Response to interpellation 2024/25:257 on companies operating in Israeli settlements
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
M stands behind the International Court of Justice's advisory opinion and argues that the settlement policy violates international law 1 2. M believes that goods from settlements must not be labeled as goods from Israel or enjoy customs benefits 1. M argues that the court's opinion is directed at states, not private actors, but that companies should follow prevailing laws, OECD guidelines, and UN guiding principles 3 4. M emphasizes that the EU does not recognize changes to the 1967 borders without consent 2. V believes that the government should analyze the judgment and provide clear recommendations to companies to counter the occupation 5. V criticizes the government for not having conducted a sufficient analysis of the judgment 6 5.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Utrikesministern Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)
Madam Speaker! I have been asked how I and the government intend to act to live up to the International Court of Justice's advisory opinion regarding not contributing to an extension of the occupation, as well as how I and the government intend to act against the companies and financial institutions that are active in the settlements.
Sweden stands fully and completely behind the International Court of Justice's advisory opinion. The rules-based world order is more important than ever to uphold.
The statement coincides in decisive parts with the EU's policy. The settlement policy violates international law, undermines the two-state solution, and contributes to an elevated level of conflict. The Government is clear that settler violence, settlement expansion, demolitions, and evictions must cease and acts for further EU sanctions against extremist settlers.
Neither Sweden nor the EU has recognized the occupation or the annexation of East Jerusalem as legal.
All states have a responsibility to respect and act in line with international law, which was also confirmed by the court. The EU already has a comprehensive policy to differentiate between Israel and the occupied territories. The starting point for our trade with Israel is the WTO's fundamental rules and agreements, as well as the association agreement between the EU and Israel, where the EU has clarified that the agreements apply to the state of Israel within the 1967 borders. This means that goods manufactured in the occupied territory, for example in the settlements, may not be labeled as goods from Israel and that these goods therefore do not enjoy the same customs benefits as goods from Israel.
Jacob Risberg (MP)
Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer.
On July 19 last year, the International Court of Justice stated that Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territory is illegal and must cease, and that all Israeli settlers must leave the occupied area. This is what is new and exciting in the statement. Furthermore, Israel must pay compensation to the Palestinians.
The court states at the same time that all states have an obligation not to recognize the occupation as legal and not to provide support that could mean that the occupation continues.
A report from the organization Don't Buy into Occupation was released at the end of the year. The organization consists of 25 different international civil society organizations that have compiled which companies and financial institutions operate in the occupied areas. In this case, we are not talking about Israeli companies, but about international companies. The report shows, among other things, that all four Swedish major banks as well as five of the AP funds have investments in companies that operate in the Israeli settlements.
It was from this that I posed the question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs regarding how the government intends to act to live up to the International Court of Justice's advisory opinion in order not to prolong the occupation, and how it intends to act towards the companies and institutions that are active in settlements.
I would like to thank the Minister for Foreign Affairs for the answer, but I also believe there is some kind of misunderstanding regarding the question, or else the government does not have any kind of policy in the area at all. What the Minister for Foreign Affairs addresses in his answer concerns primarily the trade with goods from settlements and the association agreement that the EU has with Israel. My question is rather about Swedish companies, or international companies, and Swedish institutes acting in occupied territory and inside settlements. It is not about trade with Israel, but it is about, for example, the construction of settlements.
We know, for example, that Atlas Copco has built the railway line that runs between Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, which, among other things, runs inside the occupied territory in the West Bank without Palestinians living there having access to the railway line. We also know that Volvo Group sells a large number of machines that are used, among other things, in the demolition of Palestinian settlements.
There are also quite a few other companies that are active in the Israeli illegal settlements.
I am, of course, happy to talk about trade because there is quite a lot to talk about there – and also about the association agreement. But what I want to know is how the government intends to act towards the Swedish companies that are active inside the occupied territory. Is there any dialogue with the companies about that they should not do this? They are, de facto, contributing to an extension of the occupation.
My question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs remains: How do the Minister and the government intend to act against the companies and financial institutions that are active in the settlements?
Håkan Svenneling (V)
Madam Speaker! I would like to start by thanking Member Jacob Risberg for the important interpellation. But I also want to extend a thank you to Foreign Minister Maria Malmer Stenergard for the clarity when she says that Sweden stands fully and completely behind the International Court of Justice's advisory opinion. It is fundamentally good policy from the Swedish government's side. I do not think it has been so clear previously. When there was a vote in the UN General Assembly on September 18 last year, Sweden was not one of the countries that voted for that resolution. It was also the first resolution Palestine as a state submitted together with other states in the UN General Assembly since it became a full member.
