Response to interpellation 2023/24:21 on the reform agenda for aid

Statsrådet Johan Forssell (M)

Mr. Speaker! We continue to talk about aid, and Olle Thorell has asked me in what way I intend to anchor the reform agenda for aid in the Riksdag before decisions are made.

The government has received a mandate to make changes and is working on developing a reform agenda for aid, in order to better meet the great challenges the world faces collectively and to contribute to a positive development. Aid saves lives and alleviates distress.

That Sweden is one of the world's most generous aid donors also implies a great responsibility. In the budget bill, the Government has signaled that a reform agenda for aid is being developed with a focus on long-term perspective, transparency, and efficiency. The Committee on Foreign Affairs has been informed about the work, and all parties have been invited to consultations at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs. A larger number of meetings have been held with civil society organizations, researchers, the business sector, and authorities. There has also been an opportunity for all of these to submit written comments. The aid policy debate surrounding the reform agenda has been ongoing for nearly a year.

With great changes in the world and a war in Europe, it is important that aid can operate with greater flexibility than before and have the ability to pivot quickly. The Government is working according to that direction and with the aim of making Swedish aid more effective as well as finding synergies with the important trade policy. We want to act decisively and make a difference during the mandate period.

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

Olle Thorell (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the answer!

What we are seeing now is the largest reorganization of Swedish aid and development policy in several decades. In addition to having scrapped the one percent goal, which has been a guiding principle for Swedish aid for 50 years, one is also scrapping the feminist aid and development policy and launching a so-called reform agenda that no one has seen. It just exists, somewhere else.

That is what we are debating here: People speak of a reform agenda, but no one has really seen it. It does not exist in reality, and it has not been anchored. It is clear that there have been many meetings, consultations have been called, and there have been networking events for civil society, but that is not a serious way to anchor such an important part of foreign policy as aid policy actually is and such a large part of the state budget as it also concerns - 56 billion kronor.

I shall preempt the Minister regarding the one percent target. He is trying to make it appear that there is a broad consensus between the Moderates and the Social Democrats that the one percent target should be abandoned. Let me therefore correct Forssell before he says this: We have not abandoned the one percent target. We have abandoned that level in our shadow budget - yes. But just as when we sanitized the state finances in the 90s and then abandoned the one percent level to later restore it step by step, we will do so this time as well when we hopefully win the next election. The sooner we win the election, the sooner we will be able to restore the level.

Now to the subject of the interpellation. I understand that a new government wants to put its mark on the aid policy. I understand that a Moderate aid minister wants to see more synergies between trade and aid. That is not strange. What is strange is how one has gone about this.

The process that has taken place has been characterized by a lack of transparency and an unwillingness to have a real dialogue both with parliamentary parties and with civil society organizations and other actors. We have received short briefings in the form of PowerPoint presentations, and we have been called to the ministry and had additional PowerPoint presentations presented to us. But no proposals have been put forward. No referrals have been sent out. No concrete, fully negotiated proposals exist to take a position on.

This is not a serious way to handle such an important part of politics as aid. We demand at least a referral to the Riksdag and a customary referral process so that we have the opportunity to debate the issue here in the chamber other than in interpellation debates.

We are thus asked to have opinions on a reform agenda that does not yet exist in reality. It has gotten stuck at the coordination office, where some kind of arm-wrestling is taking place between M and SD on one side and L and KD on the other. If the government, as the Minister says, wanted to have long-term thinking and make real changes, one would act in a different way. Then one would have a proper process and gather opinions from referral bodies, authorities, actors out in the world, other countries, and the political parties, listen to these, and then launch a reform agenda after having taken them into account.

Why are you so secretive, is my question to the Minister. What is it that is so dangerous about making a submission to the Riksdag? Why not send the proposal for a new reform agenda out for consultation?

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

Pontus Andersson Garpvall (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I believe many of us saw the government's press conference on October 10, when it was announced, together with the Sweden Democrats, that aid to Palestine would be paused.

The decision was prompted by the fact that the terrorist organization Hamas invaded Israel, and not least by the fact that the President of Palestine, Mahmoud Abbas, leader of the Social Democrats' sister party Fatah, could not distance himself from the horrific act. I believe that many of us were proud that Sweden took on the leadership role and spoke out against terrorism and antisemitism.

