Response to interpellations 2025/26:298 and 311 on Sweden's position on Western Sahara
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns Sweden's position on Western Sahara. M supports Morocco's autonomy plan as a credible basis for negotiations in a UN-led process 1 2 3. M argues that Sweden follows a broad majority of EU countries and that the rules-based world order is upheld by following a new UN resolution 1 4. M emphasizes that international law is firm and that the Western Saharawis have a right to self-determination 4. M confirms that the government stands behind the International Court of Justice's decision 3. MP considers that Morocco does not have sovereignty over the area and that the Western Saharawis have a right to self-determination and their own state 5 6. MP argues that it is wrong to support the autonomy plan because it does not lead to self-determination 7. MP criticizes Morocco for occupation and human rights violations 7 8. MP demands that the government distance itself from the occupation and provide direct aid to refugees 8. V regrets that the government is taking the side of the occupying power and deviating from its previous position 9. V argues that the autonomy plan deprives the Western Saharawis of the right to independence and that the government ignores the Western Saharawis' response to the plan 9.
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)
Mr. Speaker! Jacob Risberg has asked me why I and the government have changed Sweden's position on the issue of Western Sahara, whether I have taken the initiative for an analysis of how Sweden's position on Western Sahara relates to international law, and if I can, in that case, account for the result. He has also asked whether I intend to act so that the Western Saharawis shall receive the right to self-determination and the right to their own country in the entire Western Saharan territory.
Furthermore, Lotta Johnsson Fornarve has asked me about the reason why I and the government have abandoned the previous line regarding Western Sahara, whether I and the government support the International Court of Justice's decision regarding the Western Saharawis' fundamental right to their own land, and whether I and the government distance ourselves from Morocco's illegal occupation of Western Sahara.
Through the resolution adopted by the UN Security Council in October 2025 regarding Western Sahara, we find ourselves in a new situation where a possible solution to the long-standing and difficult-to-solve conflict is within reach.
The resolution marks a shift by highlighting Morocco's autonomy plan as a credible basis for negotiations and a broader UN process, led by the UN envoy for Western Sahara: Staffan de Mistura.
After 50 years of conflict and humanitarian crisis, a sustainable solution is more than welcome. Sweden wants to be involved and contribute to such a solution. In light of the UN resolution, Sweden therefore expresses support for Morocco's autonomy plan as a credible basis for negotiations between the parties.
Sweden's position in international law remains firm. We give our full support to the UN envoy's work to achieve a sustainable and just political solution within the framework of the UN-led process. Such a solution must be compatible with the UN Charter, be mutually accepted, and satisfy the Western Saharan people's right to self-determination.
We have had talks with both Polisario and Algeria where we have clarified our position. We urge the parties to engage in the negotiations and contribute constructively to find a solution in accordance with the Security Council resolution.
Through this change of position, we join a broad majority of other EU countries, including our neighboring countries Denmark and Finland, which have already previously taken a similar position.
Jacob Risberg (MP)
Mr. Speaker! I thank the Minister for Foreign Affairs for being here and answering the interpellations. I also thank my co-interpellator Lotta Johnsson Fornarve.
In a statement from the UD on January 19 regarding Western Sahara, the government departs from a long Swedish tradition of standing up for international law. In the statement, the government expresses explicit support for the Moroccan autonomy plan "as a credible basis for negotiations to reach a mutually acceptable, sustainable and just political solution in accordance with the UN Charter and which meets the Western Saharan people's right to self-determination."
This is a very serious, unfortunate and illegal shift by the Swedish government in the issue of Western Sahara. This step will negatively affect and undermine the UN-led political process that is currently ongoing in the USA and in the UN. Polisario is on site to negotiate with the UN.
In the issue of Western Sahara, Sweden has over the years had a consistent and clear position based on international law and emphasizing the people of Western Sahara's right to self-determination. Sweden has also been proactive in ensuring that the EU adheres to international law. In cases where international courts, for example the International Court of Justice and the Court of Justice of the EU, have commented on Western Sahara, they have been unequivocal: Morocco does not have sovereignty over Western Sahara. Most recently in October 2024, this was clear in a judgment by the Court of Justice of the EU in a case concerning the EU's trade agreement with Morocco. The legal support for the Western Saharan people's right to their own territory and their own natural resources was so strong that the court made the unique decision to even overturn the agreement between the EU and Morocco.
