International aid through multilateral organizations

Katarina Tolgfors (M)

Mr. Speaker! We live in a restless and jolting time when much in our world is changing at a rapid pace. Russia's full-scale war against Ukraine has changed security not only in Europe but also in the world. The rules-based world order is being challenged, and the international system is under strong pressure. With a new administration in the USA, there is great uncertainty surrounding the USA's commitment to Ukraine but also great uncertainty regarding the global economy.

Democracy, human rights and the principles of the rule of law are values that are in decline in far too many places in the world. It is worrying and must be addressed with collective strength. With new circumstances, we must reform several areas to meet these challenges in the outside world, which also affect us in our everyday lives here in Sweden.

The Moderate-led government's clear focus in foreign policy is to put Sweden and Swedish interests first and to continue supporting Ukraine. At this point, it is obvious to most why this is an important priority, while the government is also implementing major reforms in other areas to build a safer, wealthier, and more secure Sweden.

Mr. Speaker! The Government has initiated a comprehensive reform of Swedish aid, which also affects the multilateral organizations. This is addressed in report UU11, which we are debating here tonight. I move to approve the committee's proposal in that report.

Support to multilateral aid organizations decreased from 2022 to 2023 by 1.8 billion kronor as part of the total reduction and reprioritization of Swedish aid that the government has carried out with its reform agenda. In 2022, Sweden's core support amounted to 20.7 billion kronor, and in 2023 it decreased to 18.9 billion kronor. I do not have the final figures for 2024 yet.

Mr. Speaker! In December last year, the government decided on a strategy for multilateral development cooperation and humanitarian aid. The overall goal for Sweden's multilateral aid is, as with aid in general, to create conditions for better living conditions for people living in poverty and oppression.

Multilateral aid shall contribute to an effective implementation of the government's aid policy goals. The strategy specifies principles for Swedish funding, Swedish priorities, and Sweden's expectations of multilateral partner organizations. Such an expectation concerns streamlining and reduced bureaucracy, so that money and resources reach those the resources are directed toward and that the goals are achieved.

Mr. Speaker! The strategy also specifies measures to increase the number of Swedes in strategic positions, how Sweden shall work to ensure that the multilateral organizations safeguard Swedish companies' expertise and innovation capacity for global sustainable development, and how governance and follow-up are strengthened.

The multilateral organizations are important arenas for Swedish foreign policy. They constitute platforms for dialogue and negotiations on prioritized issues, including the international support for Ukraine. Examples of multilateral organizations are the UN and the World Bank. The multilateral system is central for developing and maintaining international norms and agreements.

Mr. Speaker! Let me give a few examples where multilateral aid plays a decisive role:

I will begin with Ukraine, where the Russian attacks have increased recently, in the midst of the peace negotiations. Ukrainian civilians are affected every day by the horrors of war. Women are still being raped. Children lose their parents, and people see their homes and life's work destroyed. Mental illness is increasing dramatically. Infrastructure and energy supply are being knocked out, and the country is one of the most mined in the entire world. The long-term environmental consequences of Russia's full-scale war of aggression are extensive.

In Ukraine, for example, UNHCR, UN Women, ICRC, Unicef, World Food Programme and the UN's humanitarian fund for Ukraine operate, but also EU institutions such as the European Investment Bank as well as security organizations such as OSCE. The efforts focus on water and sanitation, healthcare, food supply, protection and security for vulnerable groups and residents.

The multilateral organizations have, according to the government, a crucial role in handling Ukraine's challenges. They are important partners for Sweden due to their ability to manage budget support and larger programs.

Mr. Speaker! Another example that is current is the situation in Gaza. On October 7, 2023, Hamas carried out a horrific and barbaric attack against young Israelis at a music festival and against the local population. Civilians were attacked, and girls and women were raped. Entire families were brutally murdered, and Israeli hostages were taken by Hamas.

The profound and complex conflict in Gaza hits the civilians very hard. Due to the humanitarian situation, Sweden provides significant support, but it no longer goes through UNRWA; instead, it is channeled, following a government decision, via organizations such as UNFPA, WFP, UNDP, and ICRC.

Mr. Speaker! Democracy, human rights and the principles of the rule of law are highly relevant values and issues where we unfortunately see an ever-increasing need for support. Even here at home, we must continue to work to stand guard over these values.

A few days ago, the Left Party member Lorena Delgado Varas shared a picture on social media – a strongly antisemitic picture, which could have been taken from the 30s. The Jews are illustrated, in some kind of conspiracy theory, as if they rule the world. I think it is remarkable. This makes me terribly upset.

When we now, in a restless world, work for the values that Sweden stands for and that all parties in Sweden's Riksdag should stand for, this is shameful. I would like to hear the Left Party member comment on this.

Finally: Multilateral aid in the world plays an important role. It must be effective. It must be coordinated, and it must work in the places in the world where the large organizations are. It is they who can ensure that the efforts that Sweden participates in actually have an effect for the people who are affected.

(Applause)

In this speech, Gudrun Brunegård (KD) and Joar Forssell (L) agreed.

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

Olle Thorell (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Katarina Tolgfors, for your speech and for the commitment you show regarding the multilateral system and its importance! Every morning when you turn on the news, you hear about world orders being dismantled.

But I would like to ask a question to you Moderates. You often say that aid must be modernized and that the focus should be on results. I agree with that, but the problem is that this government is tearing down what works. The cuts of nearly 2 billion kronor that have been made in core support to UN agencies are not taking responsibility. It is making a retreat and stepping back when multilateralism is more threatened than ever.

You say that you want to safeguard Swedish interests. Yes, we all want that here. The question is which interests one wants to safeguard and in what way one does it – whether it is a narrow self-interest or whether it is an enlightened self-interest that is general and applies to many countries, including Sweden.

But my question to Katarina Tolgfors is: In your strategy, is there anything about filling the vacuum that arises? It is not about the entire vacuum – everyone understands that Sweden cannot fill it alone. But what strategy exists to take the initiative to fill some of the vacuum that arises multilaterally in the UN? This concerns a multitude of aid infrastructures that are now being destroyed when Elon Musk and company go forward with a chainsaw over the international – primarily the humanitarian – aid?

What is your strategy? Is it to accept that it turned out this way? Should Sweden align itself with the lead of countries that do not step forward, or should Sweden step forward?

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

Katarina Tolgfors (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member Thorell, for the question!

