Security policy orientation - Total Defence 2025-2030

Stefan Olsson (M)

Madam Speaker! The matter for today's debate is Sweden's security policy orientation during the years 2025-2030.

A proposal has been presented by the government in the total defense bill. The Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence has, in its report, in all material respects supported the bill. I therefore, as a representative of the majority, request to move for approval of the committee's proposal in all parts.

Madam Speaker! That the world right now is more restless than it has been in a long time must be obvious. As recently as yesterday morning, the Assad regime in Syria collapsed like a house of cards after only a week of fighting. The explanation is that the regime has lost its support from Hezbollah, which Israel has effectively struck down in recent months.

That Israel has been forced to attack Hezbollah is a consequence of Iran's involvement in the war in Gaza. Iran's attacks on Israel are in turn a consequence of the dictators taking greater freedoms now that the international legal order in the world has come to be challenged by Russia's war of aggression in Ukraine. One war is a consequence of the other - the wars are connected in a chain.

Together, this bears witness to how important it is that the international rules-based world order is restored. If we do not get back an order that says conflicts between states must be resolved without violence, then what we see happening now is not something temporary but our new normal state.

Madam Speaker! If one allows oneself a brief historical look back, one can see a very clear difference in how the world looked before and after the end of the Second World War. That the history of humanity is filled with wars can be seen regardless of which historical epoch one takes an interest in. They are constant wars. But after the Second World War, a new ideology spread: War would no longer be permitted. The UN was formed, and the member states promised to always seek peaceful ways to resolve disputes between one another.

We have lived with this peaceful ideology for 80 years, and it has been of great benefit to all freedom-loving countries. We have been able to devote ourselves to building prosperity, trading with one another, and investing in research and development. Millions of people have been spared from going to their slaughter on the battlefields.

It is this world that is now threatened, and it is not difficult to point out who it is that stands behind the threat. It is the great dictatorships: China, Iran, North Korea and Russia - the axis powers of evil. The task for us in Sweden must therefore be to, together with like-minded countries, work to restore the rules-based world order and its respect for the UN Charter's prohibition on violence. It is in this broader perspective that Sweden acts.

As appears from the committee's report and the government's proposition, Sweden's most important security policy arena is the defense alliance Nato. We have been members of the alliance since March 7 this year, and with the decision that we will make here in the Riksdag - the vote will take place first on Wednesday - we confirm once again that Sweden will be a loyal and committed member.

Here, the government has shown the way in an exemplary manner. The Prime Minister recently gathered heads of government from the Nordic countries, the Baltics, and Poland at Harpsund to deliberate on the security policy situation. There is a consensus of opinion in this group. We all make the assessment that support for Ukraine must continue as long as it is needed and that the Russian aggression must be stopped.

The Prime Minister has also recently made a trip to Japan to show that our commitment to the free world does not only focus on Europe, but that democracies in the world must always support one another. As is known, the trip was also intended to go to South Korea, but there suddenly broke out a domestic political crisis, whereby that part of the trip had to be cancelled.

How the government will otherwise act within Nato in the near future, I leave to the Minister for Defence to account for.

Madam Speaker! Let me instead move on to say something about the reservations contained in the committee report. The tradition in Sweden is that we should have as broad a consensus as possible behind the security policy direction, as it shows other countries that Sweden is a country to trust. This broad consensus exists thanks to the fact that a large part of the opposition shares the government's view on these issues.

The consensus does not, however, include Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet. It appears in the parties' reservations that they do not accept NATO's basic strategy, where nuclear weapons are a cornerstone of the alliance's deterrence.

Vänsterpartiet demands that Sweden does not participate in NATO's body for nuclear weapons issues, the Nuclear Planning Group, and the party wants the Nordic region to be a nuclear-weapon-free zone. That Russia has nuclear weapons in Kaliningrad to threaten us specifically does not seem to be seen as a problem. In fact, the party goes so far as to demand that Swedish forces should not even be allowed to participate in exercises where the use of nuclear weapons is included in the exercise scenarios.

The Green Party also wants to constrain Nato in that they want Sweden to uphold the principle of no first use. The party wants Nato to state that the alliance will never strike with nuclear weapons unless someone else has first struck with nuclear weapons against Nato. Such a principle would weaken the alliance's strategic room for maneuver; one should never reveal one's defense plans to potential enemies in advance.

In the same way, Miljöpartiet loses its way even in the issue of autonomous weapons systems. The party wants Sweden to work for a global ban on them. The dictatorships will, of course, never sign such an agreement. The result of Miljöpartiet's policy will be that Russia builds up a capability to attack Sweden with swarms of self-propelled drones while Sweden does not threaten back with the same means. The realism in Miljöpartiet's security policy is difficult to understand.

Madam Speaker! The security policy direction that we are making decisions on this week shall apply until 2030, but we have a parliamentary election already in 2026. How will it go with that if we get a change of government? Will the policy need to be revised when Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet are to sit in the government?

With and by this parliamentary decision, Sweden says that we fully stand behind NATO's policy for nuclear deterrence. We tell the other countries that we are reliable. We are solidary. We do not demand any strange exceptions. But will that policy continue if another government takes office after the next parliamentary election?

I mean that the parties that today claim to want to sit in a government together must explain how they intend to do so. There is undeniably great value in having a broad consensus on the security policy direction, but strictly speaking, it is only the Socialdemokraterna and Centern who are in agreement with the government. Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet differ. A new government will be divided.

(Applause)

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Madam Speaker! Member Olsson seems to be eager for debate, judging by the character of his speech. I intended to try to answer his question as to whether he can be calm regarding the fact that, when we take power after the next election, there will be a stable government that has a clear foreign and security policy that will defend Sweden and make the country safer.

I am completely convinced of this because of the way we work in Sweden. We work with defense preparations that endure for a long time, work to find consensus and agreement, and together point out the direction for Sweden.

I know that Defense Minister Pål Jonson - besides the fact that he is a very pleasant fellow - is a rather popular minister. I usually think of him as being that as well because we in the opposition have decided that the defense area is an area where we are not going to keep bickering with the government over every single detail. We in the opposition should rather call the government and ask: How do you view this? Can we talk about this? Can we discuss this in order to make Sweden safer?

I also think that is the spirit of the decision we are discussing today. There are admittedly 21 reservations, and different parties have different orientations, but this is part of a security policy discussion that is ongoing both here in the Riksdag and out in society.

The main points are agreed upon. 2 percent of GDP now goes to defense. We are already above this level, and with this decision, we will continue in a clear direction to strengthen the Swedish defense. The Defense Preparation has worked in a good way.

We have not been in agreement on the NATO membership. We had that debate in March this year, and it was clear that Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet thought otherwise.

In this report, we are also clear regarding nuclear weapons. We are talking about nuclear-weapon-free zones covering Russia and Kaliningrad, and we specifically mention the Baltic Sea. It is about the fact that we believe in the parts where one can work with disarmament and détente and not just focus on what is the parade ground of the USA and NATO: to intimidate, threaten, and constantly maintain a very hard stance that leads to conflicts rather than to peace.

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

Stefan Olsson (M)

Madam Speaker! It is very commendable that the Left Party is now participating in the defense policy part of this proposition, but why are there these reservations if Svenneling considers that the Left Party and the government are actually in agreement on the direction?

When I read the Left Party's reservations, I conclude that there is no agreement. It is primarily about NATO's nuclear deterrence, which happens to be a fundamental pillar in how NATO acts strategically. The Left Party does not want to be part of that part. It is written in their reservation that Swedish soldiers shall not be allowed to participate in the exercise scenarios where nuclear weapons are included. In that case, there is no agreement between the Left Party and the other parties on this issue.

Even though Håkan Svenneling had a long exposition where he tried to explain that Vänsterpartiet really is on board with this, it is not so, because that is not what it says in the reservation. I regret it, Håkan Svenneling - I have only read what you yourselves have written.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Madam Speaker! It is commendable that the Moderaterna are now on board that we should have conscription in our defense and that women - and female conscription - should be part of the cornerstone of how we defend our country. This was not obvious for the Moderaterna when they scaled down the defense during the years of alliance and focused entirely on following in the footsteps of the USA.

It is this that we from the Left Party are concerned about now that Sweden has joined Nato, seen Donald Trump become president, and signed a DCA agreement that allows him to establish 17 military bases in Sweden. It is clear that we must express our criticism and at the same time point out that we want to strengthen Sweden's security. These two things – to have a broad security policy debate and to be clear about the long-term goal of making Sweden safer – are not in contradiction with each other.

Nato is based on nuclear deterrence, and the Left Party has consistently opposed this. The Left Party has therefore concluded that we in Sweden would have been safer if we had not joined Nato. Now, a majority of the parties and members of the Riksdag have drawn a different conclusion, and Sweden is now a member of Nato. The Left Party believes, however, like France, that we should not participate in the Nuclear Planning Group and that we should not participate in exercises with scenarios where Sweden is involved in attacking another country with nuclear weapons.

It is reasonable to think that. You have so far not managed to set up a single obstacle to prevent Donald Trump from placing nuclear weapons on Swedish territory. I do not believe that this will happen; it is not the most likely scenario. The lack of obstacles to it happening is what worries me about this government.

We must remember that the Americans had nuclear weapons at the Thule base in Greenland - on Danish territory. This has emerged in the historiography. What says that not even Donald Trump, when he becomes president - and pushes, pressures, and decides as he wants - will want to place nuclear weapons in our immediate vicinity without us having a single obstacle against it?

That is why I am here for this discussion. It is also why it is important to talk about nuclear weapons and the increased confidence in nuclear weapons' capability when we should rather have a decreased confidence in nuclear weapons' capability.

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

Stefan Olsson (M)

Madam Speaker! I must correct Member Svenneling on how international law works. Sweden decides for itself which troops and which types of weapons shall be on Swedish soil. There is no requirement that we in Sweden shall have foreign troops of any kind or any form of weapons that we do not like. This is because it is part of the fundamental principle that Sweden decides over its own realm.

When the Left Party claims that there is another country - big, awful USA - that can force Sweden to both one and the other, it is false. It is an incorrect description of how international law works. It is a pity that the Left Party misleads people in this way. It is not an okay debate style to do so.

In the end, I still think the big problem with Vänsterpartiet is that one tries to take a certain part of NATO's policy and say that one is not part of it. This part happens to be nuclear deterrence. It is just that this is a fundamental pillar in the entire alliance's policy for deterrence. Unfortunately, that is how it is. We can wish that we lived in a world without nuclear weapons, but as long as the major dictatorships have nuclear weapons, we must also have them in order to be able to threaten back. It is sad that the world looks that way, but that is how we must do it.

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

Tomas Eneroth (S)

Madam Speaker! We live in a time when geopolitical tensions are increasing and polarization in the world is growing. It is a development that in some sense has been ongoing for more than a decade. Perhaps the clearest sign that we have entered a new security policy situation in Europe, and not least in our immediate vicinity, was the annexation of Crimea almost eleven years ago.

Already then, we in Sweden took important steps to strengthen our defense capability. Since then, our preparedness and capacity – not least the military – has been significantly strengthened. The work has been carried out in broad consensus when it comes to defense decisions and defense preparation, which has been important for Sweden and a clear signal to the surroundings.

After Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, there was also a rapid mobilization behind the application for membership in Nato. This decision has increased Sweden's security and now manifests that Sweden does not stand alone in the event of an attack. All of this has been necessary and important.

Russia's actions during the last decade show that we are now dealing with an authoritarian and increasingly aggressive regime that does not hesitate to challenge the rules-based world order in both words and actions. The invasion of and the horrific warfare in Ukraine is, in this sense, only one of many pieces of evidence that we now face a serious threat to our democracy, our values, and our way of life. We also see it in influence campaigns on social media, in the support of terrorist groups around the world, and in hybrid operations aimed at destabilizing and creating unrest.

In addition to the deteriorated security situation in our immediate vicinity, we can observe that the geopolitical development is becoming increasingly complex and gloomy. There is uncertainty regarding the US's security policy choices after the presidential election, an escalating conflict in the Middle East - not least after the latest developments in Syria - and an increasingly tense situation in the South China Sea. This is occurring simultaneously as multilateral arenas, such as the UN, are undermined and the international trading systems are challenged.

Here at home, the LVU campaign, Quran burnings, and statements about demolishing mosques have led to a worsened security situation. Last year, Säpo raised the terror threat level. There is hardly any doubt that what we see are campaigns aimed at instilling increased anxiety and fear in our country to increase polarization and undermine trust in society. We see a similar development in other European countries.

In such a world, broad support for our security policy is absolutely crucial. Here, we have had broad consensus and good cooperation regarding our security policy choices and, not least, the need for reinforced military capability. But when it comes to the overall construction of the total defense and, not least, civil society's resilience, there are a lot of question marks regarding the government's and Sverigedemokraternas priorities. It is, among other things, what I choose to take up in today's speech.

It concerns the development of civil defense. It concerns the conditions of the municipalities and regions to carry out the increase in ambition that we all see is necessary. But it also concerns the work to strengthen our collective total defense, because it requires a strong society that invests to increase our crisis preparedness and resilience - and here much remains to be done.

We Social Democrats have raised four different areas – I am convinced that the Minister for Defence has heard about them in previous debates – which should be self-evident parts of the security policy strategy, which the government unfortunately designed unilaterally, but also in a discussion about what constitutes our collective total defense. It is, of course, about strong military capability. But it is also about having a Sweden that functions and holds together and a robust defense against disinformation and other hybrid threats.

Let me begin with the obvious: our military capability. We shall have a strong total defense - of the Swedish people and for the Swedish people. It is about strengthening our military capability but also about securing the Swedish defense industry, for Sweden's sake but also to secure robust and long-term support for Ukraine.

Our vision is also that Sweden, together with the other Nordic and Baltic countries, shall be able to take responsibility for the defense of our part of Europe through a deep and close defense cooperation. As a member of Nato, we now have greater opportunities than before to have influence in issues concerning European and transatlantic security.

At the same time, it is important to emphasize that it is a defense cooperation. Sweden and the rest of the Nordic countries do not pose a threat to anyone, but we are firmly determined to defend our territorial integrity, our democracy, and our independence.

That is why we see no need for permanent NATO bases on Swedish territory, and we consider it important that our NATO membership does not contribute to increased nuclear proliferation. It is also for that reason we say no to nuclear weapons on Swedish soil.

We mark these positions in the reservations which I now move for approval. These are reservations number 6 and number 11.

We also see it as absolutely crucial that Ukraine can count on long-term support from Sweden, not least at a time when the USA's future commitment may come to change. The support packages from primarily the USA and the EU that we have jointly implemented have been for Ukraine's survival. But with a USA that hesitates, it becomes all the more important that we mark the importance of long-term support from Europe and not least Sweden, both militarily as well as humanitarily and economically. We also have a reservation about this in the report.

Our second priority concerns the fact that a strong total defense presupposes that one can rely on society's critical functions. We must have a strong and well-functioning healthcare system, a functioning railway system, and a robust electricity system. But here, the development is moving in the opposite direction.

Healthcare does not function very well even in peacetime. Thousands are being laid off right now, and substantial savings are being made on healthcare across the entire country. Despite the fact that Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson did not so long ago say that no one should be laid off, we see a completely different development in healthcare in Sweden - in peacetime.

In the same way, we see that the pharmaceutical supply now exhibits major deficiencies. It is regularly reported that there are difficulties in meeting even the most basic pharmaceutical needs for people - in peacetime.

Was the deregulation and privatization of the pharmacies and the pharmaceutical supply really so smart? From a common system with social responsibility, we have moved to an oligopolistic market where no one keeps stock, where no one takes social responsibility, and where, moreover, the service is deteriorating, not least in large parts of our sparsely populated areas and countryside.