The Swedish government constantly returns in its statements to the fact that international law shall apply. This has been clarified, not least in statements regarding, for example, the USA's actions in Venezuela and regarding Greenland. Therefore, it becomes extremely strange that the government, despite the courts' clarity on Western Sahara, goes in the exact opposite direction. Morocco has no sovereignty over Western Sahara, which of course also means that Morocco in no way can dictate Western Sahara's future. But it is exactly what the government now ignores when it clearly takes a stand for just Morocco's future plans for Western Sahara's future instead of starting from the Western Saharan people and its representative Polisario.
My questions to the Minister for Foreign Affairs were – some of them were not accepted by the Riksdag's Chamber Office and are therefore not included in the interpellation: Why has the government changed its position? In what way is the government's line to respect and defend international law and the rules-based world order compatible with taking a position on the Western Sahara issue that stands in sharp contrast to the statements of the international courts? What impact assessment has the government made of how this action risks weakening international law in a situation where it is subject to heavy attacks from several sides? Does the government consider that the Western Saharawis still have a right to self-determination and a right to their own land in the entire Western Saharan territory? What signals does the Minister for Foreign Affairs think this gives other occupying powers – this question I was not allowed to include – regarding how they can act in occupied territory and what rights they have to the area's resources, for example in eastern Ukraine, Palestine or Tibet?
Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)
Mr. Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer to my interpellation. I also thank Jacob Risberg for reacting, just as I have, to this statement regarding Western Sahara.
I deeply regret that the Swedish government has now taken the side of the occupying power and given its explicit support to Morocco's autonomy plan for Western Sahara and considers the plan to be a credible basis for negotiations. It is a serious departure from Sweden's previous position on the Western Sahara issue. Sweden has previously consistently stood up for international law and the Western Saharawis' right to self-determination.
I wonder if the government has actually seen and received the Moroccan plan in its entirety. If not, one can ask how the government can stand behind it.
If Morocco's autonomy plan is to constitute the basis for the negotiations, it means that the Western Saharawis in Africa's last colony will be deprived of the right to self-determination and independence. A decolonization process that started in the 1960s with the support of the UN General Assembly has been stalled after decades of work. It means that a long-term occupation pays off. Is that how we are to view international law? Shall we grant a brutal occupying power the right?
It is obvious that the government has not requested the Western Saharawis' response to Morocco's plan. Polisario, which is the Western Saharawis' legitimate representative, rejects the autonomy plan because it excludes independence as an alternative and presupposes Moroccan sovereignty over the territory. The Western Saharawis are thus denied the right to decide their own future. This would be a massive betrayal of the hard-hit Western Saharawi people.
Western Sahara has been illegally occupied by Morocco since 1975 – against the UN's will and against the decision of the International Court of Justice in The Hague. Western Sahara is recognized by the UN as a non-self-governing territory. When Spain withdrew in 1975, Morocco annexed the territory, despite an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice confirming the Western Saharan people's right to self-determination. After years of conflict, a ceasefire and a UN-led referendum based on a clear agreement, where the people of Western Sahara would be allowed to choose their future, was decided in 1991. Due to Morocco's sabotage and stalling tactics, that referendum has still not taken place. But it remains the only internationally agreed solution that exists.
In the occupied part of Western Sahara, the Western Saharawis are subjected to persecution and enormous oppression. The restrictions on freedom of expression and the violations of human rights are very extensive. Western Sahara's natural resources are exploited without the people's consent. A large part of the population has been forced to flee out into the Sahara desert, where they still live under very difficult conditions.
That the government supports Morocco's proposal means that it ignores the serious situation prevailing and risks legitimizing an ongoing occupation. I want to hear why Sweden is deviating from its previous line regarding the view on Western Sahara and international law. I want to know if Sweden's government stands behind the decision in the International Court of Justice in The Hague regarding Western Sahara's right to self-determination. I want to receive an answer on whether the Foreign Minister distances himself from Morocco's brutal occupation of Western Sahara. I also want to know how the government concretely intends to work for the Western Saharawis' right to self-determination.
Utrikesministern Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)
Mr. Speaker! For Sweden's security and the stability of the world around us, it is absolutely crucial that the rules-based world order and international law, including the UN Charter, are upheld. It is Sweden's firm conviction that international law, including the UN Charter, constitutes necessary tools to achieve peaceful solutions to conflicts in general. This also applies to the long-standing conflict in Western Sahara.
