Response to interpellation 2025/26:58 on Somalia
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 Swedish aid can be conditioned on recipient countries cooperating in the repatriation of citizens who lack the right to stay in Sweden 1. 2 M emphasizes that dialogue with partner countries is a given and that aid policy should be closely linked with migration policy 2. 3 M asserts that 100 million kronor is a small part of the total budget 3. 4 M argues that there is no conflict between health and democracy 4 and that the support for Somalia's national development plan is about promoting reforms and sustainable economic development 4. 5 C considers the government's aid policy to be extremely inconsistent 5.
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! Anna Lasses has asked me what the agreement looks like between Sweden and Somalia and when it was concluded, if there are similar agreements with other countries that involve countries' ability to direct aid in exchange for them accepting persons who are unwanted in Sweden, and if so which ones, if a consolidated report will be made of this support for repatriation via aid and if this has been reported to OECD-DAC, if the statements made by Somalia's Prime Minister have any impact on the Swedish aid to public administration in Somalia and if the ministers have held a dialogue with Sida regarding the process concerning the 60 million kronor for UNDP's project in the Somali public administration and what the dialogue in that case contained.
The government has been clear that Swedish development aid can be conditioned in order for the recipient country to follow international law principles and cooperate with Sweden in matters regarding the repatriation of its own citizens. It is not about whether someone is wanted or unwanted, but about persons who, according to authority decisions, do not have the right to stay in Sweden. In Sweden's broad partnership with Somalia, as with several other countries, dialogue on the migration area is also included. The purpose is to reach a consensus on common commitments, where the repatriation of Somali citizens who lack the right to stay in Sweden is an important part.
All aid-funded activities shall be reported to OECD-DAC, including the current World Bank and UNDP interventions, which among other things concern support for the implementation of Somalia's national development plan. They are also reported on openaid.se. A consolidated statement of results of the government's policy is submitted annually in the budget bill.
It is Sida and the embassies that prepare and decide on individual interventions in the implementation of the government's strategies for development cooperation. The government and UD have a regular dialogue with Sida regarding the implementation of the government's strategies. Furthermore, the partner countries' ownership is central to effective development cooperation. That several actors from Somalia are involved in discussions about various interventions is therefore a matter of course.
The Government strongly distances itself from all forms of antisemitism and all types of Hamas-related activities.
Anna Lasses (C)
Madam Speaker! I shall try not to repeat everything that was said in the previous debate – just a little bit.
It is difficult not to be surprised by the government's obviously unclear and inconsistent management of aid.
On the one hand, the government speaks passionately in favor of transparency, clarity, and efficiency. It should be simple for the Swedish taxpayer to see where the money goes. Likewise, high-risk projects should be avoided when it comes to more long-term development projects. The principles of the rule of law shall prevail, and corruption is a red flag.
On the other hand, much of this does not seem to apply when it comes to the goal of linking migration policy with aid policy. In the struggle to deport those persons who, according to the decision, are not to stay in Sweden – that is absolutely the case – one seems prepared to resort to all available methods. How else is one to explain this with the 100 million kronor that have been given to Somalia, which is the world's second most corrupt country? The Prime Minister himself has been involved and given his opinion on the project's direction. The country is thus considered a high-risk country. This is at the same time as the government has chosen to terminate long-term development projects in precisely high-risk countries, such as Myanmar, Cambodia, Burkina Faso, Mali, Afghanistan, South Sudan and Palestine.
It is not enough to hide behind the World Bank or various UN bodies – that they are the ones who have implemented this. They certainly do an excellent job and do as good things as possible with the money. It is the very approach, the basis, and the decisions that are inconsistent and actually directly strange.
At the same time as the government sets ever higher requirements, for example that civil society should administer themselves into exhaustion to show that the money does not under any circumstances end up in corrupt hands, the government chooses, for example, to indirectly pay the salaries of the Somali prime minister's relatives. These are salaries that, in job-creating projects, could support several hundred people in the same country.
There is a question that has grown ever stronger during the autumn as this scandal has grown. What if the government has to choose between, on one hand, deporting the illegal migrants we have here who should not be here, and on the other hand, projects that promote democracy and reduced poverty. What does one choose then when it comes to the aid money?