I have previously expressed here in the speaker's chair, when we have debated international aid, that it is of course very worrying when we see the development and also the rapid withdrawal of USAID that the USA has signaled, which has major consequences. Member Thorell and I were on a committee trip to South Africa not so long ago and were then able to observe with great concern that, for example, the support to combat HIV/AIDS is in the danger zone.

Of course, Sweden should step forward and do what we can. We cannot replace the large share of aid in the world that the USA has contributed to, but if one is to try to understand the USA's thoughts, it is clear that it is reasonable that Europe, not only in the defense area but also in this area, steps forward and takes a greater responsibility. More countries than Sweden must do this.

I do not believe that Member Thorell and another government could conjure up more funds. On the other hand, we must find new alliances and new, smarter ways to work together, not least in the EU but also in the UN, which Sweden continues to be a major donor to and works with.

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

Olle Thorell (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Katarina Tolgfors, for the answer! I believe we agree on the substance. Sweden cannot fill the entire vacuum, but one must take initiative to do what can be done and mobilize others.

I see no signs of that, however. I see no press conferences in Rosenbad where an international summit is called with Sweden in the lead to mobilize humanitarian aid and to build a new infrastructure together with other countries that also see the same problems. I do not see how Sweden stands up in the speaker's chairs in the UN, in the European Parliament, or in other forums. I do not see the Swedish government and its representatives acting to mobilize support to repair what is now being torn down by what one could call the USA's self-harming behavior. Even the USA is affected by the world falling into chaos, as it will do. It is a security risk for all people in the world if humanitarian aid completely disappears from the map, conflicts worsen, and people's desperation increases.

Thank you for the beautiful words, but where are the initiatives?

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

Katarina Tolgfors (M)

Mr. Speaker! Member Thorell, I actually have no other view than that Sweden shall continue to be an active actor on the international arena, even when it comes to support for development in poor countries. The Government is very clear about the priorities in its aid agenda.

From the investigation that I returned to regarding Sweden's involvement in Afghanistan, a good deal of lessons can be drawn that are also useful for the continued work. It is that it is not always more money that is the right way to achieve results, but rather that one has targeted efforts that meet needs. The transaction chain must become shorter, and one must also be able to prioritize.

Sweden cannot be everywhere in the whole world and does not have the resources to help everyone everywhere, so then one must prioritize and cooperate more with others.

When it comes to press conferences at Rosenbad, I think Member Thorell and I see things through different lenses. I think there are quite a lot of press conferences. If one actively follows the government's work and its various representatives such as the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Minister for Development Cooperation and Trade, the Prime Minister and so on, I think it is quite obvious to everyone that the world is currently facing very large challenges in many areas that are simultaneously interconnected – security, economic uncertainty, poverty, the regression of democracy and human rights.

It is not just beautiful words, but it is now in the budget and there are many who work with this daily. These are goals that are very important and prioritized in the government's foreign policy agenda.

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

Anna Lasses (C)

Mr. Speaker! Many thanks to Member Tolgfors for the contribution and discussion!

I perceive that we actually stand very close to each other when it comes to the view on the decisive role that the multilateral system has and also the importance of aid in the multilateral system.

As has been said, there is a before and an after January 20. It truly does. Consequently, one may perhaps also be allowed to reassess some things. One thing that truly stands out in the government's various documents, both the reform agenda and the various strategies, is the capacity for flexibility, precisely in order to achieve effective aid that can be adapted based on the conditions that exist.

The multilateral system and core funding have a great advantage, and it is precisely about the ability to very quickly be able to reprioritize and fill gaps where it is absolutely needed most. Now, the government has begun a journey where it has, to some extent, begun to softly steer the core funding, which is still a large part, towards specified themes or areas. My reflection is the following: Now that it has become this way, is there a discussion about at least temporarily increasing the proportion of core funding, just because the multilateral organizations have the possibility to very quickly regroup if needed?

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

Katarina Tolgfors (M)

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

As I previously answered to Member Olle Thorell's question, it is still the case that Sweden sees the multilateral organizations and not least the UN as an important global platform. There we ensure that we follow the common rules that we establish internationally, there one has a forum where one discusses and makes decisions and there we also together in these very restless times have the strength, the possibility and the resources to actually do something and act.

There is no other view from the government and the Tidö parties than that we shall continue to be a contributing force out in the world. On the other hand, we make other priorities. Yes – we are reducing the total, but we are still one of the largest donors in the world, and we work with many tools in many forums to ensure that we can achieve a safer world and see to it that countries can develop in the right direction. But that force and will must also come from the recipient countries.

Now we are talking about precisely those multilateral organizations, which have a special role and opportunity, not least for example in Ukraine in our neighborhood. It is a high priority, and to which we have also moved a portion of funds from other efforts, precisely because Ukraine is so incredibly important for our own security. It is about Ukraine's strength in negotiations but also about the possibility of rebuilding the country.

We shall defend the multilateral system and the world order we have and believe in, and Sweden continues to do so even with this government and this aid policy.

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

Anna Lasses (C)

Mr. Speaker! Regarding the support for Ukraine, we are in complete agreement. There is no discussion there, but there we must simply provide the support that is needed – especially now. There is no talk about this.

That we have different views on how large the framework should be and some different priorities is one thing, but my question concerns whether the government is considering whether one needs to increase the proportion of core support in this situation to shorten lead times. Even if we in Sweden believe that we are good, the organizations can act faster. Is the government considering whether one can increase the core support right now within the existing framework? Then one has to reprioritize. I am interested in knowing if the discussion is being held.

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

Katarina Tolgfors (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank member Lasses.

In the situation we find ourselves in now, we must be prepared to let go of the rope and old truths and structures and to find new ways forward. They must be faster, flexible and in cooperation with others.

I cannot stand here and say that the government should increase the core support right now. It is not in the decisions and agreements that exist. With the economic development and the uncertainty due to Russia's increased attacks against Ukraine and the developments in other parts of the world that are not heading in the right direction – when we now see how the EU acts, quickly comes together and finds new solutions and constellations – there is, however, an opportunity to find new solutions in the crisis by being innovative. But this does not always mean that one increases the bag of money.

A focus that the government has with its aid policy is to find methods and ways that allow countries that are recipients of Swedish aid to themselves, with the help of their own power, be able to build safety, security, and economy. That is the only way to achieve lasting results and so that the world can become a little safer and more secure. It is connected to the fact that the people in a country can stand on their own feet. The long-term goal must be to not need to receive aid.

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

Olle Thorell (S)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by expressing my support for the Social Democrats' reservations 1 and 6 in the report.

