Strategic export control 2024 - military equipment and dual-use products

Ann-Sofie Alm (M)

Mr. Speaker! When we today debate strategic export control, this seemingly technical issue of regulations, classifications, and permit reviews, we do so in a time when the world is burning, when Europe's security is shaken to its foundations, when a sovereign democratic country – Ukraine – for the fourth year in a row fights for its freedom and its right to exist against a Russia that tries to change the rules-based world order and does not respect any life, not even its own.

When the Swedish Foreign Affairs Committee visited Ukraine in the spring of 2023, we experienced the largest airstrike that Kyiv had experienced to date. We and the people of Kyiv survived the attack thanks to the air defense that shot down everything that the despicable Russians sent towards Kyiv that night. The pride that completely shone from the eyes of the Ukrainian soldiers when they showed films of how they had shot down every missile, robot, and drone, I will never forget.

I will also not forget the gratitude they showed the countries whose donated air defense systems made it possible. Nor do I forget the despair that choked my throat at the thought of what would have happened if they had failed. That feeling and that anger returns with every news report about Ukraine.

We knew without a doubt what our task was when we came home: Russia must out of Ukraine. Ukraine shall receive the help it needs for as long as is required. Swedish defense capability shall become both strong and dangerous.

Since then, the heroic people in Ukraine have shown exceptional resilience, and both the Riksdag and the government in Sweden have been a solidary example. With the help of the Swedish defense industry and a Swedish defense force that knows what is required, we have been able to be a part of Ukraine's resilience.

The Government has, following the Riksdag's approval, decided to provide significant military support to Ukraine. Most of this support has required ISP's permission according to the Act on War Materiel. In total, ISP granted 52 export permits during 2024 regarding state donations of war materiel from Sweden to Ukraine. In addition, 30 export permits were granted concerning direct sales from the Swedish defense industry of war materiel to Ukraine. On 19 occasions during the year, other countries that possess Swedish-manufactured war materiel have also been granted the right to donate this materiel to Ukraine.

What we provide to Ukraine has no red lines, as some other countries do. Ukraine is free to use these as they wish, with the greatest possible effect in the objective. In other respects, Sweden's export control is one of the strictest in the world. This stems from the Cold War, when Sweden was non-aligned and should not make itself dependent on any other state for our defense. We had to build our own defense industry strong – and it has been built! Today we can boast of a non-state defense industry that produces some of the sharpest, smartest, and most dangerous defense materiel the world has seen in all domains.

Swedish weapons are a guarantee of peace in Sweden. Therefore, it is a strong urge to Swedish banks, credit institutions and funds, especially those that manage Swedish tax money, to invest in the Swedish defense industry for a sustainable peace and a rules-based order.

Russia will, in fact, not stop in Ukraine. It is here, in solidarity with the Ukrainian people, that the heart of our security policy stance must be. Their struggle is Europe's, and it is in that spirit that we must now understand why a clear, responsible, and predictable export control policy is crucial.

Mr. Speaker! The Government's communication on strategic export control clearly shows that Sweden takes its responsibility both as a military alliance country, as a constitutional state, and as a supplier of technology that must be used with respect, with deliberation, and in defense of freedom. The Moderates stand behind this and believe that export control policy must be built on both security and the rule of law, but also on steadfastness in principle.

Our defense industry, from the large, international, well-known companies to the smaller, innovative and high-tech entrepreneurs, is still a completely crucial part of Sweden's security. They develop not only weapons systems but also ideas, technologies, and collaborations that strengthen our resilience. Their competence is a resource not only for Sweden but for our entire community within Nato and the EU. It is also why we must be clear that export control must not become a tool for symbolic politics. Export control must be technically based, anchored in international law, and security-politically sober.

There are those in this debate who want to see more general bans, more lists and more political signals. But our task is not to send signals. Our task is to make decisions that withstand international scrutiny, which strengthen our credibility and which in reality contribute to peace and security.

Mr. Speaker! We must also dare to speak about the war that is not seen in the headlines – the war whose goal is to divide us, break the bonds between like-minded democracies, sow mistrust and create fear. That war is not fought with cold weapons or missiles but with lies, disinformation, cyberattacks and financial blackmail. We even see how high-ranking representatives of Swedish parliamentary parties use lies to discredit their opponents. So we are not building Swedish security.