When it comes to healthcare and the supply of medicines, it is obvious that we need to strengthen the collective responsibility for these important functions in the total defense. Increase the state grants to municipalities and regions! Ensure that the access to medicines is secured throughout the country!

The second area is the railway. It is obvious that I choose to bring this up.

It is clear that the railway is of great importance for the entire country. We know that, but it applies especially in times of preparedness for the movement of troops and materiel and for the supply of food and raw materials. But here we see how the investments we made in a government position are now being replaced by cuts, lowered ambition levels, and reduced maintenance.

During our government's tenure, we made historical decisions to increase the capacity in the railway system. We increased railway maintenance by nearly 50 percent and put forward proposals to nationalize parts of the railway maintenance. Right now, all railway maintenance in Sweden is completely privatized in an oligopolistic market. Trafikverket has no resources of its own.

Here, one needs to think differently. Here, one also needs to think from a total defense perspective. The government should complete the investments that the previous government made to increase capacity, secure a well-functioning railway system, and not least ensure that we have societal influence over railway maintenance - and it is urgent.

To help the government on the fly, we have also shown constructiveness and put forward a slightly more concrete proposal, which I ensured we investigated during our time in government, namely to accelerate the construction of the Malmbanan and double tracks. We could do this with loan financing met by increased railway fees to finance the capital costs. In that way, one would much faster obtain a well-functioning malmbanan, which is absolutely crucial not only for Swedish export industry but actually also for Sweden's defense and total defense.

In conclusion, we have the energy system, since I am mentioning our total preparedness conditions. Here, the government's unilateral focus on nuclear power has created both short-term and long-term challenges in energy policy. The conflicting messages we have received have created difficulties for the energy market's actors to know which investments they dare to make. The effect is that no investments are being made, neither in wind power or in solar power or for that matter in nuclear power.

Sweden has a history of good power supply. We have exported more electricity than the entirety of Denmark consumes. But to maintain our supply and uphold our own energy preparedness, we must create predictability and long-term perspective.

Healthcare, the railway, and the energy supply are three areas where we should have a total defense perspective, but where we see that the government has made other choices for party-political reasons instead of the broad consensus that we otherwise have when it comes to defense and our military capability. Here, the government should rethink and ensure that it is the needs of the whole of Sweden, also in the areas of energy, healthcare, and infrastructure, that determine our defense capability. Just look at how incredibly well Ukraine has managed thanks to just that capability!

And also learn from Ukraine's experiences of having a strong civil society! It is clear that no defense measures in the world are sufficient if the population loses trust and if confidence breaks down. Ukraine's strength during these years has been a strong civil society where trust between people increases.

In the latest Forskning & Framsteg, there is a researcher's comment from Lieutenant Colonel David Bergman with the heading "Relationships are more important than conservative stocks". By that, he means that creating preparedness is not just about being able to meet the challenges of war yourself with defense or stocks. It is also about creating relationships and a strong civil society.

Today we are doing the opposite in Sweden. Today, Föreningssverige is scaling back. A third of the study associations' grants are being cut. Premises for choirs and music activities and senior activities are being shut down. It is the wrong direction if we want to build a strong society in its true sense. Think about that too!

Madam Speaker! The last area I intend to address when it comes to a strong total defense is the defense against disinformation and other hybrid threats. We live in a time when pro-Russian actors, right-wing extremists, and religious extremists are actively working to undermine the cohesion of Sweden and Europe. In that case, we need to be proactive in preventing, identifying, and countering disinformation and other hybrid threats.

This places demands on all of us - indeed even on us here - not to spread rumors blindly but to ensure facts, scrutinize, and ask the obvious question: Can this really be true?

Many efforts are being made here. We in the Committee on Foreign Affairs recently visited SVT, which showed its special efforts to review and expose fake news. May we in the Riksdag, the government, and our parties be equally meticulous moving forward, for we also have a responsibility to act with credible facts and not spread myths and uncertainty about Sweden or our defense capability!

A strong total defense cannot have a one-sided focus on our military capability but must also focus on healthcare, railways, energy supply and a strong civil society and, above all, ensure that we counter disinformation and influence campaigns. We have a strong defense, but we shall also have a strong society.

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

Mikael Oscarsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Today we are discussing the joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence's report number 1, Security Policy Orientation - Total Defence 2025 - 2030. I would like to begin by moving for the approval of the proposals in the report and the rejection of the reservations.

Madam Speaker! You who sit on the rostrum! Colleagues! The Minister for Defence! I want to tell you that we live in a heightened security policy situation. We have heard that many times. It is the toughest situation since the Second World War. We have a significantly worsened situation. I want to say something about the security situation and something about the background to the defense decision.

We have a tough security policy situation and unfortunately also see how it is deteriorating around the world. It is about the war in Ukraine, which will soon have been ongoing for three years. Ukraine is fighting well and receives help from Sweden. We will continue with that as long as it is needed.

Russia disregards all rules that exist. As is known, there are rules even in war. Russia is receiving help with drones from Iran. North Korea is sending thousands of soldiers. China has stayed in the background but still supports with technology.

In our immediate vicinity, we have experienced how, for example, cables between Sweden and Latvia have been damaged, as well as between Finland and Germany.

Not far from here lies Kaliningrad, where they have weapons systems - Iskander - that reach into Sweden.

We also see what is happening in the Middle East. Israel was attacked by Hamas on October 7, and there is war there. And now the dictator al-Assad has fallen.

In short, there is every reason to be vigilant, because the security policy situation is tough. Sweden has stood outside of war for 200 years, but that is no law of nature. It is nothing we can take for granted.

We have a good defense, but it is too small. When the Cold War ended and the wall fell, significant cuts were made to our defense. The army was unfortunately reduced by 90 percent. It was not only Sweden that did this, but also the rest of the Western world, except for Finland. They were wise enough not to remove their civil defense either.

During the days of the Cold War, Sweden invested both 2 and 3 - up to 4 - percent of GDP on defense. Then we and the rest of the Western world cut back very significantly on defense. We invested only 1 percent of GDP during a period.

Now we are making upgrades that are necessary to make the Armed Forces function both civilly and militarily. But, Madam Speaker, it costs money. Therefore, it is now important not to leave a bill for future generations. We are adding the money that is needed during the next year, as appears in the report.

We will invest 2.4 percent of GDP 2025. It will go up to 2.6 percent by 2028. But we do not know if it will be enough, because next year we will receive targets from Nato to live up to. Now we are members, and that means a great deal for our security but also for our neighboring countries' security. Nato is, however, no more than the sum of the individual countries' capabilities, and here we see that there are challenges.

Increased investments in the army, with ground combat troops, will likely be required. We also see the importance of air defense, and there are deficiencies there. We will need to invest in infrastructure because Sweden is a mobilization area. We have a specific task to keep shipping free within the Baltic Sea both in crisis and, in the worst case, war, and also to ensure that necessary materiel can reach the front in Finland and the Baltics.

We have committed to helping with Forward Land Forces in Latvia. Together with Denmark, we will participate in manning with 500 men starting from next year. We will also take responsibility in Finland.

Madam Speaker! We are an operational area. It is important for Sweden. I believe that we must acquire a new self-image. We have long seen it as that we might be able to slip away, but we are big brother! We must look at ourselves in the mirror and take greater responsibility for the challenges in our immediate vicinity. We do that with this defense decision, but even more will be required.

Finally, regarding the decision we are now making, I have had the privilege of being part of three different defense preparations and three defense decisions. I have seen the security policy situation I have spoken about unfortunately deteriorate.

Madam Speaker! I am pleased with the investments we are making. It is certainly not about any luxury. There are no gilded gear sticks on these combat vehicles. These are necessary investments to make our defense force function.

It may sound paradoxical, but if we actually arm ourselves and make the necessary investments, they will be deterrent. That is the idea with Nato; it reduces the sense of adventure among Putin and the Kremlin. If it is just a matter of gliding in, there is a considerable risk that they will do so. Several defense policy analysts—some of the foremost in Europe—warn that within x years, Russia may come to test Nato. We therefore do not have all the time in the world.

Now we are investing in, for example, the army. For a while, there was talk that the four brigades would be ready by 2035, and barely even then, but in this defense decision, we say that we cannot afford to wait. We must ensure that the brigades are ready, trained, and practiced and have the necessary capability earlier than that. It is important.

We are also investing in logistics and other things that do not make such big headlines but are necessary. We have seen in Ukraine that it is necessary to have a deterrent capability. We are investing in the navy. We are also investing in the Air Force and ensuring that we can deploy our fine Jasplans. However fantastic they are, they are very vulnerable on the ground, and therefore they must be deployed in the way that is intended. Here we are making necessary investments and investments.

With these words, I move once again for approval of the proposals in the report and for the rejection of all reservations.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Madam Speaker! Mikael Oscarsson said that there are rules in war, and I think that was a good statement. For just over two weeks ago, Member Oscarsson came out and said that Sweden should acquire landmines. He has also previously expressed that cluster mines are also quite good. But there are truly good reasons why humanity should ban both landmines and cluster bombs. Previous wars and conflicts are clear examples of this. 40 percent of all cluster weapons do not explode but remain. 97 percent of all victims have been civilians, and particularly many have been children.

Sweden signed and ratified the Ottawa Convention on mines in 1998, and in 2012 the same occurred with the convention on cluster weapons. This has been decided by the Riksdag. We have committed ourselves to following these conventions.

As the Christian Democrats' long-time spokesperson for defense policy issues knows, one can get the impression that this is the Christian Democrats' policy. This was at least believed by the free church profile Tomas Hagenfors, who was one of the first municipal council members for the party in a larger municipality but who has now left the Christian Democrats after 46 years of membership.

In the newspaper Dagen, the group leader for the Christian Democrats' parliamentary group, Camilla Brodin, notes that KD voted for the adoption of the Ottawa Convention but that in the segment with Oscarsson it was presented as if the Christian Democrats have changed position regarding the ban on mines. "We have not," says Brodin.

I wonder therefore: Are the Christian Democrats for landmines, or is it Member of Parliament Oscarsson who has accidentally stepped on a mine this time?

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

Mikael Oscarsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! It is good that Håkan Svenneling raises the issue so that we can discuss it. There is something that must be understood. We have had full respect for the Ottawa Convention, but it was adopted in 1998.

In our neighboring country Finland, the Moderates' counterpart Samlingspartiet, the Finns, and now also the Social Democrats as well as a couple of other parties and now most recently even their president Alexander Stubb have said that this matter needs to be discussed.

One must hold one's head why Finland is doing this. It is because the security policy situation has changed. We see how Russia disregards all rules. One must remember that the era of the great armies is not over, but they need to be stopped.

I think it is good for Håkan Svenneling to look at the debate in Finland, where there is a discussion and they say that if one is to procure landmines, it should be the self-destructing type that is made today. They are dangerous for one or two days, depending on what is decided. In a situation with an invasion, it is assessed that they are important so that one can defend oneself.

Everyone sitting here in the chamber knows that Finland and Sweden have a close cooperation. We were one and the same country for 700 years. It would be strange, Madam Speaker, if we cannot have a discussion - a conversation - without taking a position for that reason. If our closest ally says that we must look at this, it is clear that we must have a discussion and get the facts in order.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Madam Speaker! I think it is an interesting circular reasoning that Member Oscarsson presents here. He says that one must follow the rules. Then he notes that Russia does not follow the rules, and the conclusion then becomes that we must discuss whether we should follow the rules. That is what this is about.

When MP Oscarsson expresses support for landmines and cluster weapons, it is, just as he himself pointed out, a clear example of what other right-wing politicians also do, i.e., question international conventions.

The purpose of the international conventions is that they must apply, for it is this that ultimately creates human security and ensures that we can hold war criminals accountable. In the long run, your interpretation of international conventions, Mikael Oscarsson, will have consequences for how we can condemn and demand accountability from those who violate international law.

We cannot cherry-pick from the saffron buns, and international law must apply regardless of who commits the crimes. Now we have even got Bashar al-Assad and Vladimir Putin in the same place. It is fundamentally good, but it would be even better if they were behind bars for the crimes they have committed against humanity. If we start discussing that we should commit the same type of crimes as they have committed, we will find it very difficult to argue that international law should apply.

There is something that I think is important. I know that Oscarsson is a great supporter of, for example, Israel. Just yesterday, Israel again violated international law when they entered Syrian territory and violated its territorial integrity. This is exactly what we accuse Russia of doing. We must be equally clear towards Russia and Israel. We truly have a difficult situation in Syria, but it does not get better because Israel enters and occupies Syrian territory. This is what one must see, Member Oscarsson.

One can look as much as one wants at the Finnish discussion, but if we do not follow international law, it leads to the creation of double yardsticks and double standards. Then the rest of the world will question our actions. Therefore, we shall continue to follow the convention on landmines and the convention on cluster weapons.

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

Mikael Oscarsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Ukraine, as we spoke about earlier, can testify that Russia uses large quantities of landmines. What the member is standing here and saying is peculiar.

In our closest partner country Finland, even the president says that we must discuss this. They have not taken a position, but it is said that one must look at it. In that case, I do not think it is superfluous to say that we also must look at it and find out the facts. The whole thing is, of course, colored by this.

All war is terrible, Madam Speaker. Why should we have all weapons? We see, for example, that 1,500 Russian soldiers are dying per day in Ukraine. We wish that weapons did not have to be used, Håkan Svenneling, but we do not live in such a world.

That Finland is now talking about potentially withdrawing from the convention is due to the fact that they are neighbors with an enemy and that the mines were needed as a deterrent. When it comes to cluster weapons, Finland has never signed that convention.

The Christian Democrats have not taken a position, but if our closest ally Finland has such a discussion, we think it would be strange not to initiate a discussion and look objectively at how we should act. This has to do with the fact that our countries will fight together if we are attacked. That is why we have initiated a discussion, Madam Speaker, and it will likely continue.

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

Björn Söder (SD)

Madam Speaker! "We didn't see it coming." "We have been naive." These have been common excuses in Swedish politics in recent years. But while most in this assembly sat and slept and didn't see it coming, there were several of us who warned early on about what could come.

In 1999, 25 years ago, I wrote: "It is possible to construct completely alien future scenarios for Russia's development. It can neither be ruled out that the reform policy returns, that development continues in the same direction, or that the collapse accelerates. It also cannot be ruled out that the political leadership is replaced by red-brown forces with political ambitions that threaten our immediate neighborhood or perhaps the entire world."

The uncertainty is great. A dismantled defense takes years to build up again - we may not have that time the day the political situation changes. Our insurance is called: Swedish Defense!

As in so many other areas, we in Sverigedemokraterna were forward-thinking, and this is worth remembering, if not for anything else then for the sake of the future. When we say things, perhaps the other parties should be more responsive and attentive than they have been previously. History shows this clearly.

Sweden is in the most serious security policy situation since the end of the Second World War. This is exactly what I warned about 25 years ago, and it is at least frustrating that we now find ourselves as poorly equipped as we actually are.

We have a security policy situation that can also deteriorate further if, for example, the war in Ukraine spreads, for which there is an obvious risk. This requires that the policy has the ability to prioritize and see the acute threats that exist against Sweden and our allies. Russia is, just as I warned against, such an immediate threat, while China is a more long-term threat. If this is what we agree on. It is very positive and a strength for Sweden.

Madam Speaker! Unfortunately, there are those who are unable to prioritize in today's security situation, and this risks having negative consequences for Sweden's security. To speak of a broad threat landscape in the current situation and elevate other threats that are as serious as the armed attack can risk splitting our focus. Other threats, such as environmental destruction and terrorism, must of course be included, but it is important that these are described as secondary relative to the armed threat, which needs to be the dimensioning factor in today's security policy situation. If we manage the armed threat, we also have a good general capacity to manage the other threats. This is important to remember. This is also how Sweden has reasoned previously and is in no way anything new. The new thing that needs to be the exception is the talk of a broadened threat landscape and the uncertainties and reductions in capability that this has given rise to.

