Response to interpellation 2025/26:478 on Sweden's actions for the protection of civilian humanitarian convoys

Utrikesministern Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)

Madam Speaker! Jacob Risberg has asked me what diplomatic measures I have taken so far, bilaterally towards Israel and within the EU, to demand swift, safe, unimpeded and sustained humanitarian access to Gaza.

Jacob Risberg has also asked which parts of the diplomatic toolbox I am prepared to use to signal against Israel when humanitarian access is obstructed and civilian humanitarian ships are stopped in international waters.

Jacob Risberg has also asked whether I intend to demand that Israel keeps more border crossings open, allows journalists in, removes administrative and logistical obstacles, and guarantees humanitarian organizations' ability to operate throughout Gaza.

Furthermore, Jacob Risberg has asked why the government has not reacted more sharply to the reports that Israel has stopped civilian humanitarian ships on international waters and transported people, including a person who is reported to have Swedish citizenship, to Israel.

Jacob Risberg has furthermore asked whether I consider that civilian humanitarian ships on international waters are covered by the right to freedom of navigation and whether I am prepared to publicly confirm that principle in relation to flotillas with a humanitarian purpose to Gaza.

Finally, Jacob Risberg has asked what consequences I believe should occur for Sweden's and the EU's relations with Israel if Israel continues to restrict humanitarian access to Gaza and intervene against civilian humanitarian convoys.

I would like to begin by underlining that the government views the humanitarian situation in Gaza very seriously. The civilian population's enormous humanitarian needs persist, and extensive access barriers hinder the possibility for the aid that is needed to reach them.

The government will continue to actively drive the issue of unimpeded, safe, and sustained humanitarian access. This is done through our own contacts with Israel, through the EU, as well as through our multilateral partners until these requirements have been met. In addition to the dialogue with Israel, the government continues to work for measures that increase the pressure on Israel.

The right to freedom of navigation is a fundamental part of the law of the sea. At the same time, Israel has, according to the laws of war, a certain scope to stop and control ships on international waters.

Sweden and the EU are very clear that it is Israel's obligation under international law to ensure unimpeded humanitarian access. The space to stop and inspect vessels according to the laws of naval warfare does not affect this obligation.

In connection with the Israeli intervention against the naval flotilla on 30 April, the government has conveyed to Israel the importance of respecting the security and rights of Swedes, including consular rights. I have also conveyed this directly to my Israeli counterpart.

The Swedish citizen who was deprived of liberty by Israel in connection with the boarding of the flotilla is no longer deprived of liberty.

The Ministry for Foreign Affairs sent specially trained reinforcement personnel in order to support the embassies in Athens and Tel Aviv and was in continuous contact with relatives. UD has no possibility to provide consular or any other assistance at sea. If Swedish citizens are brought ashore by Israeli authorities, there is readiness to provide consular support.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thanks to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, who is here today to, in this interpellation debate, provide answers to the questions I have posed!

It is interesting, and we have probably learned quite a lot about it now, what is focused on when we receive this type of answer. I perhaps made a mistake when I brought up that a Swede was one of those detained from the flotilla, because in principle half of the answer was about the consular assistance that this Swede has received. That was not quite what I requested in my questions to the minister.

Perhaps the most interesting question, which we will never quite get to the bottom of, is whether the Foreign Minister considers that civilian humanitarian ships on international waters are covered by the right to freedom of navigation, and whether she is prepared to publicly confirm that principle in relation to flotillas with a humanitarian purpose to Gaza.

What perhaps comes closest to that question in the Foreign Minister's answer is when she says that the right to freedom of navigation is a fundamental part of the law of the sea. On that, we agree. At the same time, she continues, Israel has, according to the laws of war, a certain scope to stop and control ships on international waters.

Yes, there is such a right, but there are some things that must be fulfilled. First and foremost, there must be a naval blockade that is legal. What regulates whether naval blockades are legal or not is the San Remo Manual from 1994, where it is discussed how a blockade can be used in times of war.

