Response to interpellation 2022/23:65 on arms exports to Turkey
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns arms exports to Turkey. M argues that NATO membership changes the conditions for exports 1 2 and that all states have the right to defend themselves against terrorism 3. M emphasizes that ISP is an independent authority 1 2 3 and that the dialogue on human rights can be strengthened through a stronger relationship with Turkey 4. MP considers that Sweden should not export weapons to dictatorships 5 and that the exports must not undermine the work for peace and human rights 6. V considers that the government should make decisions itself, signal restrictiveness since Turkey is no longer considered a democracy and that Sweden stands on the side of the attacker.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Utrikesministern Tobias Billström (M)
Madam Speaker! Jacob Risberg has asked me if I intend to work for any changes regarding arms exports to Turkey, and if so, which ones. He has also asked what measures I intend to take in connection with Turkey's bombings in northern Syria. Furthermore, Risberg has asked what measures I intend to take in connection with the criticism that is now being directed at Turkey by, for example, the USA.
The Government has clarified that Sweden's Nato membership will change the conditions for the export of war materiel within Sweden's national regulatory framework. We can also state that our application to become members of Nato already entails defense and security policy circumstances which have an effect on the assessment of applications from other Nato members. The Inspectorate for Strategic Products, ISP, takes this into account in the overall assessment that the authority makes in each individual case.
Sweden is consulting closely with the EU regarding the developments and the recent escalation in northern Syria and Iraq. The Government supports the EU's calls for de-escalation from all parties.
Jacob Risberg (MP)
Madam Speaker! This interpellation concerns, as is known, statements that Foreign Minister Tobias Billström has made regarding arms exports to Turkey.
For the Green Party, it is clear that we should not export weapons to Turkey or other dictatorships and invasion powers that violate international law. Swedish foreign and security policy should not be dictated by authoritarian regimes. And our approach to our weapons export legislation should not be changed just because we become members of Nato.
The Foreign Minister's statement in Expressen can be interpreted as that the government has no influence over ISP's assessment and decisions. This is, of course, not true. Sweden has indeed chosen to delegate the assessment to ISP. But that does not relieve the government of responsibility. The government always has responsibility for all Swedish arms exports. According to the regulatory framework, all controversial issues should be raised to the government, and Turkey is controversial.
Sweden's independent foreign and development policy is particularly important now when we find ourselves in a protracted NATO application. Shortly after it became clear that Sweden and Finland would apply for membership, Turkey's President Erdogan demanded a change in Swedish policy in order not to block the application. It is no coincidence that Erdogan uses our weapons legislation to put pressure on the government. It is also no coincidence that he now continues to put pressure on the government in other issues, such as the rights of Kurds.
Madam Speaker! The Turkish airstrikes against Kurdish targets in Iraq and Syria over the past weeks have claimed a large number of casualties, including many civilians. The Turkish military and their allies have previously shown a great lack of respect for civilian lives, including through attacks against residential areas where civilians have been killed and injured. These attacks are enabled through arms exports from Sweden.
Foreign Minister Billström and Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson have defended Turkey's actions. The government is playing a tragically high-stakes game when it chooses to deepen ties with this authoritarian regime and ignores the violations of international law it commits.
In the guidelines regarding arms exports, it states that "respect for human rights and the receiving state's democratic status constitutes central conditions in the permit review. The poorer the democratic status is, the less room there is for permits to be granted. If there are serious and extensive violations of human rights or grave deficiencies in the democratic status, it constitutes an obstacle to the granting of permits."
Freedom House classifies Turkey as not free in its index. The country scores only 32 points on a hundred-point democratic scale, which is on par with Mali and Algeria. In other words, it is hardly something that can be classified as a good democratic status.
Madam Speaker! Turkey is constantly taking steps in an increasingly authoritarian direction. I wonder if the Minister for Foreign Affairs can say how much longer this is to be allowed to continue before the government has any intention whatsoever of saying no to arms exports to Turkey.
