Security policy

Morgan Johansson (S)

Madam Speaker! I shall begin by saying that this committee report deals with security policy. The significantly deteriorated security situation is what has come to characterize this mandate period and the recent years.

First came Russia's attack on Ukraine in February four years ago. It is a terrible war, which is still ongoing.

Since Hamas's attack against Israel with murder and hostage-taking in August 2023, which triggered the war in Gaza. It is a war that has resulted in over 70,000 dead Palestinians – most of them women and children – a complete destruction of Palestinian areas, ethnic cleansing, re-occupation and a totally traumatized Palestinian population. Gaza was transformed into a moonscape and a children's graveyard.

Since 2025, and Trump was back in the White House. We saw an American administration that immediately began by undermining the international rule of law, paralyzing the UN, imposing sanctions against the International Criminal Court, threatening allies and demanding that both Canada and Greenland should merge into the USA, to name just a few things.

When it had finally settled down, we got the Iran war, which, in addition to the immense human suffering, now risks leading the entire world into a new recession. In that context, Israel also took the opportunity to attack Lebanon.

Add this: the horrific civil war in Sudan, which has led to the world's worst humanitarian crisis with millions of people, many of them children, on the brink of starvation and in acute need of humanitarian aid.

In this situation, it is extremely important that a country like Sweden manages to continue to maintain a stable and principled line. To stand up for international law and international law is, as Sweden's most prominent international law experts point out in an article in Dagens Nyheter today, no vague seminar exercise for a small or medium-sized country like Sweden. For us, it is an existential necessity, because we know that if international law is undermined, it is the small and medium-sized countries that are hit hardest.

The great powers can always assert their interests, but if international law is replaced by the law of the jungle where the strong decide, we are all in a bad position. That is why the Prime Minister's wavering on this issue, which the international law experts criticize in today's article, is deeply concerning.

What is also concerning is what might come after the election. There are less than five months left. I would believe that the voters are now becoming increasingly interested in what it could mean, even in the area of foreign policy.

Four years ago, Ulf Kristersson was clear that the Sverigedemokraterna would not have any influence whatsoever over foreign policy. This was repeated time and again before the election. But it was just one of all the election promises that the Prime Minister broke immediately after the election. The Moderaterna immediately negotiated away all the heavy positions in the Riksdag in foreign and security policy to the Sverigedemokraterna. It concerned the positions of chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, vice-chairman of the Committee on Defence, chairman of the OSCE delegation, and chairman of the Council of Europe delegation.

When Tobias Billström called me after the election, one of the questions I asked concerned what they had said about the Sverigedemokraterna not having influence over foreign policy. He answered somewhat awkwardly: Yes, well, it ended up being that way anyway. The Moderaterna simply broke their promise to the voters from day one, without blinking. Now they have gone even further.

Ahead of this election, Kristersson has thrown the door wide open and in practice promised away all heavy ministerial posts to the Sverigedemokraterna. We shall see which they become then. It could be the position of Minister for Foreign Affairs. It could be the position of Minister for Defence. It could be the position of Minister for Justice. It could be the position of Minister for Finance, which Oscar Sjöstedt laid claim to the other day. It could be the position of Deputy Prime Minister. The only one said to be protected is the Prime Minister himself, for that he has seen to.

Kristersson has managed to negotiate for himself that he can at least become Prime Minister in Åkesson's government, as a sidekick – this time, it should be added. The question is whether we can even trust that. Kristersson has, as said, broken promises before. Red lines no longer exist. Then the question is naturally raised as to what foreign and security policy such a government will pursue.

What is distinctive about the Sweden Democrats in this policy? This mandate period is alarming. To begin with, they take security issues very lightly. Just take the crisis surrounding the Quran burnings in 2023. Surely many remember it. Then, in the summer of 2023, the NATO process was in an extremely sensitive position. For a few very dramatic months, a couple of provocateurs drove around the country and burned Qurans in an obvious influence operation to disrupt the NATO process and harm Sweden. It led to protests both in Sweden and abroad. Among other things, the Swedish embassy in Iraq was burned down.

Then, at the absolute worst moment, the chairman of the Justice Committee, Richard Jomshof, stepped out and said that if it now annoyed the Muslims so much, one could well burn a hundred Qurans. It was obviously provocative and completely reckless in a situation where we rather should have calmed the situation down. The statement naturally drew attention throughout the world. A united opposition then demanded that Richard Jomshof should resign as chairman of the Justice Committee. He had not shown the judgment that one needs for that assignment. His statement damaged Sweden and also exposed Swedes abroad to danger. We shall remember that just a month later, two Swedes were killed in an Islamist terrorist attack in Brussels.

At that time, the government parties and the Sweden Democrats protected Jomshof, despite his lack of judgment. It was a display of paralysis and weakness. And that was only one example. Looking at the big picture, the Sweden Democrats have a history of constantly being drawn to authoritarian forces and movements in the world. Regardless of where on the globe an authoritarian, right-wing extremist, xenophobic, chauvinistic leader has appeared – always a man – the Sweden Democrats have been drawn to him like flies to a piece of sugar.

It started with Putin in Russia. Two of SD's defense policy spokespersons, Mikael Jansson and Roger Richthoff, stood close to Russia for a long time. They spread Russian narratives. It is not far back in time. As recently as the autumn of 2021, that is to say only a few months before Russia's attack on Ukraine, Roger Richthoff, with his Russian contacts, was the defense policy spokesperson for SD. They are now trying to make us forget that, but the internet does not forget.

As late as a week before Russia's invasion of Ukraine, in February 2022, Jimmie Åkesson received a question about whether he could choose between US President Joe Biden and Russian President Vladimir Putin. He could not, even though everyone could see then that Putin stood ready to attack a democratic neighboring country. Astonishing! So far, Putin.

So we have Orbán in Hungary. The ties between Orbán and the Sweden Democrats go back a long way. Richard Jomshof – again – is known for a quote where he highlights Orbán's Hungary as an example. I remember very well the years as Minister for Justice when one was on the EU Committee and preferred some matter to be brought up to the Council of Ministers. It never failed. Every time Hungary was described in negative terms – how they dismantled the rule of law, restricted the opposition's and civil society's opportunities to operate, took ever more control over the media, and so on – the Sweden Democrats' member requested the floor to defend Hungary. Pavel Gamov was it, I believe, at that time. He was also one of those who later aligned himself with Moscow. Now we hear the Sweden Democrats say that they have never supported Orbán.

Regarding Trump and MAGA, there has also been years of tail-wagging. Tobias Andersson and Josef Fransson have attended MAGA conferences and reported enthusiastically from them. The Sweden Democrats have nominated Donald J Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize – twice. The last time, the justification was: "No honest judge can deny the enormous contribution he has made for a more peaceful world." That was said by the former chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Mattias Karlsson. That statement has not aged well, one might say.

When JD Vance spoke in Munich last year, attacked Europe and the EU and chose to meet Alternative für Deutschland, a far-right and pro-Russian party, instead of the German government, he was praised by Jimmie Åkesson who thought the speech was incredibly liberating. Therefore, it was perhaps not so strange when the same Jimmie Åkesson sat on TV some time ago and said that he would welcome Trump's support in the upcoming Swedish election.

That is unfortunately no joke, because we know how Trump can interfere in European elections. He did it in Germany and also in Hungary just a few weeks ago. JD Vance went there to back up Orbán. That didn't help, for that matter. But when Åkesson sits on TV and begs for support from Trump, you can't just joke it away.

The same thing repeats all the time. The Sweden Democrats allow themselves to be seduced by these authoritarian movements time and again. First it was Putin and Russian nationalists. Then Ukraine happens, and then one hurries to distance oneself and try to sweep away the tracks again. Then it was Trump and MAGA, and then Greenland happened. Then one has to quickly distance oneself again and try to sweep away the tracks again.

Then it was Orbán in Hungary, whom one follows for years and describes as one's role model, but then he falls. It becomes obvious to everyone what damage he has caused both in Hungary and in the EU. Then one has to distance oneself again and try to sweep away the tracks.

That is why it was not a surprise when it was revealed a few weeks ago that the Sweden Democrats' aid organization Hepatica had funneled Swedish aid money straight into an organization in Brazil controlled by former president Bolsonaro, who is now sentenced to 27 years in prison for attempted coup d'état. That is what the collusion looks like.

All this, taken together, does not, in my opinion, inspire any great respect. This is not what Sweden needs when the security policy situation is as difficult as it is. In such a situation, one cannot have a government with heavy-weight ministers – Minister for Foreign Affairs, Minister for Defence, Minister for Justice, and Deputy Prime Minister – who so easily allow themselves to be impressed by authoritarian forces in the way that the Sverigedemokraterna have and do. How, for example, is an SD government to be able to assert itself against Trump if Trump has helped SD to power?

In this situation, Mr. Speaker, a different integrity and stable fundamental values are required. I believe the voters have seen that by this point. I would like to move for approval of reservation 1.

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

Rasmus Giertz (SD)

Mr. Speaker! There was a lot about the Sweden Democrats in Morgan Johansson's presentation. I believe that, for the most part, the entire presentation was about the Sweden Democrats.

I can only briefly mention that Stefan Löfven, Morgan Johansson's own prime minister in the government in which he himself was a minister, could not choose between Trump and Putin, that is, a democratically elected president and ally and the Russian dictator.

