Response to interpellation 2023/24:314 on the struggle for democracy in Cambodia
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 has begun a responsible phasing out of the bilateral development cooperation with Cambodia due to the negative developments for human rights and democracy 1. M argues that the aid should focus on fewer countries to reach world-class quality and efficiency 2, and that the funds should be used to support democracy activists in other countries 2. M argues that the aid should focus on quality, efficiency, and transparency 3 and that one cannot be everywhere 4. S argues that the phasing out occurs when heroes in the country need support the most 5 and that it could worsen the situation and strengthen Russia's and China's influence 6. S argues that the new strategy risks shifting the focus away from the poorest countries 7.
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! Åsa Eriksson has asked me what measures I intend to take in light of Sweden's new aid strategy to support freedom of expression and civil society and to protect human rights defenders in Cambodia.
I share Åsa Eriksson's description of the very serious situation for human rights, democracy, and the principles of the rule of law in Cambodia. The trend has been negative for many years.
Against the background of the negative developments in Cambodia and the fact that there are no signs that the situation will change in the near future, the government has chosen to begin a phasing out of the bilateral development cooperation with Cambodia. This will be done in a responsible manner and in dialogue with other donors in order to minimize the negative consequences. It will be important to conduct a dialogue with local partners and donors on how the phasing out should take place, as well as how experiences, results, and established networks can best be utilized.
Swedish aid to Cambodia will be able to continue through civil society organizations and the global strategies with a strong thematic focus on democracy and human rights. Sweden will also continue to be a strong voice for human rights, including freedom of expression, in Cambodia through work in international forums and the EU.
Åsa Eriksson (S)
Madam Speaker! Cambodia has in practice been a one-party state since the 2018 election. The largest opposition party, CNRP, was banned the year before, and its successor, Candlelight Party, a member of Liberal International, was disqualified before the parliamentary election earlier this year. In this way, the ruling party, CCP, stood in practice as the sole candidate.
After the election, Prime Minister Hun Sen, who had been in power for 33 years, handed over the post to his son, General Hun Manet. Cambodia has, in other words, been transformed into an authoritarian one-party state where the premiership is inherited.
The regime has for a long time violated the UN's conventions on human rights. The abuses primarily concern freedom of expression, freedom of association, and freedom of assembly. Independent media hardly exist anymore. Journalists and trade union representatives are imprisoned. Peaceful demonstrations are dispersed with violence.
Madam Speaker! Since I submitted my interpellation in December, the situation has worsened further. The SD-led government announced in the days before Christmas that they are ending all support to Cambodia from next year. This occurs in a situation where the heroes in the country who still dare to fight for their own and others' human rights need us the most.
Madam Speaker! Since the government's announcement, I have been ashamed to be Swedish when I speak with my friends in Cambodia. Let me give some examples.
All Cambodian aid that goes through the umbrella organization Diakonia will disappear at the turn of the year. Diakonia, in turn, supports 19 partner organizations. The largest of them is Licadho, which has operated in Cambodia for more than 30 years. Just during last year, Licadho supported 32,000 Cambodians - 32,000 individuals who have been affected by the regime's various abuses. They have received support with, for example, legal aid. This is something Licadho will now not be able to continue with when the Swedish aid disappears.
It has been about farmers who have had their land expropriated. It has been about healthcare and medicines for political prisoners. It has been about support for trade unions whose leaders have been imprisoned, support for abused women, and of course about the monitoring and reporting of human rights violations by the regime.
Madam Speaker! As a consequence of the government's new aid policy, Licadho and Diakonia's other 18 partners will be forced to significantly cut back their operations. The people and human rights activists who were already harassed and threatened are now left without protection. In most cases, their associations will have to close, which will lead to cheers from the authoritarian regime.
Madam Speaker! The aid to civil society, which has primarily gone to UN bodies and organizations working for democracy, human rights, anti-corruption, and free media, has been an important counterforce against the authoritarian regime. I have been there myself and met opposition politicians. I know how much it has meant. The aid has actually increased awareness among the Cambodians regarding their rights. They dare to raise their voices despite the oppression. I wonder what the Minister thinks I should answer when my friends who fight for democracy in Cambodia ask what they should do now.