We must therefore stand firm here. We must be like Ukraine – determined and resilient.

We shall stand up for an export control policy that does not compromise our principles but also does not let our industry and our partners suffer because we are afraid to make difficult decisions, for sometimes the hardest decision is to say yes. We trust our system. We trust ISP, our laws and our international obligations.

Ukraine's fight for survival shows that our freedom requires resilience. Sweden's export control is part of that resilience, and it shall continue to be. Therefore, the Moderaterna stand behind the committee's proposal in its entirety. I move for its approval.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! I begin by saying that I agree with much of what Ann-Sofie Alm said regarding Ukraine. I also remember that night of bombing in Kyiv that we experienced together and know how it affected me personally as a human being, and also how it helped us to gain an understanding of the suffering of the Ukrainian people and of all people who suffer from bombs and attacks.

We have extensive arms trade with Israel, and I intended to bring that up. In the annual report we are dealing with today, it concerns the fact that last year we exported 21.4 million kronor to Israel. That does not include all types of exports to Israel. In the report, we can also highlight the export of a product that is not classified as war materiel, namely the red dot sights that the Swedish company Aimpoint exports through an Israeli partner. We know that they have reached both the Israeli military and the settler movement.

To this is also added the arms imports. Information has emerged that during the last decade we have imported for the equivalent of nearly half a billion kronor from Israel. Now the government has also decided to sign an agreement regarding guidance systems. It is a billion-kronor deal. To this is also added that Israel is participating in an ongoing procurement of drones, where it is not yet clear who will receive the contract. We also have a military attaché in Tel Aviv.

Gaza is completely in flames and lies in ruins. Children die every day. The humanitarian suffering is enormous. I wonder what the government parties are doing to stop the indirect support to Israel's military that this export entails. I also wonder, based on the reasoning that Ann-Sofie Alm puts forward, how all the countries we export to can really be called partners. She does use that word. When 37 percent of the countries we export to are non-democracies with democratic deficiencies, is it really reasonable to call these countries our partners in the world?

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

Ann-Sofie Alm (M)

Mr. Speaker! I do not find it difficult to feel great empathy for the civilian population in Gaza. The images we see are not particularly pleasant. It is terrible. But I also hear the Left Party speaking about how red-point sights must not end up in Israel. You are, therefore, trying to stop a storm with a curtain rod. You want to introduce a ban on civilian products used by thousands of law-abiding hunters here in Sweden with the argument that they could potentially be misused somewhere else.

It is clear that we should not contribute to them being misused. But what the member proposes is that we should classify civilian sighting systems as war materiel, not because of their technical characteristics but because you dislike the recipient country. That is to make symbol politics of legal text, and it is to undermine the trust in our entire export control.

Vänsterpartiet knows very well that such decisions should be made by the Inspectorate for Strategic Products. They should not be made in disorganized forms in a report on a letter regarding what ISP has done during the previous years.

We have a legally secure system that works. That is not where the problem lies. But with that said, I have all the empathy for what is happening in Gaza.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! The Moderates' argumentation here is quite telling as to how they view weapons and arms exports.

One desires a factual debate. Swedish sights are being placed on weapons, and with those sights, settlers or military personnel – for example, reservists, who have quite little military training – become better at hitting the targets they are aiming at. Then the Moderaterna go around and sound as if it is sights that one hits people with! If we are not able to understand what function sights have on a weapon, we also do not understand how a weapon works, I would say.

It is not disorganized forms we are talking about, but it is about Sweden's responsibility. We have a responsibility to stop Israel's occupation of Palestine. There are decisions in the International Court of Justice that we must not facilitate Israel's occupation and for its military.

By not seeing that these sights are weapons, we also do not see what damage they do and in what way they kill people in Gaza and on the West Bank right now. One cannot hide behind the argument that there would be some Swedish hunting corps affected by this, because that is not what happens. In Sweden, the arms trade works perfectly well. One can buy these sights in any shops whatsoever. We have a functioning system when it comes to that.

But we must not send them on export to a country that occupies another country, where people die in thousands every day from lack of food and because they are being shot. Therefore, the red points must be addressed, but we also need to review our entire arms trade with Israel as a state.

We do not have the world's most restrictive regulation, which Ann-Sofie Alm is trying to do regarding. We have a weapons regulation that unfortunately contributes to Israel's occupation of Palestine.