Then I must say that the answers the Minister for Foreign Affairs gave rather raise more questions. Let me start by rephrasing two of the questions, which the Minister and the Government should be able to answer. For the first, the Minister implies in his answer that there are other agreements similar to the one with Somalia or at least that it is on the way. Which countries are they? For the second, the Somali Prime Minister's statements have been directly antisemitic and pro-Hamas. Has that in any way affected these 100-million projects?
Bistånds- och utrikeshandelsministern Benjamin Dousa (M)
Madam Speaker! I shall take my constitutional responsibility and try to answer all these questions as thoroughly as is possible. I am trying to understand Anna Lasses' questions and trying to sort them.
We can start with corruption. If we cannot carry out aid efforts in corrupt countries, we cannot have any aid work at all. All the countries where we are currently carrying out aid efforts are more corrupt than Sweden. And much of our aid work is precisely aimed at reducing corruption.
When it comes to Swedish tax money and ensuring that this is transparent and visible and can be scrutinized by the Riksdag, by journalists and by taxpayers, I can say that we are further developing Openaid. All these efforts will be fully transparent. One can vote as one wishes and make one's own assessment, whether one thinks that these are sensibly spent funds or not.
The second part concerns the World Bank and UNDP. We can start with the World Bank fund. Sweden has, therefore, supported the same fund previously. It is nothing new. It is a good fund. We would have gladly contributed all those 100 million kronor to that specific World Bank fund. The problem was that it was not possible. We only managed to pay out 40 million before it was no longer possible to top up. We then, of course, had a dialogue with Somalia about what other solutions existed. The embassy and Sida then came to UNDP. As said: UNDP is a UN organization. There is nothing strange about UNDP. We have financed them with billions in many complex and corrupt environments all around the world. We have great confidence in UNDP and their activities and assume that they also deliver on their own promises of zero tolerance towards corruption, just like the World Bank.
Then it comes to the dialogue with the country. I mean that it is a self-evident matter that one has a dialogue even in very complex environments. We do not only have that with Somalia. We have it with large parts of the African continent and, for that part, in other geographical contexts where we carry out aid work.
That having a dialogue does not mean that we do as the government tells us, but rather that we have a dialogue regarding which priority areas they see from their side. We also, of course, have contact with civil society organizations, the EU, and other countries that also carry out aid work on site. For me, it is a matter of course to have contact with other countries regarding how they view their own country's development and what they see as major needs.
When it comes to building a coherent migration policy and aid policy, this was very clear in the Tidö Agreement. We have a new migration strategy. One may think it is good or bad, I have full respect for that, but it is an important part of the government's foreign policy that the aid policy should not be a separate satellite living its own little life, but rather that it should be closely linked with significantly more policy areas.
There are other examples. Why do we prioritize Ukraine as much as we do? Next year, we will approach 20 percent of the total aid budget. It is clear that we feel very strongly in solidarity with Ukraine, but it has at least as much to do with national Swedish security interests, that is to say that Ukraine also defends us here at home in Sweden. We have been transparent about that from the very beginning.
When it comes to antisemitic and Hamas-supporting comments, we take a powerful stand against all types of terror romanticism, both here at home in Sweden and in other countries. It is not entirely uncommon with that type of sympathy in parts of this region, and that is why not a single krona of the aid budget has gone to the prime minister or any other politician but, as said, via the World Bank and UNDP.
Anna Lasses (C)
Madam Speaker! Thank you very much to the Minister for the answers! It was very interesting.
I agree that we obviously cannot conduct aid policy without having contact with corrupt states. That is how reality looks. But when the government has spoken about aid, it is precisely this that is highlighted: that we are not to approach those who engage in corruption under any circumstances. Then it becomes very inconsistent and difficult to understand.
So, it has been said that one should not invest in risky projects. This is a risky project – every expert you speak to says that if you work in Somalia, you can expect a fairly low return. What remains is that the government chooses this because it can be linked to migration policy. The interpretation one gets is that all of this is okay as long as it can be linked to migration policy.
I really hope that is not the case, because in a world where aid is decreasing significantly and Sweden is becoming an increasingly important aid donor, it is extremely important to truly prioritize correctly. Given the developments occurring in the world, it is about finding projects that increase democracy and the rule of law's ability to survive.
Then it becomes very strange when the government says that we should not engage in risky projects – but right here we are going to, because here we see the opportunity to link it with the migration policy. It doesn't rhyme well. It has nothing to do with what I think, but it is an illogical reasoning.