Eva Lindh (S)
Madam Speaker! The Government has tasked the aid agency Sida with phasing out support for democracy and human rights in Cambodia and for organizations that have received support to defend the rights of women, children, workers, prisoners, and the socially vulnerable. It is not surprising that so many organizations that have worked in Cambodia point out the risks that this will worsen the situation for human rights while simultaneously strengthening Russia's and China's influence in the region.
It is important that we, as an international community, engage in promoting democracy and human rights and contribute to stability and peace. Through our commitment and our solidarity, we can help create a better future. Against this background, it is strange to take part in the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade's response.
The Minister refers to the fact that it will take time to change the negative development in Cambodia. Yes. And it will not go faster when the organizations fighting for a change no longer receive the support they need.
The SD-led government's strategy for foreign trade shall strengthen Swedish companies and Sweden's security. One asks the question: In what way has this affected the decision to withdraw aid to Cambodia? I would like to have an answer to this.
Is the aid to Cambodia being reduced because the country is too far away? Is the aid being reduced despite the fact that there are actually Swedish companies active in Cambodia? I have heard it said that Cambodia's exports to Hennes & Mauritz, which is a Swedish company, are larger than the country's entire exports to China.
The Minister also says in his response that the phasing out of the aid should take place in a responsible manner. I believe he is quite alone in thinking so, as the phasing out is to be completed within eleven months.
I would like to conclude by reminding the Minister that he is not only the Minister for Foreign Trade but also the Minister for Development Cooperation.
Sofia Amloh (S)
Madam Speaker! When I saw that this interpellation debate would be held in the chamber, I wanted to take the opportunity to participate, though perhaps not as late as it turned out to be this evening.
In 2016 and 2017, I received the fantastic opportunity to work and operate in Cambodia together with civil society, Swedish company representatives, and trade unions. When I was there, I saw what perhaps meant the most and was strongest in order to see the Cambodian people, namely their brutal history with a genocide that was like an open wound. One could see in the demographic curve that a generation was missing due to this genocide and how this has shaped their way of being and interacting with one another and the view on what needs to be done. It was incredibly present.
I also saw how the Swedish companies I met were quite shaped by how it works in Sweden with the Swedish model, which H & M is anyway. I think there is much to be done when large multinational companies establish themselves all around the world, but among others H & M wanted to cooperate with the trade unions. They did not want strikes, but they wanted to come to the negotiating table because it favored productivity.
We could also, just as my colleagues have described, see how strikes and restrictions of human rights occurred daily and how fragile it was. It is not so many years ago, but we saw during this fragile time that there was a hope and a power, even though democracy was extremely threatened, and that quite a lot could happen if more was done.
Trade policy is important for Sweden. We know that Swedish companies have received many headlines from how it has been managed abroad, and aid policy plays a major role so that it can benefit Swedish companies so that Swedes here at home in Sweden can feel that it is safe to buy clothes that are manufactured, for example, in Cambodian factories.
But now the government chooses to release the trade and remove the aid. It hurts me incredibly that we cannot work to stabilize the situation that is required purely from a security policy perspective in the relationship with China. For it was precisely this we saw. I heard so many times, at so many factories from so many trade unions that if it is just not China that owns a factory, there is potential or hope for human rights. But we saw how they won ground.
It is precisely such resilience that is needed to create stability in the region. It is of the utmost importance for every Swede that this is also done, so I actually do not quite understand why one chooses to do what one does, especially not right now.
Statsrådet Johan Forssell (M)
Madam Speaker! I do not think we disagree on the assessment of the situation in Cambodia, for it is concerning. Under the CCP, which is the successor to the old communist party in Cambodia, the country has in practice developed into some form of authoritarian-ruled one-party state. There are, of course, many problems with this.
