Foreign policy debate

Utrikesministern Tobias Billström (M)

Mr. Speaker! In the Nordic countries, in the Baltics and along the southern shores of the Baltic Sea are our closest neighbors. Since the fall of the Iron Curtain and the breakthrough of democracy, we have forged even stronger ties with one another. We belong to each other's closest partners, and together we constitute a significant political and economic force. The Government prioritizes these relations.

Sweden is the chair of the Nordic Council this year, the institution for the broader cooperation between the Nordic governments. The vision of the Nordic region as the world's most integrated and sustainable region by 2030 is guiding here. We also lead the work in N5 and NB8, which bring together the Nordic and Nordic-Baltic countries in an informal cooperation focused on foreign and security policy. During the year, we want to consolidate and strengthen this cooperation. It is a necessity in a new time of seriousness.

Our primary priority will, of course, be the support for Ukraine, where all Nordic and Baltic countries are deeply involved. When all countries around the Baltic Sea, except Russia, are soon members of Nato, the conditions will be in place for even deeper dialogue and cooperation. Together with my Finnish colleague, I have taken the initiative for a discussion on how these opportunities can best be utilized.

Mr. Speaker! Just a few miles from our Nordic-Baltic region, a war is being waged where a democratic state has been attacked by an authoritarian one. Russia's full-scale war against Ukraine will soon enter its third year. The courage that the Ukrainian people have mustered to meet the aggression inspires the greatest respect. We are reminded that we want to live in freedom and democracy, and then we must also be prepared to defend these values.

For the government, the support for Ukraine is the primary foreign policy task of the coming years. Sweden continues to support Ukraine as long as it is needed - politically, humanitarily, militarily and economically. Sweden's total support to Ukraine since the full-scale invasion began amounts to approximately 30 billion kronor, and 80 percent of the support to Ukraine has been given after this government took office in 2022.

The government has previously decided on 14 military support packages and adopted a comprehensive strategy for reconstruction and reform cooperation with Ukraine. The government is preparing new military and civilian support packages. Ukraine's cause is our cause.

The government has also been proactive for strong and long-term support through the EU. Recently, a historic agreement was reached on financial support to Ukraine totaling 50 billion euro. It is a signal not only to Ukraine but also to our international partners.

Let me be clear that the government is not wavering in its support for Ukraine, but rather feels a firm determination. Sweden's support continues as long as it is required.

Russia will in the foreseeable future pose a serious threat to Sweden's security. It is therefore in our interest that Russia's strategic options are limited militarily, economically, and politically.

Sweden is pushing to tighten the sanctions against Russia. So far, the EU has adopted twelve sanction packages. The work within the EU to counter the circumvention of sanctions must be intensified. Sweden welcomes that the EU has now laid the foundation to be able to use frozen Russian assets to support Ukraine. This is something that Sweden took the initiative for during the Swedish EU Presidency. Sweden contributes to ensuring accountability for Russia's aggression against Ukraine and for crimes against international law committed in and by the war.

We also see gross and serious violations of human civil and political rights in Belarus. There are almost 1,400 political prisoners in the country today. Sweden advocates for further sanctions against the Belarusian regime on the grounds of the repression in the country and complicity in Russia's aggression against Ukraine. During the spring, the Ministry for Foreign Affairs will organize a conference focusing on the developments in Belarus. It is another way to strengthen the dialogue with the democratic forces in exile. The Government supports the Belarusian people on its path towards a free and democratic Belarus that is part of the European family.

Mr. Speaker! Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine has created momentum for the EU's expansion. Sweden welcomes the decision to initiate accession negotiations with Ukraine and Moldova. Sweden has worked for this decision, which is a recognition of the countries' extensive reform efforts, and continues to support their EU rapprochement. Their future is in the EU.

The EU's expansion is a geostrategic investment in peace, democracy, security, stability, and prosperity. It is in our interest to help the candidate countries approach the union. Sweden supports the approach of gradual integration. It is important that the approach is designed as a support on the way towards EU membership and not as a substitute for it. Membership negotiations are based on the candidate countries' merits and on the implementation of necessary reforms, not least regarding the principles of the rule of law and democracy.

Mr. Speaker! The EU is a community of values and Sweden's most important foreign policy platform. In June, there is an election to the European Parliament, and then a new commission will be appointed. A strong and united EU gives Europe strength and gives Sweden a voice in global issues. In response to Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the EU has shown a strong will and the ability to act united and strategically. To safeguard peace and freedom on our continent is the very core of the union. The EU has strengthened its role as a foreign, security, and defense policy actor, which the government has been proactive in promoting.

A prerequisite for the EU's capacity to meet security threats is strengthened competitiveness. Through companies, trade, and innovations, we strengthen the EU's geostrategic and geopolitical influence. Therefore, during the presidency, the government took the initiative for a new long-term competitiveness strategy. There is a need to protect strategic interests within the EU. This must be done in a way that, as far as possible, limits the negative effects on the internal market. The Trade and Technology Council, TTC, is an increasingly important platform for transatlantic cooperation on critical future issues.

Sweden wants a deepened relationship between the EU and the United Kingdom. It is also positive that the EU develops its relations with other important actors. The EU institutions have presented proposals for renewed engagement with Turkey.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden is ready to join as a full member of Nato, the western democracies' defense community. Nato cooperation ultimately aims to safeguard the allies' freedom and security. With Sweden in Nato, Sweden will become safer and Nato stronger. We welcome that Turkey has completed its ratification process and expect that Hungary will soon do the same.

Sweden will be a reliable, solidary and committed NATO member. We will take a significant responsibility in our immediate vicinity and contribute to all allies' security through NATO's 360-degree approach and the alliance's deterrence policy. Sweden's defense expenditures exceed 2 percent of GDP this year and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

Sweden continues its commitment to arms control, disarmament, and non-proliferation, including by actively participating in the Stockholm Initiative for Nuclear Disarmament.

Mr. Speaker! The transatlantic link is indispensable for Swedish and European security but must never be taken for granted. The bilateral agreement on defense cooperation with the USA has a strategic significance and is a milestone in the relationship between our countries. It is of fundamental importance that Sweden maintains and deepens its security policy and economic relationship with the USA. Canada and the United Kingdom are also important partners.

Mr. Speaker! The government's primary task is to safeguard the freedom, security, and safety of all Swedes, both in Sweden and abroad. The threat landscape against Sweden is becoming increasingly complex. Influence campaigns aimed at harming Sweden have tangible democratic, economic, security, and foreign policy consequences. For a longer period, the government has worked to prevent and stop the spread of disinformation and to strengthen the image of Sweden. We have also, during the past year, handled a number of consular crises, including the evacuation from Sudan and the ongoing management to provide support to Swedes in light of the developments in the Middle East.

The Government will continue the work to achieve the release of the journalist Dawit Isaak and the publisher and poet Gui Minhai. The Government is simultaneously working intensively on other consular cases where Swedish citizens have been deprived of their liberty, including the EU official Johan Floderus. The Government demands that they all be released.

Mr. Speaker! Since October, a new and serious situation has prevailed in the Middle East. Sweden stands behind Israel's legitimate right to defend itself against Hamas in accordance with international law and international humanitarian law. All those held hostage must be released immediately and unconditionally.

(TALMANNEN: May I ask that the person causing a disturbance be removed from the gallery immediately. It is not permitted to disturb the House's proceedings.)

Against the background of the catastrophic situation in Gaza, the government considers a ceasefire for humanitarian reasons to be necessary.

Sweden is a major core donor to several humanitarian actors operating on the ground. Since the outbreak of the war, we have contributed over 250 million kronor in additional humanitarian aid to civilians in Gaza. Swedish aid funds shall be used effectively and contribute to promoting the conditions for a two-state solution and be channeled through actors that do not, directly or indirectly, provide support to Hamas, terrorism, or antisemitism.

Sweden and the EU see no other peaceful way forward than a negotiated two-state solution, where Israel and Palestine can coexist in peace and security. We have historically very close ties with Israel, which this government has rebuilt, and previously established connections with Palestine. Swedish engagement in the region and Israel shall increase further over time. Sweden has clear expectations for the Palestinian Authority to condemn Hamas as well as to take measures against corruption. Israel's right to exist as a state is indisputable.

Israel must address the unacceptable settler violence in the West Bank and cease the expansion of settlements. The government supports the work currently underway within the EU regarding a proposal for sanctions against extremist settlers.

It is of great importance to avoid regional escalation. The Government supports efforts to maintain security, trade, and freedom of navigation in and around the Red Sea. Sweden welcomes the EU's decision to establish the mission Operation Aspides to contribute to these efforts.

Mr. Speaker! For Sweden's security and stability in the world around us, it is crucial that the rules-based world order, international law, and respect for the UN Charter are upheld. Human freedoms and rights must be defended. Every individual's equal value regardless of gender, age, sexual orientation, or religion is a matter of freedom. Several religious minority groups, such as Christians and Uyghurs, are subjected to oppression all around the world. It is worrying when these rules are undermined by authoritarian states, such as Russia, China, and Iran, which want to reshape them based on their own value systems.

There is also reason for concern over Iran's actions in the nuclear field and its destabilizing role in the Middle East, as well as over the country's military cooperation with Russia.

The UN has continued to play a central role in work on global issues. The Government will continue to promote Swedish foreign policy interests in the engagement within the UN.

The Government is increasing its ambitions within foreign policy regarding cyber issues and digital issues. A special envoy for international cyber issues has been appointed.

Sweden is a leading space nation and will conduct an active space diplomacy. The Esrange space base contributes to our own and our partners' research, innovation, and security. It is a strategic resource that strengthens NATO's and the EU's access to space.

Mr. Speaker! Equality is a core value in Swedish foreign policy. We see how the global resistance against equality is increasing. In countries such as Afghanistan and Iran, the foundation of the authoritarian regime is a comprehensive and systematic oppression of women. Sweden can never accept this. But we also see it in Europe, not least in the form of systematic sexual violence in the wake of the Russian aggression against Ukraine. We are working within both foreign and aid policy to reverse this development.

Mr. Speaker! There are increasing protectionist trends in world politics. Sweden's position as an export-dependent country makes it important to guard a free, sustainable and rules-based trade as well as a well-functioning internal market in the EU. This contributes to our competitiveness and resilience. The Government has presented a new foreign trade strategy. Sweden's competitiveness shall be strengthened and the conditions for trade, investment and innovation improved.

Sweden's position as a global priority partner for green and digital transition shall be strengthened. Swedish companies have a strong commitment to sustainability, equality, and social responsibility.

During the past year, the EU has concluded free trade agreements with New Zealand. The Government will continue to actively work towards more free trade agreements being negotiated. The countries in the Indo-Pacific region are important partners both in trade policy as well as in foreign and security policy.

We are deepening our relations with global partners in Africa and Latin America. There are good opportunities for expanded cooperation in both technology and trade as well as in broader foreign policy issues.

China is the world's second-largest economy and a technological leading nation, while the country still has an authoritarian rule and growing global ambitions. China's actions towards Taiwan cause concern, and threats of military violence are unacceptable. Sweden's relationship with China shall be anchored in a European strategy and in close transatlantic cooperation. During our EU presidency, important steps were taken in such a direction. We embrace dialogue and cooperation with China where it is possible and in line with our interests and values, for example to promote trade on equal terms and manage the climate issue. In parallel, we continue, together with the rest of the EU, to point out violations of human rights.

Mr. Speaker! Swedish aid shall create conditions for better living standards for people living in poverty and oppression. Countries that develop in freedom give their populations hope for the future. Through the new reform agenda, a modernization of Swedish aid policy is being undertaken. Development cooperation is one of the most important foreign policy tools to meet the challenges that we and the world face. In this way, we safeguard Swedish interests. Market economy, investments, trade, and education are crucial for people to be lifted out of poverty by having developing countries participate in the global economy.

Our broad commitment to global health remains firm. Investments in health are important for both the development of individuals and societies. Sweden shall specifically work for everyone's enjoyment of rights that are politically sensitive in other countries, such as sexual and reproductive health and rights.

Development cooperation has an important role in countering democratic backsliding in many parts of the world. Sweden is a strong voice and actor for democracy and human freedoms and rights. Open democratic societies are a prerequisite for creating and guaranteeing peace and freedom.

Aid shall prevent the root causes of irregular migration and forced displacement and create conditions for sustainable reintegration. Sweden continues to be one of the world's largest donors of humanitarian aid. We are expanding and streamlining climate aid, and Swedish aid shall contribute to accelerating the green transition. We also strengthen the freedom, rights, and empowerment of women and girls and counter restrictive customs and norms. In all these parts, civil society organizations are indispensable partners.

Mr. Speaker! The government's foreign policy rests on a European, Nordic-Baltic and transatlantic foundation. With a war in Europe, it is inevitable that our immediate neighborhood has the highest priority in foreign policy, but our foreign policy will always have an important global dimension.

We are strengthening cooperation in the EU. I hope to soon be able to return to the Riksdag to report on our policy as a full member of Nato. We prioritize our presidencies in Nordic and Nordic-Baltic cooperation formats. The challenges we face are complex and difficult. We need our friends, and we need global dialogue.

We also stand strongest when there is a consensus in Sweden's Riksdag. I am pleased with the cooperation we have had, not least regarding the most important thing - the support for Ukraine.

(Applause)

In this speech, David Josefsson (M) agreed.

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Mr. Speaker! First, I want to say that there is much in this declaration that I agree with. This concerns, of course, above all the continued support for Ukraine in the war against Russia. There we have a total consensus in the Riksdag, and we have had that ever since the Social Democratic government established that line in 2022. That is in itself a strength for Sweden.

I have other points to make. I think the government's policy is far too provincial and that they are forgetting the world. Aid has been cut, and Sweden is withdrawing from many countries where we have previously been present. It is certainly good that the Foreign Minister mentions equality, but the truth is that in two years, the government has more than halved the support for the UN's important work for the rights of women and girls in UN Women.

I think the most serious thing is still that we are not receiving any new updates on the issue that is most acute right now, namely the catastrophic humanitarian situation in Gaza. We see how hunger is spreading, and hundreds of thousands of people lack water, medicine, and medical care. We see a famine catastrophe that could come to claim thousands of lives. Save the Children already said three weeks ago that over 300,000 children in Gaza over five years are near acute malnutrition and famine - that was three weeks ago.

At the same time, Sweden, together with a group of other countries, has withdrawn support for UNRWA, which is the most important aid organization in Gaza. The UN, Save the Children, the Red Cross - yes, all those working on the ground to help civilians are now appealing for that decision to be reconsidered so that aid can get through. Countries such as Spain, Norway, Portugal, Ireland and Belgium have, on the contrary, signaled their support for UNRWA and in some cases also increased it.

