Response to interpellations 2025/26:359 and 360 on legal certainty and civil society's role in Swedish aid

Bistånds- och utrikeshandelsministern Benjamin Dousa (M)

Mr. Speaker! Lotta Johnsson Fornarve has asked me how I ensure that the precautionary principle is applied in a legally secure and proportionate manner, so that equal treatment is maintained.

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve has also asked me if I consider that the government needs to review its guidelines and directives to Sida regarding the payment of humanitarian aid to civil society organizations, in light of the withdrawn support to Islamic Relief.

Olle Thorell has asked me how I and the government ensure that the application of the precautionary principle within aid is based on clear and reasonable criteria, so that organizations know what is required and the requirements do not become impossible to fulfill.

Olle Thorell has also asked me how we ensure that Sida's assessments are objective and equal for all organizations and that no actor risks being judged more harshly due to indirect associations or religious background.

In conclusion, Olle Thorell has asked me how I and the government intend to ensure that the governance of Sida does not create uncertainty or be perceived as political micro-management in individual cases.

Sweden is one of the world's largest aid donors. With this generous aid comes a responsibility to ensure that Swedish support is used where it does the most good for people in need of help. Swedish tax money must not risk even ending up near extremists, and the government is working intensively to ensure that it does not happen.

The Government has announced regulations stating that Sida, in its activities, shall ensure that support is not provided to organizations that support anti-democratic activities, violence-promoting extremism, Islamism, antisemitism or terrorism, or that undermine the rights of women and girls. Sida has also been tasked with strengthening its capacity to make its own systematic assessments of risks and suitability in the selection of partners. It follows from the constitution that Sida, in its activities, shall observe everyone's equality before the law as well as observe objectivity and impartiality.

The Government governs Sida through decisions on the agency's instructions and by deciding on assignments in regulatory letters or in specific decisions. It is, however, up to Sida to independently apply the rules and make decisions in individual cases.

It is important to remember that no organization has any right to Swedish aid money. We provide aid to support people in need, not to support aid organizations.

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

Olle Thorell (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the Minister for Foreign Affairs for the answer, but I must unfortunately say that it hardly touches upon the questions I have asked. My question was not about whether extremism should be combated. It should, of course, be combated. There is no doubt whatsoever about that. Swedish tax money shall, of course, never go to violent extremism, antisemitism, or terrorism, or to organizations that in any way undermine democracy and human rights. That is a self-evident principle, but that is not what the interpellation is about.

The interpellation concerns another principle, namely how the state makes decisions. In this case, Sida itself states that no links have been found between Islamic Relief and extremist environments. Nevertheless, the support is stopped, not because the organization has done anything wrong or because irregularities have been found, but because it cannot be guaranteed one hundred percent that nothing could happen in the future. It is a completely unreasonable precautionary principle.

Mr. Speaker! There is no organization in the world that can meet such requirements. That is precisely why large parts of civil society, through organizations such as Concord, Fremia, and Forumciv, have now done something very unusual. They have filed a complaint with the JO. They argue that the decision raises serious questions about proportionality, legal certainty, and objectivity in the exercise of public authority.

So, this is not just about an organization. It is about the Swedish administrative model and about decisions being made based on clear and predictable criteria rather than hypothetical risk assessments.

Mr. Speaker! Islamic Relief is not just any organization. It is a well-established, globally active humanitarian actor that has collaborated with Sweden and other international donors for decades. They work in some of the world's most difficult humanitarian crises. With unique expertise, they reach people in conflicts and disasters where few others can operate, for example in Sudan, in Yemen and in Mali.

In a comprehensive evaluation commissioned by Sida itself, Islamic Relief is described as a very conscientious organization with strong risk awareness and very good control systems. This is, therefore, not an organization that lacks control, on the contrary.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs also says in his response that no organization has a right to Swedish aid money. I agree. That is obviously true. But it misses the point itself. No organization has a right to aid, but all organizations in Sweden have a right to be treated with legal certainty and equally by the state. That is the very core of the rule of law, and it is precisely that which is now being challenged and questioned and which risks being eroded by the government's handling.

This is something I and the Social Democrats experience as a major problem. Does the government not see that?

