Response to interpellation 2025/26:273 on the USA's attack against Venezuela
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns the USA's military attacks on Venezuela and whether the government stands up for international law. M argues that the American operation is not compatible with international law 1 and that Sweden has clearly clarified this position 2. M emphasizes that a rules-based world order is necessary for Sweden's security 1 and that they continue to work to save lives and reduce the suffering of the Venezuelan people 3. - argues that the government is selective and uses vague formulations instead of sharply condemning the USA's declaration of war 4. - considers that the government does not act resolutely against the USA's crimes, in contrast to when Russia invaded Ukraine 5. - argues that Sweden lacks credibility as it cooperates with dictatorships while remaining silent when allies break the law 6.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Utrikesministern Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)
Madam Speaker! Lorena Delgado Varas has asked me whether I consider the US military attacks on Venezuela to be compatible with the UN Charter and the international law prohibition on the use of force. Lorena Delgado Varas has further asked whether I intend to condemn the bombings, the attacks against civil infrastructure, and the kidnapping of Venezuela's president as crimes against international law, as well as how I and the government ensure that international law is applied consistently, even when crimes are committed by the government's close allies.
The situation in Venezuela has long been characterized by violence and violations of human rights. Sweden and the EU have repeatedly stated that Nicolás Maduro lacks legitimacy as president. Publicly available vote counts showed that the opposition candidate Edmundo González received the most votes and won the 2024 presidential election. Furthermore, the Maduro regime is responsible for many cases of repression and abuses against the opposition, civil society, and ordinary citizens.
Respecting the will of the Venezuelan people and reaching a negotiated, democratic, and peaceful solution, led by Venezuelans, is the only way to restore democracy in the country and resolve the ongoing crisis.
As the government has clearly pointed out on several occasions over the past few days, all states have a responsibility to respect and act in accordance with international law, regardless of any other political or security policy considerations. States' sovereignty and the inviolability of borders belong to the fundamental principles of international law.
Sweden's assessment is that the American operation against Venezuela is not compatible with international law. I and the government have clarified this position on several occasions.
The rules-based world order with international law as its foundation is necessary and relevant. It provides predictability and stability, which is an important prerequisite in the relationship between states even in turbulent times. The rules-based world order ultimately rests on international law being respected and applied consistently by all states. When rules are sidelined or applied selectively, trust in the international system is undermined. That international law is respected is a long-term security policy interest for Sweden. It is therefore important to mark when states act in defiance of it, just as the government has done.
We will continue our work within the EU and together with our global partners to safeguard a rules-based world order with international law, including the UN Charter, as its core.
Lorena Delgado Varas (-)
Madam Speaker! I note that the Minister clearly states that the US military attack on Venezuela is not compatible with international law. That is obvious, and it is the least one can say when a sovereign state is subjected to an illegal military attack, when civil infrastructure is bombed, when the country's president Nicolás Maduro together with his wife Cilia Flores is kidnapped in an internationally condemned attack, and when fishermen are also murdered in international waters off Colombia and Venezuela.
But merely noting the crime is not enough. Sweden must publicly and sharply condemn this declaration of war from the USA, which is one of the world's most powerful states. Several countries in Latin America have done so, including Colombia, Chile and Mexico. Spain and other countries have also expressed sharp criticism and condemned this.
Sweden chooses instead diplomatic veiling and vague formulations – speaking of being selective. This is deeply problematic, especially as we have a historical reality to take into account.
The USA's dark and brutal history in Latin America is well-known. I come from Chile myself, where USA's involvement directly led to the military coup in 1973 and the following decades of repression and terror. It is the same power game that is now being repeated in Venezuela with violence, kidnappings, and threats against democracy – not to mention the genocide in Palestine, where USA together with you has been the strongest ally of the genocidal state Israel. Furthermore, USA now threatens Mexico, Colombia, Cuba, and other Latin American countries. Latin America is to be USA's backyard and not create independent states, according to USA. That Sweden does not clearly mark this sends a dangerous message that superpowers stand above the law and that democratic principles can be trampled on when it suits power.
The consequences of this silence are not merely symbolic. When we do not clearly distance ourselves from the USA's illegal attacks against Venezuela, we risk entire regions – from Latin America to Asia and Africa – being drawn into new conflicts and military interventions whenever it suits the USA. It is a downward spiral that now threatens peace and stability globally. We see this particularly now when the war state USA forms a so-called peace council to bypass the UN.
Is the Swedish government prepared to take responsibility for these consequences, or are diplomatic words enough when people risk their lives and entire regions are at stake? When will the government dare to condemn for real, with clear political actions, and stop being – as the minister says – selective?
Utrikesministern Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)
Madam Speaker! It is very interesting that it is just Lorena Delgado Varas who speaks of someone being selective, for I have probably never heard such a selective retelling of reality as the one we have just heard.
I and the government stated at an early stage that it was difficult to see that there would be an international law basis for the USA's actions against Venezuela. We also stated that we in the UN Security Council wanted to hear the USA explain what basis they believed they had for the intervention.
In the Security Council, the USA justified its intervention in Venezuela primarily by referring to an ongoing American criminal investigation and to information regarding drug trafficking and involvement of terrorism. We could then very clearly state that the actions were not compatible with international law. This is a position that both I and the government have clearly clarified. Most of our like-minded [countries] acted exactly the same way.
Let me be very clear that international law is a cornerstone of Swedish foreign policy. That it is respected is, as I said initially, also a long-term security interest for Sweden. We do not want to see a world where the right of the strongest takes precedence over international law and where great powers do as they please.