My question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs is then: Does the government now intend to reconsider its decision regarding UNRWA so that the aid to the Palestinians can finally get through?

(Applause)

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

Utrikesministern Tobias Billström (M)

Mr. Speaker! Let me begin by saying that the issue of equality is important and a priority for the government. As I said in my speech, equality is a Swedish core value, and it will always be.

Economic empowerment, not least the possibility of shaping one's own life through one's own economic resources, is important for a broader political participation. Women's economic empowerment is therefore important. That is why the government has also focused on this.

Our focus on sexual and reproductive health is demonstrated, among other things, through the targeted contributions of 120 million kronor to UNFPA and UN Women, through which Sweden supports women and girls in Ukraine and Moldova who have been subjected to, among other things, conflict-related sexual violence.

We are also actively working with the Security Council's resolution 1325 on women, peace and security, and the government decided in November to adopt a new, updated national action plan for Sweden's implementation of the WPS agenda, as it is called. Sweden has also contributed to Ukraine being able to launch its updated national action plan for resolution 1325 in the midst of the ongoing war, and we are now working to contribute to NATO's updated WPS policy.

It is difficult to call this provincial politics - on the contrary, I would say.

When it comes to the question of UNRWA, Sweden has not withdrawn any aid. Sweden has paused it pending an investigation to clarify what will happen. It is therefore a planned payment to UNRWA that is being withdrawn.

At the same time, Sida is increasing support to other humanitarian organizations in Gaza and in the region, precisely in accordance with what I perceive Morgan Johansson is requesting. It is a welcome decision because the humanitarian response in Gaza is more urgent than ever.

In order for an effective humanitarian response to be carried out correctly, humanitarian access must also be improved. At present, it is difficult for humanitarian organizations to reach large parts of Gaza, and therefore the government is also fighting for a change on this point.

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Mr. Speaker! If I heard correctly, the Minister for Foreign Affairs said in one breath that the UNRWA support was not withdrawn and in the next breath that the planned payment was withdrawn. The Minister for Foreign Affairs must probably actually clarify what actually applies.

It may be that the Foreign Minister and the government here are seeking a way to be able to change their policy. In that case, I welcome it. One cannot punish hundreds of thousands of innocent people for what perhaps a handful of others have done. There is a reference to the allegations against UNRWA, but as has been said, there are other countries that do not freeze their support but on the contrary increase it, such as Spain and Norway.

I understand that one wants to wait for an investigation. It is clear that this should be investigated, but the help cannot wait. Without medicine, one can die in a few hours, without water one dies in a few days, and without food one dies in a few weeks.

There is only one decent thing here, Billström, and that is to resume the support to UNRWA so that the aid can finally get through - it is needed now.

(Applause)

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

Utrikesministern Tobias Billström (M)

Mr. Speaker! As the minutes will show, I said that Sida has made a decision to postpone a planned payment to UNRWA. It was Morgan Johansson who used the expression "withdrawn". This pausing, this waiting, occurs so that it can be clarified what has actually happened with these UNRWA employees.

I do not want to downplay in any way the fact that the humanitarian situation in Gaza is problematic. Therefore, it is important to emphasize that Sweden is one of the largest donors of core funding to several key humanitarian actors in Gaza, including UNRWA, and furthermore, since October 7, has allocated over 250 million SEK in humanitarian aid to, among others, the UN's World Food Programme, UNICEF, the UN Population Fund, and the international Red Cross movement.

We will therefore refrain from paying out these funds to UNRWA, but that does not mean that Swedish money is not on the ground in Gaza at this moment and doing good.

(Applause)

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! The humanitarian situation in Gaza is absolutely appalling. Now Rafah is being bombed to pieces. A human catastrophe is occurring before our eyes. But it is a human catastrophe created by decisions made by political powers.

If Sweden had instead had Norway's Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide as our Foreign Minister, Sweden as well as Norway would have voted for a ceasefire in Gaza already in November, while the Foreign Minister at that time had stated that Israel had used disproportionate violence. We would have increased the humanitarian support to Gaza by 275 million and given clear political support to the UN agency UNRWA. The Foreign Minister had called Sweden and other countries' decisions as collective punishment of millions of people.

The Swedish government has instead repeatedly given Israel support in bombing Gaza and even called it proportionate. They have frozen development aid, which has stopped projects for human rights and democracy in Palestine. They have first reduced and then frozen the promised payments to the UN agency UNRWA.

Many times I have thought that I would rather have had the Norwegian Foreign Minister than the Swedish one, because this is not enough: Sweden also has far too close military ties to Israel. We have a military attaché in Tel Aviv. We have granted Swedish territory for testing Israeli war materiel. Above all, we have ever closer ties with the Israeli weapons industry.

On October 25, in the midst of the ongoing bombings of Gaza, the Swedish Armed Forces signed a ten-year framework agreement with Elbit Systems. Elbit is the leading supplier to the Israeli military, and as a sales argument, Elbit has stated that their systems are "battle-proven", i.e., tested on Palestinians.

Through the agreement, Sweden directly contributes to Israel's warfare in Gaza. Does the Minister for Foreign Affairs intend to break the military ties to Israel?

(Applause)

(TALMANNEN: Applause or other expressions of opinion from the gallery is not permitted.)

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

Utrikesministern Tobias Billström (M)

Mr. Speaker! The Government shares the concern that has been expressed by many political representatives, not least in the EU and the USA, regarding what is now happening with the ground offensive in Rafah. The majority of Gaza's population has taken refuge in Rafah. There are no safe places for them to go to in Gaza, so a larger military operation in Rafah would, in this situation, have a very strong impact on an already extremely vulnerable humanitarian situation, including very high civilian death tolls. This is something that the Government has stated, and I also state it here in the Chamber.

Håkan Svenneling is attempting a historical revisionism that one really needs to reflect on when he says that Sweden did not stand up for the principle of a ceasefire at a very early stage. When we had a situation where the UN General Assembly was to take a stand on this in the autumn, there were two resolutions on the table, one Canadian and one Jordanian.

The Canadian one contained clear references to Israel's right to defend itself and condemned Hamas as a terrorist organization, and it was voted down. After that, there was a Jordanian proposal, which we did not consider we could support because those references were not there. Sweden therefore voted for the first resolution, so do not, Håkan Svenneling, give the impression here in the chamber that Sweden was not in favor of a ceasefire. That was the difference.

What happened next was that a new resolution was submitted to the UN General Assembly on December 12, which contained these references and demanded an immediate ceasefire for humanitarian reasons. It underlined all parties' responsibility to protect civilians and enable humanitarian aid to reach the civilian population in Gaza. Sweden naturally voted for this resolution because it is our policy.

There was, therefore, a difference between the first two resolutions that were submitted, and this prompted the government's position.

(Applause)

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! It is clear when we stand here after four months of war in Gaza that the actions of Sweden and the rest of the world have not led to a ceasefire. It has not led to sufficient pressure on the Israeli government to cease its bombings and the killing of civilian Palestinians in Gaza. Yesterday, a statement came from the UN High Commissioner Martin Griffiths, who spoke of the risk of massacre and that we stand at the door of death. That is where we stand today regarding the situation in Rafah.

We do not want double standards, and we want to build support for Ukraine. We want to counter antisemitism and Islamophobia in our society. We want to protect Swedish seafarers and international trade and stop the risk of genocide and famine. Then the Foreign Minister must raise the massacres in Gaza on his agenda. Saying the word Gaza twice in the foreign policy declaration and not coming up with any proposals is not enough. When will the Foreign Minister speak about the risk of massacre and famine in Gaza?

(Applause)

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

Utrikesministern Tobias Billström (M)

Mr. Speaker! I do it constantly. I have done it several times, ever since the fighting broke out on October 7. The EU and Sweden stand behind Israel's right to defend itself, but this right must be exercised in accordance with international law and international humanitarian law. There has never been any doubt on that point.

Civilians must always be protected, and humanitarian access must be ensured, among other things, to avoid exactly the type of situations that Håkan Svenneling refers to, where shortages of supplies, medicine, food, and so on arise. This the EU, USA, and others have been very clear about and also emphasized to Israel.

We have worked with the EU as a platform to convey this message as we believe that the EU is the strongest platform. There are therefore no double standards from our side, but on the other hand, I note that there are countries out there that had very little to say when Russia attacked Ukraine but have had very much to say about the conflict in the Middle East. This is something one can possibly reflect upon. We do that too.

(Applause)

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

Kerstin Lundgren (C)

Mr. Speaker! I can also agree with much of what the Minister for Foreign Affairs stated in the foreign policy declaration. I can, however, note that the climate issue was relatively absent. In two places, the climate is mentioned, one time regarding more efficient aid and the other time regarding dialogue with China.

Mr. Speaker! The climate issue is for us and, I hope, also for the government a vital security policy issue, because that is where we have one of the truly challenging and destabilizing parts for our future. Therefore, I perceive that it was missing, and I would gladly hear a comment from the Minister for Foreign Affairs on that part.

Then we naturally agree when it comes to the membership for Ukraine and Moldova and that this is important. But, Mr. Speaker, we in the Center Party have pointed out the importance of making the support for Ukraine predictable and long-term in these serious times and not coming with a fifteenth, sixteenth, seventeenth or eighteenth package but really making a change of course.

We have proposed that we should have a model where we establish a Swedish Ukraine fund and borrow up to 1 percent of our gross national product and ensure that, not least in these uncertain times, there are resources that can be used for Ukraine until 2026. It would involve 65 billion. Is the Foreign Minister prepared to meet us halfway in that part and work for this type of solutions?

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

Utrikesministern Tobias Billström (M)

Mr. Speaker! I find Kerstin Lundgren's way of counting a bit stingy. Just because one does not mention the word climate does not mean that it is not included as a component in many of the other points that I raised. Take, for example, the fact that I already find the words "The vision of the Nordic region as the world's most integrated and sustainable region 2030 is here guiding" on the first page of my speech.

It is clear that sustainability presupposes that we are engaged in the climate transition, as it carries forward towards the green transition. But Kerstin Lundgren is right on one point, and that is that we must see the issues as they are. Trade, innovations, and all such things lead towards a green transition, and therefore it is important to remember that China is a partner that must be at the table during those conversations. There we cannot opt out of China and have no intentions of doing so either, while at the same time we are critical of China on a number of other points, which I also said in my speech.

If the vision is to become a reality, we must also work with the points where we are successful. The Nordic countries are successful when it comes to the green transition and can do very much together.

I want to return to the exact way Kerstin Lundgren highlights the issue of Ukraine financing, because many different variants are being discussed right now regarding how one can support Ukraine in the long term economically, militarily and politically, naturally in such a way that Ukraine's long-term financing can be ensured at the EU level.

It is therefore a bit difficult to isolate this as a purely national issue, because we also need to talk with other partners about this. In this situation, however, I rule nothing out, and I think it is important that we talk about many different models in order to be able to finance and support Ukraine in the long term.

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

Kerstin Lundgren (C)

Mr. Speaker! It is possible to hear from our Baltic neighbors, who have invested 1 ½ or almost 2 percent of their gross national product just in national support for Ukraine, and it is possible to talk with Norway and also others here. There are therefore good examples to work from, just as we from Centerpartiet have done.

I would also like to touch upon another issue, Mr. Speaker. Taiwan's population said in an open and free election in January that they chose to assert their freedom, their rights, and their opportunity not to become a part of the CCP's oppression.

From the Swedish side, I even believe that the Foreign Minister has at some point been involved in voting for Sweden to develop a House of Sweden in Taiwan. The question is when the government will do this. It has been a number of years since then, and the government has now had time to do it. Will we see it in 2024?

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

Utrikesministern Tobias Billström (M)

Mr. Speaker! Taiwan has over the last 30 years undergone a democratic transformation that truly commands respect. Taiwan is today a well-developed democracy and has a good compliance with human rights. The foundation for democracy is free elections, and the voter turnout in both the presidential and parliamentary elections, which were held on January 13, was very high.

The EU and Taiwan share a common conviction when it comes to democracy, human rights and the principles of the rule of law. Sweden's cooperation with Taiwan is broad and long-term, and within the framework of Sweden's one-China policy, the government works to further deepen the exchange.

The announcement that Kerstin Lundgren referred to is currently being prepared within the Government Offices.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Every day, 100 Palestinian children are killed. Over 90 percent of Gaza's population suffers from extreme hunger. A humanitarian catastrophe is unfolding in Gaza that grows with each passing day. Without a ceasefire, the entire population risks starving.

The Foreign Minister claims to demand a humanitarian ceasefire. Even before October 7, 80 percent of the children in Gaza suffered from PTSD. They relied entirely on the 500 trucks that entered Gaza with supplies that are largely financed by aid from around the world. Gaza is not allowed to govern its own economy.

The humanitarian situation was hopeless even before the war, and now the Foreign Minister is requesting a humanitarian ceasefire. But what does the government actually mean by a humanitarian ceasefire? Does he mean trucks that are allowed to come in with necessities for a few days or a week? Is Israel then to be allowed to resume the slaughter of Gaza's population?

Mr. Speaker! We need clarifications. What does the Foreign Minister mean by a humanitarian ceasefire, and why can Foreign Minister Billström not demand a permanent ceasefire?

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

Utrikesministern Tobias Billström (M)

Mr. Speaker! At this moment, while we stand here and debate in the chamber, rocket fire against Israel from Hamas-controlled territory is still ongoing. This means that we cannot impose a requirement on Israel that they are not allowed to defend themselves. That is the reason for the question regarding a permanent versus a humanitarian ceasefire.

But a humanitarian ceasefire is indispensable. The way we define a humanitarian ceasefire is, of course, the way that Jacob Risberg himself has described it, i.e., that it is necessary to be able to bring in supplies, medicine, and everything that is needed for people to be able to survive. This is not least about medicines in a situation where the humanitarian situation on the ground is such that there is reason to fear the spread of infectious diseases and perhaps even epidemics. That is the reason.

The very difficult humanitarian situation in Gaza thus calls for a ceasefire for humanitarian reasons. It should, of course, be a long-term humanitarian truce because it is not just about bringing in a few trucks, but about establishing clear and distinct support for the possibilities of providing people with the help they need. That cannot be done in a couple of days or even a week.

