Response to interpellation 2022/23:293 on the effects of reduced aid to Guatemala
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
M argues that the government prioritizes quality, efficiency, and transparency in the aid 1 2. M emphasizes that the aid to Guatemala follows the same level as the previous government introduced 1 2 and that no sharp reduction has occurred compared to when they took over the Ministry for Foreign Affairs 3. M believes that trade and investments are necessary to create prosperity 1 2 and that one should discuss how the aid funds are used 3. S argues that the government has significantly cut the aid, which risks making Guatemala a failed state 4 5. S claims that the reduction could facilitate drug cartels 4 5.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Statsrådet Johan Forssell (M)
Mr. Speaker! Mathias Tegnér has asked me how Europe and Sweden are affected by the government's cut in aid to Guatemala, for example regarding organized crime, and what initiatives I as a minister intend to take within my area of responsibility in connection with this.
Since this government took office, the need for support for Ukraine has increased. The government has therefore been clear that the support for Ukraine must continue to be prioritized.
Regarding Guatemala, it appears from the regulatory letter to Sida for the 2023 budget year that the appropriation item amounts to 90 million kronor for the current year. Due to a reduced volume for a single country strategy, it follows that the aid activities in the country need to be adapted to the new conditions. Sida has initiated such adaptation work based on the aforementioned regulatory letter. The regulatory letter also states that the government, in connection with the development of the reform agenda for aid, shall examine whether the strategy in Guatemala should be concluded or continue, as well as whether prioritized parts should be handled within the framework of other strategies. Work on this is ongoing.
I also want to point out that Guatemala is included in other strategies. For example, there are projects within both the regional strategy for Latin America and the strategy for human rights, democracy and the rule of law principles that concern the country. Swedish aid constitutes an important tool in the work against the worrying democratic backsliding, and that type of democracy work is therefore a clear priority within the aid policy.
Sweden has, through aid to Guatemala, among other things sought to contribute to strengthening the country's capacity to counter corruption and impunity as well as increase respect for the principles of the rule of law. Despite many years of efforts, we can nevertheless observe that the development in these areas has not moved in the right direction. After Guatemala's previous government decided to terminate the mandate for the International Commission Against Impunity, CICIG, in 2019, the negative development has rather accelerated. The Swedish government assesses that there are today small possibilities for Swedish aid to influence that development.
Mathias Tegnér (S)
Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by thanking Minister Forssell for the answer.
Yes, it has probably not escaped anyone's notice that the new government has significantly reduced aid in general and support to Guatemala in particular.
I have asked a question linked to the effect of the reduction in aid to Guatemala. In this case, I have asked about the more specific effects on organized crime and the availability of drugs in Europe and Sweden.
The new government, as has been said, has a different view on aid than the previous S-government. There are naturally ideological and principled aspects to that, but in this case, I have tried to focus on the tangible, concrete effects of the substantial reduction of aid to Guatemala.
To take the issue of organized crime as a starting point, I have prepared a debate article that the Minister wrote last year in his then role as the spokesperson for justice policy. It is about taking a crackdown against organized crime. It is a good article that I share many of the intentions of.
What I am wondering about is how the ambition that the Minister describes in the debate article aligns with the fact that one is prepared to make aid cuts that obviously facilitate narcotics cartels in Latin America. For me, it is namely obvious that the transaction costs for transporting narcotics to Europe are crucial for the fight against organized crime.
I noted an interview in Dagens Nyheter with Belgium's Minister of Justice, whose name is Vincent Van Quickenborne and who is liberal-conservative. He argues for Belgium's strategy to stop organized crime, which is to strike at the profitable drug trade passing through the port of Antwerp. It is somehow linked to the idea that transaction costs are important when fighting organized crime.
In this case, I am afraid that when such a significant reduction of aid to Guatemala is made, the risk increases that Guatemala will become a so-called failed state, as other countries in Central America already are. It risks facilitating the possibility of transporting drugs, including cocaine, to Europe and to Sweden.
I have frantically searched the decision-making documents linked to the reduction in aid after an analysis covering the risk that Guatemala becomes another failed state in Latin America and how that would affect organized crime here in Sweden.
Therefore, my question is again: Has the government not analyzed how the cutting of aid to Guatemala can affect organized crime and the availability of narcotics in Europe and Sweden?
Statsrådet Johan Forssell (M)
Mr. Speaker! I would like to thank you for the interpellation; I forgot to do so in my previous speech.
It is true that we in the government have changed Swedish aid policy. We will no longer focus on the disbursement target that has applied previously, but will instead focus on quality and efficiency and, not least, transparency. It is a change that we have made and which I note that even the Social Democrats stand behind, possibly not in their rhetoric but at least in their own budget motion. There, the Social Democrats have also chosen this year to abandon the one percent target.
