Response to interpellation 2025/26:18 on Sweden's aid to Myanmar
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
M believes that Sweden must prioritize Ukraine as its primary foreign policy priority, which requires that resources be shifted from other countries 1 2 3. M argues that they are making the tough priorities that are needed 4 and that it is more important that Russia is not given free rein in Ukraine 4. M believes that Sweden must safeguard its own security and continue to increase support for Ukraine 4. S believes that it is important to make priorities in a globalized world 5. S believes that it is bad to finance this support by leaving free rein for China in Myanmar 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! Mathias Tegnér has asked me what impact assessment I and the government have conducted ahead of the decision to completely cease development aid to Myanmar from and including 2026, particularly regarding the survival of civil society and the democracy movement, and whether I have initiated an analysis of the consequences of the withdrawal of Swedish aid from Myanmar and how it may affect Sweden's long-term security policy interests and what the analysis, if so, contains.
Sweden's long-term security policy interests constitute an important basis for the focus and prioritization of our aid cooperation that the government is carrying out. Support for Ukraine is therefore Sweden's primary foreign policy priority. No issue is as central to Europe's security as Ukraine's defense against Russia's aggression. The phasing out of Sweden's strategy for development cooperation with Myanmar shall be seen in this larger context, as a way to free up resources for Ukraine.
The Government is conducting an ongoing analysis of how state-funded activities contribute to achieving set goals. Regular consultations are held with Sida twice a year. In addition to that, there is an ongoing dialogue regarding the aid in geographical contexts. Regarding the support to Myanmar specifically, the decision was preceded by a consequence analysis which, among other things, is based on Sida's assessment of the worsened conditions in the country following the military regime's takeover in 2021.
Regarding the part of the question concerning the survival of civil society and the democracy movement in Myanmar, I want to be clear: Sweden is not abandoning the population in Myanmar. We will continue to maintain a dialogue with civil society and the democracy movement in the country. The humanitarian aid is not affected. Sweden will continue to be a major donor to multilateral actors operating in Myanmar, such as the UN and the development banks. Sweden also contributes to the EU's aid activities in Myanmar. Furthermore, individual strategic interventions can also be made in the future via thematic strategies. The fact that the government is now phasing out a country strategy does not, therefore, mean that all Swedish aid is affected.
Mathias Tegnér (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you for the answer, Minister!
I want to begin by stating that the background to my interpellation is the fact that the government has decided to phase out the entire Swedish development cooperation with Myanmar and that it is furthermore to be phased out at a rapid pace. By June 30, 2026, the country strategy shall have completely ceased.
Normally, a phase-out takes place over a significantly longer period, which gives civil society and recipient organizations a chance to plan for the future and seek new funders. The timeframe that has now been established is exceptionally short and risks breaking up operations that have been built up over decades. The proposed rapid phase-out risks being capital-destructive – destroying what previous years of aid have built up.
Organizations warn that the democracy movement in Myanmar is now forced to devote all its energy to emergency funding instead of working to strengthen its positions ahead of the junta's planned sham elections during the year. We Social Democrats believe that a rapid retreat is not compatible with the principle of long-termism that has been a hallmark of Swedish development cooperation for over 50 years.
What is also noteworthy is that the Swedish retreat, according to several assessors, risks strengthening China – a China that has more and more clearly shown a united front with Russia. It is naturally reasonable that we increase the support to Ukraine. But the measure, which is justified by the fact that support to Ukraine needs to increase because Ukraine needs to be strengthened in the war against Russia, simultaneously risks weakening us all. It risks weakening the democracies in Europe because we leave Myanmar open to Chinese influence.
Increased support for Ukraine is both important and right – on that we are completely in agreement – but is it really reasonable to do it in a way that strengthens the China–Russia coalition in another part of the world? That is the question I would like to see us discuss here today.
I am also concerned about the signal being sent out. When Sweden says that support for Ukraine requires that we leave Myanmar, do we not risk pitting democracy fighters against each other? Is that really how we want to prioritize? Should the fight against Putin's aggression in Ukraine take place at the expense of other democracy movements in other parts of the world, which furthermore risks enabling China to advance its positions?
This was the background for why I asked two questions to the Minister. One concerned the effect regarding the survival of civil society and the democracy movement in Myanmar, but the other was precisely about whether the retreat from Myanmar could come to affect Sweden's long-term security policy interests. If it has been analyzed, the question is also what that analysis contains. I did not perceive that I received an answer to the latter question in the first entry.