It was not this that my exchange of remarks was to be about, but rather actual security policy, which this report is about.

In the current situation, there are only two European nuclear powers. They are France and the United Kingdom. Therefore, it is both reasonable and welcome that Sweden has initiated a dialogue with France regarding nuclear weapons cooperation. We do not yet know what the talks will lead to, but responsible security policy is about being prepared before the situation deteriorates further, not afterwards.

Just for that reason, the Social Democrats are once again displaying a security policy naivety that Europe can no longer afford. Morgan Johansson and the Socialdemokraterna accept NATO's nuclear deterrence without any problems. It is a deterrence that is primarily based on American nuclear weapons. It is apparently perfectly acceptable, but as soon as Sweden enters into talks with France about Europe's own security, the agitated objections suddenly appear.

This is not a serious security policy, but it is a political game of chicken in one of the most serious issues of our time.

My question to Morgan Johansson is therefore: Why are the Social Democrats so comfortable placing Europe's ultimate security in the hands of the Trump administration but so uncomfortable even discussing a stronger European pillar together with France?

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Mr. Speaker! To begin with, I do not know where Rasmus Giertz has gotten that thing with Löfven.

My speech was about how the Sweden Democrats time and again allow themselves to be charmed and impressed by strong, authoritarian men. Regardless of whether it is Putin, Orbán or Trump, you are there all the time and fawning over them, impressed by them and trying to build contacts with them. When it then turns out that things are going south, you try to distance yourselves from them as quickly as possible, sweep away the tracks and pretend as if it never happened.

This is what I am pointing out. If you were to win the election, we could very well get a government with eight out of ten Sweden Democrats as ministers. They might get the heavy posts such as Minister for Foreign Affairs, Minister for Defence, Deputy Prime Minister, and perhaps even Prime Minister; we don't know that. As has been said, there are no red lines anymore.

That is my question: What policy will such a government pursue? Will it be compliant towards the authoritarian forces? Will it take that side in the international debate, in exactly the same way that the Sverigedemokraterna have done for many years?

When it comes to the nuclear weapons issue, it is almost the opposite. It is the Sweden Democrats who are naive. You have opened up for bringing nuclear weapons into Sweden on Swedish soil. That is your new position, which you launched in the foreign policy debate.

If we were to get a situation with more and more nuclear weapons in the Nordic region and in Sweden, what do we think will happen with the non-proliferation treaty, which prohibits the spread of nuclear weapons? It is undermined. In one, two, or three years, we might no longer have nine nuclear-weapon states in the world, but we might have 15, 20, or 30 nuclear-weapon states. Where do we end up then, Rasmus Giertz, in security policy? How long will it then take before we have a major nuclear war upon us?

It is the Sweden Democrats who are naive in security policy when you open up for more nuclear weapons, not us who stand firm on the position we have had from the beginning.

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

Rasmus Giertz (SD)

Mr. Speaker! As Morgan Johansson himself said in his speech: The internet never forgets. Anyone can google and find that quote when Stefan Löfven could not choose between Trump and Putin.

Furthermore, Magdalena Andersson has said that Europe can bomb Russia to pieces. Russia has a nuclear arsenal that is many times larger than both France's and the United Kingdom's combined. To then speak of Europe being able to bomb Russia to pieces without any difficulty is either deeply ignorant or dishonest.

If this is the Social Democratic analysis, then the Social Democrats must also mean that France and the United Kingdom already today constitute a fully sufficient nuclear deterrent against Russia. But if they do not mean that, it was merely a large ignorant move without any basis in reality.

That is what makes the Social Democrats' criticism so hollow. First, they sound absolutely certain about Europe's security and capability, but as soon as Sweden enters into talks with France about Europe's deterrence and how it can be strengthened in practice, they suddenly become upset. This does not add up in practice.

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Rasmus Giertz does not answer the question I had. How does he view the strong, authoritarian leaders that his party has been drawn to year after year lately? Does he have no reflection at all on the whole thing?

First, you entangle yourselves with Putin and Russian nationalist forces and let Roger Richthoff remain as the defense policy spokesperson until the autumn of 2021. Then, you entangle yourselves with Orbán. Year after year, you cultivate contacts with Orbán's Hungary. Every time what is happening in Hungary is raised in various contexts in the Riksdag, the Sweden Democrats step forward and defend Orbán. Now, you want to make us believe that you have never supported Orbán; you are trying to distance yourselves from this.

And then we have Trump on top of that. You hailed the MAGA movement and JD Vance, and then this happened with Greenland – and suddenly you have to rethink.

The voters simply have to reflect a bit on who is responsible for the security policy stability in Sweden. Is it us Social Democrats, who have had these lines for decades, including international law and basic principles surrounding it? Or is it the Sweden Democrats, who waver back and forth in security policy?

The nuclear weapons issue is another issue where you have faltered. You were previously in agreement with the rest of us that we should not have nuclear weapons on Swedish soil, and then suddenly, just a few months ago, you wanted to change that line as well.

It is a dangerous policy, Rasmus Giertz, to undermine the non-proliferation agreement and open up for more and more countries acquiring nuclear weapons or allowing nuclear weapons to be deployed in other parts of the world. Then the risk is imminent that within not a very distant future, we have a nuclear war upon us. That is why we Social Democrats are so clear that we shall not go the path that the Sweden Democrats and Rasmus Giertz are now advocating.

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

Fredrik Ahlstedt (M)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden finds itself in a new security policy situation, one can state quite calmly. For a long time, we took peace and stability in Europe for granted, but that time is over; one crisis succeeds another. Today, for that very reason, a security policy is required that is based on reality and not on hopes.

For us Moderates, the starting point is clear: Our most important task is to try to protect Swedish citizens and interests. This requires strength, accountability, and a clear focus on Sweden's national interests.

Mr. Speaker! Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine is an attack on the entire European security order, as we have noted several times in this chamber. It is also an important reminder that much is at stake regarding Ukraine: freedom, self-determination, and the right to live in peace.

That is why we Moderates believe it is important to emphasize that our support for Ukraine must be long-term and robust. It is not about goodwill, it is about our own security. If Russia is allowed to win, the threat to all of Europe increases. Therefore, it is so important that Sweden continues to deliver military and civilian support that can strengthen Ukraine's defense capability and infrastructure, in order to push back the Russian aggression.

Mr. Speaker! The Moderates had long pushed the issue of a Swedish NATO membership. Now we are there. It means that we have left a policy that did not serve us well and instead chosen security through community.

But of course, membership is not the end point. It is the beginning of an opportunity to take a greater responsibility. Sweden shall therefore be an active member in the NATO cooperation. We shall be a strong ally that invests in defense and meets, and perhaps exceeds, the two percent goal, as well as contributes concretely to the alliance's collective defense ambitions. Security requires credibility, and credibility requires strength.

Mr. Speaker! In this context, I also want to bring up the DCA agreement, which is sometimes debated extensively. The DCA agreement is an important step toward strengthening Sweden's security. It is an important cooperation with the USA, and we welcome it. The agreement improves the possibilities for military cooperation, increases our readiness, and strengthens our deterrence capability. It is a concrete investment in Sweden's security and an expression that we take responsibility in an uncertain time. Close cooperation with the USA is crucial for Europe's and also Sweden's security.

Mr. Speaker! I also want to mention and clarify in this context that the Moderates stand behind the goal of nuclear disarmament. But we also see reality as it is. As long as there are states like Russia, which use nuclear threats as a political tool, we cannot base our security on unilateral commitments. Deterrence is today a necessary part of security policy. Sweden shall therefore pursue a responsible line, where we combine support for disarmament with a strong participation in NATO's common security strategy.

Mr. Speaker! The Moderates also see Nordic and Baltic cooperation as a cornerstone of Swedish security policy. The geography we find ourselves in means that these neighbors and these countries are a very important part of creating security in Sweden and the Baltic Sea region. We need to deepen that cooperation further, strengthen our military presence, and ensure that we can act quickly together in a crisis. A strong immediate vicinity deters and creates stability. Here, it is important that Sweden continues to have a leading role.

The Moderates' foreign and security policy is based on a clear principle: Sweden shall stand firm on a Western foundation and be a part of the defense alliance Nato. We shall be an active part of the transatlantic cooperation, defend the rules-based world order and clearly stand up against authoritarian forces.

But we must also be realistic. International influence is not built through words but through strength, credibility, and the ability to contribute. A stronger Sweden also makes us a stronger voice in the world.

The Moderates' message is clear: Security requires more than ambitions – it requires action. We need to strengthen the defense, deepen cooperation within the alliance, and drive a policy that puts Sweden's security first. That is how we build security, today and for the future.

(Applause)

In this speech, Gustaf Göthberg (M) agreed.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson has indeed accepted French President Emmanuel Macron's invitation to talks about the French nuclear weapons. The French nuclear weapons are very clearly just French and not part of NATO's nuclear deterrence or what is called the NATO Nuclear Planning Group.

I simply wonder if Member Ahlstedt can explain what the cooperation with France actually entails. What is it that France wants from Sweden? Is it the placement of nuclear weapons in Sweden? Is it money for the French nuclear weapons? Or is it test explosions on Swedish territory that France wants?

