you have a wonderful future even outside of the Riksdag, Gudrun Brunegård!

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

Gudrun Brunegård (KD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Jacob Risberg for the warm wishes for the future. I naturally want to wish both him and my other colleagues here the same, regardless of whether we work in the Riksdag or somewhere else. Even if we approach issues with slightly different perspectives, the vast majority do so out of a true and sincere desire to do good.

As the member was in, we will have to see how the OECD assesses this. The preliminary contacts that the government and the UD have had before making various changes have nevertheless given good hopes that the majority will be able to fit within the regulatory framework for what aid is to do.

Thank you, Jacob Risberg, for good cooperation and good conversations!

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

Anna Lasses (C)

Madam Speaker! I want to begin by turning our gaze towards Bondi Beach and yet another despicable act that has struck humanity. Our thoughts are with those affected and their families. The wave of antisemitism that we see is tragically a sign of the times and must be struck down time and again. Never must that struggle fall silent.

Last Friday was exactly ten years since the Paris Agreement was concluded. The goal was that we should stay below a 1.5-degree temperature increase. Last week it was established that we have now hit that ceiling.

At the same time, we see how climate change both directly and indirectly causes people to fall into poverty and be driven into flight. Many of the protracted conflicts raging are exacerbated and caused precisely by the fact that the climate is changing, with droughts, floods, crop failures, and houses and homes being torn apart. We will see that the refugee flows increase.

The saddest thing is that we have known about this for a very long time. Still, we stand here today.

Madam Speaker! It feels more and more like we are participating in a dystopian science fiction film. We already know what is going to happen. The conflicts in Sudan, Congo, Yemen, Myanmar, and the Middle East are ongoing in countries that are negatively affected by climate change. The refugee flows are increasing, and Europe responds in panic by building an ever higher and stronger fortress that fewer and fewer people get through. At the same time, aid is being cut. Furthermore, Russia's large-scale war against Ukraine is ongoing, which threatens the entire democratic Europe.

We in Europe have our own refugees to take care of. We also have our own climate changes that threaten us.

Now, if ever, it is important to be brave, take on leadership, and stand up for the human rights that we collectively established in the wake of the catastrophe that World War II represented. Every small effort counts, and it is in the light of climate change and the conflicts ongoing in our world that we shall see the budget proposal for 2026's international aid.

Aid should reduce poverty and oppression and create opportunities for people to live in safety, which also contributes to a safer world and a safer Sweden. In a world where the USA has slaughtered its aid and where many of the large aid-giving countries are reducing their support, Swedish aid becomes increasingly important. Then Sweden must dare to prioritize.

Centerpartiet therefore argues that Sweden must dare to stay where it is absolutely hardest, i.e., in the most vulnerable environments and among the most vulnerable countries. We therefore view it very seriously that the government now chooses to partially do precisely the opposite. The long-term development aid to Afghanistan, Myanmar, and parts of Africa is being withdrawn. Space is being left for authoritarian superpowers such as China, Russia, and Saudi Arabia, which stand ready to make the world a little less democratic with every passing day.

If you want to invest in the future, a good start is to invest in the children. It is not a cliché, but the children are de facto the future. What we do to our children, we will get back when they have grown up in 10–20 years, whether it is good or bad things. If we do not give the world's children the opportunity to live a secure life where they can eventually support themselves and their families, all of us who are adults today will feel the consequences.

One-fifth of the world's children live today in a conflict, and a full 75 percent of the world's poorest children live in Africa, in precisely those countries where the Swedish government now chooses to phase out Sweden's long-term projects.

We also know that aid that goes to equality, women's and girls' health, and children's education really makes a difference. These are areas the government likes to talk about, but when we come to the actual figures, both the previous and this government have invested very little money in children's education, only a measly few percent. Even equality is receding in the current aid budget.

The government speaks beautifully about investing in women's empowerment and on climate, efficiency and transparency, and much of what is being done is absolutely good.

But there has also been a major change for the worse, and we cannot talk about the budget for aid without mentioning the convoluted connection the government makes between migration policy and aid policy.

Let me be clear. Migration and aid are, to the highest degree, connected, because properly used aid provides increased security in vulnerable environments, which means that people do not need to flee. It is that simple. But instead of making this simple connection, the government chooses to use the aid to carry out deportations from Sweden by bribing corrupt states with aid funds so that they will accept their citizens – something they are required to do under international law without a single penny being paid out.

