Response to interpellation 2025/26:122 on the interim agreement between the EU and Morocco regarding Western Sahara
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
1 M considers that the EU Commission has amended the association agreement with Morocco to respect the European Court of Justice's rulings and that the government supports efforts for a political solution within the UN process 1. 2 M argues that Sweden voted yes to the agreement because Morocco is an important strategic partner and that international law must be upheld by following the court's requirements 2. 1 2 M emphasizes that it is the European Court of Justice that determines the compatibility of the agreements and that consent from the people of Western Sahara can be implied if the benefits come to them 1 2. 3 V is for Sweden to stand firm on its previous positions and not accept agreements between the EU and Morocco that include occupied Western Sahara, as Polisario has not approved the agreement 3. 4 M argues that it is welcome that products from Western Sahara shall receive the same customs benefits as other products, that an evaluation mechanism is established, and that the EU increases its humanitarian support to Western Saharan refugees 4. 5 M also emphasizes that the government supports the UN Security Council's resolutions and the work to reach a negotiated solution accepted by both parties 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.
Bistånds- och utrikeshandelsministern Benjamin Dousa (M)
Madam Speaker! Jacob Risberg has asked me how I and the government view the interim agreement that the EU Commission has signed with Morocco, which covers Western Sahara, whether I and the government consider the agreement to be compatible with the European Court of Justice's practice regarding Western Sahara and the principle of peoples' self-determination, in what way I intend to work within the EU to ensure that any final agreement between the EU and Morocco does not include Western Sahara without explicit and documented consent from Polisario, and what I and the government consider regarding the risk that the EU's actions could contribute to legitimizing an occupation regime and thereby erode international law.
The European Court of Justice ruled in its judgment on 4 October 2024 that the Union's actions in international contexts must be compatible with international law, including the UN Charter. As a consequence of the judgment, the EU decided during the autumn on changes to the association agreement with Morocco. The changes have included, among other things, that requirements for country of origin labeling are introduced for certain products and that a monitoring mechanism shall be established to ensure that the benefits from the agreement also come to the people of Western Sahara.
From the EU's side, the purpose of the amendments to the trade parts of the Association Agreement between the EU and Morocco has thus been that the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union is respected and that the trade relationship with Morocco is safeguarded. This has also been the government's position.
It is for the Court of Justice of the European Union to determine whether agreements are compatible with the requirements that the Court sets. The European Commission has been responsible for the negotiations and has decided which parties have entered into these.
The Government has repeatedly pointed out the importance of a just, sustainable and mutually acceptable negotiated solution in accordance with international law, including the UN Security Council resolutions. The Government supports the efforts that Staffan de Mistura, the UN envoy for Western Sahara, makes to achieve a political solution to the Western Sahara issue within the framework of the UN-led process.
Jacob Risberg (MP)
Madam Speaker! I thank Minister Benjamin Dousa, who is here today, for debating the important issue of the EU's trade agreement with Morocco and regarding Western Sahara.
In October 2025, the EU Commission signed a provisional trade agreement with Morocco that explicitly includes Western Sahara. This has occurred despite the European Court of Justice having established that Western Sahara and Morocco are two separate, distinct territories and that Morocco lacks the right to represent Western Sahara in international agreements.
The ECJ has furthermore emphasized that any agreement concerning Western Sahara is only valid if there is free, informed, and prior consent from the legitimate representative of the Western Saharan people, which, according to the Court, is Polisario.
The interim agreement that has now been signed completely ignores these judgments and, in practice, places commercial interests before legal principles. This risks undermining both the EU's own legal order and international law, while simultaneously contributing to the legitimization of Morocco's illegal occupation of Western Sahara.
The agreement has also raised concern among human rights organizations and within Western Saharan civil society, as it may strengthen the economic control that Morocco exerts over the occupied territory at the expense of the Western Saharan people's right to self-determination.