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer to my interpellation, even though I also wish that it had been more detailed.

This debate is about so much more than the fact that an organization, in this case Islamic Relief, has not had its application for a grant approved. It is about the fact that the government's guidelines to the agency Sida have led to arbitrariness and legal uncertainty.

The handling of Islamic Relief has caused concern among large parts of civil society and has also led to a JO complaint. It is more than obvious that something must be done. Guidelines and directives to the authority must be reviewed so that they are applied in a legally secure and proportionate manner in accordance with the principle of equal treatment.

That Islamic Relief is completely denied funding is actually completely incomprehensible. The organization has been a trusted and appreciated partner to Sida for over ten years and has received a relatively large amount of support for its humanitarian work. No serious criticism has been directed at the organization during that time. On the contrary, the organization has received good reviews in previous evaluations.

Despite this, Sida has now said no to the organization's application for humanitarian support. The decision came after a special review of Center mot våldsbejakande extremism. But neither Sida nor Center mot våldsbejakande extremism see signs that the activities are anti-democratic or pro-violence, or that there are links to such environments in the current board and management.

Despite this, Sida has withdrawn the support to the organization and decided to take the sure before the unsure by applying a so-called precautionary principle – a principle that is extremely difficult to counter when there is no objective basis for the criticism. It is an arbitrariness and a legal uncertainty that risks having consequences for the entire civil society.

Of course, no tax money should go to violence-promoting extremists or anti-democratic activities. We are in complete agreement on that. Control and scrutiny is, of course, an important part of an open and legally secure administration. But the current strict interpretation of the precautionary principle risks limiting civil society's opportunities to operate. It opens the door to legal uncertainty and arbitrariness.

The handling of Islamic Relief touches, as has been said, the entire civil society and is now creating great concern among civil society organizations, on good grounds. It is simply a matter of how far a precautionary principle can be stretched without undermining fundamental administrative law principles. It is evident that a strict application of the precautionary principle can have significant consequences in relation to the principle of equal treatment in Sida's governance.

I want the Minister to answer our questions a bit more clearly. How does the Minister ensure that the precautionary principle is applied in a legally secure and proportionate manner so that equal treatment is maintained? And does the Minister, in light of the withdrawn support to Islamic Relief and how it has been handled, consider that the government needs to review its guidelines and directives to Sida regarding the payment of humanitarian aid to civil society organizations?

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thanks to Olle Thorell and Lotta Johnsson Fornarve, who have initiated this interpellation debate! Thanks also to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, who is here to answer the interpellations!

I agree with the interpellants that the real questions regarding this matter of the precautionary principle, what it means for future payments and so on, are not actually being answered. One also becomes a bit uneasy about the entire precautionary principle.

The Minister for Development Aid says in his response that Swedish tax money should not risk even landing near extremists. At the same time, we see that aid money is being used to pay exactly an extremist, the president of Somalia, who has made extremely anti-Semitic statements. Money is also being paid out to HTS in Syria, which is a formerly terror-linked group. So what does one actually mean? Is the precautionary principle supposed to apply to certain organizations but not to the payments one makes oneself? I cannot quite make sense of it. I would like to know what exactly is meant.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs lists the organizations, or the type of organizations, that shall not receive support. It concerns anti-democratic activities, violence-promoting extremism, Islamism, antisemitism and terrorism or undermining of women's and girls' rights.

When it comes to the rights of women and girls, Islamic Relief is one of the first organizations that has shed light on this issue of female genital mutilation and has worked actively against it for very many years.

I also agree with what Olle Thorell spoke about earlier – that Islamic Relief works in places where other organizations do not enter. They have enormous trust in the countries where they work. Now it seems that they will be forced to move 22 aid workers from Sudan, where an enormous amount of humanitarian work is required, and probably 50 from Ethiopia due to the lack of support from Sweden.

I have another question regarding this list. Islamophobia is not included as a criterion for an organization not to receive tax money. Is there something included on the list that Sida is to work from?

When one says that one cannot rule out, one is in practice shifting the burden of proof onto the party being scrutinized instead of proving oneself that something has gone wrong. How on earth are organizations supposed to be able to live up to this that one cannot rule out? It is practically impossible.