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

Ann-Sofie Alm (M)

Mr. Speaker! Vänsterpartiet wants to ban exports to a specific actor but not remove the product from our own market. It is not logical. It is not legally sound. And it is definitely not serious politics.

If we were to start legislating based on which countries we currently dislike – there are always majorities in this chamber – is that not a dangerous path to take? This is what I ask the Left Party member.

It is a completely different matter to tear up a Swedish legal tradition to win applause in a moral debate. It is about as smart as letting a Hamas financier rent a boat for popular environmental activists and drive it towards Gaza.

We can stand up for international law, and we shall stand up for international law. But we shall not give up the rule of law.

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Mr. Speaker! The Riksdag is now considering the government's annual report on the export of war materiel.

We Social Democrats stand up for the order we have. It was also we who steered the legislation we have had since 2018, when we, among other things, introduced a democracy criterion and better monitoring of Swedish exports. That reform received broad support in the Riksdag from all parties except Vänsterpartiet and Sverigedemokraterna.

The Swedish defense industry is important for Sweden. It was during all the years of non-alignment. We did not want, as Ann-Sofie Alm pointed out in her post, during those years for Sweden to be dependent on any great power. That was why we built up a large domestic production of combat aircraft, combat boats, submarines and main battle tanks. But it will become even more important now, when we find ourselves in a security policy situation where all of Europe needs to scale up the production of war materiel to meet the threat from Russia.

At the same time, Swedish export of war materiel, or the production itself, has always contained a dilemma. To achieve economy in the production itself, one also needs a certain amount of export. One cannot manage to maintain production just for oneself. Then one must try to find a system where one can manage and regulate the export in an ethically justifiable way and at the same time have strong democratic control and transparency.

I mean that we have this in Sweden – with strong legislation, a professional authority in the form of ISP, and an internationally unique parliamentary oversight in the form of the Export Control Council, where all parties are involved and where individual cases are handled.

Matters can be raised to the government, but that happens very rarely. In the vast majority of cases, ISP decides, sometimes on its own and sometimes after consultation with the Export Control Council. We therefore get a parliamentary influence that I assess as very strong. This is a good arrangement. It meets all the trade-offs that must be made here in a good way.

But it is clear that from time to time situations arise where the Riksdag must point out assessments that it considers have been wrong and where the result is shocking – especially in a situation where the world around us is developing and new wars start and are added.

In a reservation that we have together with Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet, we point out to the Socialdemokrater the export of the red-point-sight to Israel.

First, it must be said that Sweden has had no actual arms exports to Israel since the 50s. That is how it should be. Israel is an occupying power that has not followed UN resolutions for decades and which is currently conducting an extreme warfare in Gaza. War crimes are committed practically every day, they are also trying to starve the civilian population in Gaza and let militant settlers roam freely in the West Bank, where we now also have a situation with tens of thousands of Palestinians in flight. In Gaza, over 50,000 people have been killed, and 80 percent of the area lies in ruins. An entire population is traumatized and living on the brink of starvation.

So, Israel's government is also suspected of war crimes and crimes against humanity. It is therefore not just any government or any situation whatsoever. It is not about us, as Ann-Sofie Alm said earlier, disliking Israel as such. What we dislike is Israel's warfare and the war crimes that are being committed right now.

We mean that one must be prepared to take the measures that are needed to try to minimize this development. Therefore, our principled position is that we should have no arms exports to Israel – we have not had that since the 50s either. Most people agree on this, but it turns out that there is a loophole. This is where the question of rifle scopes comes in. It is rifle scopes that a Swedish company sells to the Israeli armed forces. They are not regarded as war materiel but as rifle scopes for hunting. Thus, this export can continue. I find that deeply offensive.

I will be very clear here for our party's sake. We Social Democrats cannot accept that Swedish sights can be used to shoot Palestinian civilians in Gaza. We also cannot accept that they can be used by militant settlers in their activities. It is a settler movement that we believe meets all the criteria for being a terrorist organization. It is not acceptable that Swedish sights can be used in that way. There must be a stop to that. That is what our reservation is about.

We want the government to take measures to put a stop to this form of export. It is particularly urgent, Mr. Speaker, now that we see the terrible situation for the population in Gaza and for the Palestinians in the West Bank. The world cannot just stand by and watch as enormous war crimes are committed day after day.