Then there are five conditions that must be met. The blockade must be formally declared and publicized. It must be effectively enforced in practice. It must be applied impartially to all ships. It must not block access to neutral ports or coastlines. Nor may it stop deliveries of humanitarian aid to civilians.

The thing is that all these five conditions must be met, otherwise the naval blockade is not legal.

One could possibly claim that the first four criteria are met. But the fifth is that one must not block deliveries of humanitarian aid to civilians, and that is what this blockade has done – not only since October 7, 2023, but also for decades prior. This means that the blockade is not legal.

It also shows the rulings from the International Court of Justice that came in early 2024. In both January, March, and May, the International Court of Justice stated that both the blockade and the occupation were illegal and required unimpeded humanitarian access to Gaza.

Did we get unhindered humanitarian access to Gaza? No, we did not. That is, the blockade is still illegal.

Then there are a few exceptions where a country may legally stop a foreign vessel on international waters. It is if it is involved in piracy – which this flotilla was hardly – slave trade or unauthorized shipment, or if the vessel itself is stateless. None of these criteria were met.

One can also stop a ship if one maintains a legal blockade and acts in self-defense according to Article 51 of the UN Charter. But this blockade is, as stated, not legal. I wonder then: What right does Israel have to stop this flotilla?

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

Utrikesministern Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)

Madam Speaker! The humanitarian situation in Gaza remains very difficult, and the implementation of the peace plan unfortunately seems to be stalling. We also see that steps toward disarming Hamas are not being taken. On the contrary, Hamas seems to be strengthened instead. The government views this very seriously.

The government calls for an immediate implementation of the peace plan where Hamas must be disarmed and Israel withdraw from Gaza. Israel has a special responsibility under international humanitarian law to provide for the needs of the civilian population in Gaza and to ensure unimpeded, safe, and sustained humanitarian access.

When it comes to the international law assessment, thorough analyses have naturally been carried out by international law experts, which have concluded that Israel has some room to act. As a starting point, during an ongoing armed conflict, the laws of war generally take precedence over the international law of peace in situations where the regulatory frameworks come into conflict with each other.

It is not only the Ministry for Foreign Affairs' lawyers who have made this assessment, but I have seen it made by several others. Then, one can certainly have different opinions even on this, but that is what I lean towards.

In our contacts with Israeli representatives, we regularly convey clear messages that international law, including international humanitarian law and human rights, must be respected. We also work to ensure that the EU continues to demand that Israel take immediate, permanent, and concrete measures to provide the UN, international non-governmental organizations, and humanitarian actors with unimpeded humanitarian access. We contribute, which is not insignificant, personnel to the EU's civil mission, EU BAM Rafah, which supports the Palestinian Authority's border management at the Rafah crossing between Gaza and Egypt. We are, as is known, in different ways major donors of support to the Palestinian Authority to help them build up a capacity that is absolutely necessary for us to be able to continue working towards a two-state solution, which we must continue to do even in moments when it feels difficult and dark.

Sweden is one of the world's largest donors of humanitarian aid to Gaza. Last year, we were the largest donor in the EU. Our total humanitarian aid to Palestine since October 7, 2023, now amounts to over 2.4 billion kronor. In addition, Sweden continues to provide large core funding to several of the central humanitarian actors operating on the ground, who actually enter and who can actually deliver aid – even though we have views on the humanitarian access.

It is this that I think is so important and which sometimes disappears in the debates we have time and again in the chamber regarding the flotillas. The most important thing must surely be that when we as a government use the taxpayers' money, we ensure that as much as possible truly reaches Gaza, above all the children. I am therefore proud that we have made difficult decisions which mean that we can go via organizations that come in and can deliver the support. In addition to what I mentioned earlier, we continue to provide core support to several of the central humanitarian actors that are active.

