Response to interpellation 2024/25:32 on Sweden's vote in the UN vote on Israel and the West Bank
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
M argues that Sweden supports the International Court of Justice and its authoritative interpretations of international law 1. M emphasizes that Sweden abstained in the UN vote because the resolution contained a time limit for withdrawal that could complicate a negotiated two-state solution 1. M underlines that the settlement expansion violates international law and undermines the two-state solution 2. S believes that Sweden should support international legal assessments and that the occupation is illegal 3. S criticizes the government's abstention as a weak stance that damages Sweden's reputation 3. S argues that the government, in its speech at the UN, focused on Israel's self-defense instead of taking a stand on the ICJ's opinion 4. S believes that the government is not acting sufficiently against settlements and that Sweden has lost its voice 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)
Mr. Speaker! Azra Muranovic has asked me to account for the information or the considerations that form the basis for Sweden deviating from the International Court of Justice's advisory opinion that Israel's occupation is illegal, as well as what lies behind Sweden no longer standing behind international legal assessments.
Sweden supports the International Court of Justice, the UN's primary judicial organ, and as a member respects its independence and its role according to the UN Charter. We consider the court's advisory opinions as fundamentally authoritative interpretations of international law.
Sweden abstained in the vote in the UN General Assembly, together with a group of like-minded countries, on the adoption of the resolution. The Swedish position followed a weighing of a number of aspects, all of which are important.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict requires a political solution. The resolution goes further than the court's opinion in some respects and includes, among other things, demands for Israeli withdrawal from occupied territory within twelve months. We believe that this time limit creates problems for a negotiated two-state solution. We would have preferred that more time had been given to discuss how a follow-up to the court's opinion can best contribute to the objective of precisely a negotiated two-state solution.
Sweden, and the EU, continue to emphasize that international law, including humanitarian law, must be observed.
Azra Muranovic (S)
Mr. Speaker! We stand here today to discuss a matter of utmost importance. It concerns Sweden's position on international law and our stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is a matter that concerns our credibility as defenders of international laws and human rights and our responsibility to work for a just and sustainable peace in one of the world's most long-standing conflicts.
As the Minister for Foreign Affairs mentioned, I ask why Sweden has chosen to deviate from the International Court of Justice's advisory opinion which states that Israel's occupation is illegal and why we no longer stand behind international legal assessments in this matter. These are central questions that deserve a clear and detailed discussion.
The Minister for Foreign Affairs has answered that Sweden supports the International Court of Justice as the UN's primary judicial body and respects its independence. I quote from the answer: "We consider the court's advisory opinions as fundamentally authoritative interpretations of international law". But when it comes to Israel and Palestine, that view no longer applies.
The International Court of Justice's advisory opinions are very important as a legal principle and moral authority for preventive diplomacy and peacekeeping qualities. Advisory opinions also contribute in their own way to clarifying and developing international law and thereby to strengthening peaceful relations between states.
International law must always be at the center of our country's actions, regardless of which actors are involved. Nevertheless, Sweden chose to abstain in the vote in the UN General Assembly where the resolution on Israel's occupation was adopted. The government justifies this by stating that the resolution goes further than what the International Court of Justice proposes and that it includes a deadline. This deadline is said to complicate a negotiation on a two-state solution that Sweden, together with the EU, continues to strive for.
It is an argument that I find difficult to accept without further explanation. I fully share the objective of a two-state solution where Israel and Palestine live side by side in peace and in security. But a negotiated solution cannot be decoupled from international law. The occupation is and remains illegal according to international law. But when Sweden abstains, it appears as if one does not agree.
Mr. Speaker! International law is not negotiable. We must reclaim our leadership role within the UN and the international community when it comes to promoting human rights and upholding international laws. It is our duty to support both the Palestinians' right to self-determination and Israel's right to security. But this must occur within the framework of international law.
That is why abstaining from supporting a resolution aimed at reminding of the illegality of the occupation is a weak position, and it damages our reputation as a principled voice for peace and justice.
My question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs is: What is it that you have fixated on regarding the time limit for an Israeli withdrawal within twelve months? In what way would the aspect of the time limit jeopardize a two-state solution? What time limit does the Minister for Foreign Affairs instead consider should apply when a state is to withdraw from a territory that it has occupied in violation of international law?
Alexandra Völker (S)
Mr. Speaker! Time and again, the government makes the choice to abstain from Sweden's vote in the UN when it comes to issues concerning Palestine. Already the week after the latest abstained vote, the Foreign Minister was given the opportunity to speak to the UN General Assembly. For 15 minutes, the Foreign Minister had the full attention of the General Assembly and the heads of state.
I can state that the Foreign Minister, during her minutes, absolutely highlighted the concern for a regional war. She highlighted the suffering in Gaza and the important work that the UN organizations are performing. But in the same breath, she transitioned to speaking about Israel's right to defend itself.
In an interpellation debate with me two weeks ago, the Minister for Foreign Affairs expressed that she absolutely stands up for the international courts and their rulings. Just as today, the Minister for Foreign Affairs argued that it was how the resolution was formulated that was the problem.