Madam Speaker! It is also important that we can prepare for not only the threats that are probable but also the threats that are improbable but would have extensive consequences. Such threats are the threats from weapons of mass destruction and nuclear weapons in particular. There we see now that Russia threatens with these weapons and that China is carrying out a massive buildup, this at the same time as Nato has an inferiority regarding tactical nuclear weapons compared to Russia.

The risk of a war that also includes nuclear weapons needs to be included in our threat assessment, and it is important that we look realistically at this risk. It is not the same threat assessment as in the 1980s, when there were significantly more and more powerful nuclear weapons in the world, but since the mid-1980s, about 80 percent of the nuclear weapons have been scrapped.

At the same time, it is the case that if fewer than 500 days remain until the arms control agreement START, which includes Russia and the USA, expires, it could lead to an increased nuclear arms race and increased risks when the same control functions that existed in the agreement are no longer present. China is also not covered by the START agreement, and it has proven difficult to get them to join arms control agreements.

Madam Speaker! Russia's extensive warfare in Ukraine and the risk of the war spreading mean that every contribution to Ukrainian defense capability is an investment in Swedish security and in Europe's security. We must be persistent and prepared to increase the military and civilian contributions to Ukraine moving forward. It is also important that Ukraine shall always be present at negotiations with Russia so that negotiations do not take place without Ukraine's presence. The historical mistakes where great powers negotiated over the heads of smaller states must not be repeated. This is and remains a matter of destiny for Sweden and Europe.

Madam Speaker! No plan survives its first contact with reality, at least not in its entirety. That is how we must now view the security policy direction. It is difficult to see that the plans will be able to remain valid all the way until 2030. This is something we also need to take into account moving forward. We need to be prepared for the fact that we will once again, and possibly on short notice, need to update the security policy direction. This does not mean, however, that the work is now undone, but on the contrary, it is important and crucial to analyze the security policy development both in the current situation and moving forward. It is also a strength for Sweden that this is done broadly among the political parties in the Swedish Riksdag and that it is based on sound analyses from our agencies and experts. Let us continue with that!

In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I would like to move for the approval of reservations 1 and 10.

In this speech, Sara-Lena Bjälkö (SD) agreed.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Madam Speaker! We spoke earlier about this matter of not following international conventions. The Sweden Democrats have a knack for always being the first to suggest that these should not be followed. Yesterday, their party leader also came out and said that one should ignore the UD's advice against traveling to Syria. He thought that one should now travel to Syria. The Foreign Minister was then quick to state that there is an absolute advice against it and that one should even leave the country if one is in Syria as a Swede.

In the same way, we can see how best friend Benjamin Netanyahu in Israel is now time and again violating territorial integrity, first in Lebanon and then in Syria. He is also committing genocide and violating a number of conventions there.

I believe, however, that this is about something else. I believe it is about SD wanting us to change the agenda and forget what has happened with the Sweden Democrats previously. In 2017, the Sweden Democrats undertook a trip to Bashar al-Assad. It was two members of parliament, Markus Wiechel and Martin Kinnunen, who undertook the trip. They then met the so-called parliamentary foreign affairs committee. This happened, naturally, despite advice from Säpo and UD.

It is this that is somewhat confusing with the Sweden Democrats. Now, one is in a situation where a regime has fallen. There are, even though the challenges look difficult, conditions for a democracy. But instead, in all situations, one wants to break international conventions and most recently the UD's recommendation.

Should one travel to Syria, Björn Söder, or should one follow UD's advice?

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

Björn Söder (SD)

Madam Speaker! When we see today how thousands on Swedish streets - and not only in Sweden but in all of Europe - are out celebrating that the Assad regime has fallen, a regime they have invoked as a reason to obtain refugee status in Sweden, there is every reason for the Swedish side to review their residence permits. Then it is a matter for the authorities to determine when they can be sent back. Obviously, the reasons they have invoked no longer remain, and then one should review all individual reasons and see if these persons can return home as soon as possible. At what point in time that is, is not my question to answer.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Madam Speaker! I do not think anyone hesitates - no one should, in any case - as to whether there were grounds for refugee status when one looks at the atrocities that Bashar al-Assad has committed during his long years in power. His family is one of the families in the world that has had the longest dictatorships ever. Now we see people coming out of prisons that have not seen light for several years and who have starved, been tortured and subjected to cruel treatment. That Syrians who are in Sweden because of the regime have a right to be here, I truly think one can assert.

The problem with the Sweden Democrats' policy is precisely that it is about "sending back", not about people being given the conditions to return if they want to. This is where the political difference becomes very clear.

Now we need to support a democratic development in Syria. We need to have humanitarian aid but also development aid, which you have cut back on, in order to rebuild Syria again and create a society where people can live. But already on day one, you land on the conclusion "send back". You want to go back to your migration discussion and talk about that instead of saying: Okay, now we have the conditions to build a sustainable peace and reduce the pressure in the Middle East, which is still all too restless, and give people the opportunity for peace and freedom.

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

Björn Söder (SD)

Madam Speaker! I share Håkan Svenneling's analysis of what now needs to be done to ensure that Syria becomes a stable country and does not become Libya 2.0. Unfortunately, I do not believe the conditions are particularly good right now, but perhaps it can become so.

What I, and I assume also my party leader, believe is that Swedish authorities should review who has come to Sweden and for what reasons. When it then is to be determined that they are to be returned to Syria, someone else can answer that. I do, however, agree that it is important that we try to get a Syria that can receive its citizens.

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

Kerstin Lundgren (C)

Madam Speaker! I requested a reply to Björn Söder when he touched upon the broad threat landscape. There, I hope that the Sweden Democrats will rethink and not be naive. One must see that if one does not take into account the broad threat landscape, one creates conditions for destabilization and for someone to take the opportunity to attack, regardless of whether it should be because society fails to manage, for example, the climate challenges. We see it in many other countries in the world.

Here I hope that the Sweden Democrats will rethink. This is about the security policy direction from a total defense perspective, and the total defense must be about a whole that is to function.

There are many different parts that we must manage so that we ultimately do not have to use military means. We must be prepared to do that. There must undoubtedly be a security there; the Center Party wants 3 percent more for defense in the military part, including civil defense. But we must also be prepared to look broadly at the threat challenges. Otherwise, we risk having a blind spot for that which can affect us all directly.

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

Björn Söder (SD)

Madam Speaker! If Kerstin Lundgren is afraid that we in the Sverigedemokraterna will be naive, I can assure Kerstin Lundgren that if there is any party in this chamber that is not naive, it is the Sverigedemokraterna. I believe history has shown that.

What I spoke about in my speech was that we cannot equate the threats that Sweden faces: an armed attack, environmental destruction, or terrorism. I mean that the armed attack shall be dimensioning. It shall also be seen as the prioritized threat before the others.

With that said, it is not that the others are not important to consider.

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

Kerstin Lundgren (C)

Madam Speaker! It sounds good that the Sweden Democrats do not see themselves as naive. But one or another might possibly think: Are they one-sided? Do they only see a threat all the time? That is where I want to emphasize the importance of seeing the whole picture. One threat adds to the other and can ultimately lead to the military intervention becoming necessary.

If we are to build a strong total defense, we must see the broadened threat picture, where different parts actually affect one another. I hope that the Sverigedemokraterna will also be prepared to do so.

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

Björn Söder (SD)

Madam Speaker! I can guarantee and assure Kerstin Lundgren that we are not one-sided either. We have not only not been naive. We have also been farsighted. We have seen the whole society and the complications that, among others, Kerstin Lundgren's party has been involved in causing in Swedish society. We have seen that in a broad spectrum. We have not only seen one threat, but we have seen many threats and have warned against them for decades.

Had Kerstin Lundgren's party and the other parties in the chamber listened to us at an early stage, we might have had different conditions for dealing with the problems we have today.

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

Joar Forssell (L)

Madam Speaker! It was interesting to listen to the debates here earlier which dealt in some part with being forward-thinking and a bit ahead of one's time. The Liberals have been that many times. I just want to remind the chamber of the NATO membership, which many of us have landed on now. Unfortunately, it does not apply to everyone yet, but to many.

Quite a few probably also take EU membership for granted. There happens to be a high degree of overlap between parties that dislike the EU and parties that have disliked Nato, either now or until very recently.

The Liberals were in favor of NATO membership already during the 90s, long before most others. Then youth organizations after youth organizations on the bourgeois side followed, and after that party after party on the bourgeois side. Now we are in a situation where most are in favor of NATO membership. But it becomes strange if one claims that the Liberals have been naive regarding the security policy problems we face and that someone other than the Liberals has been forward-looking.

It is about deterring war. That is what we have Nato for. But it is also about building peace. That is what we have the EU for. One needs to be for both of the two to seriously stand for a security-politically sustainable line.

Madam Speaker! It has been expressed here today that we find ourselves in a very serious security policy situation. It is difficult to argue against and to claim anything else. But it is a grave understatement, Madam Speaker. Sweden finds itself in the middle of a second cold war. This cold war takes warm expressions, for example in Ukraine.

On one side, we have this time, in this cold war, countries like Sweden, USA, South Korea, Australia and other European countries - simply the democratic world. On the other side are the world's combined dictatorships, the very worst actually, with China, Russia, Iran and North Korea at the forefront - those who are today's axis powers of evil.

Here in Sweden, Russia is clearly the most distinct threat here and now. But we must not forget that this gathering of the axis of evil is largely led and will be led by China, which is the world's most dangerous dictatorship – even if it is difficult to rank them when they are all so bad.

Madam Speaker! When Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the others probably thought they would take the opportunity. China began to escalate aggression against Taiwan, and Iran activated its proxy terrorists in Hamas and Hezbollah against Israel. They thought they would take the opportunity to strike against the world's democracies while we were busy helping Ukraine.

It did not turn out to be true. On the contrary, we have increased our presence in the waters between Taiwan and China; there I believe that even Sweden needs to participate in the future. We have also ensured to support Ukraine. It is clear that Ukraine must win, but Russia must also lose the war. Israel has also with significant force struck out the terrorist organizations, the terrorists, who have threatened the country.

This has led to Russia and Iran being weakened. It has led to China's claims on Taiwan being weakened. It has also likely led to the regime and the dictatorship in Syria falling in these past days. The strategy to try to divide us in the democratic world has failed.

It is incredibly important that we stick together. When the democratic world is united, we are stronger than the powers of evil.

Madam Speaker! It is not uncommon for Members of Parliament in Sweden to quote Bamse, that when one is strong, one should be kind. We have heard that to death in this chamber. But there is another stanza in the intro song to Bamse that I think is more appropriate in this context: If a sturdy type comes and gives a little weak one a pinch, then Bamse charges up again with the thunder-honey.

Madam Speaker! That is exactly what NATO's nuclear deterrence and NATO's defense cooperation are about. There are countries, for example Sweden and Finland, that are quite weak alone. It is clear that we have a strong defense and a good defense industry, but if we are alone, we are not strong. We must cooperate with others.

Then we perhaps also need to have "dunderhonung" sometimes, because there are wolves and others out there who wish us harm. It is precisely for that reason we need to have that possibility in our arsenal. That is why it is important that Nato has just nuclear deterrence and the nuclear umbrella as part of the deterrence.

Madam Speaker! That is why it is also strange when the Left Party and the Green Party conduct some kind of crusade against new types of weapons. There is, for example, a reservation against autonomous weapons.

If one follows that logic, it would be the case that if we had been completely without weapons and Russia had had sticks and stones, Vänsterpartiet would have been against us acquiring blades and bows. If Russia had had blades and bows, they would have been against us acquiring muskets and cannons. If Russia had had muskets and cannons, they would have been against us acquiring automatic weapons and grenades. The only thing is that if we never do it, Russia will cross the border and attack us. We need that "dunderhonung" (heavy artillery/serious firepower).

It is clear that peace can often be maintained and actually built with the help of international law and international rules. That is why EU membership is important, and that is why it is so important that we follow international rules. It would be good if Vänsterpartiet fully took a stand for a strong EU.

It is also the case that when you have a wolf as a neighbor, you cannot always create peace just with conferences and regulations, but sometimes you also must have something else. And peace can actually sometimes only be forced through superior technology and firepower. That is how reality looks, and if one is not naive, one realizes it. That is why it is so important with both the NATO membership and that Sweden continues to have a strong defense industry and a strong capability.

Madam Speaker! With this, I move for the approval of the committee's proposal for a decision in the report.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Madam Speaker! It is pleasant to hear the parent of small children Joar Forssell study a clear left-wing profile, which Rune Andréasson as a cartoonist and debater was nevertheless fundamentally.

I will not dwell much more on Bamse. But I have thought about how Joar Forssell many times in this chamber and in radio programs on P1 has expressed that he wants to see arms exports from Sweden to Israel. Sweden currently has practically no arms exports to Israel, even though there are a couple of very serious loopholes in our legislation. But Joar Forssell has not spoken about using these loopholes in his ideological arguments; instead, he has been very ideologically driven in arguing for arms exports to Israel. But when the news about the Liberals' opinion became a bit more nationally known, following Sveriges Radio's report, it must have caught fire in the Liberals' house, because in the afternoon, the party secretary Jakob Olofsgård announced that the Liberals are not for arms exports to Israel. An email was even sent to all the few remaining members of the Liberals.

I wonder if Member Forssell has changed his opinion regarding Israel and arms exports to the country and the warfare that many describe as a genocide. Another very topical issue is the arms imports from Israel. Here, Member Forssell has expressed that he wants to see an arms import from the Swedish side. Have the Liberals also changed their position here, or do you still want to trade with companies that are strongly linked to the Israeli military and its warfare?

I return to the question of AI in reply number two.

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

Joar Forssell (L)

Madam Speaker! I thank Håkan Svenneling for the question.

I know which radio program Håkan Svenneling is talking about. I also know which letter Håkan Svenneling is talking about. It was actually I who wrote the letter together with Jakob, and I wrote the draft. We sent it to our members with both of us as signatories. I and our party secretary also prepared the written comment, so I am well aware of what has been said in different instances.

There is no current matter. It is not current with arms exports to Israel. Just as Håkan Svenneling pointed out in his speech, the Swedish arms export legislation is quite complex. There are items that both I and Håkan Svenneling probably consider to be some form of weapon but which are not classified as such. It is a list that is updated, and it is a bit like with narcotics. If you change something, it is no longer a narcotic but a new preparation, and if you change something in a weapon, it is no longer a weapon but something else.

There are different types of military equipment. It can also be about protection and other things that are not used to harm others. In the debate, we speak of weapons. But it can actually be anything, things that are not weapons in a general sense and on the other hand things that are not classified as weapons but that we others consider to be weapons.

The short answer is that arms exports are not relevant. When it comes to imports, we believe that what is reasonable is that we take off from what capability Sweden and Swedish soldiers need to have and maximize the protection for the lives of Swedish soldiers and for Sweden.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Madam Speaker! To be honest, I do not know if I really received answers to my questions. But I will let them go this time, because we will likely return to them in this debate.

Joar Forssell spoke about the Left Party's and also the Green Party's proposals regarding artificial intelligence, AI. I still think it is important to clarify and specify what Member Forssell seems to have misunderstood.

What we from Vänsterpartiet envision is that we have a strong defense in Sweden and that we have a defense industry that supports the defense. We will not be able to have a defense industry that covers all our needs, so we will need to have imports and exports. But it is important that we have a focus on the democracies that are close to us when we export, but also when we import. Today, we have far too little import legislation. We have, among other things, imported from Belarus historically, which demonstrates the deficiencies.