Multilateral aid is a fundamental part of Sweden's international work for sustainable development, poverty reduction, and human rights, among much else. Through core funding to UN agencies and other multilateral organizations, Sweden has for decades contributed to building strong, transparent, and effective institutions in countries struggling against hunger, diseases, conflicts, and the climate crisis.

Core funding to the UN is a form of financing that makes it possible for the organizations to plan long-term, act quickly in crises, and adapt interventions to changing needs. It is effective and strategic and also gives Sweden influence in the organizations. It requires accountability, but it also provides impact for Swedish priorities such as equality and human rights.

Sweden has long been an example by providing large, stable and long-term core funding. This means that the government's decision to reduce the core funding by nearly 2 billion kronor is particularly regrettable. That the government then tones down previously stated ambitions to actively limit the core funding in the strategy is, of course, welcome, but nuanced formulations are not enough. The cuts have already been made, and they have consequences.

It is particularly difficult to understand that the government is completely phasing out the core support to UNDRR, that is, the UN's organ for disaster prevention work, in a time of increasing climate-related disasters. The preventive work is already severely underfunded and should rather be strengthened. It is also difficult to see the logic in cutting the support to UNFPA and the Global Fund ahead of new multi-year agreements – or in completely terminating the support to Unaids, a key actor in the work with sexual and reproductive health – not least now in the shadow of USAID's decommissioning and the consequences it has in southern Africa and in other parts of the world.

The government speaks of the aid safeguarding Swedish interests. It is clear that we shall try to safeguard Swedish interests in everything we do. But which interests, and in what way? We Social Democrats believe that Sweden has always had an enlightened self-interest in contributing to a stable, just and sustainable world. It is an interest based on solidarity, equality, democracy, respect for international law and human rights.

When aid is lowered below the one percent target while the policy for global development has been abolished and the Agenda 2030 work is deprioritized, the government fails not only our commitments but also the world's most vulnerable people. It is particularly serious in a time when international aid faces its greatest crisis in decades. With Donald Trump in the White House, we see how the USA is stepping back from the multilateral arena. USAID, which for a long time was one of the world's largest donors, is now being dismantled at a rapid pace. The consequences are devastating and very clear.

In South Africa, clinics are being forced to close, and HIV patients in South Africa, Uganda, and other hard-hit countries are being left without their medication. In Nigeria, tens of thousands of people are left without treatment. In the Tigray region of Ethiopia, millions have lost access to food aid. These are just a few examples. Calculations show that up to 34 million people risk dying as a result of the decision. 34 million people! It is absolutely staggering.

When an actor that accounts for around 40 percent of global humanitarian aid withdraws, leadership from others is required. Sweden has historically been such a leading voice, but today we see a government that is cutting back on aid, turning away its gaze and focusing more on the region than on global challenges, and abdicating from the responsibility and the role that we have previously borne with pride.

We see how the Swedish government is becoming part of the international slippery slope. It is a slope where one cuts in aid, has departed from the one percent goal and moved rapidly in a direction that soon risks placing Sweden under 0.7 percent of GNI to aid. It is a limit of decency that the UN has set for wealthier countries. It would be a historical betrayal if Sweden falls below that limit of decency. We are actually one of the world's richest and most successful countries, even though we of course also have challenges.

When we Social Democrats get back the power of government, we will restore the aid step by step back to the one percent level. We want Sweden to be a role model and an example, not a rich country among many other rich countries that turn their backs on the global challenges.

We regret that the government continues to deprioritize multilateral work. It affects the poorest and most vulnerable people in the world, and it is a betrayal of the values that Sweden has previously stood for and been proud of in international contexts. Therefore, we Social Democrats reserve our position, and therefore we will continue to fight for aid that is principled, generous, needs-based, and internationally respected.

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

Katarina Tolgfors (M)

Mr. Speaker! I note that the member of the Left Party has removed himself from the speaking list. I wonder if it is a coincidence today. It feels rather cowardly.

Mr. Speaker! I would like to ask a question to Member Thorell. I want to know honestly whether it would be possible for the Social Democrats and Member Thorell to let go of the rope, think anew and meet the new thoughts and ideas that actually come from the reform agenda but which could also come from the Social Democrats.

Don't we need to be flexible even in our thinking – not just when it comes to aid – to find a way forward in the situation and the landscape that we now see in the world, for there to be a change? Otherwise, it is a bit like trying to push a square block into a round hole. One is using the same medicine as one has done for all years. But the world does not look like that anymore. One must find new ways.

A goal for aid must be that countries should be able to stand on their own feet. It is not just more of everything that yields results. In that case, more countries, after previous governments' large share of aid, would already be standing on their own feet.

I would like to hear if Member Thorell has any ideas on new thinking.

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

Olle Thorell (S)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to thank Katarina Tolgfors for giving me the opportunity to talk about all the new ideas and reflections that the Social Democrats have regarding the development of the aid policy. It does, in fact, need to be developed. The world is changing. Times look different. The needs are great in the world. And how to create a more effective and better aid that gives even more bang for the tax money is, of course, of interest to us.

We know that aid will not solve all the world's problems. Even if we were to give 5, 7 or 10 percent of GNI – which we have no plans to do – it still would not solve all the world's problems. Aid is part of the machinery that can lift poor countries and vulnerable people out of vulnerability and poverty. But it is not the only tool.

Trade is very important. It is positive that the government wants to find synergies between trade and aid and ensure that there is enterprise, entrepreneurship, and hope for the future in poor countries, so that they can support themselves.

New sources of funding need to be found. It should not only be state tax money that finances it. There are also private funds, organizations and foundations, such as the Gates Foundation. There are plenty of private initiatives and wealthy oligarchs out there who devote a lot of time to giving away their money.

Sweden must be engaged and ensure that we can get a return on the efforts we make also with other funding.

It is also about regulations of international trade and this madness with tariffs that destroys economies all over the world. All things are connected.

We do, however, mean that aid is an important part. We are flexible, forward-thinking and innovative. But our backbone is not flexible when it comes to the one percent level. We believe that it should be a guiding principle for Swedish aid.

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

Katarina Tolgfors (M)

Mr. Speaker! In your opening response, Member Thorell, it sounds as if you might even be able to approve of the proposal in the committee report. You actually listed quite a lot of what the government proposes for the shift in aid policy. But I lack some answers on how it is to be done.