Suddenly, the faith-based identity becomes a risk marker in itself. Does it mean that no organizations that in any way have a connection to Islam will be able to receive any support at all in the future? And why is it specifically Islam that is singled out when it comes to those types of questions?

This raises so many questions. I do not think the Minister for Development Cooperation's answer in any way addresses the questions that are actually being asked here. I would also like to receive some more in-depth answers based on the questions that have actually been asked in the interpellations.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The interpellants Olle Thorell from the Socialdemokraterna and Lotta Johnsson Fornarve from the Vänsterpartiet express distress that Islamic Relief will no longer receive funds from Sida. The member from the Miljöpartiet agrees with all of this.

Member Thorell goes so far as to say that no concrete deficiencies have been identified, which in my opinion is a remarkable statement. A concrete deficiency is that Islamic Relief was involved in a quite extensive scandal in 2020, when their entire board had to resign because several members had made antisemitic remarks. One of the members, Almoutaz Tayara, had also praised Hamas and lauded them as great men and heroes.

This is, in my opinion, a very concrete deficiency. Therefore, it is difficult to understand how one can claim that no concrete problems have been identified. The tragic thing is that Sida chose to continue its cooperation with Islamic Relief after these statements.

Magnus Ranstorp, who is a recognized expert when it comes to terrorism, writes in a debate article from 2023 that Islamic Relief, like Hamas, is part of the Muslim Brotherhood. Ranstorp also writes in the debate article that he suspects that Islamic Relief directly or indirectly conveys aid to Hamas in Gaza or abroad.

Are these not concrete deficiencies, according to Olle Thorell? Here we have an Islamist organization that at the highest level has clearly expressed hatred towards Jews. It is not some activist within the organization who expressed themselves clumsily, but it is the leaders within Islamic Relief who have expressed gross antisemitism.

When I look at this, I wonder how Sweden could ever have had a cooperation with such an organization. How could it ever happen? And how can there be members in our legislative assembly who appear here today and want us to continue cooperating with this organization, which has a clear Islamist and antisemitic agenda? We have members here today who, in all seriousness, mean that tax money should continue to be paid out to a so-called aid organization that is part of the Muslim Brotherhood and whose leadership has spoken out in an antisemitic manner.

Is this something that only these members stand for, or do the Social Democrats, the Left Party and the Green Party support the same position? Will tax money start being pumped out to Islamic Relief if the Social Democrats, unfortunately, were to win the election? It would be good to know. I am quite sure that the Swedish people do not want their tax money to end up with the Muslim Brotherhood.

Something that the members of the chamber do not mention is that countries such as Germany and the Netherlands stopped paying tax funds to Islamic Relief a long time ago. The reason for this was precisely the organization's clear links to the Muslim Brotherhood.

That Islamic Relief has clear links to the Muslim Brotherhood is, therefore, not questioned by anyone. Yet, we have two members here from the Socialdemokraterna and Vänsterpartiet who think that Sweden should continue to support Islamic Relief, and one member from the Miljöpartiet who agrees with this. It is quite revealing and shows that the Socialdemokraterna, Vänsterpartiet, and Miljöpartiet want taxpayers' money to support Islamism.

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

TALMANNEN

I want to remind that individuals should not be subjected to criticism or judgment here in the chamber, unless there are special reasons for it.

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

Bistånds- och utrikeshandelsministern Benjamin Dousa (M)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden is one of the world's most generous aid donors. But it also imposes an obligation and entails a very extensive responsibility towards Swedish taxpayers.

For those who look back on the recent years, it is obvious that we have not had control over where Swedish aid funds have ended up. It is precisely for that reason that the government is pushing through a major cleanup when it comes to aid. We do not provide aid to support individual aid organizations, but to support people in need.

This government stands up for hard-working people. There is no tolerance among Swedish taxpayers for their tax money even coming anywhere near ending up in the pockets of extremists. This government works day and night to ensure that this does not happen.