This leads further to what Jacob Risberg was touching upon in his post. Now, the International Court of Justice's advisory opinion, which Sweden stands behind, has arrived. And the General Assembly has adopted a resolution urging the UN member states to follow the court's position. It falls upon us as a third country to counter Israel's occupation of Palestine. According to the resolution in the General Assembly, it should even be concluded within one year after the resolution's adoption.
This requires analysis from the government. What does the ICJ's judgment mean for Sweden? What can be done now? We have not seen enough from the government's side here. The Committee on Foreign Affairs had a meeting today and talked about the association council where the EU and Israel will have talks. We have long wondered when that council will be. Now it is clear that it will be sometime in February; it is a bit unclear exactly when.
Then comes the next question: What will Sweden push for in those talks with Israel regarding the clarity on the settlements, which we now see expanding? We see increasing settler violence, and we see that Israeli authorities, police, military and others do not intervene against the settlers who commit violence. As a consequence of this, a number of Palestinian villages have been emptied during the past year, and a great deal of Palestinian lives have been lost in the West Bank.
And that is where these Swedish companies and all types of international companies operating there come in. It is known that there has been cheating with zip codes. Instead of using a zip code that belongs to a settlement, one stamps it somewhere during the journey, and in that way, the products reach export markets in Europe. Then this association agreement makes it very advantageous to trade between Israel and the EU. You get lower customs rates, and you get better market access. It makes it attractive to label products as if they did not come from a settlement.
Sweden and the EU must really counter this with focus. Sweden must also, much more clearly than today, analyze the judgment and pursue a policy that leads to a stop on that type of cheating.
Utrikesministern Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)
Madam Speaker! As I have already stated, the statement largely coincides with the EU's policy and assessment.
Regarding trade and business activities in the occupied territory, the International Court of Justice states that all states have an obligation, in their dealings with Israel, to distinguish between the Israeli and the Palestinian territory. This means, among other things, that states shall refrain from entering into trade commitments with Israel concerning the occupied Palestinian territory that could consolidate Israel's presence there. States shall also take steps to prevent trade and investment relations that contribute to maintaining the illegal situation that Israel has created in the occupied territory.
The EU's trade with Israel is regulated by WTO rules and the association agreement between the EU and Israel which entered into force in 2022 and which has been mentioned here earlier. We attach great importance to the differentiation between Israel and the occupied territories which the EU's association agreement with Israel also establishes. The duty-free status for goods covered by the agreement therefore does not apply to goods from the West Bank including East Jerusalem, Gaza or the Golan Heights.
Settlement products are not covered by the right to duty-free status or other customs benefits. According to EU legislation, it is required that goods from settlements must be marked with their origin, so that it is also clear to the consumer whether a product comes from Israel or from a settlement.
The government does not support a boycott of Israel but assesses that cooperation and a direct dialogue provide better conditions for achieving results. The advisory opinion is directed at states and not towards private actors, such as companies or banks.
The government, however, has a clear expectation that Swedish companies act sustainably and responsibly by working for human rights, equality, good working conditions, the environment, and the fight against corruption where they operate. The companies shall follow prevailing laws and observe the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on Responsible Business Conduct and the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. I assume that the Swedish companies that might be involved also take this responsibility in relation to Västbanken.
Finally: Regarding Håkan Svenelling's remark about the vote in the UN in September, I want to emphasize that the government stands behind the International Court of Justice. The resolution in question went beyond the court's opinion and added further matters. They are not in any way in contrast to each other. It was for that reason that we chose to abstain. But we therefore stand fully and completely behind the court's statement.
Jacob Risberg (MP)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister for Foreign Affairs, for the possibly somewhat clarifying answer!
I agree with the Foreign Minister regarding the interpretation of what the International Court of Justice says. It concerns, among other things, trade with settlements but also investments in settlements. And it is that point I want to return to.
Just as the Foreign Minister says, the International Court of Justice addresses states and not private companies. It is states that must follow what the UN decides and so on. But it is here that we have a problem.
We have, among other things, investments from our Swedish pension funds, the AP funds. Five of the AP funds invest in companies that are active in settlements. Does the Foreign Minister think that is a problem, or is it not a problem? Should the state invest in companies that contribute to maintaining the settlements?
I understand that the management of the AP funds may not lie directly with the Foreign Minister, but this is still a foreign policy issue. Therefore, I believe the government should have a view on the matter. Does the Foreign Minister think it is problematic that Swedish companies contribute to the demolition of Palestinian houses and to building infrastructure in occupied territory that does not benefit Palestinian residents?
That is what I want to come back to. I would very gladly talk about trade at another time. There are plenty of things to say about the association agreement and all the loopholes that exist for goods from settlements. But I want to know a bit about how the Swedish government feels about the Swedish state investing in companies that are active in occupied territory.
