Sweden's membership in Nato

Aron Emilsson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I would first like to express my approval of the Committee on Foreign Affairs' proposal in the report and the rejection of the reservations.

It is a historical and necessary decision we are now about to make. Sweden is leaving 200 years of military non-alignment and choosing to join a military-political alliance. Russia's renewed, unprovoked invasion of Ukraine on February 24 of this year 2022 has extensive consequences for Europe, but not only for Europe but for the entire world order.

This places high demands on the Swedish defense capability increasing, and it needs to happen as quickly as possible. This is primarily done by us ourselves investing and taking responsibility for our own defense capability. At the same time, we also need to state that nothing increases the Swedish defense capability as quickly as joining a military alliance that is also backed by Europe's democratic great powers and includes the world's strongest military power. This military alliance is Nato, and that we, against the background of the greatly increased threat from Russia, make the decision to join is to take responsibility for our country's security today and in the future.

Mr. Speaker! To include the historical perspective in addition to the current perspective is a necessity when making such extensive and far-reaching decisions as seeking membership in an alliance after over 200 years of military non-alignment. The lessons of history must not be forgotten. Since King Karl Johan made his final choice in the spring of 1812, Sweden's orientation has been military non-alignment. When we look back on this period, we can state that the fact that our country has been spared from the horrors of war is what has distinguished us from most other states. This policy has historically served Sweden well.

Furthermore, there has been a total consensus among the parliamentary parties behind this policy. This has been the case during both World Wars and during the Cold War. Until 1999, when the Liberals, then the Folkpartiet, decided to advocate for a Swedish NATO membership, there has been great unity among the parties in the Riksdag regarding this fundamental question for our country.

Mr. Speaker, the world has changed significantly since the 1800s and 1900s. The threat from Russia has been recurring, but no military alliance equivalent to today's Nato has existed historically.

On the European continent, Nato has been a deterrent to war. Nato's expansion in Sweden's immediate vicinity has led to us becoming safer.

Sweden has also since the end of the Cold War been proactive in ensuring peace and security together with our neighboring countries. We have been able to do this in a time that the last 30 years have been characterized by peace in our immediate area. Sweden has, for example, been involved in concretely building up the Baltics' defense by transferring very large quantities of military equipment. We have joined and developed our partnership with Nato, and not least, we have worked for military cooperation with Finland that also goes beyond peacetime conditions.

Mr. Speaker! The Sweden Democrats have been and are a party that puts Sweden's security first. Since our entry into the Riksdag, we have constantly worked for increased appropriations for the total defense, even during the difficult years when parties from right to left saw the defense as a niche interest. This is the basis of the war-deterring capability, and it is also one of the most important components for being welcome as a member of Nato, all according to Article 3 of the Washington Treaty.

We have carefully considered all possibilities to strengthen Sweden's defense capability. In December 2020, we voted that Sweden should, in the same way as Finland, introduce a so-called Nato option in our security policy. The then red-green government chose, however, not to introduce any such option. Instead, the Social Democrats were against even discussing a future need for Nato membership. Instead of facilitating Sweden's path towards Nato, the Social Democrats at that time hindered it in several ways. Among other things, the government chose to let Sweden become an observer in the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, TPNW, even though the convention goes against the basis of Nato's deterrence policy.

During 2022, after Russia's large-scale attack against Ukraine, we pushed for an investigation to be appointed to examine the possibilities for Nato membership and the consequences of this. The social democratic government and then-Prime Minister Magdalena Andersson, on the other hand, pointed out that a Nato membership for Sweden would now destabilize the security situation in Sweden's immediate vicinity. Ultimately, the government nevertheless appointed a parliamentary commission which could publish a report with an analysis of the security situation and concluded that Sweden should join Nato.

The Sweden Democrats would have gladly seen a more extensive investigation and more debate regarding Nato - that is true. But we also noted that the situation deteriorated rapidly and that the possibility of submitting a Nato application immediately needed to be prioritized. While the analysis was ongoing, Russia committed massacres and violations of international law on a scale that has not been seen in Europe for many decades.

Mr. Speaker! It benefited Sweden's security that we, together with Finland, were able to submit a NATO application in May 2022 and that this was not delayed. The process that has followed since has been one of the fastest in NATO's history. All NATO member states except two have, at the current stage, ratified Sweden's application.

Unfortunately, there is now much that speaks for Finland becoming a member of Nato before Sweden. It is regrettable if we two brother nations cannot become members of the alliance at the same time. A Finnish Nato membership will, however, on decisive points also benefit Sweden, among other things by the fact that Nato can act in wartime even in Finland.

Membership in Nato also places demands on Sweden and Sweden's defense capability, which is positive. In Nato, one cannot hitch a ride; it is required that everyone participates and contributes. In the current situation, our authorities and other structures are being adapted in a work that is very important.

Mr. Speaker! When Sweden joins Nato, it is very important that we do so with the ambition to become a fully integrated part of the alliance and contribute to, among other things, that which is mentioned in the strategic doctrine. It means that we need to have a 360-degree perspective. Russia is, of course, the dimensioning threat for the Swedish part, but we must also have the ability to meet threats in all directions.

NATO emphasizes, in addition to conventional and nuclear deterrence, also the robot defense capability. This is unfortunately a capability whose importance has for a long time been underestimated in Swedish defense planning. But with an increased proliferation of technology for both weapons of mass destruction and long-range robots, there is a need to be able to contribute also to this part jointly with NATO and jointly build up a defense for both Sweden and our allies. Even when it comes to capabilities such as cyber and space, it is important that Sweden contributes and is integrated into NATO's structures.

In Nato, we will have the opportunity for both national and bilateral as well as common, collective planning. Nato is not a supranational body in the same way as the European Union.

Mr. Speaker! In conclusion, it is important to state that the world has fundamentally changed. That it would return to a more rules-based world order is unfortunately not likely in the near, foreseeable future. Unfortunately, it rather looks as if the development is heading in the other direction.

A geopolitically fragmented and divided world and a world where strength takes precedence over right is unfortunately a reality we have to face in many respects. In such a reality, a strengthened deterrent military capability is required, and through a membership in Nato, this capability will increase, both for us and for our neighboring countries. Therefore, the Sverigedemokraterna will vote for a Swedish Nato membership and the legislative changes that accompany this.

(Applause)

In this speech, Yasmine Eriksson (SD) agreed.

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

Kerstin Lundgren (C)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Aron Emilsson, for the contribution - also the historical part. I did, however, miss a part of the historical description, Mr. Speaker.

An important part of the debate has been precisely what Aron Emilsson presented: Swedish non-alignment has served us well. It has served the stability in northern Europe. While we, during the time after the annexation of Crimea, have tried to pose the question of in what way non-alignment serves us well and contributes to stabilizing our part of Europe, the Sverigedemokraterna have been the ones obligated to answer. They have not been interested in conducting that debate. They have participated in putting the lid on and telling the story that non-alignment serves us well and that we should not become members of Nato. This has been the case until after Russia's brutal attack in the spring of 2022.

It is clear that this has contributed to creating the image that we should not discuss Nato, that it is not relevant. It has also contributed, Mr. Speaker, to many perceiving that there was suddenly a shift. I believe that also many of the Sweden Democrats' members perceived it in that way.

A little self-criticism would have been good, then. We saw what happened. Russia entered Ukraine as early as 2014. One had acted much earlier. There would have been reason to at least lift the lid and ask: Does non-alignment still serve Sweden well?

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

Aron Emilsson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I am glad that we can dwell somewhat on the historical description. It is still the case that neutrality has historically served Sweden well. I maintain that. I mean it. I also note that the lion's share of the Swedish parties have stated that until 1999 - during the two world wars, during the Cold War. This also applies to the Center Party.

It is clear that history can change and developments can take new directions. When the terrain of reality changes, the map must also be adapted to reality. It is precisely that reassessment that the Sverigedemokraterna have made.

We were nevertheless careful to back a Nato option as early as 2020. We began to see where the development trends were heading. That was our first step. Then we needed to conduct a debate and also look at how the popular will and the depth of public support were moving, how public opinion looked, but also how the security policy development looked. We conducted a reassessment. We made a renewed decision and chose during the spring, in March-April last year, to take a stand for Swedish Nato membership. It is quite true that we have previously been critical of it, but when reality changes, we must also reassess old truths. It is quite true.

Then I can only note that when it comes to Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine, the Sweden Democrats were one of the very first parties, already when Russia declared before Christmas that Sweden is part of Russia's sphere of interest, to point out that Sweden needed to support Ukraine. We were among the first to advocate for arms deliveries. We pushed this hard in the EU Committee. This was still long before the outbreak of the full-scale invasion.

We have therefore done a lot, also jointly. We have also, on good grounds, re-examined old truths and decisions.

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

Kerstin Lundgren (C)

Mr. Speaker! That is fine. We must all be prepared to reconsider our positions when reality changes. That is obvious. The question then is, Mr. Speaker: When did reality change? Was it first on February 24th with the brutal Russian aggression, or had we seen reality change earlier?

There are parties here in the chamber that still do not see that there are reasons for NATO membership, but instead believe that non-alignment still serves Sweden well. It is important to have that debate and dare to analyze: Is this a truth, or is this a narrative that has become a truth because we have repeated it so often?

We have tried throughout the process, after Russia's aggression against Ukraine in 2014, to raise the debate. We also raised the requirement for a Nato option because we hoped that a door would be opened for some. We are glad that the Sweden Democrats went through that door and supported our proposal. But had we been on the ball earlier, Mr. Speaker, and reacted and acted earlier, we would not have had such a short debate time before the decision. We would also have found ourselves in a different position.

We have, therefore, talked ourselves into a corner. It is part of what I think there are reasons for us to be self-critical about. And let us discuss: Does neutrality serve us well? Did it serve us well after 2014? Or did it even contribute to making Russia's actions possible, creating a way forward for the Kremlin and creating instability in our part of northern Europe?

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

Aron Emilsson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I can only state once again that this has been a historic change for several of our major parties to carry out in relation to our large constituencies, to the districts, and to the party organization as a whole. There has also been a marked movement in public opinion. The latest figures I saw showed that around 63 percent of the Swedish people now unconditionally support a Swedish NATO membership.

This, however, has not been the case for very long. Reality has nevertheless changed at a drastic speed when it comes to how the effects and consequences of Russia's renewed full-scale invasion of Ukraine have truly destroyed the previously prevailing European security order and security architecture. We naturally need to take this into account.

One must make a collective assessment - but still in good democratic order, which has also been important for us in our party. But it has, as said, been an important step-by-step movement towards this: first, as said, by supporting the Centerpartiets proposal on the Nato option and thereafter also reconsidering the very question of Swedish Nato membership. This we did a little over a year ago.

It is also important to note that the Sweden Democrats is the party that has long advocated, and will continue to advocate, that Sweden needs to conduct security policy evaluations looking back in time. We need to look at the last decades: When have we made different decisions? Why did we make those decisions? What consequences have they had? Can we learn something from history? In that way, we can become better equipped and have a stronger resilience when reality changes in a security policy sense.

We have not yet received support for this. However, I hope that together with the Center Party and other parties, we can ensure that it gets on the table. It will affect many different previous governments of different colors, but it can also teach us something for the future.

Additionally, I would just like to thank you for the fact that we in the committee have been able to have a very constructive and good spirit of consensus in the preparation of this report.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! Today we make a historic decision. It is a decision that will likely affect Sweden greatly and do so over a long period. After we have been militarily non-aligned for over 200 years, the Riksdag will today make a decision to join a military alliance with 31 other states. Never in our country's history have we participated in such an extensive military alliance.

Men, Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, it is the wrong decision, in my opinion. Our military non-alignment has served us well in Sweden and could do so for a long time to come. During previous historical periods, it was precisely that military non-alignment that proved to be a strength for Sweden, not a weakness. The military non-alignment has contributed to generations after generations in Sweden being able to live in peace. Our non-alignment has also given us security policy room for maneuver which we have been able to use to promote peace and disarmament when the political will has existed.

These values are upheld today by a majority of the members of the Riksdag. Some will surely claim the opposite in today's debate. But the fact remains: After today's decision, Sweden will be a different country in international contexts than we were yesterday. We will join a military alliance.

Mr. Speaker! What are my, my party Vänsterpartiets, and a fifth of Sweden's population's arguments against joining the military alliance Nato?

During this process, since last spring, it has become clear that it is about democracy, above all the lack of democracy in some countries that we are now going to enter into a military alliance with. Around the world, democracy is under threat. On a global level, democracy is in decline, and the democratic space is shrinking. This is also happening in Europe.

Since Viktor Orbán and his party Fidesz took power in Hungary and with Turkey and President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, it is clear that at least the last decade has been a regression for democracy in both countries. Freedom of expression has shrunk, media have been shut down, and rights such as LGBTQ+ rights have been curtailed. You can even end up in prison for your opinions. If I had been a politician in the Turkish parliament, I would likely have been prosecuted for my political statements and dissenting opinions.

Mr. Speaker! On May 13 last year, we who have sat in the security policy working group from all the parties in the Riksdag presented our analysis. We all agreed that the threat from Russia and Russia's illegal war against Ukraine is in conflict with international law.

Several times during the work, I myself from Vänsterpartiet but also the representative from Miljöpartiet raised what risks it entails to enter into a military alliance with Turkey and Hungary. Then the criticism was waved away and made invisible. Turkey and Hungary are only mentioned in Vänsterpartiet's special statement.

It is precisely these countries that have not approved Sweden's application for NATO membership. They are now trying to use our application to silence our voice for democracy and human rights, exactly what was claimed in the security policy report would not happen.

That is why it is problematic to enter into a military alliance with countries that are not democracies and where we see daily how democracy is shrinking. Even when we have likely been approved by these countries' parliaments, it will every day be a negotiation within Nato with precisely these two countries. Furthermore, they are far from two insignificant countries. Turkey is, in terms of military size, Nato's second-largest country.

Vänsterpartiet argues that Swedish membership in the military alliance increases the risk of us being drawn into wars and conflicts that we have not chosen ourselves. Swedish foreign and security policy should be decided in Sweden, not at NATO's headquarters in Brussels, not in Washington by the US president, and not in Ankara by Turkey's president. Sweden shall continue to be militarily alliance-free. It should be the Riksdag's decision today.

The second major issue that makes Vänsterpartiet consistently opposed to a Swedish NATO membership is nuclear weapons. No other weapon in the world can create such destruction as nuclear weapons. The atomic bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki show this. Hundreds of thousands of people died, and the effects are still felt today in the health of the survivors' grandchildren.

Never again, I believe and hope that everyone in here thinks. At the same time, it is impossible to avoid that the military alliance NATO's ultimate means are nuclear weapons. These are weapons that are being modernized, upgraded, and practiced with. The idea is that total destruction of our earth shall deter the opponent from attacking.

Vänsterpartiet has a number of motions regarding nuclear weapons. It is about Sweden remaining a nuclear-weapon-free state. We are a country with high technical competence. We also developed nuclear weapons during the 50s and 60s, before we decided in 1968 to shut down our nuclear weapons program and instead chose to sign the non-proliferation treaty, NPT, regarding that nuclear weapons must not be spread to more countries. It is a proud part of our disarmament history that we shall both remember and uphold.

I do not believe that anyone in today's chamber thinks that Sweden should acquire nuclear weapons now. But with the bill that is voted through today, there are no obstacles to changing that line if new politicians in the future should want otherwise. It is to protect our country that there is a value in deciding that Sweden shall remain a nuclear-weapon-free state.

We should decide that Sweden shall adopt national legislation prohibiting the import and transit of nuclear weapons on Swedish territory in both peacetime and wartime. Sweden should, regardless of Swedish membership in Nato, reserve the right to join the UN convention on the prohibition of nuclear weapons and not stand behind Nato's statements criticizing the convention. Through those decisions, we could clarify to the rest of the world that Sweden is free of nuclear weapons.

NATO membership, in fact, means an approach towards nuclear weapons. For the first time in our country's history, nuclear weapons will become part of our military strategy. We will join NATO's Nuclear Planning Group, NPG, whose work involves planning for the nuclear weapons that NATO member countries possess.

Even though the nuclear weapons are under the command of France, Great Britain, and the USA, the use of these is part of NATO's military strategy. This occurs through so-called nuclear sharing, which means that the USA has nuclear weapons deployed in European countries such as Belgium, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey, and Germany.

It is also about NATO's exercise activities which include exercises in the use of nuclear weapons, such as SNOWCAT. This means that even countries that have declared that they do not want nuclear weapons on their territory, such as Norway and Denmark, are participating and exercising with fighter jets that fly alongside and protect the bombers expected to carry nuclear weapons during an attack.

It is also about what is called no first use, that is to say that Nato promises never to be the first to use nuclear weapons against another country. If this principle were to be introduced in Nato, it would appear risk-reducing and lead to reduced trust in the total destruction of nuclear weapons.

If the Riksdag had approved the Left Party's motion, Sweden would have reserved the right not to support NATO's statements on nuclear weapons and to actively use footnotes in all types of cooperation with NATO to mark a distancing from nuclear weapons. The parliamentary majority does not choose that strategy today. Instead, Sweden is under a nuclear umbrella where nuclear weapons risk both being present in Sweden and being used in the name of the Swedish people.

Mr. Speaker! What happens after the Riksdag's decision today? In practice, nothing.

The basic principle throughout the entire application process has been that this decision should be made only after all NATO member states have approved Sweden's and Finland's application. Since this has not happened, the NATO majority wants to try to maintain their smiles through today's decision. It is a decision forced by the Finnish election but which will likely lead to Finland receiving a yes to become a member before Sweden. Today's decision will likely have the opposite effect; Erdogan's and Orbán's negotiating positions are strengthened, and their opportunities to silence Sweden's voice for democracy become even better.

Mr. Speaker! The term is spelled memorandum. It is a kind of agreement that the S-led government signed in Madrid last year, shortly after Midsummer, with Finland but above all with Turkey. The S-government was in a hurry to obtain so-called invitee status, i.e., to be invited to Nato. Turkey saw a good opportunity to silence Sweden's voice for democracy and human rights. The memorandum came after Nato Secretary General Stoltenberg had recommended that Sweden and Finland meet Turkey's so-called security aspects.

Even before the agreement was signed, it was clear that Turkey intended to use the countries' applications for NATO membership to pressure Sweden and Finland to pursue a policy that suited Ankara better. It was about opening up arms exports to Turkey, deepening the intelligence services' cooperation, and having Kurds and oppositionists deported from Sweden to Turkey. Above all, it was about silencing Sweden's and Finland's strong voices for democracy, human rights, and Kurdish rights. They have many times been the strongest voices in international contexts in their criticism of Turkey.

Already during the foreign policy debate on June 10, three weeks before the memorandum was signed, the then Foreign Minister Ann Linde announced that Sweden would begin exporting weapons to Turkey, even though the Riksdag had only two and a half years earlier stopped that very export when Turkey attacked the Kurdish area of Afrin in northern Syria.

I therefore intended to now go through some of the memorandum's paragraphs, for it is interesting reading that has great significance.

In Article 3 it is established that there shall be unwavering solidarity and cooperation in the fight against terrorism - and then comes the interesting part - in all forms and manifestations. It is therefore this point that has made ministers of all colors have been lightning-fast in tweeting condemnations to the right and left, because if they do not do so, they violate the memorandum. This is also repeated in Article 4 where it is clarified that condemnations shall be made in the strongest terms.

In Article 4 it is established that Sweden and Finland give full support to Turkey regarding threats to its national security. Therefore, Finland and Sweden will not give any support to YPG, PYD or the organization described as FETÖ in Turkey.

Article 4 is one of the most interesting in the memorandum. YPG is the armed force in Rojava in northeastern Syria that constituted the majority of the SDF, Syrian Democratic Force, who were the ones who defeated the terrorist organization IS. It was this group that the USA supported militarily. It was when Trump abandoned them in 2019 that Turkey took the opportunity to launch an attack. It is therefore a military group that has been crucial for the Western world's security and for the successes in the fight against IS. Furthermore, it should be noted that their important women's organization YPJ is rendered invisible in the memorandum.

PYD is the political party that has the clearest political control over Rojava. They have been responsible for the organization of society and the local and regional councils that on a daily basis govern the small welfare state that exists in the area. They are also the party that administers the refugee camps and the prisons where IS terrorists are held. They thus have a decisive role for global and regional security.

In the memorandum, the Social Democrats signed on to not provide support to YPG and PYD. This was then interpreted as meaning that the contacts Sweden was to have would be at a lower political level than before. Both Foreign Minister Linde and Defense Minister Hultqvist had previously met with representatives for the groups, and that had given them increased political legitimacy. Furthermore, there was an agreement between the political figure Amineh Kakabaveh and the Social Democrats, which also gave increased legitimacy to the organizations.

When Tobias Billström became Foreign Minister, new formulations regarding the distancing from the organizations YPG and PYD appeared in Ekot's Saturday interview. Exactly what the difference was was not crystal clear, but Billström was clear that, towards Turkey, he tried to project the image of an even harder line from the new government, even though the practical difference is small.

It is also important to say here that neither the YPG nor the PYD are considered terrorist groups by anyone other than Turkey. Both organizations are very clear that their goal is to build a regional self-government in northeastern Syria for Kurds and other minorities. They want to build democracy where Syria's dictator Bashar al-Assad is trying to build a dictatorship.

Now to the organization that in Turkey is called FETÖ. Let me be clear that it is precisely in Turkey that they call it this. The name FETÖ is, in fact, a way for Erdogan's regime to smear the Gülen movement, which was previously their ally, and portray them as the enemy. It is also important to understand that the Kurdish organizations and the Gülen movement have nothing in common, except perhaps their loathing of Erdogan. The reason for Erdogan's hatred toward the Gülen movement is their alleged involvement in the coup attempt against Erdogan in 2016 - something that no other country than Turkey considers to have occurred. It is, of course, very unclear what support Sweden can be considered to have given to the Gülen movement, but according to the memorandum, Sweden must not give any support. This is a more extreme position than what any other Nato or EU country has adopted regarding the 2016 coup attempt.

So, what was the result of Sweden's distancing from the Gülen movement? Well, at Erdogan's and Kristersson's joint press conference, Erdogan demanded that the journalist and editor-in-chief Bülent Kenes, who led one of the largest daily newspapers in Turkey before Erdogan shut it down, should be deported to Turkey. The Prime Minister stood calmly and quietly and watched. When we have asked him in the Riksdag, he has not wanted to talk about the issue.

It is fortunate that Sweden, unlike Turkey, has an independent judicial system, as a few days before Christmas, Bülent Kenes was granted a residence permit. In the days following, Foreign Minister Billström spent almost his entire trip to Ankara explaining that was the case. The hopes for a Turkish "yes" to Sweden before New Year's had then definitely been shattered.

Article 5 concerns the PKK. It is established that it is a terrorist organization according to Sweden and Finland, which also aligns with the EU's terror list which contains the PKK but, for example, does not contain the Wagner Group or the Iranian Revolutionary Guard IRGC. Furthermore, it is written that Finland and Sweden are dedicated to countering activities of the PKK and all other terrorist organizations and extensions of these, as well as activities of individuals associated with and inspired by groups or networks linked to terrorist organizations. Turkey, Finland and Sweden have agreed to deepen cooperation to counter such activities.

So, here the framework for the deepened intelligence cooperation is established. It is also through this paragraph's wide definition that Turkey can, in principle, point at anyone and say that they are a terrorist, because even if Sweden considers it to be terrorism according to the EU's definition, it is not confirmed here that it is so. Turkey can, by referring to Article 5, repeatedly repeat its demands and demand deportations.

In the extension, this has led us into the legislative process where the government, in conflict with the jurists in the Council on Legislation, proposes legislation with a broad definition of terrorism, just as Turkey wants. It is even to the extent that according to the new legislation, one can be convicted for babysitting. Sweden has received legislation that suits Turkey, legislation that, instead of its original intention to combat IS, becomes a tool to hunt those who defeated IS.

In article 6 of the memorandum, it mentions partly the anti-terrorism legislation adopted by the Riksdag last year, and partly the legislation that the Riksdag is now considering regarding participation in a terrorist organization. It is legislation that has received massive criticism from the Council on Legislation, the Bar Association, and Civil Rights Defenders, and which, according to the Foreign Minister, would be the final piece of the puzzle for Sweden to fulfill the memorandum. Suddenly, when the government ignores heavy referral bodies, the differences between Sweden and Turkey are not so great anymore.

In Article 7, it is established that there is no arms embargo against Turkey. That is correct. Both Sweden and Finland pushed for this in the EU in the autumn of 2019 but did not get enough other countries on board. It also states that Sweden has changed its position and will export weapons to Turkey. It is also noted that this is in line with Article 3 of NATO's Washington Treaty.

In Article 8, commitments are operationalized through a common mechanism for the governments, police authorities, and intelligence services. Sweden and Finland also promise to follow relevant NATO documents on terrorism and to tighten their domestic legislation in line with these. It is, quite simply, an opportunity for Turkey to continue influencing the Swedish legislative process.

In Article 8, the deportations are also addressed sharply for the first time. It takes its starting point in that Finland and Sweden shall address Turkey's ongoing requests for deportation and expulsion of terror suspects, and that consideration shall be taken of information, evidence, and intelligence that Turkey provides. A bilateral regulatory framework shall also be developed. The interesting thing is that these formulations take their starting point in Turkey's perspective, not Sweden's and Finland's. This means, for example, that gang criminals hiding in Turkey are not explicitly covered by the memorandum.

The S-government pointed out with some justification to the reference in Article 8 that it is the rules of the European Convention that shall apply in cases of deportation.

Disinformation should also be combated by all three states, but particularly when it concerns activities that incite against Turkey. It is in this light that puppet shows and Quran burnings should be seen. Sweden and Finland also promise not to set up any new obstacles for arms exports to Turkey in the future and to fight for Turkey to be allowed to participate in various EU-funded military development projects for weapons within the EU's military cooperation Pesco.

Article 9 concerns the common mechanism. It is the working group that we have seen have had meetings to and from and which has frozen when relations have not been good enough.

Furthermore, we have Article 10, and it is quite telling that it is the last article in the memorandum. It is Sweden's and Finland's win, that is to say the promise that Sweden and Finland would be granted so-called invitee status the following day and be invited to Nato.

Through the memorandum, we can observe that Erdogan and Turkey achieved the four points that I stated were the goal at the beginning, namely to obtain arms exports to Turkey, to deepen intelligence cooperation, to have Kurds and oppositionists deported from Sweden to Turkey, and above all to silence Sweden's and Finland's strong voice for democracy, human rights, and the rights of Kurds in international contexts and in their criticism of Turkey.

Mr. Speaker! Swedish foreign and security policy has been damaged by how both the Social Democratic and the Moderate-led governments have handled the NATO process. Today, Sweden's international reputation has significantly deteriorated and reached a historically low level. This means that the security policy threat against Sweden today is higher than it has been in a very long time.

Despite the fact that Sweden and Finland have now been approved by all other NATO countries, two remain: Turkey and Hungary. Both are countries with severely lacking and increasingly shrinking democracy that have exploited Sweden's application for their own gain. That these risks were not analyzed and taken seriously in advance, before the Swedish application was submitted, is very serious and has harmed Sweden.

Under the current government, the situation has worsened further. Common to this has been the policy of concessions, the results of which we can now read in a deteriorated security policy situation. The process can be described as perhaps the greatest Swedish diplomatic failure in the post-war period.

Mr. Speaker! This report also outlines how the work in Nato will be conducted in relation to Sweden's Riksdag. Much is, indeed, hush-hush in this alliance. Therefore, the Foreign Affairs Committee and, through it, our monarch, the King, receive more power through today's decision, as the anchoring in the Foreign Affairs Committee is the only thing the government focuses on in its proposition. Of course, the Foreign Affairs Committee and, by extension, the War Delegation are important, especially in times of unrest, but Nato membership will likely proceed at a more leisurely pace most other days. In that case, Sweden's Riksdag must be kept informed and briefed. It would be serious for our democracy if any government ran away from the people's primary representatives simply because they have the power over Sweden's foreign and security policy.

Therefore, today's report from the Committee on Foreign Affairs is a small step in the right direction. For my part, the forms for how the work should be carried out could have been clearer. I do not want to see more blunders in the minutes, such as when the Prime Minister decided that security policy is only something for yes-men. In the responsibility of securing our country's safety, we must all be involved, regardless of whether we are for or against a military alliance. I am convinced that we, as the people's primary representatives, work every day to make Sweden and the Swedes safer, especially in increasingly restless times.

With that, I would like, Mr. Speaker, to move for approval of reservation 1 regarding the rejection of the proposal to join the military alliance Nato and reservation 3 regarding nuclear weapons.

(Applause)

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

Ann-Sofie Alm (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for the speech. It was interesting to listen to it, as it always is when the member expresses themselves here in the chamber.

That Vänsterpartiet is against Nato is no secret. We have known that for a long time. But I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if Vänsterpartiet has really thought this through properly. Perhaps one changes one's mind, just as was done regarding the support for Ukraine. First, one voted against it, and then, when public opinion surged, voted for it. What made it possible to change one's mind was, according to the party leader, the support found in international law and the UN Charter's principles regarding the right of attacked states to defend themselves, as well as the fact that one did not believe one could leave the people of Ukraine alone against the Russian military superiority.

Mr. Speaker! In my opinion, the Left Party is exposing the population of Sweden to direct danger when they want to let Sweden be alone and without Nato in the event of an armed attack against Sweden, which cannot be ruled out. How does the Left Party intend to take responsibility so that Sweden can defend itself? If one is against Nato, which the Left Party has clearly declared, Mr. Speaker, I believe one must take responsibility for Sweden and Sweden's security and defense in some other way. I and the rest of the Swedish people, I believe, want to know how the Left Party intends to do that.

