Response to interpellation 2025/26:181 on the agreement with Somalia

Bistånds- och utrikeshandelsministern Benjamin Dousa (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the interpellor and Member Olle Thorell for the interpellation and this debate. There is nothing I would rather do on my birthday than to just debate Somalia with Member of Parliament Thorell. It feels very pleasant.

Olle Thorell has asked me whether the agreement between Sweden and Somalia is oral or written and whether there is any documentation – agreements, memoranda of understanding, non-papers or other documents – describing the agreement and, if that is not the case, how I and the government intend to follow up, review and evaluate the agreement.

Sweden has not entered into any formal agreement with Somalia regarding aid and migration. However, countries are expected, according to principles of international law, to receive their citizens who do not have the right to stay in the country where they are located.

The government has therefore, since taking office in 2022, conducted a dialogue with a number of countries to increase the return of persons who do not have a legal right to stay in Sweden. It is also one of the issues that has been discussed with Somalia within the framework of our broad partnership. The dialogue with Somalia in this area has developed over time but is largely based on a mutual understanding that partnership is built on reciprocity.

As appears from the government's aid policy reform agenda, development cooperation shall be used as a foreign policy lever to achieve improved cooperation on migration with third countries, including through deepened dialogue with the governments concerned.

In the extent that activities are financed by aid funds, they shall be permeated by clear requirements for results, efficiency, long-term perspective and transparency. The Government decides on strategic goals and budget levels for the development cooperation. Information on ongoing and completed aid interventions is available at openaid.se. All of this applies, of course, also to the aid to Somalia.

Follow-up, evaluation and review are central parts of the work to streamline and develop state activities as well as increase the impact of policy. Dialogue and reporting from relevant countries, authorities and foreign agencies constitute important foundations for the government's follow-up, including in the areas of aid and migration. Reporting is carried out continuously to the Riksdag, not least in connection with the budget bill. The government has zero tolerance for corruption.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Olle Thorell (S)

Mr. Speaker! What we are hearing now is remarkable. Now the government, in the mess that the Somalia affair constitutes, comes with a completely new announcement: that a formal agreement has not been entered into with Somalia.

This is very strange, because the minister has answered direct questions in the media and before the Foreign Affairs Committee on whether there is any agreement by saying that there is no agreement but rather an arrangement. But now there is also no formal arrangement. It is very strange.

It has been said that the agreement has delivered results and that Sweden has ensured that Somalia has kept its part. Its part of what then? It doesn't even exist!

It has been said that the setup is so successful that it should be used in more countries. Then a simple question arises, Mr. Speaker: How can something that does not exist deliver results? It almost becomes a philosophical question. How can a non-existent agreement be so successful that the government wants to copy it? How can Sweden carry out payments of over 100 million kronor to the world's second most corruption-prone state and at the same time claim that there is no agreement that causes one to redirect the aid in that way?

Mr. Speaker! I see this as a retreat. One wants to distance oneself from that agreement. It is a much larger issue than the Minister for Development Cooperation and the government seem to understand. It is about large resources of our tax money having been redirected to the office of an antisemitic, Hamas-praising prime minister, within reach of this person, in the world's second most corrupt country. There, salaries of over 100,000 kronor per month have been paid out to persons with close ties to the political leadership. Or are they persons? Most recently we learned that they were ghost positions. There are no named persons, only budget items that in some way are to justify payments to the Somali prime minister's inner circle.

Central documents requested are redacted, and the transparency is not directly total regarding the agreement. When we now ask the most fundamental question – what the agreement looks like and what is on paper – we are given the answer that there is no agreement.

This raises many questions. There are two alternatives: Either there is an agreement that the government does not want to show or talk about, or there is no agreement, yet a government that has put a lock on aid funds as if there were one. I do not know which of the two alternatives is worse, but both are very bad.

Finally, I just want to emphasize that we Social Democrats obviously believe that countries should repatriate their citizens. There is no conflict there. It is clear that persons sentenced to deportation from Somalia, Syria, Iraq, or whichever country it may be, shall be deported and received by their countries. It is nothing new.

The new thing is something completely different, namely that Sweden accepts Somalia's demands for money to do what they are already obligated to do. This damages Sweden's credibility, feeds corruption, and opens the door for more informal arrangements without oversight. It is regrettable, Mr. Speaker.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Bistånds- och utrikeshandelsministern Benjamin Dousa (M)

Mr. Speaker! Just as I have explained several times in this speaker's chair, in the media, and furthermore in the committee, there is no written and therefore formal agreement. It is, however, clear that we have an agreement with Somalia. I have said that several times, and I continue to say it.

These agreements will also look different depending on which country and which geographical context we are talking about. I myself and Migration Minister Johan Forssell were recently in Syria, where we had a long dialogue with Syria's Foreign Minister in the new government and shook hands on the fact that we will now begin to cooperate much more closely linked to migration issues.

