Response to interpellation 2024/25:724 on the decision not to pay out emergency aid to UNRWA
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
M considers Israel's warfare to be unacceptable and that it is unjustifiable to block aid to civilians 1. M argues that the choice was made to channel support through other actors than UNRWA due to uncertainties in the organization's operations 1 and a lack of neutrality 2. M demands unimpeded humanitarian access, wants the EU to introduce trade measures and sanctions against extremist ministers 1, and also wants to pressure Israel by suspending customs benefits 3. V argues that it is irresponsible for the government to refuse to send support to UNRWA despite Sida having assessed the organization as irreplaceable 4. MP questions how the distribution of food and medicine is to take place without UNRWA 5. S argues that it is a crazy decision to stop the permanent support 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.
Statsrådet Benjamin Dousa (M)
Madam Speaker! Lotta Johnsson Fornarve has asked me whether it is my opinion that Israel complies with international law in Gaza and, if not, whether I intend to take any actions within the framework of my area of responsibility, as well as whether it is my opinion that Sida has the room to independently make decisions on responding to emergency appeals. Lotta Johnsson Fornarve has also asked me whether I am prepared to reconsider the decision not to provide aid to Gaza through UNRWA and how I will act to ensure that humanitarian aid reaches the people of Gaza.
Israel has the right to defend itself against Hamas, but the way Israel is now conducting this war is unacceptable. The support that is now coming in is far from sufficient. Blocking food and other aid to civilians is completely unjustifiable. When there is now no answer on how humanitarian aid on a large scale can get in, it is difficult to see that it would be compatible with international humanitarian law.
The government has repeatedly, in our conversations with Israel's government, demanded unhindered humanitarian access and that humanitarian actors be able to operate unhindered in all parts of Gaza. Civilians, aid workers, and healthcare personnel must be protected and respected. The UN and other humanitarian actors must be allowed to work safely, independently, and impartially to save lives and reduce human suffering.
The recent developments mean that the government has now further sharpened the tone from the Swedish side to increase the pressure on the Israeli government. Sweden therefore wants the EU to introduce trade measures against Israel as soon as possible, such as freezing the trade part of the association agreement between the EU and Israel. The economic pressure against Israel must increase. Within the EU, Sweden is also pushing for the introduction of EU sanctions against extremist ministers who are pushing for an illegal settlement policy and actively counteracting a future two-state solution.
Hamas bears a very heavy responsibility for the situation that prevails. We continue to demand that the hostages must be released, unconditionally and immediately. In order to achieve a change, the pressure on Hamas must therefore increase, for example through further sanctions, which the government repeatedly raises within the EU.
The government has clearly shown its strong commitment to continued humanitarian support for Gaza's severely affected civilian population. In December, the government decided to allocate 800 million kronor to the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and the region. Since the start of the war, Sweden has contributed over 1 billion kronor to meet the acute needs that exist in Gaza.
The government remains firm in its criticism of the Israeli laws regarding UNRWA that entered into force in January. UNRWA reports themselves that, at the current time, they are not permitted to bring in any humanitarian aid to Gaza on their own. During the last month alone, the World Food Programme managed to get 800 trucks into Gaza. UNRWA got in 0. Given the overall picture and the uncertainties that constantly characterize UNRWA's operations, we have chosen to channel the greatly increased support to Gaza and the region through other actors.
Sida is a government administrative agency that is subordinate to the government. Sida needs to follow the general governance that the agency receives from the government through, for example, the agency's instructions, regulatory letters, government mandates, and support strategies. The agency, however, makes its decisions independently. It is also the agency that bears the responsibility for such decisions.
Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the answer to my interpellation!
The situation in Gaza is far beyond catastrophic. The head of the Red Cross likens Gaza to a hell on earth. Gaza lies in ruins, and mass famine is a fact. Thousands of civilians, journalists, and aid workers have been killed. There is no doubt that a genocide is taking place.
