Response to interpellation 2025/26:265 on the withdrawal of long-term development aid
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
M argues that the government is carrying out a necessary reform to increase support for Ukraine, which is Sweden's primary foreign policy priority 1. M argues that the aid has previously been too spread out and that a clearer focus is required for efficiency and fairness towards taxpayers 2. M emphasizes that resources are limited and that priorities are needed to strengthen welfare in Sweden 2 3. M does not want to raise taxes but advocates for taking funds from other countries 3. M argues that S is sweeping when they say that the richest should pay 4. S argues that the government is dismantling the aid by abandoning the poorest countries 5. S argues that Sweden should maintain the principle of 1 percent in aid 6. S argues that the government is making wrong priorities by turning the backs of the very poorest to focus on Swedish self-interests 7. S believes that it is possible to find other items in the budget to finance the support for Ukraine 7. S argues that they are careful with the state finances 7.
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! Now we have no parental leave for ministers in Sweden, but one is fully constitutionally responsible towards the Swedish people and the Riksdag. After a few weeks at home with my son, I can still say that I have truly missed the interpellation debates with my favorite Social Democrat Olle Thorell. It feels very good to make a comeback here in the speaker's chair.
Madam Speaker! Olle Thorell has asked me whether the government has conducted an analysis before the decision on phasing out bilateral strategies for Bolivia, Liberia, Mozambique, Tanzania, and Zimbabwe, and particularly wondered how the government has analyzed the consequences for civil society organizations and local partners who have for a long time been dependent on Swedish support. Thorell has additionally asked whether I have taken the initiative for a consequence analysis of the closure of three Swedish embassies.
Let me first state that we are in the midst of the largest reform of Swedish aid in many decades. In December 2023, a decision was made on the reform agenda Aid for a new era – Freedom, empowerment and sustainable growth. Since the government took office in 2022, almost all objectives have been implemented or initiated.
I also want to remind that the Russian aggression has shaken our world order. This requires new choices and sharper priorities. In order to further strengthen the support for Ukraine, which is our primary foreign policy priority, Sweden needs to continue the realignment of Swedish aid.
It is against that background that the government has decided to phase out the strategies for bilateral aid to Bolivia, Liberia, Mozambique, Tanzania and Zimbabwe. They were not easy decisions, but we made them in order to be able to increase the support to Ukraine. As we see it, Ukraine is defending not only its own freedom and security but also ours. The support to Ukraine is our moral obligation.
I want to remind Thorell that Swedish aid has been very spread out. Increased focus is needed. When the government took office in 2022, we had 24 country strategies. Now we have reduced it to 13 country strategies during 2026.
Let me be transparent: A phase-out will also mean that good and important activities are affected and terminated. But it is our task as a government to also have the ability to make tough decisions. At the same time, it can be stated that no country has been lifted out of poverty solely through aid. More is required. Not least, trade, knowledge exchange and functioning institutions are needed.
In connection with the phasing out of the bilateral aid strategies, the embassies in Bolivia, Liberia, and Zimbabwe are being decommissioned. Diplomatic relations with these countries remain important and will be managed through, for example, concurrent accreditation from another country in the respective region. That the character of relations changes over time is entirely natural.
The changes were preceded by ongoing assessments and analyses and by continuous contact with our embassies and Sida. The phasing out of the aid is occurring in a responsible and orderly manner, while the foundation is being laid for a changed partnership with common trade and foreign policy interests at the center.
As has been said, these are not easy decisions. The needs in the world are, if not infinite, still very large, which the Swedish state budget is not. As I have mentioned previously, I understand that important activities will be subject to cuts, but we make these decisions in order to be able to increase our support to Ukraine.
The government has also chosen to safeguard support for civil society under the CSO strategy. The CSO strategy is not subject to geographical limitations and can therefore continue to play an important role even in countries where Sweden is phasing out bilateral support. This applies in particular to support for organizations operating in difficult contexts and for the most vulnerable and at-risk.
I would like to conclude by underlining that Sweden continues to be one of the world's most generous aid donors. We should be proud of that.
