Strategic export control 2025 - war materiel and dual-use products and A modern and adapted regulatory framework for war materiel

Rasmus Giertz (SD)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating two reports that in different ways concern the same fundamental question, namely how Sweden should conduct a responsible, effective and security-politically relevant export control policy in a time when our immediate vicinity and the world around us is changing rapidly.

It concerns partly the government's communication on strategic export control during 2025, where the Riksdag receives an account of the export of war materiel and dual-use products, and partly the bill on a modern and adapted regulatory framework for war materiel, where the legislation and guidelines are adapted to Sweden's new role as a member of Nato. Sverigedemokraterna stands behind the committee's proposals in both reports.

Madam Speaker! Sweden is no longer in the security policy situation that characterized large parts of the post-war period. Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine has fundamentally changed Europe's security order. At the same time, we see how authoritarian states such as Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea are increasingly cooperating militarily, technologically, economically, and politically.

This is not a development that Sweden can meet with passivity. Nor is it a development that we can meet with an export control policy that in practice makes it harder for Sweden to cooperate with our allies and close partner countries than with the rest of the world.

The Swedish defense industry is a central part of Swedish security and defense policy. It contributes to Swedish defense capability, to technological cutting-edge expertise, and to Sweden being a relevant partner in international defense cooperation.

For a country of Sweden's size, it is absolutely crucial that we can both export and import war materiel, enter into long-term collaborations, and contribute to the collective defense capability within Nato. Therefore, the Sweden Democrats welcome that the regulatory framework is now being modernized.

Madam Speaker! In considering UU18, the government's proposition regarding amendments to the Act on War Materiel, the Public Access to Information and Secrecy Act, and the Weapons Act is being addressed. The purpose is to adapt the regulatory framework to Sweden's NATO membership and make it more purposeful.

It is about, among other things, tightening the penalties for serious crimes against the laws on war materiel. It is about increasing sanction fees. It is about introducing permit requirements according to the Weapons Act for the manufacture of firearms and objects equated with firearms. It is also about confidentiality for certain pieces of information that are subject to control according to the export control regulations. These are completely reasonable and necessary measures.

A stronger Sweden requires both better control and better conditions for serious actors. Those who violate the regulatory framework must face tangible consequences. At the same time, the regulatory framework must not unnecessarily hinder serious companies, subcontractors, and collaborations that are important for Swedish and allied defense capabilities.

Sweden shall have a strict export control, but strict must not mean slow, unclear or security-politically naive. The export control shall be clear, effective and adapted to the reality we live in.

Madam Speaker! A central part of the government's bill is the adaptation of the guidelines to Sweden's NATO membership.

Sweden is no longer militarily neutral. We are part of a defense alliance, and that entails obligations – but also opportunities. It means that the Swedish defense industry should be seen not only as a resource for Sweden's national defense but also as part of the common allied defense capability.

Therefore, it is reasonable that the guidelines clarify that permits for export or other cooperation may be granted when needed to meet an allied state's need for materiel or expertise. It is also reasonable that cooperation with allied states is in principle considered to be in accordance with Sweden's security and defense policy.

It does not mean that Sweden should relinquish control. It does not mean that the permit review becomes unimportant. On the contrary, the review shall continue to be based on a holistic assessment where Sweden's international obligations, foreign policy, security policy, and defense policy interests are weighed together. But it means that the regulatory framework must proceed from the fact that Sweden's security today is built together with allies. It is a decisive difference compared to before.

Madam Speaker! It is also proposed that Sweden join the agreement on export controls in the defense sector. This is also something that the Sweden Democrats welcome.

It is in Sweden's security policy interest to safeguard long-term and continuous cooperation in material matters with traditional partner countries. This applies to both export and import. It applies to joint development, joint production, and joint supply of defense materiel.

At the same time, it is important to emphasize that the agreement does not mean that Sweden abandons its national export control. The starting point is that each party continues to conduct its export control based on its own laws and principles.

The Sweden Democrats want to see more cooperation with countries that share our security policy interests, but it must occur in a way that safeguards Swedish control, Swedish interests, and Sweden's security.

Madam Speaker! In considering UU9, the government's annual report on strategic export control is being addressed. It fulfills an important function. The Riksdag and the public shall be able to follow how the export control policy develops, which principles are applied, and what the exports look like.

The committee notes that the communication has over time developed into a more comprehensive account of Swedish export control policy. That is good. Transparency is important, not least in an area where the trade-offs are sometimes difficult and where the decisions can have great security policy significance.

At the same time, one must remember what export control is ultimately about. It is not just an administrative process; it is a security policy tool. Export control is about preventing Swedish technology, Swedish materiel, or Swedish expertise from falling into the hands of actors who threaten our security, our allies, or international stability. But export control is also about enabling cooperation with countries that strengthen Sweden's security.

Madam Speaker! The Committee notes in report UU9 that the Swedish regulatory framework for the export of war materiel is based on the Act on War Materiel, the Ordinance on War Materiel, as well as the principles and guidelines that the Government has decided and the Riksdag has approved.

War materiel may only be exported if there are security or defense policy reasons for it and if it does not conflict with Sweden's international obligations or Sweden's foreign policy otherwise. In the assessment, the EU's common position and the UN Arms Trade Treaty shall also be taken into account.

The assessment must, however, be made with a clear understanding of today's security policy reality. In a time when Europe's democracies are rearming, when Ukraine is fighting for its survival, when the threat from Russia persists and when China acts increasingly aggressively, Sweden must be able to cooperate more with states that share our strategic interests.

That is also why the Sweden Democrats have repeatedly emphasized the importance of export controls not becoming an obstacle to Western cooperation and collective deterrence.

Madam Speaker! When it comes to products with dual-use, PDA, the question becomes even more complex. Technology that is fundamentally civil can be used militarily. Software, AI, quantum computers, biotechnology, and cyber surveillance products can have both legitimate uses and very dangerous applications.

That is why a strict and effective control of PDA was needed. Sweden should not contribute to authoritarian regimes obtaining access to technology that can be used for internal repression, military buildup, or the development of weapons of mass destruction.

But even here, precision is required. Broad symbolic proposals or total bans that sound powerful but risk becoming blunt in practice are not enough. The regulatory framework must be sharp enough to hit the wrong actors and correctly designed so as not to hinder legitimate cooperation with our partner countries.

Madam Speaker! The Sweden Democrats have a special statement in this report. In it, we support the committee's position regarding the application of the regulatory framework but also maintain our previous views on the need for a positive presumption for the export of war materiel to and other cooperation with Israel.

Israel is the Middle East's only democracy. It is a country with a high-tech defense industry and with experience in areas that are of great importance for Swedish and Western defense capabilities, not least when it comes to air defense, missile defense, intelligence capabilities, drone technology and civil-military preparedness.

The Sweden Democrats argue that Sweden has a strategic interest in developing cooperation with Israel within the defense industrial area. That does not mean that Sweden should be uncritical, and it does not mean that Sweden should refrain from pointing out transgressions or deficiencies. But it means that we should not treat a democratic partner state as if it were comparable to the authoritarian regimes that threaten Sweden, Europe, and the rules-based world order.

To cancel all military cooperation with Israel, to recall the defense attaché and isolate Israel is, according to the Sweden Democrats, the wrong path to take. It is also dangerous for Sweden. It would mean that Swedish soldiers stand without the systems that we import from Israel. Sweden should instead safeguard our relations with democratic partner countries and use cooperation, dialogue and strategic influence in a responsible manner.