But all of this is something that we, together with other committed member states in the European Union and also with several of our global partners, are now intensively discussing. I was myself at a very good meeting in Oslo before Christmas where representatives from the Nordic states, the Benelux states, and also the Arab League sat down and talked about these issues. The Swedish government is deeply engaged in the work of trying to achieve such a ceasefire for humanitarian reasons, so that people can be provided with this aid.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the Minister for Foreign Affairs for the answer. I still find it a bit difficult to comprehend this. We want to see a long-term and sustainable solution regarding the conflict between Palestine and Israel. Naturally, a demand for a ceasefire must be a demand for both actors in this case to lay down their weapons, and also that Hamas must stop its rocket fire.

But I do not understand why people are constantly talking about a humanitarian ceasefire. Why can one not demand a permanent ceasefire in this situation? A permanent ceasefire is required if we are ever to get closer to a permanent solution to this conflict. A humanitarian ceasefire sounds to my ears very much like something temporary before the dreadful slaughter is allowed to continue again.

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

Utrikesministern Tobias Billström (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is truly a matter of seeing both parties in this conflict. But I note one thing that is problematic when Jacob Risberg takes the floor. A prerequisite for everything we are now talking about is that Hamas unconditionally releases the hostage that has been taken. I did not hear Jacob Risberg speak about that at all. But a prerequisite for Sweden voting for the resolution submitted to the UN General Assembly on December 12 was precisely that the demand for the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages held by Hamas and other groups in Gaza was mentioned. This is something we will not waive, because we do not feel that we can do so in this situation.

We are fully committed to continued efforts to achieve a ceasefire. We are doing this. But it is also a prerequisite that both parties, including Hamas, take their responsibility. We hope and believe very much that the negotiations taking place while we stand here and speak can lead to such an unconditional release. But it is, therefore, also a requirement, and we will, as said, not waive that.

(Applause)

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

Joar Forssell (L)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by thanking the Minister for Foreign Affairs for a very good foreign policy declaration and for sharp and well-considered answers in the exchanges.

I am particularly pleased that Russia, China and Iran are mentioned as authoritarian states. These are countries that together threaten the liberal democratic world order in different ways, sometimes in cooperation and sometimes not. They nevertheless constitute a threat to the liberal democratic world order.

My question concerns a democracy, namely Taiwan, which is particularly threatened by China. I wonder in which areas the Foreign Minister sees that Sweden can develop its cooperation with the democracy Taiwan.

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

Utrikesministern Tobias Billström (M)

Mr. Speaker! This is an issue that is important for the government for the reasons that I also set out in the previous exchange of remarks. Sweden has very good relations with Taiwan, which have developed over many years in a number of areas.

Let me just briefly state the fact that Business Sweden's office in Taipei has been active since 1991. Furthermore, it was one of the Export Council's first offices established in Asia. Sweden has also held trade consultations at the level of State Secretary with Taiwan annually since the 1980s, which offers a platform for exchange in several areas.

Let me, since Joar Forssell is so concrete in his question, say that trade, investments, green transition, and economic security are four very clear areas. But Sweden's cooperation with Taiwan is broad and long-term. And within the framework of Sweden's one-China policy, the government naturally works to further deepen the exchange.

Furthermore, this fits into the broader discussion about the commitment in the Indo-Pacific region that the government intends to expand. We want to deepen cooperation with partners in this region in areas such as digitalization, economic security, defense, and trade. This cooperation takes place both bilaterally as well as through the EU and also within the framework of the EU's strategy for this region.

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

Joar Forssell (L)

Mr. Speaker! Many thanks, Minister for Foreign Affairs, for a very good answer.

My second question concerns the humanitarian aid to Gaza, because it is important that humanitarian aid arrives. At the beginning of February, WHO spokesperson Christian Lindmeier responded to a question about whether it was possible to get aid through if it did not go through UNRWA. He said that he had no doubt at all that the UN can scale up and do what is required even if the money does not go through UNRWA.

This government has scaled up the humanitarian support to Gaza. Therefore, I wonder how the Foreign Minister sees support from Sweden being able to reach there and what we can do to help the civilians who are suffering in the Gaza Strip.

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

Utrikesministern Tobias Billström (M)

Mr. Speaker! I perhaps do not want to go into discussing a statement from an individual UN official. We have a close and good cooperation and discussions with the leadership of both UNRWA and other UN bodies. I believe, however, that we must understand that the situation prevailing in the area is such that it is very difficult to imagine any other organization than UNRWA that in this situation has better and more well-developed local conditions and components to be able to provide assistance to people.

Over the years, there has been much discussion about the need to reform UNRWA, and it is a dialogue that Sweden is happy to participate in. I absolutely believe that there is room to have that type of conversation about how things can be made better. It is also clear that UNRWA, in a situation where we are moving towards a two-state solution, will come up in this discussion. But just here and now, it is very difficult to see any alternative. I note that the organizations that have been asked about this, for example Unicef or World Food Programme, have answered in unison that they cannot take over this responsibility in this situation. It is, however, a fact that the organizations, not through statements from individual officials but through formal statements, have done this. In this situation, the government therefore sees it as necessary to handle the issue in this way.

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Mr. Speaker! We live in a restless and dangerous time. War and climate crisis characterize world politics, and democracy is in retreat. Human rights and the principles of the rule of law are trampled, violated, and questioned all over the world. Rarely has the need for a political leadership capable of conveying faith and hope for the future felt more urgent.

The year 2024 can, however, become the year when we turn this around. We can do it, because 2024 is a super election year in the world: 76 of the world's 195 countries are going to elections. The EU is going to elections, the USA is going to elections, India is going to elections, and the UK is going to elections. Indonesia is going to elections today, and many more countries are going to elections during the year - Russia too, of course, but that might be more about theater. During this super election year, there is the chance to show that we can still stand up for a world order based on international law and respect for human rights, where peace and coexistence are sought instead of mistrust, hatred, and division.

Mr. Speaker! It is almost 80 years since the Second World War ended. The catastrophe for humanity that the war represented meant that the world's countries established institutions and rules to ensure that something similar could never happen again. The UN, the Council of Europe, the EU, the declaration of human rights, the European Convention, the European Court of Human Rights – the entire framework of international law was designed. It is now more important than ever that we guard that foundation and stand up for the institutions that have secured world peace for so many years.

The threats to this are certainly many, not least in Europe. In the EU's largest member state, Germany, the far-right forces are growing again. In the EU's second largest country, France, Le Pen stands and waits in the wings. It is the same old aggressive nationalism that we have seen so many times before, and we recognize how it works: It is about sowing division, mistrust, and hatred between ethnic groups to then exploit it politically. We have seen exactly this before in Europe. The warning bells of history are ringing.

It is also common that Russia has dug its claws deep into these parties. Putin has systematically and for many years worked on xenophobic and far-right parties in Western Europe, and now we see the result. Therefore, the EU election becomes a test of strength between, on one hand, the democratic forces that want to hold Europe together and which are based on cohesion and respect for human rights, and on the other hand, the right-wing forces that want to tear the union apart, who want to pit groups against each other and who want to split Europe - and thereby cast our continent into a state of extreme uncertainty and instability. In doing so, they also serve Moscow's interests.

If we go to the USA, we see that the right, judging by everything, will go to the election with presidential candidate Trump, who we know disregards the principles of the rule of law. He disregards international law, he disregards human rights - and now he even seems to disregard whether Putin would attack NATO countries. Do whatever you want with them, he said in a statement the other day. Also, this only plays into Putin's hands.

This is not business as usual, but it is a political state of emergency for Europe in many ways. This is something we should all be aware of ahead of the European elections. That is also why Ukraine is so important. Putin has shown that Russia is a long-term threat to Europe's security for the foreseeable future, and therefore Russia must be pushed back. If the right in the USA now blocks continued support for Ukraine, it becomes even more important that all EU countries - including Hungary - join behind a strong and long-term support for Ukraine.

Ukraine's cause is our cause. They are fighting for their independence and their sovereignty, but they are also fighting for the fundamental international rule of law and for all peoples' right to peace and freedom. Therefore, Ukraine shall have our unreserved support until this war is won.

Mr. Speaker! In addition to the war in Ukraine, there is another war dominating the international agenda, and that is the war in Gaza. It has now been ongoing for four months. The war was triggered by Hamas's terror attack against Israel where 1,200 civilian Israelis were killed and over 200 Israelis were taken hostage. It is one of the worst acts of terror ever, and it was rightly condemned by the whole world.

Hamas is an extreme Islamist terrorist organization. Israel has the right to defend itself against Hamas, also with military means. But even war has laws, and it is probably obvious to everyone that the violence that Israel has exercised during these months has crossed all reasonable boundaries. Over 25,000 people have been killed, the vast majority women and children. Gaza has become a children's graveyard.

Entire city districts have been laid in ruins. Hundreds of thousands of people have seen their homes destroyed and now live in extreme misery - sleeping on the street, lacking food and fresh water, lacking medicine and lacking medical care. We are reached by news of how pregnant women are having C-sections without anesthesia and how children who have had their legs and arms blown off are undergoing amputations without anesthesia.

Almost all children in Gaza are now traumatized, says the UN children's fund Unicef. In that case, it concerns over 1 million children. Unicef's spokesperson Jonathan Crickx said that the children "show symptoms of extremely high levels of persistent anxiety and loss of appetite. They cannot sleep, they have emotional outbursts or panic every time they hear bombs." We see how an entire generation of children - 1 million children - are about to lose the very desire to live.

Gaza was an extremely difficult place to live in even before the war. It was no paradise, but now it has become a hell on earth. In the midst of all this, the Swedish government decides to withdraw support for UNRWA, the most important aid organization in Gaza. It is the only organization that can practically get supplies into the affected people. It is, in my opinion, a catastrophic decision. If you tear down UNRWA, it will have devastating consequences for millions of war-affected people, and we could see a famine catastrophe.

Reference is made to alleged links between a small group of UNRWA employees and Hamas. It is said to involve a handful of people, out of 30,000 UNRWA employees. It is, of course, a serious accusation, and it must be investigated. But even if it were true, it is then these individuals who should be punished, not hundreds of thousands of innocent civilian women and children. It is completely unreasonable. No evidence has also been presented that the organization UNRWA as such has had anything to do with the act of terror.

Hamas must release the Israeli hostage, but one does not achieve that by tormenting an entire people. They must not be punished for Hamas's acts of terror. Sweden must immediately reconsider the decision to withdraw support for UNRWA, the Palestinian authority must be strengthened, and negotiations must be resumed to pave the way for a two-state solution. More important than anything else right now, however, is that there must be an end to the killing. There must be an immediate ceasefire in Gaza.

(Applause)

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

Aron Emilsson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Morgan Johansson expressed in his speech that UNRWA is the most important aid organization in Gaza. UNRWA is also an extremely strange bird in the UN system that we for years have been able to see has been tainted with antisemitism in the education system, where aid has gone. We see how employees and coworkers with direct links to Hamas and the terror attack on October 7 are now being investigated for serious crimes.

The investigations that are currently underway regarding the entire aid organization are those from the UN Secretary-General António Guterres's own office and those from UNRWA and the EU Commission. What is required for Morgan Johansson and the Social Democrats to conduct a reassessment?

(TALMANNEN: It is not permitted to cause a disturbance from the gallery. I must ask the guards to immediately remove those who are causing a disturbance.

It is not permitted to disturb the House's proceedings. I must ask the guards to immediately remove those who are causing a disturbance.

It is not permitted and is not compatible with democratic principles to disturb the Riksdag's proceedings. I shall have the guards immediately remove those who are disturbing the chamber's proceedings.

Mr. Speaker! Morgan Johansson spoke in his speech about how UNRWA is the most important aid organization in Gaza and that we must turn on the taps again, despite that we have been able to see that UNRWA's activities in the education and school system, where aid funds, not least Swedish ones, have been directed, for years have been tainted by antisemitism and that employees and collaborators with direct links to Hamas were involved in the terror attack on October 7. These suspicions have continued to be grave. In the last few days, we have seen that it could be established that tunnels could be connected to UNRWA's own operational departments.

So, there is currently both an investigation to be issued from UN Secretary-General Guterres's own desk and UNRWA's own investigation. The EU Commission also has an investigation underway. What will be required before the Social Democrats ask themselves if it is truly reasonable to just turn the taps back on with aid funds to this type of organization? UNRWA has, with its paid-in funds, allocated space in the school and education system to maps where Israel does not exist and material that fuels and fosters the antisemitism that has threatened the existence of Israel and Jews for years and continues to do so. We see scandal after scandal linked to how aid is allocated and has gone to terrorism and antisemitism. Last week we saw how Islamist terrorists used tunnels in direct connection to UNRWA's own activities.

For the Sweden Democrats, it is obvious that we cannot simply turn the taps, return to a policy of low-key engagement and pretend that everything is as it was before. Is it acceptable for the Social Democrats to feed such an organization with aid funds regardless of what the organization looks like and how forces within it act? Can we then be credible in condemning Hamas's terror attack against Israel's right to exist?

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Mr. Speaker! It is obvious that a war is being waged on the ground. It is a terrible war that is now laying district after district in ashes and ruins and is chasing millions of Palestinians from one side of Gaza to the other. We may also currently have an ongoing campaign against Rafah which will result in the death of thousands more people. A war is being waged on the ground, but it is also obvious that an information war is being waged, where each party wants to try to get out their own picture of what has happened and also gladly spread disinformation or unfounded claims around them. What we just heard from Aron Emilsson was well a sample of that.

It is clear that among the 30,000 employees that UNRWA has, there may be individuals who have values we do not share and who have done wrong. In that case, it is them who should be punished. One should not punish hundreds of thousands of completely innocent people who are now suffering under this war. That is precisely the line we have. Get to the bottom of the allegations that currently exist, investigate them, and ensure that the individuals who may have done something are punished. But do not withdraw the support! Because that means, in practice, that the millions of people involved will suffer for things they are not in the least responsible for, but rather the opposite.

I think that Aron Emilsson should sometimes reflect on the source criticism regarding the claims he makes, because much of that is simply part of the information war. And if it is antisemitism that Aron Emilsson is worried about, perhaps he should look a bit closer instead. In his own ranks, there is after all quite a lot to dig into.

(Applause)

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

Aron Emilsson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! If Morgan Johansson tries to link the justified criticism that exists and has long existed against UNRWA as an organization to individual individuals or claim that it would be some form of disinformation, he is contradicting not only the Sweden Democrats in this chamber but also the UN Secretary-General António Guterres, who takes this very seriously. I met him myself last week and discussed the situation within UNRWA and the allegations and information from verified sources that have emerged regarding employees with direct links to Hamas. There is intelligence information indicating that it is rather 10 percent of the employees and staff of UNRWA in Gaza who have links to Hamas. Then we are talking about thousands of employees and not individual individuals.

This should be investigated, just as Morgan Johansson says. But I think one should examine one's own source criticism if one considers this to be disinformation when even the UN itself states it.