With that, I move for approval of reservation 2.

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

Kerstin Lundgren (C)

Mr. Speaker! This communication, which has come before the Riksdag, is a jubilee communication. It is the 40th year that the government has delivered a communication on Swedish strategic export control. I think it is worth noting. The first one arrived in 1985.

A lot has happened during this time. The instructions have been developed and refined. They contain more. We have new agreements at the international level that regulate this. We also have EU membership and EU regulations that affect our work in this part.

Let me be clear on one point. Sweden's export of war materiel is a prohibition legislation. Permits for export shall be granted on the basis that it is of value for Sweden's security and defense. This overrides all other considerations fundamentally.

Here we have an authority that is very special. It is an independent authority, which by delegation makes decisions on permit issues. At its disposal, the Director General has an export control council. Several of the members here sit on that council. We then have the opportunity to provide advice in various permit processes where the Director General of ISP assesses that there is a need for political guidance. Ultimately, we always have the possibility to suggest that we do not wish to provide advice – the advice is then that the question should be left to the government. The government can ultimately review it. And the government always has the opportunity to bring up cases because the government's representatives from both the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry for Foreign Affairs are present in the council's work and thus have control over what is happening. It is, so to speak, not an isolated phenomenon. The government has every opportunity to, if desired, bring cases up for a decision on the government's table.

During the years I have been involved, a major change has occurred. Initially, it was very much about, as Morgan Johansson previously mentioned, that Swedish exports are necessary to finance our own defense industry. In that case, exports are necessary.

Right now, many of us are distressed by the fact that it is difficult to increase production capacity when it comes to defense materiel, war materiel, which we need for Swedish defense and which we want to secure for our European friends and neighbors, but also for Ukraine. We share a great responsibility to support Ukraine's chances of winning peace over Russia.

It is clear that in this situation we will find ourselves in a completely new reality, which we are all struggling with. It is visible in the statistics for 2024 that it is a new reality for exports. ISP granted export permits during 2024 to a value of just over 50 billion kronor. The buildup that we see has its clear origin. Without Russia's full-scale, brutal and illegal invasion of and war of aggression against Ukraine, we would not have this situation.

But right now, all countries see a need, and the uncertainty regarding the global situation makes many feel as Sweden does. We must strengthen our opportunities to defend our country, defend our neighbors and build security. It is clear that this will affect the entire export management moving forward.

I see that there are proposals for changes to the export legislation. There will be a change. The Government has appointed an inquiry dealing with the consequences for export control of Sweden's NATO membership. This is something that we, I suspect, will have to take a stand on here in the Riksdag in the coming years. There will therefore be changes regarding that part, and it will be interesting to see how this will manifest itself.

But one can still note that it is clear from the government's side, which we also say in the committee, that it is important that the Swedish export control legislation is followed and that we are thorough in our work. Based on my experiences, I think we are thorough in our examinations of various issues that come to the Export Control Council's table.

We have, from our side, naturally seen that there are proposals regarding changes to the export control legislation when it comes to red dot sights. We shall have to see how this will be handled. I note that in the reservation it states that the conditions for classifying red dot sights as war materiel should be investigated. It is clear that this is not a ban, and that is part of the question. When it comes to red dot sights, it is not just about Israel; they are sold to several countries and are therefore something that one must have better control over before a proposal lands here in the chamber.

For that reason, we have, on our part, even though we do not think they should be used in the warfare in Gaza or on the West Bank, not stood behind the reservation, the text of which has more of a prohibitive character. But we are fundamentally not against looking at new products. If it concerns war materiel, this is not reasonable to do, but possibly when it concerns products with dual-use. Many new products have been added during the years that have passed, so I think that this is an ongoing discussion that must be conducted.

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

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

Rasmus Giertz (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden's security policy situation has changed fundamentally. Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, China's growing claims to global dominance, and the close ties between authoritarian regimes such as Iran, North Korea, and China are realities that require a strategic and realistic rethink in how we view Swedish defense and security policy, where our export control policy is also an essential tool.

Against this background, the Sweden Democrats have a reservation in the report, focusing on the fact that Sweden should to a greater extent promote defense cooperation and export of military materiel to democracies threatened by these very authoritarian regimes, not least Israel and Taiwan – primarily to increase the possibility of building up our own defense. By us cooperating to a greater extent with high-tech democratic states, the defense of Sweden can be strengthened in the long term.