Madam Speaker! The same principle applies in the view on Taiwan. Taiwan is a high-tech democracy living under a growing military threat from China. China is not only a threat to Taiwan, but China is also a systemic challenger to the Western world, to our interests, and to the technological and economic security of the free world. Taiwan also has its own high-tech defense industry that Sweden could benefit greatly from cooperating with. This applies in particular within the naval sector, where both states have the capability to build modern submarines.

Sweden should therefore review how we can deepen cooperation with Taiwan and enable the export of war materiel to the country, as well as increased export of products with dual uses. It is a matter of Sweden not letting authoritarian great powers alone define the limit for our cooperation with democratic partner countries.

Madam Speaker! Against this stands another line, which is often put forward from the left in the chamber. It is based on the idea that Sweden should introduce more and more unilateral restrictions, more and more total bans, and more and more political markings, which risk weakening and complicating our defense industry and reducing our room for maneuver. The Sweden Democrats do not share that view.

We mean that Sweden needs a responsible but not self-harming export control, strict but not detached from reality, principled and security-politically relevant. We shall say no when Swedish materiel risks ending up in the wrong hands, and we shall say no when international obligations, embargos or serious risks require it. But we must also be able to say yes when export, cooperation and technological exchange strengthen Sweden, strengthen our allies and contribute to deterrence against the forces that threaten our freedom.

Madam Speaker! Sweden needs a modern regulatory framework, a strong defense industry, functioning export controls, and closer cooperation with democratic partner countries and allies. That is how we strengthen Swedish security, that is how we contribute to the common Western defense capability, and that is how we meet a world where democracies must become better at defending themselves militarily, technologically, and politically.

With this, I vote in favor of the committee's proposal in both reports.

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Madam Speaker! I shall take up the subject that Rasmus Giertz touched upon in his speech, namely the view on arms exports to Israel.

You have, as stated, a special statement where you open up the issue and also say that you intend to drive the issue forward actively and forcefully.

One can have many different perceptions of the conflict in the Middle East, Israel and Palestine. Personally, I see that 70,000 people have been killed in Gaza, of whom over 20,000 are children, and over 80 percent of all infrastructure is destroyed. Israel has also used starvation as a weapon and blocked supplies to the civilian population in a way that we have seen in few other places.

One can have different opinions about this, but it could not have escaped even the Sweden Democrats that almost all international bodies have condemned Israel on the issue. The International Criminal Court, ICC, has issued an arrest warrant against Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for crimes against humanity and for very serious war crimes. The International Court has warned of genocide and said that all countries that are members of the UN must do everything they can to take measures so that what is happening there does not lead to genocide. A ruling will come later in the main case, but it is that appeal that the International Court directs to us.

Now Rasmus Giertz says that we shall have arms exports, but they must not conflict with our international obligations. One such obligation is, after all, Madam Speaker, that we listen to what the international judges say. Shall we ignore them when they warn against this?

My simple question to Rasmus Giertz and the Sverigedemokraterna is the following. How is it compatible with our international obligations to export weapons to Israel, which is suspected of crimes against humanity and very serious war crimes?

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

Rasmus Giertz (SD)

Madam Speaker! I was extremely clear in my speech that we must clearly mark when a state or a partner country commits an overstep, and the Sweden Democrats have done so with all desirable clarity.

What becomes strange in the debate, Madam Speaker, when one listens to Morgan Johansson and the Socialdemokrater is that on one hand, one consistently takes a hard stance against Israel – it doesn't matter when, one always does – and demands that Sweden should not conduct arms exports during an ongoing conflict. On the other hand, Sweden has for several years had an exchange of defense materiel with Israel, not least through the import of Israeli defense materiel that is judged to be important for Swedish defense capability. This has also occurred under Socialdemokrater governments. It is a strange position.

If Israel is considered a sufficiently reliable partner for Sweden when it comes to purchasing qualified defense materiel, as has been done under Social Democratic governments, why is it then suddenly unthinkable to speak of a more equal and strategic cooperation also on the export side?

One must be able to say two things at the same time. Sweden must be able to criticize Israel when there are reasons for it, but one must also acknowledge that Israel is the Middle East's only democracy and is a high-tech security partner in a region otherwise characterized by authoritarian regimes, terrorist organizations, and extensive deficiencies in democracy and human rights.

It does not mean that Sweden should be uncritical. It does not mean that every individual transaction should be approved, but it means that Israel should not be treated as if the country were comparable to the dictatorships and terror regimes that Morgan Johansson's own government base often expresses sympathies with.

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the answer, but I must say that I did not understand what Rasmus Giertz said.

First, he says that we should take a stand against Israel. But you are going to arm them. That is what it is about. What kind of stand is that? If Rasmus Giertz first says that crimes against humanity and war crimes are horrific, only to say in the next breath that the Sverigedemokraterna want to send weapons to those who commit the war crimes, so that the war crimes can be committed with Swedish weapons, what consequence is there in that? It becomes exactly the opposite.

Then Rasmus Giertz says that the Social Democrats at one time had a military attaché in Israel. Yes, there has been a military attaché there for a long time, but we have not had any weapon export deals to speak of since the 50s. It has been a limit that most parties have had.

What has happened in Israel, in Gaza, and in the West Bank has happened during this parliamentary term with the severely deteriorated development. It is in recent years that we have seen a total bombardment of Gaza, expansion of settlements in the West Bank, and harassment every single day. As recently as the other day, a seven-month-old baby was killed at a checkpoint in the West Bank by Israeli soldiers. Does Rasmus Giertz want Swedish weapons to be used in that way?

Rasmus Giertz has another turn to speak. I know that you would like to enter the government, and you would like to have control over these issues. My question to Rasmus Giertz is: What conditions does Rasmus Giertz assess the Sweden Democrats to have, well inside the government, to push through their policy on this point?

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

Rasmus Giertz (SD)

Madam Speaker! It is rather the Social Democrats who, regardless of the developments, are against everything that has to do with Israel. This is nothing new from the Social Democrats, but for ideological reasons, they have always been against everything in the matter of Israel.

The inconsistency also exists in what I mentioned earlier regarding the fact that even under Social Democratic governments, there has been an exchange of defense material with Israel, not least through the import of Israeli defense material. The Sweden Democrats want to make that relationship more equal.

The Sweden Democrats are critical of the settler violence at Västbanken, which Morgan Johansson also addressed in his speech.

These suspected war crimes are still under investigation. We simply have to see what they come to.

The Sweden Democrats are for a more equal cooperation with Israel, also in the matter of defense materiel. As I mentioned in my speech, it would have been of great benefit to Swedish defense capability and of great help for Swedish soldiers in the event that they found themselves in armed conflict or war.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Madam Speaker! "The Middle East's only democracy," we hear Member Giertz say. Then we expect him to make a statement against Israel. Possibly we heard something of that in the final remark with Morgan Johansson.

The situation today, Madam Speaker, is that Israel has a right-wing extremist government that was absolutely elected in free and democratic elections, but it is also a government that has introduced the death penalty by hanging. One also has racist legislation, because it is written in such a way that only Palestinians can be sentenced to hanging.

It is the far-right minister Itamar Ben-Gvir who has pushed through this legislation. He has walked around with a hanging rope in the Knesset, Israel's parliament, month after month before he finally succeeded in getting the law through.

I would like to hear what the Sweden Democrats think about this. If we are talking about democracy, we must be able to talk about in which cases it is not democracy in Israel, for example in the legislation in which there is a clear apartheid by dividing people based on ethnicity and that they de facto introduce the death penalty.

There are democracies that have the death penalty, but it is very few democracies that introduce the death penalty in the way that Israel is now doing.