Now I have only mentioned the Swedish companies. There are also quite a few other international companies that are very active in settlements where the AP funds also have investments. Are these sustainable investments? Is it something we should stand behind, or should we urge the AP funds to stop investing in precisely these companies?
I would like to come back to that, and I would like to hear what the Minister for Foreign Affairs has to say about it.
Håkan Svenneling (V)
Madam Speaker! The Minister for Foreign Affairs highlights what is relevant and notes that the court's statement is directed at the government or at states and not at companies and other organizations. One might then think that they have no responsibility, that they cannot do anything, and that the room for maneuver is totally gone.
But what we would rather see from the government's side is that they analyze the judgment and look at what the government can do, also to help companies do the right thing. I believe and hope that very many Swedish companies would fundamentally want to achieve a two-state solution. They think that the settlements are illegal and see them as an obstacle to achieving the two-state solution.
One can give companies recommendations on how they should act. How does one do that? One can, for example, look at the Norwegian government, which a year ago issued clear recommendations to Norwegian companies. Among other things, in written recommendations from their Ministry for Foreign Affairs but also in the form of legislation, they were clear about what types of companies are covered, in what way they think the companies should be guided, and what principles they present. They are trying to find a way to follow the court's decision but also to ensure that Norway does not contribute to Israel's occupation of Palestine. I think the Foreign Minister makes it a bit too easy for herself when she tries to evade what can be done as a state.
I think it is very serious that we still have not seen any kind of analysis of this judgment from the government's side. A question that we are following but which this interpellation does not concern is arms trade with Israel which can be considered directly linked to the occupation. There are ideas about importing weapons to Sweden from Israel, and it is a question that we from the opposition's side will continue to keep track of.
Utrikesministern Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)
Madam Speaker! The International Court of Justice's opinion of 19 July is a detailed account of international law conditions regarding the occupied Palestinian territory. The Court states in the opinion that Israel violates several central international law rules and principles. The Court states, among other things, that Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territory is illegal.
The EU and its member states do not recognize any change of the 1967 borders that the parties have not agreed upon. The EU has expressed support for the Palestinian people's unconditional right to self-determination. In other crucial parts, the advisory opinion also aligns with the EU's policy, for example, regarding the fact that illegal settlements violate international law.
All states have a responsibility to respect and act in line with international law, which was also confirmed by the court. The EU already has a comprehensive policy to differentiate between Israel and the occupied territories. The EU and Israel have, as stated, agreed to hold a meeting in the Association Council. It will be an important opportunity to conduct a dialogue on, among other things, the international law principles that the EU's policy regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is based on.
In the interpellation debate, many questions have been raised regarding the various investments of the AP funds. This falls within the Minister for Finance's area of responsibility. In my previous answer, I stated that the court's ruling affects states. I have explained our international law analysis of the consequences of the court's ruling for our part and the possibility we have to act under international law. It is primarily about acting through the EU, which, as is known, is our primary foreign policy platform. There, we will naturally continue to be very clear. But if one wants detailed answers to questions regarding ethical guidelines and other matters concerning the placement of the AP funds' assets, I believe it is better to direct them to the minister responsible for that.
Jacob Risberg (MP)
Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for Foreign Affairs for the answer. Many very good things are being said here in the chamber, and I agree with what is being said regarding the International Court of Justice's opinion and so on.
I understand that it is easy to brush it off and say that this is a matter for the Minister for Finance. Absolutely – the AP funds are on his desk. But the view on international law and the view on Sweden's relationship with other states are matters that lie with the Minister for Foreign Affairs.
I am somewhat in the same position as my fellow debater Håkan Svenneling regarding this matter of dialogue and recommendations to companies and to our Swedish banks, which invest heavily in this. It is not just a question for the Minister for Finance, but it is also a question of how Swedish companies should conduct themselves in different types of countries, especially those countries where there are such clear recommendations as there are here from the International Court of Justice.
I wonder if the Minister for Foreign Affairs thinks it is good that we have Swedish companies operating in occupied territory and supporting the settlements. I wonder if the Minister for Foreign Affairs is prepared to start a dialogue with them and explain that this is not particularly appropriate under international law.
Utrikesministern Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)
Madam Speaker! I believe I have actually given my answer in previous remarks. The EU's trade with Israel is regulated by WTO rules as well as the association agreement between the EU and Israel which entered into force in 2022. Private actors are not covered by the court's ruling. But the companies shall follow prevailing laws and observe the OECD's guidelines for multinational enterprises on responsible business conduct and the UN's guiding principles on business and human rights. There are, of course, high expectations that our Swedish companies shall act in accordance with this.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.