Was a security policy analysis conducted? If so, what did it say? And do the government and the minister not see that the slashed aid to Myanmar risks being a measure that completely plays into China's hands?
Bistånds- och utrikeshandelsministern Benjamin Dousa (M)
Madam Speaker! This may very well come as a shock to the Social Democrats, but we do not have our own money tree at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs. The aid budget is not infinite. At the same time, humanity's needs are almost infinite right now.
We are giving more to Ukraine; this year alone we will have given approximately as much in civil support as all other years combined since Russia's full-scale invasion, and next year we are increasing the aid further, to 10 billion kronor annually in direct civil support alone. There is no secret money tree to go to to be able to do that, but we must take money from other countries, other strategies, and other important initiatives.
I have never said from this rostrum that the important democracy efforts we have made in Myanmar would be irrelevant or that they do not affect the world and Myanmar, but it is about prioritizing. Right now, Ukraine is our single most important foreign policy priority. If we are to have the means to allocate 10 billion kronor per year to Ukraine, it will affect several countries and strategies. Let me also be completely transparent before the chamber here: Myanmar is the first of several phase-outs that we will make decisions on. It is absolutely necessary if we are to have the resources that Ukraine needs.
Ukraine's state budget will not balance next year, which is a direct result of the USA withdrawing. It is often said "everyone's responsibility, no one's responsibility," but it is our responsibility to stand side by side with Ukraine and do everything we possibly can – and a little more – so that they can withstand Russia's full-scale attacks daily.
It is not the case that either the humanitarian aid or the development aid will completely cease in Myanmar. We are phasing out the country strategy for Myanmar, but there are several other thematic strategies that will continue to be able to support important democracy movements and activists even in Myanmar. For example, there is the civil society strategy, where aid is channeled directly to the civil society actors in Myanmar and the rest of the world – ODA countries. Additionally, there is the strategy for human rights, democracy, and the rule of law principles, which now contains very high amounts and can also channel support to Myanmar.
As stated, this does not affect the humanitarian aid to Myanmar and the rest of the world. We are therefore not leaving Myanmar, but we are forced to prioritize if we are simultaneously to significantly build up the support for Ukraine. We have, of course, held a dialogue with Sida regarding this. We have, of course, made security assessments of how it may affect, but to be transparent before the Chamber: This is about tough priorities. I stand by the fact that many important interventions in Myanmar will be affected, but precisely given Sweden's security needs, we must prioritize even more resources to Ukraine.
Mathias Tegnér (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you for the answer, Minister for Development Cooperation and Aid!
The Minister is a well-known skilled speaker, and I perceive it as the Minister using that talent to partially actually mix the cards when it comes to the question I have asked. There is no secret money tree, says the Minister. During my upbringing, people sometimes spoke about the boy with the golden pants, and even that is made up.
I do not believe either that we are served by making this a general aid debate; I think that my colleague Olle Thorell, together with our foreign policy spokesperson Morgan Johansson, has shown in several debates that the government's aid policy is short-sighted and makes the world poorer and, in the long run, a worse place to live in.
It is as the minister says: sometimes politics is about making choices. In my opinion, we Social Democrats have since the 70s had to clean up after bourgeois governments that could not choose between income and expenditure. I am therefore well aware that there are no secret money trees.
In this case – just to be clear – we Social Democrats prioritize aid higher than the government does. In that respect, we have greater resources, because we actually believe that this type of trade-off is not appropriate. Therefore, I believe that one would not have needed to make this type of short-term prioritization with a Social Democratic policy.
In the previous interpellation debate, the Minister for Civil Defence spoke about dynamic antagonists. What worries me is that this term does not appear to have been included in the analysis when the withdrawal of aid to Myanmar was analyzed. We mean, as said, that it is difficult to see what the security policy analysis looked like. It is said that one wants to prioritize Ukraine, which we fully support, but one does so by withdrawing resources in such a way that China – Russia's ally – is given the opportunity to advance its positions. Then the measure risks becoming counterproductive.
We also mean that the government is taking a risk with this rapid phasing out because one leaves the democracy movement in the lurch and thereby weakens the forces that stand up for human rights. If one wants to withdraw the land strategy, one should instead ensure orderly transitions and long-term perspective even when strategies change – otherwise, one risks also engaging in capital destruction, which is a very bad idea.
The Minister says that consequence analyses have been made, but the description is mostly in general terms that Sida has made an assessment and that the conditions in Myanmar have deteriorated. We already know that. What I am looking for – what I am asking about – is something more concrete. Has the government analyzed how a Swedish withdrawal affects the actual survival of the democracy movement? Has it been assessed which other actors risk disappearing when Swedish support is withdrawn? Above all: Which organizations and states will be able to take over the space that Sweden leaves behind?
