Strategic export control 2023 - military equipment and dual-use products

Morgan Johansson (S)

Madam Speaker! We are to discuss the government's annual report on strategic export control, more specifically the export of war materiel and dual-use products.

Sweden has a high-quality production of defense materiel. This is partly a consequence of our long period of non-alignment. As a non-aligned country, there was an intrinsic value in being able to manufacture our own weapons so that we would not have to be dependent on anyone else.

Over the years, we have therefore, together with the industry, built up a production that measures up well with the great powers' materiel, yes, and which many times is also better than what the great powers themselves produce.

So we have, for example, our own production of fighter jets, the Jas Gripen, which are world-class aircraft. The same applies to Swedish submarines, which are also of the highest world class. It applies to main battle tanks, armored personnel carriers and airborne radar systems, and there are many more examples.

The defense industry is simply a great asset for Sweden. Against the background of the serious security policy situation, with a major war in Europe where Russia has attacked Ukraine, it is naturally an even greater asset. This applies both for the Swedish defense and now also for Nato, but also in order to be able to help Ukraine in the war that is currently being fought.

That question has characterized the recent years. Sweden has from the very beginning supported Ukraine financially and humanitarily, but also militarily. Just four days after Russia's invasion in February 2022, the then Social Democratic government decided to send weapons to Ukraine.

It was 5,000 rounds of armor-piercing ammunition, which were so much needed in Ukraine at that exact moment to be able to knock out Russian armored vehicles that were then attempting to seize Kyiv. They did not succeed, partly due to the weapons that Sweden and other countries provided.

A delegation from the Committee on Foreign Affairs visited Ukraine a little over a year ago. We could then see on-site how important it was at the critical time in the spring of 2022 that one quickly received help with just the type of weapons that were needed at that time.

The decision to send weapons to Ukraine was historic. It was the first time since the Finnish Winter War in 1939 that Sweden decided to send weapons to another country at war. It was historic, but it was also necessary, and it was right.

That is why Ukraine's cause is our cause. They are not just fighting a war for their own independence and their democracy, but also for all of us. If Putin gets his way in Ukraine, he will proceed with other countries. That is how it is with despots. They must be stopped while there is time.

This naturally also has an impact on this communication. During 2023, 21 export permits have been granted for state donations, and an additional 16 permits for private companies, regarding military materiel to Ukraine. These primarily concern ground combat and missile systems.

So it concerns 2023. But since then, new decisions have also been made, and we can well imagine that it will continue. Sweden shall continue to support Ukraine as long as it is needed. There is broad agreement in the Riksdag on that.

Madam Speaker! The question mark in this communication regarding Ukraine is rather something else. In this respect, it is not so much about what is written in the communication, but what is not written. Ukraine has for a long time requested help with fighter jets. At the top of their wish list has been – and stands – the Jas Gripen, which is perfectly suited for the type of warfare that Ukraine is forced to conduct.

We Social Democrats already demanded this summer that Sweden should go to Ukraine's aid and send JAS to Ukraine when Sweden joined NATO.

It was investigated by the Armed Forces, and they submitted their investigation in the middle of December last year. But since then, unfortunately, there has been silence from the government for over five months. We have, on our part, repeatedly requested a statement from the government.

Finally, a decision arrived last week, and it was a negative decision. The JAS to Ukraine was postponed indefinitely with the motive that American F16s would go first. It was said that one could not have both systems. It was an explanation that then became shameful when France, also last week, announced that they would send French Mirage. I wonder: If they can send French aircraft – why can we not send Swedish when we know how highly in-demand it is by Ukraine? It is a question that must be asked in this debate.

Madam Speaker! In order to be able to maintain a Swedish defense industry, one must also have arms exports - otherwise, it cannot be made to work. A country of Sweden's size that is to be able to maintain a defense industry must also be able to sell weapons and other defense materiel to other countries.

The total export of war materiel amounted to 18 billion kronor in 2023. 80 percent of this went to the 39 countries with which we have long-term relations. The largest recipients are USA and Brazil. It must nevertheless be said that this is, of course, a very difficult balancing act. Which countries should be supplied with defense materiel and which countries should not be supplied with defense materiel? It is an eternal and important discussion that we have ongoing.

I still want to say that Sweden has the world's strictest legislation when it comes to the export of defense materiel. Our weapons shall not go to countries that conduct wars of aggression against other countries, and we shall strictly follow the decisions on, for example, arms embargoes against individual countries that the UN, EU, or OSCE adopt.

The Swedish strict legislation became even stricter in 2018, when Sweden, among other things, was the only country in the world to introduce a specific democracy criterion for exports. The recipient country's democratic status shall be weighed when deciding on export permits, and we are therefore alone in this in the world.

We are also alone in having a system where all the parties in the Riksdag have insight into and can influence the decisions that the responsible authority, ISP, makes. This happens through the so-called Export Control Council. It is an advisory body, but it carries great weight when it comes to the individual cases. And all parties participate, as stated, in this work.

Another thing I want to mention in the control regime we have is that since 2022, Sweden has had a system for follow-up controls. This means that ISP systematically visits different recipient countries to ensure that what Sweden has exported has actually gone to the right place and has not been re-exported to other countries. Not many other countries do this. This is another tightening of export controls that came with the new legislation in 2018 and which a broad majority in this Riksdag stood behind, which in itself is also a great asset for Sweden.

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

Yasmine Eriksson (SD)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the report Strategic Export Control 2023 - war materiel and dual-use products. It is a very important subject in times of widespread terror, warfare, and threats from antagonists. The world is in a tense state. We have the Russian dictatorship attacking democratic Ukraine, we see China's threats against Taiwan, and we see the terror group Hamas, which attacked Israel and carried out the largest deadly attack against Jews since World War II.

The Sweden Democrats stand up for a rules-based and democratic world order. It is a world order that is currently struggling against a negative trend. We therefore need to stand up for democracy and be helpful where we can for those countries that now and in the future need to defend their right to exist and preserve their democracies.

Madam Speaker! The Sweden Democrats see things coming, and we are not naive. This also applies to Swedish export control and the war materiel industry. We have long pursued a policy that favors the Swedish manufacture of war materiel and exports, which more or less is a prerequisite for this industry. We have historically, since we entered the Riksdag, worked for simpler rules and fewer parameters to take into account that complicate matters for the Swedish war materiel industry.

It has, for example, been about the feminist foreign policy, which under the previous Social Democratic government complicated the whole thing and made export matters more complicated. The policy also touched on areas such as Sweden should assess other states' domestic political priorities in the event of an export.

Madam Speaker! The previous mismanagement of the policy in this area has been a contributing factor to the fact that we today have a system with an agency that handles these matters instead of them being handled by the Government Offices.

It is about extensive audits of export deals as early as the 1980s, about export- and industry-inhibiting red tape, and about the fact that the Armed Forces in Sweden were significantly scaled back. It is this policy that has largely contributed to the fact that Sweden, in the current situation, does not have sufficient capacity to both upgrade our own defense at the pace we want and contribute to Ukraine to a greater extent.