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

Fredrik Ahlstedt (M)

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

I would initially like to describe it in this way – I also touched upon this in my speech: For Sweden's part, membership in Nato, in the alliance, is our main strategy. Nato's collective deterrence capability is what Sweden's security shall be based on. This applies particularly when it comes to nuclear weapons.

Sweden has received an invitation and has accepted it. It has been without preconditions. According to the information I have, both conventional forces and nuclear weapons will be discussed. Sweden's strategy is, of course, to continue working with NATO's entire deterrence. But there is an important function in continuing to hold a dialogue with France about these matters. Therefore, it is natural for Sweden to accept such a discussion.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! It was a marginal clarification from the member.

Sweden, within the framework of Nato, has a continuous dialogue with France, just like with all other states in Nato. One has also for many years had a specific military cooperation with France, E2I. One has talked about military forces. It could have been some exercise activity. I also know that research and development have been touched upon in that cooperation. The new thing here is actually not the talk about conventional forces, but that one is de facto going to discuss the French nuclear weapons.

Then the question remains: What is it that one is to discuss regarding the French nuclear weapons, if they are still to be French and if it is still to be a French president who is responsible for whether they are used or not? Can France use nuclear weapons in Sweden's name? Is this what is to be discussed?

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

Fredrik Ahlstedt (M)

Mr. Speaker! Just as I said earlier, there is actually no other basis than what we have been informed about and discussed previously, that is to say that Sweden has received an invitation. We have accepted the invitation – we think it is an important signal to France. We are naturally prepared to listen to and discuss with France. We have not made any commitments whatsoever, but we are coming to this meeting to listen to what France wants to say.

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

Kerstin Lundgren (C)

Mr. Speaker! This will be a short exchange. I listened to Fredrik Ahlstedt and heard something that surprised me. He spoke about our membership in Nato, which we agree on, and said that we could even top 2 percent.

Mr. Speaker! We have all agreed that we are to reach 5 percent. I want to make that clear. By requesting a reply from Fredrik Ahlstedt, I want to give him the opportunity to clarify his statement. I tried to listen to the Riksdag's broadcast to hear if it was really as he said, and I perceived that this was the message that was given. I think there are reasons to make it clear that Sweden stands behind 5 percent and shall reach 5 percent for the total defense.

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

Fredrik Ahlstedt (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member Lundgren for giving me the opportunity to clarify this. It is, of course, the case that it is 5 percent that applies. My point actually concerned the historical description – we are on our way towards these 5 percent. I see now in my papers that I may have been a bit unclear when I said it, but it is 5 percent that applies.

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

Kerstin Lundgren (C)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for that answer. My purpose was precisely to get clarity on this, as we agree.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! We are debating Swedish security policy at a time when the winds of unrest are blowing ever colder around us. Three great powers, Russia, the USA, and China, have all shown that they are prepared to use military means to achieve their political goals. This, combined with the fact that other states, such as Israel and Iran, are also acting more threateningly towards their neighboring countries, shows that peace and international order are now being seriously challenged. I have several times described this development with an expression that sounds like it is taken from Star Wars: the return of the imperialists.

This debate concerns a so-called AMT report, where we are dealing with proposals from the parties from the general motion period and not a specific proposal from the government. Nevertheless, this debate covers several important topics and issues that are of great value to debate and discuss. These are issues where the positions written by the committee show where Sweden's foreign policy is headed. Vänsterpartiet has in several parts reserved itself against the Tidö parties' policy, as it is not a policy that strengthens Sweden's security. For me, who is elected by the Swedish people to be a politician in Sweden's Riksdag, my most important role is to strengthen Sweden's security and keep the Swedish people in peace.

To make Sweden safer, the next red-green government needs to pursue a feminist foreign and security policy. The goal must be clear: to prevent and preclude wars and conflicts from breaking out in the first place. That work must always be the starting point. Sweden should therefore, to a significantly greater extent, prioritize the preventive work against armed conflicts before violence escalates and people are harmed.

We know that war and armed conflicts do not affect everyone equally. They affect women and men in different ways and to different extents. A peace process that achieves a successful end to violence against men does not automatically mean that violence against women ceases. On the contrary, women risk continuing to be subjected to violence even when the fighting has fallen silent.

Women and children are those who are hit hardest in conflicts. They are subjected to violence and abuse and often lose both safety and livelihood. Therefore, significant resources must be allocated for their needs for protection and support, not only during ongoing conflicts but also afterwards – during reconstruction and in the work to maintain a sustainable and just peace.

A real and lasting peace can never be achieved without taking women's security, rights, and needs seriously. It is therefore a feminist foreign and security policy that is not only necessary but crucial.

Mr. Speaker! In order to make Sweden safer, Sweden should terminate the DCA agreement with the USA. Our arguments against the DCA agreement are many.

Firstly, our opposition is principled. We do not want an agreement with the USA in the defense area where the Americans are given far-reaching rights and opportunities on Swedish soil and Swedish territory.

Secondly, the DCA agreement contains extensive tax exemptions both for American soldiers and their relatives and for all employees in companies that have connections to the American military. We do not like that either in Vänsterpartiet. People should pay tax.

Thirdly, it is a question of jurisdiction. Which country's legislation should be applied if a crime is committed? Here it is extra important that Swedish crime victims always have the opportunity to participate in and follow the trials, which becomes more difficult when, as in the agreement, you let it be American legislation that applies and allow trials to take place in American military courts. I believe that many can, without much problem, imagine what situations can arise. What speaks for Trump following some kind of good rule of law? I want to remind of the case with Asap Rocky a number of years ago. Trump sent his chief negotiator here for kidnapping situations and did everything possible to pressure Sweden.

For the fourth, we do not want the USA to have access to Swedish garrisons and training areas. The DCA agreement gives the USA great opportunities not only to stay on but also to decide over locations inside Swedish garrisons, regiments, and flotillas. So we shall not have that. It must be the Swedish Armed Forces that decide over, have control over, and can cordon off the Swedish military's garrisons when needed.

For the fifth, the DCA agreement gives Sweden little opportunity to know what the Americans take with them and store in Sweden. It should always be Sweden that ultimately closes the door to a warehouse and holds the key. Nor is the control of American vehicles and ships judged to be possible without American approval.

For the sixth, it is about nuclear weapons. We in Vänsterpartiet hear how both the government and parties outside the government say that nuclear weapons are not relevant. But then we should also be able to enact a law against nuclear weapons as soon as possible. It becomes clear that we need legislation against nuclear weapons on Swedish territory, because now parties are starting to slip and could imagine using nuclear weapons both in our name and on our territory.

The DCA agreement is about 30 pages long. It has been negotiated for a very long time. Time has been spent writing in rules about vehicle inspections, driving licenses, and even stamps. At the same time, a lot of tax issues have been addressed. But nothing has been written about something as important as the issue of nuclear weapons on Swedish soil. When it comes to how serious crimes should be handled, the agreement's wording is unclear. They leave room for different interpretations. I think this is like picking nits and swallowing camels.

Trump has been very clear in various conflicts. He thinks that the USA should have the right to everything. Most recently, Spain was subjected to pressure when the country asserted that the USA is not allowed to use the American bases in Spain to attack Iran in the Middle East.

Through the DCA agreement, the USA is given access to Swedish military bases and areas where American forces shall be able to operate with very limited Swedish oversight. In practice, it concerns areas where the USA gains a decisive influence while legislation is sidelined. I think it is serious, Mr. Speaker, that we surrender 17 Swedish bases in that manner.

Furthermore, there are no clear guarantees against nuclear weapons. The government has chosen not to include an explicit ban on nuclear weapons. Our long tradition of standing up for disarmament and non-proliferation of nuclear weapons is broken by the DCA agreement. Thereby, tensions in our immediate vicinity increase.

Security is built through diplomacy, through confidence-building measures, and through strong international work for peace and disarmament. Swedish security is not built by us giving up control over our country or by us tying ourselves more closely to an imperialist great power.

With Donald Trump in the White House, the security situation in Europe has already deteriorated further. He is an authoritarian president who disregards international law. The kidnapping of Venezuela's president, the support for Israel's genocide in Gaza, and the war in Iran are all examples of clear violations of international law. The military threats against Greenland also represent a direct threat to Europe and the EU's member states. The war against Iran is also an example of how Trump's whims risk leading to major global consequences.

Vänsterpartiet argues that the DCA agreement makes Sweden less – not more – secure. It increases the risk of our country being drawn into conflicts we do not control ourselves and makes Sweden a clearer military target.

Vänsterpartiet protested against the DCA agreement when it was to be approved. But it has been in effect for a year and a half, and it applies for ten years. Much is unclear from how the agreement is written, and there is a great deal of secrecy surrounding its implementation. I believe that Sweden should terminate the DCA agreement with the USA and that Sweden should be a country that safeguards its sovereignty, its democracy and its role as a voice for peace and not become a pawn in a great power game.

Mr. Speaker! Nuclear weapons are a weapon of mass destruction which, if used, could kill us all. Disarmament and non-proliferation of nuclear weapons is therefore one of the most important issues within our security and foreign policy.

Today we see how the nuclear threat is growing once again. Great powers are rearming, modernizing their arsenals and using nuclear weapons as political means of pressure. It is a dangerous development, which the Left Party strongly opposes. The norm against the use and possession of nuclear weapons must be strengthened; it must not be eroded.