In short: Does the Minister not see a geopolitical risk in leaving the playing field free for China in Myanmar?
Bistånds- och utrikeshandelsministern Benjamin Dousa (M)
Madam Speaker! I might actually have wanted to extend this strategy. I might actually have wanted to expand it. I see very clearly the oppression that the regime subjects ordinary people to in Myanmar. It is clear that at best I would have wanted a much better phasing out of the strategy so that there would have been good opportunities for the actors in Myanmar to transition. I would much rather have had all that if the world had looked different, but in practice, an expansion, extension, or slower phasing out of the land strategy would mean that fewer kronor can go to Ukraine. This is and remains always a prioritization, even if the aid budget is increased.
I welcome debates here in the chamber about how high the aid budget should be, but even if the aid budget is increased, it is a matter of prioritization where crowns are moved from Ukraine – that is, from our immediate vicinity – to Myanmar. It is, of course, about two things – partly there are moral and solidarity reasons, and partly there are security interests from Sweden's side. Every day, week, and month that Ukraine manages to show resilience against Russia is very important also for Sweden's security.
Regardless of how large the aid budget is, priorities must always be made. In the best of worlds, we would not even have had the oppression in Myanmar. If there had been peace in Ukraine and the resources had not been needed as much there, I would gladly have extended and perhaps expanded the strategy or at least phased it out in an even better and smoother way. However, sitting in government always means that, at the end of the day, one must make a priority, because there is no secret money tree.
We are also not abandoning Myanmar in terms of aid policy. We continue through other thematic strategies where there are good opportunities for civil society actors, democracy fighters, and organizations that every day try and fight against the wind in Myanmar to receive support from Sida, for example through thematic strategies.
So we are not abandoning Myanmar, but we are phasing out this country strategy. Let me be honest: There will be more such phase-outs, because it is absolutely necessary that we do everything in our power to stand behind Ukraine.
Mathias Tegnér (S)
Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer, which I think was clarifying.
I think the interpellation debate shows that we disagree on two things. When it comes to the general direction of the aid, I perceive that clear and clarifying discussions have been held here in the chamber previously. The second thing, which I have tried to focus on here today, is that it appears to be the case that the decision to leave Myanmar was not preceded by a security policy analysis.
I am concerned by the signal that is being sent. From Sweden's side, we say that the support for Ukraine requires that we leave Myanmar, and thereby we set democracy fighters against each other. Above all, I am concerned that no analysis seems to have been made of what happens when China is given free rein in Myanmar. I do not perceive that the minister has answered this.
It is important to make priorities. We are in a globalized world. The Social Democrats have stood behind all support for Ukraine that the government has decided on, and when we had a Social Democrat-led government, that one also pushed for deep and large-scale support for Ukraine. On that point, the minister and I are not in disagreement.
We however seem to disagree on whether it is bad to finance this support by leaving free room for Russia's ally China in Myanmar. It appears to be that one takes with one hand and gives with the other. I believe the effect of this in the long run will be a more insecure world and a more insecure situation for Sweden. I think that is bad.
Bistånds- och utrikeshandelsministern Benjamin Dousa (M)
Madam Speaker! I believe that throughout this entire debate, I have truly laid my cards on the table. The member says that we take with one hand and give with the other, and that is true. We make the kind of tough priorities that are needed. We are very much aware of the security risks that exist not only in Myanmar but also in connection with the other phase-outs that we will decide on during the autumn and perhaps the beginning of next year.
It is about a prioritization of the different security threats that exist against Sweden. It is even worse if Russia is given free rein in all or parts of Ukraine. There are moral and solidarity reasons for this, but it is also about our own security interest.
It is true that the Social Democrats were involved in developing new large civil support packages for Ukraine, but they have grown even more. As I mentioned earlier in the debate, this year alone we will have spent almost as much on civil support to Ukraine as all previous years since Russia's full-scale invasion combined. So quickly the build-up of the civil support to Ukraine has gone.
The support will, as said, increase even more during the next year, all the way up to 10 billion. This makes us one of the absolute largest donors in the entire world. That can, of course, be debated, which is happening here and now, but this government stands by this. We stand by the fact that we make these types of very tough prioritizations. I empathize with the civilian population in Myanmar, but we must safeguard Sweden's own security and thus also continue to increase the support to Ukraine. This is particularly relevant now when the USA has reduced its engagement regarding Ukraine at such a speed.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.