Response to interpellations 2025/26:492 and 493 on the consequences of discontinued aid strategies
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
M argues that Sweden is one of the world's most generous aid donors 1 2 and that the government is implementing a reform to increase efficiency 1. M argues that aid must be reprioritized to support Ukraine 1 and that previous systems lacked control 3. M claims that V, S and MP want to finance increased aid through increased taxes for ordinary people 2 and that it is not possible to finance increased aid without cutting expenditures for hospitals, nursing homes and schools 4. V argues that the government is deviating from the one percent goal and is drastically lowering aid despite increased needs 5. V advocates that one could borrow for the aid or refrain from lowering the tax for those with the absolute highest incomes 6.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Bistånds- och utrikeshandelsministern Benjamin Dousa (M)
Madam Speaker! Lotta Johnsson Fornarve has asked me whether reduced aid appropriations and current decisions to phase out aid strategies, particularly country strategies, have been preceded by impact assessments, and whether I intend to carry out further analyses, including regarding gender equality, security policy, and consequences for children and young people. Furthermore, Lotta Johnsson Fornarve has asked whether I will work for a children's rights perspective in governing policy documents and within humanitarian aid.
Let me first remind that Sweden continues to be one of the world's most generous aid donors. Sweden is one of the few countries that continues to live up to the UN's target of 0.7 percent of GNI to aid.
Lotta Johnsson Fornarve asks about security policy analyses. Europe is currently in a very serious security situation. It is a consequence of the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine. Support for Ukraine is therefore a paramount foreign policy priority, which requires tough reprioritizations. At the same time, the government is carrying out a comprehensive reform of aid aimed at increasing efficiency, strengthening the focus on results, and ensuring that every aid krona does the greatest possible good. Part of this is to concentrate aid on fewer countries and interventions.
Let me be transparent: All phase-outs entail consequences. It is inevitable and means that even well-functioning operations, organizations and important initiatives are affected. I have also been clear about this from day one when we launched this major reprioritization.
These decisions have not been easy to make, but they have been necessary to enable effective Swedish support elsewhere. The phase-out decisions have been made based on a collective analysis, including experiences from previous strategies and ongoing monitoring.
We do not, therefore, have a secret money tree at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs. If we are to almost double the aid to Ukraine, which we have almost done in two years, the money must come from somewhere.
Monitoring, analysis, and learning from aid activities is important for the government. This also applies to phase-outs. The phase-outs shall therefore be analyzed and summarized in the final strategy reports according to current routine and are expected to include important conclusions and lessons learned. This reporting will concern consequences in the area of gender equality and whether children and young people are particularly affected, as well as highlight more important security policy aspects where relevant.
Another important source of analysis and learning within aid is the Expert Group for Aid Analysis, EBA, which has the government's mandate to continuously evaluate and analyze Sweden's international aid in order to thereby develop the aid and build up a long-term knowledge base of high quality. The government welcomes that EBA also analyzes the phase-outs in different ways within the framework of its mandate.
The Government also intends to continue to stand up for children's rights, especially in humanitarian contexts. In our reform agenda for aid, we emphasize that children are often the most vulnerable to poverty, war, climate change, and disasters and that attention should be given to children's experiences and life situations when aid is implemented. Girls' empowerment and interventions for the child's right to health and to education are emphasized in several thematic and geographical aid strategies. Sweden's extensive support to the UN Children's Fund, Unicef, reflects a prioritization of children's rights in Sweden's multilateral aid.
Humanitarian aid constitutes an important part of Sweden's aid and foreign policy. Sweden is one of the world's largest humanitarian donors and shall continue to be a clear force for life-saving interventions and protection of the most vulnerable where the needs are greatest.
Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)
Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer, even if I am not fully satisfied as usual.
In December 2023, the government presented its reform agenda for aid. The agenda implies a complete overhaul of a previously well-functioning Swedish aid system. Furthermore, with the support of Sverigedemokraterna, the government has decided to abandon the established one percent goal and drastically reduce aid.
This is happening at a time when the need is greater than ever, not least as a result of Trump's slaughter of American aid, which will lead to millions of people risking death and even more being left without support. That the Tidö government then throws the one percent goal overboard is a betrayal of the millions of people in the world who are in need of international aid. Those who are hit hardest are women and children, who get poorer access to, among other things, school and maternal and healthcare.
