Response to interpellation 2023/24:69 on democracy in Guatemala
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
M argues that the government follows the situation in Guatemala closely and stands up for human rights and democracy 1. M emphasizes that the aid must be strategic and that the situation cannot be addressed solely with aid 2. M points out that the aid to the region is almost unchanged despite criticism 3. M argues that Ukraine and the surrounding area are a priority due to enormous needs 3, and that they do what they can with limited resources as a generous donor 4. M believes that they have a smaller grant for flexible use 4. S argues that Sweden has a strong commitment and that it is inappropriate to withdraw now 5 6. S argues that the government should use its flexibility to strengthen the efforts and secure civil society's activities 5 6. S believes that it is incredibly important to provide support to Guatemala to show commitment and counter the perception that Sweden is withdrawing 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)
Mr. Speaker! Tomas Eneroth has asked me if I have taken any initiatives in light of the serious situation in Guatemala.
The government is following the developments in Guatemala closely and will continue to stand up for human rights, democracy and the principles of the rule of law. For this, Guatemala is no exception.
The Government views the developments in the country with concern, particularly the sequence of events after August 20. The Government fully supports the EU27 statement from October 5 by the EU's High Representative for Foreign Affairs Josep Borrell.
The promotion of democracy and the principles of the rule of law is a central issue for Sweden's government. This is illustrated, not least by the billions of kronor that the government has allocated this year through global strategic cooperation for support to freedom fighters all over the world. To this is added Sweden's support to multilateral organizations that work with, among other things, democracy issues, such as the UN's OHCHR, UNDP, Unicef and International IDEA.
Tomas Eneroth (S)
Mr. Speaker! I thank the Minister for a short and concise answer, and I think there is now room for the Minister to elaborate on the government's position a bit more. We have heard the Minister speak about how the aid should go to things that truly do good and that it should be more flexible than before, and now there is such a space.
For those following the debate, it may be good to know that the situation in Guatemala has changed radically in recent times. Sweden has for a long time had a strong commitment there. Aid efforts have been made, and civil society has been present. We have had an active and strong presence from our embassy, which has helped people who have been harassed and whose human rights have not been met. Dreadful conditions have prevailed, and many people have been forced into exile. The Swedish contribution has been about strengthening the judiciary and conducting legal processes, as well as constantly putting human rights issues on the agenda.
After a long election campaign, Guatemala has received a democratically elected president - a social democrat one might almost call him - who, with strong support from the population across the entire country, shall be able to take power in Guatemala. During the election campaign, he and his party were opposed, and attempts were made to prevent their opportunity to act during the campaign. Even after the election, the government and some authorities have done everything they can to prevent the assumption of power. The Supreme Electoral Tribunal is attempting to invalidate Arévalos's party. With police support, ballot boxes have been seized in order to create uncertainty surrounding the election result.
This has sparked many reactions in Guatemala, where thousands and thousands more people are out demonstrating, but also internationally. The EU's foreign policy chief Borrell has made sharp statements, and the USA has directed harsh criticism towards this and intends to expand the sanctions against certain power holders in Guatemala because they do not follow the principles. In this situation, one can expect Sweden to act.
The background to my interpellation is that the Minister has stated that the government's clear intention is to reduce the aid to Guatemala and phase out the interventions being made because the Swedish government assesses that there are currently small possibilities for Swedish aid to influence development. The fact is, however, that Swedish aid has truly contributed to a good democratic development. My point is that now that we have succeeded in creating institution-building, support for civil society, and trust in democracy, it is less appropriate to withdraw.
In his answer to the interpellation, the Minister refers to the fact that there are some other funds that can be used. But there is no doubt that it is a dramatic saving on aid efforts to, among others, Guatemala and the rest of Latin America.
Without entering into a discussion about previous savings, I ask: Is the government prepared to use the flexibility that Johan Forssell considers so important in aid policy and strengthen the Swedish efforts in Guatemala?
Mathias Tegnér (S)
Mr. Speaker! In June and August this year, Guatemala held presidential elections. All of us here in the chamber know this, but few outside. All of us who believe in and love democracy, freedom, combating corruption, law and order, and free trade have reason to rejoice that the anti-corruption candidate Bernardo Arévalo from Movimiento Semilla was elected president of Guatemala.
When the sitting president Alejandro Giammattei tweeted positively about a peaceful handover of power, some saw it as positive. Others were more skeptical because the development for democracy in Guatemala is clearly negative. Many argue that it is the pact of the corrupt, i.e., a mixture of economic and political elite, that de facto rules the country. This elite threw out the UN's anti-corruption commission a couple of years ago and has also forced judges and prosecutors who fought corruption to go into exile.
