Response to interpellation 2022/23:315 on the Tidö Agreement and OECDDac
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
M believes that aid policy should be used to counter irregular migration, increase returns, and promote sustainable reintegration 1. M argues that the government has the right to choose cooperation partners based on political priorities and that conditioning of aid does not violate the OECD-DAC regulations 1 2 3. M wants to use aid to solve problems where countries do not respect international law 3 and leave the old aid policy to break aid dependency through synergies with trade policy 4. V argues that the Tidö Agreement is in conflict with the OECD-DAC regulations because the main purpose of aid must be development and welfare 5. V claims that conditional aid is incompatible with the principle of effective aid 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)
Madam Speaker and members of the House! Lotta Johnsson Fornarve has asked me how I view the connection between the government's increased focus on migration in aid and the OECD-DAC rules for ODA, how the aid policy shall contribute to reducing irregular migration, and how the government views the conditioning of aid.
In a time of increased irregular migration and forced displacement, migration has become an increasingly important area within development cooperation. That people are driven into flight by war, oppression, or poverty creates great suffering, and the humanitarian needs in the world are very large today.
The government has been clear that the aid policy shall be focused to, among other things, constitute a tool to counter irregular migration, increase returns, and contribute to effective work for voluntary return and sustainable reintegration. The government's starting point is that work with safe, orderly, and regular migration contributes to development and welfare in our partner countries and falls within the framework of the OECD-DAC rules for ODA.
Migration is not a new issue within development cooperation. Functional, safe, orderly and regular migration is part of the UN's Sustainable Development Goals and a fundamental pillar in the UN Global Compact for Migration, as is reducing the root causes that give rise to irregular migration. Development cooperation plays, for example, an important role in preventing war and conflict as well as rebuilding affected communities, which can create increased opportunities and better conditions for people to return or voluntarily repatriate. Through development efforts, we can also support countries' capacity to manage migration flows in a responsible and legally secure manner.
For the government, it is also obviously important with preventive measures to reduce the root causes of irregular migration, for example through initiatives for democracy, education, job creation, climate adaptation, and peacebuilding. In this, as in all other matters, Swedish aid shall be based on the conditions and needs in the partner country, in line with the principles for effective development cooperation.
To maintain a functioning international migration and a legally secure asylum system, it is required that all states fulfill the international law obligation to repatriate their citizens. The Government therefore intends to condition parts of the aid in order to ensure that recipient countries take responsibility for citizens who have been denied their asylum applications or for other reasons do not have a legal right to stay in Sweden. All aid measures shall follow the OECD-DAC framework for ODA. That the government weighs migration policy factors in the choice of recipients is not in conflict with the framework. Each donor has the right to choose with whom, where, and how it enters into development cooperation.
I also want to emphasize that aid policy is only one of several tools that can be used to urge countries to respect the international law obligation of repatriation and to return their citizens who do not have a legal right to stay in Sweden. Measures in several other areas may also need to be used, for example within visa policy, trade policy, and of course the broad political dialogue.
Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)
Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer to my interpellation, even though I am not entirely satisfied with the answer.
The Minister responds as follows: "The government's starting point is that work with safe, orderly and regular migration contributes to development and welfare in our partner countries and falls within the framework of the OECD-DAC rules for ODA." It is good that the minister wants to stick to the framework for aid, but then the wording in the Tidö Agreement that the government has agreed upon together with the Sverigedemokraterna does not hold regarding aid.
Just before the turn of the year, the OECD's development committee Dac agreed on a clarification of the guidelines for international aid in migration issues. Point by point, it is made clear how the policy that the Swedish government and the Sverigedemokraterna agreed upon stands in direct conflict with the international regulatory framework.
For an effort to be counted as aid, the main purpose must be development and welfare in low- and middle-income countries. The long-term work for sustainable development must not be undermined by redirecting resources due to immediate migration policy interests. An activity cannot be reported as aid if it is associated with conditions to achieve the donor's own migration policy goals.
In the Tidö Agreement, the government and the Sweden Democrats are clear that aid shall to a greater extent be linked to migration policy conditions. There, it is established, for example, that the government shall, within the framework of the aid and development policy, among other things "condition parts of the aid on the recipient country taking responsibility for its own citizens and repatriating them when necessary". Furthermore, it is written, for example, about how the aid policy shall be directed towards effective measures to reduce the root causes of irregular migration. Similar wording is found in the government's budget bill for 2023.
Besides the fact that this is in practice a shot in the air because there are hardly any countries where such a procedure would be possible – it is only a very small part of Sweden's total aid that consists of direct support to state institutions in partner countries – it is a departure from the very basic principle of aid. It contradicts the principle of effective aid. Effective aid is long-term and is based on the recipient's conditions, not the donor's.