The aid should go to the most vulnerable and poorest people in the world, but in December 2025 the government decided to phase out Sweden's country strategies in Liberia, Mozambique, Tanzania, Zimbabwe and Bolivia. Previous support to Cambodia, Afghanistan, Yemen, Mali, Burkina Faso and South Sudan is being phased out. This has enormous consequences. There is a risk that people will die as a result of the withdrawn support.
The clearest example is all the small children who risk dying in the refugee camp in southern Ethiopia that we could read about in DN a few days ago. If the government had conducted a proper child impact assessment, I find it hard to believe that the support would have been phased out.
I understand that Sweden cannot support all vulnerable people in the world, of course not. But we should at least be able to maintain the support we have in place, a well-functioning support that saves the lives of malnourished infants.
When the government phases out the bilateral aid to Liberia, it leaves a country with deep wounds after a civil war. But the wounds have begun to heal, and development is moving in the right direction. Now, all of this is at risk. Democracy defenders and important equality projects supporting women's organizing and self-sufficiency are at risk in Tanzania, Mozambique, and Zimbabwe. Important projects to strengthen sustainable agriculture to prevent natural disasters in Zimbabwe risk being lost. These are just a few examples.
When Sweden and other democratic countries turn their backs on Africa and, to some extent, Asia, we leave the field free for undemocratic forces such as Russia and China. It is a major global security risk that will strike back against us ourselves. We must be able to lift our gaze and see that there are more security threats in the world than those in our immediate surroundings.
The Minister refers to the importance of supporting Ukraine. I agree that Sweden must do everything to support Ukraine in all conceivable ways, but it should not occur at the expense of other, life-saving aid. We must, of course, support Ukraine but with means that do not burden the aid. Sweden is a wealthy country. We can both support Ukraine and maintain good international aid.
I am deeply concerned that Swedish aid is being reduced or completely withdrawn for some of the poorest people in the world. The Minister answers that the phase-outs shall be "analyzed and summarized in the final strategy reports according to current routine." That is not sufficient, Minister. Consequence analyses must be carried out before the phase-out. Obviously, this has not happened. Sweden is abandoning decades of well-functioning aid without any analysis whatsoever clarifying what the withdrawn strategies will have for consequences for the world's poor and vulnerable and for global security. I consider it both irresponsible and very dangerous.
Bistånds- och utrikeshandelsministern Benjamin Dousa (M)
Madam Speaker! I react to the member's choice of words "well-functioning aid".
It is clear that there are thousands of interventions and projects that have truly saved human lives. I myself, as Minister for Development Cooperation, have made many trips into the field and truly felt it in my gut: This is well-functioning Swedish development aid.
But that cannot be said about the total Swedish aid commitment before we took over, with an aid system that has been built up since the 50s, 60s and 70s where we have not had sufficiently good control over the taxpayers' money.
We are phasing out different country strategies for slightly different reasons.
Burkina Faso and Mali are countries ruled by military juntas with close ties to Russia. In that case, they cannot expect hundreds of millions from the Swedish people. But we continue with the important humanitarian work even there.
The Swedish people have contributed 70 billion Swedish kronor to Tanzania since the 60s. Then one might think: "Sure, maybe there is some corruption there. Sure, maybe there have been interventions that have not led to any major development. But 70 billion Swedish kronor must still, in total, have lifted the country's population into the prosperity league?" When independent audits of this have been conducted, one has not been able to see that it has had any effect at all.
I know that there are many important initiatives that have made a difference. I have seen it with my own eyes. I have read the reports and follow this every day. But we have also wasted the taxpayers' money, and this government will never accept that.
The member also mentions the case of Ethiopia. I assume the member is referring to the fact that Islamic Relief is no longer receiving Swedish support. This is a direct consequence of the government's policy, where we very carefully direct Sida. We do not, therefore, want there to be a risk that Swedish tax money ends up in the pockets of Islamists or extremists. There are examples where Swedish tax money has gone to workshops and panel discussions where Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad have been present. That type of activity is over now. We also want a precautionary principle to be applied. It is still just as much money, but the risk that it ends up in extremists' pockets is much smaller.
Sida has a very precise and important needs model to simply analyze the situation out in the world. Where are the needs the greatest? Where are the funding needs the greatest? This is not affected by the new instruction to Sida. The Islamic Relief that is not allowed now, other important humanitarian actors who carry out very important work are.
