Response to interpellation 2024/25:304 on the relocation of interpreters who have worked for Sweden in Afghanistan
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
M emphasizes that the government's ambition is unchanged and that they have worked on the issue through agency dialogues 1 2 3. M argues that the issue is complex due to a lack of diplomatic presence and that they do not want to do anything that does not make a real difference 2 3. M underlines that it is of principle importance that Sweden does not leave people behind 3. M argues that they are uninterested in decisions that do not achieve the desired results and that the work must focus on creating conditions so that individuals can have their grounds for protection assessed 4. M emphasizes that they are moving forward and should be inspired by other countries 4. MP argues that the government is too slow and that agency dialogues are not enough 5 6. MP argues that the government must make specific decisions to enable relocation and suggests that Sweden should hook onto allies' existing structures 7 5 6. MP believes that Sweden should take responsibility for those who risked their lives to stand side by side with Swedish troops to fight the Taliban 6.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Försvarsministern Pål Jonson (M)
Madam Speaker! [The member] has asked whether it is still my and the government's ambition that the remaining persons should be able to be offered resettlement and when we can expect the political decision that initiates such a process to be completed. Annika Hirvonen has also asked if I can guarantee that the families of the local employees will also be granted the right to resettlement. Annika Hirvonen has also asked what is stopping me and the government from making this third and final decision on tactical resettlement of local Afghan employees with connections to the military operation.
The background to Annika Hirvonen's questions is information that interpreters and other individuals who have worked for the Swedish Armed Forces remain in Afghanistan and are in need of protection as a result of their work for Sweden.
The government's ambition remains unchanged. Persons who before December 2021 stated that they are in urgent need of protection due to their work for the Swedish Armed Forces shall be able to be investigated for the possibility of resettlement by competent authorities.
We also cannot underestimate the complexity of the issue. There are many practical difficulties in the current situation to be able to assist remaining persons who have worked with the Swedish force.
The Government and the Government Offices are prevented by the Instrument of Government from deciding how courts or administrative authorities shall decide or apply the law in individual cases or matters.
Matters concerning international protection and relocation are examined by the Swedish Migration Agency in accordance with the provisions of the Aliens Act. For those persons who may be eligible for relocation, the Swedish Security Service shall additionally perform an individual security threat assessment.
If the Swedish Migration Agency decides on a residence permit for resettlement in Sweden, the person's family members are usually also received as quota refugees at the same time. This concerns the nuclear family, i.e., husband, wife or cohabitant as well as unmarried children under 18 years of age.
The Government Offices have during 2024 conducted a dialogue with relevant authorities regarding the conditions for assisting individuals who could be relevant for resettlement in Sweden.
Annika Hirvonen (MP)
Madam Speaker! I would like to thank Pål Jonson for expressing that the government continues to have the ambition to further relocate the interpreters, several of whom worked for the Swedish forces during the beginning of the 2000s.
Sweden had troops within the framework of ISAF during the years 2001-2014 and within the framework of Resolute Support Mission during the years 2014-2021. To be able to carry out its mission, they were dependent on locally employed personnel for interpretation and also for other work tasks. The people who worked for foreign forces in Afghanistan have since been persecuted by the Taliban. Many have been regarded as traitors - they were, after all, extremely close collaborators with or part of the force that fought the Taliban.
Other countries continue here and now to assist those who worked for their forces in Afghanistan, so that they can come to the countries in question. USA, Great Britain with several others are therefore continuing with this.
Sweden has, in two rounds, resettled employees of the Swedish forces and given them the opportunity to receive protection in Sweden. It was first in 2014 and then in 2021, in connection with the Taliban taking back power in Afghanistan. Not everyone came; it was very difficult. Time ran out. However, it is well-investigated which individuals are those who have worked for the Swedish forces.
What needs to be done so that the remaining persons get a real opportunity to receive protection and get out of Afghanistan is to make a decision that gives an authority the possibility to bring these individuals out without them having left Afghanistan or gives them a real opportunity to get to another country. The government can do this. Governments of different colors have done so on the two occasions I mentioned earlier. Special decisions have been made. It is this I want the government to do now.