And right now, it is going fast in the wrong direction. A silent coup is being carried out in Guatemala. In July, as Tomas Eneroth so excellently described, the prosecutor general Consuelo Porras, who is part of the pact of the corrupt, tried to have the party Movimiento Semilla banned and prevent Arévalo from participating in the second round of the election. What is happening right now is that the same prosecutor general has demanded that the police and military stop the demonstrations that are currently being held. This has caused the interior minister to resign, as he has realized that this will end in a bloodbath. Then, the prosecutor general instead went to the constitutional court, which just the other day said yes to the request. There is therefore now a deadline that expires this evening, or tonight Swedish time, when the police and military will disperse the demonstrations. Therefore, among others, the US deputy minister for Latin America has come out and called for calm.
The government and government representatives have expressed the importance of good transatlantic relations between Sweden and the USA, and the USA has on several occasions expressed that Sweden is an important party in Guatemala. My supplementary question to the Minister then naturally becomes: What does the government do in such a situation, when the USA so clearly expresses that Sweden has a role to play in Guatemala? What does the government do when the situation is getting out of control for many of us, and what can the government do within the framework of the EU to truly stop the silent coup that is taking place in Guatemala right now?
Statsrådet Johan Forssell (M)
Mr. Speaker! Just as has been described both in the interpellation, in my response, and in what is said in the statements here, there are great democratic challenges in Guatemala. There is widespread corruption that we have discussed in debates here previously. Respect for human freedoms and rights as well as for the principles of the rule of law is negative. It is, therefore, a serious situation.
It is of course very important that Arévalo, who was chosen by the people, is able to take office as president as planned on January 14 next year. The attempts mentioned here earlier to overturn the election result after the last round of voting go against both international practice and the country's constitution. The individuals behind the violence that has actually occurred in the country recently should be held accountable for it.
At the same time, it is the government's view that aid is important but that it must be seen in context. We do not believe that this situation can be addressed solely with the help of aid. We, as a government, have been very clear that we support the democratic forces in Guatemala in their endeavor to safeguard the country's democracy, both through our embassy on the ground as well as from Brussels and Stockholm. Sweden stands behind the statements that the EU has made regarding the worrying developments. Providing political support to democratic forces is a priority for the government. Both through statements and engagement, we can also with small means work for a positive democratic development.
We have also pointed out the importance of cooperating with other like-minded parties, in addition to Swedish aid. Both the USA and the EU are, of course, important partners in this work. I can reassure the members in that regard. There is no ambiguity in the government's consistent position that it is always important to allocate taxpayers' resources in a strategically important way. The problem in this context, however, is the following: We see growing needs in a long line of countries and regions around the world. We have, not least in our own immediate vicinity, a war that we did not have before February last year. One must see all of this in a context.
I still want to point out to the members that the support to Guatemala was reduced in 2022 through the limits that the previous Social Democratic government introduced. We, as the current government, have actually set a cap for the allocation. If one also looks at the entire Latin American region, the volume of aid is almost as large as it was after those limits. To be honest, I do not know down to the penny how large the difference actually is in that part.
We will continue to pursue these issues. We will stand up for democracy and human rights, both in the volume we actually have and in the strategy we have in the entire region as well as in the strategy for human rights defenders which we were able to increase to 1 billion kronor this year and which can be applied for globally.
Tomas Eneroth (S)
Mr. Speaker! I am pleased that Minister Johan Forssell so clearly declares that the government stands behind Borrell's statements and is committed to the fight for human rights. It is important. It is also an important Swedish profile issue where we have stood on the barricades for as long as we have existed, I was about to say.
The intention was not for us to have a debate about the history, but I believe the budget for Latin America during our time was 1.9 billion, and now it is down to 570 million. The savings that are nevertheless being announced now from the government's side would mean that the commitment and presence in Guatemala would decrease by between 40 and 60 percent.
My point is that if one now strives for flexibility and efficiency in aid – and I can share that view; I believe there is a point in that we can redirect some of the resources we have; not least the commitment and reprioritization to Ukraine which we initiated during our time in government were very important ways to do this – perhaps in this context, now that years of investments in aid work in Guatemala are yielding results, it is important not to withdraw just when one is about to actually conquer and democratize and seriously be able to break decades of corruption. Take the opportunity now to use the flexibility that exists! Ensure that the activities that civil society carries out in Guatemala are not phased out!
The efforts of Sweden or other international organizations have meant that, with the help of human rights lawyers and local and regional legal representatives, they have supported those who have been subjected to human rights violations in Guatemala. What happens if one then withdraws – it may be important for many who follow the debate to know – is that there is almost no other alternative for these people than to go into exile, to leave their country. This has already occurred in many cases. In fact, the Riksdag's MR-network – a special network for human rights that exists here in the Riksdag – very recently met representatives from Guatemala who could testify about how they are forced to leave the country. Amnesty has a long list of people who have had to do this.