I am actually a bit surprised that the Left Party thinks it is so important to remove this instruction, which would enable Islamists, extremists, and organizations that undermine the rights of girls and women to receive Swedish tax funds. I think that would be directly unfair.
The Speaker also mentions Russia and that this can backfire on us ourselves. The greatest risk for Sweden militarily is precisely Russia. It is clear that we have a partial responsibility for what happens in the world, but we bear the entire responsibility for what happens in Sweden. We also have a much greater responsibility towards the neighbor who needs our help.
Naturally, we have moral reasons to help Ukraine, but if we can ensure that Ukraine is able to continue defending itself, the risk of an armed attack here in Sweden is also reduced.
Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)
Madam Speaker! I thank you for the further answer.
The Minister is trying to smear the previous Swedish aid in a way that is not correct. The Swedish aid has received the highest ratings in global surveys previously. Do not try to make it look as if the Swedish aid would not have functioned well previously! Then there is always something that could have been better, but the previous aid has functioned very well – unlike the aid that we see now.
Children make up a third of the world's population and nearly half of the population in the least developed countries. Children's rights are systematically violated worldwide, and children are excluded from influence. Half of the world's poor are children, and every year around five million children die under the age of five, many of them from malnutrition. Nearly 500 million children live in a conflict zone, and every day 29,000 children are forced into flight.
At the same time, cuts in global aid mean that some of the world's most vulnerable children lose the opportunity for support and help. Save the Children has reported on how life-saving programs have been stopped. Activities for severely malnourished children, maternal care in refugee camps, vaccination efforts, and initiatives for girls' schooling have been forced to end.
The war in Sudan has led to one of the world's greatest humanitarian catastrophes. The children in Sudan live in a hell on earth without food, clean water, healthcare, and school.
How can Sweden choose to cut its aid when the world looks the way it does?
Despite the ceasefire, Gaza is still one of the worst and most dangerous places in the world for children. Children are still being killed in Gaza. Several newborns have frozen to death during the winter, and tens of thousands suffer from malnutrition. Virtually all children in Gaza are traumatized as a result of the war. Sweden could do significantly more here and start by restoring support to the UN agency UNRWA.
A few days ago, we in DN and ETC could read about the withdrawn support to the aid organization Islamic Relief, which we talked about. Despite audits showing that the organization has not made any mistakes and that there is no concrete evidence against it, it had its support withdrawn. This thing about it somehow supporting extremists, therefore, does not hold up.
The organization has received Sida's support for several years without any remarks, on the contrary. The organization does an immensely important work in conflict-affected countries and reaches out to the civilian population in a very good way through its good contacts with local actors.
We could read in DN about the work in the refugee camps in southern Ethiopia, where support has been given to small children who are on the brink of starvation. When this support now ceases in a few days, there is no one to take over. Infants risk dying because of the withdrawn support. It is a fact.
We cannot help everyone – obviously not. However, there is an established, well-functioning support here that saves the lives of infants, and we are now withdrawing it without replacing it. How can the minister defend something such as that?
The Minister says in his response that Sweden is one of the world's largest humanitarian donors and shall continue to be a clear force for life-saving efforts and protection for the most vulnerable where the needs are greatest. How does the Minister think that corresponds with reality if we now completely abandon the children in Ethiopia?
If the government had conducted a consequence analysis of how the cuts in Swedish aid and the withdrawn country strategies affect children and young people, perhaps this would not have happened. I want to at least believe that.
Bistånds- och utrikeshandelsministern Benjamin Dousa (M)
Madam Speaker! The member has asked questions on somewhat different areas. I will do my best to answer them all.
First and foremost: Sweden is, as said, still one of the world's most generous aid donors. We have reduced our aid budget by approximately 5 percent because we also have great needs at home – in elderly care, in healthcare and in school, as well as within the police with new police officers. We have done this while simultaneously safeguarding the very important humanitarian and life-saving work, while also safeguarding the work that takes place linked to sexual and reproductive health – where we now see dramatic effects of Trump's aid policy – and while simultaneously almost doubling our aid to Ukraine. If one prioritizes correctly, one can also get more done.
The Speaker also mentions Gaza. I fully agree that it is one of the worst humanitarian crises we are currently seeing on the entire globe, together with, for example, Congo, Yemen, and Sudan. There, I think we as Swedes can be very proud. The latest figures indicate that Sweden is the second largest country in the world when it comes to providing support to Gaza – not per capita but in absolute terms. Only the United Arab Emirates currently give more to Gaza than Sweden does. I am proud of the important work we carry out there, which literally saves human lives every day, ensures that children get a start in schooling, and ensures that human dignity is guaranteed even in Gaza.
