Response to interpellation 2025/26:33 on aid agreements and risk of corruption
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 has implemented a comprehensive reform to strengthen transparency and prevent corruption 1. M wants to use aid as a lever to get partner countries to follow international law principles and cooperate regarding the return of citizens 1. M believes that the government now sets clear requirements where previous aid to Somalia lacked counter-requirements 2 3. M emphasizes that zero tolerance for corruption is a high priority 4 and that it is a national security interest that dangerous individuals leave the country 3. S believes that the government pays bribes to a corrupt regime 5 and moves money from important aid initiatives 5 6. S claims that Sweden risks destroying its international reputation 7 and that the government has misunderstood the principle that aid should counter, not foster, corruption 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.
Bistånds- och utrikeshandelsministern Benjamin Dousa (M)
Madam Speaker! Olle Thorell has asked me what considerations I have made regarding transparency and oversight in the settlement with the Somali government that Ekot has reported on, what measures I have taken to ensure that the projects included in the settlement do not contribute to an increased risk of corruption, what role Sida has had in the preparation of the settlement and how I have weighed in the agency's professional assessments, and how I assess that the information that has emerged affects Sweden's international reputation as a donor.
The government has carried out a comprehensive reforming of Swedish aid. A part of this involves that development cooperation, as an important part of a broader partnership, can be used as a lever to achieve improved cooperation regarding migration, including return. Swedish development aid can also be conditioned in order to get the recipient country to follow international law principles and cooperate with Sweden in matters regarding the repatriation of its citizens.
The government has also tasked Sida with further increasing transparency in Swedish aid as well as strengthening the agency's processes and routines to prevent and preclude conflict of interest and corruption in the implementation of the aid. Information on the current supports in Somalia via the World Bank and UNDP, which have been mentioned in media reporting, is available at openaid.se. It is Sida and the embassies that prepare and decide on individual interventions. I assume that this occurs in accordance with current preparation routines, including assessments of corruption risks.
The government's reforms have strengthened the conditions for effective and transparent aid with sustainable results. Swedish aid is generous, while at the same time the government sets clear requirements for a mutual willingness to cooperate from the partner country's side.
Olle Thorell (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister for Foreign Affairs, for the answer, which was concise! I understand that the Minister wants to say as little as possible about this scandal – because that is what it is.
The Minister speaks about the reforming of aid, which he has implemented, and about general principles that shall now apply to Swedish aid. There are good ambitions on the part of the government to reform the aid, and that is good.
But we see this scandal now, this moral failure. A Swedish government pays bribes – it cannot be said to be anything else – to one of the world's most corrupt regimes so that it will accept deported Somali citizens, something one is obliged to do according to international law. It is a failure, and it is astonishing that the government does not even have the sense to be ashamed of this handling.
It is about 100 million kronor in Swedish aid money, tax money that taxpayers have worked for and paid into the state, while at the same time a lot of other aid has been provided to Somalia. This is aid that has gone, for example, to women's participation in politics, to counter radicalization among young people, and to help poor farmers in rural areas to introduce better methods for sustainable agriculture. This is being discontinued. But one is moving money, 100 million kronor, as close to the Prime Minister's Office as possible as part of an agreement to accept those sentenced to deportation.
In the media and in the debate, the Minister for Development Cooperation and other representatives for the government have said that it is about them having started to set demands on Somalia: Now we are indeed setting demands – you did not do that during your time in government. But now it is demands from us that make them fulfill their commitments.
That is completely backwards. It is not Sweden that is setting demands on Somalia. It is Somalia, the world's second most corrupt country, that is setting demands on Sweden: Pay money to us and maybe we will fulfill our obligations. Sweden says, naively enough or possibly cynically enough: Of course, your highness, here you go!
We do it first via the World Bank. Then that doesn't work, and then it is done via UNDP. Now it has emerged that it is also being done via IOM, another UN agency. It is 5 million kronor that have gone to employ three people, according to information from relatives of people in the Prime Minister's inner circle, who are to deal with – unclear what, because when journalists have requested documents, 90 percent is redacted. It is not possible to discern what these people are actually supposed to do.