The 105 million that have been paid out to Somalia and which have resulted in between 20 and 30 executed deportation decisions over two years is therefore a great waste of taxpayers' money. And no, all these 20–30 people were not dangerous rapists, which one might think when hearing the government defend this irresponsible decision.

Aid shall reduce poverty and oppression and create opportunities for people to live in safety, which also contributes to a safer world and a safer Sweden.

In addition to the budget having been reduced to a total of 53 billion kronor, a large part is directed to Ukraine. This is important because Ukraine is fighting a war against an authoritarian Russia and for Europe's future as a democratic part of the world where the principles of the rule of law prevail.

In the Swedish Riksdag, there is a consensus that it is Sweden's duty and responsibility to stand up for Ukraine as far as we are able. In view of this, the Center Party proposes that a loan-financed fund corresponding to approximately 1 percent of Sweden's GDP be established immediately – in addition to the regular budget. This fund shall exist as long as Ukraine needs support. Approximately one-third shall go to civil support of various kinds, including aid. In view of this, we choose to move the aid to Ukraine to this fund.

Sweden has a stable economy today, and therefore this solution is strategic and sustainable. It is also a clear way to stand up for our responsibility to be an active supporter of Ukraine. I therefore hope that all parties can imagine considering this solution.

Regarding the aid budget, the Ukraine fund means that Sweden can continue to stand up for the rest of the world in a time when every aid krona is worth its weight in gold. Parallel to the proposal for a Ukraine fund, Centerpartiet proposes that a gradual return to the one percent goal in the regular aid budget takes place.

Centerpartiets budget proposal for aid is permeated by a liberal feminism. We prioritize the most vulnerable environments, and we invest in children's education, jobs through small-scale entrepreneurship, female entrepreneurship, climate adaptation, transition in vulnerable areas, and projects that in different ways promote democracy.

We also see a need for reduced earmarking of the support that goes through the multilateral organizations, particularly in areas with long-standing conflicts where it must be easy to switch between long-term work and acute interventions.

And of course, Madam Speaker, the Centre Party wants to restore support for UNRWA, which is a completely decisive party in the fragile peace work that is ongoing.

It is not possible to talk about next year's aid budget without talking about the importance of civil society organizations. Through civil society's invaluable networks, we know how things actually work and what is needed. That is how we find out how individual oppositionists are treated in prisons, what it looks like on the streets in Gaza, and how hbtqi people's rights are violated in everyday life. Support for civil society is simply crucial, both on the ground locally and in Sweden. Therefore, the information support to the Swedish civil society actors needs to be reviewed and perhaps reinstated. Overall, these actors' participation in aid work needs to be re-evaluated and included in Team Sweden, where both companies, civil society, and state actors should collaborate.

As Speaker, I note that there is much to say about the aid budget and how it could be prioritized. Most importantly, however, is to remember how important these funds are. We must not believe that just because Sweden is a small country on the border of the Arctic Circle, what we do doesn't matter. On the contrary, it matters a great deal. Our aid funds save lives, build security in everyday life, ensure that freedom of expression in the world is strengthened, and ensure that children get to come home to their parents. It also gives Sweden a voice in the world.

With this, I announce that we in Centerpartiet stand by our own proposal and therefore will not participate in the decision on the government's proposal for the aid budget for 2026.

I would also like to take this opportunity to wish the Speaker's Presidium, my colleagues in the committee, and everyone else a very Merry but, above all, peaceful Christmas – something I believe we all are in great need of.

(Applause)

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! We find ourselves in a time when conflicts, climate crises, and increasing inequality characterize the entire world and when democratic rights are being restricted, children are starving, and millions of people are forced into flight. It is more important than ever that Sweden is committed to breaking this negative development and giving more people the opportunity to leave poverty and oppression.

Unfortunately, that is not how the government sees it, but that is how we in Miljöpartiet see it. We want to see a different policy, a policy where the one percent goal is achieved and where international development cooperation is effective and transparent and both more responsible and more future-oriented than the government's.

Madam Speaker! Miljöpartiet wants Sweden to return to the goal that politics agreed upon for many years: that aid shall amount to at least 1 percent of GNI. It is not a figure taken out of thin air, but it is a political commitment that has made Sweden a moral and concrete force in the world.