Olle Thorell (S)
Madam Speaker! The last time the Minister and I had an interpellation debate was on the Minister's birthday, as a small gift. Now the Minister has a reason to step out of his loungewear, straighten up, put on his suit, and return to everyday life in the Riksdag to debate important issues. It honors the Minister that he is utilizing his parental leave. I might think it is a bit strange that one cannot be on parental leave for real without also being a minister the whole time.
With this set aside, I would like to thank the Minister for the answer, but I am, of course, not entirely satisfied with it. The Minister says that it is a reforming, but it is a dismantling. For the first time in 50 years, Sweden has abandoned the principle of allocating 1 percent in aid. One is leaving Tanzania, Zimbabwe, Liberia, Bolivia and Mozambique, some of the world's poorest and most vulnerable countries.
Ukraine is being used as an excuse to redirect gigantic resources. Ukraine will soon receive more aid than all of Africa combined. It is clear that we should support Ukraine in every way – militarily, economically, politically, and humanitarily. A large part of the aid budget needs to go there, but not at any price. As the minister says, there is a price to abandoning these countries. There is a price for the women who no longer have access to maternal healthcare. It can also be a question of civil society organizations that work with developing agricultural methods and fostering entrepreneurship, so that people can support themselves. There are an enormous number of important and urgent projects that are hit hard in these severely vulnerable countries.
When Sweden leaves these countries, the vacuum is filled by others. It is a security policy fact: When Sweden turns its back and stares a bit more into its own navel than out over the horizon, other countries come and fill the vacuum – the Gulf countries, Russia and China. Not least in Africa we see how this happens, and it is not in Sweden's interest.
The Minister often says that Ukraine is the most important security and foreign policy priority, and that is true. But it does not mean that it is the only one. One must be able to hold several thoughts in one's head at the same time. One must be able to prioritize security threats on different levels, from how climate change affects security to how conflicts and wars in poor countries in Africa create migration flows and radicalization which in turn affect Swedish security. Putin's senseless war in Ukraine is not the only security threat against Sweden.
We Social Democrats think it is a strategically incorrect choice by the government to turn its back on the very poorest countries. That is what is being done with almost surgical precision in the context of the refocusing. Aid funds are moving from the very poorest countries to lower-middle-income countries where there is an opportunity for Swedish companies to make a profit. We do not think that is reasonable. We should not only water where it is already sprouting and growing, but we must be where it is needed most.
Bistånds- och utrikeshandelsministern Benjamin Dousa (M)
Madam Speaker! We have not had a grip on Swedish aid. I usually describe it as a water sprinkler. We have been everywhere all the time, without prioritizing and without maintaining focus.
From that water sprayer, there should now be clearer water jets so that we have control over where the money goes and that we actually do good in the countries where we are.
It is also a matter of justice. It is not fair to the Swedish people and Swedish taxpayers that we have had such poor oversight of the aid. It is also not fair to the countries where we carry out aid work that we do not know if the interventions are effective.
If one counts the onward forwarding through the various strategies, we do not even know how many organizations have received a share of Swedish aid. It is likely a matter of thousands and perhaps even tens of thousands of organizations. This is said only to give a sense of what kind of water hose we have been.
It is about the water sprayer providing clearer water jets, and the largest water jet must, of course, be Ukraine. We are completely clear that we take from other countries in order to be able to give even more to Ukraine because it is our single most important foreign policy priority. It is our single most important foreign policy priority because it is also existential for us in Sweden. Every day that Ukraine can continue to defend itself also reduces the risk that we get Russian drones, Russian combat aircraft, and Russian soldiers on Swedish territory. It is about us increasing the support to Ukraine at the expense of other countries.
It is also about the fact that we are reducing the total volume of aid from 56 billion to 53 billion. We do that because we need more nursing assistants, more teachers and more police officers here in Sweden and to be able to ensure that hard-working people here in Sweden get to keep more of their salary.
Olle Thorell speaks about filling a vacuum. It is clear that I and the government also see risks. When someone withdraws, there are others who can fill that vacuum. But the greatest risk is if Russia wins territory in Ukraine.
This year, nearly 20 percent of our total aid will go to Ukraine. That means that over 80 percent of the aid will go to countries other than Ukraine.
I would like to ask a straightforward question to Olle Thorell and the Social Democrats: At what level do the Social Democrats think we should set ourselves? Should 10 percent of the aid go to Ukraine?