Madam Speaker! The previous government continued on the destructive path, and the export control policy was fragmented by having the authority that regulates the issue, ISP, moved to be formally regulated by one department while it was actually governed from another. It is a very strange arrangement that has no parallel in Swedish administration.

The then S-government also had obvious problems with implementing important policy in the area that there was total consensus on in the Riksdag. It concerned the introduction of post-controls of war materiel, that is, enabling ISP to perform on-site checks to ensure that war materiel has not ended up in the wrong hands.

The introduction of this control function was delayed by several years. Finally, it was introduced, as Morgan Johansson mentioned. But Sweden now lags behind other states regarding this control function. It is serious, especially now when the export of military materiel is increasing. Due to the Social Democrats' sluggishness, Swedish weapons risk to an increased extent of ending up in the wrong hands and being used by terrorists and criminals.

Madam Speaker! A policy has been pursued that has prevented Sweden from exporting war materiel to democratic states such as Taiwan and Israel. But at the same time, we import war materiel from precisely Israel. It is war materiel that has been necessary to protect us, and at this moment, all of us in this chamber are protected by systems manufactured in Israel. We should be grateful that the opportunity has existed for us to import war materiel from Israel, but at the same time, there are extensive political obstacles to exporting to the country. Is that not just a great hypocrisy, all of it?

Madam Speaker! It is very welcome that an investigation is now being conducted which has several directives that will facilitate domestic war materiel production and war materiel export. But we Sverigedemokrater want to go further and propose that the export of war materiel to the world's democracies such as Ukraine, Taiwan and Israel be facilitated. It is absolutely necessary for us to be able to protect ourselves against the dictators' aggressions. It also gives us an increased opportunity for cooperation to contribute to Ukraine, which is the most acute task at the moment.

Madam Speaker! For this reason, I move for the approval of reservation 3 in the report.

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Madam Speaker! There were two things in Yasmine Eriksson's contribution that made me jump a little.

The first was when she said that the feminist foreign policy had placed obstacles in the way of arms exports. I just wonder: What does she mean concretely? Which countries do the Sverigedemokraterna think we should have exported to but have not been able to export to because women's and children's rights are systematically violated? Which countries is it that Yasmine Eriksson means we should be able to export to? Is it, for example, Iran she means, where women's rights are systematically violated? Or what does she actually mean when she says that the feminist foreign policy placed obstacles in the way of arms exports? Which countries is she referring to?

My second question concerns Israel, to which the Sweden Democrats want to export weapons. I said in my post that our Swedish weapons should not go to countries that conduct wars of aggression in other countries or in other areas. It is completely obvious that Israel is not only occupying Palestinian land and has done so for many years, but is also currently in the middle of a war with dreadful consequences. 35,000-40,000 people have died, of which a very large proportion are civilians, women, and children.

We shall not have any arms exports to Israel. We have not had it since the 50s. If the Sweden Democrats now, when one finds oneself in this horrific war, want Swedish weapons to go to this type of war where civilians, as said, run a very great risk of being killed, it is a total violation, I would like to say, of all the principles we have had for Swedish war materiel exports for decades.

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

Yasmine Eriksson (SD)

Madam Speaker! When I spoke about the feminist foreign policy having been an obstacle, I was perhaps not speaking of an obstacle to exporting to certain countries, but rather about bureaucratic red tape at the agency ISP. It costs money, resources, and personnel to have expanded parameters for what it must take into account. The feminist foreign policy was incredibly difficult to interpret precisely in the matter of exporting war materiel. It was therefore more about our internal Swedish governance of the agencies' work than about which countries should be allowed to receive the export.

When it comes to exporting to Israel, as Morgan Johansson asked about, it is the same thing there. Firstly, Israel is a democratic state. Secondly, it is not Israel that is conducting a war of aggression. They are conducting a defensive war where they are both trying to eliminate the terrorists who murdered Israelis on their land and trying to bring home their hostages. Had Hamas laid down their weapons, surrendered, and returned the hostages, an incredibly large number of civilians could have been saved.

That many civilians are dying in Palestine is Hamas's fault. Had Hamas laid down their weapons, this could have reached a much earlier end.

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Madam Speaker! Does Yasmine Eriksson, regarding the feminist foreign policy, mean that ISP should not check if women's and children's rights are systematically violated in the countries that may be subjects of our arms exports? Is this what she means?

I know that the Sweden Democrats stood outside the agreement on the export control legislation we have now, where we, among other things, introduced a democracy criterion so that ISP will also look at democratic rights. That did not need to be done previously. Now we receive the message from the Sweden Democrats that they also do not think that ISP should look at whether women's and children's rights are systematically violated because it becomes complicated. Yes, then it shall be complicated in that case. I still think it is important that we get to know what type of countries our weapons go to and that we thus have that type of strictness in the legislation.

I received no answer as to which countries Yasmine Eriksson would, in that case, want us to export weapons to. Iran is, as mentioned, a country where women's rights are systematically violated. We must assume that it is not that country she is thinking of.

When it comes to Israel, it has been established for decades through UN resolutions that Israel occupies Palestinian land. They are also currently in a war. Sweden's position has at all times been that we do not export weapons to countries in those types of situations. We do not want our weapons to go to that type of warfare.

If we have a situation where tens of thousands of people have actually died, my simple message is: Sweden shall not contribute to this through arms exports.

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

Yasmine Eriksson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I apparently need to repeat myself. This matter regarding the Social Democratic feminist foreign policy is not about which countries we should export to, but about the rules that our agency needs to comply with, which constituted an unnecessary complication.

Morgan Johansson asked me if the authority should not look at whether women's and children's rights are being violated. As I recall, women and children are also human beings. This should therefore fall under human rights, and that criterion already exists. An expanded criterion was not needed to look at this one more time, which would take more time and resources.

I maintain that Israel is defending itself. I fully agree that one should not kill civilians in war, but Hamas has an incredible responsibility here. I think we talk far too little about their responsibility when it comes to the civilians in Gaza.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Madam Speaker! I also recoiled at Member Eriksson's speech regarding arms exports to Israel. It is because we find ourselves in a completely and terribly horrible situation that we see every day in Gaza. We constantly see on our mobiles and in our feeds how children are being murdered and how the humanitarian situation is completely unbearable.

In that situation, the Sweden Democrats want to send Swedish weapons to Israel to be used in that war. One then wonders, partly, which weapons the Sweden Democrats envision should be sent to Israel, and partly, in what way it shall be legitimized that Palestinian children are killed with Swedish weapons.

One also wonders how the Sweden Democrats view the court processes that Israel is involved in - both in the ICJ, the International Court of Justice, where South Africa has brought them before the genocide commission, and in the ICC, the International Criminal Court, where leading representatives for both Hamas and Israel could potentially face prosecution for crimes against humanity. Will Sweden then be prosecuted as part of the accusations that have been directed at Israel's and Hamas's representatives?

Democracy is spoken of very sharply. It is interesting to hear the Sweden Democrats' view on it. It is established that Israel is a democracy, and in the next breath, one says that one probably does not want a democracy criterion. It is so difficult with women, children, human rights and such.

Someone has to decide at some point, and it is obvious that the Sweden Democrats have done so. They want a military equipment policy based on the government or the party deciding which countries they like and then exporting to them. I believe it is better if we use principles and base ourselves on them. Then we can discuss what policy we have.