We just discussed civil society, and its ability to operate in the country has been systematically eroded in recent years. People are turning against oppositionists, and even the largest opposition party was prevented from participating in the parliamentary elections this summer. It is a deeply sad development for a country that, admittedly, is far away but which nonetheless can be significant. We want to see more democracy, and we want to see more freedom, not less.
But it is also the case that we are transforming the aid policy and introducing new requirements for quality and efficiency. Swedish aid is generous. We are one of five countries that reach the UN goal of 0.7 percent, but the aid is not infinite.
Sometimes there is some kind of image in the aid debate that aid would become more effective simply because it is spread out over very many countries. In that case, my task would be very simple. We could then simply reduce the aid to all the countries we give aid to today and then distribute it to as many as possible.
But I do not believe that is the case. I do not believe that aid will become better because of this, or more accurate and effective, or that it will lift more people out of poverty. We rather believe that it is a more reasonable position to say: Let us focus on some countries where our development cooperation can not only be good but perhaps even be world-class.
What the interpellants do not mention with clinical precision in their remarks is that the money does not just disappear, but it will be used in other countries and given to other democracy fighters and others who live in oppression and lack of freedom. That is how we have reasoned.
I also want to point out something that the interpellants do not mention or perhaps are not aware of. It is thrown out that no aid will now be able to work in Cambodia, but that is a factual error. That is not the case, because we have not only bilateral country strategies but also other strategies.
For example, we have a regional aid strategy for Asia amounting to 2.75 billion or 550 million kronor per year. We have a democracy strategy that the government has actually increased in relation to the previous government. This too will be able to be used for aid efforts, for example in Cambodia. We also have a CSO strategy with a large civil society acting in many countries. This strategy too will be able to be used in Cambodia.
What is ceasing is the bilateral aid strategy. But do not claim that there would be any kind of ban on aid operating in the country! That is not the case. It is simply not correct.
But it is clear that it is difficult to transition. And it is clear that resources are not infinite, and one must make this type of decision. But we believe that in the long term, the quality and the opportunities to achieve results are better served by focusing on fewer countries than before. I can understand that this leads to disappointment for these specific people. But let us at the same time remember that the funds will be used to support democracy fighters in other countries and, hopefully, also with greater results and better quality moving forward.
Åsa Eriksson (S)
Madam Speaker! Yes, Minister, it is very clear that the government has presented a new strategic direction for Swedish aid. It states, among other things, that the goal is to combat poverty and oppression. And it is said to have a clear focus on democracy and human rights.
Is there any country that has greater democratic challenges than Cambodia?
I want to repeat the question that Eva Lindh asked. What is the basis for the government's decision to choose specifically Cambodia as one of the five countries that will no longer receive aid? I, and many of those who are now following this debate, would very much like to know that.
The government also writes in the new reform agenda that the aid should not only take place in cooperation with Swedish business but also should promote the economic and capacity flows back to Sweden and the Swedish economy.
But does the Council of State not know what Eva Lindh just mentioned, that Swedish H & M has an export from Cambodia that is larger than the country's own export to China?
Sweden has provided aid to Cambodia since 1979. Until recently, Sweden was a highly respected country there, among both local and international organizations. This reputation has been effectively destroyed by the SD-led government in a few weeks.
Madam Speaker! The government's new policy will likely also lead to the forced closure of the land office in Cambodia for the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, as Swedish bilateral aid has been an important part of that. The office was established on a Swedish initiative largely thanks to the tireless Thomas Hammarberg after the horrific genocide under the Pol Pot regime. Since then, it has been supported by Sweden. It has been a channel for the monitoring and information gathering that has formed the basis for the recurring UN resolutions criticizing the human rights situation and the appointment of a special UN rapporteur for Cambodia. This structure is now being dismantled.
For ten years, the Raoul Wallenberg Institute has also run human rights training for Cambodian lawyers, primarily prosecutors, to strengthen capacity within the judiciary and make it less dependent on political directives. This training must now probably also cease.