When it comes to the laws of war, one also needs to look at technological development. That is what we are trying to point out when we talk about military systems that are completely autonomous and thus lack human influence in deciding their victims. We have seen examples of this in Israel's military use in Gaza, where to a very large extent, a computer is allowed to decide what is the target. Then human responsibility disappears. Then responsibility disappears both from political leaders and from military personnel.

We mean that if one pushes from the side of democracies for a convention, it makes it harder to develop autonomous weapons systems that do not have a human hand on them, so to speak. It makes it harder for dictatorships to use this type of weapon. You raise the threshold. That is the purpose, not that we should go against AI development within the civil or military side. But we must always be clear that there is someone in the Swedish Defence who is responsible for the potential AI use that Sweden or other democracies apply.

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

Joar Forssell (L)

Madam Speaker! I and Member Svenneling sit together in NATO's parliamentary assembly. Believe it or not, Håkan is also there, even though he lowers the flag towards NATO as soon as he can.

In that assembly, I sit on the committee called Science and Technology, where we discuss these types of questions, so I am well acquainted with the issue.

I want to assert that it is incredibly important that we follow international law. We have also been clear about this regarding all the conflicts we are talking about now. Regardless of whether it concerns Ukraine, Israel, or any other country in the world, one must follow international law and the laws of war. If one does not do that, the violations must be judged in court and condemned. It is crystal clear from the Liberals' and the vast majority of politicians' side in Sweden at all levels in these debates. Any other claim is actually just nonsense, Madam Speaker, if I may express myself a bit clearly. But that does not mean we can be naive. If our enemy uses, for example, autonomous systems, drone swarms, or whatever it might be, we also need to be able to have such a capability, otherwise we cannot defend ourselves. We cannot stand with spears and stones when the enemy comes with muskets and cannons. Then we lose. Then we lose our freedom, our faith in international law, and our citizens' lives. That is the reality. Sometimes one must understand what reality looks like and not just live in one's idealistic world.

I believe that we need to have tough regulations in international law regarding what one is allowed to do in war and how systems may be used. There must be a possibility for the enforcement of human responsibility. But we cannot regulate away this possibility when the enemy has it.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Madam Speaker! In the Swedish Riksdag, we make defense decisions every five years to define the security policy line and make defense policy trade-offs. This is done after solid work and analysis, primarily in the Defense Committee. But this time, it is only four years since we made the latest decision. This is due to the serious security situation globally and in our immediate vicinity, which requires that the political processes lead to new decisions and directions more quickly.

Mainly, we are in agreement. There is a broad consensus regarding the main features of the defense decision. It is well-anchored, and there is a great acceptance and understanding for the direction Sweden is now taking, given the uneasy situation in our surrounding world. We would like to live in a more peaceful world, but unfortunately, the large number of conflicts globally shows that reality looks different now.

It is not now that the shift in Swedish politics is occurring. Today's decision is rather a continuation of a long series of decisions made during the last decade. Since I entered the Riksdag ten years ago, we have made decisions to reintroduce conscription and also have it include women so that the entire population is involved in defending Sweden. We have started new regiments, procured new equipment and strengthened our international cooperation. We have moved the discussion on security policy back to Sweden and to our immediate vicinity. It is a big difference compared to, for example, the defense decision in 2005, which involved the decommissioning of important regiments and a focus on international missions in the US's sphere of influence.

Regarding the USA, the election of Donald Trump as president will make the world very shaky until the next defense decision. Now, authoritarian, fascist, and right-conservative leaders are in power in several of the world's larger countries, in both dictatorships and democracies. This creates a global development that goes backward rather than forward, where poverty increases and conflicts become more numerous, while the climate issue is not taken seriously but disappears from the agenda. These leaders lack answers to our global problems. Instead, they focus on themselves and their own interests.

What should Sweden do in this situation? Despite the wars raging and people dying every day from both bombs and starvation, we must hold fast to our overarching goal and strong desire for peace on earth and freedom for all people. International law, based on the UN Charter, and the work being done within the UN, OSCE, Council of Europe, and other organizations working for peace, development, and freedom is fundamental for the world to be able to develop in the right direction. We need to work to strengthen compliance with international law throughout the world.

Another negative global development is that the number of conflicts is increasing. There are 59 armed conflicts ongoing across the entire world. It is the highest number of conflicts ever since the statistics began being recorded by Uppsala University in 1946, that is, after the Second World War.

We talk a lot about Ukraine and the genocide in Gaza, but the fact is that conflicts also affect 57 other places. At the same time, the Swedish government has cut up Swedish aid. Major reductions have been made to Sweden's support for development aid, peace and security, but no analyses have come from the government regarding what consequences this will have for our security. What are the consequences for Sweden's security when you reduce the aid?

Vänsterpartiet was against Sweden joining Nato. We demanded a referendum so that the population could have their say. We view with concern how Sweden may come to become a part of wars and conflicts that we ourselves have not chosen. It does not increase security for either Swedish citizens or our surrounding world.

NATO membership is, however, a reality now, and much of the Swedish Defence's activities will have a connection to NATO. It is of the utmost importance that Sweden also in the future, despite membership in NATO, acts independently in foreign and security policy, decides on the development of our own defence, and makes its own analyses and positions with a lively and popular debate.

The Left Party will be part of that debate with clear proposals and opinions on how Sweden should act. We are clear that it is with like-minded states in our immediate vicinity that we can best make a difference and contribute to increased security. It is by having a broad perspective on security with total defense for resilience and resistance that our immediate vicinity becomes safer.

We were clearly against the DCA agreement with the USA. With Trump as president in the USA, we now demand from the government that there is a minimal implementation, and we will carefully monitor the consequences of the agreement.

We have warned about the risks of Sweden falling silent in its criticism of the shrinking democracy in Turkey. We can observe that an investigator as recently as last week suggested that arms exports to Turkey should be made easier. This is how Sweden is laying flat.

Now we have suddenly had Syria on our table. We know that Turkey is behind HTS, regardless of what they themselves say. Now it is important that Sweden makes a difference by being a NATO member and by standing up for democracy in Syria.

We will monitor the Riksdag's influence in Nato. Nato membership will entail a change in Sweden's decision-making process for the direction of the total defense, as Nato's planning is not synchronized with Sweden's. Planning and decisions regarding the direction of the Swedish total defense are currently made in long processes with the Defence Preparation Board, where all parties participate in the discussions. In this way, we obtain a total defense with a genuine and important democratic anchoring. This must not disappear as a result of Nato membership. The Government has a great responsibility to not fall out of step with Nato but also to ensure that the parties can still be involved in the discussions at an early stage.

Madam Speaker! Our support for Ukraine is extensive, both politically and economically. In few other countries is the same clear unity shown between the political parties in the support for Ukraine. Regardless of how the development now becomes in the war, our support for Ukraine must persist. War shall become peace. Peace shall occur on the terms of the Ukrainian people. It is their interest that we shall support.

Vänsterpartiet presents in its follow-up motion several proposals on what Sweden and the EU can do. We need to increase the international presence in Ukraine. A UN-led mission on the border between Belarus and Ukraine could act as peace-promoting in the relationship between these countries. At the same time, the mission would have a cooling effect on any Russian plans to use Belarusian territory for attacks against Ukraine. A mission could also relieve the Ukrainian Defense Forces. Getting a peace-promoting mission with Russia in the UN Security Council is certainly not easy. But the government should be given a mandate to investigate the possibilities of proposing a UN-led mission in Ukraine.

The election of Donald Trump as president in the USA was the worst imaginable for the Ukrainian people. Already now, Trump's envoys have begun to negotiate away Ukrainian positions. Trump wants a quick end to the war, but the risk is great that Putin will then become the winner in the negotiation, that the Ukrainian people will become the losers, and that Trump's interests will prevail.

Sweden and the EU must therefore have their own thinking on how we should support Ukraine in peace negotiations. We should appoint our own envoy, a representative to Ukraine, in a similar way as the EU already has to several other regions and countries.

The escalation of the war since Trump's election victory requires new support. Now is a decisive time. To protect the Ukrainian people, our support must increase.

Madam Speaker! During the 1950s and 1960s, within secret parts of our defense forces, a development of a Swedish nuclear weapon was underway in Sweden. Physicists and experts were far ahead in their competence and knowledge in the nuclear physics field, and Sweden, after years of research and development parallel to the development of nuclear power, had good opportunities to develop nuclear weapons which at that time had otherwise only been developed by the world's superpowers.

But Swedish politicians made a choice. They decided that Sweden and the world would be safer if Sweden did not develop nuclear weapons but instead worked on risk reduction and for détente between great powers in a time, like this one, when tensions increased. Sweden decided to dismantle its nuclear weapons program, in order to join the non-proliferation treaty NPT in 1968. It was a historical decision by the Swedish Riksdag, and it has served Sweden's security interest and its citizens for more than 50 years.

We fast-forward the tape to the present. Sweden has been a member of the military alliance Nato for nine months. Nato is clear in its doctrines. They are based on deterrence, ultimately with nuclear weapons. For the first time in our history, Sweden is under a nuclear weapons umbrella so that nuclear weapons could be used by another state in our name. Now, Defense Minister Pål Jonsson sits in meetings with Nato's Nuclear Planning Group.

Nuclear weapons are not just any weapon. They are a weapon of mass destruction and a weapon that, the two times it has been used, has killed hundreds of thousands and for a long time destroyed the environment for human life. Japan will never forget Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and neither should we.

Madam Speaker! Christmas is approaching. It is likely that Defense Minister Pål Jonsson will soon appoint a new defense commission to resolve important issues and continue to analyze the situation. As we approach Christmas, I have written a small wish list.

At the top of that wish list is to move from words to action when it comes to UN resolution 1325 on women, peace and security. Next year marks 25 years since the resolution was adopted. Let this not become yet another anniversary with beautiful applause without concrete action and resources to implement the resolution and the subsequent nine resolutions.

In addition to an increased proportion of women in peace-promoting efforts, there must be a gender perspective on international operations and, above all, active work against sex trafficking and the sexual exploitation of women and girls. Committing such crimes and exploiting one's position of power has enormous consequences for those subjected to sexual violence. At the same time, the actual purpose of the international presence is undermined. By contributing to organized crime, which often controls prostitution and human trafficking, instability and violence in the country are maintained. Sweden should work to ensure that all partner countries in international operations have an action plan to implement UN resolution 1325.

Next on my wish list is that the next defense commission should also analyze the security situation in Latin America. Sweden has had extensive military cooperation with the country since the approval of the export of Jas 39 Gripen to Brazil. Other Latin American countries are now mentioned as potential buyers of the Gripen. We will also be purchasing transport aircraft from Brazil.

Latin America has, in previous historical stages of increased global polarization between great powers, constituted a place for conflicts between proxy actors. It is not unthinkable that the developments in Latin America could have consequences for Sweden's security, and this must be highlighted by the government and the Defence Preparedness Board moving forward.

The last point on my wish list is that we study the development in countries where Russia has a military presence. We are now seeing how democratic development is moving backwards in Georgia, where those in power, against the will of many people, are moving away from Europe and closer to Russia. With both the occupation of two regions and enormous influence campaigns, Russia has influenced the course of events in Georgia.

Even in Moldova, Russian influence has been significant recently. In the end, the more Europe-oriented forces won the election. But Russia still has a high military presence in the Transnistria region and puts great effort into influencing Moldova. Sweden's support for Moldova needs to become increasingly comprehensive. Moving forward, we need to study how we can best support continued democratic development with stronger institutions and reduced corruption.

Madam Speaker! Vänsterpartiet has a number of reservations, but I move for approval only of reservation 7.

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

Mikael Oscarsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Svenneling devoted himself to a wish list at the end of his speech. I believe that the Swedish people have on their wish list that Vänsterpartiet will come into reality.

I am thinking back to when the war in Ukraine started on February 24. We were quite a few parties here in the chamber who demanded that Sweden should support Ukraine with weapons and armored vehicles. But the Left Party said no. Then they had a crisis meeting and changed their minds. If reality and the map differ, reality should prevail, they apparently thought.

Then the Left Party was to revise its party program. Bam! Then one thought: Now it must once again be that reality prevails. But judge my surprise, Madam Speaker, when I read on the Left Party's website. Now it says like this in the party program: "We see fundamental problems with NATO's structure. We work for Sweden to be a counterweight to that, which instead builds up better, defensive collaborations, with the aim of leaving NATO."

Does Vänsterpartiet not understand that a demand to leave the Western world's defense alliance while an offensive war is ongoing is a gift to Putin? The member of parliament speaks of wish lists, Madam Speaker. Is it not time to face reality? We live in a security-politically tough time. Vänsterpartiet has in its program that Sweden should leave Nato. What does that actually stand for?

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Madam Speaker! I hope that Member Oscarsson can also stand behind my wish list that resolution 1325 for women, peace and security shall be implemented, that Latin America shall be highlighted in the next defense preparation, and that we shall give continued strong support to Moldova's and Georgia's development towards democracy and security and counter the Russian influence operations occurring in those countries and in other countries surrounding Russia. It is clear that one can add new things to that wish list, but I am not sure that what the Member wishes really fits in there. I see it as that the next defense preparation should not have a focus on what is stated in various party programs but rather look at what is best for Sweden's security.

What the member raises about us wanting to see, in the long run, that one leaves NATO relates to what stands just before the text in the party program that the member read out. He might also need to consider what it is that stands there. It is about building defense cooperation that is good for Sweden. That was what I also pointed out in my main speech. I mean that we need to cooperate with the countries that are in our immediate vicinity and that are like us in mindset. I thought that the meeting the Prime Minister had at Harpsund is a good such example; the Nordic-Baltic countries, including Poland, were invited to speak about the importance of supporting Ukraine in its struggle for freedom against a Russia that violates international law. For me, that is working with like-minded countries.

The problem that Member Oscarsson has is that Donald Trump has now been elected President of the USA. He has already managed to say that he can still imagine leaving Nato. He has sent a messenger who wants to ensure that Ukraine loses the negotiations for peace against Russia. That means we must cooperate with those who stand close to us in terms of values and geography in order to strengthen Sweden's security, both for our citizens and for our surrounding area.

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

Mikael Oscarsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Alone is not strong. It has been quite a while now since it became apparent to the Swedish people - it applies both to you who sit in the gallery here and to those who listen to the debate via TV - that we cannot defend ourselves. Membership in Nato is important for ourselves and our security, but also for our neighboring countries. Hasn't Svenneling visited Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania? Hasn't he heard what was said there before our Nato decision? It was said: Look at Gotland and its importance! It is important for you, but think of us too!

Now we are members of Nato. Then we have a party in Sweden's Riksdag that still says: No, this is not enough, now we are going to build up something else. Get into the game! Get into reality! It is beautiful with wish lists, but when it concerns something as important as our own security and Europe's security, I believe that the Swedish people demand more from the member.

Madam Speaker! We had a previous discussion about this matter regarding anti-personnel mines. We have said that we stand behind the Ottawa Convention. But I think we should listen to our neighboring country Finland, with whom we are so closely allied. In some areas, it almost feels as if we have a common defense force. Finland has a long border with its neighbor Russia. Ukraine can testify that Russia constantly uses anti-personnel mines. There is now talk about the existence of self-destructing anti-personnel mines that are dangerous to the enemy in combat for a certain period but then automatically become harmless. We have, as said, not taken a position on this, but is it not time for us to conduct conversations about these difficult issues? I think it is important to do so. We find ourselves in the worst security policy situation since the Second World War, Madam Speaker.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Madam Speaker! This is a good example of why we need a broad security policy discussion in Sweden between all eight parties in the Riksdag in order to be able to make the wisest defense policy decisions we can in order to together strengthen Sweden's security and protect our country and our population.

