Response to interpellation 2025/26:267 on the agreement with Somalia and the government's information to the Riksdag
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
1 M argues that Sweden does not have a formal written agreement with Somalia, but that the aid is used as a foreign policy lever to improve cooperation on migration 1. M claims that the aid is transparent, that the amounts have decreased, and that the government succeeds in carrying out deportations 2. M argues that it is important to use the aid so that countries will accept their citizens who lack a legal right to stay in Sweden 3. M argues that it is not a bribe to demand that countries deliver on issues important to Sweden 4. M believes that Somalis without a legal right to be in Sweden should leave 4. 5 S believes that there is a major scandal regarding the lack of transparency and how the government has handled the agreement 5. S argues that the government uses aid funds to bribe people and that the money goes directly to persons close to power, which creates corruption risks 5 6. S argues that aid money should be used for purposes that counteract female genital mutilation or radicalization instead of "state-building" 5. S criticizes the government for sponsoring a prime minister whom they consider an antisemite and a Hamas supporter 6. S claims that the government acts hypocritically by claiming zero tolerance for corruption and extremism while simultaneously using the aid for migration policy purposes 6. 7 S does not think it is important that those sentenced to deportation remain in Sweden 7. S believes that those sentenced to deportation should be deported to their home countries and that criminals should be in prison 7. S argues that the limit for what is acceptable is bribing corrupt prime ministers 7. S claims that in the case of aid to Somalia, the principle of arm's length distance to corrupt structures was maintained and reliable partners were used 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! Olle Thorell has asked me how I explain that I previously stated that there is no written agreement with Somalia when it now appears that such an agreement in seven points actually exists. He has also asked me how I assess that the Riksdag's opportunity for insight and control is affected by what has just been stated regarding that central information about the agreement's existence and content has not been reported correctly.
Olle Thorell has also asked me what measures I intend to take to ensure that Swedish aid funds are not used in a way that creates conflicts of interest or political dependence or that undermines confidence in Swedish aid policy, and how these issues have been handled in connection with the Minister's recently conducted visits to Somalia.
As I have previously stated, Sweden has not entered into any formal written agreement with Somalia regarding aid and migration. According to Chapter 10, Section 1 of the Instrument of Government, agreements with other states are entered into by the government. The document with seven points that Olle Thorell refers to has not been further formalized. No government decision has been made that an agreement shall be entered into. No formal international agreement on aid and migration in the sense of the constitution has therefore been entered into between Sweden and Somalia.
However, Sweden and Somalia have reached a consensus that partnership is based on reciprocity, that Sweden supports Somalia's state-building and development, and that Somalia follows the international law principles of accepting its citizens who do not have a legal right to stay in Sweden. This is entirely in line with the government's policy that development cooperation shall be used as a foreign policy lever to achieve improved cooperation on migration. I have also informed about this, including when it concerns the support that Sida has decided on to the World Bank and UNDP and which is available on Openaid.se.
Through the reform agenda, the government has presented a new direction for Swedish aid. Efforts for long-term perspective, transparency, and efficiency are in focus, which is central to ensuring trust for Swedish aid policy, both in Sweden and in our partner countries. We must, of course, also be able to assume that the partner countries handle migration in a responsible manner. After my visit to Mogadishu and meetings with, among others, Somalia's president, I can state that Sweden and Somalia have good relations and that we both view the opportunity to further develop our broad cooperation very positively.
Olle Thorell (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Benjamin Dousa, for the answer!
This is a favorite in repeat. The media reporting may have faltered somewhat, but the Social Democrats' scrutiny of this massive scandal has continued and will continue. Because it is nothing other than a massive scandal.
The answer from Benjamin Dousa is unfortunately unclear and shows how strangely this has been handled. There have been back and forth movements regarding what the agreement actually looks like. Now the government returns to the line that there is no formal agreement and no constitutional treaty between the countries, but that there is still a seven-point list, which has not been further formalized.