(Applause)

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! The Russian invasion of Ukraine is unprovoked, illegal and unjustifiable, and it completely contradicts international law. It is a violation of Ukraine's territorial integrity and sovereignty, and it entails great human suffering for the Ukrainian people. The invasion means that we once again have a full-scale war in the middle of Europe, and it challenges the European security order and places new demands on individual countries in Europe.

Russia's aggression must not be tolerated. Ukraine must have the world's support. Sweden must strengthen its total defense. A Swedish NATO membership, however, does not make either Sweden or Ukraine safer.

It is important to see that the process we had before the first arms export decision to Ukraine went very quickly. I wish I had had more time to reflect then in order to land more correctly.

Just as Ann-Sofie Alm says, it is clear that what Russia is doing is about imperialism. They take it upon themselves to attack another country in violation of the UN Charter. Therefore, our support must go to Ukraine, which is subjected to this imperialism.

We in the Left Party should have realized from day one that it could also mean weapons. But we are fighting for a more peaceful world with disarmament and fewer military conflicts, and the formulations we had in the party program led us into a thought that there were risks with providing armored vehicles to Ukraine and that we could be drawn in. After that, the Left Party has clearly supported all such decisions, and tomorrow we will decide on an eleventh package for Ukraine.

Now much of the speaking time I needed to get to the second question that Ann-Sofie Alm asked about what we intend instead has disappeared. I ask to be allowed to return to that in my next reply.

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

Ann-Sofie Alm (M)

Mr. Speaker! I almost sensed that the Left Party had no good answer to the question, because the Left Party has no commitment to responsibility for the security of Sweden's population in its budget appropriations. There is nothing there. The Left Party has, Mr. Speaker, no counterproposals and is therefore prepared to put Sweden in danger.

When Finland now joins Nato before Sweden, it is enough to look at a map to understand what I mean by danger. Sweden is the only white spot remaining, along with Russia and Belarus. Consequently, we would be the primary target for hostile power. In that situation, 2 percent of GDP would not be enough at all.

Mr. Speaker! The Left Party's policy therefore leads Sweden to war and misery. What are the Left Party's beautiful words about solidarity and about standing up for the weak actually worth? Why do these words not apply when it comes to safeguarding democratic values and collectively defending our country's freedom under threat from dictatorships and hostile powers?

Mr. Speaker! Nato is a politically governed organization where the members confirm their belief in the UN Charter and their will to live in peace with all and with all governments and where the parties have set out to unite their efforts for a collective defense and maintenance of peace and security.

My question to the member is, Mr. Speaker: Is it not both unsolidary and extremely irresponsible to actively choose to stand outside Nato in this security situation when one has no solution for how to protect Sweden and Sweden's population?

(Applause)

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! For the Left Party, the territorial defense of Sweden is central. Our land, our water, and our airspace shall not be violated by other states. The Left Party has been driving the reintroduction of the conscription that the Moderate-led government abolished by a margin of three votes. We have made budgets together with the Social Democratic government from 2014 onwards where we have increased the appropriations for defense several times. One should not doubt the Left Party's will to defend Sweden. It stands at the top of our agenda.

We mean that as a militarily neutral country, one could have greater freedom of action. One decides for oneself which countries to cooperate with, which different conflicts to participate in, and how to resolve diplomatic crises. We could cooperate with other democracies. They exist in our immediate vicinity. Sometimes the Moderaterna describe it as that a Nato membership is roughly like joining a slightly larger Norden and just defending our immediate vicinity. But Nato contains countries with severely lacking democracy, which I addressed in my main speech.

One should not underestimate the importance of national self-determination. Today, we are sending power away from this chamber, from the Swedish Riksdag and from the Swedish government to actors who do not have the interests of Sweden and the Swedish people as their primary concern. I believe that through good cooperation with our neighboring countries, primarily the Nordic and Baltic neighboring countries, we could build an international cooperation where Sweden makes independent decisions in close contact with other countries and, in some cases, plans and exercises together with them.

A Swedish and Finnish NATO membership would mean that the Arctic can no longer be seen as a low-tension area. It is now time that we pursue a policy where we see that climate change, together with Russia's increased threats against us, means that our immediate vicinity has become more insecure. In that case, we need to strengthen our defense and increase our cooperation with our neighboring countries.

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

Kerstin Lundgren (C)

Mr. Speaker! Håkan Svenneling had a long speech. We can all be glad that he did not read both the committee report and the government bill by heart - that was an image that one or another of us might have expected could come. Thank you that it only became 25 minutes and 47 seconds! During that time, however, I did not hear much about the Russian threat. I did not hear about the Russian nuclear weapons, which are actually the ones that threaten Sweden, Ukraine, and the EU.

When one listens to Håkan Svenneling, Mr. Speaker, one can hear how close his line of argumentation is to that heard from the Kremlin. If the Left Party (V) were to achieve credibility, it would have been appropriate if one had also attacked or addressed the perspectives that the Kremlin tries to put forward, which go out on that it is Nato that threatens. It is not Nato that threatens. We seek membership because it is Russia that threatens. It is Russia that has actively attacked Ukraine. It was Putin who said that he had been prepared to use nuclear weapons in Crimea if he had not gotten his will through with the annexation. It is Putin who has flexed the nuclear muscles, not Nato. Nato has no nuclear weapons, Mr. Speaker. On the other hand, we have all during this time actually found ourselves under Nato's nuclear umbrella. It would have been appropriate if the Left Party had attacked the Russian nuclear weapons and not Nato.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! We in Vänsterpartiet have for a long time been clear about our policy and our view on the negative developments in Russia under Putin's regime. Many times we have stated that Putin's regime in Russia constitutes a security policy threat, not least against everyone in Russia who opposes the regime and who do not fit into the society that Putin wants to build. For Russian LGBTQ activists, feminists, indigenous rights advocates, environmental movements, and left-wing activists, and for those who are against the war, the regime itself is a daily security threat.

Russia's imperialist policy also constitutes a direct threat to the population in several neighboring countries. We have seen this in Ukraine. We have also seen it in Belarus, Georgia and Moldova, as well as in countries in Central Asia. It is also a threat to us and to our neighboring countries, a threat that must not be underestimated but countered and prevented. Therefore, I am every day critical of the Russian nuclear weapons and how Russia annually practices attacking both Sweden and other countries with those nuclear weapons.

But one must also see that Nato, in its so-called deterrence, has the same type of thinking towards Russia. It intends to threaten with the use of nuclear weapons. That is the central part of Nato's line of thinking. That is why you want to join Nato. You mean that we are safer if we are under the umbrella and say: Do not attack Sweden, because then we will bring total destruction!

I mean that we could have a different strategy. We could continue to be militarily non-aligned. It has served us well for 200 years. It has kept us out of wars and conflicts. But today, the parliamentary majority chooses a different path. That also means we increase tensions in our own immediate vicinity. The Arctic is no longer a low-tension area. The Baltic Sea will be an inland sea surrounded only by NATO countries and Russia.

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

Kerstin Lundgren (C)

Mr. Speaker! Then we heard once again about the image that neutrality serves Sweden well. Håkan Svenneling says that he has seen reality. But the question is whose reality he has seen. Has he seen the Russian actions under Putin? One could start as early as when Putin came to power. Vänsterpartiet should have been able to draw one conclusion or another to update their perception of reality. It is actually the case that you continue to live in the image that applied previously.

We have every reason to criticize the Left Party's repetitions regarding Nato's threats. If anything has been clear, it is that Nato stands up for every inch of the member countries' territory, so that Russia will not attack. It builds security. We build security together, in solidarity. But the Left Party does not want that, because they want to choose their own partners. But who is going to give guarantees? Now Finland is also joining Nato before Sweden. Who is left? Yes, Sweden alone. The only non-Nato member is, after all, Russia. I have not heard that the Left Party, despite old contacts, would have found a diplomatic way to break Putin's aggression in Europe and against Ukraine.

Mr. Speaker! I have read the special statement from the Left Party in the joint analysis group. Turkey and Hungary were indeed mentioned. But it was touched upon very lightly, in just two lines. The big thing was the USA and the fear of the USA. The entire special statement from the Left Party is an attack on the USA, Mr. Speaker.

(Applause)

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! If I could have seen into the future, I could have told Kerstin Lundgren how Erdogan and Orbán operate. I chose to write it in two sentences in a specific statement, but I also chose to raise it in the meetings we sat in when we had the security policy talks.

I believe that Kerstin Lundgren is describing her own worldview very much rather than the image that Vänsterpartiet has. We have been very clear in our criticism of Putin's Russia. During Putin's time in power, the country has become clearly undemocratic. We see a reactionary, conservative and patriarchal rule that oppresses everything and everyone and that only serves its own purposes and its own economy. To hang on to power is all Putin wants. Therefore, the arrest warrant from the ICC is incredibly important. One day he will be arrested and convicted for the crimes he has committed, both war crimes and crimes against human rights.

I still do not think one should land in the very simplified worldview that Kerstin Lundgren expresses, where Sweden would be alone against the mighty Russia. One must remember that we have many friends.

We have had a military cooperation with Finland, and we have many military cooperations with others. We could have a clarity that democracies stand up for democracies, just as we do with Ukraine.

It is easy to forget that deterrence or threat, depending on how one sees it, is NATO's cornerstone. One threatens Russia with total destruction if it attacks NATO countries.

It is entirely Russia that is responsible for the deteriorated security situation, and it is Putin who is responsible for the war in Ukraine. But one should not therefore be misled into believing that NATO's deterrence world is the right path for Sweden.

(Applause)

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

Aron Emilsson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I have great respect for Håkan Svenneling's straightforward and honest positions. It is usually a pleasure to debate with Håkan Svenneling, even if I do not share Håkan Svenneling's positions. I want to stop at two components, or assessments that Vänsterpartiet makes, in relation to this issue and this committee report.

The first is the democracy issue. I go back to the security policy working group that both I and Håkan Svenneling worked in during the year. It was carried out under the previous government.

Strong criticism was expressed against Nato both during the deliberations and in the written reservation and in the statement to the report. It is written: The last decade has seen a clear decline for democracy in a number of Nato countries.

It is clear that there are flaws in democracies that are members of Nato. It is obvious. But that does not apply to the majority. Rather, democracy stands very strong in Nato's member states, several of which are ranked highest in democracy indices. This applies in particular to several of our Nordic neighboring countries.

Vänsterpartiet is relatively alone in that assessment. This applies in particular to the freedom-loving Ukraine. There, they make a completely different assessment. They want nothing else than to become a part of both the European Union and Nato.

One also writes in their reservation that a membership in the nuclear weapons alliance would significantly worsen our security policy position. It is also a radically different assessment than all other parties - including Miljöpartiet - make in this report.

In the two parts, I would like to ask Håkan Svenneling what he and the Vänsterpartiet base their assessments on in this regard.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! The issue of democracy that Aron Emilsson raises is incredibly important. It is important to speak, above all, about Hungary and Turkey, given that it is there we see the clearest regression in democracy during the last decade.

There are many who research this. There are different democracy institutes. Freedom House is a classic. It is an American institute that is usually mentioned in these contexts. For a long time, it has shown the democratic decline and pointed out deficiencies in many countries.

I may have a slightly broader definition than Aron Emilsson of what constitutes a democratic regression. I will give examples of some other things we have seen in Europe.

In Slovenia, which I visited together with the Speaker, there was previously a social democratic government. When it was taken over by the Sweden Democrats' party friends in SDS, they tried to do a bit like in Hungary and gain control over the judiciary and the media.

However, they lost the election, and now more liberal parties have regained power. But for a number of years it was clear that the Hungarian way of taking power was spreading to other countries as well.

In Spain, we have seen that the Catalans were severely pressured under the right-wing government. They were de facto mistreated by the police. A Catalan leader was also convicted for having stood on a police car. I believe he was sentenced to five to eight years in prison because he stood on it.

In the UK, Great Britain in Swedish, we now see an attack on trade union rights and a restriction of the trade union right to strike. It is an example of how human rights are questioned and restricted even in democracies. We see the same thing in the development here in Sweden.

That is why Civil Right Defenders and other organizations are pushing back and saying: We cannot proceed this way. The problem is that we have a government that does not listen to those types of referral bodies, but instead puts forward new legislative proposals on the Riksdag's table.

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

Aron Emilsson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I can only state that Håkan Svenneling and I are far from in agreement on the analysis, and so be it.

Let me nevertheless continue to the issue of nuclear weapons. It also needs to be highlighted. Both Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet write in their accompanying motion to the proposition that the parties shall work for a no first use principle.

The only country that today can be said to have such a principle, besides Russia's imperialist spirit, is to some extent China. China is a country that, as the Left Party itself writes, is rearming with nuclear weapons.

To accept such a principle is to give China the right in its nuclear weapons policy and will hinder disarmament, contrary to what the Vänsterpartiet claims.

Furthermore, nuclear deterrence and an absence of no first use only contribute to the fact that aggressive states can be deterred from using other weapons of mass destruction, such as biological and chemical weapons.

It is not least thanks to the nuclear deterrence of the USA and other Nato allies that chemical and even biological weapons have been able to be abolished, not least within Nato, throughout history. The Left Party does not take this into account in its reservation.

It is still important to highlight. There is a difference between the work that Sweden shall participate in fully within Nato and the imperialistic and dimensioning threat posed by Russia and, to some extent, China against the rules-based world order. I would still like to hear how Vänsterpartiet responds to this.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! It is an important dimension that has now been highlighted regarding what is the difference in the Left Party's and the Sweden Democrats' views on this and what strategy Sweden should have.

As Aron Emilsson says, Nato is prepared to use nuclear weapons first before it is attacked, or in any case that it is not attacked with nuclear weapons. It means, as Aron Emilsson says, that for example an attack with biological weapons against Nato could be met with a nuclear attack from one of Nato's three nuclear-weapon states.

My position is that we should work for a ban on biological weapons rather than threatening to punish those who use them militarily. It has also been shown that the type of conventions that the UN has had in a number of areas such as landmines, biological weapons, test bans and so on have led to the world's countries agreeing on disarmament, arms controls and risk-reducing matters. This means that as a consequence of it, we live in a safer world.

I mean that it also applies to the nuclear weapons area. If we introduce no first use or even better, the UN nuclear weapons convention, we reduce the trust in the nuclear weapons' capacity for deterrence, because it actually is only about total destruction. Through that, we find a way to build a more peaceful world.

Everyone in here who feels anxiety regarding Russian nuclear weapons is completely right in that. Russia is the country in the world that has the most nuclear weapons right now. It is if one combines NATO's nuclear weapons that one reaches the same levels as Russia has. That is the balance that everything is built on right now and the shaky ground we stand on.

The best would be if we could continue the path down to zero nuclear weapons in Russia, China, USA, France and the United Kingdom and in all other states in the world that possess nuclear weapons.

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

Anna Starbrink (L)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member, for your long and reasoned contribution, which nevertheless did not provide all the answers I would like to have!

You describe that Sweden has benefited well from the neutrality during the last 200 years. That can, of course, be discussed.

The future is perhaps even more relevant for us to contend with, and I wonder if you share the Supreme Commander's view that a military attack cannot be ruled out. If you do not believe he is wrong on that point, I think it is important that the Left Party explains how Sweden should handle such an attack. You provide no answers in your budget or in other contexts.

When you have previously been asked the question in exchanges here, you have answered with quite long and interesting security policy arguments, but you leave the question unanswered. How do you want to defend Sweden?

I will also send along another question. It concerns this matter with nuclear weapons.

I believe we all share your abhorrence of nuclear weapons and would gladly see a completely nuclear-free world. But there is no doubt that nuclear weapons in the hands of despots without morals but with great power ambitions are an existential threat. Even though I share the vision of a nuclear-free world, I want to ask you if you and Vänsterpartiet believe that the world would become safer without Nato. How would a world where only Russia, China, and North Korea had nuclear weapons affect Sweden's security in a positive way?

(TALMANNEN: I remind you that in the chamber we speak in the third person about each other via the Speaker rather than directly across the floor.)

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member Anna Starbrink, for the question!

I mean that we are now making a change to the Swedish defense. Vänsterpartiet stands behind a reinforcement of the Swedish defense up to 2 percent of GDP. It is important because Sweden needs to have a strong total defense in the serious security policy situation we find ourselves in, and I am proud to be a part of that to strengthen Sweden's defense capability in a restless time.

The best thing, of course, would have been if we had not been in a restless time, if we, with diplomacy as the first line of defense, could have taken us to a position where we were in a safer state than now. But I still think that these are important decisions.

I also want to point out the importance of reintroducing conscription, which the Liberals were involved in abolishing. Together with the extensive military downsizing, which led to me not doing my conscription, that abolition led to us getting completely the wrong type of defense in Sweden.

At the same time, I argue that we could build security through good cooperation with our neighboring countries, which are democracies and which stand close to us and have similar interests.

The problem when entering such a large military alliance as the one we are now entering – with 31 other countries – is that our interests, the Swedes' interests, are not automatically at the center. There may be other interests that take precedence over the Swedish interests, and thereby we become part of wars and conflicts that we ourselves have not chosen.

I know that the Liberals have been the warmest supporters of Nato for a long time. The Liberals were also supporters of Sweden joining the Iraq war 20 years ago. They were supporters of us joining in Libya and so on. I am not so sure that just involving Sweden in all the world's wars and conflicts is the best way to build a more peaceful world.

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

Anna Starbrink (L)

Mr. Speaker! I apologize for my minor transgressions here. I blame eagerness and inexperience in the chamber.

Thank you for your - for the member's - answer! I hear you saying - sorry, the member says - 2 percent without Nato. The majority here wants to invest 2 percent and be a member of Nato. It will require more for me to feel secure with the security policy that the member advocates.

I also note the proposal to cooperate with our neighboring countries. It is just that our neighboring countries are or want to be in Nato. They do not choose to cooperate bilaterally with Sweden. They choose Nato. How is the member to build this cooperation that he seeks with our neighboring countries?

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! Member Starbrink can rest easy - in the Speaker's book, it is I who am the bad boy when it comes to behaving here in the chamber. You have a long way to go to reach my level. I also usually say you.

It is quite true, as the member states, that other countries have chosen to be part of Nato ever since it was founded or are now entering into a Nato membership. At the same time, one must see that Sweden has many bilateral defense collaborations and has had them for a long time with a number of countries. Some of them, I think, are very good, and others, I think, are a bit less good. I think that a good deal of the defense collaborations we have today are a bit too vague in their scope and regarding what limitations they have for Swedish commitments.

But I fundamentally think that the idea that democracies defend themselves against countries that are dictatorships when it comes to both democracy and human rights is good. I am quite convinced that both Vänsterpartiet and Liberalerna think so – especially if one is dealing with dictators or despotic leaders like Putin who also have an imperialist thought, that is, the idea that his country should be able to invade another country and take over the free and democratic country. It is of course something that we democracies can never allow, and that is why we must be clear in our support for the people of Ukraine and for other peoples who in different ways are subjected to Russian pressures to create a shaky and restless world.

I am not so worried. Sweden has, through the proven experience of 200 years of military non-alignment, shown that one can be a peaceful country in the world and be militarily non-aligned.

Today, you in the Nato majority decide to take a different path, and it will have consequences for a long time to come. I wish I could see into the future, as Kerstin Lundgren wanted, but I cannot predict which wars and conflicts there will be. But likely, our world will not become more peaceful from a Swedish Nato membership.

(Applause)

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Mr. Speaker! After this debate, the Riksdag will most likely make the historic decision on the legislative changes needed for Sweden to be able to join the defense alliance Nato. It is, as many have pointed out, precisely a historic decision. Therefore, I thought to begin a day like today with a historic look back.

Neutrality has been a fundamental part of Swedish foreign and security policy for over 200 years. It was established during the reign of Karl XIV Johan in 1818 and likely disappointed some in the Riksdag at that time. Some, especially within the nobility, had probably hoped that the French marshal as Swedish king could take back Finland, which Sweden had lost to Russia in 1809. Instead, it became a union with Norway and an explicit ambition that Sweden would henceforth remain neutral towards the wars on the continent. It became a policy of peace instead of a new policy of conquest.

It was not strange. Previous Swedish kings' warlike and grand great power ambitions had, time and again, brought Sweden to the brink of ruin, cost hundreds of thousands of lives in Sweden and the rest of Europe and shattered our country – as after Charles XII 1718 and as after Gustav IV Adolf 1809.

But in 1818 it came to an end. Among the broad masses of the people, the Swedes were tired of the wars that had caused them such great damage for so long, tired of losing their sons in meaningless wars in foreign countries, and tired of Sweden being driven into economic catastrophe time and again as a result of the war debts.

With Karl XIV Johan's neutrality policy, Sweden once and for all abandoned its military great power ambitions. Sweden no longer made claims to territories on the other side of the Baltic Sea. Sweden no longer entangled itself in an intricate web of alliances and war and defense obligations with states and principalities on the continent.

Instead, we could develop our own country in peace and quiet. This, in turn, laid the foundation for the rapid economic development that was then seen during the 1800s.

This also marked that the era of autocracy was over. Successively, power was shifted more and more from the king to the Riksdag. 100 years later, this democratization was completed when Sweden, under the leadership of the emerging social democratic labor movement, implemented universal and equal suffrage. 200 years of neutrality became 200 years of peace, which is probably a world record. One might wonder if any country has lived in peace for so long.

It does not mean that this stance has not been challenged over the years. We have examples of how neutrality has truly been tested during these 200 years. In the 1860s, Karl XV was about to draw Sweden into the war on the Danish side against Bismarck's Prussia, which everyone today understands could have led to complete catastrophe. Fortunately, the King was overruled by the De Geer government at that point. 80 years later, in the middle of a burning world war in 1941, the Swedish Commander-in-Chief Thörnell seriously thought that Sweden should participate on the Nazi German side in the attack on the Soviet Union – what was called Operation Barbarossa. Ola Larsmo has in his book Tio lektioner i svensk historia depicted how this too was resolutely stopped, then by Per Albin Hansson's coalition government at a dramatic government meeting. Finance Minister Ernst Wigforss is said to have become furious, and Defense Minister Per Edvin Sköld is said to have been on the verge of firing Thörnell.

As said: It can sometimes be useful to remind that history very well could have taken a different turn – that 200 years of peace was not a given. Much has, moreover, been said about Sweden and the coalition government during World War II. It is true that Sweden was forced into concessions to remain outside the war. Some of these decisions can be criticized, but I would never, as a contemporary politician, sit in judgment of the trade-offs that the decision-makers of that time had to make. The main goal was to keep Sweden out of the war and avoid an occupation.

The alternative - war and occupation - would have cost tens of thousands of human lives and a country in ruin. This applies to many, but it applies particularly to the Jews, whom the Nazis aimed to exterminate. An occupied Sweden would probably not only have cost many of Sweden's Jews their lives but also almost all of Denmark's Jews. It was over 7,000 who fled to free Sweden in a unique rescue operation across the Öresund in 1943. They escaped from the Nazis precisely because Sweden was still free. One must think about such things, not least now, when so much historical falsification flourishes on the internet.

Foreign and security policy is literally a matter of life and death. It is not, as Olof Palme once expressed it, something "ha ha and hepp hepp", but security policy is about seeking, in every situation, the solutions that provide maximum security for Sweden's land and people.

This also guided Sweden's government when the security policy was to be designed after the war. It was still a very unstable situation. Hitler's Germany had indeed been defeated, but in the Soviet Union, Stalin ruled, who had occupied the Baltic countries and successively tied the East and Central European countries to himself by establishing communist dictatorships. In Japan, the USA had demonstrated that they had developed a new weapon with devastating effects - the atomic bomb. The Cold War was beginning.

How would the Nordic countries orient themselves in this? A unique insight into how the government reasoned at that time is obtained through Tage Erlander's diaries, which I took the opportunity to go back to before this debate. This was before Nato, and the main alternative for the Nordic countries at this point in time was to establish a Nordic defense union with Sweden, Finland, Norway, Iceland, and Denmark. A special Nordic committee had been formed for that.

But as we all know, Stalin wanted something different. In 1948, he forced Finland to sign the so-called friendship and assistance pact, where Finland committed to not entering into any alliances. That Russian action, forcing other countries to constitute buffer zones, we recognize all too well in our own time.

At the end of 1948, the idea of an Atlantic Pact – what later became Nato – was launched with a clear link between Western Europe and the USA. In that situation, Norway, Denmark, and Iceland chose the Atlantic Pact because they made the assessment that it would give them the best protection in the world political situation that was hardening once again.

For Sweden, the situation was more difficult. In the sources, one can see how consideration for Finland's vulnerable situation played an important role in the Swedish government's deliberations. A Swedish NATO membership in 1949 would have left Finland alone in a squeeze between the great power alliances, and no one knew then how the Soviet Union would act. Stalin had already attacked Finland once, in 1939. Sweden then chose to adhere to neutrality to contribute to detente and stability in the Nordic region.

But if one stands alone, without alliances, one must be strong. Therefore, this path was combined with a massive buildup of the Swedish defense, which created unique military capabilities for a country as small as ours. At times, 4-5 percent of our GDP went to defense. That is three times as much as today. So we obtained a large domestic defense materiel production, with world-class aircraft and submarines, with extensive intelligence activities through, among other things, FRA's signal intelligence and with much more. It was a consequence of the non-alignment.

This policy worked. The Cold War never led to any new major power struggle between the superpowers. And fortunately that is for the better because, as we all know, a full-scale nuclear war between the USA and the Soviet Union very well could have wiped out human civilization, at least as we know it.

Instead, we could gradually see a relaxation. Sweden played an important role, not least through Olof Palme, for the nuclear disarmament that began in the 70s. At the same time, the European security order was consolidated through the European Security Conference ESK, where respect for international law and for the borders established after the Second World War was fundamental. The Soviet Union also came to become a part of that security order.

This security order then remained in effect for almost 50 years, despite the major upheavals in connection with the fall of the Soviet Union, the liberation of the Central and Eastern European countries from suffocating communism, and the creation and restoration of independence for a long series of states that had previously been part of the Soviet Union.

The security order as such was maintained and managed by OSCE, the successor to ESK, but we still got the terrible wars in the Balkans in the early 90s. After Putin's accession to power in 2000, Russia began to increasingly challenge respect for other countries' borders, in Georgia in 2008 and in Crimea in 2014.

The S-MP government met this development by reintroducing conscription and beginning the massive expansion of the defense that we are now in the midst of. In contrast to the alliance government, which branded defense as a special interest and wanted to abolish conscription, we chose to initiate the buildup.

The point in time when Russia definitively left the European security order was February 24, 2022, when Russia launched its full-scale attack on Ukraine with the aim of crushing Ukraine's independence, erasing democracy, killing everyone who opposes Russia's supremacy, and incorporating Ukraine into Russia.

I was Minister for Foreign Affairs at that time, and I am proud that the Social Democratic government immediately, from the first day, decided to provide extensive support to Ukraine - economically, humanitarily and militarily - in a way that Sweden has not done since 1939, when we provided support to Finland. They were unique decisions, but they felt obvious.

But we were, of course, also forced to analyze what this meant for Swedish security policy. In one respect, the world had indeed become considerably much more dangerous. Then it was just as obvious to coordinate with Finland, and for a few months we had intensive contacts with our Finnish colleagues by telephone, of course, but also physically. The Prime Minister, the Foreign Minister, the Defense Minister, and I myself traveled almost in shuttle traffic to Finland during these months.

Gradually it became clear that Finland was leaning towards applying for membership in Nato. This, and Russia's brutal actions in themselves, naturally had great significance for us when we were to assess what was best for Sweden. In just a few weeks, the circumstances had radically changed, and we did in the same way as Tage Erlander once did after the war. We started from the question: What is best, under current circumstances, for Sweden's security now and for the foreseeable future?

Pretty soon one could conclude that if Sweden were to become the only country in the Nordic region outside of Nato, we would be in a more vulnerable situation than if we also took the step into Nato. And when Russia no longer follows the European security order, well, then the world has, as they say, become considerably much more dangerous.

That is why we submitted an application for NATO membership, and we could also state that we had a large majority of the Swedish people behind us. The Swedish people had drawn the same conclusion. Then everyone knows what happened. Turkey pivoted in just a few days. From having welcomed Sweden and Finland as members, they suddenly began to set demands as part of a Turkish domestic political game. That process is ongoing now. Let us hope that the remaining issues can be resolved.

I can only say that I, as Minister for Justice, was careful that we would never compromise on the fundamental rule-of-law principles in the negotiations we had with Turkey ahead of the Madrid meeting last summer. We have not done that. Nor shall we do so. Sweden fully meets all the criteria that Nato has set for being elected as a new member. We are joining Nato to defend our democracy and our rule of law, not to negotiate them away. It is into Nato that we are joining, not into Turkey.

Mr. Speaker! We Social Democrats support the bill and the committee report. We have had a dialogue with the government regarding the whole. It has been important for us that the Riksdag now also does as Norway and Denmark do and expresses its opposition to nuclear weapons and permanent NATO bases on Swedish soil. It is an important clarification that we now formally adopt that position in the Riksdag.

The world is unfortunately heading into a new nuclear arms race, but Sweden has no reason whatsoever to contribute to it. A continued nuclear-free Norden is still the best for us.

So, let us move to a historical decision. Neutrality served us well for over 200 years. It was good, but it was never a blind dogma - on the contrary. Neutrality was justified by the prevailing geopolitical circumstances, both in the 19th century and during the Cold War. Now that these circumstances have radically changed, one must be able to reassess even such old and good positions. After the events of last year, our assessment is that what is best for Sweden's and the Swedish people's security now and for the foreseeable future is a membership in Nato.