And where is the extra bag of money coming from? Could one not reach these goals with a smaller bag of money but by working more efficiently? Can the system become more efficient by having fewer intermediaries and by securing it, reducing corruption, and ensuring that the money and resources actually reach their destination?

The chairman starts off by saying that there should be new thinking, but then he goes back to the old way again and stands up for the aid to be as large as possible.

When we now see the developments in the world around us, I think it is good that the government has been so forward-looking and has already implemented a reform agenda for aid. One is in a process where one is open to looking at different solutions.

Member Thorell! I wonder again if you could elaborate a bit more on how it is to proceed.

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

Olle Thorell (S)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to thank Member Tolgfors for the questions.

I want to point out that the member is presenting a false contradiction. There is no contradiction between being efficient and being generous. A large aid amount does not mean that it is a wasteful, poorly functioning aid, just as a smaller aid amount does not automatically become more efficient because it becomes smaller. It does not. It becomes smaller because it becomes smaller, not more efficient.

We are forward-thinking and innovative. But we have a number of principles that we hold fast to. One such is that we believe it is morally right, decent and just, and strategically wise to set aside one percent of our common prosperity in this country to contribute to a more just world. It is not old-fashioned. It is not rigid. It is something to be proud of. And that is we Social Democrats.

I long for the time when everyone in this chamber agreed that we can afford that one percent.

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

Gudrun Brunegård (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by moving to approve the committee's proposal to submit the communication to the records, and I move to reject the motions.

This report deals with the government's referral 2024/25:61 International aid through multilateral organizations. Multilateral organizations are, simply put, internationally active organizations that have agreements with many other countries. The classic examples are the various UN bodies but also organizations such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund IMF and the international Red Cross.

The world is currently in a very unclear situation, not least regarding the conditions for multilateral aid. The USA has largely concluded all international aid, even though they had initially promised to maintain life-saving activities. In a stroke of a pen, around 40 percent of the world's aid disappeared, which has, among other things, gone to food shipments to refugees in Sudan and eastern Congo, HIV medicines and polio vaccinations.

The consequences risk being catastrophic, first and foremost for individuals who are in need of food shipments and medicines, but indirectly for the entire world. It is because it exacerbates international instability.

The needs are greater than ever. A total of 122 million people were displaced in October 2024, according to UNHCR. 362 million people are dependent on humanitarian aid. And more than 260 million people have an acute need for food assistance to survive. This is happening at the same time as climate change, with severe drought interspersed with heavy rain and floods, is destroying cultivation opportunities.

Russia's full-scale war in Ukraine, which has been ongoing for three years, directly affects the world's food supply and has driven up prices. Hamas's terrorist attack and hostage-taking in Israel one and a half years ago triggered a war in Gaza, which has resulted in a very difficult humanitarian situation for the civilian population. The war in eastern Congo has long caused great suffering among civilians, as armed groups have systematically used sexual violence to destabilize the social structure.

The civil war in Sudan is causing the currently largest humanitarian catastrophe, with over 14 million people forced to leave their homes. 1 million of these have sought refuge in South Sudan, an already vulnerable country that in 2024 was classified as the world's poorest country. Others have fled to Chad, where 42 percent of the population already live below the national poverty line.

Mr. Speaker! In this perspective, the multilateral organizations have an irreplaceable role. They are internationally recognized, are represented in the vast majority of countries, and can therefore quickly deploy necessary resources to alleviate disasters.

Furthermore, a large part of the Swedish contribution to the multilateral organizations consists of so-called core funding. This means that money is paid in without earmarking and can be quickly reallocated if a crisis arises somewhere in the world. There is also so-called soft earmarking, where Sweden can, for example, direct money to prioritized countries and thematic areas, such as support for girls' and women's rights.

Among the UN agencies, I would particularly like to mention the World Food Programme, which received the Nobel Prize this year and which makes absolutely crucial efforts, not least through thousands of food shipments to Gaza, UNHCR, which handles various refugee crises around our world, and OCHA, which coordinates the various UN agencies' humanitarian efforts.

But it is also necessary to work long-term and preventatively, as UNDP does for example, to strengthen the democratic development in the countries, reduce their vulnerability to climate change, reduce conflict levels and build a foundation for peaceful coexistence between different ethnic and religious groups. I have myself seen examples of this in the Fergana Valley in Uzbekistan, where skirmishes often occur at the border with Tajikistan. Through various projects, UNDP contributes there to increasing the understanding between different ethnic groups, which lowers the conflict levels. Without this work, it is not unlikely that the skirmishes at the border would have developed into something much more serious.

Mr. Speaker! It appears from the report that Sweden's international aid through multilateral organizations during 2023 amounted to 31.8 billion kronor. This corresponds to 59 percent of Sweden's total aid payments.

From other statistics, it appears that around 40 percent of Sweden's aid is channeled through civil society organizations, while the civil society strategy itself amounts to 1.7 billion SEK. In reality, it is often the case that the multilateral organizations cooperate in a very fine way with the civil society organizations at the local level. This is the case, at least, in Ukraine, as Member Katarina Tolgfors mentioned in her speech.

The multilateral organizations are important platforms for dialogue and negotiations on priority issues, such as the international support for precisely Ukraine. They are also central for developing and maintaining international norms and agreements.

To return to the discussion about USAID and what the consequences were when the president announced that that support would be reduced: The budget for USAID was 450 billion kronor for 2023 – to compare with Sweden's budget for aid 2023, which was 56 billion. With an 83 percent reduction, which was the result after the pause, 374 billion have now disappeared, if I have calculated correctly. There is, of course, no possibility for Sweden to replace those funds, but here joint efforts are required.

I want to point out that Sweden in this context has great opportunities to take a leading position, with the high regard that exists for our international engagement and based on the reforming and streamlining pointed out through the reform agenda. With fewer available resources globally following the withdrawal of the USA and other countries, streamlining and focusing on the strategically most important areas is all the more important.

(Applause)

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

Yasmine Eriksson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I begin by moving to approve reservation 5.

Mr. Speaker! The Government has submitted a communication to the Riksdag with a statement of results regarding Sweden's multilateral aid during 2023. That year, 59 percent of Sweden's total aid funds went to these organizations, which means the larger part of our international aid.

In the communication, Ukraine, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Kenya and Colombia are treated specifically. These are countries where Swedish funds, via UN agencies and other multilateral actors, have contributed both to acute humanitarian aid and to development, peacebuilding and reform support of a more long-term nature.