I know that the government takes a strong stand against antisemitism and Hamas-sympathy, but what I can state is that one shuts down all support related to UNRWA because there are officials far down in the structure who may have made Hamas statements, while at the same time one can have projects in Somalia where there is a prime minister who is openly antisemitic. It is very strange and not consistent.
Of course we should provide support to Ukraine; I believe we all agree on that. If anything, it is about both solidarity and pure security for Sweden.
Bistånds- och utrikeshandelsministern Benjamin Dousa (M)
Madam Speaker! Now we are not going to make this a long UNRWA debate. I am happy to take those in other interpellation debates.
We have financed much important activity in Gaza despite the de facto rule and the terrorist organization Hamas's very anti-Semitic stance, and I want to clarify the difference between UNRWA and, for example, the sister organization UNDP – which, moreover, also carries out important work in Gaza and which we continue to support – and the World Bank. One must distinguish between organization and geographical context. Had we seen anti-Semitic and terror-glorifying comments from the World Bank or UNDP in Somalia, it would have been a completely different matter than if the country's rule had made such comments. If one were to equate the two geographical contexts, which I do not, we should, with that rhetoric, not have any aid to Gaza at all.
When it comes to approaching corruption, the country in question has major problems with corruption, just like many countries where we carry out aid work, including middle-income countries. However, we have not received any reports that UNDP or the World Bank in Somalia would have major problems with corruption. Should we receive that type of report, we would of course act immediately, and so would Sida and our embassy.
When it comes to the big macro question, namely democracy and poverty reduction, it is about having several thoughts in your head at the same time. To get some perspective on that, we are now standing and debating 100 million in a budget of 56 billion. Very much money goes to poverty reduction, democracy and MR activists all around the world, and much goes to things that do not directly have to do with this. Our major core support when it comes to SRHR and, for example, to the climate funds may not have a direct connection to democracy, but it contributes to a better planet to live on. One must, therefore, be able to have several thoughts in your head at the same time.
This is about a debate regarding 100 million in a budget that totals 56 billion.
Anna Lasses (C)
Madam Speaker! I really want to emphasize that I am not placing any blame on the UNDP and the World Bank. They do an excellent job regardless of whether they do it in Somalia, Palestine, or wherever it is. I have full confidence in them.
This is not a UNRWA debate; I only took it as an example, but I must nevertheless take away that the Minister for Foreign Affairs clearly and distinctly established that UNRWA is obviously a terrorist organization.
I must also say that SRHR and climate are, to the highest degree, democracy work. How can the Minister for Foreign Affairs stand and say that SRHR, which in some way is fundamental to women's conditions, is not democracy work? If anything, it is democracy work, but on another level. The same thing with the climate – if climate change is allowed to continue, there will basically be nothing, so if anything, that is also democracy work. Most of it can probably be classified as democracy work.
100 million is absolutely a small part of the budget, but if one has several such agreements, it quickly becomes more money.
I definitely respect that we have different views on things. But I can still state that the government's aid policy, from an outside perspective, is extremely inconsistent. We will definitely continue to examine this case and other cases if such occur. This is not okay.
Bistånds- och utrikeshandelsministern Benjamin Dousa (M)
Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by quickly clarifying two things where I believe Anna Lasses put words in my mouth, not interpreted entirely nicely.
I have never said that UNRWA is a terrorist organization. What I said was that we have seen confirmed cases of Hamas sympathies and terror romanticism among UNRWA employees. That does not mean that all of UNRWA would be a terrorist organization.
Then there was the question of SRHR and climate work; if we have no planet, there is also no democracy. What I mean is that with the help of aid, we should ensure that girls and young women can access safe abortions. It is primarily about health. If one feels well, one can also engage in democracy and vote. If one is dead, one cannot vote. Sure, we can interpret it that way, but in those issues, there is no conflict between us. That's that.
Everything is public on Openaid, and everything is with UNDP and the World Bank. The Multi-Partner Trust Fund, which Sweden has previously supported, and the support for Somalia's national development plan are about promoting reforms in the public sector, building institutional capacity, and supporting leadership and digital transformation for improved governance and sustainable economic development. It is exactly what we do in many other countries that are also characterized by a high degree of corruption, which also have leadership that hails movements that are far from Swedish values, but that is how we achieve real change. This is not an aid work that is more different than what we do in many other contexts. The new thing is that we also condition the support on that one accepts its own citizens, and I think that is a matter of course.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.