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

Yasmine Eriksson (SD)

Madam Speaker! The issue of Israel probably cannot be avoided when we debate a foreign policy report.

I think it is important that Israel contributes to fighting terrorists, terrorists who also threaten Sweden and our like-minded countries. Furthermore, it is not only Hamas that Israel needs to defend itself against. We have also seen Iran attack Israel in recent times. It is therefore justified that one can have defense materiel, and I think it is reasonable that Sweden could also open up to exporting defense materiel to Israel - in the same way that we have also purchased from them.

The members of the Riksdag ask me which weapons we would sell to Israel. That question is not on my table. It would be agreed upon between Israel and our Swedish companies and then controlled by a Swedish authority, not by a member of the Swedish Riksdag outside the Export Control Council.

As regards the court proceedings, they shall of course take place in the usual order. I cannot comment before any judgments have been rendered. I also believe that everyone has the right to raise the issue to the courts that are appropriate for them.

I have also nowhere said that I want to remove the democracy criterion. Nor have I equated feminist foreign policy with a democracy criterion. I therefore wonder what Håkan Svenneling means by that I would want to remove the democracy criterion.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Madam Speaker! It is obvious that the Sweden Democrats are trying to make the world very simple for themselves. It fits better into the politics they are trying to pursue. They want to fight terrorists. That is their ambition, and then they want to send weapons to fight terrorists. They do not think about any consequence whatsoever of what those weapons lead to; we see a horrific genocide taking place in Gaza. Over 35,000 people have already been killed. Many of them are children and young people under 18 years old. There have been eight months of blockade from food, water, medicine, and electricity in Gaza. On top of that, there is a blockade that has been ongoing against Gaza for 17 years.

I believe that terrorism can be fought in many ways. One can absolutely kill terrorists. But the question is whether one should accept the type of civilian killing and civilian casualties that we see in Gaza. In the Sweden Democrats' world, it seems to be completely okay. I am of a different opinion.

I believe it is better if Sweden is clear towards the state of Israel, towards its government and towards its military that one is in court because one has not followed international law. One is there because one must take responsibility for the actions one has committed.

No one thinks anything positive about Hamas. It is a terrorist organization. We will condemn it. But the difference is that Hamas does not have an embassy in Sweden from which we can call the ambassador and yell at them. Israel is a state and a subject that we can deal with. We cannot do that when it comes to Hamas.

I think that this might be the worst idea I have heard anyone utter in the Swedish Riksdag, especially after eight months of war in Gaza.

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

Yasmine Eriksson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I want to be very clear that we also do not want to see any civilian casualties. The Sweden Democrats, together with the government, have also increased the humanitarian aid to Palestine and Gaza.

We have also stated several times that we want to see humanitarian ceasefires, precisely so that it will be possible to get aid to the population in Gaza. One should therefore not try to make it appear as if we would oppose the population in Gaza. We are against the terrorist organization Hamas.

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

Stefan Olsson (M)

Madam Speaker! The subject of this debate is the Committee on Foreign Affairs' report number 9. I would like to begin by, on behalf of the majority, move to approve the committee's proposal in all parts.

Madam Speaker! Weapons are good. Swedish weapons are good. Swedish weapons are being used at this moment to defend Ukraine and thus also Sweden. We Swedes should be proud of that.

I say this because for many years it has been claimed that arms trade is dirty. Municipalities and regions in Sweden have had as an ethical policy for their financial investments to never invest in the weapons industry. But when we today see how our Swedish weapons come into use, I believe everyone understands what a stroke of luck it is that we never dismantled the war materiel industry in Sweden. It means that Sweden can assist Ukraine in a way that we otherwise would never have been able to do.

Today, the parties in the Riksdag are competing over who wants to send weapons to Ukraine the most. It is hardly possible to distinguish right-wing parties from left-wing parties in that debate. That was not the case before.

I therefore had to check if Miljöpartiet had abolished its old requirement that arms exports should be completely phased out. I checked what is stated in the party's party program. It still says there that "Sweden shall contribute to military disarmament in the world. Miljöpartiet de grönas goal is therefore a phased-out arms export."

The party program in question is from 2013. A lot has happened since then. It would be interesting to learn more about the Green Party's current position on the Swedish weapons industry. I would therefore like to urge the Green Party's representatives here in the chamber to clarify the party's position. Is the goal still for arms exports to be phased out?

Madam Speaker! As appears from the government's communication, an investigation was appointed in November last year to review what changes in the legislation on the export of war materiel may need to be made by reason of the fact that we are now members of Nato. From the directives to the investigation, it appears that the main frameworks for today's system of export control will not be changed.

What is primarily worth noting and that we may have reason to return to is the issue that Swedish weapons manufacturing is not as Swedish as one might think. When new weapons systems are developed, it is done in cooperation with companies in other countries. It will be required that we synchronize our legislation with other countries, especially within the EU, so that we can reach an agreement on which countries can be considered for arms exports. Possibly, export control should instead lie with the EU from now on.

Madam Speaker! When Russia attacked Ukraine in February 2022, we had a debate on whether the Swedish guidelines for arms exports allowed us to send weapons to a country that was in a state of war. Now all parties agree that this is permitted. Still, I note that in the government's communication it still states: "Permission for the export of war materiel for combat, or for other international cooperation concerning war materiel for combat or other war materiel, should not be granted if it concerns a state that is in an armed conflict."

It is admittedly a condition that can be departed from. We have also done so. But since the wording, in light of the war in Ukraine, has become obsolete, it may be reasonable that when we revise the guidelines next time, we clarify that countries defending themselves in accordance with Article 51 of the UN Charter may be permitted to export weapons to, provided that the countries fulfill all other criteria.

Madam Speaker! Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine seems to have been the starting point of an increasingly uneasy time in the world. Sweden and other countries are rearming. The Swedish defense industry will play an important role here in the defense of not only our country but the entire free world.

Previously, the defense industry has, as said, been questioned. Those who have defended it have done so by referring to the large export value and all the jobs it has created. But today, these arguments pale in the face of what could become a new and more dangerous world.

The value of the Swedish defense industry is that it actually exists and does not need to be built up from scratch. There were many things that did not turn out well during the 30 years of peace and detente that we have had since the Cold War. Almost all countries disarmed their defenses far too much. But fortunately, we did not do that with the Swedish defense industry. We kept it. We should be happy about that now when we once again have to rearm.

In many parts of the world, the arms trade is a dirty business, and weapons end up remarkably often in the wrong hands. But that is not the case for Swedish exports. The regulatory framework is strict, the companies are responsible, and the parliamentary oversight is thorough.

It is therefore time now to say that investments in the Swedish weapons industry are good investments and to urge municipalities and pension funds to rewrite their ethical guidelines. Swedish weapons make the world safer for everyone. That is something we should be proud of.

(Applause)

In this speech, Joar Forssell (L) and Gustaf Göthberg (M) agreed.