Now there is a chance to actually give people the opportunity to return, to democratize. In that case, it is unfortunate that the government insists on a very tight budget for Guatemala. The government refers to the more general resources that exist, but I believe that both the Council of State and I know that the conditions for a larger part of those resources to be allocated to Guatemala are limited. It is so little that the government needs to do to make a great difference: It is to point out in upcoming regulatory letters the importance of interventions, to continue to develop the support measures that civil society has made in Guatemala, but also to secure the presence that we have had via our embassy and the strong commitment that exists. And I believe, just as Mathias Tegnér previously highlighted, that when the USA now so clearly emphasizes this and points to Sweden's role, and when also the EU and Josep Borrell in some contexts have pointed out that there are several European countries that have a stronger commitment, including Sweden, the signal becomes very strange if Sweden in this case, in this situation, withdraws.
I can have all the respect for the fact that we as Social Democrats or Moderates may have different views on how aid should generally be handled; we will continue to have that. But in this situation, when democracy gets the chance for a breakthrough, I think it is strange if the government does not take the opportunity to use the flexibility that one now says wants to strive for.
Statsrådet Johan Forssell (M)
Mr. Speaker! I just want to emphasize once again that we view it very seriously that an elected incoming president is systematically opposed. And we see, as I said, very seriously this development.
Pleasantly enough, at the same time, Sweden does not stand alone in this criticism, but there are many who stand up for it. We share, as said, the criticism that has been directed from the EU's high representative and also the USA's engagement in the issue.
We have a commitment in Guatemala in different ways, both in the country and regionally. The regional strategy that we took over amounted to 590 million kronor, and it is now 575 million kronor. The difference is 15 million kronor. There are many different perceptions and a lot of criticism here. But honestly, I don't really know what sets us apart. It becomes a bit of a charade in these discussions. When one then looks at the budget and has to make priorities, the government and the Social Democrats are very much in agreement in this part. So that is how it actually looks in black and white.
We have a pot for flexible funds. We always use it based on where we see that it can be of strategic use. I do not intend to anticipate this now, but we always make ongoing assessments.
We have said that a clear priority shall be precisely Ukraine and the situation in the surrounding area where the needs are enormous. It looks that way in a long line of areas. But the vast majority of Sweden's aid will also continue not to end up in Ukraine, or in Moldova for that matter, but outside of Europe's borders. So it will continue to be that way. So we will surely have reason to return to this issue.
Tomas Eneroth (S)
Mr. Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer. I can understand the need to sometimes triangulate and try to say that there are not such large differences of opinion, even though in this case it really did economically. It was 1.9 billion kronor in framework appropriations for Latin America when we were in power and 570 million kronor when Johan Forssell had made his regulation letter.
Once this has been said: Take the opportunity to triangulate now. Let us ensure that we can reach an agreement. Let us use the flexibility that the government now nevertheless considers desirable in the aid policy to make special efforts for just Guatemala. I believe, namely, that Johan Forssell as Minister for Development Cooperation, with his commitment to freedom and human rights, over a long period could drive this issue in the government. It is, in fact, so incredibly important that we now provide support to a country where democracy is at stake. It does not happen so often.
Several of us here have been politically active for a very long time and have rather seen how democracy has deteriorated in many of the world's countries, whether it concerns countries in the third world, where despite long aid efforts we have seen corruption increase, or whether it concerns China, Russia or the Wagner Group which have sometimes acquired power at the expense of democracy.
There are few occasions when democracy still steps forward and has the opportunity to actually gain ground. Now there is such an opportunity, moreover in Latin America and in a country where Sweden has had a long and strong commitment. It would be an incredibly important intervention in a situation where we, from the Swedish side, are now sometimes perceived internationally as withdrawing from the rest of the world and only taking a regional responsibility, which is the government's main agenda. Show something else now and take the commitment for Guatemala seriously and ensure that extra efforts are made there right now! It is needed.
Statsrådet Johan Forssell (M)
Mr. Speaker! I am not triangulating. I am merely describing what I encountered on the first day at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs. The figures that Tomas Eneroth uses were before the limits. What we were made aware of on the first day was 590 million kronor. That was the starting point. I am completely convinced that Tomas Eneroth knew about it because he himself sat in the government that introduced these limits. It was therefore 590 million kronor when we took office, and it is 575 million kronor today. It is therefore 15 million kronor that the difference is. It may not sound quite like that in this debate, or in the previous one either for that part. I believe that we are actually quite in agreement on the basic principles here.
There are very great needs in the world, not least connected to democracy and human rights. We do what we can with the limited means that we have. We are a generous donor, but our resources are not unlimited. I must be so tedious as to state that in that part. We have a smaller grant that can be used flexibly. We think it is important for precisely handling emerging situations. We will return to how these funds shall be used going forward. It is about the local strategy, but I also want to point out precisely the regional one which actually amounts to almost 600 million kronor and also the strategy that, for example, applies specifically to MR defenders.
I want to tell the interpellator completely correctly that all of this money will not end up in Guatemala. I dare to assert that here in the speaker's chair. But some crowns even from that strategy might end up in Guatemala. We will have reason to return in the future regarding any other decisions.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.