I would like to have clearer and better answers to my questions. How will the government handle the fact that the Tidö Agreement conflicts with the OECD-DAC? What "effective measures" is the government referring to in the budget bill when writing about how aid policy shall be used to reduce irregular migration? And has the government conducted any impact assessment of how the new direction with migration policy conditions will affect Swedish aid in the short and long term?
Statsrådet Johan Forssell (M)
Madam President! Thank you, Lotta Johnsson Fornarve, for the question!
We are living in a time with several, parallel crises and major global challenges. The growing irregular migration is one such challenge, and it has major consequences for both states and individuals.
When migration occurs in a safe, orderly and regular manner, it can constitute a positive force. That people migrate between countries and within countries can promote economic growth. This applies, of course, also in Sweden, where we sometimes see a need for highly qualified labor within various key sectors.
Irregular migration, however, means that people move to countries where they do not have a legal right to stay, and it often has very large negative consequences for both local communities and migrants. Irregular migration also feeds the black market for human smuggling and increases the risks for vulnerable persons to fall victim to, for example, trafficking. It also creates a breeding ground for crime, exploitation, and vulnerability along these migration routes.
This is a question without simple solutions, but for the government, it is clear that aid can constitute an important piece of the puzzle to make migration safer, more orderly, and regular. Aid can, for example, contribute to ensuring that women and girls who have fallen victim to trafficking get access to the support that is needed. We can invest in measures that strengthen our partner countries' ability to manage migration, for example by improving authorities' handling of identity documents.
Madam President! Let me dwell on what is the cornerstone of the issue; I have also previously answered the interpellor on this. Under international law, every state has an obligation to receive its own citizens when these return from a country where they do not have a legal right to stay. This applies to Sweden as well as all other countries and is the starting point for a functioning international migration and a legally secure asylum system.
In cases where states nevertheless choose to violate international law, there must be consequences. A lack of cooperation in matters of repatriation is grounds for Sweden to review its overall foreign policy cooperation with the state in question. This applies to both development cooperation and other policy areas, for example, the visa policy and trade policy. The Government has been clear that parts of the aid can be conditioned on countries repatriating their citizens when this is required according to international law.
I want to be clear again that the government's position on conditionality does not violate the DAC regulations. The DAC regulations contain clear criteria for what is required for initiatives to be classified as aid. The DAC regulations, however, do not set any limitations on the donor's ability to choose partners. Sweden, just like all donors, has the right to both reduce and increase support to individual recipients based on political assessments and priorities. It is a right that we will, of course, exercise when required.
Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)
Mr. Speaker! I thank the Minister for the additional answers.
Of course, Sweden must stand up for international law, let alone anything else.
It is not only I who have read the Tidö Agreement carefully, but others have also read and analyzed it regarding aid. For example, the aid platform Concord has in a constructive manner examined how the Tidö Agreement stands in relation to the OECD-DAC framework and concluded that the agreement is not feasible when it comes to aid. It simply contradicts the framework for international aid. I therefore hope that the Minister can clarify how this will be handled.
For an effort to be counted as aid, the main purpose must be development and welfare in low- and middle-income countries. The long-term work for sustainable development must not be undermined by redirecting resources due to immediate migration policy interests. An activity cannot be reported as aid if it is associated with conditions to achieve the donor's own migration policy goals. I think it is clear in the Tidö Agreement that this is exactly what is being sought.
Research as well as experience shows that migration policy conditions in aid do not turn out well. This has been well known for a long time. OECD-DAC writes about how the primary purpose is central to determining whether an activity to counter so-called irregular migration can be aid. If the purpose, for example, is to influence migration to or in the direction of the donor country, it cannot be reported as aid.
Point by point, it is made clear how the policy that the Swedish government and the Sverigedemokraterna agreed upon in the Tidö Agreement stands in direct conflict with the international regulatory framework according to OECD-DAC.
To reduce and link aid to migration policy conditions at a time when global crises overlap and needs are at their greatest is a blow to the people who are having it hardest in the world. It is clear that the passages regarding conditional aid in the Tidö Agreement are more about signal politics than about what is actually possible to implement. By undermining the very purpose of aid, the intention is to direct the point toward people fleeing war, oppression, poverty, and the effects of climate change.
The Minister also says that he wants to eliminate the causes of irregular migration. But why then does the government choose to reduce aid and abandon the one percent goal? In a time when poverty is increasing again in the world and equality and democracy are regressing as a result of the pandemic, climate change and an increased number of wars and conflicts, something that increases refugee flows, famine and suffering, the government chooses to cut back on aid. It does not add up!
The government is changing the direction of Swedish aid in a way that in several cases is incompatible with the regulatory framework for how the aid may be used. As I previously said, the aid platform Concord has looked at this and come to the same conclusion as I: It is not possible to implement the Tidö Agreement and at the same time stand behind the OECD-DAC regulatory framework.
How does the Minister intend to rectify these deficiencies, and what about the impact assessment?