(Applause)

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! Few things have been so difficult to understand as the Social Democrats' opinion and attitude towards reservations regarding NATO membership. Reservations are, after all, if Sweden sets some criteria for its NATO membership that other NATO countries must accept and adhere to. The reservations that have been relevant have concerned nuclear weapons on Swedish territory and foreign bases on our territory.

When the Social Democrats had the power of government, you did not want any reservations in Sweden's NATO application. That is why you submitted an application for membership on May 18 completely without reservations, even though this had been possible. In the security policy talks that we had before this, we in Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet proposed that there should be such. But then we received no hearing, and it was brushed aside.

Then, when you lost government power, you still became a bit worried. The Moderates were not entirely clear-cut at the beginning when it came to Sweden's position regarding nuclear weapons and foreign bases. You probably began to realize the risks of entering Nato without reservations.

Today we have a majority-negotiated position in today's report, which Morgan Johansson also mentions. It is that Sweden shall have no reservations. But in the next sentence, you still say that you do not want to see nuclear weapons and foreign bases on Swedish territory.

I am wondering what this writing is worth. Actually, it is not worth anything, because any government can at any time in the future tear it up. And above all, it makes us extra vulnerable if France, Great Britain, or the USA want to exert pressure on us when it comes to foreign bases or nuclear weapons on Swedish territory.

I wonder why the Social Democrats did not set reservations regarding nuclear weapons and foreign bases before you submitted the application for NATO membership.

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Mr. Speaker! We Social Democrats have been clear from the beginning. We will not have any nuclear weapons on Swedish soil, and we will not have any permanent NATO bases. That was the statement made in connection with our submission of the application for NATO membership. It was also clear and distinct in the parliamentary debate we had in May last year, where Magdalena Andersson as Prime Minister emphasized this, and she also received the agreement of Ulf Kristersson at that time.

It is quite clear in the sense that we have said this from the beginning. The statement that the Riksdag is now making - Håkan Svenneling points to the writings that exist in the report - means that we are doing in the same way as Norway and Denmark have done for a very long time. Norway and Denmark have had this type of statement since 1957, when it first became relevant that the USA would deploy nuclear weapons in Europe and offered such weapons. Then Norway and Denmark said clearly and distinctly: No, we do not want to be part of that. We do not want nuclear weapons on our respective territories!

This has, as said, been the case since 1957, for over 60 years, and has functioned perfectly well. I believe that if the solution that Norway and Denmark joined has worked for them, it will certainly also work for Sweden. I feel completely secure with the statements that the Riksdag is now making.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! It is good that you from the Social Democrats are clear, but now it is a matter of the Moderates and the Sweden Democrats having the power here and now, and we do not know what future politicians might think of inventing.

Even though I believe that Morgan Johansson and I are fundamentally in agreement on the view regarding nuclear weapons and foreign bases, the problem is that you have done nothing to ensure that this view will apply for decades to come. Morgan Johansson is giving us a history lesson here, and one would like to see that the history with EU membership has taught the Social Democrats the importance of having reservations, but no. The mistakes are repeating themselves again.

There is still some difference between 1957 and 2023. A lot has happened in politics in between. If we are to really delve into history, we must make clear to ourselves that Denmark had nuclear weapons on Danish territory in Greenland. The USA had stationed such weapons at Thule Base for a period during the Cold War. Norway has its base policy, but one must be aware that the difference between permanent American presence in Norway today and the rotating presence that one officially says one has is starting to become quite thin when it comes to how long the American troops are there, even if it de facto is only about rotations. There is also a lot of pre-negotiated materiel in Norway.

This means that this, with the very sharp view that Morgan Johansson wants to express and claims should be applicable for generations to come, unfortunately is not correct. We can also see that in history there will be periods that will be difficult to handle. Then a reservation could help us on those days when it is a bit tougher to resist demands from other states within Nato. But unfortunately, even though Morgan Johansson knows a lot about history, he has not learned from history.

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Perhaps we can discuss this in another context. But the fact is that there is no one today demanding any deployment of nuclear weapons anywhere. No one can impose this on any other country.

When it comes to what might happen in decades, I can only say that a future government must, of course, return to the Riksdag if it intends to reconsider the stance that we are now establishing in the Riksdag. But what has worked for Norway and Denmark for 60 years, I believe also works for Sweden's part.

Since then, I have been involved in such discussions before where Vänsterpartiet imagines that other countries can force things upon Sweden. Håkan Svenneling mentioned EU membership. I remember those discussions very well. Vänsterpartiet also did not want us to join the EU, and one of their arguments was that if we join the EU, Sweden must introduce the euro. We said: No, we do not have to. No one can force such a decision on another country. But you continued to assert it, and everyone knows now that you were wrong, because that is not how it is. We have that independence, and in the same way, it is with independence now.

Now we are ratifying the agreement with provisions stating that there are no grounds for either nuclear weapons or permanent bases on our territory in peacetime. I feel completely secure with the provisions that are now being made. There are no movements anywhere to impose either bases or nuclear weapons on Sweden.

If that question were to arise, one would have to go back here to the chamber to change that position. But as long as we Social Democrats have anything to say about it, we will not go along with that.

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

Kerstin Lundgren (C)

Mr. Speaker! I had not intended to request a reply to Morgan Johansson's speech, but I felt almost compelled when Morgan Johansson, at the end, touched upon what has happened in modern times. It is good that Morgan Johansson notes that the Russian actions did not begin in 2014. They began in 2008 in Georgia. In 2014, it was Crimea and eastern Ukraine. And last year, the full-scale attack came.

In 2008, the defense commission that was then seated received a renewed mandate to examine the new conditions. Even the defense commission that worked on the 2015 defense decision received a renewed mandate post-Crimea to make a new attempt.

Mr. Speaker! Then it concerns the increased defense appropriations. Yes, as we fought to convince the government, with the Social Democrats and the Green Party, to increase the appropriations. And it was something recurring, Mr. Speaker. It should also be included in the historiography when we now discuss.

Since, Mr. Speaker, it would have been very good if Morgan Johansson had also pointed out our demands that one should invite to talks on security policy. We tried for a long time, and there were quite a few attempts before the government actually opened the door for the security policy talks that became the analysis that we stood behind together.

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Mr. Speaker! The history is that when our government took office in 2014, we initiated the major buildup of the Swedish defense. I can compare defense expenditures in 2014 with defense expenditures in 2024 as they now look in the plan - it is ten years. We will almost double the expenditures for the Swedish defense.

This began during the S-MP government already in 2014. It was not we who abolished conscription. It was not we who branded the defense as a special interest. It was Reinfeldt's government, the government that C sat in. It was, however, we who reintroduced conscription and began the major buildup of the defense, which we will now continue to complete. That was the conclusion we drew after Crimea in 2014. Here, further measures were needed. Here, a buildup was needed. Here, we needed to ensure that we increased our defense expenditures and that we began expanding the defense.

Then Kerstin Lundgren says that they took the initiative for these security talks. During the spring of last year, we reached a consensus on how we should view the new situation, and that is what has led us to this point. I am very pleased that it has been possible to do this with the large and broad cross-bloc majority with which we will now make these decisions.

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

Kerstin Lundgren (C)

Mr. Speaker! Yes, those interested in history can, of course, read many of the parliamentary debates where we put forward demands for increased appropriations. It is also possible to follow a number of articles showing the demands on the government to convene security policy talks. We also held that discussion before the full-scale attack from the Russian side on Ukraine, Mr. Speaker.

It is clear that it would have been better if we had started that discussion earlier. We saw – as Morgan Johansson obviously did too – the Russian colonial ambitions already in 2014. We chose then, from the Center Party's side, to make a change of course and abandon neutrality. We wanted to seek membership in Nato. We subsequently sought debate after debate with the Social Democrats to open the door for conversation and discussion, but unfortunately, that door remained closed until the security policy talks were opened.

It would have been better if we had prepared this entire process earlier, Mr. Speaker. I regret that it was not done. But I am glad, Mr. Speaker, that we reached a consensus, and I am glad that we today have a broad consensus in the Foreign Affairs Committee's report. I welcome it and think it is very good. The Social Democrats have taken a great responsibility for making these changes. It honors the Social Democrats, and that should also be highlighted in this debate.

Then I can finally agree with Morgan Johansson regarding the issue of conscription. Mistakes were made there.

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you particularly for the last point. We were critical when the alliance government abolished conscription with a margin of only three votes here in the chamber. It was wrong. Therefore, one of the things we did when we took office again in 2014 was precisely to reintroduce conscription, as part of the buildup that we then initiated.

I can summarize the assessments we made, which led to the Social Democrats reconsidering the position here, in two short points. It was primarily two arguments.

One was, naturally, Russia's actions. They acted in a way that showed they completely abandoned the European security order, the one that had kept us relatively safe for 50 years. When they attacked Ukraine, they showed in a flagrant way that they did not respect the security order at all, and the world suddenly became very much more dangerous. That was the one very, very strong argument.

The second argument was precisely Finland's choice of path. As I preferred in my opening statement, it was important when we made the choice of path after the Second World War not to place Finland in a vulnerable position between the two great powers or the superpower alliances and the blocs. When Finland then chose a path in the way it did, it naturally also became a strong argument. Otherwise, we would have ended up in a situation where Sweden, as the only country in the Nordics, would be outside Nato. We hope that we do not end up there now. We hope that we can resolve the situation, because if Finland were to join but not Sweden, it will have very negative consequences for our opportunities moving forward. In that case, we will have to try to find ways from there, but we hope that we will manage to complete this process in the way that is intended.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! While I still have the Speaker's and the Chamber's attention, I want to first and foremost say that I obviously stand behind all of the Environment Party's reservations, but that I move for approval only to numbers 1 and 3 in order to save time. Speaking of time, I saw in the Chamber's planning of the voting time today that there is a certain concern regarding potential filibustering, but I assure the Chamber that I have at least not planned to exceed my speaking time all too much.

Mr. Speaker! On August 6, 1945, the city of Hiroshima lay spread over half a dozen islands in the delta of the Otas River. Many in the population had moved out to the countryside, but around 300,000 inhabitants remained in the city. Aioi Bridge was in the heart of the city, in the middle of a residential district far from the industrial facilities on other islands that had been obvious military targets. It was Aioi Bridge that was the target for the bomb, Little Boy, when it was dropped from Enola Gay a quarter past eight in the morning. The bomb fell for 44 seconds before it detonated at a height of 580 meters.

On the ground under the explosion, the temperature immediately rose to 5,500 degrees. Everyone on the bridge was incinerated, and hundreds of fires broke out. The pressure wave leveled buildings to the ground, and a firestorm engulfed the city. From the planet, Hiroshima looked like a bubbling sea of smoke and fire.

Only 1.38 percent of the uranium in Little Boy underwent nuclear fission, and most of it was transformed into lighter elements. Only 0.7 grams of the uranium was transformed into pure energy and killed around 80,000 people.

Three days later, cloudy weather caused the crew aboard the aircraft Boxcar to drop the bomb Fat Man over Nagasaki instead of over Kokura, which was the site of Japan's largest weapons depot. 40,000 people were killed and several hundred thousand were injured by the two bombs. Many thousands have died prematurely from various types of cancer and other radiation-related diseases.

After these horrific, violations of international law attacks against Japan's civilian population, the world has on several occasions been close to nuclear war or nuclear catastrophes as a result of accidents with nuclear weapons.

Mr. Speaker! Today, this chamber will vote on Sweden's membership in a nuclear weapons alliance, an alliance that uses threats of being able to use the deadliest weapon witnessed in modern times to maintain security policy stability.

In the face of nuclear weapons, humanity is powerless. Swedish Doctors Against Nuclear Weapons writes on its website: "In a time when we see increased tensions in the world, a misunderstanding or a provocation risks triggering a conflict that can quickly escalate to involve nuclear weapons."

Even those who advocate for the use of nuclear weapons threats as deterrence cannot turn a blind eye to the fact that a nuclear explosion entails a severe and irreversible humanitarian catastrophe. The consequences for health, society, and the environment are devastating. Furthermore, nuclear weapons consume enormous public resources that could instead be used to meet human needs.

Svenska Läkare mot Kärnvapen continues: "The intense heat during a detonation causes bodies to be completely vaporized and causes severe burns. The pressure wave travels several miles and crushes buildings, infrastructure, and people. The radioactive fallout that follows can cause radiation sickness and cancer that can lead to death."

I choose to listen to the researchers, doctors, and politicians around the world who, based on their own experiences, appeal to humanity and say that a world with nuclear weapons will never be a safe world. For me, it is an important political act and a vital goal to work for nuclear disarmament and peace.

Mr. Speaker! I remember when the Soviet submarine 137 ran aground off Karlskrona. I was barely nine years old then. The following year, the dramatic submarine hunt took place in Hårsfjärden in the Stockholm archipelago. The Cold War was still far from a resolution, and the nuclear threat was real. Svenska Dagbladet, which we had at home, had a map of Sweden and explained how strategically important different areas in Sweden were and in which wave a potential atomic bomb could be thought to be fired toward Stockholm.

My anxiety regarding nuclear weapons was extremely palpable. In the years before, Nato and the Soviet Union had stalled in the disarmament talks because both sides, in parallel with the talks, deployed more and more powerful missiles aimed at each other. It was only when Gorbachev came to power in the Soviet Union that the talks loosened, and it was a great victory for humanity when the INF Treaty was signed by Gorbachev and Reagan at the end of 1987. I too felt a sense of relief, and there seemed to be a genuine will to finally work towards getting rid of all the world's nuclear weapons.

But that was then.

Mr. Speaker! In a short time, the security situation in Europe has deteriorated. Russia's violation of international law in its war of aggression against Ukraine on February 24 last year is an attack not only against Ukraine but also against the security situation in Europe and against democracy. But already in 2014, when Russia annexed the Crimean Peninsula in Ukraine, this was the beginning of a more long-term change in Russia's great power dreams. These great power dreams have no place in a rules-based world order. Russia's attack against Ukraine violates both the UN Charter and several other international treaties.

Miljöpartiet wants Sweden to be a strong foreign policy voice to uphold democracy and peace in accordance with international law. Our opportunities to do so will change but also be limited by membership in Nato.

We do not believe that nuclear deterrence is a path that leads to peace. Miljöpartiet wants Sweden to continue to work for global disarmament, especially regarding nuclear weapons, which we know is an existential threat to humanity. A membership in Nato means that Sweden signs on to using nuclear weapons as a threat and as part of a defense strategy. We are concerned that Sweden's important work for the disarmament of nuclear weapons will be hindered as a member of Nato.

Miljöpartiet considers that the new security policy situation we find ourselves in calls for reflection and time for deeper analyses. The government has, in our view, not more deeply analyzed the effects of what membership in Nato entails, whether in terms of security policy, military strategy, economics, or in several other areas. It worries us.

Mr. Speaker! During the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, it was ultimately intense negotiations that led to the Soviet Union withdrawing its nuclear weapons from Cuba and the USA dismantling warheads in Turkey. But two events during one and the same day made that the world was a hair's breadth away from a nuclear war.

A captain aboard a Soviet submarine mistook training target bombs for a real attack and ordered the launch of a nuclear missile but was stopped at the last moment by one of the other officers on board. On the same day, an American U2 pilot happens to navigate incorrectly and enters 50 miles into Soviet airspace. The Americans send in combat aircraft with nuclear payloads on board to escort the plane home to the USA.

In October 1960, a radar system in Greenland signals that the Soviet Union has sent a dozen Soviet missiles on their way toward the USA. The American surveillance command Norad is put on high alert before it is realized that something is not right. Investigations later show that it was the sunrise over Norway that was mistaken for missiles.

In June 1980, President Carter's security advisors received a call after a computer warned of 2,200 incoming Soviet missiles. Bomber and tanker planes were manned, and the aviation authority was in the process of ordering all civilian planes to land before the next call came, which stated that it was a false alarm. The false alarm was caused by a faulty data chip.

Approximately the same thing happened in the Soviet Union three years later, when computers warned that five American missiles had been launched against the Soviet Union. The General Staff was informed in order to receive guidance from Andropov on whether to initiate a counterattack. The lieutenant colonel who read the flashing electronic maps intuitively felt that something was wrong. He had been taught that when the USA does attack, it will be a massive attack and not just five missiles. He therefore finally reached the conclusion that it was probably a false alarm.

There are a number of better-known cases where we have been close to nuclear war and several hundred different incidents and accidents with nuclear weapons that could have led to nuclear catastrophes.

Mr. Speaker! The nuclear alliance Nato is built on using precisely these nuclear weapons as a method of deterrence. The Green Party does not believe in this doctrine but believes on the contrary that it can lead to more conflict. Nuclear weapons cannot contribute to a lasting peace but only contribute to an arms race. Sweden has long worked for global disarmament and considered that nuclear weapons make the world less secure.

Sweden has previously supported the humanitarian initiative that forms the basis of the UN Convention on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and which focuses on the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons. It is a requirement that we in Miljöpartiet stand by, as the use of nuclear weapons to build peace is never a safe or sustainable method. At the same time, it is important to point out that the disarmament of nuclear weapons must occur mutually among the states that have nuclear weapons. How will the government ensure this?

The shift that has occurred now can be seen as nothing other than that the government has abandoned the view that nuclear weapons make us more insecure and that one now ignores the effects on health, environment, and society that nuclear weapons have. Sweden's membership in Nato contributes to a normalization of nuclear weapons, and Sweden's voice in the work for global disarmament is severely weakened as a result of the membership. Miljöpartiet does not believe that Sweden should stand behind this doctrine of nuclear deterrence.

Mr. Speaker! Several countries are arming up today. In addition to the five permanent members of the Security Council, nuclear weapons are also in Israel, North Korea, India, and Pakistan - where Pakistan is the country arming up most rapidly.

An even more worrying development is seen in, among other places, Iran, where the IAEA has measured uranium to an enrichment level of 84 percent. This is just under the 90 percent required for an atomic bomb and far above the 5 percent needed in nuclear reactors.

In India and Pakistan, there is a low-intensity, constantly ongoing conflict with acts of terrorism on both sides but also regular airstrikes. North Korea is constantly developing new missiles that are intended to be able to travel far into, among other places, American territory.

Mr. Speaker! Against the background of all this, I ask myself: How shall we, how shall Sweden, in a credible way, be able to work for the disarmament of these countries if we ourselves are part of an alliance based on nuclear weapons as deterrence? As long as Nato does not adopt the no first use principle, a nuclear catastrophe potentially lies in the hands of a future Trump in the White House.

Military cooperation with close allies, and with Nato, is of utmost importance for our own security. But joining an alliance based on nuclear deterrence does not contribute to a safer world, does not contribute to disarmament, and only increases the contradictions and hostilities between countries.

What we know is that Nato relies on weapons to build peace, which goes directly against Sweden's long tradition of mediation and diplomatic peace development. We lack an analysis of what Sweden, as a member, actually has the power to work with regarding issues of global disarmament and peace and democracy development. Nuclear weapons cannot contribute to a lasting peace but only contribute to an arms race spiral. Sweden's membership in Nato contributes to the normalization of nuclear weapons, and Sweden's voice in the work for global disarmament is severely weakened as a result of the membership. Miljöpartiet considers, in accordance with among others the Swedish Peace and Arbitration Association, that a Swedish Nato membership would not have a deterrent effect and thus act for conflict prevention in northern Europe.

Mr. Speaker! The security policy line that the Green Party stands for is about being a non-aligned state. It is a policy that has historically served Sweden's interests well. We believe that it is good that there are countries in Europe that remain non-aligned, especially in a security-politically tense situation, which is the case at the present moment.

Miljöpartiet thinks it is natural that Sweden has a deepened cooperation with those who stand close to us, which makes us think it is reasonable and natural that we have military cooperation and exchange with Nato.

Our position against a Swedish NATO membership in no way affects our stance that Sweden should help Ukraine, both militarily and civilly, against Russia's war of aggression. We shall defend democracy, human rights and respect for international law in every way we can, and we can do that, just as we have long done, as non-aligned.

That the Riksdag was now only given five days to process such a comprehensive proposition is not worthy. Several referral bodies, including Uppsala University and the Institute for Foreign Affairs, have pointed out that the consequences of the membership have not been sufficiently highlighted. The government states that the reason a deeper analysis is not being conducted is that it is very urgent to promptly decide on Sweden's membership in Nato. This jeopardizes the democratic process as the Riksdag has to make decisions on extensive delegation and changes in Sweden's defense and security policy. Now Sweden is about to plunge into a nuclear weapons alliance with a Turkish despot as doorkeeper, who sets bizarre demands on restricted freedom of speech and unlawful deportations. It is not sufficient.

Mr. Speaker! The bill does not account for all the consequences that membership in Nato can entail, and there is also a lack of deeper analysis in several parts, which several referral bodies have also pointed out. We simply do not know what Sweden is becoming a member of.

Miljöpartiet considers that this new security policy situation calls for reflection and time for deeper analyses. In our view, the government has not analyzed more deeply the effects of what membership in Nato entails, whether in security policy or military strategy, economically or in several other areas. We do not know what we are embarking on.

(Applause)

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

Ann-Sofie Alm (M)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden is worth defending. It is all too easy to take our peace, our freedom, and our democracy for granted. The military threat is more pressing now than it has been in a very long time due to Russia's reprehensible and completely unlawful war against our European friends in Ukraine. There are no words that sufficiently underscore a condemnation of Russia's war and boundless contempt for international law.

Sweden stands and will continue to stand on Ukraine's side for as long as is needed. We will do everything in our power to bring those responsible for these cruel crimes to justice. Every crime victim shall receive redress, and every abducted child shall be returned to their Ukrainian parents.

Putin thought that his illegal invasion of Ukraine would be quick and that it would divide the West. Putin was wrong. We have never stood more united. The Ukrainian people have shown a pride, a tenacity, and an invaluable resilience, and we have never been more aware that our unity is our strength. Ukraine's cause is ours.

Putin's brutal invasion of Ukraine made both the Swedish and Finnish people quickly understand that alone we are not strong; together we need to join Nato. It is an increasingly uncertain world we live in, the reality is becoming increasingly violent and at the same time more and more complex. The military threat is in our direct vicinity, but also the political and the economic threat is there and increasing in strength.

Right now, there are no alarming movements along our country's borders, but an armed attack against Sweden cannot be ruled out. We also cannot rule out that military means of force, or threats of such, may come to be used against Sweden.

On Friday, the announcement came that Turkey ratifies Finland's application to Nato. I would like to warmly congratulate President Niinistö and our brother country Finland's citizens on the security that it entails. I particularly appreciated President Niinistö's sincerely warm words that Finland's Nato membership is not complete without Sweden's.

Sweden was prepared for the unwanted news, and I am, like our Foreign Minister, convinced that Sweden will manage to get the green light from all member countries before the summit in Vilnius in July. Sweden is currently in a serious security situation, but is today, despite this, safer than before our application for NATO membership.

Mr. Speaker! In view of the fundamentally changed security situation, I believe that the best way to safeguard the country's security, and to contribute in solidarity to the security of the Nordic and the entire Euro-Atlantic area, is for Sweden to become a member of Nato. I therefore agree with the government's proposal that the Riksdag should approve Sweden's accession to the North Atlantic Treaty.

Mr. Speaker! I vote in favor of the committee's proposal for a decision.

(Applause)

Mr. Speaker! NATO means peace, more freedom, more cooperation and a more united defense of the free world. Sweden becomes stronger with NATO, and NATO becomes stronger with Sweden. Sweden's membership will contribute many strengths and competencies that are valuable for the allied forces and for the allied countries' security and development of common military capabilities.

We have a strength in Swedish defense capability. Sweden has a high-tech defense, a strong air force, an advanced fleet of submarines, highly developed surveillance capacity and a technically strong intelligence service. But without the competence of our personnel, we stand no chance. I would therefore like to extend a thank you to all civilians, military personnel, conscripts, employees, reservists and veterans - you have our full respect.

Mr. Speaker! We also have a strength in our economy and thus in our defense power. The combined economy of the Nordic countries is as large as Russia's. We have a technologically advanced business sector and many global companies. We have the largest port in northern Europe, and the Nordic region ranks at the top when it comes to economic freedom, innovation, and competitiveness. By 2026, Sweden's defense expenditures will reach 2 percent of GDP.

The third force I want to mention, Mr. Speaker, is the Swedish defense industry. New threats must naturally be met with new technology. The Swedish defense industry and its will to develop and its capacity for innovation is a cornerstone of Sweden's commitment to Nato. We are a leading space nation and shall continue to lead the way in this area. Continuing to develop Swedish defense technology creates value chains for all our allies and provides a strong collective defense of the free world.

The most obvious strength is perhaps the geographical one. In the Nordic countries, we stand strong together, and a common defense geography in the Baltic Sea region provides the entire Baltic Sea region with increased security. Sweden becomes the link to the Atlantic, and the western ports become important.

The fifth force is our values. Freedom, justice and democracy are values that we in the Nordic countries share with Nato. We value them highly and are prepared to defend them together with our Nato allies.

Mr. Speaker! The sixth strength, which I perhaps should have mentioned first, is our national unity. Sweden's NATO membership has very broad support from six parties here in the Swedish Riksdag. It is a powerful statement of strength.

The application has support across two governments. The previous government built alliances for security with like-minded countries. It is a significant thing to be able to change one's mind when it comes to security policy, as some parties have done, and for that, I am grateful. This, Mr. Speaker, is a consensus that will serve Sweden well. Sweden is worth defending.

(Applause)

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! I would like, at the Speaker's request, on behalf of the Left Party and the Green Party, to move for approval of reservation 2 as well, so that the Speaker submits a motion on the request.

With that said, I want to return to the remark on Member Ann-Sofie Alms speech. The Moderates have throughout this entire journey pointed out the importance of moving at the same pace as Finland. Finland was used early on as an argument to pressure the Social Democrats to change their opinion. Finland was used as an argument for the security policy talks to be shortened in time. Ulf Kristersson has even uttered the winged words "I speak with Finland every day" - it is a bit unclear exactly how he does this, but he does it nonetheless.

When Finland has been so important for the Moderates, it is a bit surprising that Finland is now going before Sweden. Prime Minister Kristersson called, together with NATO negotiator Stenström, to a press conference to announce that this would be the case. Finland's president Niinistö traveled to Ankara first when Erdogan breathed that there would be a green light for Finland.

Sweden and Finland are two countries that share a common history and that have previously joined international organizations together. Now, the countries are instead being pitted against each other and are becoming pieces in a political game. In that case, the value of Member Alm congratulating Finland is not so great.

At the same time, there is today a total moderate conviction that Sweden will become a member before the NATO summit in Vilnius. We shall see – there is quite a lot that speaks against that hope.

My question, Mr. Speaker, is: How could it have become like this when Kristersson spoke with Finland every day?

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

Ann-Sofie Alm (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank member Svenneling for the question.

I would like to hear the Social Democrats answer whether it was the Moderates who pressured the Social Democrats to change their opinion. I think I know what the answer would be.

It is no secret that the Moderaterna have been in favor of Swedish membership in Nato for a very long time. In the minutes from the debates in the chamber, one can see that we from Moderaterna have for a long time said that we want Sweden to become a member of Nato.

When it comes to Sweden's relationship with Finland, nothing has changed more than the fact that Finland did not say no when their application was ratified by Turkey. They still say that Sweden is missing from the defense picture and for their Nato membership to be complete.

I would not want to say that Finland and Sweden are being pitted against each other – on the contrary, the countries are working closely together to achieve membership together. The ratification of Finland's application has been made, and we are working hard so that the ratification of Sweden's application will also be made.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! I would still say that the Moderates played a fairly important role in pressing the Social Democrats on whether the NATO issue could become the biggest issue in the 2022 election. Through that pressure and the long-standing commitment that the Moderates have had for Sweden to join NATO, one could very well maintain their line of argumentation; we have seen Social Democrats struggle a bit with this after the party changed its opinion.

It seems to Ann-Sofie Alm that the Moderates still stand in close contact with Finland and perhaps even speak with Finland every day. The problem has been the Moderate party's policy of concessions towards Turkey. It has been distancing, a high tone, sham executions, and even purely fabricated arguments. A Swedish Foreign Minister should not participate as Erdogan's campaign worker in a Turkish election campaign. There must be an end to this policy of concessions. When MP Alm now says so confidently that we will come before the Vilnius meeting, one becomes worried about what Moderate policy of concessions will mean in the spring of 2023.

We can see how Hungary has calmly watched in order to then seize the opportunity to copy the Turkish strategy and use it against Sweden. Now, a Swedish NATO membership is being weighed against Hungarian EU funds. The negotiating victory from a few years ago regarding what is called conditionality in the EU budget, where a principle was introduced that a country must follow the principles of the rule of law to receive EU support, now risks being lost when Sweden is to appease Viktor Orbán's Hungary.

Despite our desire to stand up for the principles of the rule of law, we have instead, through our application and through the policy of concessions, ended up in a position where we fail to defend either democracy or the principles of the rule of law.

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

Ann-Sofie Alm (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for the continued questions.

A question that I often ask myself, and that I know the Swedish population often asks themselves, is what happens if Sweden is attacked.

In response to the member's question, the greatest pressure on Sweden and Finland to join Nato is not what the Moderates say, but what Putin and Russia do. What influence does the Left Party have in the Nato process? This question has a rather deep basis.

Furthermore, I am glad that Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet are in the minority in this chamber, as your policy in this area is directly harmful to Sweden's and our population's security.