When one did not think it could get any worse, the Israeli attack intensified and they now intend to take over all of Gaza. People are forced to flee again, but there is nowhere to flee. There is an acute shortage of food, clean water, and medicine. Children die daily due to war and starvation, and the children who survive are severely traumatized.
Sweden must exert maximum pressure on Israel to stop the war and allow in supplies. It is good that the government has sharpened its tone towards Israel and finally listened to us in the opposition and now stands behind the EU freezing the trade part of the association agreement between the EU and Israel as soon as possible. But more needs to be done, such as a total stop to all trade between Sweden and Israel, sanctions against the illegal settlers and reinstatement of the support to the UN agency for support to Palestinian refugees, UNRWA.
We must do everything we can to assist the hard-hit Palestinian people, to save lives. The Minister has answered that it has been chosen to channel the support via other organizations because there is uncertainty surrounding UNRWA. I do not understand what the Minister bases that conclusion on. The organization that the gathered expertise agrees is the most effective is the UN agency UNRWA, something that also the government's own agency Sida agrees with.
A new report shows that UNRWA continues to have a robust presence in Gaza. UN Secretary-General António Guterres says that while all humanitarian organizations have been forced to significantly reduce or suspend their operations, UNRWA continues to deliver life-saving aid. UNRWA's head says in a DN interview: "When the war pushes Gaza to the breaking point, UNRWA is still on the ground with health centers, clean water, and education for children. Yet Sweden, together with the USA, as the only countries in the world, have stopped their previous support to the UN agency."
This has harmed UNRWA severely. UNRWA is the only organization delivering basic services inside Gaza with 12,000 employees on the ground. There is no other organization that comes close to UNRWA's capacity. UNRWA is the very hub for the aid operations in Gaza.
In December last year, Foreign Minister Maria Malmer Stenergard signed a declaration at the UN stating that UNRWA is completely indispensable. Despite this, the Swedish government withdrew support shortly thereafter, which is completely incomprehensible. In May, the government's own expert agency Sida wanted to send disaster relief to UNRWA, but the government said no via State Secretary Janse at UD. This closely resembles ministerial rule.
Why does the minister refuse to give support to the organization that has the best capacity to reach out to the hard-hit population in Gaza? Why do you in the government not listen to your own expert agency? The explanations we receive do not hold up.
In addition to the fact that Sweden's and the USA's withdrawn support for UNRWA represents an enormous loss of millions of dollars for the organization, it sends completely wrong signals to the rest of the world. If UNRWA collapses, it would fuel the regional conflict and prevent a future two-state solution.
Jacob Risberg (MP)
Madam Speaker! Thank you to Lotta Johnsson Fornarve for initiating this debate, and thank you also to Minister Dousa who is here to answer our questions!
UNRWA was formed in 1949 as a temporary solution to take care of the Palestinian refugees who arose after Nakba, the great catastrophe, and the war in what became Israel. But what happened? Well, Israel did not allow any Palestinian refugees to return to their homes, and UNRWA therefore became more or less permanent in the areas and the countries in which it operated. After the six-day war, when Israel occupied the West Bank, Jerusalem, Gaza, and the Golan Heights, Israel signed agreements with UNRWA that they would also in these areas take care of certain parts of the responsibility that lies with an occupying power regarding healthcare, education, food, and so on. Even Israel has thus had a great need for UNRWA to be on site.
These schools and clinics and, to some extent, the administration remain in Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, and also in the West Bank. UNRWA is also active there and runs schools, but Sweden has withdrawn the funding to them.
It is true, just as the Minister says, that the World Food Programme receives trucks into Gaza while UNRWA does not. It is not so strange, because the Israeli administration has introduced a law that prohibits Israeli authorities from having contact with UNRWA, which means that it is not possible to administer the import of trucks from UNRWA. Once one enters Gaza, the World Food Programme, on the other hand, is entirely dependent on UNRWA, which has all the distribution centers – 400 locations where they are used to distributing food. They distribute water and are responsible for sanitation and still also for health centers inside Gaza despite the ongoing war.