Mr. Speaker! Israel is a high-tech democracy in a region where precisely those democratic ideals are a scarcity. Israel is not only a world leader in areas of crucial importance for Sweden's defense capability, such as missile defense, sensor technology and cybersecurity, but is also an important partner in the fight against terrorism and for democratic values.

Despite this, Sweden has since the 1950s practically blocked the export of war materiel to the State of Israel. It is a stance that appears increasingly outdated, even counterproductive, in today's geopolitical context. Sweden already imports defense materiel from Israel, but we do not maintain a reciprocal cooperation. This is something we should, like several other democracies in Europe, change and allow the export of war materiel to Israel.

We mean that there are no reasons to fundamentally change the Swedish export control regulations. On the other hand, Sweden should clearly signal that we are positive towards cooperation with Israel also in the export area. Closer cooperation strengthens our own defense capability but also the possibilities for a more constructive and principled dialogue with Israel – a dialogue based on mutual respect and not on distancing.

Mr. Speaker! The Sweden Democrats do not deny that there is a very serious humanitarian situation in Gaza, but we are convinced that a strong cooperation with Israel does not hinder a Swedish dialogue on international law and human rights, on the contrary. We believe that Sweden gets greater opportunities to influence precisely by being a partner and not a passive observer.

In a region where terrorist organizations such as Hamas use civilians as human shields and systematically attack democratic societies, Sweden must clearly stand on the right side. It is not just a question of realpolitik, but it is also about which values we as a country should represent.

Mr. Speaker! Our reservation also highlights the need to develop defense cooperation with Taiwan. Taiwan, like Israel, is a high-tech democracy with leading industries in, among other things, semiconductors and components for military equipment. In a time when China threatens Taiwan militarily and simultaneously increases its presence and influence also in Sweden's immediate vicinity, it is of strategic interest that Sweden works for deepened cooperation with Taiwan.

We therefore propose that the government reviews the practice in this area and enables a strategic export and defense cooperation with Taiwan. That Sweden does not already cooperate more actively with Taiwan in this area is a weakness in our security policy, a weakness that should be addressed.

Mr. Speaker! We are facing a shift in the global order. The old belief that relaxation and concessions would lead to peace has been disproven time and again – in Ukraine, in the Middle East, and in Asia. It is in this reality that Sweden's defense shall be built. It is in this reality that our defense industry shall be developed and that our export control policy must be shaped. We do not call for an unregulated system, but one that is strategic, long-term, and grounded in reality – a system where Sweden cooperates with democracies, stands out against dictatorships, and builds capacity together with partners who share our values, instead of being paralyzed by moralizing that in practice benefits our adversaries.

Mr. Speaker! Against this background, it is remarkable to see the Social Democrats' actions in this matter. On the one hand, they condemn Israel's actions, and on the other hand, they have for a long time approved Swedish imports of military equipment from Israel – an import that increased significantly during the last Social Democratic-led government, to over 100 million kronor in 2022 alone. They speak extremely critically about Israel, but at the same time, the last Social Democratic government increased imports from that very country.

It is precisely this double standard that we want to move away from. Pointing fingers at Israel when it suits us, while simultaneously importing large quantities of war materiel from the country, is not a principled foreign policy. It is a selective indignation that risks undermining Sweden's credibility.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden should adopt a positive presumption regarding the export of war materiel and defense cooperation with Israel. Sweden should enable increased cooperation with Taiwan. It is time that Swedish export policy for war materiel contributes to strengthening the Western world's democratic cohesion and our common defense against authoritarian threats.

With this, I move for approval of reservation number 4 of the Sverigedemokraterna.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! The Government's report shows that Swedish arms exports continue to be at a historically high level. In 2024, Swedish companies exported war materiel worth over 29 billion kronor. It is the largest amount ever and an increase of a full 63 percent compared to the previous year.

Among the buyers of Swedish weapons in 2024, there are a number of dictatorships, warring states, and countries that commit serious and extensive crimes against human rights. We also find countries that are taking large steps backward in their democratic development and where violence and persecution of minorities and political opposition are increasing. The largest recipient of Swedish arms exports during 2024 was the United Arab Emirates, a country with a significant democratic deficit. In total, more than one-third of the countries we export weapons to are flawed democracies.