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Madam Speaker! To begin with, I was a little surprised when Stefan Olsson opened up to move the decision-making power over arms exports to the EU level. I would strongly advise against that. At the end of his contribution, Stefan Olsson said that we have a regulatory framework that we have control over, companies that we can engage in dialogue with, and as strong control possibilities as can be achieved. One would not get that if one were to move this to the EU level. Then Swedish weapons could end up just about anywhere. If Stefan Olsson now opened that door a little bit in his contribution – close it again as soon as possible! This shall be Swedish decisions and lie under Swedish control.

The reason I requested a reply was that I want a response to the question regarding Jas to Ukraine. I mentioned in my contribution that we in our party, the Social Democratic Party, already in August requested that Sweden should review the possibility of sending Jas to Ukraine once Sweden had joined Nato. The government asked the Armed Forces to look into that question. They submitted a basis in the middle of December 2023, and then the government sat on it for over five months without giving any announcement.

Last week we finally received some kind of announcement. It turned out that there probably wouldn't be any Jas to Ukraine, at least not in the foreseeable future. The explanation was that the F16, the American plane, would go first and that one could not have two systems simultaneously. But just a few days later we were told that French planes, Mirage, would be sent to Ukraine. Then it was obviously possible to have several systems simultaneously. My simple question to Stefan Olsson is therefore why one cannot send Swedish planes when one can send French planes.

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

Stefan Olsson (M)

Madam Speaker! Unfortunately, I do not have much more information than what has emerged in the media. It is the same information that Morgan Johansson has. I therefore cannot provide a background on how the government has intended, but here I must probably urge the member to submit an interpellation to the Minister for Defence.

I also just want to remind everyone of what representatives for the Social Democrats, in both government and opposition, said when representatives for my party thought we should send the Archer artillery system to Ukraine. I want to remember that the government at that time, in which Member of Parliament Johansson himself was a minister, meant that it was very difficult and needed to be investigated, and that it might not be as simple as just sending the Archer system. I also want to remember that even former Defense Minister Peter Hultqvist said that – but now, as a Member of Parliament, he has returned to this and pointed out to the current Defense Minister that it probably was not that simple to send a weapons system.

I believe that Member Morgan Johansson makes it a bit easy for himself if he imagines that it is just a matter of sending these aircraft down to Ukraine and then it is done. It is not that simple. I actually had to learn that from Johansson's colleague Peter Hultqvist.

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Madam Speaker! I know that this is not easy. I myself was responsible for arms exports in the Social Democratic government. I therefore know very well what kind of trade-offs were made. They were of two types. One was about what Ukraine needs, the other was about what is in Swedish stocks, which might also be quite quickly accessible and which Sweden can spare without lowering its guard and without the country's security being weakened. Those are the types of trade-offs one has to make, and we made them very quickly in the Social Democratic government.

Already four days after the Russian invasion, we began sending weapons. It was 5,000 rounds of armor-piercing ammunition. We then followed up in constant dialogue with the Armed Forces regarding what Ukraine needed and what we could send. It is therefore not strange at all that those types of trade-offs are made. This was done, among other things, regarding Archer. But now, the argument was not that it was complicated to send Jas. The argument from the Defense Minister's side was instead that one could not have dual systems, and then I can only state that France is now sending its Mirage planes alongside F16 planes. Why then can one not send Jas? There is no answer to that.

If one had been allowed to make a wish, the government would have prepared this with substantial training for pilots already during the autumn of 2023 so that it could then have been started already in the spring of 2024. Then one could have traveled down with Swedish planes. Now, this entire issue has been pushed into a distant future. We don't really know, but I can state one thing, and that is that the Jas plane is at the top of Zelenskyy's wish list. It is precisely aircraft that are very well suited for the type of warfare that his defense force is forced to conduct. I thought that Stefan Olsson had a better thumb than I with the government, and other answers, but obviously not.

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

Stefan Olsson (M)

Madam Speaker! As I understand the government's statements on this point, the Swedish government is not at all opposed to assisting Ukraine with Jases, but that it does not suit at this moment. It is therefore not a question of a no, but of whether we should wait. The argument was that Ukraine should primarily use American F16s, which are a type of aircraft that exists in larger quantities in Europe and has more users. Then came the news about French Mirages, and regarding that, I have no more knowledge than Member Johansson has. I must probably ask him to pose the question to a more knowledgeable person, namely the Minister for Defence.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Madam Speaker! The Government's report Strategic Export Control 2023 - war materiel and dual-use products shows that Swedish arms exports continue to be at a historically high level. In 2023, Swedish companies exported war materiel to a value of just over 18 billion kronor. The export value increased by approximately 18 percent compared to the previous year.

Among the buyers of Swedish weapons during 2023, there are a number of dictatorships, warring states, and countries that commit serious and extensive crimes against human rights. We also find countries that have taken large steps backward in their democratic development and where we see that violence and persecution of minorities and political opposition is increasing.

The double standard in Swedish arms exports is clearest in the arms exports to the states that are at war in Yemen. At the same time as the government speaks about the importance of democracy, peace, and women's rights, Sweden arms warring dictatorships that systematically violate women's rights and bomb the Yemeni people. Sweden will not have the credibility to be a voice for human rights anywhere on earth as long as this arms export continues. Nor is it possible for the Foreign Minister to declare that democratic values shall be the core of Swedish foreign policy while Sweden yields to Turkey's pressures regarding, among other things, arms exports in order to push through a Swedish NATO membership.

Madam Speaker! Sweden has during the past year exported a large amount of weapons to Ukraine. These are weapons that do good by protecting and defending Ukraine here and now. In principle, everything that has been sent to Ukraine has been forgiven, for free, but it is still weapons export and shall therefore be reported in this document.

Some are deliberately trying to misinterpret the Left Party's support for Ukraine. But we are clear that Sweden's support for Ukraine shall continue to be at a high level, both civil and humanitarian as well as financial and military.

All wars begin with one party attacking another. It is decided on the battlefield who is the strongest party, and the war always ends through negotiations and agreements. So it has happened for centuries, and so it will happen this time too. But it is the Ukrainian people who shall decide when and how they want to negotiate, not anyone else. We shall give them the best possible conditions. Preferably, Putin should capitulate – ideally already today.

In connection with the EU election yesterday, a survey was released showing that the voters of Vänsterpartiet are at the top when it comes to wanting to increase the EU's support for Ukraine. The only party that stands out negatively is Sverigedemokraterna. I know that there are Sverigedemokrater who are clear in their support, but Sverigedemokraterna has a homework assignment to do compared to other parties in Sweden.

With support in international law and the UN Charter, Vänsterpartiet stands behind Sweden's military, economic, and humanitarian support for Ukraine. People's right to live in peace and security is unconditional, and every country's ability to govern its own future must be defended. Russia's great power aggression constitutes a threat to a rules-based world order and is a flagrant violation of the principles of peace, détente, and international cooperation that should prevail.

We in Vänsterpartiet believe that Sweden should prioritize exports to Ukraine over exports to other states. Moving forward, we need to work together with our Ukrainian partners to help track where all the weapons end up. War is by its nature messy. Many conflicts throughout history have shown that weapons disappear and all too often find legs and make their way to new wars and conflicts or to gang criminals who want to use the weapons for their purposes.