(Applause)

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

Kerstin Lundgren (C)

Mr. Speaker! The year 2022 was the year when the Swedish security policy line was shifted after several years of disagreement where, despite the Russian illegal annexation of Crimea and the war in eastern Ukraine, it had still been impossible to have a new debate on and analysis of security policy in Sweden. The Social Democratic government, with the support of Miljöpartiet, Vänsterpartiet, and Sverigedemokraterna, stubbornly held fast to the position that neutrality served us, our security, and the stability in northern Europe well.

This is now history. After Putin's and Russia's unprovoked and brutal military attacks on Ukraine, it became obvious to everyone, except for Miljöpartiet and Vänsterpartiet, that neutrality neither guaranteed us nor our neighbors security against an aggressive Russia. It no longer contributed to stability in our part of the world either. Russia, with its colonial war against Ukraine, has shown a total lack of respect for international law as well as entered agreements and promises. Russia, with its war, gives neocolonialism a clear face.

Sweden, following talks last spring in broad agreement, which I and the Centerpartiet truly appreciate, together with Finland submitted its application to join Nato and received invitee status at the Madrid meeting this summer. Sweden, Finland and Turkey agreed on a trilateral memorandum. We perceive that we have fulfilled this memorandum, and today we shall take the historic decision to approve Sweden's accession to Nato. At record speed, 28 of 30 member countries have approved us, and we are grateful for the rapid process. It has contributed to our security, and we will, of course, remember this speed.

Two member states have not yet ratified Sweden's application, and we respect that. We welcome the fact that these two states will ratify Finland's application, even though it is to the disadvantage of Nato because it weakens Nato in our part of Europe that Sweden's application is not ratified simultaneously. This pleases the Kremlin and President Putin. It also pleases the Nato opponents, perhaps even here in the chamber, who are found in both the far-right and the far-left.

Sweden is now showing that we stand firm in our will to build security in solidarity in this part of Europe but also in relation to all NATO countries; we shall not forget the USA and Canada on the other side of the Atlantic. We are now fully ready to step through NATO's door, and we assume that it stands open for those who fulfill NATO's requirements at the summit in Vilnius in July.

Mr. Speaker! In this debate, the freedom of alliance has once again been raised by the Left Party and the Green Party. I hear them calling for analyses of what a NATO membership entails. But I hear no analysis of what the freedom of alliance entails. It would have been good if they had presented such an analysis.

Nuclear weapons have been discussed. We want to see a nuclear-weapon-free world, and we are convinced that Sweden as a NATO member can work for disarmament. Norway is a close friend that has worked effectively with such issues.

Through the Stockholm Initiative's stepping stones, which the government has stated it wants to continue with, we show how we, together with Germany, the Netherlands and others, can work for disarmament and to strengthen the only multilateral agreement that exists for disarmament, the NPT. This has not been mentioned in the debate, but it is a central, still functioning instrument. When Russia cancels the START Treaty and others, the NPT still remains, albeit under shaky conditions. We are, however, working to hold on to and strengthen the structure that still exists.

Mr. Speaker! There has also been talk about terrorism and counter-terrorism legislation. I truly hope that everyone in this chamber distances themselves from terrorists and terrorist attacks. We have experienced it ourselves in Stockholm and do not want to experience it here again or anywhere else. Of course, we stand against terrorism.

Of course, we also stand up for the common definitions. It is the UN and the EU that classify terrorism, and we follow their classification of terrorism. Individual countries may make other assessments, but it does not affect our assessment when it comes to the classification of terrorism.

There has also been talk about election workers. I hope that the NATO opponents present here in the chamber or near them will not use the time before or after Vilnius or before the Turkish election, that is, before Sweden has become a full NATO member, to try to provoke. We know that there are contacts out there, but we do not want to see anyone acting as election workers with new puppets, new burnings, or flag-waving. I hope that no one in this chamber will encourage this.

Mr. Speaker! As Nato members, we will want to participate fully to strengthen Nato. Nato strengthens our defense and our security but also our foreign policy. We contribute to strengthening the values on which both the UN and Nato were founded: democracy, freedom and human rights.

NATO is a consensus organization. Every country's vote counts equally. We see that now. Sweden does not hand over decision-making power to others. We shape our own foreign and security policy. Sweden is a member of the EU, and the EU is our most important foreign policy arena. Together with like-minded countries, we shall stand up for democracy, for the multilateral world order, for human rights, and for freedom and sustainable development, according to our way of seeing it.

NATO is a defense organization - it is also important to say. It was the consequence of the Second World War when the threats from Russia were also tangible for our neighbors in Norway, Denmark and Iceland and then it was requested to receive a military branch to the political alliance to defend against Russia.

Mr. Speaker! As has been said, it is high time now that we declare that we shall hold the border. And when we are to hold the border in the future, it is a border that I hope will be NATO's border.

I vote in favor of the proposal in the Committee on Foreign Affairs' report. This means a vote in favor of Sweden joining the defense alliance Nato and thus a vote in favor of the government bill and a rejection of the reservations.

(Applause)

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Kerstin Lundgren, for the speech! I appreciated that Kerstin Lundgren spoke about the importance of nuclear disarmament in the world and that we, just like Norway, can continue to work for nuclear disarmament even if Sweden becomes a member of Nato.

For we know that nuclear weapons do not make the world safer, nor are they a protection against international conflicts. In reality, nuclear weapons are an enormous threat to both Nordic and global security. A single nuclear detonation would likely kill hundreds of thousands of civilians and harm many more, and radioactive fallout could contaminate large areas in several countries for a foreseeable time. Therefore, the demand for the Nordic region as a nuclear-weapon-free zone is so incredibly important. The agreement on nuclear-weapon-free zones is one of the most effective tools against nuclear weapons and against nuclear proliferation. If countries can be assured that other states do not possess nuclear weapons, it dampens the desire to acquire their own.

Large parts of the world are already covered by nuclear-weapon-free zones or zones free from weapons of mass destruction. This applies, for example, to Latin America, Africa, Central Asia, and Antarctica. The idea of the Nordic region as a nuclear-weapon-free zone is not a new demand. I read in the Center Party's party motion in connection with our government bill for 2015/16, and it hasn't been an eternity since: "At the same time, Sweden should work towards the Nordic region being declared a nuclear-weapon-free zone and, like Norway, Sweden should set conditions that guarantee that a NATO membership does not mean that nuclear weapons and stationary foreign troops may be present on Swedish soil."

Do you stand firm on this? Do you stand firm that the Nordic region shall be a nuclear-weapon-free zone? Will you work for that if Sweden joins Nato?

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

Kerstin Lundgren (C)

Mr. Speaker! If Lotta Johnsson Fornarve has listened to the debates that have taken place, she has heard that it is clear that we do not stand up for the discussion of a nuclear-weapon-free zone. That does not hold in the environment we find ourselves in. We do not trust that anyone will respect it. And by "someone" in this case, it is not meant that we believe Norway will attack us, but it is actually Russia and Russia's nuclear weapons that threaten Sweden, just as they threaten Ukraine and others today. Despite Vänsterpartiet's ambitions to have diplomatic contacts and try to influence, Putin has not listened to that ear. It is actually the case that they are still rearming and also aiming nuclear weapons and threatening us. This is not the path we should take. On the other hand, we have been clear with - it has stood firm since our parliamentary decision when we took a stand for NATO membership - that we do not want to see Sweden have nuclear weapons or fixed permanent bases in our country during peacetime.

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Kerstin Lundgren, for the answer!

I truly regret that the Centre Party is not standing up for the Nordic region as a nuclear-weapon-free zone as you did just a few years ago. At that time, you were still in favor of NATO membership, but you considered it possible then to work for the Nordic region as a nuclear-weapon-free zone and that we would also have clear reservations. Now we have no guarantees at all that we will not get nuclear weapons on Swedish territory.

Designating the Nordic region as a nuclear-weapon-free zone would truly make our region a safer place. We know that nuclear-weapon-free zones have contributed to increasing security and safety in the world. We must try to do what we can to secure our own area, and a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Nordics and also in the Arctic would be very important in this regard.

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

Kerstin Lundgren (C)

Mr. Speaker! Good luck with convincing Russia to decommission its nuclear submarines and its resources in Murmansk! It is a success if Vänsterpartiet succeeds with this.

It is part of the reality we find ourselves in. We have Kaliningrad, we have Murmansk, and what is happening now is that Russia and also China are actively contributing to actually upgrading their nuclear weapons and also being prepared to use them, as Russia has said that they are. This is something that we must start from when we shape our security policy and our common security policy also in Nato.

The question of nuclear-weapon-free zones is an argument that Russia also likes to put forward, but it is nothing that we see as a viable path at all now. It is history in our part of the world. Hopefully, we can achieve a world without nuclear weapons in the future, but then it must be a balanced disarmament. We do not leave a free field for Russia, China, North Korea and similar states.

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

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! More than 20 years ago, I visited NATO's headquarters in Brussels together with Folk och Försvar. We were given presentations on the alliance's structure and organization. France, which at that time did not participate in NATO's military cooperation, was represented in our program by a minister. I managed to hear what this minister said to his American colleague, a colonel who had just spoken for us. The minister said: It doesn't matter what you have said, because they won't remember it anyway. I am, in fact, doing my last day, and I say what I want.

This created some expectations, and the minister then began his presentation by saying to the Swedish delegation: I want to congratulate you Swedes for being the only ones who pursue a more cynical defense and security policy than we French. Sure, we sell weapons to everyone who wants to buy, but you call yourselves neutral and say that you are for ethical reasons.

This was an effective way to start a discussion in the room. I am glad that we no longer use the expression neutral. I am even happier that we are not neutral in the war that Russia has created in Ukraine in a full-scale and unjust manner. As a logical consequence of this, we have sought membership in Nato and now have so-called invitee status. We should, however, have been members earlier.

On March 8, the government submitted the bill to the Riksdag aimed at approving the North Atlantic Treaty. It is a historic decision. The Christian Democrats have since 2015 worked for Sweden to apply for membership in Nato. That we are now doing this as a consequence of war in our neighboring area shows how Swedish neutrality has given Swedes, to some extent, a naive view of the security of our country. But times have changed.

Membership in Nato will not only contribute to Swedish security, but membership also means a lot for Sweden's reputation in the world. We are simply taking a clearer stand for what our Swedish values shall represent. Democracy, the rule of law and human rights are all principles that Nato represents. Most parties in the Riksdag agree that it is this side we should stand on, but there are two parties that choose to maintain the old neutrality line. A broad majority in both the chamber and the Swedish people stand behind the application and see the need for Swedish Nato membership.

In Europe, simultaneously with this debate, an illegal and unjust war of aggression is taking place. Putin's Russia has, in defiance of the rules-based world order, invaded its neighboring country Ukraine. It is territory that Russia ruled over during the time of the Soviet Union and the Russian Empire and which Putin now claims to have a right to.

This is not the first action in that direction. Since 2008, for example, parts of Georgia have been occupied, and it is becoming more and more clear that there are more countries waiting if this is not stopped, which the Russian influence operations in Moldova show. That Sweden also lies within Putin's area of interest is something that we can never or may never accept. It has not escaped anyone that Russia has threatened regarding Gotland's strategic position in the Baltic Sea.

Sweden must be active and forward-leaning when it comes to the defense of our country and the European security order. The Swedish defense must be equipped with the latest military technology, the best strategy, and the best approach to deter potential invasions. It is, after all, the state's primary task to protect Swedish citizens, and we do that best in Nato and in cooperation with the rest of the Western world.

The NATO process started last year. Sweden's membership must still be approved by the Turkish and Hungarian parliaments. Domestic politics in both countries can be seen as one of the reasons why the decisions are being delayed. But Sweden will be approved. Representatives from Hungary's parliament recently visited the Riksdag, and the dialogue with Turkey regarding the follow-up of the trilateral agreement has been resumed. The process is moving forward, which today's decision shows, among other things.

The decision to apply for NATO membership is based on the idea of protecting Swedish citizens. It is a decision that is well-founded in Swedish and Christian Democratic values, and it is, as has been said, the state's primary task.

Mr. Speaker! Now we look forward. The defense must be upgraded, more military means must be sent to Ukraine, and Sweden must be at the forefront in defense capability. I am pleased that Sweden is finally getting to make this decision, and I actually believe that the aforementioned French minister thinks we have become a bit more realistic.

(Applause)

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

Anna Starbrink (L)

Mr. Speaker! Finally! The decision on Sweden's membership in Nato is historic. It is the single most important defense policy decision that Sweden can make in the new, seriously deteriorated security situation that follows from Russia's violent war of aggression against Ukraine.

No organization has contributed to peace and security in the world as much as Nato. That countries cooperate to mutually strengthen each other's security and deter potential attackers has proven to serve the world well, which has been clear throughout Nato's entire history. It is a great security for Sweden to take the step into Nato, and at the same time, it becomes a strength for Nato when Sweden becomes an ally. We can contribute with our geographical location, our high-tech defense, and much more, as Member Alm explained earlier. It is security-politically but also morally sensible and right that Sweden now participates in the cooperation for our common security.

Mr. Speaker! Congratulations, Finland! Our Finnish friends look set to join Nato before Sweden. This is naturally important for Finland with its 134 miles long border with Russia, but for Sweden, it is unfortunate to be left out for yet another period. But it is also bad for Nato, which would have also benefited greatly from a Swedish membership.

But have hope! Sooner or later, Sweden will become a member of Nato. When this happens, it is a decision that lies in Turkey's hands. Now it is a matter of us in Sweden keeping a cool head and acting in a way that favors our chances of becoming a member without us, for that reason, yielding to unreasonable demands that we should dismantle our constitutionally protected rights. Sweden already lives up to Nato's requirements for member countries today, and we live up to the agreement that we and Finland have with Turkey. Now it is Turkey and Nato that must show what an open door policy means.

Through Nato, our security is tangibly improved. But entry into Nato is not the goal, but rather the beginning of a new era where Sweden shall shape its role in the cooperation. The Liberals believe that Sweden shall be an engaged and active member, and I want to point out some important aspects.

First and foremost, we have the mutual defense guarantees and Article 5. We have argued for Nato for the sake of Sweden's security. This is important and an enormous security for Sweden, but it is in equal measure a great responsibility for our country. We must prepare for the new situation that Swedish women and men will serve for the security of other countries, for example in the Baltics, where Nato has bases and where the threat from Russia feels more tangible than in many other places. In the worst case, Swedish soldiers will have to experience war with everything it entails.

Another aspect is the need to strengthen our own defense. NATO membership obliges us to take responsibility for our own preparedness and maintain our own defense capability as well as our ability to help other allies in the event of an armed attack. In other words, Sweden must significantly strengthen its own defense. NATO's target is 2 percent of GDP, which NATO Chief Stoltenberg has furthermore clarified should be regarded as a floor, not a ceiling. The Liberals believe that in the short term we may need to increase defense spending even further to build our unfortunately lagging defense stronger, in order to then be able to reach the level that NATO has pointed out as a target.

The issue of nuclear weapons, which many have already raised in today's debate, deserves a serious discussion. The Government writes in the bill that they adhere to the Swedish NATO application without reservations, for among other things nuclear weapons on Swedish soil.

There are no signs whatsoever that any NATO country that has nuclear weapons - USA, United Kingdom or France - wants to place them in Sweden.

At the same time, there is no doubt whatsoever that nuclear weapons in the hands of despots in our world, completely devoid of morality but with great ambitions for power to rule, are an existential threat to us and to the world. It is worrying, to say the least, that Russia is rattling its nuclear weapons.

That NATO has the capacity to meet these threats is a security for us and for the world. But it is up to us ourselves as a country to decide how we want it to be. For this, no reservations are required. Sweden must continue to have a large commitment in terms of arms control, disarmament, and non-proliferation, among other things through the Stockholm Initiative for Nuclear Disarmament. There is no contradiction between continuing to work with that and becoming an active member of NATO.

When it comes to NATO bases in Sweden, we from the Liberals want to have an open stance. We shall, like Norway, also not have any reservations here regarding the entry. Norway has its own base policy which implies a no to permanent bases in normal peacetime. But at the same time, they have a pragmatic stance and deepen their cooperation with increased presence from NATO in Norway.

Sweden shall, of course, as a sovereign state, make its own policy decisions, just as Norway has done. From the Liberals' side, we argue that Sweden, as an active ally, should strive for a deep and confidential cooperation that also includes a strong presence of Nato in Sweden, which in the long run could mean bases on Swedish soil. But that is where we are not today.

Mr. Speaker! In conclusion: The most important thing we can do to strengthen our security as a country is to become members of Nato. For the Liberals, it has been a long wait. Already in 1995, the then People's Party leader Maria Leissner raised the question of Swedish Nato membership. And since 1999, the party has pursued the issue. It is, of course, excellent that we have secured a reassuring majority for Nato membership and that the Liberals' defense policy has in that way also become Sweden's. But it is not possible to simultaneously ignore that it would be fantastic if we were already members instead of taking this step now when we already have war in Europe again.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal in the report.

(Applause)

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! A talking point after the foreign policy debate a month ago was the Liberal Party's Martin Melin's rock-solid answer on whether Turkey is a democracy. Unfortunately for the Liberals, his answer does not seem to have helped because Turkey and Hungary still, for the time being, are blocking Sweden from becoming a part of Nato due to Sweden's criticism of their democracy.

One of the Liberals' main arguments in February was that there is an opposition in Turkey that is allowed to operate. It is an argument that is somewhat difficult to understand when Erdogan seems to have made it his favorite sport to hunt down the opposition and throw them in prison. Today, just over 5,000 people are held as political prisoners in Turkey. Many teachers, lawyers, and judges have been fired. And many of them represent the opposition and, above all, the third-largest opposition party, the pro-Kurdish party HDP. HDP is also threatened with dissolution. A process is currently underway in the Turkish Constitutional Court where they want to dissolve the party before the Turkish parliamentary and presidential elections on May 14. Earlier this year, the state subsidy to HDP was frozen until a legal process ensured that they received their rightful party support.

Furthermore, the media landscape and the judiciary in Turkey have deteriorated significantly in recent years in order to become loyal to Erdogan. Recently, three TV channels were fined heavily for having criticized the authorities' efforts during the extensive earthquake.

I simply wonder again: Is Turkey really a democracy according to the Liberals when the opposition is so heavily restricted in what it is allowed to do? And what do you do if Erdogan decides not to let the opposition run against him in the election?

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

Anna Starbrink (L)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member Svenneling for his question. I believe it is obvious to everyone that Turkey has a large deficit when it comes to democracy. There are major problems. The Member has accounted for several of them, including how the opposition is treated.

In our year there is an election in Turkey, and it will naturally be an occasion where we get a receipt of how things stand with democracy there.

From the Liberals' side, I want to be very clear that we see major democratic problems, a large deficit, in Turkey. We see that the opposition does not have the opportunities to act as we believe should function in a democracy.

If we look at how the rest of the world views Turkey, I find The Economist's democracy index interesting. Turkey is placed at rank 103 out of 167 states. It cannot be said to be a good grade for a country that wants to appear democratic. They point out major deficiencies.

So the answer is: No, democracy is not fully realized in Turkey, and we take the deficiencies there seriously.

Will it be a better or worse situation if Sweden joins Nato? I do not believe that the domestic political conditions in Turkey are affected at all by a Swedish membership. On the other hand, it is obvious that Sweden has been used as a point in the escalated domestic political debate in Turkey.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! This was a somewhat more balanced answer from the Liberals than what we have heard previously. It is nevertheless very important to establish the democratic deficiencies that Anna Starbrink nevertheless notes from the Liberals' side.

Now it is exactly as Anna Starbrink is pointing out, that Sweden is being used in the Turkish debate from Erdogan's side. They are trying to win votes and at the same time push back democracy and the opposition with Sweden as the line of argumentation.

I believe that in the analysis itself, it is very important to state that a Swedish NATO membership cannot influence the situation in Turkey. But it is very obvious that Turkey uses the Swedish NATO membership, partly influencing what happens in Sweden through the memorandum that the previous government signed and which the new government has verified, partly using it to silence Sweden's voice for democracy, human rights, and the rights of the Kurds in Turkey. This means that the Swedish NATO process and what democracy in Turkey looks like are still connected. There is, in fact, a space where we suddenly do not become as critical of Erdogan and his despotic regime. I believe therefore that it is important to see this influence but also to be vigilant that one does not stop criticizing Turkey.

There is an additional dimension to all of this. The Liberals have long been supporters of Nato and that Sweden should join the military alliance Nato with Turkey. What does it mean then when we sit there at the Nato table together with Turkey and when we are to make decisions every day about our security together with a country that both has different security interests than we do and which is not a democracy? It is a question that the Liberals have actually never given an answer to. Your answer in your old motions has been: Kick Turkey out of Nato. Then Sweden can join.

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

Anna Starbrink (L)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the question regarding Sweden's role in a NATO membership where Turkey is also included. I believe we should have an engaged and clear role where we make our voice heard. But we must also remember that the decisions regarding what shall take place on Swedish soil are decisions that Sweden makes in the same way that Turkey has self-determination over its country.

I think it would be unfortunate if we painted a picture that by having a Swedish NATO membership we would in some way become a kind of puppet state to Turkey. It is a false picture that has nothing to do with reality and which really does not benefit Sweden's role in the world or our security policy.

(Applause)

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

Hanna Gunnarsson (V)

Mr. Speaker! We sat here and were a bit taken aback when the member, in his speech, mentioned bases. As everyone listening here knows, two major discussions have concerned nuclear weapons on Swedish territory and permanent bases on Swedish soil. Now the member Starbrink said, if I heard correctly, that in the long run one might perhaps consider bases.

I would like to have a clarification of this and hear a bit about what is the case. Can the Liberals, in the long run, within a couple of years, imagine military bases – let's say American ones – on Swedish soil, for example on Gotland or in Norrbotten? Is it an opening that is shared by the other parties in the government and the parties that are in favor of NATO membership? I would like to have a small clarification there.

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

Anna Starbrink (L)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for your question, Hanna Gunnarsson!

I think that Sweden should keep it open how we want to shape our security policy and our defense policy in the future. It is good that we do not have any reservations. There is nothing today that suggests that we should have either nuclear weapons or bases on Swedish territory in the short term, but I want to clarify that for our country's sake, we shall make the security policy decisions that are necessary to secure Sweden and Sweden's population in any given situation. Therefore, it is wise that we keep it open and are ready to make decisions and perform analyses forward in pace with the developments.

I believe it would be unfortunate to strictly lock ourselves into a principle that is to apply for a long time; we see how Norway acts very pragmatically in its membership in Nato, and it is an approach that I think Sweden should also adopt. Therefore, I want to say from the Liberals' side that we are not closing the door to having bases in Sweden in the long run. It does not mean that Sweden will have it in the near term, and I do not see a need for that now either.

(Applause)

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

Hanna Gunnarsson (V)

Mr. Speaker! It is very interesting. I completely agree with Member Starbrink that we in Sweden should make our own decisions to secure our own country. That is why we in Vänsterpartiet say no to NATO membership – because we want Sweden to be able to make its own security policy decisions without influence from other countries.

I still want to hold on to this a bit. When is "in the long run"? What can Member Starbrink imagine? Is it American or perhaps French military bases on Swedish soil – or Turkish? Is there any area that the Member thinks one would want to have foreign soldiers in? How is it imagined that it should work legally?

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

Anna Starbrink (L)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the question, Hanna Gunnarsson! If I had a crystal ball and could see into the future, I would give you crystal-clear answers.

It is clear that we in Sweden shall do everything for our country's security, and if, for example, a major threat directed towards Gotland arises, I am grateful if Nato is there, with allies from different countries, and contributes to the defense of Sweden. For me, it is not controversial. For me, it would be controversial to say that we, no matter what happens, absolutely should not take help from our allies with any bases in Sweden. I think that would be completely immoral, and it is nothing I want to stand for.

However, we are not at the point today where we must accommodate the idea of having NATO bases here in the short term, but when things really escalate - or if, we hope it never happens - I would be grateful if NATO wants to be involved and contribute to our security.

(Applause)

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

Utrikesministern Tobias Billström (M)

Mr. Speaker! We find ourselves in the most serious security policy situation since the Second World War. We once again have a major war in Europe which fundamentally affects security even in Sweden's immediate vicinity.

Membership in Nato is the best way to safeguard Sweden's security and contribute in solidarity to strengthening the security of the entire Euro-Atlantic region. That the Riksdag shall today decide on the approval of Sweden's accession to the North Atlantic Treaty is a historical event. It is one of the most important security policy decisions ever for our country.

Russia's unprovoked, illegal and unjustifiable aggression against Ukraine reminds us that peace and freedom cannot be taken for granted. Russia's brutal warfare is not only an attack on Ukraine's sovereignty but also demonstrates a boundless contempt for international law and the European security order. Putin has chosen the free democracies as his enemy because we stand for what he wants to dismantle, namely the open society.

Given the new security policy situation, the government is also changing course in the overall foreign, security, and defense policy. It is a strength that six of the eight parties in this chamber support the application for a Swedish NATO membership. The strong support in the Riksdag and the public opinion for Sweden's application is important.

NATO membership implies a new Swedish foreign, security, and defense policy identity. We become an ally and a part of NATO's collective defense, the core of which is formed by the mutual defense guarantees resulting from Article 5. This means that an armed attack against Sweden will be seen as an attack against all NATO countries. The other NATO countries will then have an obligation to assist Sweden with the measures deemed necessary, including military means. In the same way, Sweden will have an obligation to regard an armed attack against another NATO country as an attack against Sweden.

As a NATO member, Sweden will fulfill its commitments under the North Atlantic Treaty and towards all other allies. Swedish NATO membership contributes to strengthening security in our immediate vicinity. At the same time, we will have a so-called 360-degree perspective on our membership. Sweden has unique capabilities to contribute in areas such as cyber, new technology, and space. Sweden will be an ally to rely on.

Mr. Speaker! The protocol regarding Sweden's accession to the North Atlantic Treaty was signed by all NATO countries in the North Atlantic Council on July 5, 2022. Sweden then, together with Finland, received the status of invited country, invitee, to Nato.

A gradual integration into NATO's political and military structures is now underway. As an invited country, Sweden participates in almost all parts of NATO's activities. In order for Sweden and Finland to become full members, it is required that all NATO countries ratify our accession protocols. The ratification process has proceeded very quickly - of 30 countries, only Hungary and Turkey remain.

Sweden and Finland applied for membership at the same time. The Finnish Parliament approved Finland's accession to Nato on March 1, and Finland is expected to complete its national process before accession in the near future. It is important that we both become members quickly. Today's decision on the Parliament's approval of Sweden's accession to the North Atlantic Treaty means that we will have taken all the preparations at our disposal to enable a rapid accession to Nato. As soon as all Nato countries have ratified our accession protocol and we have subsequently deposited our instrument of accession with the US government, Sweden will become a full member of Nato.

Mr. Speaker! I shall say a few brief words about the content of the bill.

Firstly, it is proposed in the bill that the Riksdag approves Sweden's accession to the North Atlantic Treaty.

Secondly, it is proposed that the Riksdag approves that Sweden accedes to a status agreement regulating immunity and privileges for Nato and certain personnel categories, which presupposes a legislative amendment.

For the third, it is proposed that the government be authorized to make decisions to accept support in the form of military forces from Nato. This also requires an amendment to the law.

The first point regarding the North Atlantic Treaty is rather self-explanatory.

Regarding the second point concerning the status agreement for Nato, national representatives and the organization's international personnel, this agreement regulates immunity and privileges for Nato and certain categories of personnel. This type of provision already applies today for the intergovernmental organizations operating in Sweden and for a large number of other organizations that Sweden belongs to, including the UN and the EU. In order for the agreements to be incorporated into Swedish law, an amendment to the Act on Immunity and Privileges is required in some cases, which is why the Riksdag's approval is required for Sweden to be able to accede to the agreement.

This brings me to the third point regarding military forces from Nato. When Sweden becomes a member of Nato, it is important that there are good conditions to be able to receive and provide operational military support in a rapid and efficient manner within the framework of the North Atlantic Treaty. Military support from Nato consists primarily of military forces from individual allies, and such support simultaneously includes support from Nato as an organization because the allies' forces are placed under Nato command.

Under current legislation, the government has the possibility to request support in the form of military forces from individual allies to meet an armed attack against Sweden and prevent violations of Swedish territory. To improve Sweden's ability to receive military support, the government should be given the possibility to request operational military support also from Nato as an organization. This presupposes an amendment to the Act on Operational Military Support.

There is also currently an ongoing work within the Ministry of Defence to review certain legal issues in connection with NATO membership. The review concerns partly Sweden's accession to a number of agreements that Sweden is expected to join as a NATO member, and partly which other constitutional changes in the defense area should be made in connection with a NATO membership. The Government may return to the Riksdag on these issues.

Mr. Speaker! I want to conclude by once again underlining that membership in Nato entails a historical change in Sweden's foreign, security, and defense policy. The strong support in the Riksdag for this historical choice is of great importance for Sweden in this new, serious security policy situation.

(Applause)

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! Tobias Billström has now been Minister for Foreign Affairs for five months, and it is not going so well for him. Despite great self-confidence at the beginning, he has not succeeded in the main task he was given by the Prime Minister: to bring Sweden into Nato. To put it bluntly, he is stuck in the mud, and he is stuck there.

Until today, the Minister for Foreign Affairs has submitted a bill to the Riksdag to approve Sweden's NATO membership. The problem for the government is only that after today's decision, nothing happens. As it stands in the report: "The legislative changes are proposed to enter into force on the day the government decides." That actually means the day that Erdogan and Orbán decide. That means that Sweden, regardless of whether the Minister for Foreign Affairs wants to call it follow-up on the memorandum or something else, is in practice sitting in negotiations with two of Europe's most authoritarian leaders over the last decade, who have shrunk democracy in Turkey and Hungary.