I can also state that regarding the continued grant for Guatemala specifically, it follows the grant level that the previous Social Democratic government introduced after the limits were established. Nor in that part is there any major difference between how this government and the previous government have acted. The difference is possibly that our changes to the aid policy have been analyzed more than the previous government's. The previous government introduced very powerful limits in a very short time.
I will also point out, Mr. Speaker, that just as in many other countries in the region, there are in Guatemala great challenges with extensive drug smuggling and the presence of organized crime. In that, we are in agreement. Interpol estimates that around 90 percent of all cocaine that reaches the North American market as its final destination is smuggled through Guatemala.
I think, however, that it should also be emphasized that of the total amount of narcotics transported through Guatemala, a very small part reaches Europe and Sweden. The main smuggling routes to Europe go from the producer countries - Colombia, Peru and Bolivia - via countries other than the Central American countries.
The links to Sweden regarding specifically the drug-related crime operating in Guatemala are thus not particularly strong. We assess, just as I assume the previous Social Democratic government did when it introduced significant limits on the same level as those that apply for Guatemala now, that it will not affect Sweden or security in Sweden to any significant extent.
With that said, we naturally view the spread of organized crime seriously, both in Sweden and abroad, and we will also in the future work very hard to tackle it.
To counter it, the root causes also need to be addressed, not least in Guatemala. It is our view that the challenges we see linked to organized crime cannot be addressed solely through aid. It must be done through a long series of different interventions, where aid is an important part but still only one of several.
In light of the connections that exist with underlying factors - poverty, lack of opportunities, corruption, and a weak rule of law - we must work more with, for example, the integration of aid and trade. In this way, we also create increased opportunities for countries to make the same journey to prosperity that we have made. Aid can be effective in combating poverty, but to build a path to prosperity, we must link that area with trade, entrepreneurship, and investment in a completely different way than before - something that is often highlighted by the recipient countries themselves.
I would like to conclude by underlining that there are many other actors working on these issues where Sweden has an important role. I want to particularly highlight the important work carried out by the EU but also by relevant UN bodies. We have, for example, extensive support for the office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights in Guatemala, which has a strategically important mandate. We also have extensive core support to the UN body for drug control and crime prevention.
Mathias Tegnér (S)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the answer!
Yes, in principle, the Social Democrats have a different view regarding the aid. We still stand behind the one percent goal, which is a difference compared to the current government. I am sure the Minister is aware of that. Then, it is the case that we are in a difficult economic situation, but in the long run, the Social Democrats' definitive view is that we should return to the one percent goal. That is where we differ, and that is of course completely okay.
When it comes to smuggling routes, I partially share the Minister's view on them. As it stands today, a large part of the cocaine smuggling from Colombia and also Ecuador goes, for example, to the port of Antwerp.
At the same time, we know that the smuggling routes change rapidly. In a situation where Guatemala, as the last country in Central America to have had any form of stability, completely falls apart and becomes yet another failed state, the risk is obvious that the smuggling routes will change.
When it comes to limits, it is naturally the case that the situation we have found ourselves in over the recent years has affected how much of the aid can be paid out and in which direction the aid goes.
However, I believe it is important to stand behind the strategy that has been laid out for Guatemala in the long term, because if one does not stand behind it, the risk is very great that the country becomes yet another failed state.
When it comes to trade and aid, I have my view from the journey I made together with other parliamentarians from here in the Riksdag, which went to both Colombia and Guatemala. When we talk about a country like Colombia, it is obvious that there are good opportunities for expanded trade, which can lead to positive effects for both Sweden and a country like Colombia.
When we, on the other hand, talk about a country like Guatemala, which is rather quickly heading in the wrong direction, it is much more difficult to see how trade will lead to a positive development. We met the Foreign Minister, who spoke very much about the importance of trade. It is not obvious that trade with, for example, Guatemala would lead to the country moving in a different direction. Parts of the groups that actually need to be countered are, in fact, benefited by trade in a country like Guatemala, which is partially controlled by drug cartels with tentacles even into more legitimate companies in society. Increased trade with Guatemala does not therefore need to have a positive effect today.
Regarding the developments in Guatemala, Swedish aid, just as the Minister mentioned, has gone to, for example, the International Commission against Impunity, CICIG. This has led to pressure on the groups in the country that need to be pressured. I believe we both know that the former president, Otto Pérez Molina, was forced to resign in 2015 precisely because of the anti-corruption efforts that the Swedish aid was involved in financing.
This is the essence of this interpellation. If we now withdraw the aid to Guatemala, it risks having strongly negative effects. I wonder again if the government analyzed this when it chose to cut the aid to Guatemala.
Statsrådet Johan Forssell (M)
Mr. Speaker! In this context, it is important to remember that the government's aid policy remains generous. During the years 2023 to 2025, the aid framework will be at 56 billion kronor. This means that we are one of very few countries in the world that reaches the UN level of 0.7 percent of GNI.
But it is also the case that we have a different situation now than before. We have, for example, a war in Europe, and it is an important priority for the government to be a very long-term partner to Ukraine. We live in a world where we do not have unlimited resources. We must dare to make priorities, and we must dare to place significantly more focus than before on quality and efficiency and not least also transparency.