Which efforts do the Social Democrats want to cut back on in Ukraine? Is it important repairs of hospitals, homes, railways and roads? Is it the support for the energy sector that allows them to repair the energy infrastructure that is being rebuilt after constant attacks from Russia? Olle Thorell is welcome to answer that.
Olle Thorell (S)
Madam Speaker! I am deviating from my script entirely and attempting to answer the Minister for Development Aid's questions.
This is important. It is about what kind of country Sweden wants to be. What ambitions do we have as one of the more than 190 countries in the world? What kind of footprint do we want to leave in the world?
Should we only look out for ourselves and our immediate region? Should we weigh the almost infinite needs of the poor in the world against needs in welfare and other things here in Sweden?
We have had a solution for that. It is clear that we cannot solve all the problems that exist in the world. It is clear that we cannot be everywhere all the time and solve all problems. Therefore, we have agreed that 1 percent of our wealth is reasonable to forgo in order to do as much as we can out in the world.
That was where we agreed in Swedish politics for 50 years until the Sweden Democrats entered the Riksdag and the Moderates started dancing to their tune. Now there is a difference of opinion here. You do not want Sweden to be as generous with its aid as we other six parties want. It is probably good that it becomes obvious to the voters.
Then Benjamin Dousa paints the picture that we need to cut aid to the very poorest countries because so many resources are needed for Ukraine. But one never ever hears a Moderate say: Why are we lowering the tax so much for the very richest? Could we not use those monies to send ammunition to Ukraine? Why are we spending a lot of millions to make plastic bags cheaper in the grocery stores? Could that money not do greater good in an orphanage in Lviv instead?
It depends on which perspectives one chooses to have. The government chooses to set the poorest in the world against the needs in Ukraine. We do not set these against each other. We say that Sweden should be able to do both. We want Sweden to allocate 1 percent of our prosperity, one hundredth of our total income, to those who are less fortunate. A large piece of that should go to Ukraine.
It is clear that priorities are needed. That has also been the case during Social Democratic government rule. We have closed embassies, and we have ended strategies. We have left countries and focused aid on sectors where Sweden does greater good than in other sectors. It is completely natural.
What we think is wrong is that with such cynical precision, one leaves behind the very poorest and the most vulnerable. One seems to think that it is not an idea because it doesn't grow there anyway, and therefore one can ignore it.
This is happening in a world where Donald Trump, J.D. Vance and company in the USA are completely slaughtering aid. It was 40 percent of the world's humanitarian aid that disappeared in a flash when USAID was shut down. Great Britain, France, Germany and the Netherlands, countries that have previously been major aid donors, choose to give less.
I and we Social Democrats believe that it is not predestined that Sweden must join the negative trend. It is not given by God or determined by any fate that aid in the world must decrease. We believe that Sweden should be a pioneer. We believe that it would be good for Sweden in all possible aspects if Sweden stood up and was a pioneering country in this area.
Bistånds- och utrikeshandelsministern Benjamin Dousa (M)
Madam Speaker! Olle Thorell asks and asks the government: What kind of country do we want to be? I think that is a good and fully legitimate question. The answer to that question is obviously that we shall be a country that stands up when our friends and our neighbors really need us. We do that in the case of Greenland and Denmark. We do it also in the case of Ukraine.
When one listens to the debate, it almost sounds as if there is a secret money tree, that Elisabeth Svantesson or for that matter we at UD would have a secret money tree that we can go to. Nothing needs to be prioritized. We can do all things at the same time. We can both hire new nursing assistants and police officers in Sweden and at the same time increase aid to Ukraine and to all the world's aid recipients.
I promise Olle Thorell that if there had been a secret money tree, I would have invited Member of Parliament Thorell. Then we could have sat there together and distributed our money. But there is no secret money tree, and it is the government's and the Riksdag's task to prioritize at all times.
Olle Thorell says that we should not pit things against each other. That is all we do all the time. Every time we present a new aid budget and a new state budget, one pits different things against each other.
If one is to increase the aid to Ukraine, one can do two things. One is to take from other countries. The other is to take from the ordinary state budget, raise taxes and do other things, as the Social Democrats want. We do not want that. Then there is only one alternative left, and that is to take from other countries.