Madam Speaker! I would like to ask two questions to the Minister. I received no answer to my first question, but I am making a new attempt.
The Minister spoke about the regional funds from Sida. When we were in contact with the responsible person at Sida, the person in question had no great hopes that any funds could be directed to Cambodia.
I thought I heard an opening from the Minister. I therefore wonder: Can the Minister give notice as to whether the regional funds could be redirected to Cambodia? That is my first question.
My second question is: Is it possible that the government could extend its decision by one year, so that all those organizations that are now hit very hard by losing funding have time to find other sponsors from other countries to be able to continue their important work, so that everything that Sweden has been involved in building up over the years is not destroyed and has been in vain?
Eva Lindh (S)
Madam Speaker! Since we do not get a very clear answer from the Minister as to why exactly Cambodia will no longer receive these resources, the question remains, and it becomes a bit of speculation. But the perception is nonetheless that the new strategy that the government has is very much about foreign trade and about linking it together.
We know that trade and economic development can actually affect the conditions for peace, security, and democracy. But that presupposes support for developing research and development cooperation, and that poverty reduction must also be included. Because if one does not do that, and if one does not unite trade and aid, vulnerable groups cannot benefit from this. We cannot work for democracy and human rights if this is not united.
This is not only our fear. It is also several others who are concerned that when this development occurs, the focus of aid is shifted from the poorest and most vulnerable countries to countries where it is easier to conduct trade. There is a concern for this because it will affect the development of democracy in the country, now in the case of just Cambodia.
The question is again: What are the grounds for the government to make this decision? It will, in fact, affect the development in Cambodia, and we regret that.
Sofia Amloh (S)
Madam Speaker! We agree on the situation assessment. In that regard, I completely agree with the Minister. And we have described it in different ways here in the Chamber now. But it would be appreciated if the Minister could provide a factual account of why one chooses to make the prioritization that is now important and on what basis one now chooses to rule out Cambodia.
What I hear from the Minister is that he repeats arguments, and I believe that it is perhaps mostly for his own sake and not to substantively and with respect for this discussion explain the basis and arguments for why one chooses to rule out Cambodia in this case. It is that which actually needs to be clarified in this debate. And it would truly be appreciated if we could find out the arguments and the basis for why one now chooses to rule out Cambodia.
Statsrådet Johan Forssell (M)
Madam Speaker! I shall answer a number of questions that I have received. Will Cambodia be able to receive aid in the regional strategy? It is a matter of administrative exercise. It would therefore be wrong of me to interfere in that. I believe that the interpellator and the other debaters are aware of that. But we have a regional strategy for Asia, and Cambodia is in Asia. So there are at least good conditions for that. But it is always an assessment of where the needs are greatest and where the possibilities to achieve results exist. I very rarely receive questions about exactly that – on the other hand, very many about the needs – i.e., where the possibilities are best for us to be able to make a difference.
When it comes to Cambodia specifically, it can be noted that several other countries have also chosen to end their cooperation. For example, Denmark did so already more than ten years ago. The EU Commission has had far-reaching negotiations more in the trade area but has not moved forward because there has been no interest from the Cambodian government to, for example, deal with the major corruption problems plaguing the country.
When making this type of decision, one simply has to make a collective assessment of which resources one has, their geographical distribution, and where the opportunities to achieve results are best.
I imagine that we have made roughly the same type of analysis as the previous Social Democratic government did when it introduced limits that resulted in substantial savings of Sweden's aid to Cambodia. At that time, it was a Social Democratic Minister for Development Cooperation who implemented these savings. I did not hear such large protests from the interpellants at that time or from the Social Democratic party.
It is the case that unfortunately the money does not suffice for everything. One cannot be everywhere. There is a recurring image that it would somehow miraculously solve all problems and become much more efficient if we just spread the aid across as many countries as possible. But I do not believe that, Madam Speaker, rather I believe it is better to consolidate forces, focus, and add a value-add - to work long-term in areas where we can deliver really good results.