Håkan Svenneling (V)
Madam Speaker! I sometimes think it was good that Miljöpartiet left the government. This shift did not, in fact, occur during Tobias Billström's time as Foreign Minister, but it actually occurred in the foreign policy debate we had in the chamber in June this year, when Ann Linde was still Foreign Minister.
She then signaled very clearly what Erdogan wanted when he chose to put a spoke in the wheels of Sweden's Nato application, namely that Sweden intended to disregard the decision that a unanimous Riksdag made in October 2019, on the initiative of myself and a Liberal. All parties stood behind that decision, which led to ISP making the decision not to export to Turkey. They withdrew two permits.
The then Minister for Foreign Affairs thus signaled during the debate in June that it was, on the contrary, time to start exporting again. And that is how it works - ISP, the Inspectorate for Strategic Products, follows political language. The director-general himself says so if you ask him straight out. That is why one can never escape the political responsibility.
I actually think that this government has done one thing right, and that is that they have put arms exports back under the Foreign Minister's domain so that the Foreign Minister now has it under his hat. The Social Democrats maneuvered around arms exports and placed them on the Justice Minister, but to deal with arms exports – and what that entails – is in essence and in heart foreign policy. Therefore, I would like to thank Jacob Risberg very much for submitting this interpellation. I would also like to thank the Foreign Minister for the answer, even though it was somewhat short.
As Risberg is aware, it has been clear what language is used and at what speed one speaks regarding Turkey. When a bomb went off in Istanbul, the government was lightning-fast in giving Turkey support, and that is good. But when Turkey bombed in Iraq and Syria, the statements were much more vague, and it took quite a long time before they arrived. So it was, despite the fact that it is in conflict with international law to bomb another country's territory, which both Turkey and Iran have engaged in in the northern parts of Iraq that we usually call the Kurdish autonomous regions.
Why is this so important when it comes to Turkey? Yes, if one is a NATO advocate, one might think that Sweden should just lie flat and do whatever it takes to join NATO. But the problem we have is that Turkey is preparing a military attack against the Kurdish autonomy in northeastern Syria that could become a bloodbath without equal.
When Turkey did the same thing once before – it was after we introduced the previous stop for arms exports to the country, 2019 – the Kurdish forces withdrew. They said: Okay, we see that Turkey is on the way – we withdraw from Afrin, position ourselves on this side of the Euphrates and instead try to build a Kurdish democratic society here.
Now it is not about anything like that, but now it is about Erdogan wanting to destroy everyone who fights for democracy and human rights both inside and outside Turkey - and especially if they are Kurds. The risk is therefore that this bloodbath will be enormous. That Sweden then stands on the attacker's side, which is the risk with the arms exports to Turkey, is what makes this so sensitive.
The government should do as Jacob Risberg suggests and actually make the decision itself instead of letting an agency do it. Now it is being decided which side of history Sweden stands on - and unfortunately, it could be the wrong side.
Utrikesministern Tobias Billström (M)
Madam Speaker! Sweden has and shall have a restrictive export control regarding war materiel. There is a general prohibition on the export of war materiel. Permits are required for manufacture, for provision, and for export. According to the guidelines that have been decided by the government and presented to the Riksdag, it is required that defense or security policy reasons exist for permits to be granted, as well as that the export does not conflict with the principles and goals of Sweden's foreign policy.
That a Swedish NATO membership entails new security policy circumstances and that this will affect the conditions for the export of war materiel within our national regulatory framework is something that both the government I represent and the previous government have been clear about.
The Inspectorate for Strategic Products, ISP, is an independent government agency with supervisory and licensing responsibility for cases concerning export controls of Swedish war materiel and dual-use products. The agency makes decisions after a holistic assessment of all relevant circumstances in cases where they receive an application from the Swedish defense industry. It is only if unconditional obstacles exist, for example a weapons embargo, that ISP does not need to make any holistic assessment of an application. It is already known that there is no weapons embargo against Turkey.
ISP has been clear in its communication regarding its decision to allow a follow-up delivery of other war materiel to Turkey. In the authority's press release from September 30, it can be read that ISP has taken into account changed security policy conditions. Furthermore, ISP emphasizes that, according to the practice that applies to matters of particular importance, it has consulted with the parliamentarially constituted Export Control Council in the matter.