Together with Ukraine, we must counteract what is happening with the Swedish weapons that have been exported. Ukraine has acted credibly. It is important that this diligence remains. I see that there are good opportunities and conditions to work together on that.

Madam Speaker! Let me move on to this debate's most important issue: Sweden's military ties to Israel's military, weapons industry and government.

The occupation of Palestine has been ongoing for more than 75 years. The horrific war in Gaza has now been ongoing for more than eight months. This time, it started with Hamas's horrific attack on Israel, where many civilians lost their lives and some are still being held hostage. We have all condemned Hamas time and again.

After eight months, the humanitarian situation in Gaza is now completely horrible. Over 35,000 people have been killed. Israel's blockade of Gaza means that the people of Gaza have been denied the most basic necessities, such as water, food, medicine, and electricity, for over eight months. It is about Gazans who are not Hamas and Gazans who are often under 18 years old.

The UN has repeatedly pleaded, but world leaders, and especially not Israel's government, have not listened. Instead, Benjamin Netanyahu's own power has been placed before human life and peace. This has led to the fact that legal proceedings are now underway in the courts of the ICJ and ICC regarding crimes against international law. It is likely that an arrest warrant against Netanyahu will be issued. And note that Hamas is also indicted! Now we must deploy all resources to put pressure on Israel.

Swedish voters were clear yesterday. They want peace in Gaza. Two weeks ago, we in the opposition presented a joint proposal on how Sweden should act to uphold international law and principles of international law. We can start by freezing the association agreement, a kind of preferential trade agreement, between Israel and the EU.

Madam Speaker! What does this have to do with arms exports? Well, it has been shown that during the past year, Sweden has both imported and exported weapons to Israel. The Swedish arms exports have consisted of partly so-called follow-on deliveries, and partly weapon parts that have not been covered by our rules for arms exports.

It concerns primarily red dot sights, which have been exported by the company Aimpoint in cooperation with its Israeli partner Emtan. These are sights that are fundamentally intended for hunting but have now ended up on weapons from Emtan and are used by both the Israeli military and the settler movement to murder Palestinians - and we do not even control this export. It is staggering.

Today, we in Vänsterpartiet have submitted a sharp proposal to stop the export of red dot sights and other similar products to Israel and to have it included in our regulatory framework for arms exports. Miljöpartiet has joined our proposal. Other parties are happy to talk about stopping the war in Gaza, but unfortunately, we see no action in this part today.

Another part concerns the imports from Israel's largest weapons manufacturer, Elbit. Elbit has been clear in its marketing that its systems are so-called battle-proven, tested in war, that is to say, tested on Palestinians. Sweden's Armed Forces signed in October last year - in the middle of a burning war in Gaza - a long agreement with Elbit regarding a so-called command system.

Against that background, exporting war materiel and having military cooperation and contacts with Israel becomes an indirect support. Vänsterpartiet considers that all military contacts with Israel must be terminated immediately. The agreement with the Israeli weapons company Elbit must be revoked. All arms exports to Israel, including follow-up deliveries, should cease immediately.

Today, no arms exports from the EU to the Palestinian parties occur, but several EU countries export weapons to Israel. The world should impose an arms embargo against Israel. All arms exports from the EU countries to Israel must cease.

Vänsterpartiet further considers that it is time for the Swedish military attaché in Israel to be recalled. The extensive exchange ongoing between the Swedish Defence and the Israeli army must be stopped immediately. Sweden shall not be a country that indirectly supports the killing of innocent civilians.

Sweden and the international community have great opportunities to act against Israel's occupation of Palestine. Cutting off the supply of weapons is an effective tool to exert pressure and create an arms embargo against Israel.

Madam Speaker! In this year's report, there is a classified section. I think it is unfortunate that exports are reported in this manner. Swedish arms exports should be characterized by openness and transparency. Historically, these have been our watchwords and should be so in the future as well.

The document also describes how Swedish membership in Nato changes the conditions for the export of war materiel and that the government appointed an inquiry in November 2023 in light of the Swedish Nato membership. Under the leadership of the former Moderate Speaker Per Westerberg, the inquiry shall review the guidelines for export and other international cooperation in light of a Swedish Nato membership as well as international materiel cooperation and regulation of subcontractors to the Swedish defense industry.

The investigation has already received relevant criticism as only the defense industry, through Saab's vice chairman, has been given a place among the few outside experts. The investigation risks becoming a commissioned work for the industry, not for the Swedish people.

ISP was granted permits during 2022 for follow-up deliveries to Turkey in view of the changed defense and security policy circumstances. Without changing the legislation, it is therefore suddenly possible to again export weapons to Turkey, even though the country as recently as this year has made itself liable for military attacks in the neighboring countries Iraq and Syria.

Vänsterpartiet warned early about the risks of applying for membership in a military alliance such as Nato with, among others, Turkey. That other countries should be allowed to dictate the terms for Swedish politics is unacceptable.

In 2022, Sweden exported weapons to Albania. ISP's Director General Carl Johan Wieslander argues that no export to either Turkey or Albania would likely have been granted if it were not for Sweden's Nato application.

Sweden must have an independent policy regarding arms exports and not be governed or influenced by Nato.

I vote in favor of reservation 2.

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

Yasmine Eriksson (SD)

Madam Speaker! Vänsterpartiet has, in its follow-up motion to the document we are debating, submitted a number of demands. What they all have in common is that they want to restrict and complicate the export of war materiel. Not a single proposal benefits or develops the Swedish defense industry. Despite this, Vänsterpartiet is now also in favor of Sweden sending war materiel to Ukraine, which is good. But I wonder how that adds up. They are submitting proposals that undermine and restrict the industry that is to manufacture the weapons needed to defend Ukraine and also Sweden.

If the Left Party wants to counter the industry that manufactures Swedish weapons, one also lacks credibility in terms of standing up for a stronger military defense. I therefore wonder how the Left Party and the member believe that this is supposed to go together.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Madam Speaker! We heard earlier that Member Olsson had engaged in some archival studies regarding the Green Party's party program. In the Left Party, we have just produced a new party program. In it, we define the direction that we as a country should principally take.

We mean that the world needs to move towards peace, disarmament and fewer weapons in circulation. A political awareness is needed regarding how profit interests and great power interests pull in a completely different direction.

We are clear in our party program that we want to increase state ownership in Swedish weapons production, so that key security policy decisions are made from a holistic perspective and not by individual interests.

Sweden shall be a country with high ambitions in international work. We shall work for sustainability, peace and democratic development. But then we cannot continue with arms exports to dictatorships, states that conduct wars of aggression or regimes that violate human rights.

For me, this is a clear policy. Sweden needs arms exports. But at the same time, one can sound like the Moderate member Olsson did, that is, like any lobbyist from a Swedish arms company. Is it perhaps a future career after politics? That step we have seen far too many politicians take. If one only highlights that arms exports are positive, one does not see the downside of arms exports. I very much welcome arms exports to Ukraine and to other states in our neighboring area, such as the Nordics and the Baltics. But I find it very difficult to see that Swedish arms exports, for example to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, have been as incredibly successful as it sounded in Olsson's and Eriksson's speeches.

For me, it is instead the focus on Ukraine and on building the Swedish defense and strengthening our neighboring countries that is important for building peace and security for Sweden and for the whole world. Therefore, we need to work on having good control over our weapons and look forward in that way.