This makes today's decision even more problematic, because in practice, the Riksdag is deciding today to confirm Erdogan's and Orbán's power over the Swedish Natoprocess. What was supposed to proceed at record speed, with 28 approvals in three months, instead became nine months without approval from the two despots.

Erdogan and Orbán are now the ones who decide Sweden's timeline. There was no plan B, C, or D to build Sweden's security. The only plan that exists now is to lie on one's back and flail around and hope that they are satisfied. The question is why the government time and again gives power to Orbán and Erdogan to decide over Sweden - over Sweden's laws, Sweden's deportations, and Sweden's security.

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

Utrikesministern Tobias Billström (M)

Mr. Speaker! Regarding Håkan Svenneling's observation about how well the government is doing, I can say that today we are making the largest security policy decision in 200 years and doing so with broad consensus in this chamber. The bill is on the Riksdag's table, which it never would have been if Håkan Svenneling, Jacob Risberg, and our friends from the Social Democrats had governed Sweden. They naturally could never have made this decision. It would certainly have pleased Håkan Svenneling, but for those listening to this debate, it may be worth remembering that the fact that the bill is on the Riksdag's table is due to the fact that we have a different government, where Håkan Svenneling is not part of the basis.

Regarding the problems we face concerning the discussions with the countries that were listed, I can say that Hungary has on repeated occasions during the past year stated that it intends to ratify both Sweden's and Finland's applications. It is our opinion that it should also do so. There is no memorandum and no special agreements with this country, but the Hungarian parliament should be able to ratify our position.

Regarding Turkey, we continue to fulfill the commitments we made in the memorandum entered into in Madrid last year. We will do neither more nor less regarding this, and we will rely on our allies - the 28 member states that have already today ratified Sweden's and Finland's membership applications, given us clear and distinct security assurances and, moreover, almost every day when we have had contacts with them, have spoken about how much they welcome us into the organization. Knowing that these states stand on our side is the strongest support, and it more than compensates for the problems we currently have in the ratification process.

(Applause)

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! Even though the Foreign Minister is satisfied to be able to place a proposition on the Riksdag's table, today's decision has no effect whatsoever. It is still Erdogan and Orbán who decide the timetable for Sweden's Nato application. It is well that the Foreign Minister has realized that it is the pressure from friends rather than own concessions that was needed to exert some kind of pressure against Erdogan and Orbán, but it does not help either when it is still they who hold the power.

The problem is that the Foreign Minister is constantly putting us in positions where he further strengthens their power. Now we have heard statements that he promises that Sweden will be included before the Vilnius meeting - he is absolutely certain of it. That only makes us further strengthen their opportunities to play and divide between Finland's and Sweden's applications. Hungary is now saying yes to Finland but nothing about Sweden.

I am completely convinced that they will say yes one day, but they do want some gain along the way. For Turkey, it is about silencing Sweden's voice for democracy, human rights, and Kurdish rights. For Hungary, it is about getting EU money that Sweden has succeeded in blocking by introducing a principle of conditionality. Now they want to bring Sweden along as an ally to get other EU countries to say yes instead.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that it is time for the members of the Swedish Parliament and the Swedish people to fasten their seatbelts. In June, we will namely have a Foreign Minister who needs to continue with his policy of concessions to get Orbán and Erdogan on board, if he is to be absolutely sure that Sweden becomes a NATO member before the meeting in Vilnius.

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

Utrikesministern Tobias Billström (M)

Mr. Speaker! I do not think there is much more to say in this discussion than what I have just said. We stand on firm ground regarding the memorandum we have agreed upon with Turkey. We know what commitments we have to make, and we have fulfilled them to the letter. We do not intend, as said, to do more or less than that.

As I said earlier, it is notable that Håkan Svenneling's concern for this process is so great. It is, as I said in the foreign policy debate, regarding the concern that Vänsterpartiet feels regarding this issue. But one only needs to go to the seven reservations that exist in the Foreign Affairs Committee's report to understand that if Vänsterpartiet had constituted a part of the government basis, it could never have become any NATO entry for Sweden's part. It is a fact. Magdalena Andersson would have had Håkan Svenneling on one shoulder and Jacob Risberg on the other - Miljöpartiet and Vänsterpartiet. It is lucky that it is not that way.

(Applause)

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the presentation, Minister!

Sweden has at one time been a country that has stood up for human rights, peace and disarmament and led the way in nuclear disarmament. Now the government wants to bring us into a nuclear weapons alliance.

Nuclear weapons are the most destructive weapon of mass destruction that humanity has invented. The international community has so far neither succeeded in stopping the proliferation nor in getting the nuclear-armed states to disarm. Instead, billions are being invested in the modernization and development of nuclear weapons.

The UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons entered into force in 2021. The treaty prohibits the planning, financing, manufacture, and possession of nuclear weapons, as well as threatening to use them. No nuclear-weapon states have ratified the treaty so far, but the purpose of the treaty is to put pressure on the nuclear-weapon states to meet together in negotiations on disarmament.

The spread of more nuclear weapons across the world, even here among us, makes neither Sweden nor our region safer. If Sweden wants to continue to be a voice for disarmament, we must clearly state that Sweden does not allow nuclear weapons on Swedish territory, neither in peacetime nor in wartime. The most effective way is to join the UN convention on the prohibition of nuclear weapons.

Shouldn't Sweden join the UN convention on the ban on nuclear weapons and lead by example?

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

Utrikesministern Tobias Billström (M)

Mr. Speaker! No, we should not do that. Nuclear weapons constitute the ultimate part of NATO's deterrence doctrine. As long as nuclear weapons exist, NATO will remain a nuclear alliance. But this alliance also has a stated goal to work towards creating the conditions for a world free of nuclear weapons. NATO has also stated in its nuclear doctrine that the circumstances where the use of nuclear weapons might need to be considered are very remote.

Mr. Speaker! Lotta Johnsson Fornarve spoke about "once in the world". I would like to emphasize that Sweden's commitment to disarmament and non-proliferation of nuclear weapons remains regardless of membership in Nato. Sweden will continue to stress the need to fulfill all obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, NPT, including commitments made at previous review conferences, as well as the need for concrete progress on the way toward the ultimate goal of a total elimination of nuclear weapons.

NATO as an organization has, as stated, this declared goal. I see no conflicts whatsoever between our NATO membership and having these ambitions. It is also worth remembering that we are surrounded by countries, not least our friends Denmark and Norway, who, despite having been members of NATO, have also had no problems whatsoever with standing up for these views in international contexts.

(Applause)

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the answer.

It is an illusion to believe that nuclear weapons make us safer. Nuclear weapons are not a protection against international conflicts and wars. This overconfidence in using nuclear weapons for deterrent purposes is really not a good idea.

There are no legal obstacles for Nato countries to refuse to participate in Nato's nuclear activities. Sweden could, for example, sign the UN convention on the prohibition of nuclear weapons even though Nato today is strongly critical of the agreement. A Swedish accession to the nuclear weapons ban would mean that Sweden does not need to participate in Nato's joint nuclear activities as well as a ban on the deployment of nuclear weapons on Swedish territory. It could also mean that more Nato countries would dare to join, for example our Nordic neighboring countries.

The purpose of the convention is to put pressure on the nuclear-weapon states to initiate a real nuclear disarmament. The world really needs that in the situation we find ourselves in today.

I deeply regret that the Foreign Minister does not share the view that Sweden should sign the UN nuclear weapons ban. Sweden has, however, still participated as an observer in the convention until now, and I truly hope that at least this can remain. It would still be a small step in the right direction towards a nuclear weapons ban.

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

Utrikesministern Tobias Billström (M)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden will, as I said, continue its work on nuclear disarmament within the framework of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, NPT, which constitutes the cornerstone of global disarmament and non-proliferation work. It is the only agreement where the five recognized nuclear-weapon states have committed to getting rid of their nuclear weapons.

Sweden will be an engaged force that will act constructively, both nationally and as part of the EU. We will safeguard and strengthen the NPT to achieve concrete progress in all three pillars of the agreement: disarmament, non-proliferation, and the peaceful use of nuclear energy. As part of this work, we will also continue to drive the Stockholm Initiative for nuclear disarmament.

(Applause)

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

Peter Hultqvist (S)

Mr. Speaker! First, I think it was unnecessary of the Foreign Minister to speculate about what would have happened if MP and V had had some kind of influence over this. It was a purely Social Democratic government that submitted the application for membership in Nato. The Prime Minister then was Magdalena Andersson. It is unnecessary to raise speculations about whether anything else would have happened in a sequence of events that has not occurred. I just want to give the Foreign Minister that mark.

But that was not actually why I requested the floor. On March 19, there was a segment on SVT where the Foreign Minister said he was completely convinced that we will join Nato by the Vilnius meeting - completely convinced. That is a strong assessment, a strong statement. The question then is: Is it an assessment, is it a hope, or does the Foreign Minister have information that allows him to say it in this way? In that case, I would like that to be reported here. What is the basis for this absolute certainty?

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

Utrikesministern Tobias Billström (M)

Mr. Speaker! I understand that Peter Hultqvist possibly thought it was unnecessary. I thought it was necessary. It was necessary to show what opinions exist within Miljöpartiet and Vänsterpartiet in this chamber and how impossible it would have been, under the circumstances that would have prevailed if they had had influence over a government alternative where Magdalena Andersson had been Prime Minister, to pass this bill – and not just to pass this one in the chamber but also to even put it forward at all. A government must be in agreement before it places a bill on the Riksdag's table.

Had the government base consisted of these two parties, we would therefore not have been able to become members of Nato. It is important to state this and for it to enter the minutes of the Riksdag.

When it comes to the question of my assessment, I base it on precisely the perception that I previously set out in my exchange of replies with Håkan Svenneling. Since we have 28 of 30 member states behind us, already ratified by these states' parliaments, know that the support has been so strong and not least know that the American Senate in record speed, in a process that is unparalleled in NATO's history, has ratified the Swedish application, it is obvious that we will be able to become members by the Vilnius meeting. We know that the strength we have behind us is so tangible that it is possible to make such an assessment.

Then I want to say, within the framework of this discussion, that the strong support in the process we have here in the chamber today is naturally also one of the reasons why I feel so well-grounded in my view on this area. The rest of the world sees that Sweden wants to become a member of Nato.

I have no criticism at all, Peter Hultqvist, regarding the submission of the application itself. On the contrary, we stand behind it. We have also stood behind the trilateral memorandum that was drafted, finalized, and became a reality in connection with NATO's summit in Madrid.

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

Peter Hultqvist (S)

Mr. Speaker! It is almost a bit embarrassing that I have to say this: It is important to have noted in the minutes that it was a Social Democratic government under Magdalena Andersson that submitted the application for Swedish Nato membership. However, it is necessary to say it because the Foreign Minister is stuck in a sequence of events that has not existed and will not exist. Speculations of various kinds rarely lead to much more than just question marks afterwards.

It was an S-government that submitted the application. The Prime Minister was named Magdalena Andersson. There was a broad majority in the Riksdag. The bill had therefore passed. Those are the facts.

I understand that the answer I receive, that it is a complete conviction, is based on an assessment of the 28 countries plus the USA. I have experienced all of this myself and have very recently visited Washington and received clear signals from that side regarding the immense support. But what has also been quite clear during the process is Turkey's actions. It has shifted from time to time, and different demands have been presented. Positions have also been changed based on what has suited the process.

I note the answer and thank you for the information. It is as they say in my hometown: "We shall see on the day it is finished." One does not take things for granted in advance. But we must hope that it will be finished by Vilnius.

I wanted to press for what basis there is for the statement. I note that it is an assessment from the Foreign Minister and that it is not based on any specific information or anything more than what we have been able to read in the media.

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

Utrikesministern Tobias Billström (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is not speculation. As I have said a few times in this exchange, it is a fact that if we had had a situation where Miljöpartiet and Vänsterpartiet were pillars of a social democratic government led by Magdalena Andersson, the said bill could not have been laid before the Riksdag. It is a fact that it is the case that way.

Peter Hultqvist does not think it is funny that I am telling it from the rostrum. But it is necessary that we do so after having listened to the objections from Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet and understood the content of the seven reservations in the committee's report.

I am originally from Malmö, and there, one is humble. We therefore have no particular sayings I can refer to. I am content to state that we are pleased that there has been such broad consensus on the issue. We naturally think it is good that the previous government submitted our application so that the bill could now be laid on the floor of the Riksdag. Consequently, there is no contradiction between me and Peter Hultqvist.

(Applause)

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

Försvarsministern Pål Jonson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Swedish membership in Nato is a historic event that will have important security and defense policy consequences. For the first time ever, Sweden will enter into a defense cooperation with binding defense guarantees and a common defense planning. It will contribute to increased stability and security in our part of Europe. It is absolutely necessary, Mr. Speaker.

Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine has resulted in a fundamentally deteriorated security situation in our immediate vicinity which will most likely persist for a long time to come. Ultimately, Russia is seeking to create a different security architecture in Europe based on the law of the strongest. In that, certain countries constitute the backyard of other countries, and countries are not allowed to decide their own security policy choices, including whether they want to become members of the EU and Nato.

All this stands in conflict with fundamental rules and principles of international law as well as the cornerstones of the European security order. Through its brutality and its illegal, unprovoked and unjustifiable invasion, Russia has once again shown that it has a very low threshold for military aggression. But Russia has also shown that it is willing to take very large political and military risks to achieve its foreign policy objectives.

We must abide by this. It is also this that has been the basis for Sweden now applying for membership in the defense alliance Nato. Through membership, Nato will become Sweden's most important defense policy platform. Sweden's deep partnership with Nato has also meant that the Armed Forces have good interoperability with Nato. It is a great advantage when we are now working hard to also militarily integrate Sweden into Nato.

Mr. Speaker! With the entry of Sweden and Finland into Nato, the military-strategic situation in our immediate vicinity also changes. Sweden will, as a full member, be integrated into Nato's defense planning. This creates better conditions for the defense of Northern Europe through a coherent Nato territory with a much clearer eastern and northern flank. Sweden will also, through this, work among other things to create better conditions for working with host nation support.

Mr. Speaker! Swedish membership in Nato also implies new and better conditions for Sweden to deepen cooperation with other countries. In the important bilateral cooperation with the USA, we move from being close partners to being allies. Negotiations are now underway regarding what is called the Defense Cooperation Agreement. It will also create new opportunities for us to cooperate with the USA in more areas.

The Nordic defense cooperation will, with a Swedish and a Finnish NATO membership, also become a deeper defense cooperation between allies. The Nordic countries will thereby receive the same security architecture in peace, crisis, and war. The countries' cooperation within the framework of Nordefco will also receive new conditions, for example regarding the possibilities for joint operational planning and better information exchange.

Within the framework of Nordefco, the Nordic countries are now working under the Swedish chairmanship to develop a new vision for the cooperation. We notice a great interest and great commitment from both Denmark and Norway when they envision that Sweden and Finland will become fully integrated into Nato.

NATO membership will also strengthen international cooperation when it comes to total defense and crisis preparedness and thereby contribute to strengthening our ability to manage non-military threats and risks within areas of vital importance to society.

Mr. Speaker! As an ally, Sweden stands behind NATO's so-called 360-degree perspective regarding the threats, risks, and vulnerabilities that characterize the alliance. It also means that we are expected to contribute to the defense of the entire alliance. The basis for NATO's collective defense is built on a combination of conventional and nuclear military capabilities. As an ally, we stand fully behind NATO's nuclear doctrine and strategic deterrence.

Our ambition is to be able to contribute to NATO's joint defense planning at an early stage. This could, for example, involve us contributing with air forces to NATO's air surveillance mission over the Baltic countries, that we contribute with ground forces to the military forward presence also in the Baltics, or that we contribute with naval forces within the framework of NATO's standing naval forces.

Mr. Speaker! Just as the Minister for Foreign Affairs pointed out, work is currently underway at the Ministry of Defence to analyze what potential constitutional changes are required for Sweden's accession to an agreement within Nato concerning military activities. This includes, among other things, agreements on security protection and information sharing. A review is also being conducted regarding other constitutional changes that should be made so that Swedish Nato membership becomes as effective as possible.

I want to conclude by re-emphasizing what a historical change a Swedish NATO membership represents for Sweden's security and defense policy. Sweden has for a long time been dependent on the security in Europe that NATO contributes to. This has become increasingly clear after Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Through a full NATO membership, better conditions are also provided to both take responsibility for and influence an organization that is also completely crucial for our own security.

(Applause)

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! As an invitee, that is to say an invited country, Sweden already participates in numerous working groups in Nato. But if Sweden becomes a member of Nato, we will also participate in the so-called Nuclear Planning Group, NPG, which is responsible for Nato's planning for the use of nuclear weapons. Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet have proposed that Sweden should not participate in that working group, as we would become part of Nato's nuclear umbrella. But the majority of the Riksdag considers that Sweden should be included.

Planning for nuclear war becomes a completely new dimension in Swedish defense planning. I therefore wonder how Defense Minister Pål Jonson views this aspect of NATO membership and, above all, what he believes Sweden should advocate for within the framework of the Nuclear Planning Group.

Today, there are no rules set for the use of nuclear weapons, except that it should be a response to another state's use of nuclear weapons. That means Nato can be the first to attack another state with nuclear weapons. A deterrent for that is called no first use. That is what is being considered.

Another part is NATO's nuclear weapons exercises, including SNOWCAT. There, Sweden could, for example, contribute conventional air support, i.e., Jasplan flying alongside during operations involving nuclear weapons. I wonder if it is the Minister for Defence's intention that Sweden should participate in NATO's nuclear weapons exercises.

Russia is the state in the world that has the most nuclear weapons, and together France, the United Kingdom and the USA have approximately the same amount. Right now, modernization and expansion are occurring in several states while several arms controls, for example the START Treaty, have been paused by Russia. How does the Minister of Defence view that?

Other countries have used footnotes in NATO's statements on nuclear weapons to mark their own position. I wonder if the government intends to do anything on behalf of Sweden, especially in light of the wording in the Riksdag's report today.

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

Försvarsministern Pål Jonson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Let me agree with Håkan Svenneling on one point. I share his concern regarding arms control in Europe. It is very serious, and primarily it is a Russian action that underlies the very serious situation when it comes to arms control. That being said, I want to remind of what the Foreign Minister said about the fact that Sweden stands free to, as a Nato ally, just like the Netherlands, Germany and Norway, continue the work when it comes to arms control and disarmament. It is important to establish that in the debate.

Another dimension of this is, of course, linked to NATO's view on nuclear weapons. I have tried to be clear that Sweden will also stand up for the fact that NATO consists of both conventional and nuclear deterrence. That is the core of NATO's Article 5. I think NATO's approach to nuclear weapons is reasonable. As long as other countries or actors have nuclear weapons, one is not willing to dismantle their nuclear capability. Fundamentally, it is about the risk that arises in a situation where one is subjected to nuclear blackmail.

The big problem with nuclear weapons in Europe is the Russian actions in this area. There is only one country that practices, and above all threatens, with nuclear weapons, and that is Russia. If Nato did not have both conventional and nuclear capability, one could very well end up in a situation where one is subjected to Russian nuclear blackmail, and that is something I am not willing to contribute to Sweden being subjected to. I would therefore like to ask Håkan Svenneling if he can explain whether he considers it wise in this situation for Nato to engage in unilateral nuclear disarmament.

(Applause)

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! I begin by stating that earlier in history, when Sweden has been militarily neutral, we have never faced the threat that nuclear weapons will be used against us as we do now when we are to join Nato with its nuclear deterrent capability. It is therefore why we from the opposition side are so clear that we would like to see clearer rules from the government on how one can be sure that there are no nuclear weapons on Swedish territory, for example through legislation against nuclear weapons here.

Unlike the Minister for Defence, I believe that one could begin unilateral disarmament of nuclear weapons and actually signal towards Russia that one wants to see detente, not increased escalation. The problem is that it is very easy to join in the narrative that Russia already has. I am glad that the government is clear that it intends to continue fighting for nuclear disarmament. It is a message that we in the Left Party welcome, but neither the Minister for Defence, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, nor anyone else has given any clear messages on how it will happen. There, the government now needs to become clearer, especially if Sweden is approved as a NATO member and enters the Nuclear Planning Group where nuclear weapons represent an entirely new perspective in Sweden's military strategy. Then we will suddenly have a voice and can express what we think about the developments surrounding nuclear weapons.

The Minister for Defence says that arms control is important, and that is positive. I believe that Sweden, together with other countries, could play an important role when it comes to pointing out the importance of extensions of the START Treaty, but also in acting when, for example, from the American side during Trump's time, the Open Skies Treaty was terminated. It was done with reference to Russian actions, but it was still a termination. That means that we today live in a much more insecure world where nuclear weapons are easily used – primarily by Russia – to threaten Europe.

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

Försvarsministern Pål Jonson (M)

Mr. Speaker! This has several dimensions, but I do not subscribe to Håkan Svennelling's narrative that Sweden, because we have not been allied within Nato, has not been exposed to threats of nuclear weapons or nuclear exercises. Russia has not backed down, so I actually do not think it makes any difference in that respect whether we become allied or not, given that Russia, according to reports, has both practiced with nuclear weapons and threatened Sweden with nuclear weapons. I believe that is a reality.

When it comes to the grading and extent of Sweden's involvement in the Nuclear Planning Group, it is far too early to say anything. Furthermore, it is naturally affected by defense secrecy, just like large parts of NATO's other defense planning. It is nothing that can be discussed in detail, but arms control and other regimes have served us well. This applies to both the INF and CFE treaties and several other conventional agreements, and Sweden and this government will continue to work for them.

(Applause)

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

Peter Hultqvist (S)

Mr. Speaker! As I said earlier, one perhaps should not take things for granted in advance. The situation is that we have a broad majority here in the Riksdag for Sweden to become a member of Nato. Everyone wishes that it happens as quickly as possible. I noted that the Minister for Defence in his statement mentioned DCA, Defense Cooperation Agreement, which is an agreement with the USA. The situation we now find ourselves in makes it even more urgent that the Nato entry happens as soon as possible and that one really tries to be very active and forward-looking to make it happen, because it strengthens the relationship between Sweden and the USA. It is important now.

Regarding the Nordic planning, such work has already been initiated earlier in the form of the agreements Sweden has regarding Nordkalotten, the west coast, and down towards the Öresund. But this is a more extensive history, and in Nordefco, it has been discussed in many contexts and guidelines have also been drawn up for a more comprehensive planning process. We have commitments from the United Kingdom regarding help and support in a crisis situation, and the same from the USA. We are members of Joint Expeditionary Force and also have an HNS agreement with Nato where Kiruna, Östersund, and Göteborg in practice become very important hubs in this. We have air missile defense that must be arranged and naval matters that must be addressed. Additionally, we have the long-standing agreement with Finland.

In the event that this with Nato drags on, that membership is delayed, it is still the case that this must somehow be filled with content so that it does not become a vacuum. One must be able to take measures bilaterally and multilaterally and carry out many of the things that are required for a defense planning to function at all in the Nordic region. My questions are whether such measures are being taken and if the minister is considering in that direction.

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

Försvarsministern Pål Jonson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Peter Hultqvist, for the question! We derive great benefit from both the Swedish-Finnish and the Nordic defense cooperation on the way towards our full integration with Nato. It will, as said, give us better conditions, from the fact that today we can have coordinated defense planning with countries such as Norway, Denmark, Iceland, the United Kingdom and the USA to the fact that we can have a common defense planning. The Nordic cooperation will grow stronger when we become fully allied with Nato.

Another dimension of this is how a Finnish entry into Nato before a Swedish one affects the Swedish-Finnish defense cooperation. I had a meeting with my Finnish colleague Antti Kaikkonen two days ago, and the signal from Finland is that they want to continue the Swedish-Finnish defense cooperation. But we respect that Finland, if it were to end up in a situation where Sweden remains outside Nato in the long term, will need to put even more effort into Nato's common defense planning. I nevertheless perceive a signal from Finland that they want to continue the bilateral cooperation.

The advantage Sweden and Finland have in our NATO integration is that we have a national defense planning. It is not all countries in NATO that have worked in that way. The Swedish-Finnish defense cooperation also makes us better suited in the integration into NATO. This therefore facilitates work in that area.

Let me also be clear that it is not about any plan B, but now 30 out of 30 allies in Nato have said that Sweden and Finland shall become members. It is not a question of if we shall become it, but when we shall become it. Furthermore, the military integration in Nato continues at a high pace. We have, among other things, received different capability targets and what we can contribute to Nato's common defense planning.

(Applause)

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

Peter Hultqvist (S)

Mr. Speaker! I, just like everyone else here, proceed from the assumption that we will become members of Nato. Then there is a reality in the process where Finland is now obviously ahead. We cannot know exactly what will happen in Vilnius or how long it will take.

There is an established platform with about thirty agreements with other countries in cooperation aiming at interoperability and more, where the Finnish relationship is the deepest. We also have a cooperation platform with the other Nordic countries, the USA, and the UK. In such a situation, it becomes natural to look at what we do with this platform. This includes that Nato needs to have the transport routes on land, and one needs Swedish airspace and the marine environment.

One can, of course, make a plan that concerns only Finland, but the question is what we can do in the bilateral and multilateral work to manage this within what is reasonably logical and wise. This work has, in practice, already begun through the agreements and planning processes that exist.

The question is how we handle the situation. I would like the minister to give some serious thought to a few different outcome options and for the government to be flexible regarding how a delayed process in a NATO context should be handled. It feels a bit too simple to say that we plan with Finland but leave Swedish airspace, Swedish transport routes, and the Swedish marine environment behind, and perhaps also not think about a bilateral and multilateral perspective. It will limp in practice and will not work. There should be an interest among everyone to solve this.

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

Försvarsministern Pål Jonson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Support for the Swedish application is strong within Nato, and it is on good grounds. On the one hand, we have military capabilities that can be used to make Nato stronger by being made available for Nato's common defense planning, on the other hand, we can contribute a strategic depth to Nato. If Sweden becomes fully integrated into Nato's common defense planning, it will naturally facilitate the defense of the Baltic countries and Finland. There are therefore several reasons why we will be a valued ally once we become a full member.

Let me say something more regarding reassurances. We have received these from several allies, not least from the USA, which has been very clear with its support. Furthermore, the USA conducts a very active exercise pattern in our near area, which has sent clear signals to Russia. We have also received a signal from the NATO Secretary General that Sweden will not stand alone in the event of a crisis or war and that it would be unthinkable for NATO not to act.

In conclusion, I want to say something about the bilateral relationship with the USA, which is very important. By us receiving invitee status, the door was opened for us to be able to begin the negotiations on the Defense Cooperation Agreement. When I have had conversations with the US Defense Minister Austin, he has reminded me that just because we are to become NATO members, it should not obscure the view of the very important bilateral cooperation that we can have with the USA. When we move from being partners to the USA to becoming allies, there are even better conditions to deepen the bilateral cooperation between Sweden and the USA. It is also very important for our own security.

(Applause)

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

Markus Wiechel (SD)

Mr. Speaker! It is not strange that we see a widespread interest in this parliamentary debate. We are about to make a decision on the historic choice to join the defense alliance Nato. Those who know me know that it is with pride that I stand here today and move for the approval of the proposal in the committee report.

NATO is today the primary defense for the free and democratic world. That we are now taking this step is particularly important as we see a clear democratic retreat globally, with various authoritarian states violating other countries' territorial integrity with everything from military provocations to outright attacks.

The clearest example of exactly this in our vicinity is, as is well known, the brutal and ruthless Russian invasion of Ukraine 13 months ago. But it is worth reminding oneself that Russian imperialism is not a new phenomenon, even if it has previously appeared in a slightly different guise. Before the invasion of Crimea and Donbass in Ukraine in 2014, we saw how they in different ways seized other countries' territories in both Transnistria and Georgia in 2008.

Mr. Speaker! NATO membership is needed not only to strengthen the free world's opportunities in northern Europe but also to solidarily strengthen our close friends in other parts of the world. In particular, we see how China's increasingly provocative rhetoric, espionage and military buildup, as well as the rapprochement with Russia, can pose a real threat to people's fundamental right to freedom, and so also in Sweden. Hand in hand with our like-minded allies, we can work to defend human rights and the fundamental values that prevail in democracies.

Against the background of the developments in the Arctic region and previous Chinese activity in the Baltic Sea, there are good reasons for us to consider contemporary bilateral relations from a security perspective. NATO membership opens new doors for further development within our current collaborations with other countries. We can in particular look forward to a deepened Nordic cooperation when Sweden and Finland gain access to precisely the same tools as Norway and Denmark.

Furthermore, our membership in the defense alliance strengthens and improves the opportunities for further cooperation with the countries within the UK-led Joint Expeditionary Force. This is a key to the future defense and security policy on our entire continent.

Mr. Speaker! It is not possible to debate this issue without also highlighting the collective economic advantages of NATO membership. It involves a holistic approach to the defense industry, and it reduces the risk of a development where the EU builds up a parallel military structure.

Furthermore, I mean that the Left Party and the Green Party, who will vote against this proposition, are directly responsible for how a Sweden outside of Nato should be defended in the event of a Russian invasion. Moreover, Russia may then cooperate with other authoritarian and powerful countries that lack respect for fundamental values and international law.