The Non-Proliferation Treaty, NPT, has played a crucial role in limiting the spread of nuclear weapons and reducing global arsenals. But the treaty is under threat. The nuclear-weapon states are not living up to their disarmament commitments. It is completely unacceptable. The NPT needs to be strengthened, and the pressure on the nuclear-weapon states to actually disarm must increase.

In a few weeks, the treaty's review conference will begin, which takes place every five years in accordance with what the treaty stipulates. At the end of each conference, a joint final document, which all states stand behind, shall be produced. Unfortunately, the world's superpowers have acted in such a way that the last time they managed to reach an agreement was at the 2010 conference. At the 2015 and 2021 conferences, the countries were too divided to achieve consensus. Russia and the USA were the clearest actors behind this. In 2015, it was the USA. In 2022, it was clearly Russia. It is therefore more than 15 years since the world's states last managed to agree on a final document within the framework of the non-proliferation treaty, NPT.

Sweden should not be a part of the global nuclear arms race. There should be no uncertainties regarding Sweden's positions concerning nuclear weapons. But unfortunately, that is no longer the case. For two years, Sweden has been a member of Nato, a military alliance whose ultimate deterrence is based on nuclear weapons, particularly the USA's extensive nuclear arsenal.

Before the Swedish membership, the Left Party raised the issue of Sweden's stance on nuclear weapons time and again. Our sharp criticism led to the six parties that were in favor of NATO membership practically making a deal where it was clarified that nuclear weapons on Swedish territory were not an option – in connection with the Riksdag approving Sweden's NATO membership.

We in Vänsterpartiet were, however, very clear that this handshake was far from sufficient. A handshake can change quickly, and how long it lasts is always unclear. A significantly better way would have been for Sweden to have introduced national legislation prohibiting the import, storage, and transit of nuclear weapons on Swedish territory in both peacetime and wartime. It would make it harder for other countries to put pressure on Sweden and for politicians to change their minds without an extensive public political debate and discussion before a new decision.

The sad thing is that we see this handshake falling apart in real time. It must be especially so for the Social Democrats, who chose to join Nato without any exceptions. Now we see slide after slide from right-wing party after right-wing party. It is unclear and loose at the edges, but it is still a clear underlying spirit of strengthening confidence in nuclear weapons' deterrent capability. There is talk of nuclear weapons in Sweden's interest, but it is apparently not to be interpreted as being on Swedish territory.

What has the government and specifically the Prime Minister done then? He has accepted a French invitation regarding nuclear weapons cooperation. It is a very vague invitation. That is evident when one begins to examine what President Macron really wants. There are still to be French nuclear weapons under French control, but their use can nevertheless be expanded. It is not to be a part of NATO's Nuclear Planning Group, which France once upon a time left precisely because they wanted their own nuclear weapons. Outwardly, it is said that it is not about paying for French nuclear weapons. These guarantees are therefore to be free to obtain from France. But at the same time, it turns out that the costs for the French nuclear weapons have increased from 4.4 billion dollars in 2018 to 6.9 billion dollars in 2024. That is, therefore, an increase of 57 percent in just six years.

If the French do not want to be paid, do they want land for test explosions? France does not have a particularly good track record anyway. In the mid-90s, the colonial power France tested wildly six times at Mururoa Atoll and Fangataufa Atoll in French Polynesia, which led to extensive global criticism and a global boycott of French wine before France gave in and signed the test-stop agreement.

I can summarize what France wants based on the Cabinet Secretary's briefing for us. There is an invitation to talks. There is no date, no agenda, and no clarity on whether France intends to meet each country individually or in a group. That is how the talks with France look today.

Mr. Speaker! For the Left Party, it is not enough to speak warmly about disarmament in words. Sweden must also show it in action. Therefore, we believe that Sweden must immediately sign the UN convention on the prohibition of nuclear weapons. The Prohibition Convention is a crucial tool to strengthen the international norm against nuclear weapons and to put pressure on the nuclear-weapon states.

Sweden shall be a clear voice against nuclear weapons. We shall not adapt to military alliances or defense policy considerations that weaken our disarmament work. Vänsterpartiet stands firm that real security can never be built on threats of mass destruction but must be built on peace, solidarity and international responsibility.

A nuclear-weapon-free world is not only possible. It is also necessary. Vänsterpartiet will continue to fight for Sweden to be an active force for peace and disarmament in the entire world.

With that, I move for approval of reservation 5 and reservation 8.

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

Kerstin Lundgren (C)

Mr. Speaker! I wondered if Håkan Svenneling possibly used a speech that he is to give at the Left Party's congress, for that was almost what I perceived to be the message when I heard Håkan Svenneling in this debate.

He started by speaking about how he will stand up for the security of the Swedes and Sweden and that it is the most important thing. Then I heard how he wants to leave the field free in several contexts so that Russian nuclear weapons can threaten and blackmail not only Sweden but also our neighbors.

We recognize the Left Party. I can imagine that I could hear something similar if I were to follow the congress. It becomes strange.

If one reads the DCA agreement – which I would assume is Håkan Svenneling's evening reading, Mr. Speaker – one must see what is written: All activities covered by this agreement shall be conducted with full respect for Sweden's sovereignty, legislation, and international obligations, including regarding the storage of certain types of weapons on Swedish territory.

Mr. Speaker! This is clear to me. It is something that I assume every government will secure, if one stands up for Sweden's interests. That perspective was completely missing when Håkan Svenneling tried to paint a picture of all possible threatening futures.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! Kerstin Lundgren is absolutely right. It was not she who was the target group, but possibly her peers in the '68 generation. Many of them are strong supporters of a nuclear-free world. They often think that Vänsterpartiet does not highlight the nuclear weapons issue, DCA or our Natomotstånd sufficiently.

I thought that I would take the time in the chamber and speak at length and in detail about what the Left Party actually wants. At the congress, unfortunately, there is only a two-minute speaking time. I wouldn't even be close to managing to include all the points that I took up in my speech. But I will have time to also speak at the congress tomorrow. It can be followed on SVT Forum if one wishes.

The Russian nuclear threat has loomed over us for a long time, without us being members of Nato and without us ourselves embarking on the path of nuclear deterrence. Sweden managed to stay outside the Cold War and also many other types of unrest that affected many other countries during the days of the Cold War.

Now we see three superpowers once again increasing the temperature in the world both among themselves and also towards other states. It is my principled view that it would have been better if Sweden had not been a member of Nato. Now we are, and we will be for a long time to come.

My perception is still that we build the best Swedish security through a strong Swedish conventional capability – as Kerstin Lundgren and Fredrik Ahlstedt noted in a previous exchange of remarks – at 5 percent comprising 3.5 percent for the military defense and 1.5 percent for the civil defense, what we call the Swedish total defense. I could have imagined some other figure than 5 percent, but that is what has been agreed upon between the parties here in Sweden.

When it comes to the DCA agreement, it is not my evening reading. But I do not think it is Donald Trump's evening reading either. It worries me in the time we live in now.

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

Kerstin Lundgren (C)

Mr. Speaker! I then understand that the entry is something that will be referred to, in the same way as Håkan Svenneling just now referred to SVT Forum. He will refer to the fact that on the Swedish Parliament's website, one can see a speech that was intended for the congress. In that way, he manages the two minutes of speaking time.

What is concerning about Håkan Svenneling's and the Vänsterpartiet's argumentation is that when we build security, we build security together. We will need to build security together with the Nordics, with our Baltic neighbors, and within the EU. We do that, and we have done so for a long time.

For a long time, our security has been based on the American nuclear umbrella. Even though we have not spoken about it, it has de facto applied. It naturally affects our neighbors if we were to say that we step down, that we are not interested in any nuclear umbrella.

Putin is not analyzed in the same way as Trump is analyzed. I think it is necessary to do so, Mr. Speaker. Putin has also clearly shown it. That person has actually threatened to use nuclear weapons. He has shown that the Russian leadership absolutely does not take any agreements that have been made into account.

What we are facing, and what our neighbors are so clearly worried about, is that we are unable to deter Putin from doing what he has done to Ukraine. Then we must be prepared.

The DCA agreement is about preparedness for us and for our neighbors. It is not only Sweden but also our neighbors that Håkan Svenneling wants to weaken with his proposal.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! I do not want to weaken the defense of our neighbors at all. Instead, I am for Sweden's contribution in Finland, what is called FLF Finland, and I am for FLF Latvia. That is exactly because I am concerned about Sweden's immediate surroundings and for our neighbors.

I share Kerstin Lundgren's view that we build security together with other countries. However, I am not so interested in building this security together with Donald Trump. He is a president who has shown himself to violate international law time and again.

I really want to say with emphasis that I think it is an incorrect historical narrative to say that we have been part of a nuclear umbrella. That decision was made when we decided on the Swedish NATO membership here in the Riksdag a little over two years ago. We were not previously, but we are now. Deterrence is a new phenomenon in Swedish security policy. It did not exist previously.

It is still Trump, Macron, Starmer, Putin and a number of others who lead the countries that hold the nuclear button and decide whether they should use their countries' nuclear weapons. Some of those nuclear weapons are covered by NATO's nuclear umbrella. Those countries are part of NATO's Nuclear Planning Group.

Sweden is now participating in and practicing in the nuclear weapons exercises. It is a completely new step for Sweden. We have never done it before. But we did it for the first time in September last year.