The double standard in Swedish arms exports becomes clearest in the arms exports to the states that are at war in Yemen. While the government is happy to speak 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, I think.

It is also not possible for the Minister for Foreign Affairs to declare that democratic values shall be the core of Swedish foreign policy while at the same time Sweden yields to Turkey's pressure regarding, among other things, arms exports in order to push through a Swedish NATO membership. The letter states that during 2024, arms exports to Turkey were granted for 52 million kronor.

Mr. Speaker! The government's communication on arms exports is annual. So is the Left Party's follow-up motion. It often contains similar questions, but this year we have chosen to focus a little extra on Swedish arms imports. Among other things, the Left Party has requested a number of reports from the Riksdag's investigation service, RUT, to shed light on the arms imports.

Thanks to RUT, we have, among other things, produced the first public compilation of the extent of arms imports and from which countries weapons are imported to Sweden. This issue is becoming increasingly important in a time of increased concern when we as politicians have decided to strengthen the Swedish defense. This means that in the coming years, more weapons will likely be imported to Sweden.

What is then politically relevant about the arms imports? It is about where we import from. If Sweden imports from a country with questionable democracy, we risk, through our purchases, supporting the prevailing order and thereby contributing negatively to the development in the country. It is also about supply chains and security of supply. In a time of increased global tensions, purchases from countries further away from us, even democracies, risk posing increased challenges when it comes to spare parts and the like. Other aspects can also be relevant, such as the probability that the country prioritizes Sweden lower in deliveries in an eventual war situation.

What do our RUT reports show then? Well, that among the investigated countries, Sweden together with Finland are the exceptions when it comes to legislation regarding arms imports. In nine of the eleven investigated countries, several of them members of Nato, there is some form of legislation for arms imports. Most have generous exceptions for, for example, countries within the EU.

The reports also show that our dependence on the USA is great. A third of our arms imports over the last decade come from the USA.

Sweden needs to regulate arms imports. We need a regulatory framework for imports equivalent to that for arms exports, with political oversight and governance. Even in the case of arms imports, it must be prohibited to trade with countries that violate human rights and democratic rules in order to avoid risking contributing to increased domestic oppression in these countries.

No government inquiry has reviewed arms imports since the so-called Krututredningen 2003–2005, and at that time no proposals were presented. New legislation should obviously not become too bureaucratic and constitute an obstacle for the Armed Forces in cooperation with countries that are important neighbors for Sweden. It does not have to be a problem. Several similar countries, as mentioned, already have regulations for the import of war materiel. The French legislation, for example, aims at imports from countries outside the EU to France. That could also be a model for future Swedish legislation.

Even though the legislation for arms imports is, in my opinion, far from perfect, there is a measure of political governance and accountability regarding arms exports. It is reasonable that politics takes corresponding responsibility when it comes to arms imports. For example, establishing a council similar to the Export Control Council, EKR, which has been mentioned here previously, but for arms imports and linked to the Defence Materiel Administration, FMV, could be a reasonable way to politically manage the governance of arms imports. These are proposals that the Left Party wants the government to look at and investigate further.

Mr. Speaker! After 20 months, the humanitarian situation in Gaza is completely horrific. 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 20 months. Bombs and military attacks meet Palestinians searching for food. The UN has repeatedly protested without either world leaders or Israel's government listening. Instead, Netanyahu has put his own power ahead of human life and peace. This has led to the fact that legal proceedings are now underway in the courts of the ICC and ICJ regarding crimes against international law.

Mr. Speaker! It has been revealed that during the past year, Sweden has both imported and exported weapons to Israel. The Swedish arms exports have consisted of so-called follow-up deliveries but also of weapon parts that are not covered by our rules for arms exports. They are, therefore, not even included in the document we are now debating. Above all, it concerns red dot sights exported by the company Aimpoint in cooperation with its Israeli partner, Emtan. These are sights that are fundamentally intended for hunting but are now used on weapons from Emtan that are used both by the Israeli military and by the settler movement to murder Palestinians. Sweden does not even control this export. For me, it is astonishing.

Today, the Left Party, together with the Social Democrats and the Green Party, has submitted a sharp proposal to stop the export of laser sights, red dot sights, and similar products to Israel and that they should be included in our regulatory framework for arms exports.