Both of these parties have consistently campaigned for lower defense expenditures. They have neglected to invest in defense. The Green Party also explicitly wants "that Sweden, in the event of Nato membership, should not have permanent Nato troops on Swedish soil." If we are members of Nato, Mr. Speaker, our own troops are also Nato troops. It is not possible to interpret the Green Party's motion in any other way than that they not only wish for us to stand alone in this world but that we should also abolish the defense entirely.

Mr. Speaker! Participation in this alliance will remain the foundation of the defense of Europe. Let us now look forward to working in solidarity for long-lasting peace and security in and among the world's democracies.

(Applause)

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Mr. Speaker! I say, as so many others before me: We face a historic decision. Sweden is about to leave a successful non-aligned policy to join a nuclear weapons alliance, Nato.

The starting point for Sweden's defense and security policy shall be to safeguard our country's security. Swedish defense and security policy shall be based on an independent analysis and strategy aimed at creating security for Sweden and our citizens. Sweden shall have a strong and popularly anchored total defense with the capability to meet the different forms of threats that our country may face, both civil and military.

Russia's aggression and illegal invasion of Ukraine is a serious violation of international law and must, of course, be strongly condemned. The war has caused great suffering for the Ukrainian people and caused enormous destruction. But the invasion has also seriously changed and worsened the security situation in our immediate vicinity and in Europe.

Vänsterpartiet argues that the best way to ensure our security is to stand firm on non-alignment. Sweden has escaped war for 200 years, primarily thanks to our non-alignment and wise diplomacy. There have been serious tensions in our neighborhood on many previous occasions, but we have stood firm on our non-alignment. Sweden's military non-alignment has, in other words, served us and our world well and has the possibility to do so for a long time to come.

Non-alignment means that we have been able to make independent decisions regarding our foreign and security policy. It has also given us a foreign policy room for maneuver that has allowed Sweden to play an important international role for peace and disarmament when the political will has existed. Vänsterpartiet's view is that Sweden shall continue to be militarily non-aligned. We therefore say a clear no to a Swedish NATO membership.

The Swedish NATO process must be seen as a great failure. Despite the government laying itself flat for the despot Erdogan, they have not succeeded particularly well. Unfortunately, it is probably only a matter of time before we join NATO, which I deeply regret. But then we must do our best to ensure that Sweden continues to stand up for human rights, peace, and disarmament.

Sweden has today a relatively strict legislation regarding arms exports, but there is a great deal to be critical of regarding the application. Now we risk eroding the legislation for arms exports even further through membership in Nato.

Vänsterpartiet was the driving force in the Riksdag in 2019 to push through an export ban on weapons to Turkey due to the country's violation of international law in its invasion of northeastern Syria. At that time, there was a complete political consensus on the importance of acting against this violation of international law. Turkey has repeatedly shown that it does not hesitate to intervene militarily in its neighboring countries. As recently as in November last year, Turkey carried out a military offensive against Kurdish areas in Syria and Iraq, where 89 targets were bombed by aircraft during a single day.

One of the requirements Turkey has set for Sweden to approve a Swedish membership in Nato is precisely that arms exports shall be resumed, and presto, we are once again exporting weapons to the Turkish regime without anything actually having changed that justifies this. Vänsterpartiet believes that Sweden should stand firm that no Swedish weapons shall be exported to Turkey.

Membership in Nato can also come to affect the so-called cooperation agreements that ISP, the Inspectorate for Strategic Products, grants. It can result in that one approves new agreements with countries one would usually not grant export to as a third party, most often USA, wants to make use of Swedish weapons or Swedish materiel.

What is most concerning about NATO membership is that we are joining a nuclear weapons alliance. NATO has nuclear weapons as a core doctrine and can also imagine using them.

Nuclear weapons are the most destructive weapons of mass destruction that humanity has invented. The international community has so far neither succeeded in stopping the proliferation nor gotten the nuclear-armed states to disarm. Instead, billions are invested in the modernization and development of nuclear weapons. Research has shown that there is a lack of preparedness to handle the consequences of nuclear weapons.

It is an illusion that nuclear weapons make us safer. Nuclear weapons are not a protection against international conflicts and wars. In reality, nuclear weapons are an enormous threat to Nordic and global security. A single nuclear detonation would likely kill hundreds of thousands of civilians and harm many more, and radioactive fallout could contaminate large areas in our countries for an indefinite period of time.

The UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons entered into force in 2021. The treaty prohibits the planning, financing, manufacturing, and possession of nuclear weapons, as well as threatening with and using them. No nuclear-weapon states have ratified the treaty so far. But the purpose of the treaty is to put pressure on the nuclear-weapon states to meet together in negotiations on disarmament.

The spread of more nuclear weapons across the world, and even here among us, makes neither Sweden nor our region safer. If Sweden wants to continue to be a voice for disarmament, we must clearly state that Sweden does not allow nuclear weapons on Swedish territory, whether in peacetime or in wartime. The most effective way is, of course, to join the UN convention on the prohibition of nuclear weapons.

There are no legal obstacles for NATO countries to refuse to participate in NATO's nuclear activities. Sweden could sign the UN convention on the prohibition of nuclear weapons even though NATO is currently critical of the agreement. A Swedish accession to the nuclear weapons ban would mean that Sweden does not need to participate in NATO's joint nuclear activities as well as a ban on the deployment of nuclear weapons on Swedish soil. It could also mean that more NATO countries dare to join, for example our Nordic neighboring countries. Vänsterpartiet believes that Sweden should obviously sign the UN nuclear weapons convention in order to continue to belong to the countries that most clearly advocate for a nuclear-free world.

To reduce the risk of a nuclear war in our immediate vicinity, Sweden should, in negotiations with others, push for a nuclear-weapon-free zone in our immediate vicinity. The purpose of nuclear-weapon-free zones is to create coalitions of countries that guarantee that they do not have nuclear weapons in their territory and who thereby receive guarantees from nuclear-weapon states that these areas will not be attacked with nuclear weapons.

Vänsterpartiet argues that Sweden should work towards the Nordic region becoming a nuclear-weapon-free zone. In the long term, other areas such as the Arctic, the Baltic Sea, the EU, and Europe should also be included. It is particularly important to include the Arctic. Interest in the Arctic has increased significantly from the side of the great powers in recent times, and the Arctic can no longer be regarded as a low-tension area.

Agreements on nuclear-weapon-free zones are one of the most effective tools against nuclear weapons and against nuclear proliferation. If countries can be assured that other states do not possess nuclear weapons, it dampens the desire to acquire their own.

Large parts of the world are already covered by nuclear-weapon-free zones or zones free from weapons of mass destruction. This applies, for example, to Latin America, Africa, Central Asia, and Antarctica. In Latin America, for example, an agreement on nuclear-weapon-free zones led to Brazil and Argentina terminating their nuclear weapons programs. As a result of this, trust and relations between the countries on the continent have improved.

Vänsterpartiet has several proposals to develop the Nordic cooperation towards the same goal. Sweden should work to ensure that both the Nordic region as well as the Arctic and the Baltic Sea become nuclear-weapon-free zones. Sweden can, if the political will exists, be a country that, despite membership in Nato, becomes a strong voice for human rights, peace, and disarmament. In the time we live in, such a voice is more important than ever.

(Applause)

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

Margareta Cederfelt (M)

Madam Speaker! I listened to Lotta Johnsson Fornarves' speech. I missed the perspective on peace and freedom in Sweden, in our neighboring region, and in the country that has been affected by Russia's war. I missed the perspective on peace in Europe. We have changed conditions for security, and then the perspectives must also change. We must, of course, guarantee that we can continue to live in peace here in the northern region of Europe.

Our neighboring countries welcome that we too will become members of Nato. They see this as an absolute necessity for us to have peace also in the northern part of Europe. I lack that perspective in Lotta Johnsson Fornarves' speech, Madam Speaker.

I can see nothing other than that the new security situation that applies has passed Vänsterpartiet by and that one is not aware of what the conditions look like. A country alone today is precisely alone. Finland will now have its application approved. Sweden will also have its application approved. But with the reasoning that exists here at Vänsterpartiet, I am concerned.

I want an answer from Lotta Johnsson Fornarve, Madam Speaker, on how Lotta Johnsson Fornarve sees that we should be able to guarantee continued peace, safety, freedom and security in Sweden and our surroundings.

(Applause)

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Margareta Cederfelt, for the questions!

My speech was precisely about how we strengthen peace and security in our immediate vicinity and in Sweden. We do this by ensuring that we do not get weapons of mass destruction in Sweden or in the Nordic region and that we receive a guarantee for this.

I spoke about the importance of Sweden joining the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and that the Nordic region should become a nuclear-weapon-free zone to guarantee that no nuclear weapons are aimed at us and that no nuclear weapons are placed on Swedish soil, whether in times of war or peace. It is the primary guarantee for peace and security in our immediate vicinity.

(Applause)

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

Margareta Cederfelt (M)

Madam Speaker! I still do not hear a single word from Lotta Johnsson Fornarve about how Sweden can cooperate with other countries. How are we to achieve just that security? How are we to maintain our freedom?

This is something that was brought up, if the member remembers, by Putin some time ago. We are to be a buffer zone. A buffer zone is not free. A buffer zone is not independent. A buffer zone has no guarantees for continued peace and security.

We have seen that our neighboring country Finland has taken exactly the step that Sweden will also take. This is something that will guarantee the safety and security that the member speaks of. I regret that I do not receive an answer on how we can achieve guaranteed safety and security and continued peace in our region. This is precisely what it is about. It is precisely that threat that NATO membership is about.

(Applause)

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Madam Speaker! I regret that Margareta Cederfelt does not perceive what I am saying when I say that the greatest threat to peace today is nuclear weapons. It is a matter of ensuring that we avoid nuclear weapons in Sweden and in the Nordic region.

We shall work for nuclear disarmament and for becoming members of the UN convention that prohibits nuclear weapons. We shall work for the Nordic region to become a nuclear-weapon-free zone, but also the Arctic and other areas. It is the primary tool to ensure peace in our region.

Then we are convinced that the non-alignment, where Sweden independently makes its decisions on how we should position ourselves in peace, foreign and security policy issues, is a much greater security for the Swedish people. We shall not be dependent on countries such as Turkey, Hungary, USA or any other country. We shall stand up for our own security and foreign policy ourselves. It does not prevent us from cooperating with other countries that are democracies like our Nordic and Baltic neighboring countries. I also believe that is necessary.

It is incredibly important that we continue to stand up for the fight against nuclear weapons and for peace and disarmament even as we join Nato. I truly hope that the member can also stand up for this.

(Applause)

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

Peter Hultqvist (S)

Madam Speaker! We live in a time of tension and war in our immediate vicinity. It is a completely different situation from what we experienced for very many years.

That development actually began, as has been pointed out previously, with the Russian attack against Georgia in 2008. It continued with the annexation of Crimea in 2014.

Then one must keep in mind that before Crimea, there existed a rather stable portion of naivety in Swedish defense and security policy. Those who raised the question of Russia constituting a threat were many times considered in the general debate as somewhat odd individuals who perhaps suffered from too much Russophobia.

What we saw at that time was a consistent buildup of Russian defense capability. One also did not want to understand the meaning of Putin's speech at the Munich Conference, where he signaled that Russia now wanted respect in a completely different way than before. He also thereby openly signaled the new policy that would characterize his rule.

I remember the final negotiation in the Defence Preparation Board in 2014. It is important to remind of it. We were going to talk about the economy. In the days before we were to hold the final negotiation, a financial supplement of 5.5 billion kronor from the then government had been presented on a full page in Dagens Nyheter. It was primarily aimed at various high-tech weapons systems.

I then submitted a proposal that we should make the modest reinforcement with 900 million on that appropriation. The answer I received was: Of course you shall get money if we can reach an agreement. It was 75 million. That is a pittance in this context. It did not then become a financial settlement.

What was still good about the Defense Commission was that we succeeded in changing the foundation and the direction of the Swedish Armed Forces. The direction that existed previously was towards international expeditions, guided by a security policy analysis that dealt with a naivety in the view of, above all, the threat from Russia. That disappeared from the picture.

There was a reinforcement of the security policy analysis of Russia, even though there might have been reason to go further than what was done. It later laid the foundation for a broader reorganization of the entire Swedish defense policy, which was based on the fact that we would make agreements with different countries.

We were to create interoperability and build cooperation. We were to conduct exercises together. We were to look at how we can act jointly in different types of crisis scenarios. This was carried out and was a consistent line during the period from 2014 to 2022.

It was also the beginning of the construction of a national defense. I cannot, for my part, see it as reasonable to have a defense force that is not primarily focused on the defense of its own country. It was one of the decisions made in the 2015 defense decision – to reorient the entire defense policy with a focus on national defense. It was also in consequence of this that we later resumed conscription, and in consequence of this, the defense budget was increased by approximately double for the years 2015-2025. It is a historically unique large-scale investment of over 100 percent.

The idea was that we would coordinate as much as possible together with Finland. We did that by creating planning beyond peacetime conditions. But we were also in agreement with the Finnish side that we continue to have the military non-alignment as the platform for this. We would not be the cause of a state of tension being built up in our part of Europe. That was how the reasoning went. That was the very foundation of it.

We increased Sweden's security through the agreements, through a strong rapprochement with the USA and the United Kingdom and through a large amount of activity within the framework of NATO's partnerships. We also strengthened the ties in practice very much, primarily with Norway and later also Denmark. That was what we judged to be best under the prevailing circumstances.

Then came the situation that Morgan Johansson described with the attack against Ukraine on 24 February 2022. It was preceded by a letter sent from the Russian regime to Europe's countries before Christmas - I believe it was on 17 December. The letter was about wanting direct influence over different countries' security policy choices and how they would position themselves in various contexts. They wanted direct influence over what Sweden and Finland would do and what security policy choices and decisions they would make. It then began to become clear that the aggression and aggressiveness began to be directed towards a broader circle.

At the same time, Russia had over a long period built up a military encirclement of Ukraine with up to 140,000 soldiers. The Americans and the British presented this very clearly in various messages, and the media were full of "now there is a risk of attack next week; it could happen then and there and there." I thought it was a good strategy they had, that is, to put these intelligence pieces on the table so that the public could observe it in pretty much the whole world over. It naturally put some spokes in the wheels for the Russians.

The situation changed drastically, and that then formed the basis for our decision to take the historic step of applying for membership in Nato.

It is important to say that our attitude towards Nato has been nothing other than that it is fundamentally a union of democratic countries that have created this defense alliance for their defense. That Sweden and Finland have stood outside has been very much about where we are located geographically and, above all, how the Finnish history has been with the country's imposed friendship and assistance pact, as it was called, with the Soviet Union at that time and its process towards increased freedom.

I believe that the position Sweden took during all these years to create the best balance in our part of the world was still the wisest. Now, the Russian aggression against Ukraine, with Russia's total lack of respect for the rest of the world and the fact that it also so clearly goes against international law and justice and violates the UN Charter, makes it necessary to take this step. But the cooperation that has been built up and the trust that those cooperations have created between the different countries is very important right now, and we benefit greatly from them in connection with the entry into Nato. The platform that we have built over eight years ensures that Sweden has a strong position in these contexts.

I often hear from various international partners, most recently just a few weeks ago, that Sweden is a country that cooperates more effectively with Nato than some Nato countries do. I will not go into further details, but one should keep in mind that the cooperation we built has a major function today in creating credibility for that which we now hope will come as soon as possible.

What I said earlier in the debate with the Minister for Defence regarding the possibilities of these collaborations during a transition period, I believe is important to keep in mind, also for the government, in our assessments and how we act depending on how long it takes before we enter Nato. We must ensure that we achieve cooperation arrangements that create maximum security even during such a transition period. We do, of course, have invitee status, and we have security assurances from a good number of countries. But we also have a platform that, if managed correctly, can be developed significantly both bilaterally and multilaterally and in that way reduce the delay effect of a membership. That must be kept in mind when considering how we act in the situation we are currently in.

It is no fun situation we are in today. There is talk now about peace, but one must keep in mind that what we are in is war. The war continues every day, and those who stand at the front are fighting for all of Europe. They are dying for all of Europe.

Sweden is delivering weapons in this war. We must also understand the depth of the position we have taken when we do so. It is the first time we have acted in this way since Finland was attacked by the Soviet Union and the Winter War began. In that sense, we are living in a historical time in many dimensions, and then we must be aware that our position is that we clearly and distinctly support one party and that we do so with more than statements and proclamations. We do it by, together with the other countries in Europe, sending money and humanitarian aid but also weapons and materiel. The position we have taken is strong, clear, and unambiguous. It cannot be misunderstood, and the message is not misunderstood in Moscow. It is misunderstood precisely as little as the message in today's decision that we want to join Nato as soon as possible.

We stand behind the bill. For my part, what needs to be presented from our side in this debate has been presented now, both from Morgan Johansson and from me, so now it is clear.

(Applause)

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Madam Speaker! Peter Hultqvist was Minister for Defence for eight years. Some have pointed to the Left Party's influence, but then one must keep in mind that the reorganization that Hultqvist accounted for took place with the support of precisely the Left Party.

During Hultqvist's time as Minister of Defence, Sweden moved closer to Nato than at any time previously in history. As we have heard, agreement after agreement was concluded with other countries to create so-called threshold effects in the event of an attack on Sweden. It was called the Hultqvist doctrine.

Vänsterpartiet criticized Hultqvist many times for approaching Nato and in practice making Sweden a Nato light member. He, of course, rejected this in his boisterous tone. It went so far that Vänsterpartiet and Moderaterna reached an agreement and demanded that the then defense minister should report all the agreements he had entered into in a written statement. After much whining and groaning, the Riksdag finally received a written statement on international defense cooperation where the agreements were reported.

At the party congress in November 2021, Hultqvist thundered that Sweden would never join Nato as long as he was defense minister. But when Peter Hultqvist pivoted on the Nato membership on April 11, 2022, at 08:15 in the Ministry of Defence's bunker, that no longer applied.

Whether it is then or today that should be inscribed in the death knell for the Hultqvist doctrine, the scholars can discuss. But the fact remains that the Left Party's criticism was correct. The doctrine's direction de facto made the difference between Sweden's security policy line and a Nato membership so small that even a party that at its congress was in agreement not to join Nato changed its mind and chose Nato membership. It simply became too difficult for the Social Democrats to argue what the differences were between Nato light and a Nato member.

The Hultqvist doctrine is dead. Over 200 years of military non-alignment ended there. Hultqvist's idea of building security together with others is not fundamentally wrong, but in the end, even the own room for maneuver is surrendered. Today we leave Nato light in favor of Nato.

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

Peter Hultqvist (S)

Madam Speaker! I will not go into reviewing how I view the Left Party's, the former Communist Party's, history and actions and omissions and any skeletons in the closet. I will also not remind [the House] of what Ny Dag and other such newspapers have written about various stages in different war situations.

I did not experience Vänsterpartiet as particularly active when it came to wanting to be involved in reforming any defense policy. It emerged gradually as one worked in the Defense Commission, and it appeared politically impossible to maintain old Vänsterpartist views.

I am not ashamed in the least of our relations with different countries and with Nato. I thought that we had support to utilize all dimensions in the opportunities that existed to create cooperation in order to maximize Swedish security.

The military capability in Sweden was also too low, so we had to compensate in different ways. Part of politics is to face the realities. One cannot just devote oneself to what is idealism, one must also devote oneself to the realities. It is this balance that is the entire collective challenge.

Sometimes one has to face the consequences of new positions, and then one has to live with the fact that it will be ironized and so on. We made the change from military non-alignment to NATO membership. You can well spend some years analyzing it, Håkan Svenneling, and mocking me as a person. But it doesn't help. The war in Ukraine requires that one has the strength to make a change. It requires it, and one must be able to do it as a person, one must be able to do it as a party, and one must be able to do it as a nation. That is how it is in politics.

If one then wants to live in an alternative world, it remains for those people who want to do so.

(Applause)

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Madam Speaker! We can keep going back in history as much as we want; I am most interested in discussing the eight years when Peter Hultqvist was Minister for Defence, what was the situation then and what became the final result of these eight years.

I think Hultqvist is wrong in the description of Vänsterpartiet. When Jonas Sjöstedt became party leader, Vänsterpartiet shifted and was clear that they no longer envisioned presenting budgets where they cut in defense in the way that had been done during a previous period.

I think the reorganization that was made in 2015 was important in that one stopped constantly focusing only on international missions and instead also looked at national security. I think Vänsterpartiet was a part of this - then one can discuss the level of commitment of different parties.

When the Social Democrats pivoted, the memorandum we had drafted regarding international defense cooperation was very good for the Social Democrats. Then you could use texts about how Sweden was not so far from Nato, but rather quite close. It became a very typical social democratic political pivot.

The big difference now, between the then Hultqvist doctrine and NATO membership, is Turkey. Previously, I think, in the Hultqvist doctrine at least there was an unspoken democracy criterion that one only wants to cooperate with countries that are democracies. That was at least the type of countries that Hultqvist looked at during his time as Minister of Defence.

Peter Hultqvist has during his political career many times criticized Turkey as a country and, above all, the country's restrictions when it comes to the Kurdish minority.

I wonder what you think today, Peter Hultqvist, about entering into a military alliance with a non-democracy like Turkey.

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

Peter Hultqvist (S)

Madam Speaker! One can reflect in many ways on what the exchange of views we are now having actually aims for, other than in some way casting a shadow over our positions.

At its core, what we do is about building a maximum defense for democracy and freedom in Europe with the organization that, on the military side, ultimately represents this.

Different countries in Nato have slightly different histories and different structures. I am changing nothing in my view on Turkey or in what I have said over the years about abuses and other things that have occurred. I think it is sad to hear about HDP because I know the party leader. I have met him several times, and I think it is miserable that he is sitting in prison on political grounds. I regret nothing of what I have said, and I do not think it is really relevant to bring it into the context.

We must have a continued commitment to democracy, we must have a continued commitment against nuclear weapons and we must be what Sweden should be in these contexts. But this is not hindered by a NATO membership. Norway has had a very clear line in many different international issues and has also been a mediator in various conflicts. A NATO membership therefore does not hinder this.

I have sat in on the meetings with NATO's defense ministers. It is possible, just as in the EU, to say what you think if you decide to do so. Here, it is a question of what one decides to do in a democratic body.

Joining Nato is joining Nato. It is not joining Turkey. That is what one must have clear in one's mind. It is joining a military alliance with sovereign states that is also intergovernmental; that must be remembered. It is required that one reasons one's way to something common for it to apply.

When it comes to the final result of the eight years, the cooperation agreements are highly alive and relevant. I am proud of them. They are a platform for the NATO membership that is now being realized. Speculations about death runes, I think, can be left behind, because the agreements are alive every day in concrete exercise activities and in concrete cooperation between ministers. In a concrete sense, they increase military capability and additionally create greater security.

(Applause)

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Peter Hultqvist, for the speech and the historical description! I also intended to be a bit historical and bring up a proposal that has many years on its back: the Nordic region as a nuclear-weapon-free zone.

The proposal came as early as the 60s. Urho Kekkonen pushed it, and Gro Harlem Brundtland, the Social Democratic Prime Minister of Norway, joined in. Even our own Prime Minister Olof Palme stood behind Norden as a nuclear-weapon-free zone. This was in a time when the nuclear buildup was at its toughest and when we were in a Cold War.

Agreements on nuclear-weapon-free zones are some of the most effective tools against nuclear weapons and nuclear proliferation. If countries can be assured that other states do not have nuclear weapons, it dampens the desire to acquire their own. Large parts of the world today are already covered by nuclear-weapon-free zones.

Is it not high time to work towards making the Nordic region a nuclear-weapon-free zone - to increase safety and security both in our own country and in our neighboring countries and truly ensure that we avoid nuclear weapons on our territory both today and tomorrow? Are the Social Democrats prepared to fight for the Nordic region as a nuclear-weapon-free zone?

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

Peter Hultqvist (S)

Madam Speaker! We will, of course, fight to get rid of nuclear weapons.

But I just want to remind that Putin has now paused the last agreement regarding nuclear weapons. This is part of a strategy where he marks that Russia also threatens to use the nuclear weapons system.

We thus have an acute picture where a large nation threatens with this type of weapons systems against a global community and with continuity rattles in these issues. One can then assess what is a reasonable line of success and what is not in a situation where Putin pauses the last functioning agreement.

It might be good to try to return to the agreements that now exist and which Russia has walked away from, and try to reach a situation where one can start this again. But now we have a war in Europe. It continues every single day. The interest in this from, for example, Russia is totally minimal. They rattle, they threaten, and they mess around all the time.

We must in no way act in any way that we could facilitate the situation for Russia or end up in a position where the country would benefit from demands that we set and which they can then exploit. We cannot end up in a situation of unilateral nuclear disarmament.

The threat comes from Moscow, just as it has for so many years and in so many different contexts. I have been able to follow quite a lot of how the exercise activities have been handled and how these things have been moved within the framework of Russia. That is where the problem lies.

But how do you influence Putin in these contexts? I would very much like to have an answer to that.

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Peter Hultqvist, for the answer! Of course, I see the threat from Russia, and of course, I am deeply concerned when Putin comes out and threatens to use nuclear weapons. It is naturally something that one must take with the utmost seriousness.

I do not want to see any nuclear weapons, whether Russian, American, English or others, on Swedish territory. The risk of nuclear weapons being used against us becomes greater if we have nuclear weapons on our own territory. Therefore, security increases if we see to it that we fortify that we do not have any nuclear weapons on our territory. A very good thing then is to see to it that the Nordic countries become a nuclear-weapon-free zone and that we take the initiative to that and negotiate with the other Nordic countries.

It was a good proposal once upon a time, in the 80s, when we also had a nuclear armament. There were threats from both Russia and others. Why can we not go back to the important proposal, which was, among other things, driven very powerfully by the Social Democrats at that time? I believe that it would be a successful thing to do.

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

Peter Hultqvist (S)

Madam Speaker! During the eight years I was in the government, I was never confronted with a discussion about anyone wanting to place nuclear weapons in Sweden. I have never heard it. Sometimes I have raised it with others simply because questions have been asked in Sweden: Are there any interests in placing nuclear weapons in, for example, the Nordic region? I have never received an answer that anyone would have wanted that. I consider that question to not be relevant in practice. There is no interest in placing any nuclear weapons on Swedish territory. I don't really know what that debate leads to. We are simply creating an image of something that is not relevant. That is the reality in these contexts.

What is important, however, if one wants to drive opinion against nuclear weapons, is to point out what the Russians are doing, because they are the only ones who talk about nuclear weapons as a way out when it comes to acting in a war situation. Nato is not doing that, it is the Russians who are messing with that.

What one does at different times in history is related to how the strategic situation looks at that specific time. Therefore, one cannot simply compare and say: We did it in a certain way in the 70s, and now we are going to do the same. Things change. At that time, we did not have any war in the way that we now have in Ukraine. Ukraine exists as a reality now, and it governs the entire security policy situation.

Okay, we agree when it comes to trying to return to nuclear disarmament. A good step would be to try to get them to enter into the agreements that they have now withdrawn from. But do not forget that it is not the time for much negotiation between the different nuclear powers today! The war is a reality, and Putin's attitude we have accounted for here today.

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

Kerstin Lundgren (C)

Madam Speaker! In many and many ways I can agree with what Peter Hultqvist has stated, not least in the most recent exchanges. But I will nevertheless return to the image of naivety when we saw Russia act during the first decade of this millennium.

There, Peter Hultqvist had an ambition to increase the defense appropriations, and I can admit that we would have listened to that. But when Peter Hultqvist then received the ministerial mandate, it was not he who went to the forefront to increase the appropriations, but rather it was constant negotiations to increase the appropriations for the defense. By then, we had seen the Georgia war. We had also seen the annexation of Crimea and eastern Ukraine in 2014. It was a new strategic reality that we should have taken hold of and changed.

We then pushed for a review of our security policy choices and got this through in the agreement that arose regarding the Defense Commission. Bringéus's investigation came about because of our demands. Unfortunately, it became nothing more than a paperweight. We would have been better equipped to lead the discussion if we had taken it up and tested whether neutrality actually held in the new world. We could also have built a higher threshold for Putin's actions when he developed his thoughts during 2021 ahead of 2022. Why was the then Defense Minister not interested in doing more of this?

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

Peter Hultqvist (S)

Madam Speaker! Since I was involved in these negotiations, I may have a memory of how it was in reality. We submitted proposals for increased appropriations as a basis for each such negotiation. I have not been an opponent of increased appropriations. Negotiation is negotiation, and when a negotiation result has then been reached, one stands by it jointly and does not keep complaining to one another about how a potential negotiation has proceeded or how it has not proceeded.

We fundamentally added more money every time, and we made joint settlements. We received broad majorities that shifted slightly from time to time, but I think the final results were good. No one disparaged Georgia and Crimea in those negotiations. It was this that was the reason why we, among other things, increased the appropriations and restructured everything. It meant that we also raised the threshold. That was the whole point of it all.

One can summarize this. It is a 100 percent increase in the budget between 2014 and 2025. That is not a bad result. What one also must include in the picture is that it is not just a question of pumping in money. The one receiving the money, in this case the Armed Forces, must also have an opportunity to receive the money so that we see a good result. There must therefore be a balance when it comes to economy, action, and realism in terms of how one builds the defense capability step by step. It takes time to build defense capability. It is nothing that one does overnight.

When it comes to this part, I mean that it was a collective pressure from different sides, and it was a major realignment that took place of both the security policy and the defense policy.