The second thing I want to ask about is Rasmus Giertz's desire to expand the military cooperation with Israel. In that case, one must keep in mind that much of the equipment that Israeli defense companies are trying to sell has been tested in reality on Palestinians. Is it a problem for Rasmus Giertz that this weapon equipment is tested on Palestinians and that there is a risk that the testing itself constitutes a war crime?

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

Rasmus Giertz (SD)

Madam Speaker! The Sweden Democrats are naturally opposed to all use of the death penalty. As I mentioned in my speech, Sweden must be clear and mark when Israel commits abuses. This very thing is such an abuse, and we need to be incredibly clear and mark against it.

It is strange to listen to the Left Party's position on stopping all arms trade with Israel, recalling the defense attaché, and terminating military cooperation. Furthermore, they want to withdraw Sweden's accession to the agreement on export controls in the defense area and tighten the guidelines in a way that risks making Swedish export control more rigid. This occurs in a very serious security policy situation.

This is a policy that would, in practice, weaken Sweden's opportunities to cooperate with important partner countries. Sweden does not need fewer defense industrial collaborations with democratic states; Sweden needs more. We need to strengthen our own defense capability, contribute to our allies' defense capability, and build common deterrence against the authoritarian states that are rearming and cooperating ever more closely today. This also applies to the terrorist organizations that a large number of Håkan Svenneling's own party comrades have expressed sympathies for.

My question to Vänsterpartiet is therefore: How does it strengthen Swedish security that we hinder cooperation with democratic partner countries while Russia, Iran, China and North Korea deepen theirs?

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Madam Speaker! We hear Rasmus Giertz state that an apartheid legislation in which one introduces the death penalty by hanging is an overstep. Then he quickly moves on to other issues.

He could instead have discussed the fact that Israel currently has a right-wing extremist government that is accused and indicted for genocide in both the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice. It is a government that actively commits crimes against Palestinians every day. And they have companies, which Rasmus Giertz wants to develop a cooperation with, that test weapons on Palestinians to demonstrate the weapons' effectiveness when they are to be sold further.

I think a more consistent political stance from the Swedish side would be to cancel the collaborations that we already have today and be clear about and put pressure on the far-right government in Israel. One should not be able to commit genocide without the rest of the world reacting. That is to conduct a consistent policy.

Of course, there are parts where we are in complete agreement, for example, that we must stand up for Swedish security and cooperate with like-minded democracies in our immediate vicinity to strengthen Sweden's security. But in that category, I exclude Israel, and I do so on good grounds. This is a state that engages in occupation, which commits crimes against international law and which has a far-right government that is indicted in international courts for the crimes it has committed.

It is therefore surprising that the Sweden Democrats are pushing for a development to move closer to Israel. It is that which we in the opposition react to. I have full respect for having a different stance than I do. But Rasmus Giertz's line is that we should move closer to Israel in the military area, and I cannot understand that, Madam Speaker.

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

Rasmus Giertz (SD)

Madam Speaker! I believe I answered Håkan Svenneling's question. Then Håkan Svenneling says that I began to discuss other issues. Yes, it concerns exactly those issues that these reports and the debate are about, namely the export control policy.

Håkan Svenneling also accuses the Sverigedemokraterna of that we want to export weapons to Israel for them to be used against Palestinian civilians. It is not a question of that at all.

We have here Israel, which is the Middle East's only democracy and which defends itself against the world's worst terrorist organizations. And these, a large number of Håkan Svenelling's own party comrades have recently expressed sympathies for. It is them that Israel defends itself against, and we want to export weapons to Israel to help them with that.

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Madam Speaker! Today we are discussing both the communication regarding the export of war materiel and the government's bill on updating the war materiel legislation in connection with the NATO membership. I will begin by moving for the approval of our reservation number 3, which concerns the export of war materiel to Israel, which we, of course, oppose. I will return to that. I will first only say a few words about the legislation itself.

Sweden has for a very long time had a high-quality domestic production of weapons, weapons systems, ammunition, and other war materiel. This is, among other things, a consequence of our long period as a neutral and non-aligned country. We did not want to make ourselves dependent on the great powers. Therefore, in close cooperation between politics and industry, we developed our own combat aircraft, our own submarines, our own air defense, our own combat vehicles, and much more.

Today, now that we have become members of Nato, this has perhaps ironically become a great asset. We are a country that can now, in a very concrete way, contribute to the defense buildup in Europe and thereby also strengthen Nato.

To secure the economy in this weapons production, it has however always been necessary with a certain export. Everyone understands that this puts us in a dilemma. We do not want to contribute to wars of aggression and crimes against peace, but we simultaneously consider that all countries have the right to defend themselves against attacks. At the same time, these deals are long-term, and the conditions can change over time. A country that today is peaceful and uses Swedish war materiel to defend itself can tomorrow, after a change of regime, be an aggressive state that threatens its neighbors.

Therefore, everything concerning the export of military materiel has strong foreign and security policy aspects. There must be strong legislation, parliamentary oversight, and parliamentary influence. At the same time, all of this is also characterized by secrecy, both foreign policy secrecy and business secrecy. This makes it, in the end, a rather complicated area.

In Sweden, we have however found a good arrangement, we think, with an authority, ISP, which decides on permits, but also a parliamentary council, the Export Control Council, with the participation of all political parties in the Riksdag. There, concrete deals can be discussed, and ISP's director-general thus receives guidance. In doubtful cases, he can in the final instance also raise the concrete deals to the government for a decision.

Sweden thus has a fundamentally strict control of arms exports, in fact one of the world's strictest. We further strengthened this legislation in 2018. At that time, six of the Riksdag's eight parties agreed on new legislation. We introduced, among other things, a democracy criterion and a better structure for monitoring transactions so that Swedish weapons do not end up in the wrong hands.

This was an important settlement. It was prepared by an inquiry led by the Moderate Hans Wallmark, and from us Social Democrats, Lena Hjelm-Wallén participated. We thus succeeded in gathering six of the eight parties behind such an arrangement. I had, as the responsible minister for these matters, the privilege of being able to present this legislation to the Riksdag, and it has been in force since then, as mentioned.

This is a fundamentally good structure. It was an important settlement we made then, and our hope is, of course, that it will remain in place.

One can never be completely certain of this – especially not now when one of the parties that was not part of the agreement, Sverigedemokraterna, could receive heavy ministerial posts in just this area after the election in the autumn, if the right were to win the election. Sverigedemokraterna has said that the posts they are interested in are the defense minister post, the foreign minister post, and the justice minister post, that is to say, just those posts that are important for these export issues.

Now, one has also spoken out strongly that the principles on which the export legislation rests are no longer respected. Concretely, it concerns the export of war materiel to Israel – it is this that has been specifically highlighted.

Israel is a country that Sweden has not made any new military equipment deals with since the 50s; it goes back a long way. This is due, among other things, to the fact that Israel has for decades violated UN resolutions, occupies Palestinian land, seizes Palestinian property, displaces Palestinians from their lands, has thousands of Palestinians in prison indefinitely without trial, and colonizes the West Bank with aggressive and extreme settlers.

So it was already before the Gaza war. But what we have now seen in connection with the Gaza war has worsened the situation further. What we have seen in recent years can be described as nothing other than hell on earth for the millions of civilians who have lived and live in Gaza. Over 70,000 Palestinians have been killed, of whom over 20,000 are children, at least – how many, perhaps we will never know because they will be buried in the rubble. Gaza has become a children's graveyard.

Over 80 percent of Gaza has been destroyed. Israel has used starvation as a weapon, and everything seems to be about tormenting this people and making the suffering so great that the people will eventually be forced to leave the area. This is even said openly by Israeli government officials.