I will think back to the security policy talks that took place in 2022, about two and a half years ago. Both Mikael Oscarsson and I participated. Mikael Oscarsson's contribution in those talks was well that he was the first to say: Shall we not join Nato or talk about Nato? He succeeded in that thanks to the security policy talks. My major contribution to those talks was that I was the first to point out the risks with Turkey, something that turned out to be very correct but which the other participants in those talks completely missed. Even for us as Nato members, this is a recurring problem.

I believe it is very important that we have a conversation in Sweden as Nato members where we do not, as Oscarsson believes, believe completely blindly in Nato and that Nato will protect us in all situations.

I note that this weekend there was a reopening of a church in Paris called Notre Dame. The main figures at that meeting were two people.

One of them is called Macron. He has said that Nato is a brain-dead alliance. The last time he said it was when the other guy was running the USA, Donald Trump. He has threatened to leave Nato.

That is what reality looks like. Nato is a consensus organization. Nato is an organization where the one who wants the least sets the agenda for Nato to a large extent. Nato is an organization where the USA has an incredibly large dominance and influence. We must understand this here in Sweden's Riksdag when we make decisions on the security policy direction for the total defense 2025-2030. What decisions do we make that strengthen Sweden's security?

There, we need a less brain-dead discussion and more discussion about how it affects Sweden.

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

Kerstin Lundgren (C)

Madam Speaker! When I listen to the exchange of remarks, I feel that it is extremely important for our security that we do not argue in a way that questions NATO's ability to act as a security actor for us and for our neighbors. But that was not why I requested the floor.

I requested a reply because I listened to a previous exchange, Madam Speaker, when Håkan Svenneling spoke about how we, like France, would act so that we do not participate in the Nuclear Planning Group. It was a bit exciting, I thought.

The other member countries felt that one wanted a control and to be involved in discussing what nuclear policy Nato should have, because nuclear weapons are the ultimate security guarantee against the Russian nuclear weapons that threaten us. One finally managed to get a consultative council, which is precisely the nuclear planning group. It came in December 1966.

Madam Speaker! It is a country that does not participate and does not want Nato to have views on their policy regarding nuclear weapons. It is the nuclear-armed country France. It chooses not to participate precisely because it constantly wants to have exclusive control.

Håkan Svenneling chooses to use this as a reason why Sweden should not participate, not be involved and provide advice and opinions on how the nuclear weapons policy should be developed. I would rather have expected the opposite, Madam Speaker.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Madam Speaker! This is a known Left Party policy. We have proposed this previously and, above all, in connection with the vote on Swedish NATO membership.

We argue that the membership itself and that Pål Jonsson participates in the meetings of the Nuclear Planning Group is part of Sweden now legitimizing nuclear weapons.

Many members in this chamber underestimate the fact that we have now received a completely new part of Swedish security policy that is not called Nato but is called nuclear deterrence. I have pointed this out several times.

I also think it is problematic that we have so few obstacles to the use of nuclear weapons. We have a strong justification, but we do not set up any obstacles in any way. We see that our neighboring countries Norway and Denmark, but actually even Finland, have done so in different ways by saying: Be careful with nuclear weapons. Do not use nuclear weapons in our name.

The reason we refer to France is to show that there is no total consensus in Nato regarding the NPG group, Nuclear Planning Group. As a country, one can choose a different strategy and a different path.

Then one might think it is very nice that Sweden gets to sit in and give advice on how other countries should use nuclear weapons. The problem for us is that nuclear weapons are used in our name at all.

It is not that we want the French policy. We just want the same type of strategy and approach. France is still a nuclear power. It is one of all the world's nuclear powers that is now renewing its nuclear weapons and rearming them.

I heard Björn Söder say that it was more dangerous before during the Cold War. What we see now is that the nuclear weapons are larger. The payloads are significantly more powerful today than they were during World War II. That also increases the risk that nuclear weapons will be used.

I want to see a policy where Sweden has more thresholds and a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Nordic region, the Baltic Sea, Europe, and the Arctic. Whichever one - it doesn't matter to me. Regardless, it would make us safer as a country.

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

Kerstin Lundgren (C)

Madam Speaker! If one wants to be involved in influencing for more thresholds or for not having a first-use policy, or whatever it may be, would it not then be good to sit at the table and consult on which policy should apply and how it should be designed?

Should one leave it to everyone else and stand alone with the justification that because France also does it, it is possible? France has just chosen to stand outside because they want full command over their own policy regarding the use of nuclear weapons.

NATO does not have its own nuclear weapons. But one has opportunities to discuss. That is the advantage of NATO. We are involved and discussing where the ultimate means of deterrence is part of the discussion.

Why does the Left Party reject this? You have nevertheless updated yourselves regarding Nato issues and other areas. It is time to also update the view on Nato's nuclear planning group.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Madam Speaker! I can state that Nato is a consensus organization. This means that all decisions are made by consensus, which often creates enormous pressure on the smaller countries from the side of the large countries. The large countries can also exert very great agency over what is on the agenda.

Swedish NATO membership meant that we lost national self-determination and control over an area where we previously could have decided on our own policy. It also led to a great credibility in contributing to peace and disarmament globally and the Stockholm Initiative.

It is interesting that Kerstin Lundgren now believes that one could exert an enormous influence and change the direction of that consensus organization from the Swedish side. I find it very difficult to imagine that it will happen.

I also do not see that we in Pål Jonsson have a defense minister who says that he has had high ambitions when he has stepped in in some way at NPG's meetings and that Sweden now has a very clear line.

I believe rather that it will lead to Sweden accepting and legitimizing both the possession of nuclear weapons and the potential use of nuclear weapons.

I think it is the wrong way to go. I have pointed that out many times. I think other parties need to consider how we can raise the thresholds for nuclear weapons being used in our name. It is about how we can reduce the risks that there will be demands for nuclear weapons on Swedish territory.

There are no such requirements today. I am well aware of that. But we have no form of legislation that prevents it. We have nothing written in the DCA agreement that prevents it. It is those types of things that make me very concerned about the situation we find ourselves in now.

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

Kerstin Lundgren (C)

Madam Speaker! The security policy challenges are many. We live in times of unrest. Reality is changing rapidly. Syria is only the latest example.

The multilateral frameworks we rely on are being challenged and overturned. This applies in particular to the respect for each country's self-determination and right to its internationally recognized borders to its territory.

Not changing borders by military means is a cornerstone of our coexistence globally according to the rules we have all signed. It is also the basis for the European security order which would have celebrated 50 years next year but which was torpedoed by Russia's unprovoked brutal war of aggression against Ukraine.

It is a war that is de facto a direct attack on the Helsinki Accords. It is a violation that began in 2014 with the annexation of Crimea without direct consequences from us, the EU countries, or the signatories of the Helsinki Accords otherwise. It was an omission and a lesson for us now and beyond 2030.

Russia constitutes a close and tangible dimensioning security threat to us and to all free European states. Russia usually employs all means at its disposal to achieve its political goals. We see it in the form of influence campaigns, various opportunities to incite extremes, commodities as weapons, for example energy and grain, influence in elections and threats.

But it is also about military presence, and then as so-called peacekeepers. The latter is used in Moldova, in Armenia and in the Tskhinvali region in Georgia. It is time that we clearly mark our opposition against all Russian troops in other countries. They are not peacekeeping, but rather conflict-creating and destabilizing. We must demand that they are withdrawn.

Madam Speaker! Ukraine and the Ukrainians are taking the fight. They are sacrificing themselves while we debate here, every minute, hour, day, month and unfortunately now also year, to meet the Russian aggression. We must realize that it is now that it matters for us to, by all means, secure Ukraine's right to survival, to its territory and to peace. Our support must increase rapidly, both militarily, economically and humanitarily, so that Ukraine can win peace. We must by all means avoid a new Munich. This time we absolutely cannot afford to be naive.

Centerpartiet has, in the budget for 2025, given a proposal on how Sweden can reach 1 percent of GDP annually in support to Ukraine. We demand that pilots begin training for Jas and that we now issue a pledge for Jas early next year.

Madam Speaker! Sweden is now a member of Nato. It is absolutely crucial for our security policy and for the protection of our country and our neighbors. It is good to see that no party now opposes the membership and demands that we should leave Nato. Sweden shall be a solidary member, and our security policy shall be solidary. This applies to the whole.

Foreign policy is central to our security. Our ability to not only be a member of an alliance of democracies but also to build alliances beyond that and be a constructive partner in finding solutions to global challenges is central to our security. This applies to trade, aid, climate issues and not least people's civil and political rights. It is about how we safeguard democracies. It also involves participation in international peace-promoting efforts when such is possible.

So we give hope for the future but also a strong protection against attacks, including a robust society and a robust civil society here at home.

Sweden, as a member of Nato, will of course contribute to raising the thresholds against a military attack. We are members fully, including Nato's nuclear weapons policy and nuclear umbrella. This does not, however, mean that we say yes to nuclear weapons or foreign troops on Swedish soil in peacetime. Here, everything we stated in connection with the Riksdag's ratification of the membership applies. It does not mean either that we shall stop being in favor of disarmament or seeking to reduce the nuclear threat and raise the thresholds for the use of nuclear weapons. We shall continue to do that.

NATO membership means that Sweden is part of an alliance of democracies, according to the treaty. NATO was formed to defend Western democracies against communist aggression and was based on shared values. Since the 70th anniversary in 2019, NATO has worked to strengthen the protection of democracy by establishing a center for democratic resilience. We who are part of NATO's parliamentary delegation had the opportunity to meet representatives for this work when we were recently in Montreal.

Madam Speaker! Centers are being formed within Nato in several countries, and the Center Party has proposed that Sweden should initiate a process and dialogue with Nato to establish a Nato Center of Excellence built on knowledge of Russia. Sweden has, through both FOI and the Institute of Foreign Affairs, a good basis for exactly this.

Madam Speaker! The Centre Party wants to develop a common Nordic security strategy, which we put forward in the previous debate on the national security strategy. The Nordic countries and the Baltics, together with Poland and Germany, bear a special responsibility for the Baltic Sea. We need to continue working on this during the upcoming total defense period.

Centerpartiet has, as part of this proposal in the report, suggested a joint Nordic-Baltic coast guard operation in international waters in the Baltic Sea. A lot is happening now, and we have reason to send a clear signal to both Russia and China: We are following, and we are watching.

Madam Speaker! This is the second time in a short period that we are debating Sweden's security in the Riksdag. Recently it was the government's national security strategy, which we actually dealt with in the Committee on Foreign Affairs while the joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence dealt with the security policy direction, which we are now debating and shall decide on.

We are talking about two documents and about two different languages. One is the minority government's strategy, which is not at all broadly anchored. The other is this one, a part of a broad parliamentary preparation.

Madam Speaker! There are clear opportunities for improvement for a clear, unified and well-anchored security policy reflected in both documents. We comment on this in a separate statement, which I recommend for reading.

There are opportunities to rectify this in the coming year if the government listens to the Center Party's proposal to submit an annual report to the Riksdag on the development of the national security strategy. The government has established a national security council within the Government Offices. The Center Party is positive about this but simultaneously sees that, through the way the council is now being powerfully built up, new challenges are created for the Riksdag's opportunities to scrutinize and gain insight. The Government Offices do not report to any committee, as that is not how the structure has been built.

The work is now in a very formative stage, and when one reads the rules of procedure, one gets somewhat different pictures in relation to different departments and thus to committees. This makes it urgent that we now, in the construction phase, Madam Speaker, are given the opportunity in the Riksdag to follow and scrutinize the work that is ongoing.

Madam Speaker! I shall conclude by saying what has also emerged from previous remarks. A strong total defense begins in a robust and strong society with a strong civil society where people feel that they are involved and are prepared to take responsibility. We must never forget that.

With that, Madam Speaker, I would like to move for approval of reservation 9 under point 4 and reservation 5 under point 2.

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

Emma Berginger (MP)

Madam Speaker! Let me begin by apologizing for my late arrival due to a cancelled train during the morning. I stand completely behind those who have said that we need to have a functioning infrastructure in Sweden. The trains must arrive on time. It may well happen that a Member of Parliament arrives late to a debate, but when it concerns our soldiers and our supplies, they must arrive at the right place at the right time.

Thanks to the technology, I have been able to follow the debate and listen to you, but there is no reply button in the chamber app. Therefore, I will try to weave in some things into my speech that I have picked up during the debate. I would therefore like to warn in advance that I may slightly exceed the allotted speaking time.

It has almost been three years since Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine began. The security situation in Europe remains serious, and the developments in the world are in many ways worrying. Russia's intentions have not changed. In the USA, an unpredictable president will soon take office. China is rearming at an ever faster pace and, together with other authoritarian regimes, challenges the rules-based world order. Bloody wars are ongoing in the Middle East, and a terrible humanitarian catastrophe is unfolding in Gaza. What is happening in Syria, we have only seen the beginning of.

These were just a few examples of ongoing conflicts, unrest, and tensions in our global environment that we need to contend with.

Madam Speaker! Simultaneously, the climate crisis is unfolding – humanity's great question of destiny. It is an existential crisis that is already deepening and exacerbating conflicts. When places become uninhabitable, societies are torn apart by natural disasters, supplies dwindle, and people are forced to flee, we risk facing conflicts and challenges on a significantly larger scale than today. Despite the government highlighting the climate issue's connection to security, and despite that the climate issue is highlighted as an existential threat in the national security strategy, they are not prepared to take measures and introduce a policy that reduces the threat and mitigates the risks. It is serious.

Madam Speaker! The total defense bill is a result of the Defense Committee's work, and there we have found a broad consensus on many issues. The Green Party stands primarily behind the committee's proposal, on which the bill rests. We want Sweden to strengthen its defense capability and at the same time continue to be a strong voice for democracy, peace, and human rights.

Here today in the debate, we are focusing on the security policy parts of the bill, but we will return to the more defense policy parts in later debates.

Madam Speaker! First and foremost, I must nevertheless emphasize that even though the upgrading of the total defense is important, it is also of the utmost importance that we, above all, continue to support Ukraine. Russia's warfare in Ukraine is the great security policy issue of destiny in our part of the world. Ukraine must receive Sweden's and the democratic world's full and unconditional support for as long as it is needed. The support needs to be long-term and should encompass both military as well as civil, humanitarian, and economic support.

The government has presented a three-year framework for the support to Ukraine, but the support to Ukraine must be more comprehensive and long-term. It must be taken into account that Ukraine is to win the war, secure peace, rebuild its country, and achieve long-term security. There is more that Europe and Sweden can do, and at the same time, the pressure on the USA to continue to contribute must increase – even after President Trump has taken office.

Madam Speaker! Miljöpartiet de gröna strives for a world where solidarity and respect for human rights are combined with sustainable development and climate justice across the entire globe. We are quite far from that today.

To meet these challenges, the world must unite. International cooperation and alliance-building in defense of the rules-based world order, democracy, and human rights are needed to meet an increasingly polarized world. Avoiding the emergence of or escalation of conflicts through diplomatic and conflict-prevention efforts is central and also the cheapest option for promoting democracy and security. But we also see a need for a faster and more comprehensive buildup of total defense, both the military and the civil defense.

The purpose of our defense is to preserve peace. Defense and security policy shall protect Sweden and promote peace and detente in our immediate vicinity. Total defense shall be built so that it deters other countries from attempts to control or otherwise exploit Swedish territory, harm Swedish society, or exert threats and blackmail against Sweden. The defense takes its starting point in the right to self-defense under international law and must therefore be defensive in its character and structure. By increasing our readiness, both civil and military, we can influence the risk of war.

Madam Speaker! The Green Party remains firmly anchored in a solidarity-based and feminist security policy where we protect Sweden and democracy while Sweden actively contributes to the international community's efforts for global peace and development work. The Green Party is a strong advocate for conflict prevention measures and peaceful conflict resolution through civilian means. We believe that military means should only be considered when all other alternatives have been exhausted, and they must remain within the framework of international law, not be used as an offensive tool for national self-interests abroad.