Okay, then we know that. Thanks to the investigative work of skilled journalists, it has emerged what is in this list. In summary: It is not about legal subtleties, but it is about transparency and about us being able to understand what the government has done together with Somalia. The government has therefore paid 100 million kronor to arrange a repatriation of Somali citizens who, for various reasons, have been sentenced to deportation. Not everyone is a murderer or a rapist; it can be honest people who have had their asylum applications rejected who are to be sent back.
We have no objection to such agreements being entered into, but we have major problems with the use of aid funds that could have gone towards work against female genital mutilation, to develop agricultural methods, or to reduce radicalization via civil society organizations. That would do much more good than 100 million straight into what the Minister for Foreign Affairs calls "state-building" – money in direct proximity to the Prime Minister's office. It is the Prime Minister's close relatives, friends, and clan members who get access to these funds.
One of those who sat and negotiated the agreement, the non-agreement, the consensus, the common ground, or whatever you want to call it, cashes in a monthly salary of over 100,000 Swedish kronor and is simultaneously involved in negotiating this.
This is a textbook example of how one should not behave if one wants to counter corruption. It is a textbook example of how one acts if one wants to foster corruption. That is what the government has done in this issue.
Then I want to be very clear: We Social Democrats have nothing against Sweden entering into agreements with countries to repatriate citizens sentenced to deportation. We did that during our time in government. We did it with Afghanistan before the Taliban took over. There was nothing strange about that. It is also not strange that aid is a part of the conversations one has. But one does not use aid money to bribe people so that they will agree to things that they are internationally legally obligated to do. It is as wrong as it can possibly be, and we will continue to ask questions about this.
It is also somewhat remarkable that the government is proud of this and wants it to be a model for other countries. Can the Minister tell us a bit more about other countries where they want to introduce this model?
Bistånds- och utrikeshandelsministern Benjamin Dousa (M)
Madam Speaker! Olle Thorell speaks about transparency. It is one of my absolute most important values as Minister for Development Cooperation. There has been too little transparency in development aid. That was, for example, why the previous Alliance government established Openaid so that the Swedish people and the Swedish Parliament can follow where the money ends up.
This entire process has also been transparent. I have answered all questions from the media. I have answered all questions that have been asked by the members of the Riksdag. I have come to the committee and to the chamber and answered exactly as it is. I have from the beginning been very clear that there is no legally binding document or any formal agreement that has been entered into between Somalia's government and Sweden's government.
I have also said, even from the rostrum of the Riksdag, that I would have gladly had a formal agreement. Sometimes, however, it is not possible, and in those cases, it is better to do something than to do nothing at all.
Both the UNDP support and the World Bank support are fully reported on Openaid.se. I also believe, although I am not certain, that Olle Thorell is confusing the support to the UN organization IOM with the World Bank and UNDP support. As is known, it is a matter for the Ministry of Justice and Migration Minister Johan Forssell.
We have debated the World Bank support many times in this chamber. Similar decisions were also made by the previous Social Democratic government. There are not such large differences between the aid work we are now conducting in Somalia and that which was conducted when the Social Democrats were in power.
There are, however, two significant differences. The first is that the amounts are slightly smaller. Somalia aid has actually decreased during this government. The second is that we actually succeed in carrying out deportations to Somalia, including deportations of those who have committed very serious crimes in Sweden, for example, rape of children. These are people who should not be in Sweden.
If there is a "major scandal" in this, it is surely that the Social Democrats paid out hundreds of millions from the Swedish people without being able to carry out particularly many deportations. If anything, that is indeed a major scandal.
I maintain that we have nothing to hide at all. I am happy to take on ten more interpellations on the subject. But the essential point here, what essentially distinguishes this policy from the Social Democrats', is that we have been clear about – the Moderaterna went to the election on it, and it is included in the Tidö Agreement – that aid shall be used as a tool in migration policy. We shall be able to condition the aid on the receiving country fulfilling its international law obligations.