In view of this, I have posed four questions to Minister for Development Cooperation and Foreign Trade Dousa: How does the Swedish government view the interim agreement that the EU Commission has signed with Morocco, which covers Western Sahara? Does the Minister consider the agreement to be compatible with the European Court of Justice's practice regarding Western Sahara and the principle of the self-determination of peoples? In what way does Sweden intend to act within the EU to ensure that any final agreement between the EU and Morocco does not include Western Sahara without the explicit and documented consent of the Polisario? And what does the government think about the risk that the EU's actions could contribute to legitimizing an occupation regime and thereby erode international law?
What did the Minister then answer to these questions? There are some things in the answer that I would like to take up. Among other things, the Minister highlighted the issue that there should be an origin labeling on certain goods from Western Sahara. We know that it should state Morocco, the southern provinces in the origin labeling, but that hardly meets the requirement that there is to be a separation of goods from Western Sahara from goods from Morocco and in practice means that we accept that it is part of Morocco. It must clearly state that the goods are from the occupied Western Sahara.
Then the government highlighted that a control mechanism shall be established to ensure that the benefits from the agreement also come to the benefit of the Western Saharan people. A control mechanism that has been in place since 2020 is a digital platform that Morocco itself has established. I do not know if it is very much to rely on.
When it comes to whether the benefits from the agreement will come to the people of Western Sahara, we can take 2022 as an example year. At that time, the value of goods such as fish, phosphates, and vegetables from Morocco amounted to 590 million euros. That is an unimaginable sum. The question is: How much of these funds have actually gone to the people of Western Sahara? Have they really come to the benefit of the people of Western Sahara?
I have also not received an answer as to whether the Swedish government has actually ensured that the Western Saharan people have had influence over the new agreement through Polisario.
Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)
Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer to the interpellation and Jacob Risberg for having submitted this important interpellation.
It is obvious that the EU Commission is once again trying to bypass both its own court's decision and international law. The difference this time is that Sweden did not stand up for international law and the EU Court in a clear way. This is deeply regrettable and very noteworthy.
In October 2025, the EU Commission signed a provisional trade agreement with Morocco. The agreement covers Western Sahara, despite the European Court of Justice having established that Western Sahara and Morocco are two separate territories and that Morocco lacks the right to represent Western Sahara in international agreements.
The European Court of Justice has also emphasized that any agreement concerning Western Sahara is only valid if there is free, informed, and prior consent from the legitimate representative of the Western Saharan people, which according to the Court and the UN is Polisario. That does not exist. Western Sahara has not given its consent.
Through the interim agreement, they are now attempting to bypass the court ruling. This is remarkable to say the least and seriously damages confidence in the EU's rule of law and simultaneously contributes to legitimizing Morocco's illegal occupation.
Morocco is a brutal occupying power, which is also confirmed by, for example, Human Rights Watch, which has documented several cases of assault on activists on the street or in detention and also trials with false accusations against activists that have led to long prison sentences.
The main reason for the brutal occupation is Western Sahara's rich supply of raw materials and natural resources, primarily phosphate and fish but also minerals, tomatoes, and solar energy. Western Sahara has one of the world's largest reserves of phosphate, and the fishing waters off the coast of Western Sahara are among the richest in fish in the world. The income from these raw materials goes directly into Moroccan pockets and contributes to financing the illegal occupation of the country.
Morocco has no right to Western Sahara's raw materials and natural resources for the simple reason that the country does not belong to Morocco. Despite clear judgments, the EU has chosen to ignore its own court's decisions on several occasions and thus allows the illegal theft of Western Sahara's goods to continue and European fishing boats to continue to drain the Western Saharan coast of fish.
Now the EU Commission is, therefore, once again trying to bypass its own court and international law. I mean that it is extremely important that Sweden stands firm on its previous principled and clear positions that the EU should not enter into agreements with Morocco that include the occupied Western Sahara.
Bistånds- och utrikeshandelsministern Benjamin Dousa (M)
Madam Speaker! The Government welcomes that the EU and Morocco were able to reach an agreement on the trade components within the framework of an updated association agreement last month. Sweden voted yes to the agreement.
Morocco is an important partner for the EU, and Sweden values the EU's broad and deep strategic partnership with the country. In this partnership, in addition to the trade area, cooperation is included in among other things the judicial sector, green transition, energy, environment and climate, security and migration. The Association Agreement between the EU and Morocco constitutes the framework for this relationship.