Sweden's position in international law remains firm. Sweden stands fully and completely behind the Western Saharan people's right to self-determination, something that has also been established by the International Court of Justice in The Hague in its opinion from 1975.
What the interpellants seem to completely ignore is the Security Council resolution that was adopted in October. That is perhaps not the usual situation. It is more common for the government to be accused of not respecting UN resolutions. In this case, it is something that has happened there that the opposition chooses to completely ignore. It makes the debate a bit more difficult.
The resolution from October 2025 provides a framework for the negotiations and does not comment on a specific solution. The Government expresses its support for the autonomy plan as part of a UN-led process led by the UN envoy for Western Sahara Staffan de Mistura.
In line with the Security Council resolution, the solution being negotiated must be compatible with the UN Charter, be mutually accepted by the parties, and satisfy the Western Saharan people's right to self-determination. The exact forms for this are a matter for the parties.
Furthermore, it was only China, Pakistan and Russia that abstained in the vote on the resolution. It is an interesting company that the opposition joins here, one must observe.
With and by the shift in position that the government has now made, we place ourselves on the same side as our closest like-minded [countries]. We are together with Finland, Denmark, the United Kingdom, France, Estonia, Poland, the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany and now also the EU.
Sweden stands up for international law. We do so everywhere in the world regardless of geographical context. We will continue to do so.
I intend to conclude by answering the questions that Jacob Risberg was not allowed to ask for the Riksdag.
The important thing here is to achieve a mutually accepted solution where the Western Saharan people's right to self-determination is met. It is now about a UN-led process whose explicit goal is to reach a solution in accordance with the UN Charter itself. It differs from the situation regarding Ukraine, where there is no corresponding Security Council resolution or UN process to lean on.
The Western Saharan people, just like the Palestinian population, have a right to self-determination. The UN has established this right but, unlike in the case of Palestine, has not formulated whether the ultimate goal shall be independence, autonomy, or integration.
Jacob Risberg (MP)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Minister for Foreign Affairs, for the answer!
I definitely understand that the shift from the government comes from the security resolution that arrived in October. There is absolutely no doubt about that at all.
We also know that it is the USA that has pushed through the resolution. It was that country that already in 2020, during Trump's first term as president, recognized Western Sahara as part of the Moroccan territory. There is already a clear view there on how the conflict should be resolved. I do not think that is anything good to follow.
It is the Security Council that shall interpret the UN Charter, and it shall be followed. But that does not in any way set aside international law. The Security Council can say what it wants, and there will be a legal tension surrounding that. But there are still things that apply.
The people's right to self-determination and a prohibition against annexation is jus cogens, it is compelling international law regardless of what the UN Security Council says. The interpretation regarding Western Sahara does not disappear just because the Security Council makes a different type of statement.
Then we also have the European Court of Justice's ruling. It is directly binding for Sweden as a member state in the EU. We must follow the court's ruling. There, they were so clear that they even overturned an agreement, something the court has never done before, precisely because of the Western Saharans' right to their own land and to their own resources. It was something that the EU Commission had disregarded.
Then one leans on the UN Charter. It is clear that it is what we should do. It is what we must return to, in addition to all other international law. There we have Chapter 11, which deals precisely with non-self-governing territories.
The UN Charter was established during a time when there were still many colonies. That was known. It was about: How do we decolonize these areas?
In 1963, Western Sahara was put on the list of areas to be decolonized. Spain had a plan for when it would leave. But the Moroccans did not follow that, but instead they entered and occupied the country.
What is interesting to hear is that one constantly speaks about Morocco's autonomy plan. It is also said that the Western Saharawis have a right to self-determination. Does one then envision a self-determination under Moroccan sovereignty, or does one see the ultimate goal as a Western Saharan state?
It is an enormous difference. It is precisely the sovereignty that the judges have been very clear about. Morocco does not have sovereignty over Western Sahara.
The Western Saharawis have a right to their own territory, and they have a right to their own resources. They have a right to self-determination within that territory. They simply have a right to their own state.
Just saying that the Western Saharawis have a right to self-determination is not enough. It is not in line with what the International Court of Justice has said regarding that Morocco does not have sovereignty over Western Saharan territory.
Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the further answer, Minister!
It is not sufficient. Supporting Morocco's autonomy plan for Western Sahara is not compatible with international law and is a clear departure from Sweden's previous position. Taking the side of the occupying power is not a solution to the conflict, as the minister claims.
I want to know why the Swedish government has changed its position on this important issue. I do not think we have received any really clear answer to that.
The Minister says in his answer: "We give our full support to the UN envoy's work to achieve a sustainable and just solution within the framework of the UN-led process. Such a solution must be compatible with the UN Charter, be mutually accepted and satisfy the West Saharan people's right to self-determination."
The problem is that this position is inconsistent with backing one party's proposal, namely Morocco's autonomy plan. The other party, Polisario, which is the representative of the Western Saharan people, has not accepted that solution but is, on the contrary, strongly critical.
It is not difficult to understand, because the proposal will not lead to the Western Saharan people's right to self-determination. In other words, there is no mutual acceptance in giving one's support to the occupying power's proposal while simultaneously highlighting the right to self-determination. It does not add up. The two proposals cannot coexist.
The Western Saharawis have today lived for 50 years under Morocco's occupation and in refugee camps in the Sahara desert. During this time, Morocco has unhinderedly exploited Western Sahara's natural resources, built up relations with strategically important countries, and at the same time committed extensive human rights violations against the Western Saharan population.
The occupation violates international law, UN resolutions, and the ruling from the International Court of Justice in The Hague. The basis for the occupation is obvious. It is about Morocco wanting to continue to seize Western Sahara's rich natural resources, primarily phosphate and fishing.
One of the world's largest phosphate deposits is located in occupied Western Sahara. The fishing waters off the coast belong to the richest in the world. That is the reason for the long-standing and brutal occupation. I want to remind that the Western Saharans' natural resources do not belong to the occupying power Morocco, but to the people of Western Sahara.
Sweden's support for Morocco's autonomy plan, which refers to Security Council resolution 2797, represents a significant departure from Sweden's historical line. It means that Sweden is now providing political support to a proposal from the Moroccan occupying power, even though Western Sahara is, according to the UN, a non-self-governing territory with a right to self-determination. I still want to hear why Sweden is deviating from its previous line.
I also want to know if the Swedish government stands behind the decision in the International Court of Justice in The Hague regarding the Western Saharawis' right to self-determination. If the government does, I want to know how the government concretely intends to work for the Western Saharawis' right to self-determination. I also want to know if the Foreign Minister distances himself from Morocco's brutal occupation of Western Sahara.
Utrikesministern Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)
Mr. Speaker! Sweden is a strong voice for democracy and human rights in the world. After more than 50 years of conflict, a political solution to the Western Sahara issue that is consistent with international law and the UN Charter would be extremely positive for stability and economic development in the region and for reducing the suffering of the civilian population. Sweden therefore gives its full support to the UN and Staffan de Mistura to lead this process, whose explicit goal is a solution in accordance with the UN Charter.
As appears from the resolution in the UN Security Council, the autonomy plan is a credible basis for negotiations. The goal of the negotiations is to reach a solution that is accepted by the parties, which is compatible with the UN Charter and which satisfies the Western Saharan people's right to self-determination – which we stand behind. The balance between the parties' positions and Moroccan control and Western Saharan self-determination is probably the most important part now for the negotiations between the parties that the UN shall lead.
Refugees from Western Sahara have lived in camps near the Algerian city of Tindouf in southern Algeria since 1975. Over the years, Sweden has contributed to the operations through core funding to several UN agencies on site. We can be proud that we are one of the largest donors of core funding to the UN refugee agency UNHCR, the UN food programme World Food Programme, and the UN children's fund Unicef, all of which conduct operations in the Western Saharan refugee camps.
Furthermore, the government has close contact with the UN envoy de Mistura to ensure maximum political support to move forward on the issue. I met him myself quite recently. We are also investigating various possibilities to provide additional support to the UN's and de Mistura's work on the Western Sahara issue. It is indispensable for the parties to reach a solution.
Mr. Speaker! Lotta Johnsson Fornarve still seems not to have noted that the Security Council adopted a resolution on the issue in October. Jacob Risberg obviously thinks that one should ignore this Security Council resolution. My question to Jacob Risberg then naturally becomes which other resolutions he thinks one should ignore.