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

Yasmine Eriksson (SD)

Madam Speaker! In one of the Left Party's motions, you write very clearly that you want us to ban exports to countries that are in war, which Ukraine is. That motion was submitted after Russia's full-scale war of aggression against Ukraine. You do agree to export to Ukraine. How is it that, after all this has happened, you are proposing that no such export should occur under any circumstances?

I also wonder about the Left Party's import proposal. Do you want Sweden to stop importing war materiel from the same countries that you want to see export bans for? From where shall we get our own defense if you simultaneously want to reduce Swedish production?

I also find it a bit interesting with the Left Party's idea of increasing state ownership in the defense companies in Sweden. How do you intend for that to happen? Are you going to force the companies to sell to the state? If you do not want to see as large an export, how will you then keep these companies running? How will you make the economy work if you simultaneously want to limit the export?

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Madam Speaker! I shall attempt to answer the member's three questions.

In our new party program, we are very clear that we want to ensure that we do not export to states that engage in wars of aggression. So we show that it is states like Russia that we do not want to export to, while it is permitted to export to Ukraine which is defending itself. It is a wording that has come about after we submitted this motion in connection with the communication. We understood that there was a certain dynamic in that but did not want to tinker with the motion until we had had the congress and adopted a new party program based on the formulations that came.

When it comes to imports, I fundamentally think it is quite strange that we have so many regulations, documents, and debates about our country's exports but do not look at our imports. Throughout history, we have imported things, for example from Belarus – I still today cannot understand how one could even think that it would be a good country to import from.

We should have a much clearer political regulation of our arms imports than we have today. Which principles should apply to such an import we can return to, but I believe other parties should reflect on the significance of the import.

Regarding our proposal for increased state ownership within the defense industry, I ask to be allowed to return to this as well, because we need to develop a policy regarding what we as a country should do. But what has been clear, and I think one can also see in the Defense Committee's report that came out this spring, is that more parties than before are on board when Vänsterpartiet talks about state ownership and taking back control and getting things under the public fence.

I do not believe that the weapons industry should be conducted 100 percent under state control, but I believe that if we have partial state control over the ownership of our weapons industry, we can achieve a better weapons industry where both the security perspective, the people's perspective, and the business perspective are seen together. Therefore, I am open to that type of solution.

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

Joar Forssell (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you to my fellow debaters from other parties for a good debate!

Sweden, together with the rest of the world's democratic countries that stand up for freedom and human rights, finds itself in a cold war with the world's authoritarian countries. The world's dictatorships are cooperating ever more closely against us. At the forefront is China, and closely following are Russia, Iran, and North Korea. These are countries that hate our democracy and the liberal world order, and that is why we need to strengthen the weapons industry in all countries that stand up for democracy and human rights.

Madam Speaker! Feminist foreign policy has been debated here earlier today. I am proud to be a feminist; I have been for my entire life. I am also a person who devotes a lot of myself to foreign policy, and for me, feminist foreign policy is to use weapons to protect countries where we have a relative equality, to protect women in other countries, and to crush regimes that oppress women.

When I was active in the youth organization, we had a campaign called "Bomb IS", Madam Speaker, and I think that is a very good example of feminist foreign policy. There is nothing more feminist than bombing oppressors of women. In the same way that police power is used against people who assault women here in Sweden, we shall, of course, use military power against Islamists, fascists, communists, and others who oppress women in other countries. That is why allowing arms exports is a completely vital part of being a feminist. One cannot be a feminist without allowing arms exports to countries that actually fight against the oppression of women.

Madam Speaker! For us as a democracy, having weapons is primarily about there being someone else who has weapons that we must defend ourselves against. If we have equality and democracy and safeguard human rights, for example in Sweden, and there are other countries – Russia is a good example – that receive weapons from Iran and China and want to come here and destroy our system, our way of life, and our liberal, democratic world order, then it is feminist and democratic to defend this with weapons in hand.

It is sad that it is so. It is sad that there are evil people who conspire against us and whom we must defend ourselves against, but that is the reality. That is how reality looks, and it is to protect democracy that we need a strengthened weapons industry and increased weapons exports.

Madam Speaker! There are those who think that we should not export weapons. As I understand it from this debate, they also do not think that we should produce everything ourselves in Sweden, but they still want an import of weapons. I believe almost everyone listening understands that this is quite illogical, because that is not how it works in any market. No country has the capacity to produce everything it needs by itself; instead, the economy works in such a way that we exchange things with one another. In principle, in the same way that I do not have the capacity to grow all my own food, sew all my own clothes, or write all the books that I read myself—it would be quite simplistic if I were to devote myself to this, Madam Speaker—it must work in the same way with this.

We in Sweden are good at producing certain things. We make fantastic submarines and fantastic fighter jets. We are involved in developing things like Excalibur and other incredibly fine military equipment, and then there are other countries that are good at other things. Therefore, we need to have trade. We need to be able to export, and we need to be able to import. If one does not understand that, I would say that one has difficulty saying that one stands up for democracy, and one also has difficulty claiming that one has understood how economy and trade work.

Madam Speaker! We were one of the parties that pushed for and introduced the democracy criterion in arms exports. This means that when the question is asked as to whether we should export weapons or not, it is important that the countries to which one exports respect democratic civil liberties and rights - that it is a democracy. That is one thing that is weighed in.

What is weighed in is actually the lack of democracy, i.e., if it is not a democracy, it weighs negatively. We in the Liberals want to complement the existing democracy criterion with a positive democracy criterion, which would mean that for countries that are democracies, the starting point is always that we should say yes to arms exports. We shall always say yes to exporting to countries that are democracies.

It is about the fact that democracies in the world are exposed to warfare from the world's dictatorships. A cold war is ongoing which, in some places, takes on warm expressions, such as China's threats against Taiwan and Russia's full-scale war of invasion against Ukraine. This cold war is ongoing constantly. That is why the democracy criterion is needed.

An example of a country that we should export to is Taiwan, which is one of the world's most functioning democracies. The Liberals have previously demanded that Sweden should export the Jas Gripen, and one can also imagine that Taiwan needs our submarines. Excalibur, which I mentioned earlier, is also a good example of a weapon that is not only Swedish but which has been developed together with our friends on the other side of the ocean in the USA.

Fundamentally, our starting point must be to allow arms exports to democracies. Taiwan is a good example of this. Government after government has not allowed it, and the Liberals deeply regret this.

Madam Speaker! I vote in favor of the committee's proposal and thank you for a good debate.

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

Yasmine Eriksson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I see that Member Forssell looks a bit questioning, but I have a question that is hopefully very simple and short. It concerns what the Member took up in his speech regarding a democracy criterion.

The member mentioned that he would gladly see us export war materiel to Taiwan. I therefore wonder why the member wants the Sweden Democrats' proposal on exactly this – that we should expand exports to democracies – to be rejected. We specifically mention Taiwan in our proposal, so I wonder why the member wants to see a rejection of a proposal that seems to go in the same direction as the one he himself wants to see.