It has gone so far that the International Criminal Court, ICC, has issued an arrest warrant against Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for crimes against humanity and very serious war crimes. The International Court has also warned of genocide and demanded that Israel take measures to stop actions that could constitute genocide. Even though the final ruling on the genocide issue will come later, all UN states in this situation are obligated to do everything they can to prevent genocide.

Nevertheless, the Sweden Democrats have now demanded that Sweden should start exporting weapons to Israel. It is an enormous thing. If Sweden were to change its line on this issue, it would attract enormous attention. Sweden would become a pariah in all contexts where international law and international law are discussed. We would be disgraced. So that is what could happen if the right wins this election. Then it could suddenly be Swedish weapons that are used to commit the war crimes that they are now accused of.

We Social Democrats want to go in the other direction. I said that no new deals have been made with Israel since the 1950s. However, there is a small item consisting of exports of material that was not initially classified as war materiel but has now been reclassified. It concerns components for fire control, surveillance, and warning equipment amounting to a value of 11.6 million kronor in 2025. It is, of course, negligible in relation to the total exports, which are at 28 billion. But it would still be an important signal to clearly express that Sweden shall have no exports at all to Israel in this situation and that even this small part must be stopped.

This is, Madam Speaker, the meaning of the reservation we have to this report, which I therefore now move for approval of.

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

Rasmus Giertz (SD)

Madam Speaker! Morgan Johansson warns in his speech that Sweden, if the Sweden Democrats were to gain influence over foreign policy in the next government, would be embarrassed if we had an equal cooperation with Israel and an import that we have also had under previous Social Democratic governments.

But when it comes to embarrassing oneself in international contexts, Morgan Johansson's previous government went to Iran with bent backs and concluded cooperation agreements, even in the area of equality, with the Islamist regime in Iran. The rest of the world rightly looked on with disgust at this.

My question to Morgan Johansson is therefore: Is this a recurring element we can expect if Morgan Johansson becomes Sweden's next Minister for Foreign Affairs after the election?

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Madam Speaker! Now, this may not be about arms exports, but I am happy to answer that question as well.

It is true that such a visit was made in 2017, just as Carl Bildt in the old Reinfeld government was on a visit to Iran in 2014, I believe it was. It was during a period when it was judged that such a visit could contribute to, for example, being able to negotiate the release of oppositionists and others who were held in the Iranian prisons.

The fact is that Ann Linde and the others who were there succeeded in doing it, and a number of trade union oppositionists were released after the visit. It was not at all about bending any backs in any way, on the contrary. The criticism that was to be put forward against Iran was also put forward, but one also succeeded in improving the situation for at least some of the oppositionists.

Today, I do not believe there are any prerequisites whatsoever for such visits. The situation has changed completely. That was the answer to that question.

Then we return to the question of arms exports to Israel, and then Rasmus Giertz can answer some questions. He said that he wants to make it equal between Sweden and Israel, but the point is that it is not equal. Sweden is not a country that has been accused of many very serious war crimes and crimes against humanity, but Israel is.

If Benjamin Netanyahu were to land on Swedish soil, he would be arrested and taken in handcuffs to the International Criminal Court in The Hague. That is a fact, and it means that one cannot have this type of export or business connections with a country that commits these very serious war crimes. Then you embarrass yourself in international contexts. Then, as a country, you can no longer talk about standing up for international law and international law at all.

Again: If the Sweden Democrats were to take over these important positions, I fear that Sweden would acquire precisely this very regrettable reputation.

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

Rasmus Giertz (SD)

Madam Speaker! Morgan Johansson said that it was not about any bowed backs or about submitting to the Islamist regime in Iran when the visit was made. But we have all seen the pictures of the Social Democratic ministers who donned veils and stood there with bowed backs before the mullahs in Iran. There, one can truly speak of embarrassing oneself in international contexts.

At the same time, Morgan Johansson is extremely clear in criticizing Israel, which is the Middle East's only democratic state and which has Iran and many terrorist organizations surrounding it. Morgan Johansson's own government base has a large number of candidates who have expressed sympathies with these terrorist organizations. It is precisely these that we want to help Israel defend itself against.

Morgan Johansson's previous government made visits to Iran and concluded agreements with the Islamist regime. Yes, Morgan Johansson can count on the Sverigedemokraterna wanting to conclude agreements with Israel.

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Madam Speaker! I have just explained the background itself, including for the visit, which meant that it was possible to negotiate the release of oppositionists and trade union activists from the gulag prisons. That was actually the result of that trip. Today, I do not believe that such conditions exist.

Sweden does not export any weapons to Iran either and has never done so. I therefore do not quite understand why Rasmus Giertz is now bringing up arms sales when it concerns Israel and then tries to equate it with the fact that, nearly ten years ago, a visit was made to Iran to negotiate the release of opposition members. What do those things have to do with each other?

What Rasmus Giertz has a problem with appears in the previous exchange with Håkan Svenneling. He then said that the weapons we are to export should not be used against civilians in Gaza. No, so Israel does not attack civilians? Is that how we are to interpret Rasmus Giertz? What do we say to the at least 70,000 people or the 20,000 children lying dead under the rubble in Gaza? What do we say to the little infant of seven months who was shot to death the day before yesterday at a road checkpoint on the West Bank because the IDF possibly misunderstood the situation or something similar.

Everyone knows that it will not lead to anything and that there will be no investigation. It is virtually impunity for the Israeli army and the settlers to commit any crimes whatsoever against the civilian population.

What Rasmus Giertz puts forward when he opens up for large-scale arms exports from Sweden to Israel is that Swedish weapons – combat vehicles, perhaps even aircraft or whatever it is that he wants to send – will be used to commit these war crimes. If that were to happen, Sweden will disgrace itself, and then Sweden will have a completely different international reputation than it does today.

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

Stefan Olsson (M)

Madam Speaker! We are debating the Committee on Foreign Affairs' reports 9 and 18, both of which concern Swedish military equipment exports. I would therefore like to begin by moving for the approval of the Committee's proposals in all parts of both reports.

Madam Speaker! The bill that the government has sent to the Riksdag and which the committee supports concerns an update of the Swedish guidelines for which countries Sweden may export war materiel to, as well as certain amendments to the Weapons Act regarding the manufacture of firearms.

The proposition has been submitted as a consequence of Sweden joining the defense alliance Nato. The changes are not actually that large, as Sweden fundamentally retains the same policy regarding the export of war materiel as before. There is therefore also very broad support for the changes here in the Riksdag, and only Miljöpartiet and Vänsterpartiet have reserved themselves in the committee.

Let me nevertheless say something about the reasons why Sweden is updating its guidelines. Primarily, as has been said, it is about the fact that we are now members of Nato. The alliance has not requested this of us, but it is we ourselves who have considered it necessary.

The old guidelines describe Sweden as a neutral country, and only on that point was a refresh needed. More importantly, however, is that we explain to our allies that we see them all as partners whom we have confidence in. The presumption shall be that we shall always be able to export weapons to our allies. Through this, Sweden signals that we are a reliable ally, which strengthens the alliance's cohesion and credibility. This also makes Sweden safer.

Madam Speaker! Furthermore, the government proposes that Sweden should join the originally German-French project Agreement Concerning Export Controls in the Field of Defence. The idea of the agreement is that all countries working within the framework of the agreement shall accept each other's export rules.

Defense materiel often consists of components from several countries, and it becomes cumbersome for the manufacturers if they have to follow several different national regulatory frameworks. All countries that are part of the agreement are EU countries that have legislation regarding war materiel of the same type as the Swedish one. In a spirit of good cooperation, we should be able to trust one another. If Germany has approved a country as a recipient of war materiel and there are Swedish components in German products, Sweden should not require that permits also be obtained from Sweden.