The government will continue to work to increase the pressure on Israel in various ways. We do it bilaterally, and we do it through the EU and other multilateral forums, while simultaneously contributing concrete life-saving and emergency relief humanitarian aid on the ground.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for Foreign Affairs for the answer.

Sometimes one is reminded by the Speaker to stick to the topic of the debate. At the beginning of the Foreign Minister's response, I wondered whether the Speaker would intervene or not because the speech began to deal with Hamas and the peace plans. Then, however, the Foreign Minister did get to what we are talking about, namely the assessment of whether Israel has the right to act in international waters or not.

Lawyers make absolutely different types of assessments. One might eventually conclude that Israel has the right to board the ships. But then it is about boarding the ships to inspect them, to ensure that weapons are not being smuggled. The consequence after the boarding and inspection of the ships – what should be done then? Well, then they should be released and granted free passage to the occupied area.

We are not quite reaching the logical conclusion. We are not in agreement on whether Israel is allowed to board or not. I believe that it is not allowed because the blockade itself is illegal. The ships do not meet the conditions for when a ship can be stopped in international waters.

Of course, there may be lawyers at UD who make other types of assessments, namely that Israel is allowed to stop and inspect the ships. But what do the lawyers say one should do once the boats have been inspected? Should one take into custody those who are on board the boats and seize the boats? Or should one release the boats and let them pass when it is seen that the cargo consists solely of humanitarian aid?

We return to that question all the time. I do not question Sweden's humanitarian aid today. I know that Sweden provides a lot of money in humanitarian aid. We have debated, for example, UNRWA in the chamber many times, but that is not what the debate is about today. Here, it is about Israel's actions in international waters and the consequences of those.

I miss a powerful condemnation. People talk about exerting pressure to increase the number of border crossings. It is not the border crossings I want to talk about today, but I want to talk about sea access regarding humanitarian aid.

I miss the powerful condemnation, and I also miss what the consequences will be towards Israel when international law is violated. The powerful condemnation is required to have a normative effect even on other conflicts. Even if Sweden alone cannot get Israel to stop the war against the Palestinians, one must be able to direct condemnations. They contribute.

Let us conduct a thought experiment. Say that the flotilla had been on its way to the blocked or occupied Mariupol in eastern Ukraine and Russia had boarded the ship. What kind of statement do we think we would have heard from the government?

Or do another thought experiment. Say it is the Red Cross or Doctors Without Borders who are on their way to Gaza, and they are stopped and taken prisoner in that manner. What kind of condemnation would we have heard from the government then?

International law must apply regardless of who commits crimes against it, and it must apply regardless of which humanitarian aid workers are subjected to the crimes. One cannot make distinctions.

I still want to get an answer: What should be done with the ships once they have been boarded? What does international law say? How would it look if Russia stopped similar ships with Swedes on board in the Black Sea?

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

Utrikesministern Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)

Madam Speaker! As I mentioned earlier, Israel has a certain scope under the laws of war to stop and control ships on international waters and take measures to establish its naval blockade. Such measures must be necessary, and they must be proportionate.

We do not in this situation have sufficient information to be able to assess that Israel has exceeded that scope. There is a right to a naval blockade in connection with an armed conflict that continues to persist, that is to say, despite the fact that a ceasefire is in place.

It is interesting that my answers, both in writing and in the debate, are being reviewed. From the interpellator came questions about diplomatic measures. In that case, I chose to answer that, and I received criticism for it. It is not always as easy as a minister to try to answer the questions. On the other hand, I realize that I possibly did not quite answer the question about journalists, and I will return to that in the next post.

Then it was a question of diplomatic measures. After Israel intervened against the naval flotilla off Crete on April 30, we promptly contacted Israeli representatives to clarify Sweden's expectation that the rights of Swedish citizens, including consular rights, are also respected. I have also conveyed this to my Israeli counterpart over the phone. UD also sent down, as I said, specially trained reinforcement personnel to both Athens and Tel Aviv for their consular work to assist participating Swedes. Furthermore, UD was in contact with relatives.