I therefore wonder what the Swedish government knows that other governments do not know. What is it that the Swedish government knows about UNRWA that all the organizations that cooperate with UNRWA do not know? All organizations say that they need UNRWA, because there is no organization that will replace them, and right now they are doing a job where they risk their lives to continue distributing water, food, and medicine to the needy population. To only focus on which organizations get trucks across the border gives a very narrow picture of UNRWA. One is so much more than that. But Sweden has, therefore, cut its support.
I also wonder a bit about the governance of Sida, something we have also touched upon in this issue. According to the Minister's answer, Sida shall follow the general governance that comes from the government through, among other things, agency instructions, regulation letters, government mandates, and the aid strategy. Is there anything in this governance regarding that one may not provide humanitarian support to UNRWA?
I do not think it does, but I would very much like to be informed as to whether such a decision exists, otherwise it becomes very strange with the decision that was made in the spring when Sida's experts themselves concluded that UNRWA is best suited to distribute humanitarian aid and this was stopped by the Minister for Foreign Affairs' State Secretary.
Eva Lindh (S)
Madam Speaker! The situation in Gaza is absolutely appalling. Words fail me. I have also at many times asked myself if it could get any worse. Yes, it could apparently get even worse. Now people do not only lack medical care – they are starving and being attacked in the queues for food and water. Now people must flee Gaza City, but where are they supposed to flee to?
Quite often when we raise the question of Israel's responsibility and what else needs to be done, we receive comments that we do not condemn Hamas. That is incorrect. We condemn Hamas and the terror attacks that occurred. The terror attack that took place on October 7, 2023, was of course completely horrific. I just want to make that clear. Israel and all countries naturally have the right to defend themselves, but the way in which they have defended themselves is beyond all words and all descriptions. It is completely unreasonable, just as the Minister also touched upon. It is an inhuman suffering.
In this situation, it has been frustrating that the government has not acted with clarity and force against Israel. Hamas should, as said, be condemned, but Israel is committing crimes, and the Swedish government and governments throughout the world need to act very clearly against it.
What Johnsson Fornarve has submitted his interpellation about is actually completely incomprehensible, and therefore I must also take the opportunity to ask the Minister what the reason is. Sweden, as the only EU country, has stopped the support via UNRWA, despite the fact that most assessors, and as mentioned, also the government's own agency Sida, have said that this is something that works and is adapted to the situation in Gaza. It is incredibly important to provide resources, money, and support, but if the trucks are standing outside and are not allowed to come in with food, or if the hospitals are being bombed and the care that is still provided by organizations actually cannot function, the pressure on Israel must be hard and the organizations that still function must be given the support that is needed. If one truly means business with providing support to people suffering in Gaza, it should be a self-evident matter that one restores the support to UNRWA.
I really wonder how Sweden can make such a one-sided and solitary assessment. I know, of course, that the USA and others have also stopped it, but UNRWA nevertheless has an operation that functions today. One could say that most organizations have a very difficult time functioning at all because Israel blocks the possibilities, but the question remains: What reasons does the government have to stop the support to UNRWA?
Statsrådet Benjamin Dousa (M)
Madam Speaker! First and foremost, I want to address an inaccuracy that is often spread by several opposition parties, and that is that we would be the only country in the EU that has redirected the support to other organizations. A handful of other EU countries have made exactly the same or similar decisions as the Swedish government, and additional countries, for example the Netherlands, have made the decision to phase out the support to UNRWA and to a greater extent phase it in to other organizations operating on the ground. We are one of the largest donors in the entire world to the humanitarian crisis, and we are second largest in the entire EU when it comes to financing the humanitarian response in Gaza.