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve and Olle Thorell are welcome to tell me and those listening here today whether it is more important for Vänsterpartiet and Socialdemokraterna which individual aid organization, such as Islamic Relief, that Sida uses as an implementation partner than to support people in need. For the government, the central point is to ensure that Ukraine's civilian population and the people affected by hunger and famine catastrophes in Gaza, Haiti, Mali, Sudan, and South Sudan are reached by our humanitarian aid. Sida is responsible for determining themselves who delivers best when it comes to this mission.

This is an important issue for the legitimacy of the aid system. We want to be one hundred percent sure. That is why we have given instructions to Sida to apply a precautionary principle. Not a single one of the taxpayers' hard-earned kronor may end up in the pockets of extremists, Islamists, or other organizations that undermine the rights of girls and women.

This is a broad effort. That is exactly why we have appointed the well-merited Magnus Ranstorp to the board of Sida. This is a broad offensive.

The time when Miljöpartiet, Vänsterpartiet, and Socialdemokraterna scattered Swedish tax money all over the world without keeping track is over. It is precisely for that reason that we are pushing through this important cleanup work.

Member of Parliament Thorell said that civil society and many aid organizations are worried and afraid of the scrutiny of aid organizations. Let me be clear: If one has contact with Islamists and if one ensures that money, for example through onward transmission, goes to organizations that undermine the rights of women and girls, one should be afraid of this government. We are seeking to take back our own tax funds so that they can instead go to organizations that carry out important activities, without the risk of them trading with, for example, antisemites or Islamists.

Mr. Speaker! I usually appreciate lively discussions with Member Risberg. We rarely agree, I can state, but the discussions are usually in good spirit. I was therefore a bit surprised by the total inaccuracies that were stated in the speaker's chair regarding the government going in with money to, for example, HTS. I believe that Risberg himself knows that no money goes to HTS, but the support that goes to Syria goes primarily to UN organizations – UNHCR, World Food Programme, Unicef and UNFPA. It would come as a shock to me if the Green Party wanted to abolish the important UN support that goes to the civilian population in Syria.

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

Olle Thorell (S)

Mr. Speaker! There is another dimension to this matter, namely that Islamic Relief is one of many faith-based organizations. Just as it is with Act, the Church of Sweden, Caritas, PMU and Erikshjälpen, it is not abnormal for faith-based organizations to work with aid. They often play a decisive role in humanitarian work as they have deep roots in local communities and a trust that international organizations without that background sometimes lack. This is a strength in aid. We should be glad that they devote themselves to aid.

But in the political debate that is now taking place, there is another tone: Organizations with a specific Muslim background are more and more frequently met with a general rhetoric of suspicion. We just heard how the Sverigedemokraterna in this rostrum are running campaigns against organizations with just a Muslim background and against parts of civil society – a culture war against the religion of Islam and Muslims in general.

Extremism and radicalized, militant Islamism are, of course, real threats that must be fought consistently and without hesitation. On that, we have no difference of opinion. But the fight against extremism must never mean that the Swedish state paints Muslims and Muslim organizations in general as security problems. That would be both prejudiced and a violation of the rule of law.

Mr. Speaker! There is also a double standard in the government's line that is difficult to ignore. When it comes to civil society organizations, the government is now setting requirements that are practically impossible to fulfill if one is a Muslim organization, but when it comes to state collaborations with conflict-affected countries, a completely different logic suddenly applies.

I am thinking, for example, of the Somalia deal. Benjamin Dousa says that those who come near Islamists and extremists should be afraid of the government. Yes, in that case, the government must be afraid of itself because it gives away 100 million kronor to Somalia's prime minister, who is a recognized antisemite, Islamist, and extremist.

There, the government says that one must be pragmatic and realistic and understand the context, but when it comes to Islamic Relief – an organization that has been scrutinized countless times and where no connections to extremism have been able to be demonstrated – the government suddenly sets impossible requirements for risk elimination.

The difference in scale is striking. When the government cooperates with Somalia, the cattle trade knows no borders, and one speaks of realism and being pragmatic. When it comes to Islamic Relief, requirements are set that no organization in the world can live up to. This is a double standard and a hypocrisy that is utterly astounding. Does the Council of State not see this?

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for further answers!