Nathan Shachar asked in Dagens Nyheter in 2022: "Why is no one talking about the Social Democrats' antisemitic roots?" The recent years have shown that antisemitism thrives in the party all the way into the parliamentary group and down to SSU. How much antisemitism can Morgan Johansson and the Social Democrats tolerate?

(Applause)

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Mr. Speaker! If it is the case that Aron Emilsson met António Guterres last week, I hope that he listened to what Guterres said. I have known Guterres for 15 years. He was the head of the refugee agency UNHCR when I was Migration Minister. I know what he says and what his message is. It is not that one should cut and tear apart UNRWA, on the contrary. His message is: Investigate if there are allegations, but do not tear apart UNRWA! None of the UN's organizations have the line that one should tear apart UNRWA. That is something I think Aron Emilsson might have listened to if he met him now.

The second thing was about antisemitism. I have been a proud member of the Swedish Committee against Antisemitism for years. I never intend to smear myself with the accusations that Aron Emilsson makes. If he has views, he will have to, as I said, look a bit closer, in other places, including his own. There he has quite a lot to do.

(Applause)

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

Kerstin Lundgren (C)

Mr. Speaker! We agree on standing up for Ukraine for as long as it is required. But it is also about acting here and now. I want to ask the Social Democrats and Morgan Johansson if they are prepared to ensure that Sweden can guarantee long-term and predictable support for Ukraine, for example by, as the Center Party has proposed, borrowing up to a special Ukraine fund of 65 billion to be used to contribute to meeting Ukraine's struggle until 2026.

I would also like to hear if the Social Democrats are ready to prioritize support when it comes to ammunition. We have many order books filled with ammunition to be sent to different countries. One could very well pursue a policy of reprioritization. But that cannot be done by a single company; it must be done by a country. I would like to hear if the Social Democrats are prepared, together with the Center Party, to work towards reprioritizing this, so that Ukraine receives the ammunition that the country so much needs and is requesting right now.

My third question concerns Jas. Centerpartiet has proposed that Jas should go to Ukraine instead of being kept in storage in Linköping. The Socialdemokraterna have said that this can only happen once Sweden is a Nato member. This means that we give Orbán a veto. Will the Socialdemokraterna give Orbán a veto over aircraft weapons to Ukraine?

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Our position is that we stand for continued long-term support for Ukraine. It was our government that initiated it. For the first time since 1939, a government decided to provide military support to a country at war. We did that already four days after the invasion in 2022 at the proposal of the Social Democratic government. We stand by it. We will also, in cooperation with the government, back up all such initiatives to ensure that the support becomes long-term.

Then we are not prepared to borrow specifically for that. I do, in itself, welcome a discussion about the economic policy and how the balance should be in balance requirements and other things so that we can afford everything else that we also need to do. Defense expenditures are part of that. I welcome that discussion. But to borrow specifically for this purpose, I do not believe it is good to do.

When it comes to what types of deliveries we should make, it is a balance between what Ukraine needs and what the Armed Forces can spare. We must also take into account our own security if we empty our own stocks of weapons that we may need in a few years, and it takes quite a long time to order materiel. One must think both once and twice before deciding what type of weapons one should then send. In the first stage, we sent 5,000 shells four days after the invasion. It was precisely the type of weapons that we could spare and that Ukraine needed at that time. Since then, a number of shipments have taken place.

We have opened up to providing the defense industry with guarantees to be able to increase its production in various ways. That was a move we made in Sälen. We have also welcomed that Jas could be used in Ukraine. But there is again the reservation regarding Nato. We must first have other security guarantees in place before we take such measures.

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

Kerstin Lundgren (C)

Mr. Speaker! Even though the Social Democrats see that it takes time to build up production capacity, Ukraine does not have time to wait. They have less time than the Swedish defense. They have a need for ammunition here and now. Should it not be important that we reprioritize and contribute to ensuring that Ukraine gets what they need here and now?

If it is indeed the case that we stand up for Ukraine and its defense of itself and us, would it not then be better that we finished assembling the Gripen jets that are not yet completed so that they can be delivered to Ukraine here and now, regardless of NATO membership and Orbán's approval?

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Mr. Speaker! When it comes to Jasplan, it is perhaps not so much about finishing the assembly. We have Jasplan which, in that case, could be used. But it is also a matter of training. They must be able to fly the planes. Jas is also a very important part of our own defense.

Once again, it is a matter of weighing how much defense materiel we can spare. How much must we have for our own part, and how much can we donate? It is not particularly easy. I also sit on the Defence Preparation Board. I know how long the lead times are to order more.

We are not alone in providing support to Ukraine either. There is a long line of other countries that are involved. We shall do our part. But we cannot do it in such a way that we undermine our own opportunities to defend ourselves if it should be needed. That perspective must unfortunately also be had in these times, Mr. Speaker.

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

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Morgan Johansson spoke about source criticism. In an interpellation debate two weeks ago here in the chamber, it was claimed from a Social Democratic standpoint that we Christian Democrats who visited Israel in September last year met a group that organizes ethnic cleansing. Member of Parliament Johansson has himself expressed similar things in the media.

The organization referred to is Keren Kajemet LeYisrael, KKL, which is an NGO primarily engaged in environmental and forest conservation in Israel and was founded as early as 1901. It does not build any communities in the West Bank and does not support settlers in any other way. Its projects take place inside the green line, i.e., the borders that existed before the Six-Day War.

Its chairman for many years was Israel's first prime minister, the Social Democrat David Ben-Gurion. It is best known for having planted 250 million trees all over the country. One of the people who has had a forest planted in their name is Sweden's former prime minister Göran Persson. According to him, Keren Kayemet plays an important role in Israeli society.

In view of this, I would like to ask Member Johansson whether the Social Democrats have been misinformed or if they are in all seriousness intending to send this gross accusation, also directed against Göran Persson, who has spoken so appreciatively about the foundation.

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Mr. Speaker! The foundation we are talking about has been accused of financing settlements on the West Bank. If it should be the case that it does not do so, then that is welcome.

I would like to ask Magnus Berntsson how he views the settlers on Västbanken specifically. Does he distance himself from them? Does he support sanctions against the militant settlers we are talking about, for whom sanctions have now been introduced from the American side, which the EU is discussing? That is what I would like to know.

A foundation or an organization can engage in many different things over time. When one refers to David Ben-Gurion, it is many decades ago. Even when it concerns Göran Persson's time, it is now over 20 years ago.

Therefore, I want to ask Magnus Berntsson about the allegations that exist from, among others, the Israeli side. There are Israeli voices saying that KKL, which we are talking about, finances settlements in the West Bank. Is that incorrect? Can Magnus Berntsson guarantee that it is not in that way? That is what I would like to know.

(Applause)

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

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I have, of course, posed the questions directly to KKL, which gave that answer. I have also posed the question to the Israeli embassy, which gives the same answer.

When it comes to the unacceptable settler violence that is now occurring in the West Bank, it must cease immediately, as must the expansion of settlements.

The settlements violate international law and undermine the possibilities for a negotiated two-state solution where Israel and Palestine coexist side by side, which is and remains the only sustainable path to peace.

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Mr. Speaker! It is a welcome clarification from the Christian Democrats in that part. But it is not just about distancing oneself from the expansion of the number of settlements and the violence of the settlers.

We will sooner or later end up in a discussion about: What should happen to the 700,000 settlers who are on the West Bank if there is a two-state solution? In my view, they must accept either to join the new Palestinian state that is formed or that their settlements are evacuated in the same way as happened in Gaza about 15 years ago. That question will of course become very large, and it is a very difficult question to solve. But there is simply no other way forward than that one will end up there.

If it is indeed the case that the Christian Democrats clearly distance themselves and also align themselves behind the sanctions against the militant settlers, it is a welcome message.

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

Joar Forssell (L)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Morgan Johansson, for the opening remarks!

Mr. Speaker! Member Johansson says in his exchanges that it is individuals who should be punished and not the entire organization, in the debate on UNRWA and the crimes that appear to have been committed by persons in UNRWA's staff.

The government that Sweden has now has previously stated that it requires UNRWA to unequivocally condemn Hamas and that persons who express support for Hamas's terrorism or antisemitism cannot work for UNRWA if the organization is to continue receiving Swedish tax funds.

This is about many more than just the individuals who have been singled out and accused of perhaps having participated in terrorism, Mr. Speaker. It is also about individuals enabling terrorism by sharing the values, ideas, and traditions that underlie terrorism. It is about antisemitism, Islamism, and so on.

If one does not want to exclude the entire organization - where perhaps I and the member have different viewpoints - I still wonder if Morgan Johansson wants to join the line that all those individuals in the organization UNRWA who express support for, or do not distance themselves from, or condemn Hamas's terrorism or antisemitism shall not be able to continue working in UNRWA. This therefore applies not only to persons who have actively participated in terrorism but also to those who support the ideas that underlie terrorism.

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Mr. Speaker! The fundamental problem here is the same as that encountered in many other places where aid workers work in various types of dictatorships.

Hamas is a conservative Islamist terrorist organization that rules over Gaza. If aid workers are to be able to work in that environment - and this is not the only situation where this is the case - it is difficult to place such demands on individual individuals like Joar Forssell is now talking about. It will be very difficult to do so in Rädda Barnen, the Red Cross, or whoever it is about, because it could mean direct life danger for the individuals we are talking about.

What I think should be done instead is to investigate the allegations to the bottom. It is not just about something sweeping regarding that there are a number of people who would sympathize or anything of the sort, but it is about allegations that persons have participated in the act of terrorism. From the beginning, it was stated that twelve persons were said to have had such connections. But now I have seen that they are down to a number of six persons, and the very last figure I heard was that there are four persons for whom there was evidence, or at least allegations against. It is therefore 4 persons out of 30,000 employees.

It is this that one can absolutely never ever accept, that is to say that someone is involved in this type of terrorist activity. They must be fired immediately, they must be convicted for their crimes and sanctions must be directed against them. But if one drags the entire organization with its 30,000 employees over the line in the way the government does, it risks in the end affecting hundreds of thousands of people who will not get food, who will not get medicine and who will not get water.

Mr. Speaker! It is in this balancing act that I believe the government has ended up completely wrong.

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

Joar Forssell (L)

Mr. Speaker! We share the view that it is important that humanitarian aid reaches the civilian population. On the other hand, we believe that if one does not distance oneself from or express support for Hamas's terrorism or antisemitism, one is a participant in this because one spreads the ideas that underlie terrorism. It may be a matter of indirect participation, but one is nevertheless a participant. In that case, one must be removed from the organization. One cannot work for UNRWA if one is unable to distance oneself from terrorism and antisemitism.

Here in Sweden, the credibility of the foreign policy has been damaged for the Social Democrats because of the former member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, the replacement Jamal El-Haj, who has now become an independent after previously being a Social Democrat. I wonder if member Johansson can guarantee that if it comes out in the future that other Social Democrats have expressed themselves in a similar way as Jamal El-Haj, they will also have to leave the Social Democrats.

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Let me first clear up just one thing regarding these accusations and the attempts to smear Hamas onto the Social Democrats. It is completely wrong. It is rather the opposite; Hamas kills Social Democrats.

Our sister party in Palestine is Fatah. When Hamas took over in 2007 in Gaza, fighting broke out. They drove out all Fatah members, and they harassed and killed them. A Fatah member in the Hamas-ruled Gaza will be killed on the spot. There has never been anything in these accusations. It is rather the opposite: It is we Social Democrats who, through our sister party, have been able to provide a counterweight to Hamas.

When it comes to Jamal El-Haj, I want to say that we said he should not attend the conference precisely because information had emerged that there was Hamas participation there. He chose to do it anyway, and then one simply breaks the rules that we have in our party. It has led to us making decisions and putting our foot down on that issue. It is not a weakness for our party. It is rather a strength that we did it.

(Applause)

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

Aron Emilsson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The Russian bear snarls, roars and fights. The world trembles. What do we answer? That is the question we need to ask ourselves in the most serious security policy situation since the Second World War.

Russia shows with its actions in Ukraine that the country is prepared to conduct a full-scale brutal war in the long term without regard for international law. Russian society has shifted to a war economy and cooperates with states such as North Korea and Iran in a cooperation of totalitarian states against our Western civilization and democratic culture.

The development in Russia moving forward is assessed to be negative or very negative, and Sweden must not underestimate the risk that the threat could increase. The rules-based world order continues to be undermined. Sverigedemokraterna is pushing for more and sharper sanctions against Russia. We see, among other things, a need to strengthen the authorities that control this, for example, the Inspectorate for Strategic Products.

Support for Ukraine is crucial. I traveled together with my Nordic and Baltic parliamentary colleagues to New York and Washington last week for meetings with UN representatives, including António Guterres, think tanks and, not least, members of Congress to increase the exchange of knowledge and argue for the importance of US support.

That Europe and the USA, in support of Ukraine, succeed in stopping Russia in Ukraine is crucial not only to win peace and freedom for Ukraine but also to avoid risking that the next war breaks out in a NATO land or stands on our own doorstep. It would be significantly more costly and difficult for both the USA and the NATO collective to manage and face.

The tone and the domestic political developments in the USA are therefore worrying, but there is also fundamentally a support for Ukraine and the transatlantic link.

The Sweden Democrats were the first to advocate for military support to Ukraine, even before the full-scale invasion, and we have been persistent in pushing to send advanced weapons systems, such as tanks, to the country.

Since the last foreign policy debate, I have personally, together with a delegation from the Committee on Foreign Affairs, visited Ukraine to show our presence, provide information about the Swedish support, listen to testimonies, and see the destruction of war firsthand. The field visits to Butcha, Irpin, and Borodyanka will be etched in my memory for a long time.

Sweden and Europe need to be prepared to support Ukraine for a long period, both militarily, humanitarily and politically. For that reason, it is also important that we have a comprehensive defense industry so that we can both support Ukraine and strengthen our own defense. The Sweden Democrats have, ever since we entered the Riksdag, worked for a strengthened defense industry and for a long time advocated for a national defense industry strategy. It is also important that the old defense export policy has been reassessed. Otherwise, we would have had great difficulties supporting Ukraine at all.

There is reason to consider how we can more proactively counter today's Russian threat and not just retroactively adapt to it. Russian imperialism is well-known through the centuries, and even in today's Russian Federation, people are suppressed and the oppression is increasing. It is high time to initiate a discussion on how we can support external and internal opposition against the increasingly oppressive central power in Moscow. The Social Democrats spoke in the 1980s about not engaging in anti-Sovietism. I, as Sverigedemokrat, am proud to declare in this chamber that Sverigedemokratisk policy is anti-Putinism.