As several have pointed out in the debate, it is the single most important thing right now that more of the aid is let in. We have enormous stocks in both Jordan and Egypt that are filled with, among other things, Swedish-financed support, but that support – medicines, food, fuel to run hospitals with and much more – is not being let in to a sufficient extent.
The government has since the beginning of the war pushed the issue of increased humanitarian access, and we continue to repeat our clear demands in talks with Israeli representatives. We view very seriously that our and others' appeals are not being heeded, and therefore we have chosen to increase the pressure on the Israeli government further.
In the agreement between the EU and Israel from July 10, some minor progress is noted, but the measures taken are far from sufficient. The EU now needs to take concrete steps to increase pressure on the Israeli government to change its actions in Gaza.
Sweden wants, for example, that the EU freezes the trade part of the association agreement with Israel. The government is very clear on this issue and has, among other things, requested concrete proposals from the European Commission. We are also in contact with other EU countries and will continue to urge the Commission to act.
Israel must ensure safe and unimpeded access for humanitarian actors in accordance with the obligations Israel has under international humanitarian law. Even though one has the right to defend oneself, war also has laws and rules.
It is absolutely crucial that humanitarian aid swiftly reaches the severely affected civilian population, of which a large part are women and children, who are currently living under inhumane conditions in Gaza. Using the starvation of civilians as a method of warfare constitutes a war crime. The government also continues to demand that all remaining hostages be released immediately and unconditionally.
In light of what we are now seeing, it is, as said, difficult to see that Israel is living up to its obligations under international humanitarian law. The Government views this with very great concern and is deeply critical of the Israeli security cabinet's decision to further intensify the military offensive in Gaza. The plans risk going in the opposite direction and increasing the already immense suffering among the civilian population.
The government has been clear that Gaza's territory must not be altered, reduced, or annexed. This would violate international law and will be condemned by Sweden. The same applies if the whole or parts of the civilian population were to be displaced from Gaza.
It is important that violations of international law and possible war crimes are investigated. It is also important that accountability is demanded.
Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for further answers!
In May, the government's own agency Sida conducted a careful analysis of the situation in Gaza after receiving a request for disaster relief from UNRWA. Sida's assessment was then that in the short and medium term, there is no other humanitarian actor that has the possibility to save lives and alleviate distress to the same extent as UNRWA. There is also no actor that has the possibility, capacity, mandate or will to take over the central parts of UNRWA's work and role.
Despite this, the government refuses to send support to UNRWA. It is both incomprehensible and deeply irresponsible. I have not received any sensible explanation for this. Why is the government not listening to its own expert agency? I want an answer to that question.
One must also view UNRWA's activities from a broader perspective. The UN agency for Palestinian refugees, UNRWA, was created in 1949 to help Palestinians who fled or were displaced from the areas that later became the State of Israel. Since then, UNRWA's work for Palestinian refugees has been irreplaceable.
Sweden has been one of the largest donors to UNRWA. When we suddenly stop funding UNRWA, it does not only affect Gaza and the West Bank but also Palestinian refugees in neighboring countries such as Jordan, Lebanon and Syria.
UNRWA is often the only actor providing basic community services to millions of Palestinian refugees in the region. This applies particularly in education and healthcare. UNRWA cannot be replaced by anything other than a future Palestinian state institution. No other organization can fill that vacuum.
Israel has done its best to discredit UNRWA. By banning the organization, they are trying to get rid of the Palestinian refugee problem. Israel has, for example, claimed that there would be links between Hamas and UNRWA. This has been refuted by several independent serious investigations – including by the Swedish Raoul Wallenberg Institute.
Instead of withdrawing support for UNRWA, it should be strengthened. Several other donors have done this. Among others, countries such as the United Kingdom, France, Spain and Ireland have increased their support to UNRWA.
Now the minister says that it is several countries that have withdrawn support, but that is not true. Of the permanent donors, it is only Sweden and USA that have completely withdrawn support. That is how it is. That other countries that have not been donors in that way have withdrawn support is another matter. Of the large, permanent donors, it is only Sweden and USA that have withdrawn support.