This is nothing other than a failure in Swedish aid policy history. I have sat in the parliamentary Committee on Foreign Affairs since 2006, and I have not seen anything even close to this. The aid ministers – the current one, Dousa, and the former one, Forssell – are somewhat proud of this. That is what surprises me the most.
Bistånds- och utrikeshandelsministern Benjamin Dousa (M)
Madam Speaker! I am happy to discuss the failures with Olle Thorell. It is a failure how Sweden has acted year after year and year in. If one looks back at the last decades, one sees that it concerns billions of the taxpayers' money – the money of nursing assistants, mechanics, and bus drivers – that has gone to Somalia without us having set the counter-requirement that they should take in their own citizens.
Olle Thorell is welcome to tell me how many of them that are to be deported from Sweden to Somalia the Social Democrats managed to get out during eight years. Some of them are even grossly criminal and have committed very serious crimes in Sweden, including sexual offenses. These are people who should not be here.
This is the end of this now. The Swedish people are not the Social Democrats' ATM, where one can just withdraw money and do exactly as one pleases.
Nothing is secretly linked to the aid work in Somalia. Everything can be followed on Openaid, which, moreover, is also a previous bourgeois reform – which the Social Democrats also opposed.
We have and the Social Democrats have supported the UNDP in many geographies with many billions of kronor. It is a recognized organization. Everything will be transparent, including what they do. The World Bank was supported by the Social Democrats several years ago, even in Somalia.
There is nothing secret about this. It is about conditioning our existing support to Somalia to ensure that the country follows international law and accepts its own citizens.
Olle Thorell (S)
Madam Speaker! Benjamin Dousa would very much like this debate to be about the will to send those sentenced to deportation back to their home countries. He would like to have a conflict surrounding that.
But there is no conflict. For us Social Democrats, it is obvious that governments should uphold international law. They should receive their citizens. If these individuals do not have the right to stay in Sweden, they shall be deported to their country. It is then reasonable to talk, negotiate, and discuss with these governments, however unpleasant they may be, about establishing a return agreement.
That is what we did with Afghanistan during the 2010s. We succeeded with that. We had no readmission agreement with Somalia, but we succeeded – this perhaps even the Minister for Development Cooperation does not know – via the EU's coordination mechanisms to arrange for those sentenced to deportation to be received in Somalia. It was, in itself, a small number.
The difference between the government and us is that we stand for principles within aid. We stand for that aid should not be used to feed corruption. Aid should be used to counter corruption. It is precisely this that the government has completely got wrong. One thinks that one has made a good deal with Somalia when one first channels 100 million there and now an additional 5 million via IOM, so that the money comes within reach of the Prime Minister's office.
The government now believes that they have made a good deal and is a bit proud of it. But it is not a good deal. It is a very bad deal. Somalia has now ceased to accept deported citizens. From what I understand, Somalia has not accepted a single soul since the last deal that Forssell made via IOM. Furthermore, it is ineffective. It does not work. It works against its purpose.
It is also actually an incredibly peculiar agreement. The Minister has repeatedly said that it is not an agreement but an arrangement. What does that mean then? Is there any paper regarding the arrangement? Who was involved when the arrangement was made? Was it Forssell and someone from the Prime Minister's Chancellery? Was it officials? Was it Sweden's ambassador? How has it been documented?
If the agreement is to be upheld, it must be recorded. Are there notes? Is it a so-called non-paper? Or is it some special kind of handshake that the minister has now learned from Forssell? The whole thing has been poorly handled on many levels.
I want to conclude by saying that aid is something that we in Sweden should use as a foreign policy instrument to build good relations and to put pressure on countries to develop in a specific direction. This is what Swedish aid to Somalia has been used for. It has been scrutinized, and requirements have been set that it must be transparent, it must be accounted for, and it must be effective. The scandal we are now seeing has gone in the completely opposite direction.
Bistånds- och utrikeshandelsministern Benjamin Dousa (M)
Madam Speaker! Olle Thorell talks about how aid policy should be used as a foreign policy tool. I completely agree with that. The problem is that the Social Democrats have not used it as a foreign policy tool. Discussing, having workshops and coffee and buns does not work. That is over now.