I think it is a flawed development that does not lead to a safer world. It continues to drive up confidence in nuclear weapons and leads to us moving further and further away from the NPT agreement's goal of a global disarmament where the world succeeds in phasing out nuclear weapons and not using them. That image we must carry with us into the future for peace.

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Mr. Speaker! It came out quite clearly in the previous exchange what the DCA agreement is about. It is about the storage of conventional weapons and nothing else. It is about us being prepared. If it is the case that we are attacked, we shall be able to get help from outside and get it quite quickly. One must know that in a sharp situation, days and weeks have an enormous significance. Not least the war in Ukraine shows that one can get help from outside quickly.

It is simply a matter of stating that in our immediate vicinity, all countries have DCA agreements with the USA. Finland has it, Norway has it, Denmark has it, Estonia has it, Latvia has it, Lithuania has it, Poland has it, Bulgaria has it, Czechia has it and Hungary has it. All countries have it because they have seen that it is an advantage for them, quite simply. If they were to be attacked, they could receive help from outside.

If we were to follow Håkan Svenneling's line here and Sweden were to leave the DCA agreement, it would be a signal to the Americans: If we are attacked by the Russians, you are not welcome to help us. That is the signal we would send.

Is it really a signal we should send in this situation? I do not think so. Who would be cheering then? There is one person, and he sits in the Kremlin. He would applaud if Sweden leaves the DCA agreement.

We could very well end up in a situation, but we are not there now. If peace is achieved in Ukraine and Russia gets the opportunity to redirect its forces and build them up again, we could face a real threat to NATO's near area and to our borders.

Therefore, we cannot take such steps and put our own country in the danger that it would mean sending such a signal. Then, I am the first to sign on to the fact that Trump is a problem. Of course, he is. But we must start from the premise that the USA upholds the commitments it stands for.

I believe the problem is rather the opposite. We would risk not receiving the help that we would need. But the DCA agreement is not the problem. It is rather an asset for us.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! I do wonder what the situation is with the telegraph across the Atlantic. Morgan Johansson says that we must assume that the USA will keep what it promises.

If we were to say that we do not want an American presence within the framework of the DCA agreement, there is a risk that Article 5 does not apply. But the DCA agreement has nothing to do with Article 5 and Nato. It is an independent bilateral agreement with the USA, and not with Nato.

That is what is so tricky here; Morgan Johansson's party and other parties have mixed up the Swedish NATO membership with a lot of other types of security cooperation without sorting out what is what. It is said that one is worried about Trump and that he violates international law. But at the same time, one is worried that Trump might stop following the agreement that has been agreed upon if we were to signal that we do not want help, but we will nevertheless assume that he keeps it.

I think this is a circular argument that does not hold, and that is why I am so critical of the DCA agreement. The agreement has been finalized, but it has not yet been implemented. My point has been – and this I have put forward in the debate since we over the last months have seen how crazy various decisions from Trump's side have been – that we should not allow American soldiers to enter Swedish territory. It would be to protect our security and our population from American soldiers, whether it concerns rapes at the Stadshotellet in Kristinehamn or whether Trump de facto threatens Greenland and Denmark. That is why I think we must change our security policy in relation to the USA.

I know that Morgan Johansson partially agrees with me on this, because he also sits in the Defense Preparation Board, which is discussing this right now. That is why it is so incredibly important to open up, talk about this and debate this in the Riksdag. We are not completely in disagreement, but I know that you are for the DCA agreement and that I am against it. There is an important principled difference there, but I believe that we must talk about Trump and what he is doing and how we handle it.

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden has had a defense cooperation with the USA for decades. I am therefore a bit surprised when Håkan Svenneling says that we should not have American soldiers on Swedish soil.

Good God – in a couple of weeks the large exercise Aurora starts, and the USA is expected to participate in it! We will have to see with how many people they will come; they usually actually have a fairly good deployment. I think that is good. It is good when the USA participates in these exercises, because it makes the cooperation and the defense in a sharp situation, if we were actually to be attacked, go so much easier and smoother.

One perhaps should sometimes distinguish the American administration from the American defense. The cooperation when it comes to military to military continues, as I understand it, to function in a very good way. It is important for Sweden, so one should not mix this up. It is true that we initiated the negotiations on the DCA agreement before Sweden became a member of Nato, and it was actually the Social Democratic government that started with this.

I react to the myth-making that Håkan Svenneling unfortunately engages in when he says that nuclear weapons can now come onto Swedish soil and that we have no control over anything. Yes, we actually do! We have control over what is brought into Sweden and what is stored here. There is no reason for the USA – and it is also completely impossible – to falsely attempt to bring nuclear weapons onto Swedish soil. Sweden also does not even have the right to receive it. In that part, we have both reins and life-belts.

Let me return to my main point. If we were to now send the signal that we no longer want the help of the Americans in a sharp situation, Putin in the Kremlin is the only one who will be cheering. Sweden would also bolt in relation to all other countries in the defense cooperation along the border with Russia and in its surrounding area.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! The President of the USA is also the Commander-in-Chief of the USA. That is a difference from how it works in Sweden, where the ÖB and not Ulf Kristersson is Sweden's Commander-in-Chief.

The USA's war in Iran shows how close politics is to its military when it comes to Pete Hegseth, Donald Trump and other representatives of the Trump administration. It is not possible to make the distinction that Morgan Johansson and other debaters make in the Swedish debate.

When Sweden joined Nato, Sweden did so without exceptions, but the Social Democrats clearly stated two things: no foreign bases on Swedish territory and no nuclear weapons on Swedish territory. One ensured to coordinate with the Moderates and the other parties and got the Sweden Democrats, all six parties, to agree that this would be the case.

What we are seeing now is that since the DCA agreement was signed, which gives the American military access to Swedish territory at 17 locations in Sweden. One absolutely has an agreement that requires consent and a lot of things, but in practice, one still allows foreign military under long permanent conditions on Swedish soil.

The second thing they did was the handshake on nuclear weapons. It is that handshake that we in this debate see collapsing in real time. The right-wing parties that Morgan Johansson took by the hand and who said that we would not have nuclear weapons on Swedish territory are beginning, step by step, to shift their position regarding where they are headed.

For the longest time, the Sweden Democrats have shifted their position, and the party says openly: When it is a gray area, we can imagine having nuclear weapons on Swedish territory. But we also see other right-wing parties signaling the same type of message, that is to say that the agreement does not apply.

It didn't even last two years, Morgan Johansson. That is unfortunately the result of your handshake regarding the Swedish NATO membership. I think you should change your policy and instead realize that it is time for legislation against nuclear weapons and that we must find a new policy when it comes to our relationship with the USA.

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

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating the Committee on Foreign Affairs' report on security policy. It is fundamentally about Sweden's freedom and security in an increasingly dangerous world. The Christian Democrats support the report in its entirety.

We live in a security policy situation that is more serious than it has been in a very long time. It is not a temporary crisis but a long-term deteriorated global situation. One can actually say with reason that we find ourselves in a permanent state of crisis, even if the crises vary at any given time. Russia's invasion of Ukraine has fundamentally changed Europe.

At the same time, we see how authoritarian regimes cooperate, how hybrid attacks increase, and how the threats become more complex. It is about cyberattacks, sabotage, and influence against our open societies. It is against this background that Swedish security policy must be shaped.

Mr. Speaker! A central conclusion in the report is that Sweden's security is based on cooperation. Our membership in Nato is therefore a necessary adaptation to reality. There are those who want to go back to another order, but that time no longer exists. Sweden is today a part of the collective defense, and that entails both rights and obligations. We shall be a credible, solidary, and capable ally.

It is also for that reason that the committee rejects proposals that create uncertainty regarding Sweden's line. Security policy requires stability and predictability. The Riksdag should not preempt the ongoing work in the Defence Preparedness Board or pull at the long-term direction through capricious decisions. It is an important principle in this report.

Support for Ukraine is another completely crucial issue. There is a broad consensus in this chamber about that, and it is important. But support is not just about solidarity; it is also about our own security. If Russia succeeds with its aggression, the entire European security order risks being undermined. Therefore, the support must be long-term, persistent, and powerful.

I would also like to take this opportunity to congratulate party friend Péter Magyar and his party Tisza in Hungary on their clear victory in the election on Sunday. The election result marks a historic shift after many years of a development where the principles of the rule of law have been put under pressure, and this change creates new opportunities to bring Hungary closer to the core of European cooperation again. But above all, it creates the conditions for more united and long-term European support for Ukraine.

Mr. Speaker! The report also concerns nuclear weapons and disarmament. The Christian Democrats stand behind the committee's line. We naturally also want to see a world completely without nuclear weapons. But we must also face the reality in which we live. Deterrence plays a role in preserving peace and stability, especially within the framework of Nato.

What is significantly much worse than a world with nuclear weapons is a world where only authoritarian states have access to nuclear weapons while democracies are left without.

It is also important that Europe takes greater responsibility for its own security. In this context, it is therefore welcome that France has taken the initiative to conduct a dialogue with allies, including Sweden, regarding its nuclear doctrine and Europe's security. It is an expression of increased European responsibility and for the need for deepened conversations within the alliance regarding the role of deterrence in our part of the world.