Of course, not a single tax krona should go to extremist organizations or anti-democratic forces; on that, we are in complete agreement. I therefore cannot help but wonder how it is that 100 million of Swedish aid funds have actually gone to the Hamas-shouting Prime Minister in Somalia or at least to related projects.

When it comes to Islamic Relief in Sweden, the organization has been a strategic partner to Sida since 2014, which is over ten years. Now, the support has been withdrawn despite neither Sida nor Center against violent extremism seeing any signs that the activities are anti-democratic or violent. There are no signs of this.

Sida has however decided to take the sure over the uncertain and apply the so-called precautionary principle. It is both incomprehensible and worrying, and it naturally paves the way for arbitrariness. I can truly understand that all of civil society is now worried – which organizations will be affected next by this arbitrariness?

Those who are hit hardest by the withdrawn support for Islamic Relief are actually all the thousands of people that the organization helps around the world. The Swedish organization is part of Islamic Relief Worldwide, which is an international humanitarian organization that has conducted aid work for over 40 years. The organization reports that 14.5 million people in 38 countries have received support during the past year. Among other things, they support people in need regardless of religion, ethnicity, gender, or other affiliation.

Islamic Relief is, for example, on the ground in the famine-stricken Sudan, where they help starving and violence-affected women and children, among other things. Now, this important activity risks being frozen, and that is serious.

Of course, organizations that seek and receive support must be able to be scrutinized and controlled, but it must occur on a substantive basis and be based on facts that can be countered – and corrected, if there are ambiguities. Islamic Relief has been hit extra hard because there is an ongoing clear disinformation campaign against the organization. We saw a clear example of that just now, in the form of the Sweden Democrats' appearance here in the chamber.

During its time, Islamic Relief's activities worldwide have undergone more than 500 rigorous, independent audits. All of these audits have confirmed that the activities are exclusively humanitarian and are carried out without significant deviations. The organization conducts its work in accordance with internationally recognized humanitarian principles and quality frameworks, including the Core Humanitarian Standard, as well as Giva Sveriges national quality code.

Sweden should, of course, not contribute to fueling this disinformation campaign, but our decisions must rest on a factual basis and facts. The precautionary principle must, of course, be applied in a legally secure and proportionate manner so that equal treatment is upheld. Does the Minister not agree with that?

I think it is obvious that the government, in light of the withdrawn support to Islamic Relief and how the issue has been handled, needs to review its guidelines and directives to Sida regarding the payment of humanitarian aid to civil society organizations.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the Minister for Foreign Affairs for the answer. We may certainly have some different opinions on what the money is used for in Syria, but we shall not go into that. Somalia, however, has been raised here by the interveners, and it will be interesting to see how the Minister for Foreign Affairs answers those questions.

There are few aid organizations that are as scrutinized as Islamic Relief. Just as Lotta Johnsson Fornarve said, the organization has undergone 500 different audits and reviews over the last decade. The majority of these reviews have been initiated by various governments and UN bodies, and none of the reviews have found any evidence whatsoever of links to prohibited groups or unauthorized use of funds.

It is strange that the government prefers to lean towards the so-called researcher Magnus Ranstorp, whom the Minister for Foreign Affairs himself refers to. He apparently has more right than the 500 different reviews, which I think sounds a bit strange.

I turn to this matter with antisemitic links, which was raised by one of the interveners here. When it was found that some individuals had written non-good things online, action was taken; they were publicly distanced and it was ensured that these individuals no longer had any role whatsoever within the organization. A review led by the United Kingdom's former Justice Secretary Grieve found no evidence at all of institutional antisemitism.

This can be compared with, for example, the government's coalition partner, which time and again is highlighted for antisemitic statements and very many times has been criticized by SKMA. The party continues to receive tax funds.

Then there is the question of whether there are any links to the Muslim Brotherhood. No, there are not – Islamic Relief is a completely independent humanitarian organization without political links to anything in any country. The organization's governance, control systems, and independent oversight ensure that the operations are free from political influence and that resources are only used for humanitarian purposes.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to simplify the debate a bit so that we get clear answers.