Olle Thorell (S)
Madam Speaker! Somalia is one of the world's most corrupt countries – rank 179 out of 180 measured countries. In such a country, one must handle aid with extreme caution, and this has been done over the years – with arm's length distance from corrupt power holders, with stone-hard control mechanisms and with partners one can trust.
But what is the government doing instead? They are abolishing aid that is controlled and transparent and that one knows has had an effect. Instead, they succeed with surgical precision in making the world's second most corrupt country even slightly more corrupt. It is an achievement that this government has managed, and we Social Democrats consider it a magnificent scandal. They are creating a fast track where Swedish tax money goes straight into the Prime Minister's office to persons in the absolute proximity of power, to persons with salary levels that are only a fantasy for other Somalis, and to the same persons who have been involved in negotiating the agreement.
This is a textbook example of how to create corruption risks. It is almost a corruption guarantee with such arrangements.
At the same time, the government says that they have zero tolerance for corruption. It would have been almost laughable if it weren't so tragic.
It is clear that one should have zero tolerance for corruption. We do too. This setup is, however, pure hypocrisy, because it contributes to the exact opposite.
It doesn't stop there either. The government also claims to have zero tolerance for supporting extremism, Islamism, radicalization, and groups that sympathize with Hamas and other terrorist movements. That is very good, and we stand behind that. But this Prime Minister, whose office is, in fact, being sponsored with "nation-building" for 100 million kronor, what kind of character is he? Yes, an antisemite and a Hamas-supporter. He supports the terrorist movement Hamas and speaks disparagingly about Jews in an antisemitic manner.
This, however, does not seem to matter. Here, the end justifies the means. As long as we can deport a few more Somalis from Sweden, it is worth sponsoring such a character. We believe that is far beyond the limit of what is acceptable. It is hypocrisy on a completely new level that we find scandalous.
It is very good that there is zero tolerance both against corruption and against association with terrorist movements. It is also good that organizations applying for aid are scrutinized for such connections. But it does not really hold together when these principles are thrown overboard to achieve migration policy objectives. We think that is over the line. It is not acceptable.
Even though it is not headlines in Swedish media every day and we do not have interpellations debates every week, this is still a very strange story that we will continue to ask questions about.
Bistånds- och utrikeshandelsministern Benjamin Dousa (M)
Madam Speaker! It feels as if Olle Thorell is almost searching for arguments to tackle this debate. When the transparency argument did not work because everything is reported, he tries with the corruption argument, that Somalia is one of the world's most corrupt countries. That is true. All countries where we conduct aid work are more corrupt than Sweden. That is precisely why we conduct aid work in those countries.
If corruption is now the big problem, I want to ask Olle Thorell: Why did the Social Democrats give billions of the Swedish people's money to Somalia when you were in power, including to the exact same World Bank structure? If it is corruption now, it should have been corruption then too.
Or UNDP, one of the absolute largest UN bodies, with rigorous own control mechanisms which the Socialdemokraterna, and the Moderaterna for that part, for decades have given many billions to help the most vulnerable people on the entire globe. If it is corruption now, why was it not corruption when the Socialdemokraterna decided on additional support to UNDP in large parts of the world?
I would like to urge Olle Thorell to answer the question of which of the two supports is corrupt. Does Olle Thorell know something that I do not know about the UNDP support or the World Bank support? I can promise Olle Thorell that if he finds corruption, that something has gone wrong or that money is being misappropriated, I will of course also take action. Both payments have followed all standard principles, just like all aid that Sida handles. It is Sida that has made the decision. Somalia has not received any special treatment, but this has been handled like all other aid work. The big difference is not that we are carrying out aid interventions in Somalia – that Moderates and Social Democrats have done for decades – but the new thing is that we are also using the aid so that countries will accept their own citizens. That is something the Social Democrats did not succeed with when they last sat in government.