The European defense industry has been characterized by many national specific solutions, often for narrow protectionist reasons. This has made the European defense industry inefficient. It is therefore good that we can in this way facilitate for companies to work in several countries simultaneously. It will increase the competition.

The Swedish defense industry is not afraid of increased competition. Our industry is very strong and will benefit from the regulatory burden being eased. The more common EU rules we can have, the better conditions we provide for the industry.

Madam Speaker! When it comes to the government's annual report on the export of war materiel, we can, as usual, state that everything is in order. 80 percent of the exports go to 39 countries that Sweden has cooperated with for a very long time.

The Swedish defense industry has historically had to endure a lot of negative criticism and suspicion, but the truth is that Sweden almost exclusively trades with other democratic countries. In this way, we are participating in protecting democracies all over the world. It is something we should be proud of.

There are some among the receiving countries that are problematic. Thailand and the United Arab Emirates are not democracies, but Swedish military equipment exports also need to take into account Swedish foreign policy interests in large. Old agreements must be fulfilled, and even dictatorships can contribute to maintaining the international rule of law. That is why a balancing of different interests must always be made when decisions such as export licenses are granted.

I also want to remind that Sweden has, for a number of years, had one of the most rigorous systems for export control. We have the Export Control Council, which gives the parties in the Riksdag a unique opportunity to themselves review how exports are conducted. We also now have a system for follow-up inspections that allows ISP to visit the countries that purchase weapons from us to ensure that Swedish weapons do not end up in the wrong hands.

Madam Speaker! Is there not something else that Sweden should do to achieve even better trade with war materiel? Yes, I want to highlight two proposals that Miljöpartiet and Vänsterpartiet have put forward. I understand it may feel surprising that I, as a Moderate, am now offering praise to the two parties that I otherwise usually have difficulty agreeing with, but the proposals are good and should be taken into consideration.

The first point concerns the question of what we should do with autonomous weapons systems. Miljöpartiet wants there to be a total ban, which I feel is somewhat excessive. But what one can see in the war in Ukraine is how incredibly fast the technological development is proceeding, and we know that AI will be integrated into all technology in the future.

There are international conventions for all types of weapons, and we need this also for the many different types of drones that are now being developed. These will have – or perhaps already have – navigation systems that are AI-controlled. The AI systems will also be able to select targets themselves.

We shall not say an absolute no to this development, but we must know what constitutes an ethically acceptable use of AI-controlled weapons.

The second thing is that I agree with the friends in Miljöpartiet and Vänsterpartiet that we also need to take more interest in arms imports. It is primarily not the ethical problems that I am thinking of then, as Sweden does not buy weapons from oppressive regimes. On the other hand, weapons systems today are so advanced that they often consist of components and sub-components produced all over the world. The same applies to the unique metals used in the components.

For example, Sweden is now to acquire its own capability to fight with drones. But what we know about drone technology in the world is that it is primarily Chinese companies that produce such. It would be unfortunate if Sweden, for its defense, became dependent on Chinese technology.

I look forward to a continued discussion on these areas during the next mandate period.

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Madam Speaker! I intended to ask a question on the same theme that we have debated here earlier today, namely the arms exports to Israel.

The Sweden Democrats have said that Sweden should open up for large-scale arms exports to Israel. In that case, we know that the development in that issue right now is that the International Criminal Court assesses that Benjamin Netanyahu and the Israeli government have committed crimes against humanity and war crimes. The International Court establishes that measures must be taken so that what is happening does not lead to genocide. Starvation has been used as a weapon. It concerns at least 70,000 dead in Gaza, of whom 20,000 are children, and 80 percent of the area has been leveled to the ground.

In my opinion, it would be completely unreasonable for a country like Sweden to take this step. When very many countries instead discuss how to increase the pressure on Israel to live up to international law – there are a number of countries that in different ways are reducing or stopping their export of war materiel – should Sweden, therefore, go in the other direction? It would cause enormous international attention.

Now we are in a situation where the Sweden Democrats are the largest party on your side. They are claiming heavy ministerial posts such as Minister for Justice, Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Defence. They have probably dropped the demand for the position of Prime Minister, but they want the others, and it may very well be the case that they will get them.

Then my question is: If the right should win the election in the autumn, can Stefan Olsson guarantee that there will be no arms exports to Israel in such an outcome?

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

Stefan Olsson (M)

Madam Speaker! I cannot guarantee this because I am only a member of 349. Furthermore, we have an election this autumn, and I do not even know if I will be re-elected. I believe I have a good chance, but I cannot guarantee that I will be re-elected. It will therefore be difficult for me to make such a promise.

Then it is a matter of what the Moderaterna have

regarding the matter that Member Johansson is inquiring about, namely the exports to Israel. The Moderates have no opinion on whether we should increase them or not. It is, in fact, an issue that the Sweden Democrats are driving, and I am not quite well-versed in what the Sweden Democrats want. I have only taken note of Member Giertz's statement on this. That is the only knowledge I have.

I believe that the member must take these questions to the Sweden Democrats specifically to further ascertain the reasons. It has indeed occurred in the debate now. But it is difficult for me to defend another party's policy.

Our position regarding exactly how decisions on export licenses should proceed is that the companies that want to sell to other countries should receive a legally secure review by Swedish authorities. It is therefore not about Sweden contacting all the world's countries to sell as many weapons as possible. We do that when it concerns certain large defense projects, for example the large aircraft projects. There I know that Sweden acts very actively. But otherwise, Sweden has no active policy regarding selling to all the world's countries. I think that is a good rule. The companies should find their own market.

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Madam Speaker! It is not Stefan Olsson personally I am asking, but I am asking him as a party representative. Can he, as a representative for the Moderaterna, guarantee that the Sverigedemokraterna will not have their will pushed through if they were to get this influence over Swedish politics in the autumn if the right were to win the election.

The point is that it is precisely these positions – the position of Minister for Foreign Affairs, the position of Minister for Defence, and the position of Minister for Justice – that are exactly what the Sverigedemokraterna are after, and these positions are important when it comes to assessments of which countries one should export weapons to or not. This I know; I was responsible for these issues myself for almost eight years.

We have an authority, ISP, which makes a preliminary assessment. But in doubtful cases, when ISP's director-general needs political guidance in a concrete case, the issue is referred to the government.

It could, therefore, very well be a Sverigedemokratisk minister who is to prepare the question of whether or not to export weapons to Israel. That is why this question is extremely relevant.

But I perceived Stefan Olsson's answer to my question as that he cannot guarantee that the Sverigedemokraterna will not get their way here. I understand that very well, because the Sverigedemokraterna are so much larger than you other parties who might be part of such a government. It is clear that the Sverigedemokraterna will be extremely heavy in such a government.

I am very concerned and worried about what signals it would send to the rest of the world if Sweden were to suddenly turn in this issue – from trying to put pressure on Israel to live up to international law to suddenly starting to arm them. Then, Swedish weapons could potentially be used for the war crimes that Israel is now accused of. It would be a terrible situation to put Sweden in.

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

Stefan Olsson (M)

Madam Speaker! That is correct. Member Johansson is right. I cannot guarantee him that the Sweden Democrats will not receive any specific ministerial post. In the event of a victory for the right side in politics, this will be settled in negotiations at the party leadership level, where I will not be present.

But if the Social Democrats make a good choice together with their coalition partners, MP Johansson will probably have a great influence in the party leadership, because he has a background as a minister and is now also the Social Democrats' foreign policy spokesperson and – I assume – is a good friend of the party leader.