If I have not misunderstood the matter, the interpellants are aid policy spokespersons for the Socialdemokrater and the Vänsterpartiet. We know that Islamic Relief is part of the Muslim Brotherhood. This has been established several times. We know that several people who are part of Islamic Relief's leadership have expressed gross antisemitic views.

Is this really an organization that the aid policy spokespersons for the Social Democrats and the Left Party want to support? Are these the kinds of organizations that the members embrace? Do the members really think that it strengthens the credibility of Swedish aid if one cooperates with such an organization?

The answer is actually yes or no. Either the members support this Islamist organization, or they do not. The question is not just what one thinks about Islamic Relief, but the question is what requirements Sweden should place on organizations that receive Swedish aid funds.

If the members, boringly enough, were to support such an organization, I wonder how they view the antisemitic statements that have come from Islamic Relief's leadership and how they view the links to the Muslim Brotherhood. There is much evidence for this.

Do the members of the Riksdag consider that Sweden should support a so-called aid organization that, according to other European countries, is part of the Muslim Brotherhood? Other European countries have established this, and they have stopped providing aid to Islamic Relief. Or do you completely deny that Islamic Relief is part of the Muslim Brotherhood, despite the extensive evidence that exists for it?

How many times is a development organization's leadership allowed to express itself in an antisemitic manner before Sweden terminates its cooperation with the development organization?

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

Bistånds- och utrikeshandelsministern Benjamin Dousa (M)

Mr. Speaker! This government will always safeguard the taxpayers' money. I have been surprised during this debate by how important it is for S, V and MP that a single, individual organization should receive billions of the taxpayers' money.

It has been said that the money will be frozen and that people will not be allowed to access the money. That is not true. Exactly the same amount will now be channeled, via Sida, to other humanitarian actors, where Sida assesses that there is no risk of the money falling into the hands of extremists, Islamists, or other anti-democratic activities. It is incomprehensible that members can think it is so important that organizations such as Unicef, World Food Programme, and UNFPA should not receive money to the detriment of specifically Islamic Relief, which one thinks should receive this money.

Member of Parliament Johnsson Fornarve asks: Who will be affected next? One only has to read Sida's instruction, which the government has made a decision on. It is organizations that support anti-democratic activities, violence-oriented extremism, Islamism, antisemitism and terrorism or undermine the rights of women and girls. It is not more difficult than that.

I therefore want to ask the Social Democrats and the Left Party: Is it your intention, in the event of a change of government, that that instruction should be overturned? Will you allow money to go to organizations that undermine the rights of women and girls and that support antisemitic activities or, in the worst case, terrorism?

Many other types of activities are also affected by the instruction. A concrete example is when it turned out that Swedish tax money had gone to workshops and panel discussions where representatives for Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad were present. The result was that I called the then Director General of Sida. He clearly explained that there was nothing in Sida's operations that prohibited or prevented talks financed by us, where terrorists were present, from taking place.

As a direct result of the new instruction, and the fact that a precautionary principle shall also be applied, it is not possible to finance that type of activity with Swedish tax money.

Is it that type of activity, a workshop with terrorists and Islamists, that the Left Party and the Social Democrats intend for Swedish tax money to go towards? Are panel discussions with Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hamas also included on the aid policy agenda from the left side?

Several have raised the issue of Somalia. We carry out important aid work and, above all, humanitarian work in many countries with governments where there are antisemites and Islamists. Should we not be able to carry out important humanitarian interventions in, for example, Afghanistan? The 100 million, which is often mentioned, has gone to the World Bank and UNDP. Exactly the same funding structure supported the previous government in 2018. Previous Social Democratic governments have supported UNDP at all times, in almost all geographies.

It is clear that the World Bank and UNDP must follow Sida's instructions. I wonder if the Left Party and the Social Democrats have any information linked to the World Bank and UNDP? If so, I am very interested in it. We have not found anything in the World Bank's or UNDP's activities that suggests that money would go to antisemitic or non-democratic activities.

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

Olle Thorell (S)

Mr. Speaker! Benjamin Dousa is performing a rhetorical trick where he paints a straw man, attacks it, and tries to attribute perceptions to us that we do not have. Of course, we will not allow aid funds to go to extremism, terrorism, and the like. That is just nonsense. We obviously do not do that.