What we got established in Somalia, which we hopefully can get up and running again, we will roll out in more contexts and in more countries. It is about people who should not be in Sweden. As said, some of them have committed very serious crimes in Sweden, and it is a top priority that they also leave Sweden.
We naturally have zero tolerance for corruption in all our aid work.
We can look at Sida's figures: In 10 percent of all active interventions, there is suspicion of corruption and irregularities, and among 16 percent of the partners they use, there is suspicion of corruption or other irregularities. It is a cleanup job that the government must now do after decades of social democracy in aid. Money has partly gone to interventions that are directly corrupted. This must be cleaned up.
We have implemented Openaid. We have tasked Sida with updating Openaid and making it more user-friendly, so that Olle Thorell, parliamentary colleagues, and journalists can review the aid. Much more scrutiny of the aid is needed from several different angles.
The zero tolerance towards corruption is – I can assure the Chamber – a very high priority issue for this government, whether it concerns linking aid more closely to migration or whether it concerns aid in general.
But in order to get more countries to accept their own citizens, it is a self-evident matter for this government that we can also use aid as a tool in that work, in the same way as we also use trade policy as a tool to get more countries to accept their own citizens. This is a security issue for Sweden.
Some of the people concerned are seriously criminal. Some of them have committed serious sexual crimes. We do not want them here. They should return home to their own countries.
Olle Thorell (S)
Madam Speaker! We are in complete agreement that those who do not have the right to be in Sweden shall be deported, and countries shall receive their citizens. There is no conflict there between me and Benjamin Dousa.
Benjamin Dousa also says that the Social Democrats have not used aid policy as a foreign policy tool. In that case, I want to ask Benjamin Dousa: What does the Minister believe Sweden's high reputation in the world comes from? How does the Minister believe it is that Sweden is ranked among the countries that have the highest reputation in the world? What does the Minister believe it is due to that so many countries look up to Sweden as a role model when it comes to development policy?
How is it that we have so many good relations with so many developing countries that have moved from poverty to becoming middle-income countries? It is clear that we have used the aid and development policy in a way that is positive for Sweden's reputation.
What is happening now risks destroying Sweden's reputation in developing countries. Sweden is just another player who settles for money under the table to achieve its own narrow interests.
Zero tolerance for corruption, says the Minister for Development Cooperation. He can well convey that to the three officials – relatives of the Prime Minister's inner circle – who are lounging around in Mogadishu with a monthly salary of 100,000 kronor. A monthly salary of 100,000 kronor in Mogadishu! One can live quite well on that, using Swedish tax money. It is the exact opposite of zero tolerance for corruption.
We will continue to scrutinize the government for this moral failure. I can guarantee that.
Bistånds- och utrikeshandelsministern Benjamin Dousa (M)
Madam Speaker! Olle Thorell claims that we are in complete agreement that non-citizens in Sweden – some of whom have committed very serious crimes – shall also leave the country if they have received a deportation decision. The problem is that the Social Democrats are not acting for that in practice.
How many hundreds of millions have not gone to Somalia in recent decades without us conditioning the aid and without us setting requirements? It is one thing to sit in a meeting with them and say that they are welcome to take in their own citizens. But despite it not leading to any result, one goes home to Sweden and is satisfied with one's good work at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, governed by the Social Democrats. As said: It is over now. It is the end of coffee-and-bun politics.
We will demonstrate hand in hand to the countries that we are very, very serious when it comes to people who do not have the right to be in Sweden also leaving Sweden. We will use the aid policy here in Sweden. We will push forward in all EU negotiations, both linked to trade policy and linked to aid policy. If one is to receive EU aid, one is also expected to take in one's own citizens. Another country where it has been very successful is, for example, Iraq.
In all our bilateral talks with the handful of countries that it actually concerns, we will be very clear that we expect them to take care of their own citizens if money is to come out of the Swedish tax chest and into efforts in those countries. If they do not do that, we will not cooperate in the same way with those countries.
It is about Swedish tax money. This government will never accept that we treat the Swedish people as some kind of ATM. These are people who have worked, struggled, and exerted themselves to put these funds together. And it is a national Swedish security interest that dangerous people who should not be here leave the country.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.