We must also be clear on another issue: We can never accept that Iran develops nuclear weapons. The Iranian regime acts destabilizingly in its region, supports violent groups and contributes to increased insecurity. A nuclear-armed Iran would severely worsen the situation and risk driving a dangerous proliferation of nuclear weapons. Therefore, the international community must stand firm that Iran's nuclear ambitions must be stopped.

We were reminded of this on Monday, when I, together with some colleagues, had the pleasure of inviting Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi here to the Riksdag building. The Iranian people continue to pay a high price for their longing for freedom. For over four decades, Iran has been ruled by a theocratic dictatorship. Women are denied their rights, and dissenters are met with oppression and violence. Yet, we have seen a people who time and again show courage and demand change. The regime responds with repression but now lacks legitimacy.

We must be clear that the Iranian regime today is the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the Middle East through its financing and arming of groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthi movement. The world will become safer the day the mullahs' regime falls and the Iranian people themselves get to shape their future in freedom and democracy.

Mr. Speaker! This report is characterized by responsibility. It confirms Sweden's security policy line and safeguards stability in a restless time. Security is built together with others through strong alliances and a clear sense of responsibility. In a more dangerous world, Sweden must be strong, clear, and reliable.

The Christian Democrats support the report, and I move for approval of the committee's proposal.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member Berntsson for the presentation.

I had not intended to take the floor, and I promise not to speak about Pahlavi. I would, however, like to bring up nuclear deterrence, which Member Berntsson embraced. I would like to ask him to explain how nuclear deterrence works.

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

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member Risberg for the question.

It surprises me somewhat that this question is coming up now. This was a rather decisive issue during the discussion on NATO membership. It is a new thing for us in Sweden that deterrence is a clear part of what actually helps us avoid ending up in new conflicts. If one, from the side of democracies, completely gives up the possibility of responding to an attack, one definitely does not show the strength that one needs to show in such a situation. Furthermore, it encourages all possible authoritarian regimes to take steps forward.

I think we have explained the dynamics of deterrence quite clearly in this report and, above all, in previous descriptions, not least in the NATO Membership Report.

The question goes back to Member Risberg. How would he think about a world where democracies take a step back and surrender the ultimate weapon while authoritarian regimes stand alone? We have demonstrably not been able to trust anything that, for example, Russia has promised on other occasions.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! This was interesting. I do not think I received any explanation regarding how the nuclear deterrence itself works, which was what I wondered about.

I believe we can agree on certain things. I believe we would both like to see a mutual nuclear disarmament. I also believe we can both see that the concept of democracy is a gray scale. Some states become democratic, while others move backward. Over the last year, the USA has taken large steps backward and perhaps can no longer be regarded as an open and free democracy. The USA is, however, the state in the world that has by far the most nuclear weapons.

I can understand that it can be problematic when authoritarian states have nuclear weapons and non-authoritarian states do not. But these shifts can happen at any time. Now, a state that perhaps is not democratic holds the most nuclear weapons of all.

I want to return to the Middle East. Regardless of whether it is a democratic state or not, there are always threats to the state. Regardless of whether I am an authoritarian leader or a democratic leader, I must defend my country against the rest of the world. We do have a country in the Middle East that has nuclear weapons, namely Israel. I will in no way defend the [regime] in Iran, but at the same time, I can understand that – precisely because of this issue with nuclear deterrence – there might be a desire to acquire nuclear weapons. They feel very threatened by Israel's nuclear weapons.

I believe that the best way to get the Iranians to stop acquiring nuclear weapons and enriching uranium would be to work towards getting Israel to disarm its nuclear weapons. Israel does not have any nuclear threat against it at the current moment, so they could unilaterally disarm their nuclear weapons.

I wonder if Member Berntsson is willing to work for Israel to disarm its nuclear weapons.

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

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! In the first part of Risberg's second question, the reason was mentioned why Sweden has agreed to France's invitation to be part of discussions about their future nuclear weapons doctrine and their way of developing it. Europe shall take greater responsibility for its own security. Otherwise, the risk is that we are only in the hands of an American president.

This is something that Miljöpartiet has very clearly said no to. I know that Miljöpartiet is against NATO membership, but I still find it difficult to understand why, in this situation, one does not appreciate that Europe takes greater responsibility for its own security.

Regarding Iran, a long-term effort has been made with the so-called JCPOA agreement. From the European side – and not least from the British and French side – there has been a real attempt to move forward even after the USA left the cooperation. The focus was to be on civil nuclear power. This has, however, led to an enormous enrichment of uranium in Iran. The enrichment has reached levels that cannot be used for anything other than nuclear weapons. In other words, this is not a regime that can be trusted.

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

Kerstin Lundgren (C)

Mr. Speaker! This committee report collects motions from the last two general motion periods. This makes the debate scattered. But security policy needs clarity. The security policy analysis that is currently taking place in the Defence Committee also affects all parties' discussions here in the chamber today. I look forward to this analysis and hope that a consensus can also be found in the review that is underway.

It is obvious that security policy is in a period of transition. Times of unrest apply. If not before, it became clear to everyone when Russia launched a full-scale, illegal attack on Ukraine. As has already been said, Sweden's security depends on a sustainable peace for Ukraine. Russia must not end as the winner of the war, because then our reality would be seriously complicated and the risks would be greatly exacerbated.

In this situation, it is important that Sweden and our like-minded allies are clear and do not bow to anyone when it comes to issues that are central to our world order. When one does not know who one must get along with, one risks falling silent and not being clear when brutal violations of international law occur. Therefore, we must stand up for the foundations of the world order, assert the rules of international law and the laws of war, and not hesitate when violations occur, regardless of who is committing them. This applies whether it is Netanyahu or Trump, who attacked Iran in violation of international law, or Iran, which violates international law when it attacks its neighbors in the Gulf states – or if it is someone else committing violations. We have, of course, been clear when it comes to the crimes against international law that Russia is committing against Ukraine.

DN Debatt has been referred to previously, and I also think it is a well-written article. It is dull and does not strengthen Sweden's position and security if we create uncertainty about whether we stand up for international law, do not know what international law actually stands for, or say that it could be a seminar on international law. Then we do not give a clear signal to others about where we stand. I am therefore seriously concerned about the slippages that are now occurring.

Mr. Speaker! I have noted something I was not attentive to when the committee's position was being written. The Government writes in its foreign policy declaration: "We see serious violations of international law." It was an important marking, but it is missing from the report, which I regret. This should be seen as an entry point to the discussion that is ongoing.

The DCA agreement has already been touched upon. We are clear that we see the DCA agreement as an important part of our security. It is an important part of Nato, and our neighboring countries have the same agreement. We ourselves talk about to what extent we need to act to be a pillar of support for Finland or others, and we must be prepared for that times of unrest can turn into times of war. Nato membership is then completely central for our and our neighbors' security, and we neighbors must work together.

It is central that we have a policy of deterrence. Russia must not believe that we are pliable and can be challenged or threatened into doing what Russia wants. Finland has felt that model, and we shall not go that way. Finland is clear, and we shall also be clear. Therefore, 5 percent of GDP shall go to total defense. It is about deterrence and escalation ladders.

We know that there are those who undermine Nato. Putin has long tried to say that Article 5 does not apply, and we naturally note that Trump is doing his part to question Nato. It is naturally serious, and we shall not contribute to questioning or undermining the credibility.

It is against this background that the Centre Party views the talks on the French nuclear weapons. We agree that these talks are conducted without Sweden committing to anything. We do not want these talks to result in anything that undermines NATO's and the USA's nuclear umbrella or NATO's collective stance. It remains to be seen where these talks land.

As has been said before, Sweden stands for nuclear disarmament; that is obvious. A world without nuclear weapons is what we desire. But we are not there, and we must not be naive. When other countries arm themselves, we must also realize that nuclear weapons unfortunately exist and that reality is what it is.

The Center Party stands up for the non-proliferation treaty, NPT, and I move for approval of reservation 11 under point 5, which concerns raising the thresholds and a balanced disarmament. I know that the new NPT review is coming this autumn. I have participated in several of these reviews previously, and a given issue has been the Middle East. It is about nuclear weapons, but not just about nuclear weapons but also about weapons of mass destruction. There are more weapons, and it is the balance issues that are so incredibly important to reason about when it comes to the Middle East. Unfortunately, one has not succeeded in reaching a united position at the review conferences. I hope that the NPT will not get stuck there this time, but I fear the worst. We know that Iran is even prepared to withdraw from the NPT at this stage. It remains to be seen.

When it comes to the so-called ban agreement, we are also clear. We can imagine being part of a review, and we do not say no to conducting a check of what that work actually entails. But we are also clear that we will not join or ratify the agreement. But the agreements exist, and it is clear that we, together with like-minded countries in Nato, could be involved in investigating how the developments are proceeding.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! That Sweden should be a clear voice ran like a red thread through Kerstin Lundgren's speech. At the end, she touched upon her reservation number 13, where it states: "Sweden should, however, together with like-minded countries, examine whether a temporary presence from time to time can benefit the disarmament work via NPT."

Mr. Speaker! "Should however" and "temporary presence from time to time" are not exactly the clearest words, at least not in my dictionary. It is rather the lack of clarity that hits one when trying to understand the Center Party's disarmament policy. They want to see a review, but they do not want to join or ratify.