I can also guarantee one other thing: We will stand up for the principles of the rule of law. This is not just about Islamic Relief. It is also about the principles of Swedish administration and Swedish democracy. In a rule of law, authorities make decisions based on facts, clear criteria, and proportionate risk assessments. One does not make decisions based on suspicions, associations, prejudices, or what the troll army on Twitter or X thinks at the moment, and one does not make decisions based on hypothetical scenarios about what might possibly happen at some point in the future. When the state begins to make decisions on such grounds, it opens the door to arbitrariness, and arbitrariness is always the opposite of the rule of law.

Today it is about Islamic Relief and in that regard also about Olof Palme International Center, which is also being cut off for party-political reasons. We see that party-political campaigns are directed at different aid actors and that the suspicion is spreading. It is a dangerous path one is on.

Sweden's strength is that we have had an independent administration, clear rules, and decisions made on a factual basis. It is a tradition that builds strong trust in the state in our country. It is about what kind of society we want: either a society where the state makes decisions based on facts, rule-of-law principles, and equal treatment, or a society where suspicions, prejudices, and political campaigns begin to govern authority decisions.

I and the Social Democrats know where we stand. We stand up for the rule of law.

(Applause)

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for further answers!

What is important for us is that all organizations seeking humanitarian contributions via Sida shall be treated equally and not arbitrarily. That is precisely what this debate is about. Our systems must simply be legally secure.

Of course, our tax revenues should be used to support human rights, democracy, and the rights of women and girls. We think that is very important.

The Minister asked if we cannot support authoritarian countries such as Somalia and Afghanistan. We can of course do so, but aid funds should not go directly to supporting authoritarian leaders, as in the example with Somalia.

That Islamic Relief is now being denied all grants is completely incomprehensible. The organization has been a trusted and appreciated partner to Sida for over ten years and has received a relatively large amount of support for its humanitarian work. No serious criticism has been directed at the organization during that entire time, quite the opposite. The organization has received good reviews in previous evaluations. Despite that, Sida has now said no to the organization's application regarding humanitarian support.

Neither Sida nor Center mot våldsbejakande extremism see any signs that the activities are anti-democratic or violent, or that there are links to such environments in the current board and management. Despite this, support to the organization has been withdrawn, because the safe was taken before the uncertain and this strange precautionary principle, which opens up for arbitrariness and legal uncertainty, has been used.

It also has consequences for other organizations. The handling of Islamic Relief has rightly alarmed large parts of civil society and has also led to a JO complaint. It is more than obvious, I think, that something must be done. Guidelines and directives to the agency Sida need to be reviewed, so that the principles applied in connection with granting grants to civil society are legally secure and proportionate, so that equal treatment is maintained. Does the Minister not agree?

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

Bistånds- och utrikeshandelsministern Benjamin Dousa (M)

Mr. Speaker! I can interpret this in no other way than that the Social Democrats, the Left Party, and the Green Party intend to tear up the instruction that the government has decided on, which ensures that not a single Swedish tax krona ends up anywhere near Islamists, terrorists, or other persons who undermine the rights of girls and women. It was during the time when the Social Democrats were in power that money could go to workshops and panel discussions with Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. That ends now.

This government will always stand on the side of hard-working people. That is why we are stopping the waste that occurred with the model that the Socialdemokraterna built up. It is the end of money for Islamists and antisemites. It is the end of the corruption-like arrangement that meant that organizations close to the Socialdemokraterna received their own advantages. We are clearing all of that out. We are cleaning up to ensure that Swedish aid is organized, reliable, and secure, and that Swedish taxpayers get value for their money. It is about helping people and ensuring that as little as possible ends up in bureaucracy and administration.

I want to emphasize the word ensure. I interpret it as that the left side in Sweden is inclined to take completely different risks. A 40 percent risk that money ends up with antisemites, we can live with – no one can be 100 percent sure, is the argument on the left side. That type of risk is not what this government is prepared to take. Step by step, we are cleaning up in the aid. The instruction to Sida, where we apply a precautionary principle and ensure that money does not end up with terrorists and Islamists, has been an important part of that construction.

(Applause)

The interpellations debate was hereby concluded.

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