When the war broke out in Ukraine, the world faced a humanitarian catastrophe. In just days, millions of people lost their homes, their safety, and in many cases, their relatives. Multilateral aid enabled help to reach quickly. Organizations such as UNHCR, WHO, and Unicef were already on site, ready to act. It is an example of how multilateral aid works when it is most effective – when many countries join forces to be able to provide help quickly where the needs are greatest. Total bilateral aid to Ukraine in 2023 amounted to over 2.5 billion kronor, the majority of which was through multilateral organizations.

The interventions do not only handle the most acute incidents but also work more long-term. Ukraine faces enormous challenges, not only humanitarily but also regarding its EU integration. Here, the multilateral organizations with norm-setting mandates can do a lot by, among other things, supporting reforms and strengthening legislation. It is a clear example of how aid can contribute to peace, development, and geopolitical stability.

Mr. Speaker! Crises around the world often create headlines, but primarily in the initial phase. Far from everyone stays there. Many of the crises are not seen as much. They do not get big headlines. They are forgotten.

In Sudan, the world's largest refugee crisis is currently taking place. 14 million people are fleeing. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, over 7 million people are fleeing within the country's borders. In Myanmar, over 3,000 people were recently killed in an earthquake, in the midst of an already ongoing civil war.

People in these regions suffer in silence, while much of the world's focus is directed elsewhere. And it is there, just in the shadows, that the multilateral aid organizations often play their most important role. Many organizations have structures on the ground. They have experience, presence, and capacity. They can scale up quickly, long before individual countries have time to act.

But that is why we must also dare to talk about control, follow-up, and prioritization. Aid is not just an expression of solidarity. It is also a political tool and a responsibility. When Sweden provides support to an organization, we must be able to see what the money is used for. We must be able to measure what we achieve. We must also be able to act if the cooperation does not work, regardless of how established the recipient is.

Mr. Speaker! It is not just about how much we give. It is about how we give and why. Aid alleviates distress and helps the most vulnerable. But it is also an investment in stability, security, and future relations, which benefits us all.

For example, it reduces the pressure on migration. When people can receive protection, healthcare, and livelihood in the local area, the need to flee to another part of the world decreases. It is good for them, but it is also good for Sweden.

Aid also counteracts conflicts and extremism. Support for the development of the rule of law and democratic structures can reduce the breeding ground for violent extremism. It strengthens security for us as well.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the UN and its various organizations have contributed to economic development in a long line of poor countries and to alleviating the consequences of natural disasters and conflicts. But the UN also suffers from major problems. There are too many organizations, and the overhead costs are too high.

Recurring indications of corruption regarding both economy, allocation of services, and support to different countries are worrying. Furthermore, several of the UN's approximately 40 organizations have focuses that overlap with the same areas of activity.

Sweden should therefore work for a merger of UN organizations. We should specifically work to phase out UNRWA and instead transfer its operations to other UN organizations, for example the UN's main refugee agency UNHCR, Unicef or some other. These are organizations that manage the same tasks around the world. It is not reasonable that a people should have a special status within the UN.

Sweden should continue to be a major donor country but focus on cooperation with a selection of the UN organizations.

(Applause)

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member Eriksson, for the speech!

The Leader of the Opposition says many good things about aid and gives good examples of when aid works perfectly, including in Ukraine, and also gives the impression of thinking that multilateral organizations are good and that core funding is good. Nevertheless, one sees that the government is cutting back on precisely core funding to many of the multilateral organizations.

The member also speaks about the fact that we must have more control and act if it does not work. I would like to know if the member has examples of occasions where it has not worked and where one would have gladly wanted more control.

Connected to this is also what the government has started to speak about regarding soft earmarking. One should start with soft earmarking instead of core funding, even though one has not conducted any form of evaluation of how the UN agencies view soft earmarking and whether it even works at all.

I would very much like to know what the members think about soft earmarking versus core support. In what way would it be better, and in what way do we believe it will become more effective?

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

Yasmine Eriksson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The multilateral organizations fulfill a function, just as the NGOs fulfill a function.

It is a bit difficult to remember all the questions. There were very many in a row at the end.

When it comes to controls, it is about setting requirements, which the government is now doing. That is also why the government is reviewing the various aid organizations that one provides to. It is about whether one should prioritize core support or perhaps a soft earmarked support.

Reductions in core support may sometimes be needed in order to be able to fulfill the strategies that we have selected. Through the reform agenda, we have pointed out a certain number of areas that Sweden shall focus on when it comes to our aid.

In order for us to be able to achieve the strategies and the goals we want to see, it can sometimes be necessary to have a soft earmarked support. It can be as a complement to core support. It does not always have to be one or the other. One can have both.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I was even more confounded by Member Eriksson's answer. There is talk of strategies, evaluations, and different types of control.

One of the most important watchwords I have heard from the government is efficiency. Aid must be efficient. We have also seen examples of that. Even the Member of Parliament stood here and spoke about how efficient it was with large, multilateral organizations when one, for example, acts in Ukraine during the ongoing war there and when one is completely dependent on core support.

If it turns out that we contribute to less efficiency with more earmarking, is it then more important with the steering and control, or is it more important with the efficiency of the aid itself? If one has to weigh the two, is it more effective to get more people out of poverty, or is it to be able to measure the goals that the government sets?

Then I did not receive much clarity regarding the soft earmarking and what type of assessment has been made showing that the soft earmarking would in some way be better than the core support. Could the member also provide some kind of example of this soft earmarking?

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

Yasmine Eriksson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! If we provide core funding to an organization, it is not always certain that those funds will be used in precisely those areas for which we have a national strategy or within precisely that thematic area we want to invest in.

It can be part of a strategy. Instead of only providing core funding to certain organizations, we can in some cases supplement with soft earmarked support specifically to achieve the goal fulfillment within a certain strategy.

What is most important is, of course, the efficiency and that we achieve results. It is the results that are what matters and that people get the help they need.

That is why different types of interventions are often needed. That is why we provide core funding to different organizations, and sometimes soft earmarked funding to the same organizations, and we provide, for example, to civil society organizations within the same country.

Sometimes it is most effective to find those who work in the best way at that specific location.

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

Joar Forssell (L)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for a good debate!

We are having this debate in a very tough situation for the world and for freedom in the world. The large cuts that have been made in aid from the USA affect many people around the world and will affect many people around the world.

At the same time, we see countries like China trying to move forward their positions and specifically use aid politically to spread their authoritarian ideology, so that the Chinese Communist Party can spread its authoritarian ideology and its influence over the world.