The Holocaust is what I would call humanity's darkest moment. I believe that many out there in the country and in the world many times have wondered how ordinary people could participate in, have knowledge of, or turn a blind eye to the greatest mass murder in human history.

The demonstrations we have seen in support of Hamas's actions, for their violence, torture, killing, and kidnapping of men, women, and children, have appeared in major cities around the world, even here in Stockholm. One might think that this only involves people on the fringes of society. But no, when you look through your social media, you see how completely ordinary people post tribute images of Hamas terrorists in paragliders, ready to enter Israel and massacre youths at a music festival. I think the government has done completely right when, together with Sverigedemokraterna, they chose to withdraw aid to Palestine.

The Doku Foundation has reviewed all existing major Muslim organizations' social media here in Sweden. In no case was there any reaction against Hamas's actions; instead, it was the dissemination of Hamas propaganda and of tributes to what Hamas has done.

But above all, we in Sweden have seen denial and claims that Israel has fabricated or exaggerated regarding the over 1,400 deaths and the 200 kidnappings. It is a type of Holocaust denial - something that I have had very difficult to understand but which is now happening right before our eyes. More clearly than ever, we can once again see how completely ordinary people are indifferent to or turn a blind eye to this type of mass murder.

The Social Democrats are tolerant of their own Member of Parliament's participation in Hamas events. I have not yet heard any Social Democrat distance themselves either from the Member of Parliament, from the former Prime Minister calling Fatah their dear sister party, or from the fact that Fatah now cannot distance itself from the terror, which in turn has led to the aid being withdrawn. The whole thing is actually shameful.

Since Hamas called for global jihad a week ago, we have seen acts of terrorism in both France and Belgium. In Brussels, it was Swedes who were both targets and victims. This once again points to the dangers of the rise of Islamism. The more we let Islamism gain a foothold in the Western world, the greater problems we will face with terror.

The government has announced that aid to Palestine will be paused until further notice. That is good, and in my opinion, it should have been done many years ago. I would have gladly seen a permanent stop to the development aid.

Does the Minister have any idea what the government will require from the Palestinian authorities in order to be able to reconsider its decision in the future?

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

FÖRSTE VICE TALMANNEN

Let me remind the member that the subject of the debate is the Minister's response to an interpellation on the reform agenda for aid.

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

Statsrådet Johan Forssell (M)

Mr. Speaker! First and foremost, I am naturally pleased that there is such expectation and such interest in our reform agenda. It is good, because aid is an area that is very important.

I believe that aid has great potential both in terms of making a bigger difference out in the world for the benefit of people and in terms of, for example, transparency back to Swedish taxpayers, which has decreased in recent years. These are funds that do not just rain down from the sky, and we must always remember that these 56 billion kronor come from Swedish taxpayers. They always have the right to expect quality, efficiency, and transparency, and we intend to ensure that they receive that.

As we have touched upon, we have in many ways a completely new situation. Since February last year, we have had a war in Europe. We did not have that before, and this has consequences. One such consequence, in addition to those we have talked about earlier, is the fact that if Swedish aid is to be relevant, it must also be flexible. There must be opportunities to quickly pivot based on the great needs that exist in the world.

One such example is the fact that Ukraine will be the largest recipient of Swedish bilateral aid this year. It is a historical change occurring in a short period of time. I believe one should see this in the light of the fact that the previous government's policy framework took two and a half years to put in place. If one has those types of very long processes, it has consequences for flexibility. It will diminish the opportunities to quickly pivot and create the freedom of action that is needed if the aid is to be relevant in the world we live in today.

This is not legislation. A referral process is held for legislation, and the interpellor knows that. If the reform agenda, however, is to contain legislation, we will of course return to the Riksdag according to all the rules of the art. There will be referral processes, etcetera. But it is important to remember not to mix up these two things. Legislation is legislation; it is something else than this reform agenda.

I just want to point out what I also said in my answer: The Committee on Foreign Affairs has been informed about the work. All parties have been invited to consultations at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs. Several non-binding consultations on the reform agenda have also been conducted with civil society, with researchers, with the business sector, and with authorities. We have listened to what different parties in Sweden think, and we have consulted with many countries in Europe and gathered information from countries that have roughly the same thoughts as we do. A digital mailbox has been established which enables interested parties to submit written ideas and so on.