Restoring aid to 1 percent is an act of solidarity and payment for a historical debt. But it is not just that. It is also an investment in global stability, in reduced emissions and more climate adaptation, in conflict prevention work and in people's democratic rights. It is simply an investment in our own and future generations' security.

The government wants to continue cutting instead. But the cuts are only half the problem. The other half is that the government is now systematically redirecting aid to completely different purposes than poverty reduction. Resources that should go to girls' schooling, to climate adaptation, and to building peaceful and resilient societies – all of this – are being pushed back when the government turns development policy into a kind of wallet for other policy areas.

Let me be clear. Support for Ukraine is necessary and absolutely crucial, and Miljöpartiet stands wholeheartedly behind it. But the aid to Ukraine must not occur by simultaneously dismantling development cooperation in the world's poorest and most vulnerable countries. It is a false contradiction. It is possible to help Ukraine and to maintain a solidary and effective aid. It is a political choice of the government, not an economic one.

Madam Speaker! When the government allocates aid funds to things that are not aid, such as migration costs, suspicious funds for corrupt regimes and Swedish companies, an illusion of investments is created. But out in the world, every krona that disappears is noticed. Every cut means fewer children in school, fewer women who can leave violent relationships, and fewer opportunities to stop the next famine. It also means a weakened international UN system.

Sweden has historically been one of the most reliable donors of flexible core funding to UN organizations. It is that support that enables the UN to work long-term with institutions, with peacebuilding, with health, with education, and with climate adaptation, while simultaneously quickly mobilizing when crises and disasters strike.

The cuts of recent years have, however, destroyed much of that trust. We see how UN agencies are cutting back their operations. We see how UNRWA, which bears a crucial humanitarian responsibility for Palestinian refugees, now lacks Swedish funding in a situation where the needs are greater than they have been in decades.

This is not only unfortunate. It is also dangerous. When the UN is weakened, the world's ability to handle conflicts, epidemics, and humanitarian disasters is also weakened. Re-establishing and strengthening Sweden's core support is therefore one of the most security-creating measures Sweden can take today.

We must also continue to safeguard humanitarian aid and humanitarian law. The world's countries are today arming themselves more for war and conflict than they are committed to international cooperation for peaceful development. In a world where humanitarian needs are growing and geopolitical tensions are increasing, it is more important than ever that Sweden and the EU stand guard over the humanitarian space and principle-based humanitarian work.

Madam Speaker! Aid is not charity. It is foreign and security policy. Every krona that prevents conflicts is a krona that reduces the risk of people being forced to flee, of growing extremism, or of increased global tensions. Every investment in women's rights strengthens societies and economies. Every investment in climate transition in the global south is also an investment in our own ability to limit the consequences of the climate crisis.

That is why Miljöpartiet also prioritizes strong and clear climate aid. The world is in the midst of an accelerating climate crisis where the poorest are hit hardest, despite having contributed the least emissions. Through climate aid, Sweden contributes both to economic development and to reduced emissions, and to countries being able to implement the Paris Agreement.

It is also absolutely crucial for reaching global goals to protect at least 30 percent of the earth's land and marine areas. That type of nature and climate investment does not work with short-term spurts. They require long-term partnerships and fair financing.

Madam Speaker! International research cooperation is another cornerstone that the government has dismantled. Swedish development research has for decades been world-leading and created knowledge that has saved lives, strengthened institutions, and developed democracies. To cut into this is not to save; it is to dismantle our own ability to understand and influence the world we are a part of.

Overall, our budget proposal means that almost 20 billion kronor more than the government's proposal is allocated to expenditure area 7. It is an investment in global stability, in climate solutions, in human rights and in a stronger UN system. These are resources that make a difference and that provide a return in the form of a safer and more sustainable world.

Sweden has long been a pioneer, not because we were the biggest but because we were consistent. We have stood up when others hesitated, and we have understood that solidarity and security are two sides of the same coin. But in recent years, Sweden has gone from being an example to being a question mark. Countries that previously saw us as a moral compass are now asking what has happened. Why is Sweden turning away just when the world needs more international leadership, not less? That is something we in Miljöpartiet would also like to know. But the government does not answer.

We in Miljöpartiet want Sweden to be that force again. Sweden shall be the one that stands up for democracy and human rights, the partner that the UN can rely on, and the actor that understands that strong aid is not just about other countries' future but also about our own.