Mr. Speaker! It is precisely that intersection that must now be seen in all foreign policy. There is an ongoing cold war between countries like Sweden, European countries and other countries that are democratic in the world and on the other hand countries like China, Russia, Iran and North Korea.

It is precisely from that perspective that one also needs to view the aid. The aid plays an important role in upholding our values and achieving the goals we have set for our policy.

It is a matter of ensuring that China does not take over the roles that we have had in the world. That is the absolute greatest threat to freedom in our time. It is about the Chinese Communist Party and its activities, which it also carries out through others.

Mr. Speaker! The aid that goes to multilateral organizations is an important component in this. Different parts of the aid are good at different things. These organizations are, for example, good at delivering good quality in a fairly short time. It can go fast, and you can get good quality. It can at the same time be a bit more expensive. That is because they are skilled and have organizations set up, have experience, skilled people and so on.

But if you have those types of large organizations built up, you also have a bureaucracy built up; it goes, so to speak, hand in hand. It is nothing strange, and it is nothing new. That is why it is important that the aid is differentiated between different types of organizations.

Mr. Speaker! The needs were endless even before the US withdrawals. The needs were endless when it comes to poverty reduction, when it comes to vaccination, and when it comes to various health and healthcare programs around the world. The needs were endless when it comes to building democracy, when it comes to supporting journalists, and so on. The needs were, therefore, endless even before this happened.

Since then, a large part of the world's aid has disappeared in a very short time, and meanwhile, the needs have continued to be infinite. But as everyone who has studied even the slightest bit of mathematics knows, there is nothing that is more than infinite. This means that the aid policy priorities that the government has made, partly by prioritizing Ukraine and partly through the reform agenda, must remain firm. It is not possible to hastily make large reallocations within aid to compensate somewhere, because then the ship begins to leak somewhere else.

What we must do now is to go back to what we consider to be the most important aid. We have established what we consider to be the most important aid in the reform agenda through the decisions that the government has made and the priorities that the government has made. It remains the case that the needs are endless, and that is why the aid policy goals remain fixed.

One can always stand and assert things that some have done here in the debate: Look at this matter that would need money! Or look at this matter, where the money is disappearing right now! But if we look at that, we might lose sight of something else. That is the difficulty in the aid policy: There are very many needs in very many places at the same time.

Some things are best done by the multilateral organizations, and other things are best done by civil society organizations, as we debated here some weeks ago. It is important to remember that we must have efficiency. And it is of course true, as has been said earlier in the debate, that less money does not automatically mean more efficiency. That we agree on.

I believe that everyone who is still listening to the debate despite the late hour knows that, for example, the Liberals and the Christian Democrats and also the Centre Party, for that matter, want Sweden to achieve the one percent goal. That is true. But it is not true that less money always needs to mean less aid, as some are making it seem. One can do things more efficiently.

Sometimes it can sound on the left side, Mr. Speaker, as if it is impossible to streamline. There is always a great need to streamline large organizations that have built up bureaucracies over a long period. Any other view would be completely unreasonable. We have great needs to streamline even in small companies, small municipalities, or whatever it may be for organizations. It is clear that large organizations have great needs for streamlining.

Mr. Speaker! When we conduct our aid policy, the priorities that the government makes and that we have agreed upon between the Tidö parties must shine through in every part of the aid, regardless of whether it goes to a large established organization or to a small and less established organization, and regardless of whether it is aid that is to go to one theme or another theme. It is important. Our overall priorities always need to shine through.

That is why it is so important for us that we get this through, and that is also why I move for approval of the committee's proposal in the report.

(Applause)

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

Anna Lasses (C)

Mr. Speaker! Until February this year, the USA accounted for approximately one-third of all aid in the world and for a full 40 percent of the humanitarian aid. It is that slightly more short-term and most necessary—access to food, water, and emergency medical care and ensuring that children in crisis have access to school. That is the base.

But then this was pulled away in one stroke. Formally, aid from the USA was paused, but the damage is already done. Thousands of interventions have been cancelled, life-saving medicines are missing and food is missing. 34 million people are affected by the USA's humanitarian aid. It is a figure that deserves to be repeated: 34 million!

What exacerbates everything is the ideological grid that the USA is now pushing out with values that belong in another millennium. Equality, LGBTQ+ rights, diversity and inclusion – everything must go. The means used is the most effective of all: money and threats of cuts, in the USA and in the world.

Sida makes in its analysis, based on what the USA has announced so far, the assessment that it is reasonable to assume that the effects globally will be particularly noticeable when it comes to SRHR, climate, democratic development, human rights, rights of hbtqi persons, equality and women's and girls' rights and empowerment. The year is 2025, and this is nothing less than unworthy.

The USA is not the only country cutting back on aid. In Europe, country after country, so also Sweden, is declaring a reduction of aid in order to instead arm its defense.

If Swedish aid was important before, it is so much more life-saving today. Sweden, which has long been one of the world's largest aid donors, both in percentage and in total amount of money, is now suddenly even larger. What we do here literally affects hundreds of thousands of people around the world in Ukraine, Palestine, Congo, Myanmar, Afghanistan and so on.

It can feel staggering when one thinks about it. But, Mr. Speaker, let us all pause for a second and take in just this. It is a responsibility that each and every one of us must bear with pride and with humility. It is about this responsibility that this debate is about in a world characterized by chaos, self-interests, threats, and harsh words, but where we have the opportunity to be part of building something that provides strength and sustainability.

The debate focuses on the support that Sweden contributes through the multilateral organizations. These are the UN, WHO, the World Bank, and the IMF, organizations that are large and exist everywhere and therefore have a unique ability to be on the spot quickly exactly when it is needed most.

Let us zoom in on core funding for a moment. Core funding is the funding given to an organization to be used in the way the organization considers to be best and most effective, without direction from the donor.

When it comes to the core support to organizations such as the UN, WHO and the World Bank and the new direction that the government has chosen – to want to direct the support to a greater extent towards prioritized themes or geographical areas – the Center Party had until recently actually no objection. We had partly a different view on which areas should be prioritized, but the principle we have largely been able to agree on.

The government's shift has entailed a certain direction, but there is still a certain flexibility. The goal is to achieve greater effect but also to be able to follow up on the work better. This was, however, in the old world, before February.

Today we can observe that the need to be able to quickly reprioritize is completely different – between countries and projects and between crisis and development. In a world where aid is being heavily deprioritized, the funds that exist must be even more flexible and long-term at the same time.