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

Joar Forssell (L)

Madam Speaker! I believe Member Eriksson knows the answer very well, but we can also enjoy informing the rest of the world. It has been known for a long time that the Liberals want to export to all countries that are democracies. We have decisions on this from our congresses, what we call landsmöten.

I am glad that the Sweden Democrats have taken up and are driving this issue, and I hope that the Sweden Democrats will continue to drive it. It is always good with fire support, I want to say without trying to joke this away. The Liberals are in a government where negotiations take place with other parties, but if the Sweden Democrats read our party program, they will discover that it is not the Liberals who are standing in the way.

I hope that we will return to the debate, and I hope that we will receive fire-support from more parties. It has often been the case, Madam Speaker, that the Liberals have pushed something for some time, and then more and more parties join in so that we get through. Perhaps it will be so also in this issue, just as in the Nato issue, for example.

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

Yasmine Eriksson (SD)

Madam Speaker! Just this issue is not regulated in the Tidö Agreement, that is, the agreement between the government and the Sweden Democrats, so I hope that the Liberals and perhaps even we together can get the Christian Democrats and the Moderates to change their minds on this issue. This is incredibly important. We need to be able to support democracies all around the world.

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

Joar Forssell (L)

Madam Speaker! It is not just about the parties that sit in the government, but also about the parties that sat in the previous government. It should be noted that the Liberals have held this position longer than this government has ruled.

I hope that we will get both Centerpartiet, Vänsterpartiet, Socialdemokraterna and Miljöpartiet on board on this, because it is deeply unserious to claim that one stands up for democracy in the world if one cannot simultaneously export weapons to one of the world's leading democracies, in this case Taiwan.

Above all, the Social Democrats have for a long time engaged in hypocrisy. They have talked about democracy in the world, but at the same time they have cultivated a close relationship with the world's worst dictatorship, China. There, the Swedish economy has been exposed far too much to infiltration from Chinese so-called private companies. We know that such companies do not exist because all these companies are subordinate to the Communist Party.

At the same time, one has refused to develop the relations that Sweden should have with Taiwan in a good way. We should have diplomatic ties, we should have a House of Sweden, we should export weapons and we should have many more exchanges of various kinds when it comes to both tourism, business and politics. This has exposed Sweden to great risk, Madam Speaker, because China is the dictatorship in the world that is leading the cold war that is ongoing against us democracies.

It is clear that I regret that we have had so many governments led by the Social Democrats, who are known for their cowardice in this area. I hope that, in the issue the member raises, we can push to get the Social Democrats to change their stance and, for once, stand up for democracy in the world.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! The war in Gaza is hell on earth, and the humanitarian catastrophe continues week after week, day after day, hour after hour.

Our government continues to stand paralyzed in the face of the gross violations of international law we are seeing. No condemnations of the obvious war crimes have been issued yet. Instead, one continues to support the Israeli war chest through continued trade, even with war materiel.

Amidst the ongoing war in Gaza, we are informed that Swedish red dot sights from the company Aimpoint are being used by the Israeli occupying power in the fighting. The sights have also been used in the West Bank by the Netzah Yehuda battalion, which has a history of being accused of abuses and crimes.

The newspaper ETC has been able to produce photographic evidence that Aimpoint sights are used in combat in Gaza. An investigation in Expressen in the spring of 2022 also showed that the Russian security service FSB has had access to the Swedish-manufactured red dot sights.

These are clear examples of the importance of red dot sights being classified as war materiel and handled under a stricter regulatory framework. It is high time that the government decides to militarily classify red dot sights.

The government should also appoint an inquiry to review how the export control of products with dual-use can be further tightened. We consider that current legislation is far too unclear on several points. That red dot sights at present are not even classified as a dual-use product but are seen as a civil product, despite being produced specifically for both Swedish and American military, speaks for itself.

Madam Speaker! It is not only the handling of red dot sights that is upsetting regarding the government's arms trade policy. Sweden, for example, signed agreements with the Israeli company Elbit Systems after the current war in Gaza broke out. In April this year, the Defence Materiel Administration also announced in a discreet press release that it will purchase an Israeli target acquisition system from the company Rafael to be installed in the Jas Gripen.

We cannot have it this way. The EU's common position on arms exports obliges member states to ensure that the export of weapons and military equipment does not risk contributing to serious violations of international humanitarian law. We believe that the same yardstick should also apply to imports. By importing weapons from Israel, Sweden helps to replenish the war chest that feeds the war in Gaza.

There is no excuse for expanding military cooperation with Israel and supporting Israel's military financially during an ongoing war in this situation. We in Miljöpartiet want to see instead that Sweden immediately stops all military cooperation with Israel, that Sweden's defense attaché is recalled from the embassy, and that the EU imposes an arms embargo against Israel.

Madam Speaker! The agreements with Elbit and Rafael are clear examples of why Sweden needs to introduce corresponding regulations for the import of weapons that currently apply to export. But that is not the only thing. The historical buildup of the defense that we are now facing will involve increased import of war materiel. Importing war materiel often involves large procurements.

An agreement can involve promises of deliveries that stretch over decades. This means that Sweden will be purchasing essential systems for our defense from other countries, through which we will become directly dependent for a long period. There is a lack of transparency and political governance regarding how these trade-offs are made and what the long-term consequences may be of us in Sweden making ourselves dependent on other countries to equip our own defense.

Madam Speaker! The Green Party has for a long time demanded that the export rules be tightened, because even though a regulatory framework is in place today, it leaves far too much room for exceptions. Weapons continue to be delivered to non-democracies and countries that seriously lack respect for human rights.

We want to see a ban on arms exports, including follow-on deliveries, to dictatorships, warring countries, or countries where serious and extensive violations of human rights occur. A clear example of the absurdity in today's regulatory framework is the follow-on deliveries to Pakistan – despite it being 16 years since Sweden last signed an agreement with Pakistan, the country was the third largest buyer of Swedish war materiel in 2023.

Madam Speaker! These examples are clear: Sweden is failing in its responsibility to prevent violations of international humanitarian law through continued trade with Israel. Our regulatory framework is currently not sufficiently sharp to prevent Swedish trade with war materiel and dual-use products from contributing to oppression or serious violations of human rights. Therefore, I move for approval of reservation 4.

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

Joar Forssell (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you to Member Risberg! I have a question concerning the arms exports to Taiwan, which I raised in my speech.

The chairperson spoke about how the Green Party wants to ban exports to non-democracies and dictatorships. Taiwan is, however, one of the world's most functioning democracies, and the Green Party made a decision at its congress in 2021 - I believe it was - that they want to recognize Taiwan as an independent state. It is a rather radical decision. The Liberals have made a similar decision stating that the people of Taiwan have the right to decide their own future, which includes a recognition if it were the case that the people of Taiwan want it. The Green Party, however, goes a step further and wants to recognize Taiwan before Taiwan itself has requested it, so to speak.

So, one wants to recognize Taiwan. At the same time, we can observe that China supplies Russia with weapons that are used against Ukraine and that China constantly threatens Taiwan by practicing air raids, having its warships around the island and so on. They simulate various forms of attacks. I wonder therefore if Miljöpartiet still does not have to want to allow arms exports to Taiwan. It becomes strange to want to recognize a country and observe that it is one of the world's most well-functioning democracies and at the same time not want the country to be able to defend itself from one of the world's worst dictatorships – perhaps even the world's worst – namely China.