Can Member Johansson, if the Social Democrats were to form a government, for example with the Left Party, guarantee that the Left Party will have no influence over Swedish war materiel exports? Can Member Johansson assure Sweden that Member Håkan Svenneling, for example, does not become Minister for Defence, Minister for Foreign Affairs or Minister for Justice? Can Member Johansson guarantee this?

No, I do not think he can. And unfortunately, he has no right of reply.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Madam Speaker! The Government describes the bill as a step towards a modern and adapted regulatory framework for war materiel. But the questions we must ask are: Modern for whom? Adapted for what?

For Vänsterpartiet, the answer is clear. A modern regulatory framework must and should proceed from the fact that we want international law, human rights, and democracy. The regulatory framework must set clear limits for Swedish arms exports and not open up for new exceptions and new relaxations.

We live in a time of war, rearmament, and increased uncertainty. Precisely because of this, Sweden must be a credible voice for peace, disarmament, and respect for international law. It is therefore not acceptable to simultaneously enable the export of war materiel to authoritarian regimes and to states that commit serious violations of human rights.

Arms trade – my friends – is not just any trade. It is political, and it has direct consequences for people's lives and security. In our motion, we therefore propose that the Riksdag should reject the government's proposal for an amendment to the Act on War Materiel. And we say no to Sweden's accession to the agreement on export control in the defense area. We want to see, instead, tightened guidelines where violations of international law, extensive violations of human rights, and exports to non-democracies constitute unconditional barriers to export, even when it concerns follow-on deliveries.

We further mean that the government must return with a strategy to stop the further export of Swedish war materiel in conflict with Swedish regulations. Unfortunately, during the past year, we have seen examples of, for instance, how Swedish war materiel has leaked further to the war in Sudan.

In the same way, export controls regarding products with dual-use must be tightened further, as there are also examples there of items having found their way further. The possibility of regulating the import of war materiel must also be reviewed. It is simply a matter of building a responsible regulatory framework across the entire chain.

In addition to new legislation, we are debating the annual report on arms exports. The government's report shows that Sweden's arms exports continue to be at a historically high level. In 2025, Swedish companies exported war materiel worth 28 billion kronor. This is on par with the result from the year before, and it is among the highest amounts ever regarding that export.

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

The largest recipients of Swedish arms exports during 2025 were the USA, followed by Hungary. The democratic status of these two countries is problematic, so to speak.

It is not possible, as the Foreign Minister does, to declare that democratic values shall be the core of Swedish foreign policy while simultaneously yielding to Turkey's pressures regarding, among other things, arms exports in order to push through a Swedish membership in Nato.

Now we risk making decisions that further erode our legislation.

I just read a press release that the Foreign Minister is now going to travel to the Gulf countries Saudi Arabia, Qatar and United Arab Emirates.

It is exactly as Member Olsson was pointing out. 80 percent is largely unproblematic, but approximately 20 percent of our exports is extremely problematic in several parts.

Madam Speaker! Our supplementary motions regarding the two matters we are now debating focus extra much on the Swedish arms imports. Thanks to the Riksdag's investigation service, RUT, we have obtained the first public compilations of the extent of arms imports and from which countries Sweden imports arms.

This issue is becoming increasingly important in times of increased anxiety and as we politicians have decided to strengthen the Swedish defense. This means that during the coming years, we will import more weapons to Sweden than we have done previously.

What is it then that is politically relevant regarding arms imports? The first thing concerns where we import from. If Sweden imports from countries that are hesitant democracies, our purchases risk supporting a prevailing order and thereby contributing negatively. The second thing concerns primarily 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. It is also about other aspects: What is the probability that we will be prioritized for deliveries or that deliveries to us will be deprioritized in an eventual war situation?

What do our reports show then? Well, they show that among the countries investigated, Sweden together with Finland are the exceptions in that they completely lack legislation here. Nine of the eleven investigated countries – several of them are NATO members – have some form of legislation regarding arms imports. Most have generous exemptions for countries within the EU.

Something else that these reports show is that our dependence on the USA is great. A third of our arms imports during the last decade were from the USA.

This simply means that Sweden needs to regulate arms imports. We need to have a regulatory framework equivalent to the regulatory framework for arms exports – with political oversight and governance. It should also be prohibited to trade with countries that violate human rights and democratic rules during arms imports, as it risks leading to increased domestic oppression in those countries.

We need new legislation which, of course, should not be too bureaucratic and constitute an obstacle for the Armed Forces to cooperate with Sweden's neighboring countries. This does not need to become a problem given that several like-minded countries have some type of regulation today. The French legislation, for example, targets imports from countries outside the EU to France. It could also be a model for Swedish legislation.

Our legislation on arms exports is far from perfect, but there is still a certain degree of political governance and accountability regarding arms exports. It is reasonable that the politicians take corresponding responsibility when it comes to arms imports. It could also be possible to establish a similar council to the Export Control Council, but for arms imports, linked to the Defence Materiel Administration, FMV. I think it would be a reasonable way to achieve the political governance over arms imports. We simply want our proposal on arms imports to be investigated.

Madam Speaker! The situation in Lebanon, in Gaza, and in the West Bank is a nightmare. There is famine and death. It is children who are dying.

Now the war between the USA, Israel and Iran has gained momentum again after the peace negotiations collapsed. Our world has simply failed to act. A blind trust in Netanyahu's far-right government has led to the point where children are dying and extremism is flourishing.

The UN has repeatedly pleaded without world leaders listening – especially not Israel's government. Instead, Netanyahu's own power has been placed ahead of human life and peace. This has led to the fact that proceedings are now ongoing against him and against Israel in both the ICJ and ICC courts regarding crimes against international law.

Madam Speaker! It has been shown that Sweden during recent years has both imported weapons from Israel and exported weapons to Israel. Regarding the import that takes place, it is 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, tested on Palestinians.

The Swedish Armed Forces signed a long agreement with Elbit in October 2023, in the middle of the bombings of Gaza, regarding a so-called command system. In total, weapon imports from Israel have amounted to nearly half a billion over the last decade, a figure that is significantly higher than I thought.

That is how it looks if we do not have regulations that work, and it risks becoming even higher in the future.

Against that background, exporting war materiel and having military cooperation and contacts with Israel becomes an indirect support for the genocide that we have seen unfolding before our eyes. Vänsterpartiet considers that all military contacts with Israel must be broken immediately. The agreement with the Israeli weapons company Elbit must be terminated. We should also stop shipments of war materiel to Israel through Sweden. The rest of the world should be able to impose an arms embargo against Israel so that all arms exports from EU countries can be stopped.

Vänsterpartiet further considers that the Swedish military attaché in Tel Aviv in Israel must be recalled. The extensive exchange ongoing between the Swedish Defence and the Israeli army must be stopped. Sweden shall not be a country that indirectly supports the killing of innocent civilians. We have a responsibility for that, and the court ICJ has pointed out that we have it.

Sweden and the international community have great opportunities to act against Israel's occupation of Palestine. Stopping the supply of weapons is an effective way to put significantly greater pressure on Israel's far-right government.

Madam Speaker! Sweden must not contribute to arming oppression or undermining international law. If we mean business about standing up for democracy, peace and human rights, it must also be reflected in our export controls. Therefore, the Riksdag should reject the bill in those parts that loosen the regulatory framework and instead stand behind the proposals that we highlight in our motion.

With this, I move for approval of reservations 1 and 3 in UU18, the matter concerning a new regulatory framework, and approval of reservation 4 in UU9 regarding the annual circular on arms exports.