So, there has been extensive work in this area. But it is also important to remember that one cannot measure quality only by how many meetings one holds. There must also be a result, and we will soon present that.

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

Olle Thorell (S)

Mr. Speaker and Minister! Yes, the reform agenda has been the subject of many meetings - absolutely. You have met civil society in various constellations at different times, and you have come to the Committee on Foreign Affairs and told us.

But if it were the case that the anchoring was so broad, deep and comprehensive and that you had such an incredibly listening approach – why is everyone so damn angry? Why is civil society upset about the lack of insight, the lack of transparency and the lack of participation in processes?

I know very well that there are referral procedures when it comes to legislative issues. But what is it that is so scary about making a submission to the Riksdag? What is it that you want to withhold and cannot include in a submission to the Riksdag?

We are very happy to provide input on a reform agenda, but we would like to see that reform agenda so that we know what we are to provide input on. Just having a general workshop with politicians and others about aid in general, while you are sitting and brainstorming and negotiating a reform agenda, is not really meaningful or serious.

Our aid policy is clear and distinct - we know what we want, and we know exactly how we would like to develop and change the aid policy going forward. But the government talks a lot and delivers very little when it comes to the reform agenda. It is something one uses as an excuse for not being quite finished with what one is going to do.

One example is the fluff-fest that has arisen regarding aid and trade. Minister Forssell stubbornly repeats that we shall fuse trade and aid. We shall fuse these areas, because there are synergies to be gained there. But when one asks further or looks at the leaked versions of the reform agenda's draft that have come out, it does not appear what this means. The only thing it seems to mean is that one shall unilaterally favor the export business of Swedish companies.

It is good that it is going well for Swedish companies, and it is good that they can operate in many markets out there in the world. It is also good to promote Swedish trade and export, of course – but is it the most effective aid policy? Is this what the aid money should go to? It is not in line with the OECD-DAC's rules, i.e., the aid committee that decides what can be counted as aid and what not. It is not in line with their rules to have tied aid, that is to say that the aid is linked to specific Swedish companies and their opportunities to do business abroad. The OECD has established that it is not effective aid.

It is not modern aid either. It is the type of aid that Forssell and company usually accuse the Social Democrats of providing – the kind one saw in the 60s or 70s, when Skånska Cementgjuteriet received a lot of money to build a dam somewhere. That is not effective aid. What is effective is to ensure that there are functioning markets and that there are institutions that can handle foreign investments. What is effective is to reduce corruption and to work so that people in developing countries can support themselves, start their own companies, and conduct trade in the region and globally.

I still wonder: What is it that is so scary about a communication to the Riksdag?

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

Pontus Andersson Garpvall (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I shall be brief and stick to the subject, even though I note that I received no answer or any distancing from the Social Democrats.

Sweden still pays out aid to countries such as Somalia, which lacks a functioning government, and Afghanistan, where the Taliban regime rules. My view is that we need to be significantly more careful about which countries are allowed to receive our aid. At the same time, one could use the aid as a means of pressure against states like Somalia, Afghanistan, and others so that they will take back their own citizens who are no longer allowed to stay in Sweden - those who have been sentenced to deportation or who are in Sweden illegally.

My final question to the Minister is therefore: Has the government initiated the work of using the aid as a means of pressure? If not, will it be done? Does the Minister, in that case, see an opportunity to withdraw the aid to more countries than Palestine?

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

Statsrådet Johan Forssell (M)

Mr. Speaker! I am not quite clear on Olle Thorell's criticism. In one moment, everything is going too fast - things are being rushed, and we are not listening - and in another moment, Olle Thorell complains that we have not presented any results and that there is nothing on the table. I don't really know; it is not entirely easy to reconcile these two points, namely that it is going both too fast and too slow.

One can still say that we have come a long way in a year, I think. In comparison with previous governments, we have come significantly further, for example regarding the policy framework. I look forward to presenting this soon, and I am convinced that Olle Thorell will continue to have many views and input - just as he has had on our reform agenda throughout the past year. I look forward to taking part in them. Then we will translate the reform agenda into various regulatory letters, budget bills, and so on, so the work will continue even further.