Does Miljöpartiet, therefore, in line with its congress decision on a recognition, also want to export weapons to the democracy Taiwan?

In this speech, Markus Wiechel (SD) agreed.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Forssell for a very interesting question.

I should not actually anticipate the question. We are generally skeptical of arms exports and want a negative arms export legislation that actually prohibits arms exports. I will therefore not anticipate a potential recognition of Taiwan and say that we are for arms exports to the country before we have reached the point where we feel it is appropriate to recognize the state of Taiwan. In the current situation, I would therefore say: No, not in the current situation – it is not appropriate today to export weapons to Taiwan.

Above all, we do not want to see increased militarization in the region, because we do not believe that it leads to an increased possibility of peaceful coexistence between China and Taiwan in the future. We hope that there are other solutions to that conflict.

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

Joar Forssell (L)

Madam Speaker! I am a bit in shock. The fact is that it is not I or Jacob who are anticipating the question, but it is the Green Party's congress. It is the Green Party's members who have decided on a recognition of Taiwan.

For the Liberals, it works in any case so that our regional meeting - that is what we call the congress - decides what we should think. Then we think that way and push those issues. I believe it works roughly the same way in Miljöpartiet too: If the members have decided that one should recognize Taiwan, then one should do it, and then I expect that Miljöpartiet's foreign policy spokesperson will want to do it. And if one recognizes a country that is also one of the world's most well-functioning democracies, it obviously becomes strange if one does not want to be able to provide it with weapons.

Then came an argument concerning militarization and so on, Madam Speaker. It is an argument that very strongly echoes the debate that existed in Europe before Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine. At that time, many said that we must not let Ukraine approach Nato because it provokes Russia. It was said that we should not give Ukraine too many weapons because it provokes Russia, contributes to militarization, and so on. Therefore, it was not done: Ukraine was not allowed to join Nato, and Ukraine was not supplied with the weapons the country needed. It was then that Russia attacked.

It is like this, Madam Speaker, that it is escalating not to provide those who are threatened with the means to protect themselves. It is escalating. It is escalating not to let democracies protect themselves when dictatorship is stomping on the ground outside and knocking on the door, so to speak. When Xi Jinping's dictatorship in China threatens Taiwan, it is escalating not to raise the thresholds for an attack, so it is clear that it is de-escalating—and in some sense in the long run demilitarizing—to provide Taiwan with weapons, just as it would have been to provide Ukraine with the weapons the country had needed.

Madam Speaker! Does Jacob Risberg not, then, stand behind the Green Party's congress and members' decision to recognize Taiwan - and should one not export weapons?

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the clarification of the member's question. To question A, I answer yes, and to question B, I answer no.

I naturally stand behind the decision that Miljöpartiet wants to see a recognition of Taiwan. Then it is the case, as the member very well knows, that it is not individual parties that recognize states. It is instead up to a government to do so. But, again: I do not want to anticipate such a decision and speak about what type of connection Sweden should have with the country after a possible such decision.

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

Stefan Olsson (M)

Madam Speaker! I have engaged in some archival studies and read in the Green Party's party programs from different years.

The fact is that Miljöpartiet, in the latest party program, the one that has applied since 2013, expresses the view that Swedish arms exports should be phased out. It would be interesting to know if this is Miljöpartiet's ultimate goal with its policy, i.e., that all arms exports should be removed. Should the Swedish arms industry be shut down and phased out? Should the factories be closed? Should we never again sell any weapons from Sweden to other countries - not a single time anymore at all?

I know that this party program is from 2013, which is before the point in time when Miljöpartiet fully committed to Ukraine's cause. The great war had not broken out then, so it may have changed. I would therefore like to ask Member Risberg to account for Miljöpartiet's position.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Olsson for the question. I can confirm that Miljöpartiet is currently in a process to develop a new party program. I shall not anticipate that process.

At the same time, I want to point out to Member Olsson that he might be overinterpreting the wording in the current party program a little bit. If I remember correctly, it states, among other things, that Sweden shall contribute to military disarmament in the world and that MP's goal is therefore a phased out arms export. It is a goal that we shall work towards; it is not about banning arms exports here and now, today. It is above all not about us closing down our weapons factories or war materiel factories in Sweden, because we must still supply our own military with weapons.

As has been said, a lot has happened in the world, and we have reformulated some of our decisions. This concerns, for example, the export of war materiel to Ukraine, which the member is raising. But we continue to want to see very restrictive arms export legislation in Sweden. We have been involved in pushing forward the arms legislation we have today regarding democracy requirements and requirements not to violate human rights, and we are very proud of that.

However, I think we can go even further than that, because we see today that Swedish weapons have, for example, appeared in the war in Yemen. As I mentioned in my speech, we have also seen Swedish red dot sights used by Russian military. We must ensure that our weapons do not end up where they can kill civilians.

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

Stefan Olsson (M)

Madam Speaker! That Miljöpartiet wants stricter control of arms exports is well known. This was also evident from the member's statement.

It is interesting to hear that Miljöpartiet is in a preparatory process for a new party program on this point. It now seems to the member that the goal as such—the total decommissioning—is to be achieved at some point. This appears as some kind of utopia or vision. Is there any time horizon here? Are we talking about 10, 20, or 30 years? Are we talking about a thousand-year perspective and that eternal peace will come together with the return of Jesus? Is this the perspective? It would be interesting to know. I believe that many of those who build up and invest in the Swedish weapons industry want to know approximately what time horizon we are talking about.

Isn't it still the case that the member thinks it is genuinely good that there is a Swedish weapons industry, so that we can now produce war materiel for the defense of Ukraine, and that we might even invest even more in the Swedish weapons industry to produce even more weapons that we can send to Ukraine? I am talking about an upscaling. Does the member not agree that this is a good idea?

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Olsson for the questions. One was about the time horizon. The other was about whether I agree that it is good that we produce more weapons.

I will start with the time horizon, because I think this is the interesting question. We constantly want to see more work being done on peace and human rights around the world. It is clear that we have a vision, or a utopia, of a peaceful world where one does not need to resort to weapons at all.

Cooperation within Europe has come a long way. Who 100 years ago believed that Europe could be as peaceful as it is today with the European Union? Of course, the goal is that the rest of the world will also get there at some point in the future. Whether that happens within 10, 100, or 500 years is difficult to say, but this is clearly the ultimate goal. We do not want people like Putin, who starts wars against Ukraine and so on. This is therefore the goal, but it is difficult to say anything about the time horizon.

We must, of course, provide the Ukrainians with more weapons and, above all, more ammunition, which they are currently suffering a very great shortage of. I wish that what we can contribute will be of as much use as possible. In addition to this, we must however – against the background of the developments after the war in the former Yugoslavia, with a considerable amount of weapons that still remain on our streets in the hands of various types of criminal gangs – also have control over what happens with the weapons after the war has ended. This is very important. We cannot simply pour a mass of war materiel over a country and then not have control over what happens with the weapons afterwards. There, the control must be significantly more important.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 12 June.)

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