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

Kerstin Lundgren (C)

Madam Speaker! It sounds like a broad foreign policy debate when one listens to the previous contributions!

This is, once again, about the government's strategic export control memorandum and the new legislation. In this case, I want to be clear that Swedish security and Sweden's defense are interests that we are not prepared to sacrifice. For our part, it always comes first when it comes to export control, purchase and sale of war materiel.

We stood together with others behind the new legislation from 2017 which was based on the so-called KEX investigation, which at that time updated the regulatory framework. In that case, it was crystal clear that export cannot receive a yes if there is no underlying defense or security policy interest. Furthermore, it must not conflict with Swedish international obligations or foreign policy in general.

To the image that existed, we added that among the conditional obstacles, special consideration must be taken if the receiving country respects human rights. The state's democratic status also constitutes a central condition for the granting of permission.

It is clear that it is something that must always be tested. But we find ourselves in a completely new situation. Since 2017, we have entered a new reality. Russia's brutal war of aggression against Ukraine has changed the situation, and if there was previously a debate about the Swedish defense industry and the value of a Swedish defense industry, I believe that most have seen the value of such today. The Swedish defense industry has a great significance for Sweden's security and for Sweden's defense, but also for Sweden's foreign policy voice, not least since we became members of Nato.

It is clear that membership in Nato provides new conditions and changes how we should relate to our alliance partners. An update of the legislation was necessary for that reason. We welcome it, and we also think that the agreement reached is good, because very much of what we need right now is a reinforcement of production capacity and a cooperation to ensure that we can manage to meet the challenges that our security and Europe's security face. Then we must really ensure that it becomes a wise development in this area with a regulatory framework and an application that allows us to cooperate and develop much faster than we have managed so far. That is one of the experiences we have made.

In the so-called KEX investigation, they also discussed, as I remember it, whether we can export to a country at war. The right to defend oneself was obvious, but when the question of supporting Ukraine came up in the debate here in Sweden, it was from the beginning a question of how we should behave, and it has all the time been with a bit of how we should behave towards escalation and so on.

It is very clear here: We are cooperating defensively and in terms of production. The delivery of Swedish defense capability and war materiel has, in several cases, been of decisive importance for Ukraine. That says something about the new reality that we must internalize and adapt to. From our side, we therefore see that these are necessary changes in the legislation, and I want to move for approval of the committee's proposal in report UU18 regarding a modern and adapted regulatory framework for war materiel. We will have to see how long this regulatory framework will last before the next change is required!

When it finally concerns strategic export control, there are challenges that I want to draw the Chamber's attention to, and that is when we have exports of products with dual uses. They may seem very harmless because they go to civilian companies, but sometimes the question arises: Are there civilian companies in all countries? Or is it the case that in some countries, all civilian companies also have an obligation to deliver to the military capability?

In this situation, it is at least important to look at China, which in many ways actually delivers to Russia and the war of aggression that is ongoing against Ukraine. There is every reason to be on guard there.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal in report UU9.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating two important reports on strategic export control and a new regulatory framework for war materiel. These are technical headings. In reality, this is about something much larger. It is about who we are as a country. It is about whether Swedish policy contributes to peace or to conflict. It is about how we defend democracy and human rights in a time when they are under pressure globally.

The Green Party supports a strong Swedish total defense. We support the support for Ukraine, but we do not support a system where Swedish war materiel risks falling into hands that undermine the very values we say we defend.

Madam Speaker! The Government describes today's system as responsible, but reality shows something else. During 2025, Sweden exported war materiel worth over 28 billion kronor to 61 countries. Among the recipients are states with serious deficiencies in democracy and human rights, such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Thailand.

This is not a marginal issue. These are not isolated instances. This is a pattern that shows that the democracy criterion introduced in 2018 is not sufficient. Miljöpartiets conclusion is therefore clear: We need to move from a watered-down criterion to an actual ban on the export of war materiel to dictatorships, warring countries, and countries that commit serious and extensive violations of human rights. This ban must also include follow-on deliveries, otherwise it will not be a ban but a loophole system.

Madam Speaker! Let us be concrete. During 2025, Sweden exported war materiel worth over 400 million kronor to Thailand. At the same time, there are military tensions in the region, and the country has carried out airstrikes against Cambodia. It appears that Swedish Gripen planes were used. This illustrates a central deficiency, namely that the conflict criterion is not applied strictly enough.

The United Arab Emirates is a country identified as an actor in one of the world's worst humanitarian catastrophes, the war in Sudan, through its support for warring parties. Nevertheless, Swedish arms exports to the United Arab Emirates continue.

The government claims that exports to Israel have been stopped – while the follow-up deliveries continue. This clearly shows that by using old permits and technical definitions, political decisions can be bypassed in practice. This is not compatible with a credible foreign policy.

Madam Speaker! I also want to dwell for a moment on dual-use products. In a time of rapid technological development, export control is no longer just about weapons. It is about AI systems, surveillance technology, and advanced electronics.

The government's own report shows that export licenses for products with dual-use applications are granted to military actors in countries such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and Thailand. This raises a crucial question: Does Sweden indirectly contribute to surveillance, repression, or military escalation? The Green Party's answer is that the risk is obvious. Therefore, we want to see a new investigation that tightens control, especially regarding exports to military end-users and authoritarian states. Mass surveillance technology should not be exported to regimes that persecute dissidents. It is a self-evident principle.

Madam Speaker! The government's report on arms exports during 2025 is detailed but narrow. It focuses on technology, regulations, and Russia's war against Ukraine. That is important, but it is not enough. We live in a time where global democracy is retreating, autocratization is increasing, and the number of armed conflicts is growing. Organizations such as Freedom House and V-Dem point to a long-term negative development, but this is not sufficiently reflected in the government's analysis. This is a problem because export control is deeply political. It cannot be reduced to an administrative process. It must be based on democratic development, human rights, international law, and conflict risks. Therefore, Miljöpartiet wants the government's annual report to be broadened.

Madam Speaker! Let us move on to the government's bill on a new regulatory framework for the export of war materiel. There are parts that are positive, but in several central respects, the government is heading in the wrong direction. Instead of the control being strengthened, the proposals risk opening for a loosening. This applies particularly to the new assessment grounds and the view on cooperation with allies. The government gives the impression that export to allies should, in principle, be considered acceptable, but the reality is more complex. Allied states do not always act in line with international law. We have seen it before – in Iraq, Syria, Venezuela and other conflicts. Therefore, every export must be tested independently. Sweden shall conduct its own foreign policy, not outsource it.

Madam Speaker! Another crucial issue is the risk of re-export. The Gripen deal with Thailand illustrates the problem. There were warnings that technology could be spread further to China and, in the long run, to Russia. Nevertheless, the export was approved. It is not acceptable. Export control cannot stop at the formal recipient. It must also take into account where the material might end up in the next step. Miljöpartiet therefore wants the risk of re-export to always be clearly included in the assessment – otherwise, Sweden risks indirectly strengthening actors who are in conflict with our own security interests.

Madam Speaker! A frequently overlooked issue is the import of war materiel. Sweden is now undergoing a historic rearmament. We will become increasingly dependent on materiel from other countries. This creates long-term dependencies that can have political consequences. We have already seen examples where export issues are linked to political demands, as in the relationship with Turkey and Nato. Similar situations can arise regarding imports. Despite this, a clear regulatory framework is lacking. Miljöpartiet therefore wants an investigation to be appointed to create a modern system for imports as well.