I have myself been contacted by people who are in this situation. It concerns people who have worked with Swedish forces and are living hidden and trying to get out of Afghanistan. I have spoken with relatives of Swedish soldiers who have worked as close colleagues to people who are now moving from village to village with their family. They move with their children, who cannot attend school normally because they must stay hidden. They cannot stay for too long in the same place due to the risk of being discovered. It is a terrible situation, and the members of the Armed Forces are, after all, trained not to leave anyone behind.
A permanent solution is needed for this type of situation, so that it does not happen again when a power like the Taliban takes over after we have had troops in a location. But here and now, we must help those who were left behind.
Försvarsministern Pål Jonson (M)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Annika Hirvonen, for the interpellation!
Annika Hirvonen is generous when she says that she appreciates the work; the work has not generated any results. This is what I am saying. I will try to be honest - not because I am not honest otherwise, but this is an issue that we have worked on quite a bit in the government. I will try to give an approximate picture of what we have done.
I want to start with the most important thing. I know, in fact, that there are people watching this debate, and I do not want to give false hopes that we are facing a solution to the situation.
During the spring and partly also during the autumn, we have had authority dialogues on this issue. We have looked at how one could proceed in that case. What is important for me and the government if we proceed is that we do not just do something to be perceived as proactive, but it must be something that makes a real difference. We are not there today, so I have no new announcements to give to Annika Hirvonen.
I understand that this is unsatisfactory, but as we have said, we have worked on it quite a bit.
What is possibly new in the underlying material is the investigation that was completed on December 17. It evaluated the entire Swedish contribution to Afghanistan from 2001 to 2021. It also looked at the evacuation operation and draws a number of conclusions. One has not looked so much at this regarding local employees and interpreters, but one looks at what lessons can be drawn. It is noted that the government at the time was quite slow to get started with the work, but when they did get started, they did a fairly good job. It was barely 2,000 people who came home in connection with this. From what I understand, this affected practically everyone who was connected to the embassy and also embassy employees.
I do not exclude in any way what Annika Hirvonen says, namely that there may be people remaining in Afghanistan. In that case, it concerns people who worked for Sweden before the ISAF mission, i.e., eleven or twelve years ago. It is, therefore, a long time since those individuals would have been relevant. The time factor is one of the challenges we have.
I also note what Annika Hirvonen says in her interpellation, where she compares with 2013 and 2014. It is possibly in that respect that I have my only differing opinion, compared to Annika Hirvonen. It is more difficult to do this now than it was in 2013 and 2014, because there is no diplomatic presence for Sweden on the ground. That makes it possible that it can be difficult to be successful. This may not only apply to the Swedish Migration Agency's concerns, as Annika Hirvonen mentions, but also to the Swedish Security Service, which in that case needs to carry out assessments on site. That is where the complexity lies.
If we are to carry out missions, we shall do them with the intention that they become successful and meet the needs that are the intention behind them. But we have, of course, also considered and looked at the investigation where the intervention was evaluated, and we are working on the issue. That is as much as I can say.
Annika Hirvonen (MP)
Madam Speaker! Then I wonder what this work consists of, because authority dialogues were not enough in 2013 or 2021. Special government decisions were also required. I am blunt. Given that we have still not seen any results from authority dialogues, I am quite convinced that it will not be enough.
The clock is ticking. These people's lives are ongoing. They are in a terrible situation, and they risk being persecuted, tortured, and in the worst case, killed. It is therefore urgent to act. Pål Jonson says that action is being taken and mentions, specifically, authority dialogues. I believe that we need decisions so that, for example, the Ministry for Foreign Affairs or the Armed Forces can make a submission for these persons to the Swedish Migration Agency so that they can be assessed for resettlement.
Other countries also do not have embassies in Afghanistan and still manage to help their former colleagues out of Afghanistan, not least to Pakistan, and find solutions.
Of course, it is the result that counts. That is what we are looking for. I am convinced that it is possible to achieve results. I believe that rather than looking at 2013, one should look at how the countries that actually succeed now operate. There are structures in place that Sweden would likely be able to hook into. It is, after all, our allies who operate there and who have contacts and solve the situation for those who have worked for their countries.
It is absolutely complex, but it is not an excuse for not acting, not doing what other countries succeed in, or not at least trying.
There is a list. In 2021, the Armed Forces provided UD with a list of names of local employees. Veterans have used it so that they can continue to keep track of their former colleagues. It is therefore not complex in the sense that there would not be people who know who these persons are.