Why do the Social Democrats and Olle Thorell think it is so important that Somalis who are not Swedish citizens and who do not have a legal right to stay in Sweden, where some of them have committed serious crimes such as assault and rape, should remain in Sweden? It is dangerous for the Swedish people. They can commit new crimes in Sweden. That is why we need to carry out the deportations. We will use the tools we have to carry out more deportations to Somalia and to other countries.
This was one of the reasons why the migration minister and I traveled to Syria last year; precisely to find some form of agreement, a handshake that if we are to carry out important interventions in Syria, we also expect Syria to accept its own citizens who do not have a legal basis to stay in Sweden. The highest priority from Sweden's side is, of course, to be able to carry out deportations of persons who have committed serious crimes in Sweden.
Olle Thorell (S)
Madam Speaker! I thank Benjamin Dousa for the answer and the questions.
We Social Democrats do not at all think that it is important that those sentenced to deportation remain in Sweden. Of course not. It is a rhetorical trick to make it sound as if there is a difference of opinion between us, but there isn't. It is supposed to sound as if the Moderates care about the safety of the Swedish people and that we mean social democrats want dangerous people to wander around and scare the life out of ordinary honest Swedes. It is a silly argumentative trick. Benjamin Dousa is an intelligent person, and he should be too good for that level of rhetoric.
Of course, those sentenced to deportation shall be deported, and of course, criminals shall sit in prison. If they are not Swedish citizens, they shall be deported to their home countries. We say that the ends do not always justify the means. That is the difference between us. We think the line is drawn at bribing corrupt prime ministers. I do not know where Benjamin Dousa's line is, but apparently it is not there.
Benjamin Dousa asks if not all the billions given in aid to Somalia can also be regarded as corruption. No, they were not, because we ensured to stick to the principle of arm's length distance from corrupt structures and that there were no personal interests among those we negotiated with to get a share of the aid money. We ensured to use reliable partners independent from the currently Somali corrupt regime; it has been a matter of different regimes. And we have ensured to handle the follow-up.
We have confidence in both the UNDP and the World Bank. They obviously do not have confidence in the Swedish government. When the World Bank found out that it was about a migration agreement, they terminated the cooperation, and that was why they had to go to other organizations.
Bistånds- och utrikeshandelsministern Benjamin Dousa (M)
Madam Speaker! Olle Thorell seems to have given up the argument about transparency and subsequently corruption. Now the latest argument came that it would be a question of a bribe.
In what way is it a bribe that one clearly tells the countries in question that if we are to continue to carry out important aid efforts, we expect them to deliver on issues that are important for Sweden, that they follow international law, and that they accept their own citizens?
The same applies if I myself or Olle Thorell were to commit a serious crime in Canada – I do not believe that either of us are Canadian citizens – and we were to serve time in prison in Canada. Then Sweden would not be able to say that it does not want to take back Member of Parliament Olle Thorell or Benjamin Dousa. Even if a government were to feel that way, it is not possible for Sweden to refuse us two. We would be sent back to Sweden.
The same principles naturally apply to Somalia. This is not about the thousands of Swedish-Somalis who go to work every day, who are Swedish citizens and who behave themselves. On that, we are in complete agreement. This is about Somalis who are not Swedish citizens, who do not have a legal right to be here, and where some have misbehaved. They must leave Sweden.
Olle Thorell says that it is obvious that Social Democrats also think this is important. One almost gets a little flashback from when Morgan Johansson was Minister for Justice. Back then, it was said that they were tough on criminals, and of course, they wanted the criminals to spend longer time in prison. Yet, no sentences were toughened, yet no new police officers arrived, and yet nothing happened. That is the big difference between the previous government and this government.
The Social Democrats talk, and we deliver. I personally travel to Damascus and to Mogadishu because I believe the issue is important. We will always deliver to the Swedish people.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.