As mentioned, there was a Spanish-Swedish citizen who was deprived of liberty by Israel. Sweden was then in continuous contact with both Spanish and Israeli authorities regarding this. That person was deported on May 10 to Athens for further travel to Spain, where they had previously been residing.

As the interpellor probably understands, this draws a lot of resources from the Ministry for Foreign Affairs. I must say that I am somewhat questioning that one time and again, despite knowing what the result will be, chooses to continue to make that type of trip. If one really wants to help, and if one feels a desperation that the help is not reaching sufficiently, should one not then go through the channels one knows have greater chances of succeeding, rather than time and again making the same trip that one knows will not succeed? I question that.

Let me conclude by saying something about reviewing the answers. I raised the question about Hamas in my previous post, and I am somewhat questioning that the interpellor, when it concerns an interpellation that largely concerns Gaza, does not think it is relevant to talk about Hamas or the peace plans for Gaza. It is certainly relevant, not least for getting in humanitarian aid. But it is somewhat significant for the left side that they do not want to talk about Hamas's responsibility for the terrible situation that has arisen after October 7.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for Foreign Affairs for the answer.

I am happy to discuss Hamas, and I welcome the additional sanctions that were directed against a number of Hamas leaders a few weeks ago from the EU. Sweden has also been proactive there. We can have a discussion about Hamas's part in the conflict later.

But that is not quite the question I want to address today. We cannot talk about the entire conflict because we do not have time for that. We would need a couple of days of seminar to get to the bottom of that question.

What I am looking for, and what I try to return to all the time, is this right that the Foreign Minister speaks of: that one has a certain space to stop and control ships. Yes, but what happens then? What is to be done with those ships? What is to be done with those who are on board? The law of the sea does not give Israel permission to apprehend or kidnap, depending on which word we want to use, these persons and bring them to Israel – unless one discovers that they have, for example, weapons on board or that they are engaged in drug smuggling or piracy. They do not.

The Foreign Minister also says that we do not know if one has exceeded the space that one has here. I think it is very clear. Not a single one of all the people that Israel has detained in these flotillas has been prosecuted in Israel. It is a bit strange. If Israel is so careful that they break Israeli law, why then has not a single person been prosecuted according to Israeli law?

When it comes to the fact that it requires many resources, there is also an opportunity to question in what way we provide support and that we, for example, do not provide support to UNRWA. But I do not want to talk about the resources required from UD and so on.

I still want to know: What happens when Israel has boarded these ships and discovers that there is nothing on board that contributes to the conflict? What should be done then? What does international law say?

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

Utrikesministern Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)

Madam Speaker! We certainly have reason to return to this legal analysis. But I want to remind the interpellator that Israel, once the convoys had been noticed, clearly designated ports where they could dock. And Israel has committed to taking care of the humanitarian aid that is on board in order to bring it into Gaza. This may possibly have an impact on the legal proportionality assessment that I previously mentioned should be made.

The Government continues, regardless, to push for measures that increase the pressure on Israel and which at the same time do not hinder the implementation of the ceasefire in Gaza. The UN and other humanitarian actors shall be able to work independently and impartially to save lives and reduce suffering. The Government has consistently, both bilaterally and through the EU, underlined Israel's obligation to act in accordance with international law, including international humanitarian law.

Support does not have to be let in by sea. According to the laws of war, Israel, according to the legal assessment we have made, has some room to stop and control ships on international waters. Israel also has the right to take measures to maintain its naval blockade.

In conclusion: Since I do not think I have fully answered the question regarding journalists – even though it has not come up here – I want to mention that the government has for a long time demanded that journalists be granted access and be able to work safely and securely in Gaza. It is incredibly important so that we can know what the situation on the ground actually looks like. We do this in direct contacts with Israel, in the EU, and multilaterally. Sweden is the third largest donor in the world to free and independent media. It is not insignificant, Madam Speaker.

The interpellations debate was hereby concluded.

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