The EU is the largest export market for Western Saharan agricultural and fishery products. Exports from Western Sahara depend on customs preferences to be competitive on the EU market, something that the new agreement also stipulates.
It is the government's clear policy that international law must be protected in all situations. This includes support for the international courts as well as the importance of their judgments being respected.
The government has therefore supported the EU's work to achieve a trade agreement with Morocco that respects the requirements of the European Court of Justice while simultaneously safeguarding the trade relationship with the country.
It is the Court of Justice of the EU that has to determine whether the agreement is compatible with the requirements that the Court of Justice of the EU sets. Polisario has the opportunity to have the question examined. According to the court, consent from the people of Western Sahara can also be given implicitly under certain conditions. Among other things, the benefits of the agreement must come to the benefit of the Western Saharan people.
Jacob Risberg (MP)
Madam Speaker! I do not know if I became particularly much wiser from the Minister's answer.
We can step back a bit and look back at Western Sahara's history. Already in Article 73 of the UN Charter, the UN spoke of the rights of non-self-governing territories in light of the fact that Western Sahara and many other territories were still colonies. Several UN resolutions during the 60s urged Spain to decolonize Western Sahara, and in 1975 a judgment came from the International Court of Justice stating that they are two separate territories and that Morocco in no way has sovereignty over Western Sahara.
It is thus judgments that go far back in time that establish this. It has been a self-evident fact. Nevertheless, negotiations have been initiated with Morocco regarding trade in goods coming from that territory which international law establishes that Morocco does not have sovereignty over. According to international law, Morocco does not have sovereignty over Western Sahara.
There are also several judgments from the 2000s from the European Court that establish this. But there is something historical about the judgment from October 2024. It is the first time the court, which has previously criticized much of what the EU has decided, overturns EU legislation. Criticism has previously occurred regarding certain things that the EU has done, but that one now overturns the trade agreement that has existed with Morocco is unique. It gives an indication of how serious the violations of international law are in the trade agreement that has existed with Morocco since before.
Then the question is: Has one lived up to what the European Court of Justice says in the agreement? No, one has not, because the Western Saharan people have not been involved in the development of the new agreement.
I still wonder whether Benjamin Dousa has been in contact with Polisario and spoken about what they think of the new agreement. Does Dousa know whether Polisario has at all taken part in the negotiations between the commission and Morocco during this entire year?
Are there any guarantees at all that the Western Saharawis have said yes? No, there are not. Reference is made to some kind of surveys that have been conducted among Western Saharawis who live in Western Sahara. But the court establishes that it is Polisario that shall represent the interests of the Western Saharawi people. Those who live under oppression in Western Sahara live under enormous pressure to accept what Morocco tells them to accept, otherwise they risk ending up in prison.
The Minister mentions that there may be an implied consent from the Western Saharan people. But then there are a number of criteria that must be met, including the criterion that the Western Saharan people shall share in the benefits from the agreement. How do we ensure that? As I mentioned earlier, the trade from the Western Saharan territory is worth only 590 million euros in just one year. How much of that has benefited the Western Saharan people? How much has Morocco paid out to the Western Saharan refugee camps, for example? Not a single euro.
However, during the same period, the EU has provided approximately 9 million euros per year in aid to the Western Saharan people. But the people are not allowed to share in the benefits that exist through this agreement.
Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)
Madam Speaker! Thank you for the further answer, Minister! But I agree with Jacob Risberg – unfortunately, one did not become much wiser.
I perceive and regret the change in course from Sweden's previously clearer position. Previously, one has voted no to the EU's agreement with Morocco which includes Western Sahara.
When we see how international law is threatened and under attack in several areas in our global environment, it is more important than ever that countries like Sweden defend and clearly stand up for international law. Therefore, Sweden must say no to the EU's trade agreement with Morocco as it looks today. We cannot stand by silently while Morocco continues its illegal occupation and looting of Western Sahara's raw materials. Occupation must never pay off, however long it lasts.
It is an occupation that is incredibly brutal. Stephen Zunes, professor of political science at the University of San Francisco, said after his visit: I have been to many countries but never seen a worse police state than Morocco-occupied Western Sahara.