Foreign policy is our first line of defense, and there, diplomacy, mediation, and conflict prevention work belong to our most important tools to work for détente and peace.

Madam Speaker! Security policy must be stable, clear and long-term. The UN's work to build, preserve and, if necessary, enforce peace is important. The principle of responsibility to protect shall be followed. Countries that attack their own population shall not be able to refer to sovereignty to avoid the international community's intervention.

Sweden should continue to be a strong and solidary actor for peace on the global arena and contribute to the UN's efforts. For all peacekeeping and peace-enforcement operations that Sweden participates in, there must be a clear international law mandate. Democratic Western countries' contributions to the UN's military operations are of great importance, partly so that the military competence in the UN system and the capability in respective missions shall be developed, and partly to maintain the credibility of the UN as an organization.

Sweden needs to strive to continuously contribute to UN peacekeeping missions. Even though the security situation in our area is serious, we need to contribute to peace, security, and relationship-building internationally. A stable and secure world is required for us to be able to tackle global security challenges, for example climate change and pandemics.

Madam Speaker! Since March 7 of this year, Sweden has been part of the defense alliance Nato. Even though Miljöpartiet voted against the Swedish application for Nato membership, the party has decided to respect the Riksdag's decision on membership. We are therefore not pursuing a withdrawal from the alliance. Miljöpartiet stands behind the view that a strong Swedish total defense with a credible defense capability acts as a deterrent and is thus peace-preserving and contributes to Nato's collective deterrence capability. We want Nato to focus on its core task - defense of the allies.

Madam Speaker! Now that Sweden is a member of Nato, it is important that Sweden pursues an independent foreign policy and stands up for important values such as democracy and human rights both within and outside Nato. We also see a need to increase transparency regarding Nato's activities. We want Sweden to work for a democracy requirement within Nato as well as that Nato shall not have permanent troops or bases on Swedish territory.

NATO's nuclear deterrence - nuclear weapons - is a core part of the alliance. Nuclear weapons are, however, fearsome weapons of mass destruction that would have catastrophic consequences if used. The Green Party therefore stands firmly on the position that nuclear weapons should never be on Swedish territory, neither in peacetime nor in wartime. Sweden should introduce legislation that prohibits the importation of nuclear weapons onto Swedish territory - to be clear on this.

We consider it important that our Nato membership does not contribute to increased nuclear weapons proliferation. Therefore, we believe that Sweden in Nato should work for mutual nuclear disarmament. The world needs fewer nuclear weapons, not more. In Nato, Sweden shall also work for unconditional respect for international law and for fundamental human rights.

Madam Speaker! Miljöpartiet also wants Sweden to promote the principle of no first use within Nato. At present, Nato does not apply the principle, which allows the alliance to introduce nuclear weapons as the first actor in a conflict. The principle hinders global disarmament initiatives because it means that an imminent threat of nuclear weapons always remains.

Sweden has a proud tradition of transparency and the principle of public access. Sweden shall therefore be proactive in improving oversight in Nato and proactive in ensuring that the national parliaments in the member countries must sharpen their scrutiny of Nato's affairs so that accountability can be demanded. Increased transparency is important to ensure trust in the operations.

Madam Speaker! One of the greatest threats to international peace and security is the development of lethal autonomous weapons systems. Fully autonomous weapons can create uncertainty regarding responsibility for acts of war and in this way undermine international law. There is a lack of consensus on what sufficient human involvement in the handling of the weapons systems would entail, both ethically and practically.

Military systems operate in unstructured and antagonistic environments, which means that civilian systems cannot always be adapted for military applications. The military AI systems will need to act in an environment where the adversary does their utmost to avoid being detected, to avoid acting predictably, and to mislead. This can have serious consequences for how AI systems react, and they can be difficult to predict. Therefore, stricter regulations of weapons systems are needed, and increased research regarding protection against autonomous weapons systems is needed.

Yes, Madam Speaker, we in Miljöpartiet want Sweden to advocate for a global ban on lethal autonomous weapons. The risks with autonomous weapons are obvious. Sweden needs to take a leading role in the work to find ways to effectively influence development. In that work, it is important that research on what autonomous weapons entail is also reinforced by political interventions to achieve progress. No one knows what an arms race with autonomous weapons could lead to—for example, if machines are given control in sensitive conflicts or if terrorists get hold of them—but the fears must be taken very seriously. Autonomous systems have the potential to increase the scope and scale of warfare, with great suffering as a result. International rules and laws are the right way to handle this threat, for all of us who stand up for a world order based on rules, law, and international law.

Madam Speaker! The Green Party has, as has become clear during this speech, a broad view of security and focuses on human security. Human security is linked to our living environment and our impact on it. The threat landscape today is both broad and complex, whether we want it or not.

The climate issue is humanity's great question of destiny. Both military threats and non-military and hybrid threats exist in parallel. We need to have a preparedness to meet both the military threats and other threats, such as climate change, natural disasters, pandemics, and cyberattacks. We therefore need to have a preparedness to withstand both crises and wars, in the worst case at the same time. To only see one of the threats makes us weak and vulnerable.

I would therefore like to move for approval of reservation number 3.

In this speech, Jan Riise and Jacob Risberg (both MP) concurred.

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

Stefan Olsson (M)

Madam Speaker! I would like to thank Member Berginger for her speech and regret that she did not arrive in time. That is just the way it is with the trains, unfortunately.

I would like to take the opportunity to ask a question about one of the Green Party's reservations, namely the one concerning NATO bases in Sweden. My party also believes that there is no reason to have permanent NATO bases in Sweden, and we do not in any way pursue a policy aimed at wanting this. It is part of the general agreement on how our NATO membership should look. But we fundamentally do not actually have any problems with it.

It does, however, seem to be a major problem for the Green Party. I thought we could take the opportunity to clarify what the problem is with permanent NATO bases in Sweden. Further down the line, I can imagine that we should have it, because I cannot really see the problem. I thought that the member could take the opportunity to lay out the text so that one understands what it is that is problematic with permanent NATO bases in Sweden.

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

Emma Berginger (MP)

Madam Speaker! The Green Party has chosen to take a constructive, critical stance in relation to Nato. We accept the Nato membership, but we also want Sweden to be an active voice within Nato on the issues that are important.

It is important that we stand up for NATO being able to operate in our immediate vicinity, but we must also ensure that this happens in the most effective way. And we do not believe that the most effective way is to have permanent bases or troops on the ground in Sweden in the current situation.

We also see that it can lead to a shift in threat profiles if one has established, permanent bases. It can lead to an impact on the local community in a way that we do not believe would be positive for the development in Sweden.

We think it is better that we contribute to the advanced positions that have been launched within Nato, for example Sweden's contribution to the FLF in Latvia and also in Finland. We do not see that in Sweden, which is an area of advancement, there is a need to have that type of permanent bases.

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

Stefan Olsson (M)

Madam Speaker! I also cannot spontaneously see any reason why we should have permanent Nato bases right now. This is, however, a bit about Nato's upcoming planning for the Nordic region, and we do not quite know what Nato will want to have.

The Chairman mentioned that there is a threat. What would that threat be? I imagine that on a permanent NATO base on Swedish soil, there will be Canadian and Belgian soldiers. I do not actually experience this as particularly scary or threatening. I do not quite understand what it is that is so unpleasant about Belgian soldiers being in Sweden. My impression after having been in Belgium is, in fact, that the Belgians are quite pleasant people. It is the same with the Canadians, the few I know; they are also very pleasant. I therefore do not understand where the threat is supposed to come from.

It can have an impact on the local community, the member also argues. Yes, there will naturally be a certain impact on the local community if Belgian soldiers appear in, for example, Älvdalen, where there is a Swedish training ground. But I cannot imagine that this impact is so terribly negative. I have a bit of difficulty understanding the unpleasantness here.

Furthermore, it does become a bit strange considering that we are to have a troop more or less permanently based in Latvia and then perhaps also in Finland. Is it then not reasonable that we can also imagine allocating territory for NATO forces in Sweden? Otherwise, one demands something from other countries but does not offer it oneself. It does not feel quite well thought out.

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

Emma Berginger (MP)

Madam Speaker! I must consider why it is so important for the member to emphasize this regarding permanent bases and what utility and purpose one sees with permanent bases in Sweden. We in Miljöpartiet see no need for permanent bases in Sweden.

The threat we are talking about here is, of course, the one coming from Russia, and I believe we are actually quite in agreement that there is a threat from Russia against Sweden. If we get more capabilities and more NATO troops here, it is clear that this will also entail an increased threat against Sweden.

Having permanent bases in Sweden - enclaves of this type, with people who come in and stay for a longer period - is not an effective way to manage the common resources within the alliance. One can compare it with what we do in Latvia, which I think is important and prioritized. There, it is about rotating units that contribute to NATO's deterrence and defense. We take a positive stance on this.

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

Joar Forssell (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you to the Green Party for a good and informative speech!

There are many things that the Liberals and the Green Party agree on. We agree that we want peace, democracy, human rights, and equality. We agree that the climate threat is an incredibly serious security threat. The Green Party was founded by a People's Party member, Per Gahrton, so I suppose I must also take some of the blame for the things that I do not like in the statement from the Green Party.

Previously, it stated in the Green Party's program that they wanted to meet the enemy with dialogue. The Green Party was also previously opposed to Sweden joining Nato. The Green Party also, besides the Liberal People's Party, is leaving the peace movement in Sweden, which people usually beat their chests over. And, Madam Speaker, the peace movement must feel very disappointed that the Green Party has deleted that part about meeting the enemy with dialogue and instead wants to upgrade the defense. The peace movement is surely also disappointed that the Green Party now does not want to leave Nato - even though I am happy about these two parts.

But I wonder what it is regarding the autonomous weapons. It is clear that I agree that we should regulate how we wage war against each other, when we are forced to do so. We should avoid it, but when we are forced to do so, we need to have international law that regulates how we do it. But no one can, Madam Speaker, be so naive as to believe that China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran will not, if they can, use these dreadful weapons against us?

Madam Speaker! Is the Green Party so naive that they believe that just because we want to sign an agreement and have a dialogue with each other, as it previously stated in their program, Russia and China will not use these drone swarms against us? I wonder, Madam Speaker, if the Green Party wants to meet the autonomous drone swarms with dialogue. Or what answer do they have when China or Russia attacks?

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

Emma Berginger (MP)

Madam Speaker! We in Miljöpartiet have a long and proud tradition of working for peace in various ways. We adapt based on the security situation in which Sweden finds itself. Accordingly, we have also said that we need an upgraded total defense. Both the military and the civil defense need to be upgraded. We also need to have a preparedness to meet a broad palette of threats – ranging from military threats to hybrid threats and, for example, natural disasters and climate change.

Autonomous weapons are a technology that is in its infancy and is currently being developed. Precisely because of this, the international community needs to take hold of this and establish which guidelines should apply. We believe it is important that Sweden takes the lead in that work.

We also want more research to be conducted on protection against autonomous weapons. It is clear that they will be used, and that is what we are afraid of. We are afraid that states such as Russia or China, as the member mentions, could use them, but we are also afraid that the weapons could spread to, for example, terrorist groups. What would it look like if terrorist groups that otherwise commit horrific acts of terrorism have autonomous weapons in their arsenal? It would be horrific.

That is precisely why we believe that international rules are needed so that one can follow up, prosecute and judge, and so that we can have a norm-setting work.

If we are not to have international rules regarding autonomous weapons, what other international rules should we throw overboard? Should we throw the laws of war into the wastebasket just because we know there are countries that break them? It is precisely for that reason we have the laws of war, so that we can follow up and hold to account.

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

Joar Forssell (L)

Madam Speaker! Today, it is forbidden for terrorists to detonate bombs and to shoot people in the open street. It is forbidden in Sweden, in other countries, and in international law. But it does not seem to be the case that the terrorists that Miljöpartiet is afraid of follow the law. It lies, so to speak, in the nature of the activity.

The same seems to apply to China and Russia. China has concentration camps and threatens its neighboring countries constantly. Russia conducts wars of invasion against neighbors. They simply do not follow the law.

Then this does not mean that we should not have laws. We shall have laws and rules for how war is waged, and the Liberals are the first to advocate that one should follow the laws of war and international humanitarian law in all the conflicts that are ongoing in the world. There we do not disagree.

But the answer to my question as to whether Miljöpartiet wants us to meet the autonomous drone swarms with dialogue was yes. Miljöpartiet wants that. Miljöpartiet sees that there is a threat in that China, Russia and others in the future will have these weapons, and they want to meet it with dialogue. We are to meet and talk about it.

I am all for meeting and talking about it, but I am not so naive as to believe that we can, through conversation and dialogue, get Russia, China, North Korea, Iran and others to desist from this opportunity to threaten us and harm us - to threaten our peace and our freedom. Therefore, we cannot do as Miljöpartiet proposes.

Madam Speaker! I believe that when it comes down to it, when Miljöpartiet at some point in the future again gets to influence Swedish politics in a position of power, they will, as Miljöpartiet themselves express it, adapt their policy and not push this through, in the same way that they have not pushed through that Sweden should leave Nato or disarm. I hope that will be the case.

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

Emma Berginger (MP)

Madam Speaker! The member's statement is completely misleading. I have not said that we are to meet drone swarms with dialogue. I have said that we need an international regulatory framework that makes it possible for us to see how we can meet this in a way that is right and proper. We need research that shows how we can create systems that are ethically acceptable and yet can counter these threats.

Madam Speaker! It is perhaps not so strange that a party that has devoted itself to nuclear weapons romanticism and more or less youth-political contributions here in the chamber expresses itself in this way.

I think it is important that we have laws and rules, that we follow them and that we can also impose punishments based on them. The Liberals also usually emphasize this, for example when it comes to law and justice here in Sweden and that one should be able to punish criminals. I think the same thing should apply on the international arena.

When we see that these criminals acquire new capabilities and new weapons, perhaps we should not do the same ourselves and say that we too will behave badly. Rather, we should look at this and create protection, so that we are protected, and also have laws and rules that say what is okay and what is not.

(Applause)

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

Försvarsministern Pål Jonson (M)

Madam Speaker! We live in serious times, and we find ourselves in the most serious security policy global situation since the end of the Second World War.

An armed attack against Sweden or our allies cannot be ruled out. It also cannot be ruled out that military means of power or threats of such may be used against Sweden or our allies. This is a portal paragraph in the government's bill Total Defence 2025 - 2030. It points to the seriousness of the security situation in which Sweden finds itself. But it also shows the historical shift that has occurred in Swedish defense and security policy since the last defense decision was taken by this chamber in December 2020.

Sweden is now allied. It is a fundamental change in our defense policy and a break from the military non-alignment that reached its end when the geopolitical security situation deteriorated significantly. Now, Sweden, together with the other 31 NATO countries, can jointly meet external military threats to our security.

Sweden has become safer, and Nato has become stronger. But the world around us, Madam Speaker, has also become more dangerous in recent years. Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine is a definitive turning point for Swedish, European, and global security. Russia will, for the foreseeable future, pose a serious threat to Sweden and the rest of Europe. Sweden must therefore, together with its allies, counter Russia's expansion of power and its opportunities to cause harm.

Strong, predictable and sustained support for Ukraine is not only morally right – it is also our best opportunity to influence Russian actions. It is clear that Russia will not voluntarily stop its aggression. Russia continues its war of aggression against Ukraine with undiminished strength. Despite enormous losses on the battlefield, Russia continues to send more troops into Ukraine and continuously increases its defense expenditures.

Russia has shifted to a war economy and is continuously working to mobilize new soldiers and new materiel. The Russian capacity for military reconstruction and the long-term consequences of the significantly increased defense expenditures must not be underestimated.