But if it was the wording in the resolution that was the reason why Sweden abstained, would it not then have been an opportunity to take the chance in its speech at the UN to signal that Sweden stands up for the ICJ's advisory opinion and that Israel should cease its illegal occupation? No, instead Sweden chooses once again to only focus on Israel's right to defend itself.
My question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs is therefore: If it really was just how the resolution was formulated, why did one not then choose to take the chance to clarify in the UN where Sweden stands on this issue?
Peter Hultqvist (S)
Mr. Speaker! Those who do not want to can always find a reason. It becomes a matter of the unprepared's hindrance throughout. That Sweden should stand behind a two-state solution should hardly be a novelty. We have recognized Palestine in a decision made under Stefan Löfven's leadership. Palestine has an embassy in Stockholm.
That we now end up in a situation where we, together with 43 countries, abstain, and where 124 voted for the resolution and 14 against, is an immense weakness. We are unable to stand up for a position that has been confirmed in so many UN decisions throughout time, where a two-state solution has been advocated, and where the International Court of Justice has now also set requirements. Requirements must be placed on Israel. Israel disregards international law and justice to such an extent that it is very noteworthy and, furthermore, outrageous.
We have 100,000 injured, 40,000 dead, 14,000 children dead, and 21,000 children missing in Gaza, destroyed infrastructure and destroyed homes, and large refugee caravans. This is something that goes far beyond the right of self-defense regulated in international law. It also states in international law that one may not go as far as to make it retaliation against civilians.
What has occurred in, for example, the West Bank over the years is a systematic erosion of the two-state solution. Today, Palestinian enclaves remain. Settlements with Israelis have expanded to such a level that we today have over 750,000 settlers. All of this is against international law and justice. That is not correct.
Sweden once had a voice, could point to it and had the strength to stand up for international law. But I do not believe that the current government does so more than in a form of lip service.
The message is clear and distinct when it comes to Ukraine. There, one feels that it rings true. But when it comes to the Middle East, the Palestinians and what is international law and justice there, the voice is not in the same way. Then the weighting is in such a way that one begins to doubt the whole thing.
It is finally confirmed when one abstains in such an important vote in the UN. Furthermore, the main point in the Foreign Minister's speech is Israel's right to self-defense, and the other fades into the background.
It is a major change that has occurred under both the previous Foreign Minister and the current Foreign Minister regarding the view on how one interprets international law and justice, and above all, whether one creates a position for oneself to be able to do something in the Middle East conflict.
Now, it is said that a two-state solution is something that is important and that it is seen in the long term. But as time ticks away, the possibility of arranging a two-state solution is eroded every day by the Israeli government's activities and decisions. Furthermore, this summer, in the midst of the burning Gaza war, a decision was made to establish a large number of new settlements in the West Bank in defiance of international law and justice.
Where are the protests against that from the Swedish government? The answer is that they do not exist. I think the minister has very much to consider regarding this, and I would like to hear a somewhat more in-depth analysis of why one is now acting in the way one is.
Utrikesministern Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)
Mr. Speaker! Peter Hultqvist said that he who does not want to can always find a reason. For some inscrutable reason, I am going to think of the Natoprocess.
The government therefore attaches the greatest importance to the international courts, which are important for upholding international law and a rules-based world order. The International Court of Justice is the UN's primary judicial organ, and we safeguard its independence. International law remains a cornerstone of Swedish foreign policy. The request for an advisory opinion was made at the end of December 2022 through a resolution in the UN General Assembly.
The Government has received the court's advisory opinion from July 19. It is a detailed account of international law conditions regarding the occupied Palestinian territory. The International Court of Justice states in the opinion that Israel violates several central international law rules and principles.
Advisory opinions are not legally binding, but the court's opinion has great international law weight. I have several times during my rather short time as Foreign Minister stated that the court's ruling is important, even though it has not been noted by the debaters in the chamber. I have also stated this to Israel's Foreign Minister.
I note that the court's statement in decisive parts also coincides with the EU's policy, of which Sweden is an important part. One such part is the view that the settlements violate international law. I have said it before, but let me emphasize it and say it again in case it has happened to escape anyone: The settlements undermine the two-state solution and contribute to an elevated level of conflict. The expansion of settlements as well as demolitions and evictions must cease. These are messages that we convey with great clarity, including directly to Israel, just as I mentioned.
The EU is also clear in not recognizing any changes to the 1967 borders that the parties themselves have not agreed upon. This policy remains firm.
That Sweden abstained in the vote in the General Assembly does not in any way mean a diminished support for the International Court of Justice, international law and a rules-based world order.
TJÄNSTGÖRANDE ÅLDERSPRESIDENTEN
I want to remind that the chamber's deliberations must not be disturbed by observers in the gallery. I may have the guards remove those persons who disturb the order as soon as possible.
I want to remind that, according to the Penal Code, it can be a crime to disturb the chamber's proceedings.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.