Mr. Speaker! While Russia poses a military threat in our immediate vicinity, China poses a dimensioning threat to the rules-based world order. The country has so far chosen not to enter into full confrontation with the West. The situation around Taiwan is, however, serious, and China regularly conducts exercises around the island and has extensive troops stationed in its vicinity. The risk of armed conflict cannot be ruled out, and tensions will likely increase. China is also arming its fleet and is today the country with the most surface combat ships. New aircraft carriers have also been launched, and the ability to project power worldwide is increasing. This also applies to Sweden's immediate vicinity, where in the future we may come to see Chinese naval forces operating - which we have also already seen, not least in the Arctic.

Sweden is moving from partner to ally within the defense alliance Nato. In the sharpened security policy situation, it is now pleasing that only one country remains to ratify Sweden's application. The Sweden Democrats, as is known, opened up for the possibility of joining Nato already at the end of 2020, when we in this chamber supported a Nato option. We have also been constructive and believe that Sweden should join without any special reservations, just like Finland. It is positive that there is a clear majority in this chamber for us to join Nato and thereby also strengthen and deepen the Nordic defense and security cooperation within the defense alliance.

The attack on Israel by Hamas on October 7 and the ongoing attacks from other Islamist terrorists demonstrate the latent risk that exists with this terrorism. The attack must be condemned unreservedly. That hostages are taken and killed and desecrated is bestial in a way that is difficult to imagine. The Israeli hostages must be released immediately.

We Sweden Democrats have long warned of the risk of Islamism, and we now see how Israel has been hit and every day fights a war for its security and existence. It is important that Israel has our clear and long-term support, as their defense against antisemitism and terrorism is also existential and international.

The humanitarian and not least the sanitary situation in Gaza is appalling and the civilian suffering very great against the background of the war but also against the background of Hamas's cynical view of civilian lives. The Sweden Democrats regret all civilian victims and at the same time want to emphasize how Israel's army many times takes precautions and warns civilians in a way that is not seen in all conflicts. Respect for international law and the laws of war is important and difficult in a conflict with a terrorist organization that does not play by the same rules.

(TALMANNEN: It is not permitted to disturb the House's proceedings through heckling from the gallery. I request the guards remove the person who is disturbing.)

Israel has our unwavering support. The Sweden Democrats have long advocated for the Swedish embassy to be moved to Jerusalem and for the recognition of Palestine to be reconsidered. It was a wrong move when it was made, and it has proven to be wrong today.

Behind the terror attacks against Israel and the current war stands Iran, the country that also supplies Russia with war materiel to be able to attack Ukraine and furthermore has built up an extensive arsenal of long-range missiles that can deliver different forms of weapons of mass destruction. The Iranian threat to the civilized world has increased during the past year, and there is a risk of a major war in the region - a major war that can also hit Sweden hard. Therefore, we must support the forces that oppose the Iranian regime, both the opposition within the country and states such as Israel which militarily deter Iran's regime. The opposition in Iran has shown incredible courage and deserves our political support.

Finally, I want to look forward and upward toward space, in these days when we all need a spring of optimism or a flood of optimism. The other Swedish astronaut who returned to Earth last week shows how important international cooperation is for research and new discoveries. In space, just as on Earth, there is competition between the great powers, and China in particular has an extensive space program. It is important that Sweden, with its resources, can be involved and participate in the exploration of outer space which brings such great benefit, among other things through innovations regarding communication systems, surveillance, and mapping.

The Sweden Democrats have a forward-looking policy in this area. We want to invest in the Esrange space base in Kiruna and in international cooperation within space research. We also want a rules-based space order to be established as we see that the level of conflict in the space domain has escalated in recent years.

Finally, Mr. Speaker: It is impossible to avoid painting a gloomy picture of the global situation in our days. But it is necessary to act and at the same time have composure and stability in our steps. It is necessary to show that Sweden is a reliable partner in cooperation and that we are prepared not only to receive support but also to give support to friends. It is necessary to create awareness and preparedness in Swedish society for a difficult time, to build resilience and to put Swedish interests in the forefront. At the same time, we must manage to have a wide-angle perspective and act in accordance with the rules-based world order and together with our friends to counter the struggle that is ongoing against our way of life and our democratic culture.

(Applause)

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I have a question for Aron Emilsson regarding the trip to Israel that you made some time ago.

Almost no one in Israel wants anything to do with you, partly because of your history but also because of antisemitic statements in the present, for example when Björn Söder said that Jews cannot be real Swedes. In the election campaign, it was also revealed that you had over 200 Nazis on your lists around the country. Israel has a policy of not having contact with parties of your type at all.

This time, you did nevertheless meet an Israeli minister. His name is Amichai Chikli and he is a controversial figure in Israeli politics. He has made contemptuous remarks about homosexuals, and he has supported the campaign against the financier George Soros. This has caused representatives for 160,000 Jewish students in the world to distance themselves from him, even though he is, therefore, the diaspora minister.

But he also has close ties to the settler movement, and hence my question. He participated some time ago in the large settler conference organized by the right, where more settlements on Palestinian land were demanded, that is to say that the settlements in Gaza should be resumed. He also spoke out in favor of a displacement of the Palestinians from Gaza and the West Bank. Both of these things are, of course, completely in conflict with international law. We now also see settlers who harass and kill Palestinians in the West Bank and against whom the USA has also issued sanctions.

My question to Emilsson is: How do the Sweden Democrats actually relate to these aggressive militant settlers? Do you distance yourselves from them? Do you support sanctions against them?

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

Aron Emilsson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I believe that the Social Democrats and Morgan Johansson should be extremely cautious, especially in today's situation, in speaking about the fight against antisemitism and instead look inward at their own movement and their own party. Over the past few years, we have seen how both SSU and the Social Democrats, not least through the now political figure Jamal El-Haj, have had clear links to antisemitism and also expressed themselves in an extremely problematic manner. I view that very seriously.

The Sweden Democrats are the most pro-Israeli party in this chamber and also in the European Parliament. There is clear evidence for that, which we can see simply by going back and looking at the matters that have been decided here and how we have voted and argued.

The purpose of the Sweden Democrats' trip to Israel a short while ago was, among other things, to show solidarity with the Middle East's only functioning democracy, Israel, in the defensive war it is now waging against a terrorist organization whose attack on October 7 against the rights of Jews and the Israeli state to exist is the entire reason for the war that is ongoing.

We had very good meetings with both members of the Knesset and several ministers from Netanyahu's government, and also with relatives of the hostages. It was an important trip. It is important to show presence.

I myself have had several constructive meetings with Israel's ambassador in various contexts. It is no problem today to conduct a dialogue about the importance of addressing the immense challenges that the Middle East and, not least Israel, are facing. I believe that one needs all the support one can get.

I cannot stand and review individual statements that a minister has made which I have not seen myself. However, it is clear that the Sweden Democrats do not support and do not advocate for settlements in Gaza or the militant settler violence that is ongoing. It should rather be condemned.

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Mr. Speaker! We obviously have slightly different starting points. Jamal El-Haj attended a conference where there were participants from Hamas, which has now come to light. He was asked to leave our parliamentary group as a result of that. Björn Söder has said that Jews cannot be true Swedes. He has been promoted by the Sverigedemokraterna to become chairman of the Riksdag's OSCE delegation. It is simply obvious that we handle such issues in different ways. We perhaps set the bar for what is acceptable and what is not in different places.

My question to Aron Emilsson was whether he distanced himself from these settlers and the colonialism they are practicing against the West Bank and in Gaza. I heard no clear distancing. But if Aron Emilsson distances himself from the settlers and that movement, why, in that case, does one associate with politicians who stand just close to these extreme groups? That is my question to Aron Emilsson.

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

Aron Emilsson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Again: It is extremely important in this situation to show our support for the state of Israel, which is now conducting a defensive war against Hamas, which is a terrorist organization and which threatens their existence.

I believe that also Morgan Johansson, during all his years as minister in various inter-parliamentary contexts, has certainly met individual ministers and representatives whose statements or confirmations he does not agree with. It was not even on the agenda for our visit and our trip to Israel to discuss the settlement issue in that way, based on their position, markings, or relation to the settlement movement.

We are concerned and view the expansion of settlements with apprehension, not least the militant settler movement. This must be addressed, just as Israel's closest allies have done through the instrument of sanctions, restrictions regarding entry rules and so on.

But we must be able to hold two thoughts in our heads at the same time. We must, on one hand, address that, and on the other hand, show our presence in relation to a government that is fighting a defensive war against a terrorist organization.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! Israel has long had an adverse attitude towards the Sweden Democrats. It is not strange considering that the Sweden Democrats were founded as Bevara Sverige Svenskt, where anti-Semitism was a fundamental pillar in the construction of the party. In recent years, however, the Sweden Democrats' hatred towards Muslims has taken over. Many Israeli politicians hate Palestinians, many of whom are Muslims. From an enemy of my enemy perspective and a great need for rebranding, the Sweden Democrats have thus become so-called friends of Israel.

Now one is feverishly participating in the competition taking place between the right-wing parties. Joar jumped in his seat when you, Aron Emilsson, said that you were the most pro-Israeli. Some kind of competition is taking place between Sverigedemokraterna, Kristdemokraterna and Liberalerna. Therefore, the trip to Israel that Aron Emilsson and Jimmie Åkesson made was a natural consequence of the policy pursued. It was the first time you gained access to such high-ranking Israeli politicians who for a long time have distanced themselves from and rejected you.

One of those you met was the Israeli Minister for the Diaspora, Amichai Chikli. He is known for, and his party expelled him for, voting against his party 754 times while they were in government. That he would make a quick career on the other side, the current government, was therefore hardly unexpected.

The day before he met you, he met the settlers' conference where they celebrated the bombing of Gaza and the killing of Palestinians. He stated the objective to forcibly displace Gazans, i.e., to commit a violation of international law, in order to be able to create Israeli settlements in Gaza, which is in conflict with international law.

Chikli has also said that British Foreign Secretary David Cameron's initiative to recognize a Palestinian state is like giving a prize to the Nazis.

Aron Emilsson says that the settlements were not on the agenda for the trip. I really wonder how Aron Emilsson, as the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, views these statements. In what way does your meeting with Chikli contribute to upholding international law if you do not even discuss the settlements?

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

Aron Emilsson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! We naturally addressed the issue of settlements. But it was not on the agenda that we should be made aware of individual statements made by ministers in Netanyahu's government at various conferences. Those are two different things. But the situation is serious.

That we stand up for international law and the law of nations in all respects is beyond doubt. I have also distanced myself from the illegal settlements and the violence against settlers. I have no problem doing that.

Again: It is important to keep two thoughts in mind at the same time. This is a minister for diaspora affairs and against international antisemitism. There is a great interest in seeing how we in Sweden act against antisemitism, which is widespread in our own country. We saw that after Hamas's terror attack on October 7, when it was chanted in streets and squares. The Jewish minority in Sweden is threatened. Therefore, the government, together with Sverigedemokraterna, has had to increase support to not least the Jewish Central Council to strengthen protection and security for the minority.

It is no coincidence. Antisemitism is, from an international perspective, an extremely large threat to our democracy and to the Jewish minority in many countries. Naturally, one needs to discuss it with the current Minister against Antisemitism. It is not strange.

Again: We have not given any kind of support for the settlement movement that is ongoing or for the militant settler violence, on the contrary. I referred in the previous exchange, with Morgan Johansson, to that the USA, which is one of Israel's closest allies, just as we are concerned that the settler violence has escalated. It is in many cases a serious concern parallel to the extreme daily attacks from Islamist terror against Israel.

We must be able to address several issues simultaneously and also have constructive meetings with opposing parties.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! The conference was hardly unknown. It gained great traction. If he was at the conference the day before he was met, I think one can address the conference and its statement. But the Sweden Democrats have obviously not done that.

It is important to say that the government's work against antisemitism is good. The problem with the government's work against antisemitism is that no work is being carried out against Islamophobia. Instead, the Sverigedemokraternas narrative has been brought into the government. That makes it completely focused on hating Muslims. We see that in all the legislation that the government produces when it comes to domestic policy. But we also see it in the foreign policy and how people's lives are viewed. We see it in how one weighs the words used when talking about the horrific attack from the Hamas side. They cannot manage to say the word massacre regarding what is happening in Rafah right now.

I wonder about one thing regarding the trip. Was the organization Israel Allies Foundation involved in this trip? They have been involved in your trips to Israel previously.

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

Aron Emilsson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I received a concrete question from Håkan Svenneling. I cannot answer that. I did not participate in the programming but was part of a delegation on the trip and do not intend to speculate about it. I do know, however, that it was extremely important that we took part in all the meetings we had and visits we made to obtain a picture – I believe more people should do this – of what national trauma October 7 has entailed. This applies not only to Israel's army and state but also to the Jewish people, both in Israel and internationally.

If they were to lay down their weapons in the war of defense against Hamas today, they would not exist tomorrow. If Hamas were to lay down their weapons, peace and freedom would be won, and the humanitarian aid to Gaza could be released again. That is the great difference. I believe that more people need to address the fundamental picture of the war.

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

Kerstin Lundgren (C)

Mr. Speaker! Foreign policy was not part of the Tidö Agreement per se, but we have nevertheless noted that the Sweden Democrats have influence over foreign policy. It is therefore naturally interesting to hear how they view the Center Party's proposal to secure predictable and long-term support for Ukraine. If one is serious about Sweden standing up for Ukraine's right to defend itself and us for as long as it takes, the question is what the Sweden Democrats are prepared to do.

The Center Party has proposed that we should borrow money. It is a one-time measure because what is currently happening – Russia's attack on Ukraine – is so exceptional. We shall borrow money so that Ukraine will have opportunities to strengthen its conditions to win peace. What is the position of the Sweden Democrats on 1 percent of our gross national product going to a Ukraine fund?

I listened with interest to what Aron Emilsson said about the importance of being proactive, as I share that stance regarding proactivity towards Russia. I wonder about the Sweden Democrats' proactive stance when it comes to Russia's best friend in the EU, namely Viktor Orbán and Hungary. I have noted that there are close contacts.

We have heard that Björn Söder already in the summer of 2023 spoke about the importance of traveling to Hungary to talk regarding NATO membership and other matters. It recurred in January when it was said that the Prime Minister would drink whisky one evening with Viktor Orbán and that it would then be resolved. Behind this lay the criticism of the illiberal democracy in Hungary. The question is whether the Sweden Democrats will set aside that type of criticism against Hungary in their close contacts, if they are now to be proactive against the Russian propaganda.