Madam Speaker! The Russian aggression against Ukraine is an attack on the rules-based world order. The outcome of the war will be closely watched by other authoritarian states that challenge democracy, the rule of law, and respect for human rights.

Through its deepened partnership with Russia, China decisively enables both the Russian warfare in Ukraine and Russian military reconstruction. North Korea also contributes directly to the Russian aggression with both soldiers and materiel, as does Iran through its military support in the form of arms deliveries. This further increases the threat that Russia poses to its neighboring countries and to Euro-Atlantic security.

China is carrying out extensive upgrades of its military capabilities and also its nuclear arsenal. The conflicts in the Middle East further contribute to global uncertainty.

Both Russia and China conduct intelligence and security-threatening activities in Sweden. Hybrid threats such as political influence operations, economic pressure, cyberattacks, and physical sabotage are real threats directed against us and our allies every day.

Sweden and our allies must not back down from our fundamental values and interests despite the increased pressure from the authoritarian states. On the contrary, we must increase our efforts.

Madam Speaker! The defense of international law and the European security order is taking place in Ukraine. Support for Ukraine is absolutely central to Europe's security.

Sweden must have long-term and strong support for Ukraine. The Swedish military support so far at 48 billion, the total Swedish Ukraine framework for military support and our bilateral security commitment for Ukraine is a strong signal for Sweden's long-term commitment.

NATO is today the clearest counterforce against the authoritarian states' attempts to challenge the rules-based world order. Parallel to Sweden's NATO integration, very large investments are being made in the buildup of the defense. Under the current government, and in broad political consensus with the parties in the Riksdag, the defense appropriation has been increased by just over 53 billion. From 2025 onwards, the appropriation will amount to approximately 139 billion, and that corresponds to approximately 2.4 percent of GDP.

It is also in line with the fact that Europe needs to take greater responsibility for its own security. NATO's European pillar must be strengthened. This is inevitable as we know that the USA, in the long term, needs to devote greater effort to its commitments in the Indo-Pacific region.

Madam Speaker! The Armed Forces' war organization constitutes Sweden's most important contribution to Nato. Our geography is central to the defense of the Euro-Atlantic area. Sweden's solidarity-based alliance policy aims to strengthen security and stability in our immediate vicinity, as well as the entire Euro-Atlantic area. Already now, Sweden contributes to Nato's incident readiness with combat aircraft.

After the turn of the year, the first Swedish mechanized battalion will be in place in Latvia if the Riksdag so decides. This is part of NATO's Forward Land Forces. Planning is also underway for Swedish contributions to NATO's standing naval forces.

The Swedish business sector's technical competence is also a strong delivery to Nato. The ability for technical excellence and innovative power is also defense capability. The importance of being able to quickly convert civil technology into military applications is an important lesson from the war in Ukraine. This is addressed, among other things, through the defense innovation initiative that the government has launched.

Sweden fully supports NATO's nuclear weapons policy and contributes to the alliance's strategic deterrence. The purpose of NATO's nuclear deterrence is to preserve peace, prevent nuclear blackmail, and deter aggression. At the same time, Sweden shall continue to be a strong voice for arms control, disarmament, and non-proliferation.

Sweden has, with broad support in the Riksdag, applied for membership in Nato without reservations. That position remains firm, but in the same way as in the other Nordic countries, there are no reasons to have nuclear weapons or permanent bases on Swedish territory in peacetime.

Sweden's and Finland's NATO membership opens up for deeper Nordic security and defense cooperation. The new situation, where all Nordic and Baltic countries are allies, constitutes a strength for NATO's northern flank. The fact that all Nordic and Baltic countries also have DCA agreements with the USA strengthens security in all of Northern Europe. The agreements enable, among other things, prepositioning of American defense materiel, and one can have rotating American soldiers on site in the Nordics.

In conclusion, Madam Speaker! The year 2024 has been a transformative year for Sweden. The fact that we are now allied within Nato signifies a completely new era for Swedish security and defense policy, an era in which Sweden, in solidarity and with a strong defense, takes responsibility for security in Europe in a way that we have not been able to do previously.

(Applause)

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Madam Speaker! Now Donald Trump has been elected as the 47th President of the USA. The election of Trump to president changes both the situation for Sweden's security and Sweden's relation to the USA. The risk of Trump being elected as president has been well known for a long time, and I have many times warned of the rollercoaster that I see the world now has ahead of it.

That is why I wonder why there was such a rush with the decision on the DCA agreement with the USA. Vänsterpartiet proposed a suspension for one year. I can think that, in hindsight, it has shown to have been wise to grant it. Our fundamental criticism of the agreement was partly about the lack of provisions regarding nuclear weapons, and partly about the fact that American legislation shall apply to American soldiers, their relatives, and subcontractors.

What does the DCA agreement with Trump mean then? It will likely mean that he will exploit the agreement, which is based on further negotiations, rather than the agreement protecting Sweden. We all remember ASAP Rocky. Trump sent his chief negotiator for hostage situations - against the Swedish judiciary's ambitions to convict a criminal for assault.

Agreements are not only written for days of sunshine. Agreements must also be written for days with clouds, rain, and even storms.

Now a minimal implementation of the DCA agreement is required. An increased American presence under Trump increases the risks for Sweden. We are also well aware of a difference in how Sweden and the USA have historically defended themselves. The USA has a confidence in extensive military deterrence, which could lead to escalation in our near area.

How does the Minister for Defence intend to implement the DCA agreement with Trump as US President?

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

Försvarsministern Pål Jonson (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Håkan Svenneling, for the question! Let me return the compliment! Håkan Svenneling is also a pleasant fellow, as he called me earlier. We have a very good cooperation in many respects, even if we can be deeply disagreed on things.

Let me first say something regarding the DCA agreement. Håkan Svenneling knows that Sweden enters into agreements with countries, not with presidents. It is no surprise.

A fear that one might have, and which Håkan Svenneling is trying to convey – when it comes to a Trump administration and DCA – is that the USA could in some way force us to have nuclear weapons on Swedish territory. Håkan Svenneling knows that Sweden is a sovereign country. He also knows that sovereignty means that there is no country that can force Sweden to host nuclear weapons on Swedish territory. It is crystal clear.

There is another dimension linked to a Trump administration. It is a concern that can be expressed. It is primarily about a reduced American engagement on the European continent. We perceive this as a real threat. Therefore, we think it is good that there are good conditions for the USA to, for example, stockpile defense materiel on Swedish territory. We also think it is good that the other Nordic countries have similar arrangements.

We may need support from the USA. In that case, one can choose either to make it difficult and complicated to obtain it or to make it quick to obtain it. Our view is that it should be easy and smooth to obtain it. Therefore, the DCA agreement is important for Swedish security. This was also a reason why we thought it was important to get the DCA agreement in place as soon as possible. It is also good for Nato and naturally for the stability of the entire northern flank.

That all Nordic countries - and also the Baltic countries - now have a DCA agreement in place creates better conditions for a US presence in northern Europe. It is stabilizing, and it is war-deterring.

(Applause)

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Madam Speaker! I do not know if we are truly getting an answer from the Minister of Defence on how he intends to implement this agreement with Trump as president. He is happy to talk about the agreement. He says that there are no obstacles for nuclear weapons, which has been our criticism. I do not think it is particularly likely that we will get nuclear weapons on Swedish territory. On the other hand, the Minister of Defence said in a previous statement that he envisions rotating American soldiers in the Nordic region, not specifically in Sweden. It is something that already exists today in the USA.

But I wonder: How does the Defense Minister intend to implement the agreement in Sweden? What is his signal when he meets the US Defense Minister for the first time?

I find it very difficult to see that it benefits Sweden to have more of the American troop in its immediate vicinity in the way that the Defense Minister believes. With Trump's rollercoaster, I believe rather that any type of American presence can pose a risk that other countries perceive us as being very close to the USA and that we let the Americans use our territory to escalate a situation.

I am also concerned about what the legislation, where American soldiers are judged according to American law, means for our local communities. There are 17 places in the country that risk getting a large American presence, where one then has a different legislation.

There is a question that I still have not heard the Minister for Defence reason about. It concerns the risk of displacement effects for the Swedish defence. We must have plenty of space for the Swedish defence to train and operate. This shall absolutely take place in cooperation with Nato. But we must set the framework for this. It shall not be Trump and the USA doing it.

I foresee that we are going to have it shaky. I could think that it would have been wiser to hold back and, before entering into the DCA agreement, discuss the changes we have already made. This did not receive the Riksdag's support. I must accept that, but now we must think and stop. This defense decision is a good decision, but it shall be implemented over four Trump years. It will be shaky.

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

Försvarsministern Pål Jonson (M)

Madam Speaker! If Håkan Svenneling is concerned about a displacement effect from the Armed Forces' activities at the 17 identified sites, he should also preferably read what the Armed Forces express in its referral response, where it is crystal clear that they consider it to be good for the Armed Forces and for Swedish security that a DCA agreement is in place. The concern that Håkan Svenneling expresses regarding the implementation of the DCA agreement is therefore not found at the responsible authority. I just want to emphasize that.

Regarding the implementation, it is purely practical that the DCA agreement has been in place since August 15 and that it has been approved and ratified by the Swedish Riksdag. Then one enters the phase called the implementation agreement, and the technical and practical parts will be resolved between the Swedish Armed Forces and, above all, what is called Eucom, which is the American European Command.

I see no risk regarding Håkan Svenneling's fears that this could mean significant pressure regionally and locally. Our great challenge, and what we need to anchor, is that we can still have good conditions for having an American presence in Europe. It is stabilizing and deterrent to war, and it strengthens Nato.

Once again, it is good that all Nordic countries now have a DCA agreement in place.

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

Tomas Eneroth (S)

Madam Speaker! When it comes to the latter, I also believe that the great challenge with Donald Trump as president is rather about us receiving too little American presence. There is also a concern about what happens with the important support to Ukraine in the situation we are in right now, and this speaks rather in favor of the fact that we need to make more of an effort in Sweden, the Nordics, the Baltics, and Europe to secure our defense capacity and also Ukraine's.

It is actually two other things I intend to take the opportunity to and take the chance to ask the Minister of Defence. First, however, I want to praise the Minister of Defence for a perfectly well-executed job. I also think that the work being done in the Defence Preparation Board in well-functioning consensus together with us has been constructive, successful and important.

With that said, it is not enough for the Minister for Defence to behave and do an excellent job. The entire government needs to do it. As I said in my speech, I am more concerned about what concerns the total defense, which is divided among the areas of responsibility of other ministers.

I will not hold the Minister for Defence accountable for the deficiencies in the infrastructure system, healthcare, and civil society, but I would nevertheless like to hear how the Minister for Defence views the deficiencies that are now becoming apparent in our collective total defense when other important parts of the Swedish total defense have obvious deficiencies. Healthcare, infrastructure, the energy system, and civil society are the examples I mentioned.

The second part is more directly about the situation with Russia's invasion of Ukraine, where I am deeply concerned that Sweden is still the only country I am aware of where there is not a single indictment for sanctions violations. In Finland and in many other countries, there are prosecution processes underway, but in Sweden we have not managed to stop the likely clear sanctions violations that are occurring and which mean that support from Sweden to Russia is going through the back door, despite all our support for Ukraine. It is unacceptable. Here we should be able to do more.

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

Försvarsministern Pål Jonson (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Tomas Eneroth, for the good tone of conversation and the fine cooperation! I really appreciate it.

Several of the questions that Tomas Eneroth touches upon are partly about civil defense. Here, the focus is on the security policy debate, but there will be good conditions to discuss these issues during the defense policy debate next week.

With that said, it is naturally important for the entire society's resilience to have a strong infrastructure, and in the infrastructure bill that was presented, the total defense dimension is also highlighted in a very clear way. It is clear that military mobility across the Nordic borders will be required now that we are allies, and it will affect the infrastructure in all its parts.

That is why the government also made decisions, for example, regarding what is called military mobility and also gives assignments to, among others, the Armed Forces and the Transport Administration to develop new transport corridors. There is therefore a strong connection between a strong infrastructure and a strong total defense and also the Nato integration. The same also concerns the importance of a resilient society when it comes to healthcare, which will be evident in the bill and the report.

Let me also touch upon the sanctions. I know that Tomas Eneroth is deeply involved in this, and I think that is fundamentally good. Sweden has been very proactive within the framework of the EU when it comes to establishing the new sanction packages within the EU. It is important.

With all due respect: When I have Tomas Eneroth here, I must nevertheless ask, Madam Speaker, how he views the Left Party's demand to open up for the possibility of tearing up the NATO membership. I believe it would be problematic to have the Left Party in a coalition government if they are actively going to oppose the Swedish membership. A government must coordinate and have a common policy. It would mean a significant weakening of Sweden's position in Nato with the Left Party in a government position, as has been demanded.

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

Tomas Eneroth (S)

Madam Speaker! I have not understood that these were to be ultimate requirements. I am happy and proud that we have a broad support behind the NATO membership. Any withdrawal is not an option.

Let me, however, say something about the sanctions and the sanctions violations. It is nevertheless concerning when neither the responsible authorities nor the prosecution service in Sweden seem to be tackling the illegal export, as it actually constitutes, of what can sometimes be direct defense materiel to Russia.

It is an important signal to the rest of the world if we in Sweden do not manage to provide sufficient resources to judicial, controlling, and police authorities or, for that matter, do not have sufficiently rapid legislative changes, if required, to be able to stop the illegal export that continues. It is a deficiency for Sweden. Here, the government must work even more expeditiously in the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Defence, and the Ministry for Foreign Affairs to do even more.

When it comes to the total defense, I will not blame the Minister for Defence alone for the government's general shortcomings regarding support for healthcare, the municipalities, and so on. I look forward to the upcoming debate on civil defense. But an increase of 5 percent in railway maintenance in the infrastructure area is, in reality, a saving, because inflation during these years has been significantly higher. It is an obvious deficiency. This, combined with the fact that maintenance is now organized entirely privately, means that we do not really know if we can maintain our basic capabilities in our infrastructure system.

It is good that the government points out which areas need to be considered moving forward, but if there are no resources—and there are none for those prioritized for something else—we will have obvious problems with the infrastructure. In Ukraine, they have learned from experience. There, even the trains run on time.

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

Försvarsministern Pål Jonson (M)

Madam Speaker! I shall try to untangle the question regarding the sanctions and the problems that have arisen concerning whether one can circumvent the sanctions.

It is naturally crystal clear when it comes to defense materiel, which is divided into war materiel for combat - KS, as it is called - and other defense materiel. There, it is crystal clear that all sanctions apply. Then there are products with dual-use, and in that case, we have the EU's military list.

What I think can be problematic is equipment that is non-classified. It could, for example, involve rifle scopes for hunting purposes that can appear in several places where they should not be. Ukraine has pointed this out regarding drones. It has also appeared in Russia.

It is quite difficult to hit that type of material, precisely because it is not classified. The government is, however, working tirelessly to strengthen the sanctions against Russia within the framework of the EU, and if there are reasons to review the classification in Sweden of products with dual-use or that can have military application, we will, of course, continue to work on that.

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

Emma Berginger (MP)

Madam Speaker! I also want to thank the Minister of Defence for good cooperation in the Defence Preparation Board. There are not many of us from the Defence Preparation Board here, but I want to emphasize that within the cooperation we have had very good discussions. We have not always agreed on the same things from the beginning, but over time we have developed a great consensus on matters. In the debate in this chamber, it can sometimes sound like it is more pointed in security policy than it actually is, but then one should know that we, as said, have had good dialogues in the Defence Preparation Board.

I think a defense preparation is a good tool to work with to create the broad consensus on defense and security policy, but there are nevertheless some differences that remain. I would like to highlight some of them here.