Sweden is in Syria, has been in Syria for a long time and wants to continue to be in Syria. The needs are enormous. But Sweden also has interests, especially when it comes to being able to carry out deportations to Syria of convicted criminals here in Sweden.

The agreement with Somalia has actually already delivered so far. Olle Thorell and the Socialdemokraterna can stand and talk about being in favor of a tough migration policy and that it is obvious that people who do not have the right to stay in Sweden should not be in Sweden, but in practice, one did not succeed in getting that in place during eight years in the case of Somalia.

Thanks to the agreement, we have during the year managed to send back Somalis who are not Swedish citizens but who have committed serious crimes in Sweden. This concerns crimes such as attempted murder and rape of children. These are dangerous individuals who do not have the right to stay in Sweden but should go home to Somalia. Therefore, it is incredibly important that we continue in exactly this way.

It is also not about any new money for Somalia. We have, therefore, reduced the total volume of aid to Somalia since the Social Democrats' time. Nevertheless, we have simultaneously managed to send home people who have no business being in Sweden.

We can look at the two supports that concern the aid budget. The interpellant is welcome to submit an additional interpellation to the Minister for Migration regarding the support to IOM, but as for the aid money, it concerns two supports. One is to UNDP, the other to the World Bank. Regarding the support to the World Bank, under Social Democratic-led governments, one has supported exactly the fund structure that we also support. Social Democratic governments at all times have supported UNDP with many billions of the taxpayers' money in many different contexts.

It is nothing new that we carry out aid work in Somalia. It is a corrupt country, yes, but all countries where we carry out aid work are more corrupt than Sweden because we are one of the world's least corrupt countries. Nothing is actually new about this. What is new is that we succeed in carrying out deportations, something that the Social Democrats can talk about but until now have not succeeded in delivering.

This is no retreat on our part. On the contrary, we are taking many steps forward and also want this to work in more countries. We are not only using the aid policy in that context but also the trade policy. Right now, negotiations are ongoing in Brussels regarding that the very attractive trade agreements that many developing countries have shall be conditional on that they accept their own citizens.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Olle Thorell (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the Minister for the announcement. Now, however, a new announcement has arrived. Did you hear, everyone? There is an agreement. In the answer that was read out, there was no agreement. It has reappeared now, while we stand here. On the Minister's birthday, this agreement rose from the grave and exists again.

This is not believable for five cents.

It is clear that there is an agreement. Everyone understands that. What is not clear is what it looks like and how it is documented, if it is documented. That is what the entire interpellation is about. What is the possibility of following up on the agreement?

Then there are projects that, via the World Bank and UNDP, and also IOM which the Minister for Migration is responsible for, pay out the money that the Somalis have demanded to reclaim their citizens.

I am getting so tired of the minister when he tries to steer the debate towards things that he would like to talk about but which have nothing to do with my interpellation. One is proud to have succeeded in deporting convicted Somaliis – yes, that is good; we have no difference of opinion there – and tries to make it seem as if we do not trust the UNDP and the World Bank. They are excellent organizations that can have very important and large development projects in the world and that it is good to cooperate with – but not on just anything or on any premises whatsoever.

The World Bank withdrew from this cooperation. They did not want to be part of it when they found out that it was about a deal under the table with Somalia regarding the repatriation of citizens convicted of deportation from Sweden to Somalia.

There is a lot of smoke, mirrors and mirrors that the minister is trying to show off. But the core question is: What kind of agreement has actually been made? How on earth is it supposed to be followed up when it obviously doesn't exist in writing in any way?

So it is not a formal agreement. It is not a written agreement. But there must be some trace of it? When we win the election on September 13 next year, how will we be able to follow up on this with Somalia? Foreign policy continues, after all. Our relationship with Somalia needs to continue even after the election. How will we be able to follow up on this? Do you have some secret signal between Sweden and Somalia that you can pass on to us when we get the posts of Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Development Cooperation so that we can follow up on this? As it looks today, it is completely hopeless.

I get a bit scared if this is how one behaves when it comes to agreements with countries. It is possible to write re-entry agreements with countries that one does not like, which are corrupt and have regimes that are not palatable, but which we need to have relations with. During our time, we made such an agreement with Afghanistan. It is possible to do, and it is clear that one can use aid as part of that conversation. But one should not use aid to pay bribes so that countries will do what they are internationally legally obligated to do, as in this case.

We will have to see if Benjamin Dousa in the next post has a further announcement, whether the agreement now once again does not exist or if it does.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Bistånds- och utrikeshandelsministern Benjamin Dousa (M)

Mr. Speaker! There are no new messages. It is the same message that we have given all the time, for weeks and now even for months: There is no written agreement. There is an agreement where Somalia has incentives, where we also have interests and where we talk about these issues in a straight and clear way.