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

Kerstin Lundgren (C)

Madam Speaker! Yes, it was from different sides, and that was what made the defense budget raised and increased as Peter Hultqvist says. It was truly so that there were negotiations where other parties contributed to raising the appropriations. It perhaps helped the then defense minister against the finance minister at that time, but it was still an ambition to try to raise the appropriations. We were satisfied that we reached an agreement. We did so on all points except just when it concerned the question of the security policy path. There we reached the Bringéus investigation but no result followed from it. That question was, in fact, dead, according to the government. I regret that. It was dead despite the fact that we saw what was happening in our neighboring country Russia and how one acted.

It is clear that it would have been an advantage if we had at least been prepared to do as Finland did – reference is made to Finland. Finland was already prepared in 1995 to introduce a Nato option to keep that door open. But it was considered completely reprehensible by Sweden until the then Minister for Defence said that he decided that Nato was the way, and it was on April 11, at 8:15, as it has previously been related to.

It would have been better if we had done as Finland did earlier and acted in common, not just regarding defense planning. The part about defense planning was good, and we agree on that part. But I am also thinking of the Nato option, which Finland had. It would have been better if one had been prepared to discuss our security policy line earlier, because then we would have had a better preparedness for the positions we took later.

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

Peter Hultqvist (S)

Madam Speaker! We have clarified that it was a broad majority in the Riksdag that together accounted for the one hundred percent increase and that it was a give-and-take from different parties in this. Now one does not need to try to take the credit and say that one was better than the other. If one makes an agreement, one stands by it jointly.

But I also want to say once again that we provided reinforcement funds when we initiated every such negotiation, and then we built on them gradually. I am glad to have been a part of that important development.

Then it concerns the security policy and what has been dead and not dead. It was actually the war in Ukraine, the Russian attack, that triggered Finland becoming interested in joining Nato. It was then that the great change occurred in both Sweden and Finland. Before that, this was not an issue that was very current in Finland either. It was this profound change that led to us taking this step. One must remember that it was then everything was triggered, and it was then it changed. I remember Sanna Marin's statement when she said that on February 24 everything changed. It was her analysis of the situation.

Regardless of the requirements for the investigations - and we also conducted investigations - and regardless of how it looked, it was based on a different type of situation in all of Europe. So that was also from Finland's side in how they analyzed the whole thing. But when the war was a fact, we made this change, and it is this that we are to decide on today.

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

Ulf Holm (MP)

Madam Speaker! Much has been said in this debate today regarding whether Sweden should become a member of the defense alliance Nato or not. I and Miljöpartiet have come to the conclusion that the disadvantages outweigh the advantages and that Sweden therefore should not become a member of Nato.

We do, however, have surprisingly similar views regarding the security policy situation. We all seem to consider that the security policy situation is very serious and complicated following Russia's violation of international law in its war of aggression against Ukraine. This also applies to the consequences this has had and will continue to have on security policy both in Sweden, in Europe, and on a global level.

The question that divides us is whether it is sensible or not to abandon 200 years of Swedish neutrality and enter into a military alliance that has nuclear weapons. One can, of course, have different opinions on whether these 200 years have served Sweden well. Now, I personally do not have experience of all these 200 years, but during the time that I have lived and been politically active, I believe that the advantages have clearly outweighed and that it is something we can be proud of.

Call me naive, but I still think the best thing for Sweden is that we can continue to be militarily non-aligned.

Now the majority here in the chamber thinks that this policy should be abandoned. We are not to join just any military alliance, but a military alliance that has access to nuclear weapons - nuclear weapons that most of us loathe and realize can destroy human lives infinitely and large areas of land for a long time if they are used.

From the Green Party's side, we do not want to sign on to NATO's nuclear weapons doctrine, because we believe that a world where nuclear weapons exist can never be a secure world. We would rather see Sweden remain alliance-free and instead, given the new and much worsened security policy situation, deepen our work with acting preventatively for democracy and peace and for a nuclear-weapon-free world as an alliance-free state.

The truth is that the Swedish tradition of pushing for global disarmament work would be weakened, if not cease, in the event of Nato membership. We believe that Sweden's ability to be an independent and upright voice for human rights, democracy, disarmament and peace will be weakened if Sweden becomes a member of Nato.

It is against this background also under all criticism that the government has not demanded any guarantees whatsoever regarding, among other things, nuclear weapons in the event of membership in Nato, which both Denmark and Norway have. Miljöpartiet has demanded that Sweden shall, among other things, receive guarantees that no nuclear weapons are brought into Swedish territory.

The Green Party wants to see a statutory ban on nuclear weapons on Swedish soil. This also applies to the transport of nuclear weapons in Swedish waters. The guarantees would reduce the threat against Sweden and be in line with the situation for our neighboring countries which have similar regulations.

The NATO principle of first use allows the NATO alliance to be the first actor to use nuclear weapons in a conflict. The Green Party does not want NATO to be the first to use nuclear weapons.

I deeply regret that the government, now with the support of the Sweden Democrats and the Social Democrats, has deprioritized these demands for guarantees. It seems as if it is more important for these parties that membership in Nato happens quickly rather than looking at what a membership entails. In this difficult security policy situation, I personally think that a deeper debate in Sweden with a chance for reflection and consideration would have been needed.

Madam Speaker! I also want to comment on the issue regarding transparency and influence. In today's debate, we have heard that Nato is a political organization, perhaps even more so than a military one. Nato is to give us security in an uncertain world. The question then is how we, both as citizens and as the people's primary representatives in the Riksdag, in the event of membership, shall be able to gain transparency and be able to debate positions on Nato issues.

The Government makes the assessment in its proposition that the Riksdag's oversight and influence in upcoming NATO matters is sufficient. From the perspective of the Miljöpartiet, we do not share that view but are, on the contrary, concerned that democratic oversight will be strongly limited. Furthermore, the Government should not interfere in the Riksdag's internal working methods; instead, it is the Riksdag that must decide whether the Government provides the Riksdag with sufficient oversight and influence.

Now I hope that Madam Speaker listens extra carefully. Miljöpartiet considers that the Committee on Parliament Administration should be tasked with reviewing how the Riksdag's oversight of NATO issues can be clarified and improved. Sweden has not entered into a military alliance for 200 years, and the parliamentary rules are therefore not drafted with this in mind.

We are well aware that the military parts are largely subject to secrecy, but as the people's primary representatives, the Riksdag must be able to take part in decisive developments within Nato and its activities. If this is to happen through clearer and expanded rules on information or if a specific Nato Committee or a Nato Commission is to be established, the Riksdag Board should review this as soon as possible. This is extremely important to ensure democratic anchoring in Sweden.

Madam Speaker! Regardless of the outcome of today's vote, Sweden needs to help Ukraine against Russia's brutal war of aggression, both militarily and civilly. Therefore, there must be no doubt whatsoever. This is also something that Miljöpartiet stands behind.

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

Margareta Cederfelt (M)

Madam Speaker! A war is ongoing in our immediate vicinity, a war that affects Sweden, Europe, and the rest of the world. I have just come from an election observation in Kazakhstan and can state that Kazakhstan is enormously affected. It is about inflation, and it is about Russians moving to Kazakhstan to experience safety and not have to perform military service. So this is how it looks in a large number of countries.

For us, the war represents an immediate danger. It is enough to listen to how Putin regularly expresses himself. Russia is part of a number of defense organizations and military organizations - CSTO, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and several others. Sweden is in the EU, and for that I am very grateful. We are in the OSCE, and we are in the Council of Europe. We are in a large number of organizations, but we need more. We also need membership in a defense organization.

This is about Nato. CSTO and the Shanghai Cooperation are nothing to us. We shall be part of a democratic organization. We shall be where there are countries that share our values.

Let me say that of NATO's 31 member countries, there are 29 that support our membership. I wonder how Member Ulf Holm views Sweden's possibilities of defending itself as a lone country standing outside a defense alliance, which is not present anywhere and which at the same time shares the Baltic Sea with the other member countries.

I do not think that signifies responsibility when it comes to continued peace, safety, and security in our region.

(Applause)

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

Ulf Holm (MP)

Madam Speaker! Not all of Europe's countries are in Nato. It can easily sound as if Sweden is the last country in Europe to join Nato in order to seek protection in this very difficult security policy situation.

Miljöpartiet has never been against cooperating with other countries or organizations. Margareta Cederfelt knows very well that Miljöpartiet has also stood behind an approach toward some cooperation with Nato. But the question is, Madam Speaker, whether we think Nato membership is the most decisive thing. We in Miljöpartiet do not think so. What is decisive is that we shall have a close cooperation with many, we shall have many friends, and we shall build many alliances with other countries and organizations. But we do not have to join the defense alliance Nato. We think that this must be considered more closely and not be rushed forward suddenly.

I believe that Margareta Cederfelt and I agree with the security policy analysis. It is difficult and complicated, and a war is ongoing in Europe. In that regard, we are in complete agreement. And both parties have stood behind sending support to Ukraine, both civil and military. It is important to make that mark, namely that we stand completely behind this.

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

Margareta Cederfelt (M)

Madam Speaker! Let me mention the Baltic Sea, that is to say Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania as well as Poland - now soon Finland - Denmark and Norway - all are in Nato. This is for our common security. Then Ulf Holm cannot mean that we should stand outside a common cooperation and say: Unfortunately, we do not want to be involved in defending our common security. Is this really what Miljöpartiet wants? Is this what you say we should do, that is to say that we should be completely dependent on other countries? That is what we will be if we do not join. That is the reality. This surely cannot be Miljöpartiet's attitude.

I repeat myself again: Ukraine wants to join Nato. Moldova wants to join Nato. Georgia wants to join Nato. All countries are in different ways exposed to Russia's aggressiveness, that is to say Ukraine through an active war, Georgia by two parts of the country being occupied and Moldova by a part of the country being occupied. This shows that there is a will among countries that are exposed to a real risk and who consider cooperation to be important. Of course, Sweden should be part of an organization that militarily supports a cooperation and can prevent and counteract that it becomes a war. It is precisely for that reason Putin has stated that we should not join a Nato but be a buffer zone.

Madam Speaker! I have a question for Ulf Holm. Does the Green Party not see the danger lurking around the corner? How is Sweden to defend itself?

(Applause)

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

Ulf Holm (MP)

Madam Speaker! It is not that Miljöpartiet thinks we should not defend ourselves. That is obvious. But the question is how we do it in the best way.

With all due respect, Madam Speaker, now Margareta Cederfelt cannot answer this, but in the high rhetoric it sounds as if Margareta Cederfelt is preparing for war and thinks that we should attack first. I consider that it is dangerous.

Miljöpartiet has never said no to the fact that we can have a cooperation with other countries and that we can build alliances in different issues. We have also been positive towards having an approach to Nato and doing different things together. On the other hand, we have drawn a line and said that we do not think Sweden needs to be a member. We do not think that the best way is to threaten with nuclear weapons. This government has also not taken any measures whatsoever to ensure that nuclear weapons will not be transported through Swedish waters, and so on. There are no guarantees for how we will handle a membership in Nato. It is unfortunate. I wish that we could have more discussions about this and take the measures we can while there is time.

Miljöpartiet has never said no to seeking cooperation with other countries and defending our country.

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

John E Weinerhall (M)

Madam Speaker! Today, the Swedish Parliament takes a historic decision and thus leaves a two-hundred-year defense doctrine behind us. The time when Sweden was alliance-free in peace and remained neutral in war changes when we take the step into Nato.

Even though the path to NATO membership is not, and has not been, straightforward, it is my full conviction that Sweden will soon be in the Atlantic Pact. It would, of course, have been much better if we had taken the full step into the community of values that Sweden naturally belongs in along with other democracies much earlier than we now appear to be doing. This is something we Moderates have worked for for a long time, but it came to be delayed until a full-scale war of invasion on our own continent caused the Social Democratic Party to finally wake up, hastily change its mind, and take a stand for membership.

We must remember that just a year ago, at the beginning of the war, it was said that a NATO application would demobilize our part of Europe. Now there is a different tune from the Social Democrats, and I am very glad that they too have changed their minds. I naturally welcome that the Social Democrats have woken up. Now it is only Vänsterpartiet, the old Moscow-loyal communist party, that waves terrorist flags, and Miljöpartiet, sprung from the peace movement, which continues to say no to Sweden building security with other like-minded parties on a military and security policy basis. The most important thing is, after all, that if one wants peace, one must be prepared for war. We best prepare for that together with others.

Madam Speaker! With today's decision to join Nato, we finally establish that Sweden belongs to the West, that we build security together with relatives in the West, and that we mutually stand up for one another when required. Sweden and our immediate vicinity will become safer thanks to the upcoming Nato membership, and Nato will become stronger. We have capacities, knowledge, and abilities to contribute, and there can be no doubt that it is ultimately this that will cause all other 30 member countries to ratify Sweden's application.

As I have previously stated, Madam Speaker, the Swedish path to Nato has been winding. Just when one has thought that a straight path awaited after the turn, new obstacles have lurked on the way. This will surely be the subject of both one and two research papers in the future. Even though it has been our will from the very first moment that the Swedish and Finnish Nato processes go hand in hand, it is uncertain whether we will take the remaining steps at exactly the same time. Turkey and Hungary have both signaled that they will ratify Finland's application before Sweden's, but the hope must be that both Finland and Sweden are in Nato in connection with the Vilnius meeting.

It would be very unfortunate if Sweden, as the only democratic Baltic state, is left out of the alliance longer than absolutely necessary. The Armed Forces itself points to the difficulties with a common defense planning and that we would end up in a more vulnerable position. This applies in particular to Gotland.

That is why, in the long run, it is not just a question of Sweden's security but of the entire Baltic Sea region's security. Therefore, Madam Speaker, I hope that both Mr. Erdogan in Turkey and Mr. Orbán in Hungary take this into consideration and that both countries see the benefit Sweden would bring to Nato. Trust in the alliance and our common security is more important than any country's domestic policy. If Nato's policy of an open door to countries that meet the conditions is to mean anything, that door must also be completely open.

Madam Speaker! When Sweden submitted its application to the alliance and all member countries chose to officially invite Sweden, there were some doubts, for example regarding Swedish anti-terrorism legislation. We now have new anti-terrorism legislation in place, and the activities of the PKK shall, of course, be condemned. Sweden has fulfilled its part of the memorandum established with Turkey and Finland, and now it is time to open the slightly ajar NATO door wide. In that work, I am convinced that Sweden has many and great allies, not least the United States of America but also other leading countries that gladly want to include us.

As previously stated, Madam Speaker, this is a great day. It is a great day for Sweden, and it is a great day for my party, which has long championed the issue, and also for me personally. As an Estonian-Swede with a family belonging to a minority that was oppressed during the Russian occupation and Soviet communism, and therefore chose to return to Sweden after almost 800 years in Estonia, the Russian war of aggression has evoked strong emotions.

With that history in my baggage, I am also a very proud Moderate, and we Moderates have a proud history. Representatives from other parties, especially from parties to the left, have stood here today and beaten their chests regarding Swedish security policy and Sweden during the Cold War and how this has been favorable for Sweden. There have been attacks from the Social Democrats against the old Communist Party, which should have reason to examine itself. Everyone - or almost everyone - can surely agree that there are such reasons.

We ourselves do not have so much to be proud of as a country, given the social democratic doctrine that prevailed during the Cold War. We have not always stood on the right side of history. Even when the Soviet Union was on the verge of dissolution and stood on the brink of ruin in 1990, the then social democratic Foreign Minister Sten Andersson stood and denied that Estonia was occupied. He did this in the capital Tallinn – or Reval, as I as an Estonian Swede would say.

At the same time, my party had representatives such as Gunnar Hökmark, who every Monday in shouts and cries stood at Norrmalmstorg for the freedom of the Baltics. When young Moderates demanded free elections in Central and Eastern Europe, Olof Palme called this a return to the crusading mentality of the Cold War. But in 1991, Sweden finally got a Moderate Prime Minister in Carl Bildt, and Sweden could thus become one of the first countries to recognize the freedom and independence of the Baltics.

Now, Madam Speaker, the circle is closed. Sweden has definitively chosen its course: to build security and freedom with like-minded states. Swedish support for European integration and the development of Eastern Europe stands firm. I have full confidence that the Moderate-led government will push Sweden into Nato, and I am pleased that Sweden's Minister for Foreign Affairs today is Tobias Billström and no one else.

(Applause)

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

Björn Söder (SD)

Madam Speaker! On February 24 last year, I was in Vienna at the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly's winter meeting. On that same day, we were reached by the information that Russia had launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine. A somewhat surreal situation arose during the meeting when the Russian representatives claimed in all seriousness that Russia had only launched an operation with the aim of denazifying Ukraine. For all of us others, it became immediately clear that Russia had fully invaded its neighboring country and had thrown the entire European security order into disarray. The world changed over a single day.

On February 24, a window opened that had not been open since, I would say, the 1990s after the fall of the Soviet Union and which was then closed a few years into this century. Had Sweden joined Nato earlier, it would, I believe, have occurred during the 1990s or at the latest when Sweden's Baltic neighbors did so. Even though the Russians issued threats, such as when the then Russian president's security policy advisor Sergey Rogov said in 1996 that an attempt to include any former Soviet republic in a military alliance that Russia is not a part of would undoubtedly be seen as threatening and, if necessary, be met by military forces, we knew that Russia at that stage was not capable of flexing its muscles. In 2004, the Baltic countries could therefore become Nato members.

But after that - especially after the Russian invasion of Georgia in 2008 - and before February 24 last year, it would in my opinion have been a major misstep for Sweden to join the defense alliance, as the entire geopolitical balance in Sweden's part of the world would have been shaken and the security policy stability that currently existed in Sweden's immediate vicinity would have been risked.

Russia was able to rebuild significantly under Putin's leadership after the fall of the Soviet Union. Even though many of us today are positively surprised by Russia's shortcomings in Ukraine, it was already demonstrated through the invasion of Georgia in 2008 and the invasion of eastern Ukraine and Crimea in 2014 that it no longer respected the prevailing security order.

As early as 1999, I warned about the Russian development. In an SD publication, I wrote then that it also cannot be ruled out that the political leadership is replaced by red-brown forces with political ambitions that threaten our immediate vicinity or perhaps the entire world. I further wrote that the uncertainty is great, that a downsized defense takes years to build up again and that we perhaps do not have that time as the political situation changes, and that our insurance is called Swedish defense.

At the end of the same year that I wrote this, Putin was appointed acting president by the then outgoing president Boris Yeltsin. We know how Russia's path and political development turned out thereafter; it became the politically red-brown leadership that I had warned against.

But not even then did the parties in this chamber wake up. A 23-year-old student, as I was then, could therefore perform a better world analysis than the current members of parliament here in the chamber. Here, they continued to dismantle the Swedish defense capability, and someone even called our defense a special interest.

The availability of proper analytical ability has unfortunately been a scarcity here in the chamber for a very long time – far too long, I would like to say. There are parties here in the Riksdag that for a long time have spoken about a Swedish membership in the defense alliance. Some of them perhaps say today that they were right all along, because now Sweden is joining. But I mean that this is wrong for just the reasons that I have set out. We heard earlier Kerstin Lundgren in an exchange of remarks with Aron Emilsson imply just that one has been right all along.

Since February 24, however, no stability has existed, and the geopolitical balance is but a memory. For me, this meant a personal reappraisal after I had for many years debated with various representatives here in the chamber about why it was a bad idea for Sweden to join Nato.

But when the world and the international environment change, one must be prepared to reassess one's policies and positions. Two days after the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, on February 26, I wrote the following on Twitter:

It is now time to consider a Swedish membership application to Nato together with Finland. Standing up against the 21st century's Hitler must be paramount above all, and to clearly show this despot that he is finished now is important. One can choose shame or war. The one who chooses shame still gets war.

There were also people in my own party who thought I was wrong when I went out and stated that the party would reconsider its position. However, quite soon after this, the party initiated a process to reassess its position regarding a Swedish Nato membership.

Madam Speaker! Despite the Russian full-scale invasion of Ukraine and despite the fact that the entire European security order had been disrupted, there was someone who refused to reconsider their position. It was our then Minister of Defence Peter Hultqvist. On March 9, almost two weeks after the invasion, he sat in SVT's 30 minuter and explained that he had not changed his opinion on the issue of Swedish NATO membership.

It would be required that the Sverigedemokraterna declared that they wanted to establish an immediate and thorough investigation in order to see what opportunities existed for a Swedish action and what consequences a changed Swedish security policy would entail. Within the framework of such an investigation, one would want to more closely analyze how a Nato membership would affect Sweden regarding everything from defense capability to foreign policy consequences and look more closely at possible reactions to such a decision in the rest of the world.

The Sweden Democrats also declared that it should not be ruled out that it could be important to be able to quickly make a decision to back a Swedish application for Nato membership and that, in that case, it should occur after careful considerations, together with Finland and based on that it is necessary to protect Sweden against attacks. Since 2020, the Sweden Democrats have stood behind a Nato option precisely to have flexibility and to show that one is open to a Swedish membership application.

And with the Sverigedemokraterna changing their position, the majority here in the Riksdag shifted. The Socialdemokraterna were forced under the gallows to accept a Swedish membership application if they did not want to be cornered together with Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet and be against a new Swedish security policy direction.

I think, however, it is gratifying that the Social Democrats finally turned and that there is now a stable majority in the Swedish Riksdag for a Swedish membership. We can look forward today. The upcoming membership in Nato gives us opportunities to continue and deepen our defense cooperation with Finland and - even more - with Denmark and Norway.

The Armed Forces and civil defense shall continue their solid work of preparing the organizations for host nation support as well as cooperation and interoperability with the armed forces of other countries. Now it will likely be the case that Finland enters Nato before us, but we stand ready shortly thereafter.

When the Russian security policy advisor Sergei Rogov in 1996 tried to intimidate former Soviet republics from joining Nato, he surely did not understand that it was precisely Russia's own actions that caused not only them to choose to join Nato, but now also Sweden and Finland. There is something to the joke about appointing the Russian dictator Vladimir Putin as this year's membership recruiter for Nato.

In conclusion, I move for approval of the committee's proposal and rejection of the reservations.

(Applause)

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

Hanna Gunnarsson (V)

Madam Speaker! Today, the Riksdag is debating the largest security policy decision in Sweden in decades, namely membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, commonly called Nato, by our joining the Washington Treaty or as it is also called the Atlantic Pact.

Vänsterpartiet is against Swedish membership in Nato, and we will vote no in today's vote.

Madam Speaker! We live in a very serious security policy situation. The terrible war in Ukraine has shown with all desired clarity that the world is not as peaceful as we had hoped. There is war in our vicinity, and Russia is a clearly imperialistic country. There is therefore a great need for us to build up our own total defense, and the Left Party therefore supports the reinforcements being made to Sweden's military and civil defense.

But the Left Party is therefore against a Swedish NATO membership. Swedish defense and security policy shall be based on an independent analysis and strategy aimed at creating security for Sweden and its inhabitants. Our country's history with more than 200 years of peace is unique, and one of the most important explanations for this is the military non-alignment.

Sweden's defense and security policy is based on the fact that by not entering into military alliances, we have better conditions and opportunities to create security for the population and keep Swedish territory out of war. We have kept Sweden militarily alliance-free and preserved our military self-determination precisely because we, in such a security policy position as we now see, should be able to make independent decisions that benefit Swedish security and safety.

Vänsterpartiet argues that a Swedish membership in the military alliance Nato increases the risk of Sweden being drawn into wars and conflicts we have not chosen ourselves. Swedish foreign and security policy shall be decided in Sweden, in this chamber, not at Nato's headquarters in Brussels, in Washington by the US president, or in Ankara by Turkey's president.

Madam Speaker! It is appropriate in the debate to say a few words about the process leading up to a Swedish membership in Nato. We who work with defense and foreign policy have lived with the question of Nato for quite some time. When Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine occurred a little more than a year ago, the debate changed fundamentally, and not long after, the then social democratic government submitted an application for Nato membership.

Vänsterpartiet demanded a referendum. We thought this demand was completely reasonable given how major a decision it is to leave neutrality and join a military alliance and how we handled the major decisions to join the EU and not join the EMU. Unfortunately, the other parties did not want to ask the people on this issue, which we truly regret. Such major decisions should be preceded by a referendum even in representative democratic systems.

Furthermore, it is this matter regarding the negotiations with Turkey. My fellow party member Håkan Svenneling went through how both the previous and the current government have negotiated with the despot Erdogan and allowed the Swedish NATO membership to become a part of Turkish domestic policy. At the same time, the safety of Kurds in Sweden has been put at risk when Turkey has demanded completely unreasonable deportations and, furthermore, restrictions on Swedish freedom of speech. The process that has preceded the Swedish NATO membership will be recorded in the history books as something that was handled very poorly.

Madam Speaker! Vänsterpartiet has, above all, two conditions for Swedish membership: no permanent troops or bases on Swedish soil and no nuclear weapons on Swedish territory. We are very disappointed that the government has not wanted to stand firm here. If Sweden has not clearly stated this before membership, it will be harder to say no if and when such demands are directed at us from the other member countries.

NATO is officially an organization where the member countries have equal power and make decisions together in a collective, intergovernmental manner. That sounds good. Each member state can, at least theoretically, block decisions.

But NATO is both a political and a military alliance where negotiations take place between member countries, and in practice we know that NATO has a dominant party: the USA. The USA's military capacity is NATO's backbone. Membership in NATO inevitably means that Sweden hands over a large part of our security and defense policy to the USA. With its strong role, the USA has a great influence to make other countries act in accordance with the USA's interests within the organization. We know that countries have been able to compensate for low defense expenditures by being responsive to requests from the large countries in the organization.

We also know that tensions between the USA and China are increasing. The USA is expanding its military bases in the South China Sea while China has plans to multiply the number of nuclear weapons. This creates questions and concerns, including regarding how NATO's mutual defense guarantees function in the event of an attack against American bases in China's vicinity.

Madam Speaker! Membership in Nato will demand a lot from the Armed Forces' personnel, something the government hardly mentions in its bill. Sweden is estimated to need to contribute approximately 200 officers to Nato's various staffs, which is a large number. Even though the number of students in the officer training increases every year, it will be a major challenge to find and place officers on Nato missions, and it will most likely be felt within the Armed Forces. The personnel who are placed on longer missions abroad must be given sufficiently good conditions so that the placement is not perceived as an excessively large sacrifice for the individual and their family. Here, the government and the Armed Forces have a very great responsibility to ensure that this becomes as good as possible.

Madam Speaker! Finally, I shall say a few words about the future anchoring in the Riksdag of Sweden's NATO policy and what Sweden will do in NATO. The Government addresses in the bill the requirements for anchoring in the Riksdag and notes that it can be done in different ways, but that the only direct requirement is information in the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Vänsterpartiet argues that this is not enough for the parties in the Riksdag to be informed about what is planned and decided within Nato and what positions the government intends to take. The government and the Riksdag committees must jointly find a good way to anchor the Nato policy in the committees continuously, not just annually through a letter. It is crucial for the continued popular anchoring of Sweden's defense and security policy that the government keeps us continuously updated on what is happening in Nato.

Madam Speaker! With this, I move for the approval of reservations 1, 2 and 3 and regret that we are now about to leave our long history of neutrality behind us.

(Applause)

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

Margareta Cederfelt (M)

Madam Speaker! Yes, we indeed live in restless times. Ukraine's territory is exposed to war, but Ukraine's vulnerability did not begin on February 24, 2022. It began in 2014 with the illegal annexation of Crimea, but also Donetsk and Luhansk. But let me say when it actually began: It was when the Ukrainians gathered at Maidan and expressed their will for membership in the EU.

We can see how Russia threatens countries, and not only threatens but actually launches attacks, when countries express their will to defend themselves. What should one do then? Should one say "thank you, we waive" or say "we have our own integrity. We stand independent and we shall continue to do so." For me, this difference in principle is extremely important. Sweden has also been subjected to threats. It is important that we continue our work for peace, freedom, and security in Sweden and in our neighboring region. I hope that this is a picture that Hanna Gunnarsson shares.

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the question: What shall we do to preserve our peace, freedom and security in Sweden and in our neighboring region if we are not to be part of the democratic organization that actually exists and which works with multiple dimensions? Democracy is included, but it is not just about democracy and human rights, it is also about a military alliance, and that is what we need to defend ourselves. I want to hear how Hanna Gunnarsson views the question of how Sweden can continue to defend itself.

(Applause)

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

Hanna Gunnarsson (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the question!

I agree with everything that Member Cederleft said, except for the last sentences about us joining a military alliance. We agree with the entire description of reality. Ukraine is in a war, an invasion by an imperialist state. It is an extremely fundamental part of the Left Party's view of the world that imperialist states should stay in their own lane, I was going to say.

We see around the world that there are countries and people who find themselves under occupation or invasion in different ways, and it is in every way and sense horrific. A country should always be able to decide for itself over its future, over its defense and security policy, and how it wants to plan its country, its welfare, and its school system - everything that one should be able to decide over. That is what is so interesting with this question, because what we say in Vänsterpartiet is that we shall make all decisions regarding our defense and security policy here, in the Riksdag, as an independent and strong country. We shall not negotiate "capability targets" or other things with the NATO countries, but we shall decide here.

So what shall we do? The most important thing is that we build up our total defense. One of the important points that is on my list and that I would like to talk about is how we expose our country to threats through quite a lot of privatization and quite a lot of foreign ownership. We discuss it in the Defence Preparedness Committee, for example. It is primarily China's, but also other countries', direct investments in Sweden. It is public transport owned by Chinese companies and wind power owned by Chinese companies. It is an incredibly large threat to our country, perhaps not a military threat but a total defense threat.

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

Margareta Cederfelt (M)

Madam Speaker! That Hanna Gunnarsson should start talking about business and entrepreneurship actually surprises me. Because this is about a military defense organization, not about trade - that is something we are also part of, and there we have the EU. The EU was founded on the basis that no countries that cooperate wage war with each other. I could talk a lot about the EU here, but I shall not do that.