When the UN nuclear weapons convention received more than 50 signatory countries, it entered into force in 2021. Following a decision by the then S-government, Sweden traveled to Vienna for the first state party meeting for the convention in 2022. In the autumn of 2022, the current right-wing government announced that they would not participate in the second and the third meeting of the convention.

Should Sweden, with the Centre Party's disarmament policy, attend the fourth review conference for the UN's nuclear weapons convention and test whether a temporary presence benefits the disarmament work when there will be a conference in December later this year? And if we travel to the fourth conference, shall we then from time to time travel to the fifth review conference?

I was present at the first state party meeting. Being an observer meant that Sweden sat at the back of the room with two officials together with a handful of other countries and observers, while more than 60 countries, signatories of the convention, sat at the front. It was a bit like being a member here in the Riksdag compared to sitting as a spectator up in the gallery.

Mr. Speaker! With the Center Party's policy, Sweden will be an observer standing outside the chamber of the Riksdag, wondering whether one can benefit the disarmament work by occasionally stepping into the hall and listening to what is said during one's temporary presence, or if it is better to stay outside by the toilets.

I believe that Sweden should be at the forefront of the work for global nuclear disarmament by signing the UN nuclear weapons convention.

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

Kerstin Lundgren (C)

Mr. Speaker! It is exciting to listen to Håkan Svenneling today, because he is truly on the offensive. He clearly shows that he wants to stand by on most points where it really matters to build security. To leave and not to be involved is somewhat the message we have heard from Håkan Svenneling earlier.

This is very clear. I voted in favor of reservation 11, which is clear. It is about standing up for and working through the NPT, which is the only global disarmament structure we have. It is immensely important for maintaining the IAEA and the work they do there, and I hope that we will manage to do that. Even the verification issues are immensely important in disarmament work, not least in a world where trust between states is eroding and perhaps disappearing completely. There are many points that are immensely important.

We think that one should raise the thresholds and try to work for that and also handle some of the challenges that NPT itself has. It is quite obvious that it is the main path to disarmament. Then there are the other agreements, the ban agreements. From our side, we say that Sweden shall not ratify it and also not give any impression that Sweden wants to be a permanent observer or anything else.

However, there may be reasons to hold conversations or listen in to ensure that one does not use this as a way to undermine the NPT. It is one of the things that causes concern, in addition to several things that we were extremely critical of in the agreement. That is not what we want to see.

This is our central main goal for disarmament, including the disarmament of nuclear weapons.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! I think that even Member Kerstin Lundgren is on the offensive tonight. This debate shows that, in particular.

Something that is also clear is that we agree that it is incredibly important to stand up for the NPT. The problem is that we have slightly different perceptions of reality or descriptions of the landscape in which the NPT work is conducted. In Kerstin Lundgren's reservations, it states that we shall conduct it together with like-minded NATO countries that also want to see disarmament. In that case, one must keep in mind that the NATO countries we are talking about are the United Kingdom, France, and the USA, which have nuclear weapons.

Great Britain has announced that it is raising the ceiling for its number of nuclear warheads. France has announced that it is inviting talks and raising the ambitions in the French nuclear weapons program. The USA has spoken about starting to conduct tests again and breaking the test ban treaty, CTBT. In addition, we have Russia and China, two countries that are clear about investing in nuclear weapons right now. These countries constitute the P5.

In this situation, people start talking about NPT being the main path. I have been accused of spreading lies, disinformation, and all sorts of things here. At the same time, a picture is being spread that there is a contradiction between the UN's nuclear weapons convention and NPT, which there is not. Researcher after researcher has established that the contradiction does not exist.

There are plenty of countries, which are becoming more and more, that sign the convention, that stand up for nuclear disarmament and that see that one can work with both the ban convention and the non-proliferation treaty, as two parallel paths that are connected. That is indeed the way forward for nuclear disarmament and for strengthening the NPT: to work with the states that actually want real nuclear disarmament.

Then Centerpartiet lands on the position that one absolutely does not want to be a permanent observer, but rather wants to, from time to time, possibly sit at the back of the room and observe what happens at a meeting.

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

Kerstin Lundgren (C)

Mr. Speaker! I note that Håkan Svenneling is obviously sitting at the very back and just observing. I believe that several things happened and several conversations were held during that meeting he participated in. That is how it usually is, at least, in the meetings I participate in. I do not sit quietly at the back and just observe.

The central point is that the NPT review that is now to take place in New York does not become a single large death march for the NPT agreement. I truly do not hope for that, because it is the only thing we have to hold onto. Therefore, it is extremely important that we try to work towards finding common ground at a time when trust is totally gone between several of the states.

At the same time, some of the agreements that we have tried to assert are being canceled. We have wanted to have higher thresholds. The issue of the test ban has significance and a normalizing force. It is extremely important to stick to that and assert the type of grounds that we have. There we must be clear and act clearly for NPT, both before and after.

We have had the Stockholm Initiative. I think that was good, and it is important to try to stick to it and raise it step by step. We must find ways to find each other, between nuclear-weapon states. The right to have nuclear weapons is clear, but it is also clear that disarmament should be the goal.

One must try to solve it in a different way than with the ban treaty, which has the ambition of pointing out the humanitarian consequences. They are immense, so I understand that ambition. But I do not want to put it before the NPT and successes. I want to at least stick to the NPT path.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Nuclear weapons are not just any weapons; they are an existential threat to life on Earth. They are classified as weapons of mass destruction because their effects are indiscriminate. They do not distinguish between soldiers and children or between military bases and residential blocks. They wipe out everything in their path.

Today, nine states have nuclear weapons: USA, Russia, China, France, United Kingdom, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea. Together they possess over 12,000 nuclear warheads. Of these, around 2,000 are on high alert, aimed at cities and ready to be launched within a minute. It is not an abstract threat, but it is a daily reality.

Nuclear weapons have existed since 1945. They have only been used in war twice, in Hiroshima and in Nagasaki, but let us not be deceived by the word "only". The bombings that were carried out then changed the conditions of humanity forever, and yet these weapons were small and primitive by today's standards.

Explosive power is measured in kilotons and megatons. One kiloton corresponds to 1,000 tons of TNT. The Hiroshima bomb had an explosive power of approximately 15 kilotons. The largest bomb ever detonated, the Tsar Bomba, was several thousand times more powerful. But nuclear weapons are not just bigger bombs. They are qualitatively different. Their effects extend over time, space, and generations.

Mr. Speaker! Three main forces cause the destruction of nuclear weapons: the pressure wave, the heat, and the ionizing radiation.

The pressure wave is a wall of compressed air, followed by winds stronger than hurricanes. It crushes buildings, bridges, roads, and entire cities. Infrastructure that has taken generations to build disappears in seconds.

The heat at the moment of detonation reaches temperatures of several million degrees, like a small sun. Near the detonation, all organic life is vaporized. People disappear without a trace.

In Hiroshima, there are what are called nuclear shadows, dark silhouettes on steps and walls. They are the shadows of people who stood there at the exact moment they were vaporized. Their bodies are no longer there. Only the shadow remains.

Further away, everything that can burn ignited – wood, furniture, clothes, skin and hair. The fires merged into firestorms, which devour entire districts. This is not just destruction. It is annihilation. As the firestorm rises, the well-known mushroom cloud is formed. It contains the remains of the city, of the ground and of the people.

Then comes the radiation, Mr. Speaker. The ionizing radiation causes both immediate and long-term damage. Acute radiation sickness leads to system collapse in the body's most basic functions: blood formation, the nervous system, and digestion. Eyes fall out of their sockets. Bellies burst. People bleed to death from the inside.

Those who survive the acute phase often remain ill for months or years. The immune system is destroyed. The organs are damaged. The body is attacked slowly.

Then follows the slow suffering: leukemia, thyroid cancer, breast cancer and lung cancer. People who seemed unharmed fall ill decades later. The radiation does not stop in one generation. It leaves traces in the genetic material. Children are born with severe malformations. The risks do not subside. For the survivors, the threat is lifelong. And the damages are not only physical. They are psychological, social and existential.

Mr. Speaker! After a nuclear explosion, there is no realistic possibility of any rescue operation. Hospitals are destroyed or become unusable. Roads and communications are knocked out. Electricity disappears. Clean water is lacking. Medicines are inaccessible.

In Hiroshima, 42 out of 45 hospitals were destroyed, and 90 percent of all healthcare personnel were killed or injured. Most of the victims died without any pain relief, without care and without comfort. And those who came later to help also became ill.

Today, the world's healthcare systems are already at the limit. No city, no country, is prepared for the consequences of even a "small" nuclear explosion.

Mr. Speaker! Those who survived are called hibakusha in Japan. They do not only carry the trauma of the explosion and the loss of their families. They also carry the fear for the future, for diseases that may or may not come. They have also been subjected to systematic discrimination. Many were denied work. Many were considered unsuitable to marry. Children were treated differently in school, as if radiation were contagious. This is the real cost of nuclear weapons, not just in death tolls but in lives that were never whole.

Mr. Speaker, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not the end. The suffering of nuclear weapons spread silently through over 2,000 nuclear weapons tests around the world.

In the Marshall Islands, the USA conducted 67 tests. Entire atolls became uninhabitable. Generations were born with cancer and severe deformities. In French Polynesia, France carried out over 190 test explosions. In Algeria, Kazakhstan, Australia, and New Mexico, it was the same pattern: little information, no consent, no protection, and no restitution.