For example, the lack of interest in the outside world is one of the Green Party's greatest concerns regarding the development in foreign and defense policy, as well as the lack of independence now that Sweden is a member of a defense alliance where we are becoming increasingly dependent on military support from other nations. Therefore, I would like to ask the Minister for Defence how he views Sweden's opportunity to contribute to various international missions under the UN flag in the future and how the government is working on that issue. It is, therefore, about our ability to contribute within the UN system and in that way contribute to maintaining peace and security internationally.

I would also like to ask how the government intends to work so that Sweden can be an independent voice for disarmament, democracy, and human rights, even though we are part of the defense alliance Nato, and whether Sweden in any way promotes those types of values in the contexts in which the Defense Minister operates.

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

Försvarsministern Pål Jonson (M)

Madam Speaker! In times of crisis, Sweden naturally has eyes on it. People are looking at whether Sweden is a country that succeeds in pulling together or if we get stuck in domestic political deadlocks. I really want to thank the Defence Preparation Board and the parties in the Riksdag for a very constructive cooperation. This also applies to Emma Berginger personally, as I know she is involved in this. Finding the broad solutions and agreements is a strength in times of crisis.

Regarding Emma Berginger's question, it appears from the bill that Sweden intends to continue participating in international missions as well. This is important for several different reasons; it is naturally important in the work of contributing to international peace and security, and it is also important in the work of supporting organizations that we place great value on.

What has caused us to have had no major deployment efforts during the recent years - actually since Minusma - is that we have seen a significantly deteriorated security situation in the surrounding area, which has meant that we have had to dimension and direct a part of our defense activities toward the surrounding area rather than on international missions. By that, I am thinking primarily of the fact that we needed to get the mechanized battalion out to Latvia, which is quite a large commitment, in combination with the fact that we are carrying out quite extensive training efforts for Ukrainian soldiers. We have done that and will do it in Sweden, and we have done it in Lithuania, Great Britain, and Germany.

The efforts are also important, but again: It is clearly and explicitly stated in the bill that the government's ambition is that we should continue to be able to carry out deployment efforts. There are grounds for the government to return to the Riksdag when we have the opportunity to begin implementing it.

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

Emma Berginger (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank you very much for the announcement from the Minister for Defence that it is nevertheless intended that Sweden should be able to participate in international operations. It is important that this can be carried out despite the fact that we have a deteriorated security situation here in our immediate vicinity, as the global security situation has not either directly improved lately.

I would also like to take the opportunity to ask the Minister of Defence how he views NATO's nuclear deterrence and Sweden's participation in it. This also concerns the issue of permanent bases, which I see that the Minister's party colleagues in the chamber have committed to. The Tidö government's representatives here in the chamber have indeed committed to both nuclear weapons, nuclear deterrence, and permanent bases. I would therefore like to hear how the Minister of Defence and the government view this, because I thought, in any case, that the Minister of Defence's statement was reassuring compared to the contributions we have received from other members here in the chamber.

Finally, I would like to take the opportunity to ask the Minister for Defence how he views the total defense aspect when we talk about security policy. We have both an energy supply and an infrastructure that need to function in Sweden, and we actually need to increase our production of electricity in the near term. While the government is investing in building nuclear power at some point far in the future, it chooses to, in one fell swoop, reject 13 offshore wind farms and with that place a dead hand over the Baltic Sea. Does the government intend to come forward with any concrete proposals to enable the expansion of offshore wind power in the Baltic Sea, for example, technical prerequisites or designated areas?

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

Försvarsministern Pål Jonson (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank Emma Berginger for the questions.

It is like this: We have a political agreement, and it includes both that we shall not have nuclear weapons in Sweden in peacetime and that we shall not have permanent bases. The agreement applies, and if we are to change it, we shall do so jointly. It is an agreement, and the government honors it. I want to emphasize that.

To break down the concepts: This does not prevent us from having rotations of either American forces or NATO forces. We must be able to have that, and we already do today. The next question is what a NATO base entails. It is very clear in DCA that it is not about the USA opening any American bases on Swedish territory. Instead, it is about 17 locations where Sweden already has existing operations. We think it is natural that they can be used for the American forces rather than the USA building up its own bases.

What I do not want to rule out is, for example, the possibility of having leadership functions on Swedish territory. This could involve tactical commands. But NATO bases or foreign permanent bases on Swedish territory are not relevant, and we see no reason for that either. There is a political agreement that we will honor, and should it be changed, it shall be done jointly with the parties that have entered into the agreement.

When it comes to offshore wind power, it is naturally the case that we must consider our military-geographical position. That is the reason why we approved an offshore wind farm on the west coast but rejected 13 offshore wind farms in the Baltic Sea area. This is largely due to the fact that they would face towards Kaliningrad, which could complicate the conditions for Sweden to identify incoming ballistic missiles or cruise missiles at an early stage. The Armed Forces say that it would lead to unacceptable risks, and in this serious security policy situation, we must take the Armed Forces' word seriously.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! Today we have here in the chamber debated the joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence's report on total defence and the security policy orientation.

Regardless of what the Moderaterna stand here in the chamber and claim the Miljöpartiet thinks and does not think, we agree on much regarding the strengthening of the Swedish defense and the security policy direction forward, but there are of course also differences between the parties.

We agree that the security situation both in Sweden's immediate vicinity and globally is characterized by instability and unpredictability. This weekend's events in Syria, where the Assad regime has now fallen after 50 years of authoritarian rule, is a clear example of that. We also do not know what follows; Syria is so divided between different warring parties, often extremist, with different agendas that we can dare to see any sustainable light at the end of the tunnel.

The problem with this type of security incident is that the spinal reflex from the majority seems to be to solely rely on military solutions and rearmament. It is in these uneasy times that we must dare to believe in a different future – a future built on increased democratization, human rights, and increased economic prosperity. The response to the events in Syria must be substantial investments in democratic institutions, Syrian civil society, and increased international dialogue.

It is primarily here that we differ regarding the view on how we reduce instability and unpredictability in the world. While the government is reducing development aid and closing embassies, we want to go in the opposite direction. It is by strengthening democratic forces all around the world that we also make Sweden safer in the long term.

Madam Speaker! The Government's proposition states that the rules-based world order is being challenged by authoritarian states. Therefore, it becomes even stranger to listen to some of the representatives of the government parties in today's debate. The rules-based world order is based on the UN Charter, the Rome Statute, the Geneva Conventions, and a number of other conventions and agreements.

One of the most important of these agreements is, of course, the non-proliferation treaty, NPT, from 1968. It aims to prevent new actors from acquiring nuclear weapons. This agreement was developed during the Cold War and was signed then by both the USA and the Soviet Union. These two states also signed the two SALT agreements, the ABM treaty, and the INF treaty before the dissolution of the Cold War in 1991. It shows that bitter enemies, including authoritarian leaders, can actually reach agreements on globally important issues even if the fundamental conflict between the countries remains.

Madam Speaker! Sweden has a long tradition of being a strong voice for nuclear disarmament. We invest in disarmament research and were also active in the negotiations on the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, even though we unfortunately still stand outside that specific convention.

But now, apparently, this tradition is being broken. The Moderates' representative stands in the speaker's chair here in the Riksdag and defends nuclear weapons as a deterrent and opposes a Swedish ban on nuclear weapons on Swedish territory. No explanation is given as to why the Moderates want to change the Swedish security policy line regarding specifically nuclear weapons.

As I understood it, the Member of Parliament from the Moderates said this: One wishes to live in a world without nuclear weapons, but when the major dictatorships have nuclear weapons, we too are forced to have them.

It is not only the Moderaterna who use that argument. Since Russia uses mines and cluster weapons, we can well consider whether we should do the same, we have heard from KD's representative in the debate. He is stupid – therefore I must also be stupid.

One wonders then: Which international rules are we to follow? Torture occurs in Russian prisons. Does that give us reason to review whether we support the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment? In Syria, chemical weapons have been used. Is the Chemical Weapons Convention also something that KD – for the purpose of deterrence, as they say – would like to review?

Madam Speaker! It is evident that the rules-based world order is being challenged by authoritarian states, but it is concerning that even the government's own parties are challenging this rules-based world order. When conventions are threatened, the answer cannot be that we too should break the conventions. The answer must rather be an increased commitment to the bodies that uphold these conventions – the international courts, the international organizations, democratic institutions and civil society all around the world.

Madam Speaker! Sweden becomes safer with a strengthened defense. This applies, however, only if we simultaneously invest in the rules-based world order, increased democratization, increased dialogue and diplomacy, strengthened human rights and - of course - strengthened climate work, even though I have not had time during this speech to speak specifically about the climate convention, which of course is part of the rules-based world order.

I would like to move for approval of reservation 16.

In this speech, Emma Berginger (MP) agreed.

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

Stefan Olsson (M)

Madam Speaker! In his speech, Member Risberg said that we from the Moderaterna would now during the debate have said that we do not stand behind the policy that is formulated in the government's proposition and in the committee report when it concerns NATO's nuclear weapons policy. I actually do not know if the Member was in the chamber when I gave my speech or if he guessed what I might have said. Or could it be that he was in the chamber and made a misinterpretation of what I said?

I believe I have said on several occasions that we stand behind the government's bill in all parts. What is stated in the government's bill is that Sweden, as a member of the defense alliance Nato, also stands behind Nato's policy for nuclear deterrence. That is all. That is also the Moderates' position; it is no stranger than that. This position is the same as the government's. We also share this view with the majority in the committee, including two opposition parties, the Social Democrats and the Center Party.

In my speech, I pointed out that it is Miljöpartiet that is painting itself out of the consensus when it comes to Swedish security policy. That was what my speech was about.

Member of the Board Risberg must withdraw his claims that I would have said that we would break the line that appears in the government's proposition. This is an incorrect statement.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Olsson for the question, or the urge to take something back.

I noted while the member spoke that one might wish to live in a world without nuclear weapons, but that we are forced to have nuclear weapons when the major dictatorships have them. It is precisely this that I take note of. Is it the case that even Sweden should have nuclear weapons? I would very much like to know how nuclear weapons make the world safer. In what way would even more nuclear weapons make Sweden a safer and more secure country? The member has not answered that.

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

Stefan Olsson (M)

Madam Speaker! Of course, I have not claimed that Sweden should have nuclear weapons. Now we are truly talking about a total misinterpretation on Risberg's part.

The policy Sweden pursues is the same as NATO's. NATO has nuclear weapons - perhaps not its own, but primarily American ones. As NATO functions, Sweden is part of this policy, and then American nuclear weapons indirectly also become Sweden's nuclear weapons. I wish that there were no nuclear weapons in the world at all, but as long as North Korea, China, Russia, and perhaps Iran threaten the rest of the world with nuclear weapons, NATO must be able to threaten back. In that case, it is primarily about American nuclear weapons. I may have called them ours, but for God's sake, it must not be interpreted as Sweden having its own nuclear weapons. We have, after all, signed the NPT agreement, which the member knows very well, and would violate international law if we did this.

If the member has interpreted it in this way, it is a misinterpretation, or else he does not understand what I am saying.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! I listened only to what the member said in the speech and wrote it down as he said it. It is clear that one can interpret things differently, but I found that particular sentence to be a bit remarkable. It concerned perhaps the word "our". I must apologize if the member feels that I have misinterpreted him.

I am glad to hear that we are in no way deviating from the line we have had previously. I would, however, like to see an even stronger effort for increased international disarmament. While we disarm, we must get China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, Israel and other nuclear-armed states to work towards reducing the amount of nuclear weapons in the world. This is something one hears almost nothing about from the government parties.

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

Joar Forssell (L)

Madam Speaker! There is much that I and Member Risberg agree on. Both believe that increased democratization in the world is what fundamentally builds a stable and long-term peace. During the previous parliamentary term, the Liberals, together with the Green Party and the Centre Party, fought to increase democracy assistance. During this parliamentary term, we have, together with the Christian Democrats, fought to maintain it, which we have succeeded in doing.

We believe that diplomacy is a way forward - perhaps the most important. We also believe in international law and the rules-based world order - or, if you will, the liberal and democratic world order, which is synonymous with this. It is clear that liberals stand behind the liberal world order - it cannot come as a surprise to the member or anyone else.

But I have a question about the autonomous weapons, because from the member's speech, one could get the impression that the Green Party believes that if we just sit down and discuss with Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping and some other of the world's dictators, we will be able to reach a solution where they do not develop these weapons and where they do not create this capability that they obviously intend to be able to use against us.

I simply wonder if the Green Party believes that we could achieve success in preventing Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping and other dictators from acquiring these weapons.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

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

100 years ago, there were not many of the conventions we have today that regulate what one may and may not do in war. There were, for example, no conventions against biological warfare or biological weapons. There were no conventions against chemical weapons. Over the last 50-100 years, we have developed this type of conventions, and the vast majority of states follow them because they realize that it is also in their interest to follow them.

When new weapons systems are developed, we must be quick to establish international rules even for that type of weapons system. Violations of the chemical weapons convention still occur. Does that mean it is ineffective? Absolutely not! But it must mean that through the conventions we also have the opportunity to punish those who violate them. Had we, at the time when chemical weapons were still being used, responded by developing our own chemical weapons instead of working to get a ban on them, we would have had a completely different, much worse, world order than the one we have today.

At the same time as we see that these weapons are being developed, we must be quick to begin discussing this type of weapons system, because of course it is also in the interest of China, North Korea, and Russia not to be attacked by autonomous weapons. It is what I am convinced they understand, in the same way that they do not want to be attacked by either chemical weapons systems or biological weapons systems.

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

Joar Forssell (L)

Madam Speaker! In this debate, perhaps in contrast to the one with the Moderaterna earlier here in the chamber, it sounds as if the Miljöpartiet has listened to the debate. That is indeed pleasing, because in the Miljöpartiet's reservation, it states that they want an international convention that prohibits autonomous weapons. In this debate, the Miljöpartiet says that they want to regulate autonomous weapons and how they are used.

It is clear that everyone in this chamber thinks we should have rules and regulations for how we conduct war, regardless of which weapons we use. We are completely open to having regulations when it comes to autonomous weapons, just as we have regulations when it comes to other weapon systems. But we are now in a situation where a cold war more and more frequently takes on warm expressions, where China is becoming increasingly aggressive towards Taiwan, where Iran has used its proxy groups to wage war against Israel and others, and where Russia has attacked and is attempting to carry out a full-scale invasion of Ukraine. I do not believe that in this situation we will get these dictators to sit down and agree to any form of ban on autonomous weapons.

If we were to do that, Madam Speaker, I believe we would be helpless on the day the war moves forward from the areas where there is war today and moves closer to Sweden. Then we will have nothing to set against it if we have tied ourselves up. That is why we must have this capability, even we. Then we shall follow laws and rules and have laws and rules for how one is allowed to conduct war. It is completely fundamental.

Madam Speaker! I wonder: Does the Green Party believe that Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin will refrain from developing and using autonomous weapons if the Green Party were to push through its policy? And does the Green Party still want to ban these weapon systems entirely, or has the position changed to only wanting to regulate how war is waged?

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

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

This is a scale. Autonomous weapons are not just a single weapons system. It is also a scale of how autonomous the weapons systems are. Somewhere there, of course, there must be regulations and some type of prohibition.

I grew up, among other things, in the 80s and learned how to protect oneself against nuclear war. It was an extremely difficult situation, when we also had violations of Swedish waters by submarines - nuclear-armed submarines. I remember this threat. I remember the fear of a nuclear war. At the same time, one succeeded in developing and discussing new agreements. The INF Treaty was signed in the 80s by Reagan and Gorbachev.

It is possible to conduct a dialogue even as we see the world becoming increasingly heated. We must dare to believe in that. We cannot just bet on increased militarization and increased rearmament and believe that it will make these villains not use this type of weapons. It doesn't work that way.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 11 December.)

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