The claim that UNRWA's support does not reach its destination is also not true in any way. UNRWA's chief, Philippe Lazzarini, says in an interview in DN that "Sweden has been a long-standing and reliable partner for UNRWA, both politically and financially, and it has given us great flexibility. The decision to suddenly stop supporting us came as a big surprise and has had a very negative effect." Operations are underway in both Gaza and the West Bank.
I still have not received a sensible explanation as to why the support to UNRWA has been withdrawn or why the government could not at least send the disaster relief that its own expert agency obviously wanted to send in May, but which was stopped through the Ministry for Foreign Affairs' intervention.
Stopping the support to UNRWA will have catastrophic consequences for the population in Gaza. Only UNRWA has the actual capacity to distribute the aid that more than two million people are in desperate need of. It will also have major consequences for all Palestinian refugees in the region. It could seriously contribute to deepening the conflict in the region and, in the long run, prevent a two-state solution.
Jacob Risberg (MP)
Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer! However, some questions remain unanswered.
It is mentioned that a number of other countries have stopped the support. Just as Lotta Johnsson Fornarve mentioned, it is countries that have given sporadic support to UNRWA and have not been permanent donors.
The Minister also takes up the Netherlands as an example. They have decided to postpone this phase-out, and they are also one of the countries that responded positively to the emergency appeal that UNRWA sent out in the spring. They have thus given money to the emergency appeal that Sweden chose not to give money to – so please do not use the Netherlands as an example.
In all international reporting on UNRWA, it is stated that only the USA and Sweden have stopped the support. No other countries are mentioned. It is we and the USA who have stopped the support.
I therefore still wonder how the government intends for the distribution of food to take place in Gaza. Everyone who enters with food is dependent on UNRWA being there. How is the distribution of water and medicines to take place?
The Minister only speaks about Gaza, even though UNRWA is also active in the West Bank, in Lebanon, in Syria and in Jordan. I wonder who the Minister envisions taking over UNRWA's schools for the Palestinian children in these countries. Which actor does Dousa envision taking over the clinics that UNRWA has in these countries and the administration that UNRWA manages?
The World Food Programme is often mentioned because they have brought in trucks to Gaza. This is absolutely great, but it is only a small part of everything that UNRWA does. It is not only the people in Gaza who are dependent on Swedish aid funds, but it is also Palestinian refugees in a number of other countries.
Eva Lindh (S)
Madam Speaker! The question remains, and the Minister has not answered the questions that I, the interpellator, and Jacob Risberg have posed.
On what basis does the government base its decision to stop the support to UNRWA? The own aid organization Sida has a different opinion, and one usually bases decisions on the expert agencies we have. I therefore wonder what the decision to stop the support is based on.
I will not go into whether it is a few countries or the only one in the EU, because regardless of which, this is a completely crazy decision to make. As said, Sweden is the only country that has stopped the permanent support. What we are saying is not wrong.
Something must happen now. People are starving. When children, women, and men die of starvation or because they do not receive the care they need, it is a disgrace every time. Therefore, Sweden and the rest of the world must do as much as is possibly possible to get Israel to change its strategy. As it stands now, it just gets worse and worse with each passing day.
What does the Minister intend to do? Why has the support been stopped to the organization that has activities adapted to the situation in Gaza? Just as Jacob Risberg profitably highlights every time we debate, it also needs support from West Bank – and other countries, of course.
Statsrådet Benjamin Dousa (M)
Madam Speaker! Since we in the government made this decision, we have been very clear about the reasons for it.
Firstly, Israeli decisions have significantly hindered and in large parts made impossible UNRWA's operations in Gaza. One can ask the question: Which of the 800 trucks that the World Food Programme got in last month should, due to a lack of resources, not have come in so that Sweden instead supported an organization that did not get any trucks in? All of this is about important trade-offs where we constantly want to ensure that our aid funds do as much good as is possible. We have been involved in financing maternity and maternal care in Gaza. Would it perhaps become the case that it could no longer be financed because less money went to UNDP, UNFPA, Unicef and the Red Cross? This is the single most important point. We have been very clear from the beginning with our strong criticism of the Israeli government making this type of decision.