This council consists of representatives from all parties in the Riksdag, and the purpose of the EKR consultation is to contribute to ensuring that ISP's licensing is continuously in harmony with Swedish defense, security, and foreign policy. Since representatives for all Riksdag parties are represented in EKR, there is a political anchoring of the consultation and its results, which ISP takes into account in its decision.
As Jacob Risberg points out, it is correct that ISP has the possibility to hand over matters of principal importance or special weight to the government. Such a handover can only occur after the matter has been subject to consultation with the Export Control Council. It must however be emphasized here that it is ISP's own decision whether a matter should be handed over to the government or if the authority considers itself to have sufficient grounds to be able to make a decision. There is no constitutional support for the government to request that ISP hand over a matter to the government for a decision.
Without commenting on the specific case, I can say that the ISP in the overall assessment made by the authority must weigh all circumstances that are significant for the case. This means that there may be individual reasons that speak both for and against allowing the export.
Jacob Risberg (MP)
Madam Speaker! I forgot to thank the Minister for Foreign Affairs for his answer earlier, so I will take the opportunity to do so now instead. Thank you very much!
The USA has directed sharp criticism at Turkey following alarming signals that the YPG is giving up the fight against the terrorist group IS due to the Turkish attacks. From the American side, concern is expressed that much of the work to push back IS risks being lost due to Turkey's actions, which in the worst case could lead to IS regaining territory in Syria. From Sweden's side, we have so far only heard understanding and sympathy for Turkey's attacks in Syria despite the great risks the attacks entail.
When ISP spoke out on June 30 and September 30 regarding Swedish arms exports to Turkey, they referred partly to the then government's foreign policy declaration and partly, as Håkan Svenneling spoke about here earlier, the decision on the impending NATO membership and the changed defense and security policy circumstances. Much has happened since September 30, I must say.
The Government bears a responsibility for foreign and security policy and the foreign declaration and therefore, through its actions, its statements and through the foreign policy it pursues, has a direct influence on and a responsibility for ISP's decisions. There is also, just as the Foreign Minister points out, a safety valve in Swedish legislation where ISP can, on its own initiative, submit cases to the Government for review if these have principal significance or are of special importance.
Madam Speaker! According to documentation from the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, respect for human rights, democracy, and the principles of the rule of law is being continuously eroded in Turkey. The restrictions on freedom of expression, press, and information continue through harassment of a legal nature, deprivation of liberty, threats, and violence against journalists.
We have high standards for what is required for a country to be eligible for arms trade from Sweden. There are plenty of countries that meet these standards - significantly more than what is required for us to be able to maintain a Swedish arms industry, which is the very basic idea behind why we export weapons at all. But it is up to each country that wants to buy Swedish weapons to meet these requirements. It is not Sweden's obligation to make concessions or exceptions to these requirements.
The government refuses to condemn Turkey's attacks on civilians with reference to Sweden's interests, and the government refuses to stand up for international law because it is afraid that it will have consequences for Sweden's Nato application. Why should we then join Nato if it is not about defending civilians' right to life, if it is not about defending international law?
Madam Speaker! I still wonder what measures the Foreign Minister and the government intend to take regarding the escalation from Turkey's side over the past weeks.
Håkan Svenneling (V)
Madam Speaker! I believe it is important to point out that there are other NATO countries that still have a ban on the export of weapons to Turkey after 2019.
It was not only Sweden and Finland that introduced the ban, but it is through the Swedish Nato application that Erdogan has gained some countries that he can pressure and get to go in his direction. That is why we have ended up in the situation where Sweden is now starting to export weapons again.
An embargo was in the works in the autumn of 2019. To reconnect to the previous debate we had here tonight, EU agreement on an embargo was not reached, but Sweden and Finland and a good number of other countries tried to secure an embargo against Turkey already then. That was the clear position that the Riksdag took, but it did not go all the way because the EU was not in agreement.