This, however, obviously depends on the country receiving the aid being interested in working with us. It is clear that it is a new principle that we are now introducing in the Swedish aid policy - that aid is not something we just give, almost without conditions, but that we also want the recipient countries to be interested in working together with Sweden according to our priorities. It is about fighting corruption, addressing problems linked to the rule of law, and paving a way towards entrepreneurship and business so that the countries will no longer be dependent on aid. That willingness unfortunately looks different in different countries.
I want to point out one thing to the interpellants, which I also addressed in the previous debate, namely that it is easy to criticize decisions, but politics is not just about wanting, but also about choosing. It perhaps would have been more pleasing if the interpellants' party had presented major investments in aid in their own budget proposal, but there it echoes empty.
We are fundamentally in agreement on this. We are fundamentally in agreement on leaving the one percent target in aid; there is no trace of such a target in the Social Democrats' shadow budget. Despite all the words, despite all the interpellation debates and despite all the criticism, we are in agreement on the basic principles of this, and I think it is quite good that there is such a consensus across the block boundaries, Madam Speaker.
We have now delivered our reform agenda, and I do not mince words in that it involves a number of difficult changes. I understand that. I still think that eleven months is a long time in this context. I also want to point out that one will still be able to act globally—for example in Cambodia—even in a regional strategy, in a democracy strategy, and in a civil society strategy.
Åsa Eriksson (S)
Madam Speaker! I want to point out that there is at least one thing that we really do not agree on, Minister. My interpretation of the Minister's answer is that in a country with an authoritarian regime that holds onto power by force, the people are left to blame themselves and are left without aid. That is nothing that we Social Democrats stand for.
All the organizations that will be without support from Sweden from the turn of the year must already today lay off staff in order to be able to live up to their employer responsibility. Their activities will be reduced significantly starting as early as this week. They hope, and they are following this debate. They want to ask for one more year so that they have time to find other sponsors.
Madam Speaker! 101 civil organizations have written a letter to Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson where they plead for exactly this. They plead that the Swedish government should give them at least one more year so that they have time to find alternative funding. They do not want to cease their activities; they know that people's lives depend on them. They want to continue to provide support to the brave people who are still fighting for democracy.
The Minister is probably the only one who thinks that eleven months is a long time. I want to give the Minister one last chance: Can the Minister give these 101 organizations in Cambodia an answer today? Is there a chance that the end date for Swedish democracy assistance to Cambodia can be extended for another year, so that they have time to find alternative funding for their important activities?
Statsrådet Johan Forssell (M)
Madam Speaker! Let me once again point out two things in this debate.
The previous Social Democratic government therefore significantly reduced Sweden's aid to Cambodia. These were substantial savings, and I imagine this occurred after making roughly the same considerations as the current government has made. We do not disagree on that point.
The second thing I want to point out is that it is not the case that the interpellator actually has more money to allocate to aid than the government does. Despite all the criticism and despite all the debates, we agree that the one percent goal for the aid budget shall be maintained. It is therefore a bit of a charade in this.
The difference perhaps concerns more the question of quality and efficiency. Is aid benefited by the fact that it operates in as many environments and in as many countries as possible, with the difficulties that it entails in terms of controlling the aid and achieving results? Aid should not go to actors who wish harm upon other people, and it should not go to actors who are not interested in, for example, combating corruption. Is the transparency in Swedish aid – which, in recent years, under a different government, has fallen like a stone – really benefited by the fact that it operates in as many countries as possible? I do not think so.
Instead, we are now introducing new principles regarding quality, efficiency, and transparency. This means that we are moving resources. It does not mean that they disappear, but they will be able to operate in other countries and support other democracy fighters and other actors who want to lift people out of poverty.
I understand that change hurts. Is eleven months a long or short time? I believe it is a longer time than what the actors were given when the previous S-government introduced their limits, so everything is relative in that regard. But I want to point out once again that Swedish aid via no fewer than three different strategies will be able to continue to operate, for example, in Cambodia.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.