It is no secret that we would have gladly had a written repossession agreement with Somalia in place. Sometimes, however, it is not possible, as in this very case right now. We are not closing the door on it. There are very good arguments for having it. But just because we cannot get it in place does not mean that we are not working on the issues.

Olle Thorell is welcome to help me understand exactly what the Social Democrats' criticism is linked to this.

Is it the dialogue, that is, that we conduct a dialogue with the Somali government regarding where they see needs and what the Swedish interests are? We do not buy everything that is said in those types of dialogues, but we can gain an understanding. This is not something we do only in Somalia, but in principle in all countries where we primarily carry out development work.

Is it the corruption in the country? Again: All countries where we carry out important aid efforts are more corrupt than Sweden, because we are one of the world's least corrupt countries. If we could not conduct development cooperation in corrupt countries, we would hardly have any aid at all.

Is there corruption in the interventions? If so, I wonder what Olle Thorell has on his feet regarding that. What exactly in the World Bank's and UNDP's interventions is it that is corrupt? We have zero tolerance for corruption. Should we discover that there is corruption involved in any intervention financially linked to the World Bank or UNDP in Somalia, we will of course act, and we assume that the responsible authority, in this case Sida, also acts.

Is it specific that we are not to conduct development work in just Somalia? In that case, I wonder why the Social Democrats did so for eight years and furthermore under previous Sledda governments.

Is it the transparency? We have been very transparent throughout the entire process. Everything is available at openaid.se. We are taking several steps in that direction so that Members of Parliament, the Swedish people, and Swedish taxpayers can follow where their money ends up. We are developing Openaid precisely so that everyone can hold the government and our authorities accountable for where their money goes.

The agreements will look different in different ways. Olle Thorell says that it is not credible, but I would say that the most credible thing of all in this is the figures which show that we have actually succeeded with that which is a Swedish national security interest. Persons who are Somali citizens, are not Swedish citizens and do not have the right to stay here, we have succeeded in deporting. Some of them have committed crimes, and some of them have additionally committed very serious crimes and are dangerous for Sweden. That, if anything, points well to the credibility that we have in this.

Now we want to proceed with this in more countries. I mentioned Syria earlier. There, we have a handshake to begin cooperating. There are 128 convicted criminals who are Assyrians and are not Swedish citizens, whom we consider to be the highest priority for the execution of deportations. We have agreed that the Syrian government shall send a technical team to Sweden so that we can discuss the issue at a technical level. These agreements will look different in different geographical contexts, but in all cases, we will speak about Swedish interests when we speak with large recipients of Swedish aid.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Olle Thorell (S)

Mr. Speaker! I shall try to be so clear that it is impossible to misunderstand, even if one wanted to.

Our criticism concerns the issue of not paying bribes to corrupt regimes. Do not feed corruption in a prime minister in Somalia, who is also a Hamas supporter and an outspoken antisemite. Do not enable persons who have family and friendship ties with the prime minister to receive payments of 100,000 Swedish tax kronor per month to flaunt around in Mogadishu. It is not good, at the same time as you are cutting aid to Somalia, which is in desperate need of development aid and humanitarian aid to help women gain power over their own lives, to help farmers with more efficient methods, to stop female genital mutilation, and to counter extremism and radicalization among young people. It is such aid that you have cut back on in order to afford payments to the prime minister's office – on Sida's advice.

The aid counselor at the embassy was declared persona non grata because she was so troublesome, asked such difficult questions, and warned against the setup.

I do not know how I can be any clearer than that, the Minister for Foreign Affairs. To stop bribing antisemitic prime ministers is perhaps a rule of thumb one can have in aid policy.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Bistånds- och utrikeshandelsministern Benjamin Dousa (M)

Mr. Speaker! If this were to be a bribe, for which there is no ground at all, one wonders what eight years with the Social Democrats, who put more money into Somalia, including support for exactly that World Bank structure that we also support, is for.

Somalia is a corrupt country. That is true. All countries where we carry out aid work are more corrupt than Sweden. I wonder what there is that indicates that the UNDP support and the World Bank support would finance corruption or even anything close to corruption. UNDP has just now started paying out and using the money for important activities. There is hardly any data at all.

What data does Olle Thorell have that no one else has, which suggests that the money would go to corruption? If we get even a suspicion that the money would be heading towards corruption, we will of course act, and we assume that the embassy and Sida will also act.

Regarding the support to IOM, I suggest that that question be subject to another interpellation debate linked to the responsible minister. We have zero tolerance for bribes, and we have zero tolerance for corruption. We will continue to clean up the aid in general when it comes to those issues. For 10 percent of all Sida's active interventions, there is currently suspicion of corruption or other irregularities. For 16 percent of all their partners, there is currently suspicion of corruption or other irregularities. It is precisely what we are trying to clean up, but there is nothing suggesting that the World Bank or UNDP would be corrupt.

What we are doing now is to set counter-requirements so that other countries deliver on what is important for Sweden.

The interpellations debate was hereby concluded.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)