We are currently at a crossroads. We must decide whether we will continue to stand up for the international law that has served, not least small and medium-sized countries, so well for such a long time, or whether we will turn toward another path – which I believe is very dangerous – and where I am very concerned that great powers simply take what they want at the expense of others.
Now it is more important than ever to make one's voice heard very clearly. That is what the Swedish government is doing.
Lorena Delgado Varas (-)
Madam Speaker! I must thank the Minister for the answer – I assume. I feel that this is quite selective, and it is quite unclear when one can say that this is not compatible with international law, while at the same time waiting with clear actions.
The government emphasizes the importance of a rules-based world order and the consistent application of international law, but when the government is confronted with reality and the United States' crimes, the response is thin, low, and evasive.
When Russia invaded Ukraine, Sweden acted resolutely, with clear condemnations and concrete measures, but when the USA attacks Venezuela and kidnaps its president and his wife, there are diplomatic euphemisms and cold gestures. This is a betrayal of the principles that the government says it upholds. One cannot look away when one's friend commits crimes.
It is not just about Venezuela. It is about allowing a dangerous norm shift in the world, where great powers continue to act outside of international law. In this case, it concerns the USA. If we do not show clarity now, we risk the same game being repeated in other parts of the world.
We saw this quite immediately when the USA started talking about Kalaallit Nunaat, that is to say Greenland. The USA has simply decided that Greenland shall be theirs, because they want the minerals. It shows so incredibly clearly that when Sweden and other governments ignore international law, the entire international order that we also depend on is undermined. It is an incredibly dangerous development, and it is the development in which the government has moved during all these years.
I ask: Why does the government not push the issue of the US attacks harder in the UN and in other international forums? Why does Sweden not demand an independent investigation or legal consequences for the crimes? How can one claim that Sweden stands up for international law when we passively allow allies of this government to commit crimes?
In the USA, the so-called democracy, 4 million are not allowed to vote – a fundamental universal right. Millions are homeless and live below the poverty line. Thousands are killed every year by the state's repressive units, ICE spreads fear among the population and millions protest in the country. Why is such a country the government's ally on the international playing field?
The USA has been clear that it is not about human rights but about the oil – they have said it openly at press conferences. It is about the oil and nothing else.
Even the opposition in Venezuela stands up against the attack from the USA and demands that the USA be stopped. But what do we do? What do we do with the USA, which is now also threatening a Nordic country?
Utrikesministern Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)
Madam Speaker! I want to be clear once again that the government stands up for international law. We do it every day, and we do it everywhere. It is more important now than ever. We view with great seriousness the threats that have been put forward by the American administration and which conflict with Greenland's and Denmark's territorial integrity and sovereignty. I believe that those who have followed the media over the last few days may also have noted this.
We turn our gaze back to what the interpellation is about, namely Venezuela. I want to emphasize the importance of the Venezuelan people now getting to decide their future and their path forward. Respecting the will of the people and reaching a negotiated, democratic, and peaceful solution is the only way for Venezuela to restore democracy and resolve the ongoing political, economic, and humanitarian crisis in the country.
This should also be highlighted. This is a people who have suffered under Maduro's dictatorship for far too long. Far too many have been forced to flee. Venezuela is still a dictatorship, even if this particular dictator is gone. We must continue to support the people.
We are following the developments closely through our embassy in Colombia and in consultation with other EU countries. The EU continues to have contact with the Venezuelan opposition, with the region's countries, as well as with other important actors, such as the UN. I have personally spoken with María Corina Machado, and I also met Edmundo González in Peru last year to show my support.
Sweden also continues to work to save lives and reduce the suffering of the Venezuelan people. We were the second largest humanitarian donor to Venezuela last year. We were also the third largest donor to Colombia last year, with a major focus on the approximately 3 million Venezuelans who have been forced to flee and who are in Colombia. Many of them are in a very difficult situation.
Lorena Delgado Varas (-)
Madam Speaker! The Minister says they stand up for international law, but the question is how one stands up for international law and when one chooses to do so. We cannot see that the government clearly and distinctly stands up for international law. We do not see it when it concerns Venezuela, not when it concerns Palestine, not when it concerns Sudan – and so on, and so forth.
This is about Sweden's credibility and our security in a changing world. We say we stand up for international law, but at the same time, we cooperate with dictatorships such as Israel, Syria, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. Indirectly, we also contribute to the genocide in Sudan. We sell weapons and parts of security technology and pretend that it is dialogue and partnership.
At the same time, we remain silent when the government's allies break the law. One cannot say that a few words in the chamber will make a difference when it comes to the USA; much more is required from the government.
International law applies to everyone, regardless of what we think about the government in Venezuela. It applies to everyone. One cannot, therefore, support the USA's attack against Venezuela by pointing at the Venezuelan government. It is the people of Venezuela who make those decisions, not us. We shall, however, ensure that international law is followed.
Great power competition and lawlessness is what we get when we are not consistent in what we do, and it is what we see spreading when the USA now wants to take Greenland as well. I therefore ask again: When will the government truly dare to take a stand against the USA and imperialism?
Utrikesministern Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)
Madam Speaker! "We" cannot see that the government stands up for international law, says Lorena Delgado Varas. I honestly do not know who "we" are in that statement, but I urge these people to follow the media to some extent. The government has, in fact, been very clear in saying that this violates international law.
Sweden is a strong defender of precisely international law. Just as I have said before, it is absolutely crucial for Sweden's security and for stability in the world around us that a rules-based world order based on international law, including human rights, is upheld. It is about respect for the rules of international law in conflicts but also about support for fundamental norms in the everyday life of the UN and its member countries – in shipping, in trade, and in the everyday work for democracy, human rights, and equality.
Sweden stands up for international law everywhere in the world and in all these contexts, and we will continue to do so.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.