Secondly, UNRWA is an organization that for decades has received criticism from many for a lack of neutrality.
In a changing world and context, we need to be able to constantly reassess partners and methods of work in order to design Swedish aid policy in the best way. We do not only do this in Gaza and the Middle East, but we do it all over the world all the time.
UNRWA reports themselves that, at the current time, they are not allowed to bring in any humanitarian aid to Gaza on their own at all. Given the overall picture and the uncertainties that characterize UNRWA's operations, the government has chosen to channel the doubled support through other actors than just UNRWA. We are evaluating the situation continuously and choosing partners based on the current situation. The most central thing is that emergency aid reaches Gaza's civilian population. World Food Programme, which received 800 trucks during the last month, has said that they have functioning distribution and logistics on site inside Gaza.
Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)
Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for further answers.
The Minister says that a collective assessment is being made. I wonder: Who is it that one is listening to? It is not the collective expertise, in any case, which says that UNRWA is the organization that has the best possibility of reaching out to the hard-hit Palestinian people, and it is not the own expert agency Sida, which says that there is no other humanitarian actor that has the possibility to save lives and alleviate distress to the extent that UNRWA does. This is a serious analysis that the own expert agency made as recently as in May. Send at least the requested disaster relief! But the core support must, of course, also be reinstated. Everything else is actually shameful.
UNRWA is the safety of the Palestinian people in the entire region. UNRWA is irreplaceable except by a future Palestinian state institution. No other organization can fill that vacuum. UNRWA is also immensely important in the work for a future peace process and a two-state solution. Now, Sweden is contributing to pulling the rug out from under the organization's important work for the Palestinian people.
Just as the Minister says, one must use our Swedish aid wisely and effectively. Provide support to the organization that is the very hub of aid activities in Gaza! There are other organizations that are also important, but that UNRWA is the very hub cannot be ignored. UNRWA is on the ground with thousands of employees. UNRWA has open health centers and carries out sanitation in the refugee camps to prevent diseases. UNRWA has water distribution, education for children, and much more. Despite the war and the blockade, UNRWA continues, for example, to offer online teaching to over 200,000 children in Gaza and also psychosocial support. There is no other organization that comes close to UNRWA's capacity.
Think again, and do it quickly! Time is running out. You could think again when it concerned the association agreement. Do it when it concerns UNRWA too!
Statsrådet Benjamin Dousa (M)
Madam Speaker! The stories we hear from Gaza are horrific, as we have all been aware of. They testify to an immense suffering of the civilian population. We hear about children who have died of starvation and families who have lost their loved ones. I have personally met several of the aid workers who have been on the ground in Gaza and seen this with my own eyes. The war's unimaginable consequences for civilians in Gaza must come to an end.
The government has been clear that the way the Israeli government is now conducting this war is unacceptable. To deliberately block food and other aid to civilians is completely unjustifiable, as is using aid for military or political purposes. Israel must live up to its obligations to protect civilians and civil infrastructure in accordance with international humanitarian law. Humanitarian access must be ensured immediately.
That is why the government has, in several instances, sharpened its tone towards the Israeli government. We have long pushed for sanctions against violent extreme settlers in the West Bank. We are one of the few EU countries pushing for sanctions against extreme ministers in Israel's government. We now also want the customs benefits, or the trade part of the association agreement, to be suspended in order to put pressure on the Israeli government to let in more aid deliveries to Gaza.
But these tools exist at the European level. Take the sanctions tool as a concrete example! A single EU country can stop a new sanction from being introduced. It is a problem we have not only in this context; for example, Hungary has blocked and delayed several sanction packages, even against Russia.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.