Well, in 2019, the company Scania was shamed for previous exports that it had carried out. The question is which Swedish companies we should be ashamed of this time, which are now exporting weapons that may potentially be used by Turkey in upcoming wars and invasions. The government should instead signal restrictiveness for that very reason. Even if one opens the door, one does not need to throw everything to Turkey. Furthermore, we have an arms industry that is de facto running at full speed. It can hardly be priority number one to export specifically to the questionable democracy Turkey.
We have seen a creeping [decline] for Turkey and its despot Erdogan for quite a long time. Not even in the government's own report on human rights is Turkey called a democracy. It is said that the country has moved from parliamentary democracy to presidential rule, I believe that is the word used. It shows how poorly the government actually sees what democracy in Turkey is.
Utrikesministern Tobias Billström (M)
Madam Speaker! Let me begin by saying that all states have the right to defend themselves against terrorism.
Turkey has been very affected by terrorism over the years, which is clearly illustrated, not least by the recently carried out bomb attack in Istanbul. It is something that we should take very seriously from Sweden's side because the organizations that have operated on Turkish territory, not least PKK, are designated as terrorist organizations in the EU.
That is why Sweden consults closely within the EU regarding the developments and the recent escalation in northern Syria and in Iraq. These attacks have taken place in a restless region. The Government has consistently urged all parties to exercise restraint and calm. Sweden is monitoring the situation closely and also consults within the EU regarding the situation.
In an international context, Sweden is consistently pushing for measures to combat terrorism and prevent violent extremism to be carried out with full respect for international law, including humanitarian law and human rights, and that this is in accordance with the principles of the rule of law.
To go back to the question that Jacob Risberg raised, I think it is important to emphasize this regarding the independent and autonomous agencies we have in Sweden when it comes to export control. It is ISP's own decision whether a case should be submitted to the government or if the agency makes the assessment when deciding that it has sufficient grounds for this.
It also deserves to be emphasized, based on how our constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act are written, that there is no constitutional basis for the government to request that ISP hand over a case to the government. The overall assessment and the review conducted within the framework of the mandate that ISP has is always based on the premise that the authority weighs all circumstances that are significant for the case. In that case, one can also end up in a situation where the reasons for and against are found in the same case documentation.
Jacob Risberg (MP)
Madam Speaker! Several parallel crises are ongoing around the world.
Democracy is in retreat globally. In the wake of the covid pandemic, authoritarian regimes have advanced their positions and pushed back democratic forces.
The world is in a state of acute climate emergency. The levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are higher than they have been in 4 million years. The climate crisis is already causing extreme weather and droughts, which are forcing people to flee.
In this, we face a terrible global famine catastrophe due, among other things, to increased grain prices in the wake of Russia's violation of international law in its invasion of Ukraine.
We live in a time where peace is something we must build, preserve and fight for.
Miljöpartiet has pushed through stricter rules for Swedish arms exports, including through the introduction of a democracy criterion which means that weapons should not be exported to dictatorships. It was an important step, but the legislation is not sufficient.
We must not forget that it is not Sweden that should adapt its legislation to enable the export of weapons to rogue states. It is the importing countries' responsibility to live up to Sweden's democracy criterion. And it is the government's responsibility to conduct a security and foreign policy worthy of the name. Swedish weapons manufacturing and weapons exports must not undermine the work for peace, democratization, and human rights in our global environment.
Utrikesministern Tobias Billström (M)
Madam Speaker! I thank the interpellator and the other participants for the debate.
I want to begin by saying that the government naturally continues to follow the developments in Turkey regarding respect for human rights, democracy, and the principles of the rule of law. Our foreign authorities in Ankara and Istanbul have a wide spectrum of direct contacts with Turkish representatives, civil society actors, and human rights defenders. We also follow the developments multilaterally in relation to Turkey's international commitments as a member of, among others, the Council of Europe, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, OSCE, and the UN. Sweden and the EU also maintain the dialogue with Turkey on democracy, the principles of the rule of law, and women and girls' full enjoyment of human rights.
When we now strengthen the dialogue and the relationship with Turkey as a future ally, the dialogue on these issues can also be strengthened. I see that as very important and positive.
Thank you very much for the debate!
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.