Regarding Pontus Andersson Garpvall's question about Palestine, it is correct that we have decided to take a pause in the development cooperation with Palestine. The humanitarian [aid] is not affected by this, but the pause applies to the development part. The pause is made against the background that we have a new situation after October 7 this year, when the horrific terror attack against Israel was carried out. It is important that we conduct a review of the aid and ensure that it does not go to actors who do not have a crystal-clear view on these completely crucial issues. We can never accept terrorism as a political method.

This is also linked to the reform agenda, that is to say that we shall have a zero tolerance towards that type of thing to ensure that Swedish aid is always used effectively. This is often described as being about Swedish taxpayers, and it is an important perspective. But I would like to highlight another perspective, Mr. Speaker: Ultimately, these are funds that are to go to people in these countries and make a difference for them. It is in the interest of people in Palestine and Gaza that the funds do not go to actors who do not have a crystal-clear view on these completely fundamental issues.

Much of the discussion on the conditioning of aid has so far been more about migration. That too will be part of the reform agenda as it is part of the agreement we have made. It concerns the fully reasonable principle that all countries in the world, according to international law, have an obligation to take in their own citizens. We want to work with different countries in the world to try to make the situation better for them, but then they must also be prepared to work with us. That is what cooperation looks like, and it is a fully reasonable principle.

There have been a number of such discussions. Somalia was mentioned here, and I actually recently met a Somali minister on this very theme and clarified our position in that part. We hope that this can lead to results moving forward, because this is a large and important area. We believe that we can do things more effectively than before, not only when it comes to transparency but also when it comes to what was mentioned, that is, finding synergies between aid and trade.

I can state that many countries in Europe, in fact of different political colors, have chosen to look at precisely these matters. They do so because there is a great potential to, not least, mobilize additional resources to achieve the global sustainability goals.

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

Olle Thorell (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer.

To the SD member who jumped into the debate and spoke about something completely different from the subject we are dealing with, the tip is to write your own interpellations and written questions on the subjects you want to debate. One can wait a few years until there is a Social Democratic minister and interpellate that minister if one has questions.

I received no answer from the Minister on the question of what it actually means to merge trade and aid. We can perhaps take that in an additional interpellation debate, as it is an exciting and important area. It is also an area where I believe that if we sat down and discussed it, we could find ways forward that we could agree on. We are, after all, for free trade and for the industry's opportunities to export all over the world. I regret that this is still so vague after a year with Forssell as Minister for Development Cooperation. What does it actually mean there? But that question we can take in another interpellation debate.

Regarding the reform agenda, we look forward to it being implemented. It is not about it having gone too fast or too slow, but rather that it is too non-transparent. One is not interested in hearing others' opinions. One is not interested in the opinions of civil society and the other parties, but instead sits and ponders over this in one's own chamber. One negotiates and pretends to anchor it a little bit by nudging with the elbow. It is not a serious way to do this. One might not have to carry out a referral process, but one should gather good thoughts from the whole of society. If one is now to carry out a historical reorganization of this type, it is needed.

The question remains, then: What is it that is so dangerous about a parliamentary communication?

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

Statsrådet Johan Forssell (M)

Mr. Speaker! I can only repeat what I have said several times about the fact that there has been a large number of meetings both in the Riksdag and at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs. There have been at least as many meetings as previous governments have had. The claim that views would not have been taken into account is therefore not true. That it is completely incorrect we can show in the number of meetings and minutes. I recommend that Olle Thorell stops claiming this, because it is obviously completely wrong.

We will soon present our reform agenda. I believe, as I have said, that there is great potential to find synergies between aid and trade, make aid more transparent than before – transparency has decreased in recent years – and streamline. It is about ensuring that taxpayers always feel they are getting value for their tax money, that is, that the money goes to the right things and makes a difference in the recipient countries.

The thoughts we have are very much in line with, among other things, the discussion in the UN General Assembly this week. Every discussion is about how one can be able to mobilize additional private resources, which is a task that has been neglected in Sweden for a long time. Now, however, we are going to change that and try to do something really good about it.

I must apologize if I have described the Social Democrats' policy regarding the one percent goal in an incorrect way. It is possible that the Social Democrats still stand behind the one percent goal - except in their budget motion where they do not, as 10 billion kronor are missing. We will certainly have reason to return to this in the future.

I thank the interpellor for a good discussion.

The interpellation debate was hereby concluded.

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