But it is actually not a human right to receive a share of Swedish tax funds. It is a great and fine privilege, but we reserve the right to decide for ourselves in Sweden which countries and which organizations shall be allowed to receive these funds.
There I do not understand why it is so important for Vänsterpartiet to take greater risks with those funds – to loosen regulations so that money risks ending up with Islamists and extremists.
Sidas decisions linked to Islamic Relief, which they have made independently, do not, as stated, affect the needs analysis for, for example, Ethiopia. Exactly the same amount of money will go to Ethiopia based on their own decisions, but it will be other organizations that receive the money.
Madam Speaker! There is now a lot of focus on aid issues. Vänsterpartiet, the Socialdemokraterna, and the Miljöpartiet all want to return to the one percent goal. Next year, this would mean 22 billion kronor, which those on the left want to finance with increased taxes.
I believe that many people in Sweden today are asking themselves: Can I afford the policies of Vänsterpartiet, Socialdemokraterna, Centerpartiet, and Miljöpartiet? Can I afford to pay the increased taxes on labor? Can I afford to pay the increased taxes on savings, on mortgages, and on owning a villa or a terraced house?
It is about tens of thousands of kronor more every month if you get to decide. It is as if your side of politics has become the side for the very richest – the elite, multi-millionaires and billionaires. It is actually only those who can afford to pay these sky-high tax increases that you are running for election on.
We say no to that. We do not want to raise taxes for hard-working people to finance 22 billion in increased aid starting from next year.
Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)
Madam Speaker! We do not want to raise taxes for hard-working people either. That is a gross misconception. We want, on the other hand, to raise taxes for the billionaires, for those who have the large incomes. They, if anything, can afford to pay more in tax, and they can still live a good life.
It is a question of money that we could use for international aid, but the Moderaterna and the Tidöre government have prioritized lowering taxes for those with the absolute highest incomes. It is a completely incorrect prioritization. Instead, one could have prioritized strengthening international aid – given how the world looks now.
When millions of people actually risk dying of starvation, we must not reduce Swedish aid. In that case, we must lead by example and stand up for strong aid. We can afford it. Sweden is a wealthy country if we use the resources wisely and sensibly.
Of course, we shall continue to support Ukraine in all conceivable ways – militarily, economically and humanitarily. But we shall not take the money from other life-sustaining aid, instead we must take the money to support Ukraine from somewhere else. We could borrow for the aid, just as we borrow for the military support to Ukraine. We could start by refraining from lowering the tax for those with the absolutely highest incomes.
Bistånds- och utrikeshandelsministern Benjamin Dousa (M)
Madam Speaker! Now that we find ourselves in the heart of Swedish democracy in this chamber, I expect us to be honorable and honest towards the Swedish people. I believe that it is hundreds of thousands of people who are watching this interpellation debate right now.
We must be honest and transparent. What is it that we are actually running for election on? What is it that we promise the Swedish people? How do we want to govern now, and how do we want to govern in the future?
If one is to pay 22 billion kronor next year and 25 billion in 2028, this can be financed in three ways. One way is to cut expenditures. In that case, I think the left side should answer the question of which hospitals, nursing homes, and schools should be closed so that we can send 22 and then 25 billion more in aid.
Another way is to raise taxes for ordinary people. I encourage the member to read a bit more about the Left Party's economic policy. The nursing assistant who has saved up for a townhouse would have to pay increased property taxes. The nursing assistant who has a mortgage because one cannot cash 7 million would need to pay increased taxes. The nursing assistant who goes to work and exerts themselves would need to pay the increased taxes on labor. Billionaires are mentioned in a sweeping way, but in practice, they are ordinary people.
The third way is to borrow. But a loan is something one must pay back in the future. In that case, it is the younger generation of nursing assistants, who work and toil and set their alarm clocks, who will need to pay the increased taxes – not today, but in 5, 10, 15, 20, or 25 years. Or one cuts the expenditures in the future.
I think one should be honest here. We have been very transparent. Unfortunately, many good projects have not received funds because we must almost double the aid to Ukraine and because we must address the problems that exist at home. I think that those on the left side should also be transparent about what they want.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.