Statsrådet Johan Forssell (M)
Mr. Speaker! I have answered these questions a number of times, but I am happy to answer them once more. Then we shall see if there will be even more questions on the same theme.
I am, of course, available to explain what is stated in the Tidö Agreement. It may not be enough to just read it, but one must also take in what it says. The Left Party's interpellation is based on a false premise that we would condition individual aid projects on repatriation, but that is not what we say, which clearly appears in the response. But I am happy to repeat it once more. What we say is that a government must, of course, be able to choose cooperation partners for aid based on its political priorities. That is nothing new, as that is how all governments have acted.
Lotta Johnsson Fornarve argues that it would not be compatible with the OECD-DAC framework, but that is completely wrong. Of course, Sweden, like all other countries, has every right to decide which countries they want to cooperate with. Looking at aid over the last decades, this has changed many times both up and down. Sometimes cooperation has been completely terminated and sometimes new ones have been built up. Why should it not apply to this very government? Should that right suddenly cease just because it is a bourgeois government? Unfortunately, the Left Party has completely misunderstood this.
We have a comprehensive problem with a growing shadow society where people live in great vulnerability, not least many women and girls. There are different calculations of this, but the number can correspond to a medium-sized Swedish city. It is a development that we have warned about for many years and which the previous government never managed to handle, and unfortunately, Vänsterpartiet has been completely uninterested.
Now we must act to solve these problems, some of which are that certain countries do not respect international law and do not receive their citizens despite having an obligation to do so. We want aid to be one tool among many, and we believe that it has potential and provides opportunities. We will continue to work on this issue, because we must achieve a change of stance.
I also want to point out one thing that is often forgotten in this debate, namely the fact that functional, safe, orderly and regular migration is not something we have just made up. It is part of the UN's Sustainable Development Goals. It is a fundamental pillar in the UN's global migration framework. This includes providing asylum to the person who has grounds for protection, but also actually that the person who does not have grounds for protection should return home. This has not worked previously. Now we are breaking new ground by taking action against this widespread problem, among other things precisely by being able to use a part of the aid as a tool in this.
Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)
Mr. Speaker! I do not agree with the Minister that the Tidö Agreement does not conflict with the regulatory framework for how aid may be used. This is what the interpellation debate is about, and not who one should cooperate with. Naturally, the government has the right to choose for itself whom it wishes to cooperate with. This is about in what way the aid may be used.
I and many others with me have studied and read the Tidö Agreement. Among other things, the aid platform Concord has in a very productive manner deeply analyzed and scrutinized how the Tidö Agreement aligns with the regulatory framework for international aid. If one reads and studies the Tidö Agreement in this way, one concludes that it does not hold together. It does not work. It contradicts the OECD-DAC's regulatory framework for how international aid may be used.
The government's and the Sweden Democrats' agreement in the Tidö Agreement contradicts this regulatory framework point by point. Aid must not be conditioned on migration policy goals in the way it is in the Tidö Agreement with the aim of favoring the donor's migration policy goals.
The Tidö Agreement is a blow to the people who have it the hardest in the world. In addition to the Tidö Agreement being in conflict with the regulatory framework for how aid may be used, it is clear that it is mostly about signal politics and not about what is actually possible to implement. By undermining the very purpose of aid, the aim is instead to direct the point toward people fleeing from war, oppression, poverty, and the effects of climate change. This is a cynical policy that shows a contempt for those who have it the hardest in the world.
Statsrådet Johan Forssell (M)
Mr. Speaker! I would then just like to repeat what I have said in my response and what I have said here in the rostrum several times and which is quite obvious: Every donor has the right to choose with whom, where and how development cooperation is entered into. That we choose to weigh in migration policy factors in that does not in any way conflict with the OECD-DAC rules for ODA. Now it is fortunately the case that it is not the Left Party that decides what is compatible and what is not compatible, but that assessment takes place elsewhere.
For us, maintaining a rule-of-law-based and international migration is very important. This includes granting residence permits to those who have grounds for protection, but also precisely that other thing that Vänsterpartiet avoids talking about, namely that those who have been denied their asylum application must actually return home. It is a major problem. One could wish that Vänsterpartiet would at some point choose to address those types of questions. How are we to handle the vulnerability that tens of thousands of people in Sweden are forced to experience when they are in the shadow society? We do not hear very much about that.
We now choose to leave much of the old aid policy, which has not worked and where the results are unfortunately poor in many ways. We are breaking new ground now, for example by finding synergies between the important aid policy and trade policy, based on the premise that aid can be effective in combating poverty.
But the bitter truth is that many countries that have received very much aid over many years continue to be in a very large dependency on aid. We must break that. We are now finding synergies with trade policy, we are changing and we are modernizing. If the Left Party wants to stay in the old, they are welcome to do so, but for us, it is important to now modernize and achieve new results.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.