Madam Speaker! The government's proposal for a new confidentiality provision is also problematic. It is unclear, it lacks a time limit, and it does not take into account the criticism from referral bodies and the Council on Legislation. We say: Do it over, do it right! The same applies to the agreement on export control in the defense sector. Streamlining cooperation in Europe is important, but it must not occur at the expense of Swedish legislation. The current agreement limits the possibility of stopping exports to third countries and narrows the basis to national security interests. But Swedish export control is about more than that; it is about democracy, human rights, and peace. Therefore, we say no.

Madam Speaker! The export of war materiel is not just any issue. At its core, it is moral and political. Every decision we make can have consequences far beyond Sweden's borders. It can be a matter of life and death, of freedom and oppression, of war and peace.

Miljöpartiet wants to see a clear export ban to dictatorships and warring states, tightened control of dual-use products, a stronger scrutiny of re-exports, a regulatory framework also for imports, and an export control that takes its starting point in democracy and human rights. We believe that it is fully possible to combine a strong defense with a strong set of values.

Madam Speaker! Sweden shall not only be a security policy actor. We shall be a credible voice for peace, international law, and human rights. With that, in consideration UU9 I move for approval of reservation number 6 and in consideration UU18 to reservation number 2.

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

Jamal El-Haj (-)

Madam Speaker! This is probably my last speech on the occasion of a foreign policy report. I want to use this moment to speak about my motion but also about something greater than party politics, greater than parliamentary terms and greater than our daily political contradictions. I want to speak about our responsibility as human beings.

The situation of the Palestinians is not due to a natural disaster. It is not a fate. It is a result of political decisions and of occupation, displacement and a systematic denial of a people's fundamental rights.

Since 1948, when over 750,000 Palestinians were displaced in what has come to be called al-nakba, generation after generation has grown up in refugee camps, under military control or in exile. After the 1967 war, an occupation of the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem began. It still persists. Millions of people have lived their entire lives without freedom, without self-determination, and without the security that we here in this chamber take for granted.

Sweden has for a long time stood up for the rights of the Palestinians. Sweden has contributed with humanitarian aid. Sweden has supported the UN's resolutions, which recognize the rights of the Palestinians. Sweden has recognized the state of Palestine.

But I must ask: What is the value of this support if we, while a genocide is ongoing, simultaneously deepen military cooperation with the state that maintains the occupation? What is the value of our words if they are not followed by action? What is the value of giving with one hand if we simultaneously take with the other?

Palestine is fundamentally a wealthy country. End the occupation! Then the Palestinians can manage on their own. They do not need aid. They need freedom, the opportunity to use their resources, and the right to build their own future.

On 25 October 2023, Sweden, through the Defence Materiel Administration, entered into a ten-year framework agreement with the Swedish subsidiary of Elbit Systems, which is Israel's largest weapons manufacturer. At the same time, the world continued to witness a catastrophe in Gaza that is unparalleled in our time.

UN experts, human rights organizations and international law experts have repeatedly warned about the developments and demanded that states cease arms exports and military support as long as serious crimes against international law are ongoing.

Madam Speaker! What has happened in Gaza is not just a humanitarian catastrophe. It is a moral test for the entire world. Thousands of families have been wiped out. Hundreds of journalists have been murdered. Children have been buried under rubble. Hospitals, schools, universities and residential areas have been destroyed. A city with thousands of years of history has been transformed into ruins.

Behind every number there is a face. Behind every face there is a name. Behind every name there is a family that will never be whole again. It is difficult to find a Palestinian who has not lost a brother, a sister, a cousin, a friend, or another close relative. Almost every Palestinian family carries a story of loss, grief, and separation.

I have met Palestinians who no longer count their dead, because there have been too many. I have met people who carry the key to a house that no longer exists. I have met parents who are still waiting for children who will never come home.

Trauma does not stop at Gaza's borders. It follows people to the refugee camps in Lebanon, to apartments in Europe, to communities across the world. It is a collective wound that has been passed down from generation to generation.

Madam Speaker! I am ashamed as a human being. I am ashamed that many in this chamber have chosen to see the suffering of the Palestinians as less important, less urgent, or less real than that of others. I am ashamed of parties that rightly condemned Hamas but at the same time have been reluctant to condemn the occupation, the settlements, the genocide, and the atrocities that the Palestinians are subjected to daily both in Gaza, in the West Bank, and in Lebanon with the same clarity.

I am ashamed that a party leader for a Swedish party sought and was close to forces within the Israeli far-right while Gaza was burning. I am ashamed of the silence in the face of settler violence in the West Bank. I am ashamed of the silence when Christian and Muslim Palestinians lose their homes, their land, and their dreams for the future.

Most of all, I am ashamed that international law all too often is treated as a principle that applies to some, not everyone. For me, the matter is simple: Either international law applies to all people, or it applies to no one. Either every child's life is equally worth, or we have abandoned the very foundation of our humanity.

Madam Speaker! History will ask not only what we did. It will also ask what we saw and chose to ignore. It will ask whose lives we mourned and whose lives we made invisible. It will ask whether we stood up for principles when it cost something, or if we only defended them when it was convenient.

Therefore, I urge the government to work towards a military embargo against Israel and to cease all arms exports and imports and all military cooperation until the Israeli government fully respects international law and the fundamental principles of international law.

It is not a question of being for or against a people. It is a question of being for or against human rights, for or against international law, for or against human dignity. For me, there is only one possible choice.

Madam Speaker! When this occupation one day belongs to history, no one will ask which party we represented. No one will ask what tactical considerations we made or what opinion polls we followed. People will ask if we saw people's suffering and chose to act, or if we saw it and chose to look away. It is a question I want to be able to answer with a clear conscience.

(Applause)

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

Daniel Riazat (-)

Madam Speaker! After the moving speech from Jamal, I just want to say that I am ashamed that the Speaker sat and slept during half of Jamal's speech. It is distressing. I saw the Speaker nodding off during approximately half of the speech. It is something you have to talk about later. It is not the first time I have seen this Speaker nodding off during the debate.

We are, however, here to speak about a much more serious issue: the export of war materiel. It is about human lives. In this chamber, we were just debating migration issues, which we will vote on tomorrow. It was about the fact that six of the Riksdag's eight parties want to make it even harder for people from dictatorships who are fleeing and seeking safety and a sanctuary in a country like Sweden.

A few minutes later, we stand in a debate on how arms sales are conducted. Is it not curious that a large majority in this chamber is involved in selling weapons to various dictatorships, to various colonizers and imperialists, and to various other countries that do not follow human rights – only to in the next moment vote so that people who, as a consequence of these arms sales, need to seek safety in Sweden and other countries in the West, shall not be allowed to stay in our countries? Is this not hypocrisy? You all know that it is that way, and therefore there is also silence every time this issue is raised.

What is being done is crushing human lives, only to then stand here and talk about how arms sales are conducted and how good they are for Sweden, for Swedish exports, for the Swedish economy, etcetera. This is something that I am ashamed of.

As an Iranian, I stand every day and wait for news on how the bombings are going. They will primarily hit the population and not the vile regime that exists in that country. It is weapons and bombs that kill people. As a leftist person, I have followed the genocide being carried out in Palestine by Israel with the help of the Western world, including countries like Sweden that give their silent consent.

This is something that goes along with the issue of weapons, and it is nothing that I can accept. Therefore, we have written motions concerning stopping Swedish arms exports and making the legislation stricter. I move for approval of motion 2025/26:4122 with all its proposals, as well as motion 2025/26:3725 with all its proposals. This refers to report UU9.

I saw that some people thought it was strange that I brought up that the Speaker nodded along during the previous speech. I think we should have a slightly higher level than that in the Swedish Riksdag.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 9 June.)

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