The Green Party's proposal is therefore both a restoration and a crossroads. We choose solidarity over short-sightedness, stability over risk, and human rights over political symbolism. And we choose to see the world as it is: interconnected, complex, and completely dependent on countries taking responsibility together.

Madam Speaker! In a time of crisis, less aid is not what is needed. More is needed. Clarity, long-term perspective, and political leadership are needed. That is what we in Miljöpartiet want and present with our budget proposal. We have the hope for and the solutions for a better world – for 1 percent aid, for a stronger UN, and for the climate, democracy, and women's rights.

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

Katarina Tolgfors (M)

Madam Speaker! That was interesting.

I want to start by saying that even though the Moderate-led government and the Tidö cooperation are reducing aid, Sweden is still one of the world's largest donors of humanitarian aid to the horrific crisis in Sudan, the EU's largest donor of humanitarian support to Gaza, and in relation to our size and GDP, one of the larger donors to Ukraine.

It was previously mentioned that a cabinet question would be posed regarding the budget. I note then that the so-called united opposition has completely different budget proposals regarding the aid policy.

The Social Democrats are not far above the Moderate-led government's budget, somewhere around 0.74–0.76. The Left Party lands, as mentioned, 4 billion over the government's aid budget. The Green Party obviously has the largest tax chest and promises 1 percent of GDP. Where will those funds come from? I would like to get an answer to that from Member of Parliament Jacob Risberg. And the Centre Party has a completely separate proposal, which concerns establishing a separate fund. No, we do not need to discuss details, but I would still very much like to get an answer eventually on how it is to be done and where those funds will come from.

Finally: Given that it is so disparate and that these budgets do not add up, I wonder what it will look like on the bottom line. Will a cabinet question be posed if the accident is out there and this gang takes over after the 2026 election?

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

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

It is of course very good that we provide a lot of humanitarian aid to Sudan and humanitarian aid to Gaza. But at the same time as we do that, we are cutting back very much on the development aid we provide, which is intended to contribute to preventing future humanitarian catastrophes. It is like putting bandages on a bleeding wound but still leaving the knives out. New wounds, new conflicts, and new unrest will simply arise, leading to a greater need for humanitarian aid. You cannot fix everything with bandages.

Regarding the Green Party's own budget, it is quite simple – if you read through our entire budget proposal, you can see where the money comes from. It is a whole. It is not just about the aid portion, but there are many parts in this where we have the opportunity to move money around. It is also the case that the Green Party does not go to the election on lowering taxes for those who earn the most. That does not lead to any form of economic justice.

Then it would be very strange if all four of us parties in the opposition had one and the same budget proposal. Why would we then be four different parties? I know that you won't even within the Tidö cooperation go to an election on one and the same election platform. Does that mean you are not in agreement? Does it mean you cannot agree? So that is obviously not the case. It is always about negotiations. Of course, we go to the election on the budget that we consider to be the absolute best. The Social Democrats go to the election on the budget they consider to be the best and the Left Party on the budget they consider to be the best. The Centre Party likewise. It would be very strange otherwise.

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

Katarina Tolgfors (M)

Madam Speaker! I still cannot make sense of this with money and treasure chests that occur at Miljöpartiet.

The proposals that the Social Democrats, the Left Party, the Centre Party and the Green Party present in their shadow budgets are like night and day. It does not add up at the bottom line. I would like to be a fly on the wall in the negotiation room when you are going to negotiate the aid budget. There is a difference of several billion, for example, between your proposal and the Social Democrats' proposal.

It was mentioned earlier that cabinet questions would be posed within the Tidö parties. What happens if Member Risberg's party, together with that group, were to take over? What would the aid budget look like? Should there be a fund? Should it be 1 percent of GDP? Should it be 0.76 percent of GDP, which the Social Democrats' budget currently stands at – very close to the budget that we from the Tidö parties are presenting? It does not add up, and it is the same in many other policy areas.

The Tidö parties have successfully negotiated four budgets that have passed in the Riksdag. There is a big difference compared to how it looked when the previous S government was allowed to govern on our budget and there was no majority. It is not good for Sweden, because it creates instability.

It sounds very good when Member Risberg describes how one should give more to everything and everyone. We also want to give money to those in need, but we must prioritize. It does not mean that this government is withdrawing from the international leadership and responsibility that we take.