Here, the multilateral organizations with their global muscles have a key role, and then we as donors must be prepared to accept that we cannot control as much. On the other hand, we shall continue to demand transparency and have a close dialogue with the organization to ensure towards our citizens that the money is used in the right way. I therefore hope that the government can quickly pivot and be as flexible as one says they want to be in the documents.

To summarize: In the new world order, core support will become increasingly important, and here Sweden needs to lead the way. This is particularly relevant given that more and more donors, to an even greater extent than Sweden, have begun to dictate exactly what the funds should be used for. And then we are not talking about soft steering, but exact. This complicates the work on the ground. This is particularly clear within the various UN organizations.

For the Center Party's part, we have noted this in our reservation regarding the reasoning for the paragraph on core support in the committee report.

The year is 2025, and equality in the world is moving backwards. Therefore, it is unfortunate that the government has abandoned the pervasive feminist foreign policy. Perspectives are forgotten and deprioritized.

Centerpartiet wants to see foreign policy permeated by a clear liberal feminism. In this way, issues regarding women's economic empowerment will move higher up on the agenda. In the same way that the previous government pushed that women should be present at the negotiating table during peace negotiations and in the reconstruction after a conflict, we believe it is important that Sweden pushes for the World Bank and IMF to ensure women's full participation in various investment programs and infrastructure programs, not least in the reconstruction of countries after a conflict.

Finally, I want to say a few words about the UN. One can think many things about the UN and its organization. One can think that the system is impenetrable and bureaucratic and that it is difficult to follow where the money goes. But despite all this, the UN is the system that we have built up together and which in many ways has ensured that no truly large military world wars – so far – have broken out since it was formed.

The UN system carries large parts of the multilateral system. Ultimately, it is the UN that its members decide it shall be, and the more commitment and means one contributes, the more influence one gains.

A review is now being conducted of the UN system, where different parts are expected to be merged and streamlined, something that has been requested previously in the debate. This is happening at the same time as the global playing field is rapidly changing. Countries such as China, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia are shifting their positions, while the role of the USA is becoming increasingly unclear.

In that situation, it is crucial that the EU and Sweden step forward on all levels and stand up for fundamental values such as the principles of the rule of law and human rights. Aid is a major part of this. Instead of de-prioritizing aid, we must highlight it as the important security policy instrument that it is.

In addition to engaging us more in the multilateral organizations, we need to restore Swedish aid to 1 percent. We also need to push as hard as we can for the EU to maintain the size of its aid in the long-term budget as well as review if it can possibly be made more flexible. The last thing we need is complicating placard politics that link aid to, for example, migration policy in Sweden or in the EU.

I wish to move for approval of reservation 2 as well as the reasoning under the paragraph on core support, also called reservation 8.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I must unfortunately first react to something that Member Tolgfors stated earlier during the debate, namely that it was cowardly of the Left Party member to withdraw from this late evening debate, this without actually knowing what the reasons behind the withdrawal were.

I can take the opportunity to remind that we had a debate in the chamber about a year ago concerning the EU's trade agreement with Chile, an agreement that risks having a major negative impact on the environment, Chilean small-scale farmers, and the Chilean indigenous people. To that debate – which was about trade, which is said to be a priority issue for the Moderate-led government – not a single member from the Tidö parties joined to defend the trade agreement.

When the Moderaterna accuse a member from a small party of cowardice when this member is forced to withdraw from a debate, perhaps one should look at one's own house first.

Mr. Speaker! It is August 2021. The Taliban take power in Kabul, Afghanistan, and chaos ensues. Most aid organizations that have been active in Afghanistan for many years are forced to withdraw for security reasons. But the UN's development program, UNDP, remains and assists with administrative tasks and continued logistics for the small amount of aid that still enters the country.

Half a year later, Russian troops enter Ukraine and attempt to make their way all the way to Kyiv to kill President Zelenskyy and take control of the country. The world's reaction is not delayed, and different types of support from all over the world flow into Ukraine. Once again, it is UN agencies such as UNDP and the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, OCHA, as well as the Red Cross that can quickly pivot and manage to mobilize and coordinate the aid.

Two years before the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the coronavirus that spread from Wuhan in China had been declared an international threat to human health, to be classified as a pandemic by the World Health Organization, WHO, a month later. WHO subsequently coordinated and harmonized research findings on the virus, statistics on the spread, and the distribution of the various vaccines that were developed in record time.

In February 2023, Turkey and Syria are hit by the worst earthquakes in a hundred years. Millions of people are affected, and hundreds of thousands are forced to leave their destroyed homes. The UN refugee agency, UNHCR, is quickly on site and provides shelter, housing, and humanitarian aid.

Mr. Speaker! These are just four examples from the last five years where multilateral organizations have shown enormous flexibility and been able to quickly provide assistance to millions of people, a flexibility that is entirely based on non-earmarked core funding to these organizations.

But it is not only the most acute interventions that are important. At least as important is the work that is carried out to long-term build up the resilience of people, societies, and economies through education, healthcare, climate adaptation, infrastructure projects, democracy and peacebuilding, as well as rights and equality-strengthening projects.

This is something we have known for a long time and that Sweden has been very good at for a long time. We have supported the UN's various bodies, we have supported the international and regional development banks, and we have supported a number of other multilateral organizations.

Mr. Speaker! In a time when nationalism is increasing, the world's crises are becoming increasingly multifaceted and American tariffs are causing trade chaos, international cooperation and support are all the more crucial for peace, development, and justice. It is clear that Sweden should be an active actor in international cooperation and continue to be a major donor to the multilateral organizations.

It is therefore very welcome that the government sees the added value of the multilateral organizations in the communication we are debating here tonight. But I still have some views regarding the government's goals and priorities.

It is extremely important that Sweden is a global voice for democracy and human rights, for a rules-based world order and for a peaceful world where we can tackle global challenges such as the climate crisis, extreme poverty and inequality. For this to become a reality, Sweden needs to reintroduce a feminist foreign and development policy.

The basis for feminist foreign policy is the participation of women and girls. By strengthening women's and girls' decision-making over their own lives and participation in societal issues, we achieve positive effects both for these individuals and for society as a whole through reduced conflicts, increased democracy, more equality, better public health, and positive economic development.

Mr. Speaker! A strong aid budget is a prerequisite for strong multilateral support. However, the government's budget indicates that Swedish aid will fall short of the UN goal of 0.7 percent of GNI in aid within a few years. This is deeply regrettable. It risks not only eroding the actual support Sweden provides to multilateral organizations but also violates a UN goal and thus challenges the international norms and principles that are precisely what we want to protect and strengthen through multilateral cooperation.