In the aid budget that we have presented, there are several other things that we safeguard and prioritize. Olle Thorell speaks a lot about the very poorest, the very most vulnerable, on the entire globe. It is precisely for that reason that we safeguard the very extensive humanitarian work.
We do so precisely against the background that we have a record number of conflicts around the world, and they unfortunately do not look like they will become fewer. It is precisely because the USA has withdrawn that Swedish humanitarian aid is needed most of all. It is about food packages, clean water and other things.
It concerns SRHR and the situation of women and girls. One thing we know about Republican presidents is that every Republican president since Ronald Reagan has actually, with force, completely cut off the support that goes specifically to the most vulnerable girls and women. This has happened despite our knowledge that one of the most common causes of death in poor countries is precisely unsafe abortions. It is also about a lack of contraceptives and the like. Therefore, we also safeguard SRHR work. If Sweden also withdraws, there are not many other countries left on the globe that think that the situation of girls and women is important. We also maintain very extensive support to countries such as Moldova and Armenia, which are also subject to great pressure from Russia.
It is about development aid to a number of countries – development aid in the bilateral strategies. Then we have several other strategies. In my last post, I mentioned the strategy for civil society organizations, which continue to carry out important interventions in these countries and, for that matter, also in other countries. There are also thematic strategies that can go to organizations that also carry out important interventions in precisely these countries.
However, this is about the fact that we do not have a money tree. We must hold onto the money, and we must prioritize when it comes to where the resources should go. I do not think it is unreasonable that almost 20 percent of our aid goes to a neighbor and friend who truly needs our help.
Olle Thorell (S)
Madam Speaker! It is clear that there is no money tree or any infinite chest of gold that one can pour out for all the fine things one wants to do here in the world.
That we Social Democrats know, and all well-read voters know, who see that the Social Democrats, every time they have held government power, leave behind a surplus in the state finances. The voters also see that the right, every time they have held government power, has left behind a deficit in the state finances. It has been the case four times out of four possible in modern times, and that is well a proof that we Social Democrats certainly know that we must be careful with the state finances. One cannot just pour it on.
Nor this is not what it is about now. The Social Democrats are not a naive party that believes one can just throw money at everything one wishes. We understand that priorities need to be made, but we believe that the government is making the wrong priorities when it consistently chooses to turn its back on the very poorest and most vulnerable in order to instead focus on narrow Swedish self-interests.
It is about, for example, where Swedish companies can earn money or whether to spend aid money to ensure that one de facto bribes one's way into an agreement with Somalia to accept citizens sentenced to deportation, which the country has an obligation to do according to international law. We will debate this in the next interpellation debate, but it still shows that priorities can be made in different ways.
We naturally think that Ukraine is important. The support for Ukraine is unanimous in this Riksdag. But we mean that it does not have to be the very poorest countries that pay all the aid to Ukraine. It is possible to find other items in both the UD's and the state's budget that could go there instead.
Bistånds- och utrikeshandelsministern Benjamin Dousa (M)
Madam Speaker! I think it is very pleasing that Olle Thorell and the Social Democrats realize that there is no secret money tree. It is a step forward, but I think the Social Democrats also need to be honest enough to say where the money is to come from.
I noted just a few hours ago that Morgan Johansson, the Social Democrats' foreign minister candidate, spoke openly about that we should return to the one percent goal and that it could involve as much as 20 billion kronor. Where are those funds to be taken from? Exactly who will get increased taxes? Which hospitals will be closed? Which police officers will be fired? Which correctional facilities will be closed so that one can make up these 20 billion kronor?
It is as usual with the Social Democrats; they are very sweeping. The richest should pay. Let us see how the Social Democrats do when they actually govern and when Magdalena Andersson is Prime Minister. Who are the richest then? One easily gets the impression that it would be approximately 0.01 percent of the Swedish people, tech billionaires and others – whom I admittedly think we should have more of, but whom the Social Democrats think we should have fewer of. But it is instead about specialist nurses, principals and programmers. It is those types of broad professional groups that almost always have to pay for the largest tax increases that the Social Democrats propose.
I welcome continued debates on the one percent goal, but it would be very welcome if the Social Democrats could be honest regarding who and what it is that is to pay for increased aid.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.