The Western Saharawis have a right to their land and to their natural resources. Despite clear judgments, the EU has chosen to disregard its own court's decisions on several occasions. In doing so, it has allowed the theft of Western Saharan goods to continue and in that way contributed to maintaining and financing the occupation. Now, the EU Commission is once again trying to bypass its own court and international law.
The legitimate representative of the Western Saharan people, Polisario, has not approved the agreement. This is completely fundamental. It is important that Sweden defends international law and stands firm on its previous principled and clear positions that the EU should not enter into an agreement between the EU and Morocco that includes occupied Western Sahara.
Bistånds- och utrikeshandelsministern Benjamin Dousa (M)
Madam Speaker! In connection with the new trade agreement, an agreement was also reached on a joint declaration. The declaration states primarily that products from Western Sahara shall have the same customs benefits as other products in the association agreement, that an evaluation mechanism shall be established, and that the parties agree on the requirements for rules of origin. This, too, is welcome. The EU has also adopted a separate declaration, according to which financial contributions shall be given to the Western Sahara region for certain sectors. The EU has also undertaken to expand its humanitarian support to the Western Saharan refugees in southern Algeria as well as to design support for the diaspora in education and culture. A monitoring mechanism shall be established to ensure that the Western Saharan people can truly access the benefits.
I also want to mention in this context that Sweden is one of the largest donors of core funding to the UN refugee agency UNHCR and the UN food agency WFP. These are the two largest UN agencies with operations in the West Saharan refugee camps in southern Algeria.
Regarding the questions that Member of Parliament Jacob Risberg has asked concerning whether all of this is compatible with the requirements of the European Court of Justice: It is up to the European Court of Justice to make a decision on that. We do have independent courts here in Europe. This applies, for example, to whether the country of origin marking is compatible with the requirements the European Court of Justice sets, just as whether the court considers that the implied and indirect consent from the people of Western Sahara under certain conditions is accommodated by the agreement. It is therefore up to the court to make that type of decision.
Jacob Risberg (MP)
Madam Speaker! Sweden has a long history of support for the Western Saharan people. When I visited the Western Saharan refugee camps outside Tindouf in Algeria just a few months ago, we heard again and again how important Sweden has been in the Western Saharans' struggle for a free and just self-determination over the Western Saharan territory.
In 2013, under the previous Moderate-led government, a vote was cast against continued negotiations with Morocco regarding fishing and trade agreements. This support has therefore previously permeated Swedish foreign policy even under Moderate-led governments, but something has happened now.
Something has happened since the ECJ established what it established in October last year. One could say that the EU in secret initiated negotiations with Morocco, because almost no one knew that these negotiations were taking place at all. Above all, the Western Saharawis themselves did not know that the negotiations were ongoing. We here in the Riksdag were given five days to say yes or no to the proposal that came regarding a new interim trade agreement – five days!
The state councilor fails to answer whether he has at all been in contact with Polisario regarding this agreement. He refers all the time to Morocco and the EU, but Sweden as a country has its own responsibility according to international law. One cannot shift the blame to the EU. Sweden is, according to the International Court of Justice, obligated to comply with the court's ruling. It is not about Sweden as part of the EU – Sweden shall, as an individual country and member of the UN, comply with the International Court of Justice's ruling.
I would very much like to have a single question answered during this debate, and that is whether the Minister for Trade has been in contact with Polisario – or if the Minister for Trade intends to speak with Polisario in the near future – regarding this trade agreement.
Bistånds- och utrikeshandelsministern Benjamin Dousa (M)
Madam Speaker! The conflict in Western Sahara has lasted for half a century, and the international efforts to find a solution have been very numerous. The Government has been clear regarding the importance of a negotiated solution in accordance with international law, including the UN Security Council's resolutions.
It is welcome that the Security Council, through the resolution adopted in October, gives its explicit support for negotiations. The resolution gives hope that a process towards a political solution can get underway. The Government continues, in line with the resolution, to support the work of the UN envoy Staffan de Mistura to achieve a negotiated solution that is accepted by both parties.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.