The government has cut all support to Unaids and has also reduced the funding of UN Women, the UN Peacebuilding Fund, Joint Fund for Agenda 2030, the UN Population Fund, UNFPA, and the UN Development Programme, UNDP. Sweden has for a long time been one of the few countries providing large core support, and we are therefore many who have expressed strong concern over the Tidö government's stated ambition to limit the core support.

This is of course extra alarming in a time when President Trump slaughters USAID, the United Kingdom is cutting back heavily on aid, and our own government is moving all larger parts of the aid to Ukraine. Don't get me wrong – Ukraine needs all the support they can get, but we cannot accept that it continues to happen at the expense of the very poorest and most vulnerable.

Mr. Speaker! Climate emissions must be reduced. All countries must take responsibility for their part, but we also know that it is the global north that has historically stood and still stands for the largest emissions. At the same time, the global north has the most resources and room for maneuver to contribute to the transition. Therefore, we want to continue to increase climate aid.

The government emphasizes that increased climate aid is a priority goal, but in practice, Sweden's support to the global climate funds has decreased in recent years. The Swedish support through the environmental and climate funds must, of course, instead increase. The phasing out of fossil energy as well as the increase in support for renewable energy, energy efficiency, and energy distribution must also continue to be central starting points for Sweden's development cooperation, not least with the multilateral development banks.

Mr. Speaker! Sustainable global development has ecological, social, and economic dimensions. All three must be respected. Functioning ecosystems are the foundation for life and thus also for economy and social values. Today, reality does not look like that. Large international institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank look more at economic development than at the social and the ecological. Therefore, we want to see updated rules for loans to developing countries in order to strengthen governance towards sustainability from climate, environmental, and social perspectives.

Mr. Speaker! Core funding to the UN organizations makes the UN's work more strategic, effective, and flexible and is absolutely necessary in order to be able to quickly deploy measures against acute crises. Core funding also contributes to the UN agencies being able to reprioritize in order to cope with the long-term challenges they face when other countries and new donors earmark an ever larger part of their support. Despite this, the government has significantly reduced support to several important UN agencies in recent years.

I would, however, welcome that it appears from the government's communication that it is now seen that core funding lies in Sweden's interest. Also highlighted is so-called soft earmarking as an alternative to core funding. An account of the government's basis for the assessment that soft earmarking can provide the same advantages as core funding is missing, however, as is the view of the relevant UN agencies on this. The government must present a clear evaluation of the effects of soft earmarking versus core funding from the perspective of the receiving organizations.

Mr. Speaker! I naturally support the Environment Party's both reservations in the report, but in order to please my parliamentary colleagues or at least not anger them too much during the upcoming vote, I choose to move for approval of only reservation 3.

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

Katarina Tolgfors (M)

Mr. Speaker! First of all, I would like to take the opportunity in this speaker's chair once again to point out and remind that one of the main strategies in the government's aid agenda is investments in girls' and women's rights and equality. We do not call it feminist foreign policy. The important thing is actually what one wants to achieve. Member Risberg can call it feminist foreign policy if he wants to.

We say that this is about strengthening those who are vulnerable in conflicts, poverty, and climate crises, and it is precisely girls and women. It is therefore included as a high-priority strategy and among the measures that we want to take through aid.

Secondly – Member Risberg has a background within Act Svenska kyrkan. I will not prolong the debate too much out of consideration for the members in the next committee who will be debating this late evening session. But I must say that I am very surprised. I will not hold Member Risberg and Miljöpartiet accountable for what Vänsterpartiet is doing, but the member reacted to my comment on Vänsterpartiet's absence in the chamber – they still have two members in the Committee on Foreign Affairs – instead of reacting to what happened in Vänsterpartiet, namely that the friend on the member's side of the political spectrum shared grossly anti-Semitic material on social media and the next day posed with a happy smile together with their party comrades.

I actually did not think one would experience that from any party in Sweden's Riksdag. We stand here and discuss human rights. What is this? I would like to hear Member Risberg's view on this.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Last time I checked, Vänsterpartiet had a member in the Committee on Foreign Affairs. Miljöpartiet likewise. Liberalerna, KD and Centerpartiet likewise. We each have our own member in the Committee on Foreign Affairs. There are, however, five Moderate members, two Sweden Democrat members and two Social Democratic members.

I move on to the question of what we call the policy and how it is designed regarding feminism or not. The fact is that it is to precisely those UN bodies that work with women's and girls' rights, SRHR issues, and family planning issues that you have cut the aid. You have cut the aid to Unaids – or rather removed it entirely. You have cut the aid to UN Women. You have removed money to the UN Population Fund.

When you talk about equality and women's and girls' rights being important issues, it sounds very false because you are cutting back on aid. You are cutting back on the projects that lead to strengthening women and girls.

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

Katarina Tolgfors (M)

Mr. Speaker! Lotta Johnsson Fornarve from Vänsterpartiet is a member responsible for aid issues. She is, as far as I know, a working deputy or substitute to the member Håkan Svenneling and was, in any case, present the last time I was at a meeting of the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

I return to the remarkable fact that MP Risberg does not want to comment on what my question actually concerned, namely a colleague on his side of the political field. Vänsterpartiet chose not to appear tonight, and I stand by the fact that I find it remarkable. One of their two MPs could have been here.

I am therefore asking again if Member Risberg has any view on or comment regarding what the colleague on the left side has actually done. Member Delgado Varas has shared grossly anti-Semitic material.

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

FÖRSTE VICE TALMANNEN

I must remind that the subject of the debate is international aid through multilateral organizations.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Again: The member's question was about another party. It was not about Miljöpartiet. I never stand here and accuse M for anti-Muslim statements that Sverigedemokraterna, whom M cooperates with in government, make. I do not use the rostrum for such accusations. I use the rostrum to discuss what we are to discuss for the day. I do not intend to go in and comment.

International aid through multilateral organizations

I can think it is unfortunate when one shares anti-Semitic posts, and such things should naturally be dealt with. But it is not for me to do. It is something that Vänsterpartiet themselves must handle.

Why should I be held accountable for something that a member from another party has done? I do not understand that. I am not asking member Tolgfors to distance himself from the Sweden Democrats' statements regarding very gross racist things.

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

FÖRSTE VICE TALMANNEN

The subject of the debate was, as stated, international aid through multilateral organizations.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 10 April.)

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