Jacob Risberg (MP)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you, once again, to the Minister for Foreign Affairs for the answer!
I can start by saying no – I am not setting aside this UN resolution. However, there are two legal systems running in parallel here. One cannot ignore people's right to self-determination just because the UN Security Council thinks otherwise. It is important to remember that.
There is much that is important in the UN resolution, which, among other things, gives MINURSO an extended mandate. It was needed. MINURSO was needed on the ground. One of MINURSO's primary tasks is to ensure that the referendum that was supposed to take place at least 35 years ago can occur and show what the Western Saharawis themselves think.
That other countries think the same thing as Sweden does does not make it more right. I think it is a rather poor argument. What is happening now – the Foreign Minister herself brings this up almost as if she read my thoughts – is about the balance in the upcoming negotiations. But what balance will there be if most countries have already taken Morocco's side in this issue? Why does one choose to support one party's proposal for a solution instead of the other party's? Why does one stand behind a country that is not a democracy?
Morocco is a country that occupies another people's territory, a country that imprisons dissidents, a country that tortures and detains political activists, journalists and migrants. It is a country that treats the Sahrawis as if they were second-class citizens in their own country, a country that sucks out phosphates and other resources and keeps the entire profit for itself, a country that fishes out the Western Saharans' waters.
Even regarding the question of Israel–Palestine, where we know that we have very different opinions on the path toward a sustainable solution, we are indeed in agreement that the only solution that exists is a two-state solution. I would like to know whether the Foreign Minister thinks that a two-state solution is feasible here as well.
Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)
Mr. Speaker! I have truly noted Security Council resolution 2797, which describes Morocco's autonomy plan as credible and feasible. If Sweden adopts this framework, one risks undermining decades of the UN's work for the Western Saharan people's right to self-determination. It simply does not add up to stand behind both the autonomy plan and the Western Saharans' right to self-determination.
Sweden's support for Morocco's autonomy plan represents a significant departure from Sweden's historical line and means that Sweden is now providing political support to a proposal from the Moroccan occupying power, even though Western Sahara, according to the UN, is a non-self-governing territory with a right to self-determination. We can never move away from that!
I still want to hear why Sweden is deviating from its previous line. I also want to know if the Swedish government stands behind the decision in the International Court of Justice in The Hague regarding Western Sahara's right to self-determination. I want a clear answer on that. I also want an answer on whether the Foreign Minister distances himself from Morocco's brutal occupation of Western Sahara.
I want to urge the government to listen to the Western Saharan people, who for over 50 years have been subjected to one of the world's most brutal occupying powers. The Western Saharan people, through their representatives Polisario, reject Morocco's plan and demand their self-evident right to self-determination. It should also be a self-evident matter for Sweden's government.
The least one can demand from the government in the difficult situation that currently prevails is that we provide direct support in the form of aid to the Western Saharan refugees in the Sahara Desert in a situation when the situation is more difficult than ever. Unfortunately, I have received information that the support that exists today via Oxfam will be withdrawn.
Sweden has historically defended decolonization and international law. By prioritizing the autonomy proposal as the starting point for negotiations, Sweden risks undermining its credibility and weakening the UN-led process. Demand instead that the promised referendum takes place!
Utrikesministern Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)
Mr. Speaker! Let me say it again: Yes, we stand behind the International Court of Justice's decision.
Let me underline the opportunity that we now face: Finally, there is a momentum to reach a solution to a conflict that has lasted for five decades. Sweden wants to be involved and contribute to such a solution and promote conditions for social development and stability. This movement is confirmed by the new Security Council resolution and by the fact that the EU has now also adopted a common position on the Western Sahara issue that reflects this resolution.
This is not about choosing sides, but about supporting the work to move forward. The important thing now is to support the UN-led process and Staffan de Mistura's work to achieve a mutually accepted solution, where the UN Charter is respected and the West Saharan people's right to self-determination is also met.
Within the framework of this process, Morocco's autonomy plan constitutes a credible basis for negotiations. The Moroccan autonomy plan needs to be specified and updated, something that Morocco has also promised. We expect Morocco to deliver on this promise, which I have conveyed directly to my foreign affairs colleague. We look forward to receiving Morocco's updated proposal for the autonomy plan and other constructive contributions from the parties.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.