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

Aron Emilsson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! When it comes to Ukraine, we are in agreement. In this case, it is also a strength that the committee as a whole and across party lines is in agreement on the long-term and sustained support for Ukraine.

I think it is an interesting proposal that the Center Party is putting forward but have not had the opportunity to study it in detail. I therefore answer neither yes nor no on the spot, but I will look at it carefully. Furthermore, I believe, given that we also before the full-scale invasion argued for both military and economic support to Ukraine, that it is well within the reach of the Sweden Democrats to be responsive and proactive in this regard.

We have also been proactive at all times when we, together with the government, have negotiated extra supplementary budgets, and of the support to Ukraine, 80 percent has come since this government, in cooperation with Sverigedemokraterna, took office. It is therefore an interesting point to study more closely.

We will need to have some kind of plan - let us call it a Marshall Plan - roughly like how Norway has been clear that it is not possible to just make one-off interventions over a longer period. We will need to look at the long-term nature of the support we provide. There must be a predictability, both militarily and economically.

For our part, we would like to look closer at also increasing, for example, the export credits to Swedish companies that dare to invest in Ukraine. Economic investments, trade, and exchange of that kind are an important generator when it comes to strengthening Ukraine and our common exchange.

When it comes to Hungary, the Sweden Democrats have no cooperation with Fidesz. It is not a sister party, and we have no organized cooperation. On the contrary, we declared the other day that we definitively oppose a Fidesz entry into the ECR group where the Sweden Democrats sit today in the European Parliament. We naturally convey in those arenas where one might happen to run into each other that we assume that one changes their policy towards Russia.

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

Kerstin Lundgren (C)

Mr. Speaker! Long-term and predictable support is, of course, not about package after package after package, as that is neither long-term nor predictable. The Center Party's proposal regarding supporting Ukraine with 1 percent of Sweden's gross national product in a special fund is a way to bypass this and provide a different solution for Ukraine's sake. I therefore hope that we receive support for this.

V-Dem classifies Hungary today as an electoral autocracy. If one criticizes autocrats and the autocratization occurring in the world, one must also be clear in criticizing Hungary, because it is a Trojan horse both within the EU and towards Ukraine. We have seen examples of this regarding the membership issue and the support for Ukraine.

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

Aron Emilsson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! It is popular to say in these days, but I believe it is very important, precisely in the time we live in, to try to hold two thoughts in the head at the same time. We must dare to criticize Fidesz and not least Orbán and his close relationship with Putin and in what way it constitutes a hindrance to the support for Ukraine when we every time need to push it through with the help of creative measures because Hungary tries to brake it.

Orbán and Fidesz have an immensely problematic relationship with Putin's Russia in many ways. At the same time, the diplomatic exchange between Sweden and Hungary needs to increase. We already have a strong cooperation today through the Jas Gripen system, and I have said on several occasions that it would of course not harm if the diplomatic engagement and presence between the governments were strengthened. I believe that it can benefit the dialogue, especially if we are now to become allies within Nato. It is, therefore, a matter of holding two thoughts in one's head at the same time again.

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

Joar Forssell (L)

Mr. Speaker! Russia, China and Iran are three states that the Foreign Minister has called authoritarian. They are the axis of evil in our time. They are the countries that drive most of the hotspots and conflicts we see in the world. They are three countries that together constitute the greatest threat to democracy and the liberal democratic world order.

Mr. Speaker! As democrats, it is of course our common duty to counter the fact that Russia, China and Iran gain increased influence in the world.

In his speech, Member Emilsson mentioned Taiwan, and it is one of the world's most well-functioning democracies. According to all reasonable definitions, it is also a country in its own right. It has a delimited territory, a clearly defined people, and a state power with a monopoly on violence. But it is a democracy that is threatened by China, probably with support from Iran and Russia because they generally cooperate to spread their authoritarian view in the world.

I wonder what the Sweden Democrats have for concrete policy to deepen the cooperation with Taiwan. It is clear that if we want to protect that democracy, the cooperation must increase with other democracies in the world, including Sweden and other European countries. What does the Sweden Democrats want to do to increase the cooperation with Taiwan?

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

Aron Emilsson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I completely share the analysis of Russia, China, and Iran. It is also possible to add North Korea and a number of other states. Right now, it is they who threaten the entire rules-based world order and our way of living, thinking, and acting democratically.

I believe that we definitely need to realize that Russia's full-scale war against Ukraine, the war in the Middle East, proxy warriors for Iran in the form of Houthi rebels and others who threaten civilian shipping in the Red Sea and so on, and the tension field in Southeast Asia are closely linked in many ways. One feeds the other through various transactional flows, not least economically and militarily and through the exchange of intelligence.

It is no coincidence that I pointed out Taiwan in my speech, for it is a country that the Sweden Democrats have long supported in various ways. I believe that Joar Forssell himself mentioned in some earlier exchange of remarks that it is important to develop the commercial relations and also those within research, innovation, development and technological cooperation. It is about facilitating diplomatic relations when it comes to, for example, issuing visas and facilitating for students, diplomatic representatives and others from Taiwan to operate in, among other places, Sweden. One should not have to take all the detours that one must take today, for example through Thailand.

It is about drawing up the long-term lines, so to speak. How do we develop the economic and trade-promoting cooperation, and how can we be operational here and now to facilitate diplomatic exchange and investments?

We have also long advocated for the development of House of Sweden, which I believe Kerstin Lundgren mentioned in a previous exchange of remarks. It is extremely important that it is equipped with better conditions to strengthen and deepen the cooperation between the states.

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

Joar Forssell (L)

Mr. Speaker! I and the Liberals completely share the points that have been presented by Member Emilsson.

My second question concerns the rules-based order in space, which the member mentioned in their speech, as it is clear that this is a potential area of conflict in the future.

One thing we may come to argue about is resources in space. In liberal market economies like Sweden, we regulate this through ownership rights. One may use the resources that one owns in the way one pleases within the framework of the law.

Celestial bodies - it could be meteorites or meteors; I am not so good at celestial body names, so now Sweden's NO-teachers will get in touch - can contain many substances that are valuable. We see a need to regulate ownership rights in space. It can be a way to prevent conflicts, because it is important that we can use the resources that exist in space.

I wonder if Member Emilsson sees the same need for a strengthened property right in space.

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

Aron Emilsson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Yes, that is the short answer.

To develop, I believe, as I also mentioned, that it is extremely important to address that we, together with like-minded partners, need to develop a rules-based order and strengthen property rights, as Forssell mentions. We also need, through our own unique tools such as the space base Esrange and together with our allies, to develop space programs, innovation, and tools to strengthen, above all, the resilience and resistance against not least China's space program. China, together with the other authoritarian states we mentioned, will act in a challenging manner and in conflict with the rules-based order on earth. It is connected, and we need to wake up and address it more clearly than before.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! In Gaza, children are starving, and the worst part is that Sweden is contributing to this starvation and death. That is how bad it has become in Swedish foreign policy in one and a half years with the right-wing nationalist government in power.

What we are seeing is yet another displacement of the Palestinian people. It does not matter how far the displacement occurs; when Palestinian homes are systematically bombed and demolished, it is a displacement of people. Displacement of people is a violation of international law, and the international community must stop coddling the Israeli government.

Some rightly want to call what is happening a genocide. Genocide is a legal term in accordance with the 1948 Genocide Convention. Back then we said "never again." Now the opposite is being played out before our eyes.

That is why it is good that South Africa has taken its responsibility and brought Israel before the UN court ICJ. Even though the process may take time, it will be judges who decide the issue of genocide, not politicians.

It does not mean that politicians can escape responsibility. All of you right-wing politicians in this chamber who applaud the withdrawn support for the UN body UNRWA and legitimize Israel's most far-right government in history have a responsibility for what is now happening in Gaza. It is not said harshly; it is a fact, because the Swedish debate on Israel's occupation of Palestine is like few other countries. Since Sweden's recognition of Palestine as a state, the Swedish right has been radicalized, and today there is a competition over who can be most pro-Israel and hate the Palestinian people the most.

One thing that has upset many Swedes is that Israel is allowed to participate in this year's Eurovision Song Contest in Malmö. Belarus was kicked out after the dictator Lukashenko's electoral fraud, and in 2022 it was time to kick out Russia - obviously not strange given the full-scale war of invasion against Ukraine. But in 2024, the yardstick may change.

Eurovision should be a people's festival, a people's festival with music and dance. That one of the participating countries is simultaneously being prosecuted for genocide is difficult to stomach.

Mr. Speaker! Israel should not be allowed to participate in Eurovision in Sweden. If the EBU cannot ban Israel from Eurovision, the Swedish government should deny the Israeli entry permit to Sweden.

The Western world must end its double standard. We must do everything we can to achieve a ceasefire in Gaza. We must do everything we can to stop the risk of genocide. We shall have a people's party, not a genocide.

Mr. Speaker! One thing that the Swedish government can do is to not contribute to the war crimes and the killing we are now seeing.

Sweden has today far too close military ties to Israel. We have a military attaché in Tel Aviv. We have granted Swedish territory for testing Israeli war materiel. Above all, we have increasingly closer ties to the Israeli weapons industry.

On October 25, in the midst of ongoing bombings of Gaza, the Swedish Armed Forces signed a ten-year framework agreement with Elbit Systems worth 1.7 billion kronor. It concerns so-called tactical command support for the Swedish army. Elbit is the leading supplier to the Israeli military, and since 2020, Elbit has had a branch in Gothenburg. As I said earlier, people speak of "battle proven" as a sales argument, meaning that they have tested the systems on Palestinians. Thus, Sweden contributes to Israel's warfare in Gaza.

There are also Swedish companies directly involved in the killings. The company Aimpoint in Malmö sells red dot sights, which are sold to the Israeli weapons manufacturer Emtan. Emtan's weapons have been distributed to settlers in the West Bank by the far-right minister Itamar Ben-Gvir. This means that Swedish red dot sights could be behind some of the hundreds of murders of Palestinians in the West Bank carried out by militant settlers.

Sweden's rules and laws regarding which countries we can sell weapons to are not entirely generous. There is also no regulation of which countries Sweden purchases weapons from. There are products with dual-use applications that can be used both civilly and militarily, which opens up for, for example, red dot sights being sold to Israel.

It is time for the Swedish government and the Armed Forces to break the all too close ties to the Israeli military.

Mr. Speaker! Day by day we see how the conflict in Gaza is developing into a global conflict.

Instead of having an over-reliance on a military solution, the Swedish government should return to what has been Swedish core values in foreign policy: diplomacy, peace talks, and efforts to get the parties to the negotiating table. It is often a laborious task, but a task that, when it bears fruit, leads to long-term stable and sustainable solutions.

The Red Sea, yes, the entire Middle East, needs efforts for sustainable peace. Military solutions risk becoming bandages on broken legs. USA's interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq are cautionary tales of a lack of long-term perspective and over-reliance on military solutions. The pitfalls and proxy actors are many, but without trust in the UN and in diplomacy, the crises and wars will become longer and deeper.

Mr. Speaker! One of the actors that is most destabilizing for the Middle East region is Iran, an Iran that uses proxy actors and where the Revolutionary Guard IRGC plays a decisive role. That is why it was not so strange that the Swedish Riksdag unanimously decided that the IRGC should be designated as a terrorist organization by the EU.

In Iran, the regime continues to oppress all who stand up for democracy and human rights. Since the murder of Jina Mahsa Amini in September 2022, the regime has increased the oppression, and recently the regime's executions have increased exponentially. Iran executes the most in the world after China.

Swedish citizens are also severely affected. Ahmadreza Djajali and Johan Floderus are illegally detained by the regime and risk execution. So are Dawit Isaak in Eritrea and Gui Minhai in China. They must be released, and you in the government must do everything you can so that they become free.

Mr. Speaker! The Ukrainian people continue to fight the Russian invasion with heroic courage. Recently, important territory has been taken back. At the same time, the situation on the ground is becoming increasingly static. Neither side is capable of defeating the other. The dictator Putin and his gang in the Kremlin should end their aggression against Ukraine; it will never succeed. The war must end, and the Ukrainian people shall have the power to decide when it happens. I hope that 2024 can become a year of peace.

I personally visited Ukraine together with the Riksdag's first delegation to Kyiv. Both the nightly attacks and the Ukrainian people's will to resist left a deep impression on me.

Many of those who fight for Ukraine's cause have relatives who are here in Sweden. Sweden needs to become better at taking care of women and children seeking protection from Putin's bombs. That all refugees in Sweden live on 71 kronor a day is a disgrace. Increased support for refugees is also support for bridge-building and future good relations between Sweden and Ukraine.

(Applause)

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

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Immediately after Hamas's attacks against Israel on October 7, we could see celebrations on streets and squares all over Sweden, which I perceive all parties in the Swedish Riksdag found reprehensible. Since then, demonstrations have been held where anti-Semitic slogans have been chanted and demands for a total erasure of the state of Israel have been made, and the calls have poured down when speakers have condemned Hamas. We saw this most recently in Uppsala, when a VMP Member of Parliament ended up in such a situation. Unfortunately, the list can be made long.

I do, however, think that the Left Party member in question stated two very reasonable prerequisites for the Left Party to participate in the demonstration. She was clear that it cannot be demanded that Israel cease to exist as a state – how then could a two-state solution be reached? – as well as that it is not possible to participate in a demonstration with people who believe that Hamas did the right thing with its terrorist attacks against Israel. Unfortunately, this civil courage led to the microphone being taken from her and jeers being shouted.

I would therefore like to ask Member Svenneling if just those two conditions that were put forward in Uppsala are reasonable. Does the Member think that one can be active in Vänsterpartiet and participate in similar demonstrations if these two conditions are not met?

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! From the Left Party, we have been clear at all times that Hamas's attack on Israeli civilians was horrific. If we are to achieve a long-term sustainable peace, we must achieve a situation where two peoples can live side by side and experience peace and freedom every day. This requires a peace solution that involves the establishment of a Palestinian state that can exist alongside and equal to an Israeli one, with the possibility of development and where no occupation violates human rights, as is happening today. Regarding all of this, we in the Left Party have been crystal clear and in no way apologized.

We have participated in the demonstration in Uppsala 14 times before this weekend's demonstration, and we will continue to participate in it. Some harsh exchanges of words occurred in connection with the demonstration, and Ilona Szatmári Waldau, who represented us, has said that it would have gone better if she had handled the situation differently. No one has pressured Ilona to say this, and it has not been about us thinking that one was unclear regarding Hamas.