Other parties are happy to talk about stopping the war in Gaza, but unfortunately, we see no concrete actions when it comes to measures that Sweden can decide on on its own.

Imports to Sweden are made from Israel's largest weapons manufacturer, Elbit. Elbit has been clear in its marketing that their systems are so-called battle proven, i.e., tested in war, which means tested on Palestinians.

The Swedish Armed Forces signed a long-term agreement with Elbit in October 2023, in the middle of the bombings of Gaza, regarding a so-called guidance system. In total, Sweden's arms imports from Israel over the last decade have amounted to nearly half a billion. That figure is significantly higher than at least I thought. Due to the purchase of guidance systems and the procurement of drones where an Israeli company participates, this import from Israel risks increasing sharply in the coming years. Against the background of the export of war materiel and the military cooperation and contacts, this becomes an indirect support to Israel.

Vänsterpartiet believes that all military contacts with Israel must be terminated immediately and the agreement with the Israeli weapons company Elbit must be revoked. All arms exports must, as said, cease.

Today, no weapons exports from the EU are coming to the Palestinian side, but several EU countries are exporting weapons to Israel. The rest of the world should instead impose an arms embargo on Israel so that all weapons exports from the entire EU to Israel cease.

Vänsterpartiet further considers that the Swedish military attaché in Tel Aviv should 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 put pressure on Israel as a state.

Mr. Speaker! In accordance with Morgan Johansson, I move for approval of reservation 3 regarding the ban on the export of red-point kites. Furthermore, I move for approval of reservation 5 regarding the application of Swedish legislation on arms exports.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! When Sweden was non-aligned, the argument for Swedish arms exports was often made as follows: In order to be able to provide our own defense with weapons, we must spread the costs of these weapons over other countries. It was said to be very important to have an own war materiel production, especially when one is non-aligned.

Since we became members of Nato, we now have to change the argumentation for why we should increase Swedish arms exports. It is more about that we, as part of the alliance, must do our part. We must also contribute with war materiel to other countries.

I and with the increased rearmament in the world, we see further opportunities to support the Swedish weapons industry by exporting even more. Despite full order books with several years until delivery and despite that investments have streamed into Swedish and foreign weapons industries so that these companies are now making large profits, it is still often talked about that we must facilitate the export of war materiel.

Mr. Speaker! During 2024, the largest foreign buyer of Swedish war materiel was the United Arab Emirates. The United Arab Emirates is a dictatorship where there are extensive deficiencies in the observance of basic human rights. Political parties are prohibited. Only selected citizens are allowed to vote in elections, and all executive power stems from the emirs in the seven emirates. Civil rights such as freedom of expression and freedom of assembly are lacking, and the legislation restricts rights for marginalized groups, for example, women and hbtqi persons.

Besides the fact that this in itself should disqualify the United Arab Emirates for the export of war materiel, it is also a country that has violated the UN arms embargo against, among others, both Libya and Sudan. In Sudan, we are now seeing the world's largest humanitarian catastrophe, with several hundred thousand dead and tens of millions fleeing, of whom around 4 million are children.

Mr. Speaker! Thailand is also a major recipient of Swedish war materiel. Thailand's classification has fluctuated between dictatorship and partially free, but the country is now classified as non-free. This demonstrates the risk of exporting weapons to countries with fragile regimes. A regime can quickly turn from being seen as somewhat problematic to then becoming a fully developed dictatorship.

Therefore, all exports to non-democracies, even to those in the gray zone, are problematic, especially when contracts and follow-up deliveries often continue for decades and weapons can be used for a very long time.

The share of Swedish war materiel exports that go to undemocratic states has increased since the laws were tightened in 2018. It is a clear failure. One problem is, in fact, that the democracy criterion does not apply to follow-on deliveries. According to the Inspectorate for Strategic Products, ISP, these deliveries can continue for several decades. The recently introduced democracy criterion has therefore appeared to have become toothless.

Mr. Speaker! Then we have the exports to Israel, which several members have already raised. In terms of size, these are still small volumes compared to other exports from Sweden, but these volumes have increased during recent years, despite the ongoing war in Gaza.

There we have the big problem with the red dot sights, which have been mentioned earlier, which are not even classified as military products despite the fact that they are obviously used by the Israeli military in the warfare in Gaza. We should at least demand that these be classified as dual-use products so that they can be more strictly controlled.