These are not accidents. It is a system. It is nuclear weapon colonialism, where marginalized communities are sacrificed because of geopolitical ambitions.

Mr. Speaker! Let us be clear: This is not history. This is today. The Doomsday Clock, which has been maintained by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists since 1947, symbolizes our proximity to one of humanity's caused global catastrophes. In 1963, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, it stood at 12 minutes to midnight. In 1984, at the height of the Cold War, it stood at 3 minutes to midnight. After the Cold War ended in 1991, it was moved back to 17 minutes to midnight. Today, with nuclear weapons largely absent from public debate, the clock stands at 85 seconds to midnight – the closest humanity has ever been to self-destruction.

Why? Reckless nuclear threats are used openly by world leaders, the climate crisis has a destabilizing effect, and artificial intelligence and automated systems reduce human control. Together, these three factors increase the risk of an accidental nuclear war.

If an alarm goes off, the US president has six minutes to decide if the world will end. Six minutes. The systems have mistaken clouds, weather balloons, and flocks of birds for hostile missiles. We do not live thanks to security. We live thanks to luck, and luck is not a strategy.

Mr. Speaker! Why do we accept this? With all this knowledge, why do nuclear weapons remain? The answer is nuclear weapons ideology, an idea that the threat of mass extinction creates security. It is an ideology permeated by notions of dominance, power, and gender-based violence, an ideology based on strength and weakness. Nuclear weapons are portrayed as rational, as responsible, as stabilizing.

But no system based on the threat of total annihilation can be sustainable. This is not a natural disaster. This is a political choice, and political choices can be changed. As Beatrice Fihn said in ICAN's Nobel speech: This story will end in one of two ways – either the end of nuclear weapons or the end of us. It is up to us to choose which end it will be.

The way forward is abolition, and abolition begins with stigmatization. That is how slavery was abolished. That is how chemical and biological weapons were banned. No country identifies itself today proudly as a chemical weapons nation.

Mr. Speaker! On July 7, 2017, 122 countries, including Sweden, voted for the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, TPNW. The treaty prohibits the development, testing, possession, stockpiling, threat of use, and use of nuclear weapons. It creates moral clarity – no gray zone, no "but." Either we accept nuclear weapons, or we do not. Today, the treaty is supported by a majority of the world's states, but it has not yet been signed by Sweden.

Nuclear weapons are not a necessary evil. As the Hiroshima survivor Setsuko Thurlow says: They are the ultimate evil. Abolition is not extreme. It is the only way to a future where human life can flourish. And the responsibility lies here with us, with Sweden – a Sweden that was once a moral compass in the world and which stood up for international law, disarmament, and human dignity. That legacy is not gone, but it needs to be reclaimed.

Mr. Speaker! Let us therefore sow the seeds for another future – bravely, openly and without giving up. Not all seeds will sprout, but enough will, and one day when the last spearhead is dismantled we will know that it began the day we chose peace.

I naturally stand behind all our reservations but move for approval only to reservation 12.

(Applause)

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

Rasmus Giertz (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden's and Europe's security policy situation continues to deteriorate on a broad front. We see how Russia's war in Ukraine continues and how the conflict in the Middle East has consequences far outside the region. Unfortunately, the situation has not improved during the past year but has instead deteriorated powerfully. This underscores the seriousness in the formulation of Swedish security policy and requires a realistic policy with a clear objective to strengthen Swedish and European security.

In Ukraine, the Russian attacks continue relentlessly, and the Ukrainian population suffers under indiscriminate bombardments occurring day and night. On the front line, Russia is pushing, but we also see that Ukraine is resisting. All of this is made possible by strong support from the West, where the Swedish support has been crucial.

Mr. Speaker! I and around Iran, the war has now been ongoing for several weeks, and the consequences are clear, not least for the civilian population and the Iranian population, who continue to be oppressed by an Islamist regime that does not shy away from any means. The consequences are also clear for Sweden, among other things economically, when energy prices rise.

The worst of all would be if Iran developed nuclear weapons. Then, in the near future, there could be a direct nuclear weapons threat against Europe's and also Sweden's security.

Mr. Speaker! The USA is also not playing the same role as before, and the current presidential administration under Trump is not the same ally as before. Trump has continuously criticized Nato and various European allies. Swedish security policy needs to take this into account. At the same time, the USA is more than the current administration, and Europe, including Sweden, is still dependent on American capabilities, not least within the nuclear weapons area, to deter Russian aggression against Europe.

Mr. Speaker! In the face of these threats, a forward-looking and stable foreign policy is required, one that does not shy away from the difficult questions. It is precisely what we have seen from the government, which, with the support of the Sweden Democrats, has pursued a clear line as a responsible NATO member that clearly supports Ukraine and acts in an increasingly dangerous world, often in close cooperation with our Nordic and Baltic colleagues.

In this situation, it is not only a matter of meeting the threats that exist today but also of being able to meet the threats of the future. We need to be forward-looking and not automatically count on the USA to stand up for Europe and Sweden in the same way as before. This requires Europe to have increased autonomy and an increased ability to meet an aggressive Russia.

Mr. Speaker! We in the Tidö parties have laid a good foundation for a security policy that holds when the wind blows and that is forward-looking regarding a continued deteriorating security situation. It is a security policy that is necessary to maintain stability in our part of Europe, to continue strengthening Nato, and to build strong alliances between the Western world's democracies.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I move for approval of the proposal in the committee's report.

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

Daniel Riazat (-)

Mr. Speaker! I am here today to speak about the motion that I have written together with Lorena Delgado Varas regarding a ban on nuclear weapons, withdrawal from Nato, and that Sweden should abolish the DCA agreement.

The UN Convention on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons was adopted by a majority of the UN's member states in July 2017. On January 22 this year, 50 countries had ratified the agreement, which meant that it could enter into force. Since this happened, the Swedish government has chosen not to sign the agreement.

Sweden should work for peace and for disarmament. This includes standing behind the convention against nuclear weapons.

It has now been over 80 years since the atomic bombs fell over Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945. These horrific events showed the world what nuclear weapons truly mean, which has been said here in the rostrum previously. It means mass death, destruction, and human suffering beyond a level that we can even imagine. Despite this, there are today tens of thousands of nuclear weapons in the world. The threat is not gone, and the threat does not only come from certain countries – which the bourgeoisie tries to portray it as.

Sweden once used to work for peace, disarmament, and human rights, but that has changed. We have had both Social Democratic governments and bourgeois governments and racist governments that no longer stand for peace and disarmament. But do we really become safer by being silent in the face of nuclear war and nuclear threats? The answer to this is no, and the situation around the world shows why it is not that way.

I also want to talk about Sweden and why one should leave Nato and the DCA agreement. The decision that Sweden made to join Nato was highly undemocratic and was made in a way that left no room for the Swedish population to have an opinion on it. At the same time as Sweden and the Swedish government knew what kind of war alliance and nuclear power Nato is, they chose to make this decision without any democratic space at all for the people.

We also know how much different types of lobbyists were behind pressing the Swedish parties to think alike in these issues or to be silent when they did not think alike in these issues. Despite there being a strong opinion against the membership, it still became a historical turnaround, where even parties that said they were against Nato one day turned out to be for it the next day.

What is Nato then? Well, Nato as a military alliance has been a tool of US imperialism for rearmament and has created destruction in large parts of the world. Nato's leaders today contribute to the highest degree to war and warmongering that is unparalleled around the world. We see it in today's Iran, we see it in the kidnapping of Venezuela's president, and we see it all around the world. Where there is misery, Nato has a hand in the game.

Sweden should not act to strengthen the war machine and nuclear power; NATO and should therefore leave NATO immediately.

Mr. Speaker! I also think it is regrettable that Sweden, which at one time had an independent voice in foreign policy, is now to hand over its military bases to precisely that war machine that is the USA and other NATO countries.

In light of what I have stated, I would like to move for the approval of my motion 2025/26:3724 regarding proposals 1, 3, 6 and 7.

(TALMANNEN: As we have also pointed out during the evening, motion 1 corresponds to reservation 8 and motion 7 corresponds to reservation 5.

I am aware that Daniel Riazat's motion is not mentioned by the committee in these reservations, but it is actually not permitted to move for approval of motion proposals that are covered by reservations; in that case, one should move for approval of the reservations.

If the motion is upheld and is taken up for voting, it may be the case that I will come to a decision to refuse to submit a proposition according to Chapter 11, Section 7 of the Instrument of Government on those parts of the motion covered by reservations. We will, if the motion is upheld, examine this before the vote, but I still want to say it already now.

Mr. Speaker! The reason I voted in favor of them is that it does not state in the report itself that my motion is included if approval is sought for, for example, the Left Party's reservation on the issue.

In all other committees, simplified motions are entered when approval is requested for a motion with identical content. It is therefore a strange situation when the Riksdag Administration has made a mistake in this case and this is not being raised because of that mistake. I think that you should handle this internally with the committee.

(TALMANNEN: We shall consider that question. It is not the Riksdag Administration but the Committee on Foreign Affairs that decides how to formulate its positions. It is therefore the committee that has decided not to include the motion, not the Riksdag Administration. But we note the request and shall, before the vote, consider whether it can be taken up or not.)

Thank you very much!

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 22 April.)

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