There is a broad consensus on this. On the other hand, there are differences in this chamber regarding how one views Israel's killing. Today we hear a Foreign Minister who does not use the word massacre when he speaks about what is happening in Gaza. He does not speak of starvation either, but hides behind other words, such as the humanitarian situation.

I think that I, Ilona and everyone else from Vänsterpartiet have been extremely clear that we must increase the pressure on Israel to stop the suffering we see. I believe that many of the people who stood in the square in Uppsala also felt this. Several of them had relatives who have died or risk dying in Gaza, and they feel a terrible anxiety regarding this.

I think it is time that Magnus Berntsson and all other right-wing politicians in this chamber take that concern seriously and increase the pressure on Israel so that we achieve a humanitarian ceasefire but also a real ceasefire that lasts forever, so that the people who are in Gaza can get out of there, back to Sweden and to their families in Uppsala.

(Applause)

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

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I do not feel that I received an answer to my entire question, but we certainly have the opportunity to continue discussing this afterwards.

I would like to ask another question regarding the last point Svenneling was making. As far as I understand, Vänsterpartiet has criticized the government for having set requirements for an unconditional and immediate release of the hostages in connection with the discussions on a ceasefire. In light of the International Court of Justice's decision from the end of January, where it is very clearly required that there be an immediate and unconditional release of the hostages, I would like to ask Member Svenneling whether Vänsterpartiet has now changed its position following the ICJ's decision and stands behind this requirement.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! I believe I have been clear at all times that Hamas needs to release the hostages. It is innocent Israeli civilians, but also some people from other nations, who have been taken as hostages and are now living under horrific conditions, just like everyone else who is in Gaza.

When it comes to Hamas, we unfortunately have no embassies or contacts; we cannot pressure them. Israel is the party we can pressure. That is why we must put pressure on Israel's government and military to not commit a massacre in Rafah now.

It stands and weighs. At this moment, as we stand here in the chamber, it is being decided how many Palestinian lives will be wasted. It is already far too many - we are approaching 30,000. Hamas has a great responsibility for this, but we, as the rest of the world, have a great responsibility to increase the pressure on Israel so that a massacre does not occur in Rafah.

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

Joar Forssell (L)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member Svenneling, for the speech! The war we are now seeing in the Middle East started when the Islamist terror sect Hamas carried out its horrific acts of terrorism on October 7. Fundamentally, one must, I believe, if one like both myself and Member Svenneling stands behind the demand for a two-state solution to achieve a sustainable peace and a future where two states and two peoples can live side by side, realize that this is not possible as long as the terror sect Hamas remains in its current form. It becomes impossible if, on the other side of the border, there is a mass of people who want to enter Israel and carry out the type of massacre that we saw on October 7. It is not possible to imagine two countries living in peace with each other if this reality still exists.

Therefore, I ask, Mr. Speaker, if Member Svenneling also, just like I do, considers that the terrorist group Hamas in its current form, with its military capability, must be eliminated in order for a two-state solution to be made possible. We can absolutely discuss methods and other consequences; we have done that today and many times before. But, Mr. Speaker, the question is: Does Håkan Svenneling consider that Hamas's military capability and Hamas in its current form must be eliminated if one wants a long-term two-state solution and peace between the two states?

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! Joar Forssell had the opportunity to debate this issue even yesterday. He has a knack for always going very far back in history, several thousand years, to talk about the anti-Semitic pogroms that have taken place. I thought of going back a bit shorter, to the Nakba in 1948, because it is important to understand that the Palestinian people have been displaced to the West Bank and Gaza, where they find themselves today. Since 1967, Israel has been an occupying power that rules over the Palestinian people and which has not done what is incumbent upon an occupying power. This constitutes the foundation. I know that it makes Joar Forssell and others very upset when it is said that the Hamas attack did not occur in a vacuum, but unfortunately, there is a truth in that. We cannot always start with October 7.

However, it is completely true that what happened on October 7 was a horrific attack by Hamas carried out against Israeli civilians, and we must never forget that. We shall always condemn it, and we hope that the hostages can come home safely and securely to their families. They are innocent. That also applies to all Palestinians who are in the Gaza Strip and in Rafah right now. One is innocent, because one was not behind Hamas's attack.

Hamas has not been voted into power in free and fair elections; that lies far back in time, and there was a great dissatisfaction with the Palestinian government that existed then.

This means that we instead must focus on achieving peace and a ceasefire in a first stage. I believe that both Benjamin Netanyahu and Joar Forssell are guilty of a misconception when they believe that Hamas can be wiped out. I believe that Hamas is stronger than ever precisely because people experience the horrific violence that the Israeli military subjects the Palestinian people to in Gaza minute by minute. I do not believe there is any solution where Hamas ceases to exist. I believe there is a solution based on peace talks, and other conflicts around the world, for example Northern Ireland, which I visited in August while the Kristdemokraterna were coddling Netanyahu, show that. It shows that there are other ways forward than the one that Benjamin Netanyahu believes in.

(Applause)

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

Joar Forssell (L)

Mr. Speaker! I share Svenniling's view that these attacks, the pogrom on October 7, did not occur in a vacuum. There is no conflict between us on that. But if one goes back to 1948, one could just as well go back to the 1880s or perhaps even further. The first pogroms occurred during antiquity, and in the area we are now talking about, pogroms have occurred for hundreds of years. The antisemitism that Hamas expresses has long and deep roots.

I still wonder: Does Håkan Svenneling consider that Hamas should be part of a two-state solution? It sounded like that. Is this really the Left Party's position?

Does Håkan Svenneling answer, after these attacks and the existential threat to democracy in Israel that Hamas poses, that it is a legitimate military target to neutralize Hamas's military capability? I am therefore not speaking about the ideas but about Hamas's military capability. Is it a legitimate military target?

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! I will begin with the final question. It is legitimate according to international law for militaries to attack militaries. Both Joar Forssell and I know that. That makes Hamas's military warriors legitimate targets, but one must also follow international law. You cannot bomb a house where there are 100 Palestinian civilians to kill a Hamas leader. Unfortunately, we see that Israel has done such a thing, likely several times over.

This means that Hamas's military wing cannot be part of a peace solution in the Middle East. I believe most people understand that. But the way Benjamin Netanyahu and his military are now attacking Gaza and risk creating a massacre in Rafah will make it harder both to reduce support for Hamas and to create a long-term solution.

I hear that very many bourgeois members are interested in space, but the Palestinian people actually cannot flee there. The solution is on the ground in Gaza, and it is based on a ceasefire where Benjamin Netanyahu's militaries stop attacking civilians.

(Applause)

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

Kerstin Lundgren (C)

Mr. Speaker! No one has escaped the fact that these are serious times. In ten days, Russia's unlawful and full-scale war against Ukraine, a democracy and neighbor, will have been ongoing for two years - a continuation of the war that was started ten years ago, on February 27, against Ukraine in Crimea, Donetsk, and Luhansk. If uncertainty prevailed then, it was clear two years ago today that Putin could invade Ukraine at any time.

We must learn from the mistakes we have made since 2014 and learn from our lost opportunities. We must clearly stand up for all countries' right to their own foreign and security policy choices and that recognized borders cannot be changed militarily. We must clearly assert international law and international humanitarian law and stand up for human rights.

With broad political agreement, we have decided to join Nato. We have left our military neutrality, realized that alone is not strong, and that it is only together with our neighbors in the Nordic region, in the EU and in the countries in Nato that we build both barriers and security against attacks from Russia. We are significantly building up our military capability to defend Sweden but also other Nato countries. We see that 2 percent of our GDP is the floor, of which at least 20 percent shall go to investments in materiel.

Centerpartiet sees a strong responsibility for cooperation in the Nordic countries and the Baltics as a NATO member but, of course, with a 360-degree perspective. Our membership gives our foreign policy new opportunities but does not silence us.

Ukraine has fought for two years for its self-evident right not to be erased as a country, for its independence and its freedom. They are worthy of our full support.

Centerpartiet wants to see an EU budget that takes into account that Ukraine must be able to fight for all of us, for both current and future members. We know that Putin's imperialist plans extend beyond Ukraine. Centerpartiet wants to see that Sweden, as a one-off measure, now lends 65 billion or 1 percent of our GDP to a special fund in order to strengthen Ukraine's chances of winning peace by 2026. Centerpartiet has clearly demanded Jas to Ukraine without a veto right for either Orbán or anyone else.

Mr. Speaker! We live in serious times. 2023 was the warmest year ever recorded. We have now reached 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels. The consequences have been visible in Sweden but also in the whole world. We have seen extreme heatwaves, floods, droughts and fires, most recently now in Chile. Greenhouse gas levels are at record highs, sea level rise is at a record high and the sea ice in Antarctica is at a record low. This obviously constitutes a security threat to us all, and it is also a threat that requires rapid action and adaptation. If we do not succeed, we know that it will destabilize large parts of the world and lead to escalating conflicts and wars.

There are studies showing that warming will increase armed conflicts by up to 54 percent in the coming decades. Sweden and the EU must not postpone measures for the future, but we must quickly reduce greenhouse gases, make adaptations and take actions, also in global cooperation, not least with countries in Africa and threatened island nations.

Sweden has assisted the poorest countries and people. We shall provide aid for self-help to support people in poverty and oppression. We do this bilaterally, via the EU and via UN organizations. We support women and girls, SRHR and hbtqi persons. We support civil society and provide support for climate adaptation and measures. We support peacebuilding and democratic institutions.

Centerpartiet sees this as a clear investment in Swedish interests. We want to return to 1 percent of GNI in aid and take our responsibility to reach Agenda 2030. The goal is a world where people do not die of hunger, where children survive and receive education and freedom, where free enterprise and trade drive development power that contributes to solving our common challenges. Anna Lasses will return to this later.

Mr. Speaker! Our aid must be seen for what it is - a central foreign policy and security policy tool. The Centre Party wants Sweden and the EU to stand up for its values in stark contrast to dictatorships and authoritarian regimes and show an alternative path to Russia, China, Iran, and others.

We see how autocratization is spreading like a plague across the world. Closed autocracies are now more numerous than liberal democracies. The Kremlin imprisons and murders those who dare to speak out. China silences dissent, takes a stranglehold on Hong Kong, threatens democracy in Taiwan, kidnaps and imprisons on political grounds, and subjects the Uyghurs and others to oppression and gross crimes. Iran's regime follows the pattern with kidnappings, imprisonments, oppression, and crimes against women who demand their human rights. They arrest citizens of other countries to conduct diplomatic blackmail.

Our demands are unambiguous: Release Ahmadreza Djalali! Release all political prisoners such as Aleksej Navalnyj, Vladimir Kara-Murza, Gui Minhai, Johan Floderus and others!

Mr. Speaker! Just as clearly as the Center Party stands up for Israel's right to live within its secure and recognized borders, we stand up for their self-evident right to defend themselves against Hamas and the terror of others. This must, however, occur with clear respect for international law. Palestinian civilians must be clearly protected. They must not be displaced.

Centerpartiet demands that the hostage be released immediately.

The war against Hamas is taking place in one of the world's most densely populated areas, where not only the captured Israelis but in practice also the Palestinian civilian population are being held hostage. Children and women make up the majority of the over 28,000 who have been killed, and the humanitarian situation for the many injured and for millions of civilian Palestinians is desperate. Governments, including the Swedish one, have stopped support to UNRWA. But without a humanitarian ceasefire and more open routes in, who will be able to replace them as suppliers? Criminal gangs?

Mr. Speaker! Now more and more people are raising the demand for a Palestinian state and a two-state solution when the war is over. We welcome that. Even when hatred and fear flourish between people in the region, it is important not only in words but also actually in action to show that a Palestinian state alongside Israel can be possible – a state on currently occupied land, with land swaps.

This requires that Sweden, the EU and international actors give people reason to feel hope, that one strengthens and does not destroy the little credibility that exists for the Palestinian leadership. It requires that aid be resumed now, it requires clarity and sanctions against settlers who carry out attacks on the West Bank and in East Jerusalem and it requires a clear stance also against new planned settlements and talk of annexation.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, 2024 is an important election year for us. There are theater plays in Russia and real elections in the USA. Everyone is highlighting the upcoming presidential election in the USA. Of course, we must respect and cooperate with the newly elected president regardless of who it is. The transatlantic link is incredibly important for us. But even the upcoming election to the European Parliament is important for Sweden. We do not want to see an "Orbánized" EU, but a parliament that stands up for security, the climate, and freedom – an EU that sees and takes its responsibility for a more peaceful and freer world.

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

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! It is a dark time we live in. Russia has set the world on fire through its unjust attack against Ukraine, China acts threateningly towards Taiwan and Iran exerts terror against its own population and is involved in a number of crisis hotspots in the Middle East, including Hamas's cruel and indiscriminate attack against civilians in southern Israel and the Houthi rebels' attacks against civilian shipping in the Red Sea.

This cannot only be seen in isolation, but there is a connection here. These authoritarian states are challenging the rules-based world order and instead want to see the right of the strongest to dominate over their neighbors. This challenge is not only military but affects security aspects in many more political areas: energy, food, and critical infrastructure. The threats therefore look different than before, and Sweden's preparedness to handle these threats must be strengthened.

Mr. Speaker! We all here feel a disgust for Putin's full-scale war in Ukraine but also an admiration for all the Ukrainians who for two years have fought against an aggressor who dreams of recreating a Russian-controlled empire and a sphere of interest of an old Soviet nature. Putin continuously sacrifices many Russian lives, and Russia has violated the international laws that are to protect the civilian population. The guilty must therefore be held accountable, and the judgment of history will be harsh.

Putin's ambitions extend far beyond Russia's direct borders and constitute a significant threat to all of Europe, not least to us here up north. It is therefore no exaggeration to say that Ukraine is also fighting our battle. Sweden's NATO membership, which hopefully is only a few days away, is long-awaited. It will mean a great deal for security in our part of the world and also facilitate our continued support for Ukraine.

In light of questions from the other side of the Atlantic and increased focus also on other hotspots, it is precisely now that the support for Ukraine is most important of all. Ahead of the European Council on February 1, I requested support that was as long-term and as unanimous as possible. I am pleased that this was also the case. Sweden must continue to work for long-term perspective and unity in the support from the Western world. It is pleasing that we do so with a unanimous Riksdag and solid support from the Swedish people behind us. We shall help Ukraine in the long term also through support to rebuild the country, and we shall assist them on the way to EU and NATO membership.

Mr. Speaker! On October 7, innocent people in southern Israel were hit by a horrific terrorist attack carried out by Hamas terrorists who attacked Israeli civilians without restraint. Video clips and images show a horrific massacre where more people were murdered than during Kristallnacht itself.