It is easy to say that one does not need to prioritize if one has as much money as one wants. It is a bit difficult to understand the position of the Social Democrats, who on the one hand say they are in favor of a continued one percent goal but on the other hand choose to budget with less than 1 percent. It does not really feel like this hangs together, and it actually must, at least if one wants to take on a responsibility of government. Then it must be matched by investments in a budget.
I want to point out once again that the level for Guatemala follows what the previous government did linked to the limits; there are no major changes. So the question Mathias Tegnér should ask is perhaps rather what consequence analysis the previous government made when it chose to reduce the aid to Guatemala. That is actually how it has looked.
Our goal is to create the conditions for countries and their inhabitants to be able to move from poverty to prosperity through precisely trade and an inclusive economic development. I want to take this opportunity to point out the synergy of positive effects that result from the integration between trade and aid. These two things must be woven together; they should not be separated or isolated. We are convinced that free and open markets, with a good business climate, the rule of law, growth, and entrepreneurship, are the way for more countries to be able to make the same journey that we in Sweden have made. I can state that this, wherever one goes in the world, is often the first thing put forward: that one wants to see more foreign investments.
We can also observe that very many countries that for very many years have received very large sums in Swedish aid continue to be very dependent on aid. Sometimes it may therefore be wise to stop and reflect a little on where we are somewhere today. Where have we actually arrived after all these years? Is there room to rethink, change, and improve?
I also want to emphasize that there are many other ways for Swedish aid to reach Guatemala than through the bilateral strategy. Guatemala, as part of Central America, is a prioritized sub-region within our regional strategy for development cooperation in Latin America. In addition, Sweden's bilateral development cooperation is also, as I have said, complemented by core support to relevant UN agencies in the country. Support to Guatemala also originates within the framework of global thematic strategies, on top of the regional ones, such as the strategy for work on human rights, democracy, and the rule of law principles.
Mathias Tegnér (S)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the answer, Minister! If I start with the first question linked to the one percent goal, we can go back to the 90s crisis. At that time, Swedish aid decreased, and the Social Democrats chose, just as has been said now, to fundamentally stand behind the one percent goal and slowly but surely move back towards it. We will do that again, if we are given the chance to govern.
When it comes to the frameworks for Guatemala, the previous government had a long-term framework that was significantly larger than the frameworks that exist today. Furthermore, there are other types of writings in the regulatory letter that resonate regarding whether we should have any aid to Guatemala at all. It would be catastrophic if it were abolished.
I share the Minister's view that free and open markets are important and that trade can contribute positively. But there are a number of basic prerequisites for this to be possible: a reasonable rule of law, anti-corruption, and transparency. When a country like Guatemala moves in the wrong direction so quickly, there is nothing to indicate that trade in itself would contribute to creating a free and open market.
To summarize: My point with this interpellation debate was to demonstrate the consequences of a reduction in aid. I am afraid that what the minister has previously mentioned about taking a crack down on organized crime risks falling apart when such measures are taken against a country like Guatemala; you risk creating yet another failed state in Central America.
When this type of cut has been commented on, it has sounded as if no proper analysis of the consequences has been carried out. I hope that a reasonable discussion is held moving forward regarding the links between aid and organized crime and drug cartels.
Statsrådet Johan Forssell (M)
Mr. Speaker! We have a budget process that has looked the same for a long time. It works in that we make a decision on a budget here in the chamber of the Riksdag, and then it is up to the responsible authorities to ensure that it is implemented. That is how we work, and there is no difference now compared to before. It has been so under both Social Democratic and bourgeois governments.
I think it is important to point out that there has therefore been no significant reduction in the support to Guatemala now in relation to what applied when we entered the Ministry for Foreign Affairs. It is the same figures that have applied after the limits.
No major changes have also been made to the overall aid framework compared to what applied during the Social Democrats' time. I am not saying this because I want it to be a competition over who can give the most aid, but I think it sometimes becomes a bit strange when one pretends to have much more money than one actually has. If one says that one stands for something, one must also show it in a budget – otherwise, it is easy to put forward different promises.
We have a slightly different view on aid. We see it as an important tool that must, however, be used together with other measures, not least trade. As I have touched upon, and as Guatemala is an example of, very many countries have received very much aid, but it is difficult to find the long-term positive effects. Obviously, reality shows that it is not enough to only focus on the sums in aid, but we must begin to approach the discussion on how we use the aid funds and what we get for them.
One question is also where Swedish aid money makes the greatest impact. The question is not whether one gets something for 150 million or 90 million in, for example, Guatemala, but whether in the situation we have now, with a war in Europe, it is quite reasonable that this is also reflected in our own Swedish aid budget.
So we have reasoned. We will certainly have to return to this discussion. I would like to thank Mathias Tegnér for submitting this interpellation.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.