Security assessments must, of course, also be carried out in these cases, just as otherwise. It is very much possible to achieve that. But one must ensure that these people can, first of all, receive an application for resettlement, so that the Swedish Migration Agency can make a decision on whether they can be investigated to receive protection in Sweden. One should also help people to get out of Afghanistan. If they do not have money to pay for visas, one can discuss solutions for that with the authorities of the neighboring countries. It has worked for other countries. Or one can actually provide financial assistance.
I noted that Pål Jonson said in the response that one obviously cannot engage in ministerial rule. I hope that I shall interpret that as that there may be certain individual persons who, for various reasons, could not be covered. But I want to remind of what Pål Jonson's colleague - now Foreign Minister - Maria Malmer Stenergard said in 2001, when it happened. When the government at that time said that it could be ministerial rule, she said: You can. It is just a really bad excuse. It has been done before.
I hope that Pål Jonson does not refrain from acting because he believes that it would constitute ministerial rule in itself.
Försvarsministern Pål Jonson (M)
Madam Speaker! I will not comment on the words, but I assume it was 2021 that Maria Malmer said this, not 2001. But nevertheless, I take this with me.
Again: We have worked on the issue. I am aware that other countries are also actively working on the issue and that it has been looked at how people could be flown out, among other places from northern Afghanistan. I believe that the United Kingdom and the Netherlands are a couple of the countries that continue to work with this.
I do not rule out that we can be inspired and also continue to pursue a more formalized dialogue, but if so, I would like to return to that. But some of these things could, of course, be doable.
The second dimension of this, which I also consider fundamentally important and which Annika Hirvonen raises in her interpellation, is that this is a signal regarding Sweden's international efforts that one does not leave people behind when carrying out these efforts.
We have been careful to follow up on that, among other things after 2015 and the ISAF mission. At that time, it was Germany that took over the interpretation service there and thus the main responsibility. We have also followed up on how it was done in Mali to ensure that no interpreters employed by Sweden would be left behind.
Right now the problem is slightly smaller because we do not have any major international embargoes, but what Annika Hirvonen raises, linked to the fact that one should not leave people behind, is naturally of principle importance.
I have, of course, also encountered these lists. I know that there are different opinions regarding this. I also know that there are challenges in determining who it is that have actually worked in the Armed Forces, that is to say, who have been interpreters or who have been locally employed. It is primarily those who, in that case, have the greatest threat profile against them.
I know that there is a strong commitment in Sweden linked to this and that the Armed Forces have been provided with a basis regarding it. We have conducted a dialogue with the authority. I do not rule out the possibility that we can make decisions on the issue, but I have no new information to give compared to the interpellation debate I had with Annika Hirvonen about ten months ago.
Annika Hirvonen (MP)
Madam Speaker! It is our duty to act. We do not have time to wait for a sluggish government. The words that Maria Malmer Stenergard uttered in 2021 are still relevant today. The government has had two and a half years to act, and so far, the only concrete thing we have heard of are authority dialogues.
The next time one of the individuals who are currently in life-threatening danger in Afghanistan contacts me, this is what I will have to say. Our government is holding inter-governmental dialogues. They are talking to each other about what they might, possibly could do. At the same time, other countries continue to evacuate their former employees.
As long as other countries that are our allies are working on this on the ground, I believe it will be less difficult for Sweden to join in and do the same. If we wait until they are finished, I believe the window will become even narrower. It will then become even more complex to act.
I really want to urge Pål Jonson and the government to move from dialogue to decision. We have previously stated that there is a lack of political opposition in this issue. I am convinced that the Swedish people would agree that Sweden should take responsibility for those who have risked their lives to stand side by side with Swedish troops to combat the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Försvarsministern Pål Jonson (M)
Madam Speaker! I am uninterested in decisions if they do not achieve the results that we strive for, and it is there we need to work to calibrate so that it also has an effect in the objective and, in that case, can create conditions for these individuals to be able to have their grounds for protection examined. That is what is central.
I have no desire to politicize this debate. I can state that in the Afghanistan report, very harsh criticism was directed at the previous government, and the Committee on the Constitution has also done so. However, I do not think that is what is important and central, but rather that we are moving forward in this issue.
I have, as I have said, no new information today. That is not normally what one provides in an interpellation debate. I hear what Annika Hirvonen says, but we are not ready to be able to make a new decision now and today. But we should also look at and be inspired by what other countries do in the matter. That is all I can say.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.