With that, I would like to take the opportunity to wish the Speaker's Presidium and my colleagues a Merry Christmas. I look forward to the answer from Member Risberg.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

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

I can definitely promise that the member will not be a fly on the wall when it comes to our future negotiations. She will, however, definitely see the result.

If one looks at how the Tidö parties managed to cooperate and what their budget proposals looked like before the election, one sees that they were also very diverse. That is, of course, the case. We are four different parties. We go to the election with four different budgets.

One should perhaps not always use one's own result as a yardstick. I think that is bad. The Tidö parties have successfully negotiated four different budgets over the past years, absolutely, but they are four budgets that have worsened for families with children. They are four budgets that have worsened for the world's poorest. They are four budgets that have worsened the climate work. They are four budgets that have increased emissions from Sweden extremely much. They are four budgets that have destroyed the climate.

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

Markus Kauppinen (S)

Madam Speaker! The Government and SD continue the total change of course for Swedish aid. The Foreign Affairs Committee's report on expenditure area 7 confirms a direction that replaces solidarity with self-interest and poverty reduction with migration policy. This has also become clear during today's debate. The Government and SD are turning aid into a migration budget when it should be a future investment. This is a betrayal of the most vulnerable in the world and of Sweden's historical role as a leading aid nation.

Madam Speaker! The government's primary foreign policy task is, as it itself says, the support for Ukraine. This support is absolutely necessary and has the full support of the Social Democrats. But the question is: Who pays the bill?

The government's decision to reduce the total level of aid while simultaneously significantly increasing support to Ukraine means that it is the children in, among other places, Africa who have to pay the bill. The consequence is that the vital long-term development aid is affected. It is not aid if it is taken from the poor to be given to another vulnerable group.

The report notes that the total aid from OECD countries decreased during 2024 and that specifically the health sector and Sub-Saharan Africa were most affected. This is a direct result of aid funds being shifted, not least through increased offsets.

When Sweden scales back long-term cooperation in Africa – which concerns building functioning schools, hospitals, and resilience against climate change – it is the children who pay the highest price.

Aid for education, vaccines, and interventions to protect children from conflicts must not be cut to free up funds for other things. In the government's reform agenda, the children's perspective is a forgotten priority. We must be clear: Children have the right to life, development, protection, and participation regardless of where in the world they live.

This has a direct connection to our local area. In Ukraine and areas such as Nagorno-Karabakh, children are the first victims of war and displacement. The support via the EU and UN, which we finance, should be earmarked for psychosocial support, schooling in crisis, and protection against trafficking.

We in the committee welcome the information we have received regarding the in-depth reporting of the aid to Ukraine, which is to be presented in the spring of 2026. But this must occur without cannibalizing the aid that is needed in other crises.

Madam Speaker! Sweden's aid shall rest on the fundamental principles of human rights, poverty reduction, and the children's perspective. The Government's policy is driving us in a different direction.

The report also notes that deductions for asylum costs in Sweden amount to approximately 2.8 billion kronor for 2026. The Social Democrats accept the OECD-DAC framework, but we are strongly critical of how the government broadens and uses the deductions. To call domestic costs aid is to deceive the Riksdag and the poorest.

The prioritization to "strengthen synergies between aid and migration policy" risks making aid conditional on the recipient country's willingness to cooperate on migration issues. Aid is a development instrument, not a means of pressure. That one prioritizes "poverty reduction through job creation and trade" shows that commercial interests are being prioritized. Aid should promote poor countries' own economic and democratic development but not at the expense of the acute need for human rights and crisis interventions.

Madam Speaker! The Social Democrats refrain from moving for the alternative budget proposal, which lies outside the framework established by the Riksdag. Instead, we refer to our special statement in our committee motion.

We Social Democrats, however, stand firm in our conviction: We must gradually return to the one percent goal for aid in order to meet the growing global needs. The goal of aid shall be to create better living conditions for people living in poverty and oppression and have an uncompromising starting point in human rights and the clear child perspective.

The government speaks of a new era for aid, but what we see is a historical retreat from solidarity. To cut aid, deceive the poorest with ugly deductions and let the children in Africa pay for Sweden's domestic policy is not to modernize – it is to morally decay.

We Social Democrats stand firm that Sweden shall lead the world in solidarity – not with betrayal. We want to see that aid returns to its original mission and focuses on children's rights, on poverty reduction, and on human rights.

I thank you for the floor and wish everyone a Merry Christmas!

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 16 December.)

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