However, I want to say: What has been done so far to stop Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine? Well, the International Criminal Court has recently issued an arrest warrant. The EU, USA, and Canada have economic sanctions and travel suspension mechanisms. This is good, all of this is needed, but we must also have a military coordination. We must have a military cooperation, and then we shall, of course, cooperate within a democratic organization. Nato is a democratic organization.

And let me mention, Madam Speaker, something that I have not heard any arguments regarding: When, for example, OSCE, which Sweden is a member of, carries out election observations, the NATO Parliamentary Assembly also usually participates when it is a NATO country being observed. This shows that OSCE, the Council of Europe, and NATO can cooperate. Is this something that Hanna Gunnarsson is also against, since much about NATO is mentioned here as negative, or is this something that Hanna Gunnarsson sees as positive?

Let me say once again: If we are to be a responsible country, we must cooperate both when it comes to our own security and when it concerns the security of other countries, and that is where Nato comes in. I would like to hear Hanna Gunnarsson's views on this.

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

Hanna Gunnarsson (V)

Madam Speaker! Very exciting questions! Once again, I agree with almost everything. The arrest warrant against Putin is very important. It must work. I saw some headlines today about there being countries that perhaps do not quite agree with this. Sanctions are incredibly important. When it comes to Russian energy, we see – perhaps not as much in Sweden as in many other countries – how sustainable energy, removing the Russian gas and oil, is also a part of building a more peaceful world. We know that climate change actually affects our security physically.

What the Nato countries and Nato's parliamentary assembly do, the Nato countries decide for themselves. If they think they should go on election observations, they can do that. I have learned that Nato is a defense alliance, and it perhaps doesn't really have to do with this type of civilian mission, but if one decides to do it, one has the right to do it.

What I think is so important and interesting is what the member says about us having coordination and cooperation - we are completely in favor of that. But this is a military alliance where we, despite it being interstate, nevertheless place a part of our military planning on other countries. There is a majority in this chamber to do so, and there is today - which I regret - strong support among the population for this, and therefore we will do it.

We are completely in favor of cooperation and coordination, but we are against a military alliance.

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Madam Speaker! I listened to Hanna Gunnarsson's speech. There were some harsh words against Russia and so on, but the fact is that the Left Party does not seem to see what problem it actually concerns: It is our time's anti-fascist struggle that we are currently waging. In all but every party in the Riksdag is on board with it, except for the Left Party and the Green Party.

The Russian Empire is expansionist, fascist, heavily militarized and deeply undemocratic. And, Madam Speaker, one clearly goes after the countries that are not members of Nato. One strikes mercilessly against the countries that want to become members of the EU, which the Left Party never wanted, and against those who want to choose the Western path, which the Left Party never wanted. It entered Georgia in 2009 to make impossible Georgia's westward political journey. It entered the Crimean Peninsula and annexed Crimea. It created a frozen conflict that has now escalated with the full-scale invasion in what is called Donbass - Donetsk and Luhansk - in 2014. It has since planned to carry out a coup d'état in Moldova against the elected Maia Sandu. It tried to carry out a coup d'état in Montenegro. It punished Armenia mercilessly because the new Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan wanted a different type of relationship with Russia by simply selling out Armenia during the conflict with Azerbaijan in Nagorno-Karabakh. It supports Serbian ultra-nationalists in Bosnia and in Kosovo. We have the full-scale invasion in Ukraine. It carries out hybrid attacks and disinformation against Sweden and Finland to stop our accessions.

The Left Party is just as hopeless as the Green Party, Madam Speaker. You are, so to speak, driven by some kind of unsprayed goodwill and an almost incurable naivety in these issues when it comes to Russia.

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

Hanna Gunnarsson (V)

Madam Speaker! I agree with everything that Member Fredrik Malm said, except for the last sentences about hopelessness.

It is exactly as Member Malm said, an anti-fascist and anti-imperialist struggle that the Ukrainian people are fighting for their own and their country's survival. It is the same struggle that we see in many other places in the world, but it is perhaps more acute and closer to us. We are completely united on this in the Riksdag. We are united on the arms exports to Ukraine, we are united on the condemnations, and we are united in that we want to arrest Putin and bring him to justice for what has been done.

A country must never in any way be allowed to take over another country. That is what imperialism is, and this has been on the banners in our May Day marches for decades. All peoples have a right to their freedom. All peoples and all countries shall be allowed to make their own decisions and have free, just and democratic elections in order to be able to do this.

If one wants to join Nato, one should do so, if one has support in one's population and one's parliament to do this. That is why we may do it at some point in the future, when Turkey has eventually decided, and that is why this chamber this afternoon will, with a large majority, vote to join Nato. That is how a democracy works, even though I think it is sad because I and my party think differently. At the same time, I think it is good that we have a democracy that is so strong that we can do this.

I think in a way that it is healthy that parties can change their minds. My party has also changed its mind on quite major issues over the past year. It has not been easy, but it is good to be able to do so.

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Madam Speaker! Yes, it is very important to be able to change one's mind. That is what distinguishes the wise from the stubborn, as the quote reads. There is, however, one point where the Left Party never seems to be able to change its mind, and that is that the Left Party never misses a chance to place itself on the wrong side of history.

When Sweden introduced universal and equal suffrage, the then Vänsterpartiet wanted to introduce the dictatorship of the proletariat, approximately. When Hitler and Stalin carved up Poland, SKP, Vänsterpartiet's predecessor, stood behind the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Throughout the entire Cold War, Vänsterpartiet stood on the Soviet Union's side. When Sweden applied for membership in the EU, Vänsterpartiet opposed this. And when Sweden now sooner or later becomes a member of Nato and the Atlantic Pact, Vänsterpartiet is opposed.

The Left Party, Madam Speaker, never misses a chance to place itself on the wrong side of history. That is why I believe that the Left Party does not quite understand the gravity of the situation that currently exists. It is quite true, as Hanna Gunnarsson says, that we agree on arms donations to Ukraine, but that was not the case at the first vote here. At that time, the Left Party was against it and did not think that Sweden should contribute to Ukraine being able to defend itself.

One must see and understand the ideology and expansionism that exists in the Russian imperial dreams. They want to return to the borders that applied before the First World War. This means that, in practice, they also do not recognize Finland's independence. Finland was a Grand Duchy in Russia at that time.

We must understand that this is not just about Ukraine. The war in Ukraine could very well spread to many other countries where the Russian boot-stomp will enter and torment other peoples, and then we need Nato to protect us.

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

Hanna Gunnarsson (V)

Madam Speaker! Member of Parliament Fredrik Malm never misses an opportunity to tell a story. Many have done so in the speaker's chair today - exciting history lessons.

I believe that all parties, perhaps also all politicians, sometimes make decisions that one later regrets. History always judges us. We always look back on what we have done. We write our white papers and settle our history. It may be decisions that lie far back in time or decisions that lie shorter back in time regarding which governments one joins and what policy one presents in different agreements and such things.

But we must also look at what we need to do today. I am very happy and satisfied to be in a party that can actually change its mind. We made a first decision regarding arms exports to Ukraine. Then we changed our minds and made a new, second decision, and now we are at the eleventh decision, I believe.

We now have a Riksdag that is in agreement on the support for Ukraine, which is in agreement on the economic decisions and the weapons decisions, which is in agreement on the support for the Ukrainian population and which will hopefully be in agreement on the need to help Ukraine rebuild its country later. There is much to do ahead based on what the Ukrainian population wants to do.

Here at home, I believe we can learn a lot from what Ukraine is doing now, on the military side of course, but perhaps above all on the civil side. They have a railway and a postal service that functions even when there is war. I believe we need to review our civil defense. We need to consider how much privatization we do and how easy it is to govern a country in very large crises. We saw the pandemic, for example. We have learned a lot from it, and I believe we will learn a lot from how Ukraine has built its country and will build its country moving forward, in peace and freedom.

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

Katarina Tolgfors (M)

Madam Speaker! It is a long day's journey towards a safer Sweden and a decision in the Swedish Riksdag on a Swedish membership in Nato.

I would like to begin by moving for approval of the Foreign Affairs Committee's proposal in the report and for the rejection of the reservations.

Sweden's upcoming NATO membership guarantees our security and allows Sweden to contribute to a safer world.

The defense alliance Nato was founded in 1949 to protect member countries against threats from the Soviet Union and other potential enemies. After Russia's brutal invasion of and illegal war against Ukraine, it is clear that the threat from the east is more serious than ever.

As one of the most stable and democratic countries in the world, we must take responsibility for protecting our security and contributing to the protection of other democracies. A membership in Nato would not only make us more secure but also strengthen the alliance as a whole. It would be very strange, Madam Speaker, if Sweden, as the only Nordic country, were to stand outside the community of defense that the alliance in Nato entails.

By joining Nato, we will have access to the defense alliance's resources and military strength, which will enable us to strengthen our defense capacity and protect ourselves against both Russian aggression and other global threats such as terrorism and cyberattacks.

Our application for membership in Nato shows that Sweden takes the threats from Russia seriously. Sweden's neutrality and non-alignment have been a part of our national identity for over 200 years, but it is no longer credible for Sweden to present ourselves as neutral or non-aligned when there is such instability and threat situation in our region.

Madam Speaker! NATO membership will give Sweden access to NATO's Article 5, which is the core of the alliance's security guarantees. Article 5 means that if one member is subjected to an armed attack, it is an attack on the entire alliance and all members are expected to stand up for one another. This gives us increased security and shows that we are also part of a larger community.

Joining NATO will make us an important player in the alliance's defense around the Baltic Sea. Our geographical position makes us a key player in building a credible defense against Russian aggression and other potential threats. We will also be a hub for infrastructure, logistics, and the movement of troops and materiel to Finland, the Arctic, and the Baltic states. It is a role that is becoming increasingly important as the ice in the Arctic melts and Russia's military activity in the area increases.

Madam Speaker! Sweden has a strong tradition of international cooperation and will be an important voice in the discussions taking place within Nato regarding future security challenges.

I also want to take the opportunity to thank the Swedish Armed Forces and actually also the two parties in the Riksdag that have reconsidered their position and their standpoint when it comes to Nato. It is good for Sweden that we can get a strong majority that in about an hour here in the Swedish Riksdag will vote for membership in Nato.

Madam Speaker! In conclusion: We Moderates have for decades advocated for Swedish membership in Nato. Sweden shall build its own defense and build it stronger. But we shall also contribute to a safer and more stable world and a safer and more stable immediate vicinity. Nato is the most effective security guarantee for Sweden.

(Applause)

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

Lorena Delgado Varas (V)

Madam Speaker! I want to begin by thanking the current and previous governments for undermining Sweden's democracy and non-alignment. No one in this chamber can testify that this process has been informative, inclusive, or transparent. All of us can state that today, 200 years of non-alignment are being broken. It is a non-alignment that has served us well, and where we have been able to have the room to act without having to participate in conflicts or wars. This room to act has allowed us to be the party that mediates peace and that other countries rely on.

I can start by talking about the Arctic and why the Arctic is important. The Arctic is home to 4 million people, including approximately 40 different indigenous peoples such as Inuit, Sami, Chukchi, Inupiat, and Nenets. The Arctic is also home to many animals, walruses, polar bears, and so on.

But the Arctic also helps to keep our world's climate in balance. When the Arctic sea ice melts, it accelerates global warming, because it acts as a reflector that protects the earth and sends some of the sun's rays back out into space. It helps to maintain a more even temperature on earth. The temperature in the Arctic continues to rise to three times the global annual average, which drives many changes for both animals and nature.

Most prominent is that snow and ice are melting at an increasing rate. Up to half of the earth's carbon stores are in the Arctic soil. In particular, the melting of permafrost releases large amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, that is to say carbon dioxide and methane, which accelerates climate change. This affects both local ecosystems and the global climate system. It is worrying and should be more alarming for us than it is today. The Arctic is thus an area that should concern us all.

Since we know that the Arctic is so important, it has been an area that we have tried to protect, a low-tension area, where we have rather worked to cooperate on other important issues than the military ones, including in the Arctic Council. But as both Russia and the USA have greater geopolitical and economic interests in the Arctic, they have escalated the military presence. In that case, it has been important that Sweden has been alliance-free, that we have participated actively in the council, and that we have kept ourselves away from the imperialistic interests from both Russia and the USA. There, we had the opportunity to be a neutral party that pushed for a different development in the Arctic. That voice will now be silenced because we will be part of the military presence in the Arctic.

Unfortunately, the government seems to take the issue of Nato as a simple decision. But the truth is that with a Nato membership, we will have to be held accountable for the military operations that Nato carries out, but also for the fact that this strengthens USA's role in the world's power game.

Many of us have experience with or have lived with the consequences of the USA's geopolitical interests. Personally, I would have preferred to see that we moved away from the great power games. But today's decision simply means that we are actively contributing to them.

Actually, we should be clearer about what we see as security and development. For a long time, we in Vänsterpartiet highlighted the shrinking democratic space in Russia and that it might not be good to continue doing fossil fuel business with them without us needing to strengthen the democratic forces in Russia. But in a system that prioritizes the economy over other values, one continues to do business without counter-demands towards countries like Russia. It is perhaps something to consider when we do business with other dictatorships or pseudo-democratic countries.

I am, in any case, proud that my party has never hesitated in the matter of preserving Sweden's neutrality, and therefore we say no to Nato today. I move for approval of reservations 1, 2 and 3.

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

Margareta Cederfelt (M)

Madam Speaker! I have listened with great interest to Lorena Delgado Varas's speech, and I noted that the Arctic occupied a large part of it. The Arctic is important.

But let me also mention that Svalbard, which is located near Sweden, is located in the Nordic area but is also part of international waters. Russia and China are there. Canada, which has large parts of its territory in the northern parts, in the Arctic parts, is doing everything to defend its territory and is extremely worried about what is happening and occurring. And Canada also unfortunately sees that Russia is not cooperating and how bad it looks when it comes to Arctic cooperation.

This is the situation in several organizations where Russia is a member - cooperation has been terminated. This shows that it is important for democratic countries to cooperate and that countries that have a similar view ensure that they also help each other to defend one another and are not subjected to threats and attacks.

I cannot see that there is any other organization than Nato that can help and defend other countries and where we can help to defend other countries. It is actually what this is about, a military cooperation.

Madam Speaker! I would very much like to see and hear how Lorena Delgado Varas views a military cooperation that can also contribute to strengthening the Arctic region and its security. I understood that the Arctic is important, but I did not hear a bit about how it is to be done to defend the region.

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

Lorena Delgado Varas (V)

Madam Speaker! I have also listened with interest to Member Margareta Cederfelt when she has taken replies against colleagues. One thing that I have reacted to is that it is repeatedly highlighted that Nato is a democratic organization. At the same time, we know that in Nato there are countries such as Poland, Hungary and Turkey. These are countries that at least I do not consider to be democratic countries today.

We have also had very problematic presidents in the USA, I would like to say – and the USA has quite a lot of power within Nato. The USA has also requested help from Nato on several occasions. We have the example of Trump and how he handled the USA both internally and out in the world, and we also have the example of the warmongering Bush, who at his time participated in the war in Iraq.

I think that what we need to work on is to strengthen democratic countries and increase the democratic space in the world. We need to cooperate with different democratic countries, just as has been done so far, in order not only to reduce the military presence but also to strengthen other values that are needed in the Arctic area. That has actually been achieved; one has strengthened, among other things, the dialogue between the different countries, one has strengthened civil defense, and one has strengthened climate and environmental work in the Arctic in order to be able to protect this area. And yes, unfortunately, both the USA and Russia are interested in the economic values in the Arctic. That is the problem today.

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

Margareta Cederfelt (M)

Madam Speaker! The USA is a democracy. When I speak of democracy, I am not speaking of individual individuals, but perhaps Lorena Delgado Varas is. I am speaking of the principles of the rule of law. I am speaking of transparency. I am speaking of law and order. I am speaking of the fact that there is a system and a constitution that works and is implemented. That is how it is in the USA - or is it? Is that something Lorena Delgado Varas does not agree with?

I would, however, like to return to talking about Nato and what membership means for Sweden. Membership in Nato means that we cooperate with other countries. We cooperate to preserve our freedom and our democracy. We cooperate to support other countries in our surroundings, both in the immediate vicinity and in a larger area. These are important principles for me: We cooperate when it comes to democracy, and we cooperate when it comes to military capability. We help to defend each other's countries so that no more countries will fall under Russian military attack. That is something I do not want to see. I do not want to see that more countries should have to be attacked.

This is also exactly what Ukraine says, that is, that they want to become a member of Nato. It is exactly what Moldova, which has been attacked, says. It is exactly what Georgia says. But here in Sweden, we are not to be involved. Here we are not to defend ourselves. Here we are not to help each other. That is what I hear the members saying, Mr. Speaker, and it makes me concerned. If we are to preserve independence and security in our region, we must also be prepared to be part of a military alliance. The situation has unfortunately changed, and then our policy must be adapted accordingly.

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

Lorena Delgado Varas (V)

Mr. Speaker! I perceive that Member Margareta Cederfelt chooses to look away from the content of Nato. It is still the case that the USA is the country that has the most room in Nato and the most to say. It means that we take part in a great power alliance, one could say. What we are now shaping in the Arctic is thus two blocks of great powers, with Nato on one side and Russia and China on the other.

The space we as a country have had, until the decision that is now to be taken, is to be the neutral party that can highlight other values which today are much more important for the Arctic. We do not have time to wait, but we need to work with other values than militarization and increasing the weapons industry. To have an effect, we need to work with other values and strengthen the democratic space in the world.

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Mr. Speaker! It is quite clear that the Left Party's foreign and security policy is driven by some kind of incurable naivety and unadulterated goodwill.

Furthermore, Lorena Delgado Varas is mistaken on the facts, Mr. Speaker. She says that in Vänsterpartiet, there has never been any hesitation to preserve Sweden's neutrality, but the fact is that for decades, Vänsterpartiet was the only party that did not want to preserve Sweden's neutrality. They wanted, in fact, to belong to the Eastern Bloc. From 1921 until 1943, Vänsterpartiets correct, formal party name was Sveriges Kommunistiska Parti, sektion av Kommunistiska Internationalen. It was a district branch of Joseph Stalin's communist party in the Soviet Union. Thereafter, during the Cold War, Vänsterpartiet was for Sweden to belong to the Eastern Bloc.

Furthermore, Lorena Delgado Varas says that Sweden's neutrality has meant that other countries could rely on us, Mr. Speaker. Is that really true? We can look at the Second World War, when Poles were slaughtered and our neighboring countries were occupied. Could they rely on Sweden? The only way Sweden could maintain neutrality during the Second World War, Mr. Speaker, was by precisely making concessions from it, through permit traffic and subsequently with the Baltic handover. There is nothing moral about maintaining a neutrality policy in that way, as the Left Party seems to believe.

Then one beats one's chest and says that Sweden can contribute so much. Can Lorena Delgado Varas not mention any international, major peace agreement that has the title Sweden or Stockholm in it? I am thinking, for example, of the Oslo Accords between Israel and the Palestinians, negotiated by the Nordic country Norway.

(Applause)

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

Lorena Delgado Varas (V)

Mr. Speaker! I think that the Left Party settled its history quite early. One was also quite early in being critical of the Soviet Union.

We can, however, look at today's development. Member Fredrik Malm represents the Liberals, and the Liberals stand for a free trade policy. This means that one has no problems with Sweden conducting trade with both dictatorships and pseudo-democracies without demanding much in return. It was, for example, not so long ago that it was agreed that we should contribute gas turbines in northern Russia, which affected the indigenous people there. One simply does not have those boundaries.

There is still a way to work to increase the democratic space in the world. Many parties here in the Riksdag say that we should use trade policy for that, but yet we are not willing to demand such things from these countries. We could have demanded so much more from Russia - much more responsibility. It is not for the first time today that they attack oppositionists. It is not for the first time today that they put LGBTQ activists in prison - or trade union activists, for that matter. It is not for the first time today that journalists end up in prison in Russia. That work we should be able to do much earlier.

No, there may not be an agreement that says Sweden, but Sweden is known internationally for conducting solidarity work and peace work. You must acknowledge that, Fredrik Malm.

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Mr. Speaker! Free trade is fundamentally very good. When it comes to totalitarian dictatorships, trade can be restricted in various ways. Among other things, we shall not export weapons there, and trade can also be restricted in other ways.

However, the Left Party is a supporter of some kind of free trade. While the rest of the world, for example, restricts economic trade with the totalitarian dictatorship of Cuba, the Left Party instead wants to remove that embargo. We are therefore to have free trade with the butchers in Havana.

When other countries want to introduce sanctions against the dictatorship in Venezuela, the Left Party wants to downplay this and says: No, no, wait a minute - we can surely have normal relations with Nicolás Maduro. Maduro is the successor to Hugo Chávez, who introduced the dictatorship in Venezuela and has driven the country to an inflation of several million percent so that 5 million Venezuelans have been forced to flee to Colombia, for example.

The same applies to a number of other countries where one wants to limit the regimes' actions. In those cases, it is the Vänsterpartiet that is against sanctions.

So who is it really who wants trade with dictators? Is it me? No. We can import pistachios from Iran, but we definitely will not have an exchange with Iran in a way that allows the regime to oppress its population. It is something completely different.

And again, Mr. Speaker, to what is decisive in the NATO discussion itself, namely the image that the Left Party and other parties are trying to convey that the one who is neutral is on the side of the vulnerable. It is precisely the opposite. Vulnerable democracies in the world today trust and often receive their lifeline from Washington D.C. or from other NATO countries. Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, for example, which are exposed to major threats from China, do not turn to Sweden. They turn to the USA to get their protection. The same applies to other vulnerable democracies in different parts of the world. Therefore, our membership in Nato is important so that we, in alliance with other Western democracies, can contribute to more freedom in the world.

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

Lorena Delgado Varas (V)

Mr. Speaker! Fredrik Malm speaks about Western democracies - one can sometimes be a bit Eurocentric or Western-centric. We need to expand the democratic space, not just here in Europe and in the USA but in the whole world.

For this, we need to use different tools. I mentioned, among other things, the free trade policy. But here in Sweden, we have also, for example, opened up to give large, transnational companies very much power over certain areas. This also applies to, for example, China, which today is buying up a part of our energy. They operate our transport system here in Stockholm, and we know what is happening with it today.

We need to develop and discuss the content of and what is meant by security and development much more. We have not had that discussion. We will not benefit from joining a military alliance before we have had it.

The process of joining Nato has also been very undemocratic. It surprises me that the Liberals have in no way criticized how the process has proceeded. We could have had a much more transparent process. We could have let the Swedish people decide on Nato. Instead, we have had a very fast, closed process. Today we are to vote here in the Riksdag, but the truth is that we have not even had the opportunity to discuss the content of Sweden's commitment within Nato.

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

Margareta Cederfelt (M)

Mr. Speaker! The report we have discussed and debated here since nine o'clock this morning concerns the government's proposition on Sweden's membership in Nato, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. I see the debate as extremely important, as is the interest in it. It shows the importance of us here in Sweden's Riksdag actively working so that Sweden can manage to defend itself and contribute to the defense in Sweden, the Nordic countries, the rest of Europe, and the world. This is, of course, an obligation we have. Should we be attacked, we must be able to receive help from others, just as we shall be able to help others who could be subjected to a military attack.

The importance of membership in Nato is shown by the fact that Ukraine wants to join, as do Georgia and Moldova. But let me also mention Montenegro, which joined Nato on 5 June 2017. Of course, it is possible to wave it away, but that is something one should not do. Montenegro joined because it perceived itself as vulnerable and had a need to strengthen its military capability. And Montenegro has continued on that path and also wants to become a member of the EU. I would welcome this, once Montenegro has adapted its legislation to the EU's criteria.

But to go back to security, I wanted to mention in connection with these countries and Montenegro that there is a threat to free, democratic countries. This is something that we as politicians in the Swedish Riksdag naturally must take into account. Therefore, I support the committee's proposal in the report.

I believe it is important that we are part of international organizations - that we are members of the EU, UN, OSCE, PACE, the Arctic Council and the Nordic Council. One ingredient is missing from this palette, however, namely Nato, Mr. Speaker. It is precisely so that we can also assist in a defense alliance that it is so important that we join Nato and that we do so today. Personally, I think we would have joined significantly earlier than it is currently the question of.

In this situation, it is important - I am not saying urgent, because that would be like painting a threat around the corner. It may exist, and it may be just that which has awakened both Finland and Sweden and made us realize that we need to join. Perhaps it was this that woke us from Sleeping Beauty's sleep in the spring of 2022. The process with our application has now been ongoing for almost as long as Russia's illegal war against Ukraine.

Of course we shall join the Nato organization. Earlier in the debate, Mr. Speaker, much has been mentioned about democracy and the possibility of defending oneself. For me, membership in an organization where other democratic countries are included is the important and only way forward to preserve our safety, our security, and our constitutional order.

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

Stefan Olsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Finally, we are rid of the myth of Swedish neutrality and non-alignment! We can finally put this misconception behind us. Non-alignment never served Sweden well. Sweden has escaped war by having a favorable geographical location and being deliberately conciliatory when it was needed.

There were reasons for Sweden to choose a neutral position after the Second World War when the Soviet Union imposed the humiliating friendship and assistance pact on Finland. But it is known that Sweden under Tage Erlander's leadership was willing to abandon non-alignment in favor of a Nordic defense union. Denmark and Norway had also been non-aligned at the beginning of the Second World War, but Germany had not respected that.

But Erlander's neutrality was never a true one, because at the same time as he told the Swedish people that we were neutral, Sweden initiated a secret defense cooperation with the NATO countries. The secret cooperation was, however, never more secret than that the Soviet Union very well knew what was going on. It was only the Swedish people who were not told anything.

When the Cold War ended, Sweden should therefore have joined Nato, but the myth of the wonderful neutral country was so deeply rooted among the Swedish people at that time that no change could be implemented. The myth of the blessing of non-alignment caused Sweden and Finland to draw wrong conclusions about Russian imperialism, which was there the whole time. It did not start last year. It already started in 1994 with the first Chechen war. The President in Russia was then Boris Yeltsin. The revanchism was there from the very beginning.

Sweden and Finland have during this time left a large gap in what is called NATO's northeastern flank. Our reluctance to act in concert with our democratic neighbors has lulled the Putin regime into a sense of security. It has caused it to think that it can do as it pleases in what it considers to be its backyard. It has increased its appetite for power. It has caused it to claim to have a sphere of interest.

In 2008, Georgia was attacked. In 2014, Ukraine was attacked for the first time. It is not strange then that the Putin regime dared to launch yet another attack against Ukraine.

Mr. Speaker! It pleases me nonetheless that the scales fell from the eyes regarding last year's invasion. Today, a majority of Sweden's Riksdag has a clear view of how dangerous Russia is and what needs to be done to defend Sweden and Europe. I am cordially happy that the false historiography regarding the blessing of neutrality policy can now finally be thrown in the trash.

(Applause)

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Mr. Speaker! It is a historical and necessary decision that the Riksdag has to make today. We are now breaking with a 200-year-old defense and security policy doctrine.

It may be worth going through, in somewhat broad strokes, what it has entailed. We use the expression 200 years of peace as a matter of routine.

The intrigues during the Napoleonic Wars led, among other things, to Sweden losing Finland in 1809. We also received a new royal dynasty for Sweden with Jean Baptiste Bernadotte, Karl XIV Johan. The conclusion Sweden drew from this was: We are no longer a great power in the Baltic region, which means that we cannot manage to balance Russia ourselves. This was actually clear already after the Great Northern War 80-90 years earlier. Someone else must simply balance Russia in our part of the world.

This "someone else", Mr. Speaker, was initially Great Britain. During the Crimean War in the 1850s, Great Britain was all the way up at Gotland. Later in the 1800s, this "someone else" who was to protect Sweden against Russia became Imperial Germany. It is no coincidence that a large majority of the Swedish population during the First World War stood behind Germany. It was Germany that was the gatekeeper against Tsarist Russia at that time, 1914-1918.

After the Second World War, this "someone else" emerged who was supposed to manage to balance Russia and Nato.

It is now necessary that we in Sweden also fully, and in cooperation within Nato, contribute to guaranteeing freedom and security in our part of the world. We cannot constantly rely on someone else to balance an increasingly expansionist, fascist, and dictatorial Russia.

This is now proving to be absolutely necessary, Mr. Speaker, given what is happening in Ukraine with the full-scale Russian invasion and the claims Russia makes to subdue other neighboring peoples - in Moldova, in Georgia, or in whatever country it may be. This awakening should have come much earlier, Mr. Speaker, but the Social Democrats have unfortunately always been the sluggish followers of foreign and security policy. They have not stepped forward to break new ground in these issues.

The neutrality policy may work in peacetime, but then most things are calm. When it was truly tested, when it became really sharp, as during the Second World War and the years thereafter, it was maintained by us making concessions from it, for example with the transit traffic through Sweden, which hit our neighbors in Norway hard. The Baltic expulsion, the expulsion of Baltic refugees after the war, is another example. It is deeply immoral for a country to have to do this.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker: The Liberals, which were called the People's Party at that time, took a position for a Swedish NATO membership already in the late 90s. It was because it showed then that the United Nations and the EU were unable to manage to create peace in the Balkans. It was Trnopolje, Prijedor, Sarajevo, Srebrenica and the lessons from there that made our party take a position for a NATO membership. I am very happy that the Riksdag today, hopefully very soon, will make a decision on the Swedish membership moving forward.

Sweden's membership in Nato

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 6.)

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