But we also have the problem of military equipment imports from Israel, which means that with Swedish tax money and while a genocide is ongoing today, we support Israel's weapons industry. This clearly shows that it is not only the democracy criterion in the military equipment export legislation that is lacking, but we must also tighten the rules for weapons imports.

Mr. Speaker! I, along with NATO membership, come with requirements that we must facilitate exports to all NATO countries. One of these is, as we all know, Turkey. Turkey is doubly problematic. It is not only so authoritarian that no war materiel exports should even take place there. It is also a country that, like the United Arab Emirates, has a history of violating UN arms embargos, including regarding the arms export to Libya.

Miljöpartiet argues that membership in Nato must not trump criteria regarding human rights and democracy in export decisions. Already now, cooperation within Nato is valued highly in the decisions, but potentially sales to other countries that Nato member states in turn cooperate with could also become relevant. This could happen even if it concerns states that Sweden would usually not approve for companies in Sweden to export to.

Sweden has, for example, exported radar systems to the Philippines via the US Navy, even though Sweden most likely would not have approved export directly to the Philippine military at that time.

There are thus risks with increased cooperation since other countries do not have as strict export restrictions as we do, which must be taken into account moving forward. This gray area risks undermining Sweden's export control regime further. It is therefore required that clearer guarantees are introduced to counteract this.

Mr. Speaker! It is clear that we must continue to monitor the export of war materiel as well as introduce criteria for the import of war materiel. These are not issues that we should take lightly. Ultimately, it is about products that are produced for surveillance, for defense, and in the end, to be able to kill people. We must never forget that. I move for approval of reservation 2.

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I will not make any new statement but will only correct the motion for the sake of form. I wish to move for approval of reservation 3, not reservation 2.

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

Joar Forssell (L)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to thank you for an exciting and important debate.

Sweden's export of weapons and war materiel is not just an export of something that kills, as it has been described as earlier in the debate, but it is an export of something that protects. Fundamentally, countries, even democracies, have weapons to protect themselves from attacks. If I may allow myself to be a little philosophical, Mr. Speaker, that is why we have a state at all; we have police, a judiciary and defense that protect our rights and our democracy. That is also why it is important that we continue to export weapons from Sweden. Fundamentally, we are exporting protection of democracy through this, if it happens in the right way and with the right regulations.

The Liberals argue that there are some things that must be changed. For example, today's criteria of not exporting to countries that lack democracy should be supplemented with a criterion that means our prerequisite is that we shall export to countries that have democracy.

Taiwan is a good example of that. Taiwan is one of the world's most well-functioning democracies. It is a democracy that, in various international rankings, is more well-functioning than many European democracies. It is of course clear that Taiwan and the Taiwanese military would be allowed to run Archer on Taiwan, fly Jas over Taiwan, or have Swedish submarines in the sea off Taiwan. The threat from China, which ultimately is also a threat to Sweden, is so serious that the democracy in Taiwan must be able to defend itself. One must be able to shoot down Chinese aircraft, blow up Chinese ships, and defend its democracy.

Mr. Speaker! We also think it should be easier for the Swedish Armed Forces to bring weapons to other countries. We should not see it as export at all as long as the weapons continue to be in Swedish hands. At the European level, the joint party of the Liberals and the Centre Party, Alde, has a proposal to have a Schengen for military personnel, which would make it easier for military personnel to move across borders within the Schengen area. Democracies must be able to cooperate better and more deeply, and therefore the obstacles that stand in the way of that need to be removed.

Mr. Speaker! We should be proud of the Swedish weapons industry and Swedish exports. It does not matter whether it is about large weapons systems such as Jas and Archer or small components in high-tech systems, where Sweden is at the forefront. A mission I have for the Swedish Parliament is that I sit in the Committee on Science and Technology in NATO's Parliamentary Assembly. When I hear about future systems to protect our democracy and freedom and when I think about the Swedish tech century, which took over after the Swedish industrial miracle, and reflect on what can come in the future in the form of new drone systems, new, smarter weapons and new ways to protect our soldiers and our freedom, I become quite proud.

Strategic export control 2024 – military equipment and dual-use products

Mr. Speaker! With this said, I want to emphasize how important it is that we maintain a strong Swedish arms industry and significant exports.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 12.)

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