Just two weeks after the attack, I visited the kibbutz Kfar Aza, which is located very close to the border with Gaza, and witnessed the remains of the shelter where terrorists forced their way in and murdered everyone inside. The bloodstains remained, as did the bullet holes and the smells. I spoke with a man whose wife and three children had been kidnapped. He said: I am not even angry. I might become angry again, but I want them back. That is the only thing that is important.

Amir Ohana, Speaker of the Knesset, whom I met, said: I have never used the term "holocaust" for anything other than the Holocaust in my entire life, but on October 7 we experienced a day of holocaust.

Unfortunately, 130 people are still being held captive. They must be released unconditionally and immediately.

It is actually as unexpected as it is shameful that it is precisely these events that have become the beginning of one of the most powerful waves of antisemitism that our country and our continent have experienced in a long time.

The terrorist group Hamas must be disarmed and its rule dismantled, for the sake of both Israelis and Palestinians. They show no respect for any human life, not even for Palestinian lives. Palestinians are used as human shields when Hamas builds its installations in direct proximity to schools, hospitals and, as has been revealed in recent days, directly under UNRWA's headquarters in Gaza.

Israel has an absolute right and duty to defend itself in accordance with international law and the principles of international law, which the International Court of Justice established in its provisional measures order on January 26. But so that no one should believe or claim anything else, I want to be clear that our view that Israel has the right to defend itself is not the same as us giving unreserved support to everything that Israel does.

The suffering in Gaza is great. The distress is great. Israel needs to do everything to avoid the death of innocent people. This is a complete humanitarian tragedy, and it is of the utmost importance that swift, safe, full, and unimpeded humanitarian access is ensured and that humanitarian aid reaches people in need.

The Christian Democrats further believe that Israel must seriously address the unacceptable settlement violence in the West Bank and cease the expansion of settlements. The settlements violate international law and undermine the possibilities for a two-state solution. A negotiated two-state solution, where Israel and Palestine coexist side by side, is and remains the only sustainable path to peace.

Mr. Speaker! The Iranian people are persecuted today by their own regime and its tool, the Revolutionary Guard, which arrests, tortures, and oppresses Iranian demonstrators. This applies in particular to women who dare to resist the regime's demands for the compulsion to cover hair and face.

The Iranian population is oppressed by its own regime, while at the same time it is simply difficult today to find a terrorist organization in a conflict in the Middle East that does not have ties to Iran. The Tehran regime's arms are deadly and reach far. They carry out arbitrary arrests of foreign citizens and have also, as has emerged, planned murders of Swedish citizens here in Sweden.

Iran also supports Russia in the war against Ukraine. Few are the cities in Ukraine that have not been subjected to terror attacks by Iranian drones, aimed at civilians.

Against this background, several countries, including the USA, have blacklisted the Revolutionary Guard, and it is now time for the EU circle to do the same. In the Swedish Riksdag, we agree on this. Not least the fact that the Iranian regime has sent rockets towards Erbil in Iraq, towards Pakistan, and towards American troops in Jordan shows that they are trying to escalate the situation. The issue should once again be brought up at the EU's Foreign Affairs Council FAC.

Mr. Speaker! The Christian Democrats' foreign aid spokesperson Gudrun Brunegård will elaborate on our view of aid in her contribution, and Yusuf Aydin will speak about the opportunities for Christians and other religious minorities to practice their faith around the world.

I would like to conclude by saying that there is so much more that I would like to comment on: Agenda 2030, the climate, trade, West Africa, the Great Lakes, the Horn of Africa, Latin America, and more. I hope to return to them in other contexts. Now I want to conclude by thanking the Minister for Foreign Affairs for the foreign policy declaration, which we Christian Democrats naturally agree with.

(Applause)

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! I want to return to the discussion about the trip that Magnus Berntsson and ten other Christian Democratic MPs made at the end of August last year. It was a week-long trip to Israel.

What was remarkable about that trip was that the organizer and tour leader for the trip was the settlement organization Keren Kajemet LeYisrael. From now on, I will refer to it as KKL.

KKL is an Israeli land-purchasing organization for Jewish settlement. Everything is aimed at preparing an influx of Jews from all over the world who wish to settle in Israel. In Israel, the organization owns more than 10 percent of Israeli land. In a 2020 report, the organization Peace Now describes how KKL buys land in the West Bank and takes legal actions to evict Palestinians from the settlements, and at the same time finances illegal settler projects. They have purchased 6,500 hectares for 88 million shekels, and they have actively displaced families.

During the trip, the Christian Democrats met no representative from the Palestinian side. On the other hand, you met the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who now leads the most far-right government ever in Israel and carries out extensive military attacks against civilians in Gaza. In addition to that, you also had a one-hour conversation with the chairman of the Constitution Committee, Simcha Rothman. That sounds pleasant, but he belongs to the most far-right party Religious Zionism. He led the work on the proposed judicial reform, which was then stopped after massive protests in the country. The reform threatens Israeli democracy with proposals to limit the independence of the Supreme Court.

I wonder why the Christian Democrats are siding with these right-wing extremist politicians in Israel, who actively oppose a two-state solution and the existence of the Palestinian people. I do not understand that.

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

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the questions, and I thank you for that we can call the organization KKL from now on.

It is clear that we have received different pictures of what KKL stands for. I have good contact with KKL Sverige, which has existed in Sweden since the early 1900s, and I have received a completely different picture than the one that Håkan Svenneling presents.

Let me go back to the trip. Personally, I was a bit late to Israel due to a meeting with the Foreign Affairs Committee. I therefore arrived after the visits to Netanyahu and the chairman of the Constitutional Committee. However, I want to emphasize that it was a trip to Israel, not a trip to Israel and Palestine. The trip was about finding out what the situation is, and we met a wide range of actors from the governing parties and from the opposition side. We met those who were in favor of the judicial reform of the constitutional court, and we also met protesters and had interesting conversations with those who criticized the reform. I think we had a good visit by not having a one-sided program but truly trying to understand how one can arrive at such different positions in the democracy that Israel is.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! It is telling that the Christian Democrats are making a trip to Israel and speaking with an organization about what it does in Israel, but do not look at what the same settler organization, land-purchasing organization, does on occupied land in the West Bank.

Recently, Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson turned 60. As a birthday present, the Prime Minister received 60 trees planted in Israel by KKL. The value of the trees also corresponds to 12,000 kronor. It is obvious to me, as I see what the settler movement does, that tree planting and the displacement of Palestinians is a colonial strategy from the settler movement to occupy more land, which we know is the daily struggle on the ground in the West Bank.

Is it really an appropriate gift to receive 60 trees for Sweden's Prime Minister? I believe it would be better for the Christian Democrats if one joined, for example, Diakonia's journey where one balances between the Israeli side and the Palestinian side. From the outside, based on the politics you pursue in Sweden's Riksdag, I experience that you have a skewed view of the situation on the ground.

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

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! It is hardly surprising that I do not, of course, agree with Member Svenneling. Furthermore, the Christian Democrats have previously participated in Diakonia's trips to Palestine. We also have that with us into our parliamentary group.

I want to emphasize once again that the organization we are talking about is a civil society organization engaged in environmental and forest management in Israel, which does not build communities in the West Bank and does not support the settlers in any other way. Their projects take place inside the green line, i.e., the one that existed before the Six-Day War in 1967.

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

Kerstin Lundgren (C)

Mr. Speaker! In light of the recent exchange of remarks, I must ask whether Magnus Berntsson himself has visited Palestinian areas, the occupied territories. It is clear that it would have been interesting to listen to that part of the reality in the area.

But that was not what made me request the floor. We have agreed in the chamber to brand the Islamic Revolutionary Guard in Iran as terrorists. I have pointed out that Sweden should conduct a review of the basic document from May 14, 2001, which the EU bases its entire decision-making process on. That is why we are not making progress, regardless of whether we are talking about Wagner or IRGC. In other contexts in the committee, we have heard that no progress is being made.

What have the Christian Democrats, as part of the government, done to ensure that the government pushes to raise the question of a fundamental change in terror legislation? Otherwise, we will once again, regardless of whether the question is raised in the Foreign Affairs Council or not, get stuck in the same basic document that fails to open the door to being able to do anything other than terror-label based on what happened "nine eleven" - as horrific as it was. But we have seen other realities that must be captured. That is not what the directive currently existing in the EU does.

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

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I agree with Kerstin Lundgren's criticism of how this instrument functions. Terrorist listing in the EU structure is completely different from the American terror classification system, where a political decision is made which then has consequences. In the EU, it is instead a legal decision. One might think that this is the most far-reaching of all the legal sanctions that can be taken, but unfortunately, it is not so. MR sanctions have greater real effects for the one who is subjected to them.

I completely agree that it is time to review what the terror listing regime looks like. This is, however, nothing that is easy to change. We will, of course, raise the issue within the government, but it is not enough for the Swedish government to think so. Many more are to be involved. There are many countries in the EU that think there are other things to focus on and that the MR sanctions are of greater importance. The problem with MR sanctions versus terror listing sanctions is that terror listing sanctions are of clearly greater importance symbolically.

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

Kerstin Lundgren (C)

Mr. Speaker! It is still the case that the Christian Democrats are part of the government, and the government has responded that they are not moving forward. I then wonder if we have a lost year behind us. It has been some time since we demanded terror listing. When we had that discussion, it was clear that the basis for terror listing is not updated, but rather it is based on what happened in the USA during the terrible "nine eleven". One has not taken hold of the developments regarding terror groups and other matters, which means that we are not making progress.

It is not fundamentally wrong to have a legal possibility, or a legal review, but then the legislation must be upgraded. That is how we have it in other contexts, and the government is usually quite tough when it comes to upgrading legislation to be able to handle the threats and problems that exist. Why is it not so in this case?

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

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I do not, of course, agree that it is a lost year, but unfortunately, it will take longer to get anywhere with this. It is others besides the Swedish government who need to be influenced, and it represents a major step to make these changes. In the meantime, we need to decide on as many sanctions as possible with the sanction regimes that already exist. This has also been done in a number of cases, primarily concerning MR sanctions. I believe we should continue with this, and from the Swedish side, there has been unanimous support to do so.

I have good hopes that we will see a change in the future, but I have no hopes that it will happen within a few days, weeks, or months. Perhaps it will not even happen within any year.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I want to return to the journey that has been raised several times in the recent exchanges of remarks.

The organization that the Christian Democratic parliamentary group traveled with to Israel is called KKL; it will be easier for all of us to call them that. They have actively purchased land both in Israel and – since 1967 – in occupied territory and also financed settlements, regardless of whatever image Magnus Berntsson has received of them.

In a notable case a couple of years ago, they were active in the eviction of the Palestinian family Sumarin in Silwan, which is located in eastern Jerusalem and is therefore occupied territory. They came out a couple of years ago with information that they have 17,000 new property offers and that 2,500 of these properties are located in occupied territory.

In December last year, the party leader of Kristdemokraterna, together with the other party leaders in the government and Foreign Minister Billström, wrote a debate article stating that the only way to sustainable peace is a two-state solution. If KD now supports a two-state solution, what does one think we should do with the Israeli settlements in occupied territory? And how can one as a party support a two-state solution and at the same time support an organization that does everything in its power to eat up the territory for the other state?

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

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! As I have said before, I have a different picture than the one that Member Risberg presents.

Let me go back a few years to the time when the peace process, which we all hope will be resumed as soon as possible, was seriously underway. At that time, there were quite many different discussions. In the plan that the then-president Clinton presented together with the Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, there were a number of proposals to make certain exchanges of land areas as a way to arrive at a final good solution that can guarantee coexistence in the future. To achieve this is the most important thing. In the major peace agreement that we hope will soon, it also concerns solving the settlement issue. Emotionally, however, such an agreement feels very far away from what we see today.

I believe it is possible.

I managed to find an article from the late 1900s, which I however could not read, about a discussion regarding a real estate deal in eastern Jerusalem. We will have to return to this; I believe both sides have some facts to review moving forward.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I feel that I am finished with my facts regarding this. I have plenty of links to articles that I could send to Member Berntsson if he wishes.

I will release the occupied areas for a moment and move on to talk about Israel, which the Christian Democrats gladly refer to as the only democracy in the Middle East.

The organization KKL, also known as the Jewish National Fund, has since 1901 purchased land in what is also internationally accepted as Israel and today owns around 13 percent of the land in Israel. According to the fund's statutes, only Jews, regardless of whether they are Israeli or international, may rent this land and build on it. This means that 20 percent of Israel's citizens, namely the Palestinians, do not enjoy the same rights as other citizens in Israel. In what way does this—that not all inhabitants in the country enjoy the same freedoms and rights—square with being a full-fledged democracy?

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

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I am also convinced that I have the facts I need, but I still want to open for a conversation with Risberg afterwards.

The organization in question is a foundation that is independent of the Israeli government. I would really wish that they did not have these statutes. As the member mentioned, 20 percent of the inhabitants in Israel are of Palestinian descent, and they have different religious affiliations. I think it is unreasonable that the foundation has this paragraph in its statutes. It is, however, a private foundation, not a politically governed organization.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! A few weeks ago, my children asked me: "Daddy, will there be war in Sweden?" My heart stopped for a second. I didn't know what to answer, but I still made an attempt to calm them down while trying to explain what can be explained. This happened in a context where they can still cycle to the stable and football practice, where the school is open, and where we can travel to visit relatives and friends without having to think about our safety. Even though the risk of a military attack on Sweden is somewhat greater today than it was when my children were born, it is still extremely unclear whether it will ever happen.

But for some children in the world, the fear is already a highly present reality, like a nightmare without end. According to Unicef, over 450 million children are affected in different ways by armed conflicts around the world. Children are always hit hardest. They can be injured or killed by direct physical violence in the fighting and its consequences. They are often affected by a lack of food, water, and safe places where they can play, or by insecurity due to a deceased parent. In many cases, the children are also forced to stop school.

Mr. Speaker! In the time it takes to speak, over 30,000 people have been killed in Gaza, and 13,000 of these are children. "Daddy, is the war over now?", asks a girl at dawn in Rafah, in the silence between two Israeli bombings. Rafah is the place where two-thirds of Gaza's population are now crowding to seek shelter. More than 60 percent of all homes in Gaza are uninhabitable as a result of the Israeli bombings. The UN reports that the entire population of Gaza, 2.2 million people, is at imminent risk of being affected by famine, and nearly one-fifth of the population is in the extreme phase which involves direct starvation. Before the war, 80 percent of children suffered from PTSD or other psychological issues. Now, almost all children are judged to be in need of psychological support - 1 million children. While the children's world has completely collapsed over the last four months, they have been deprived of all normalcy. No child in Gaza has gone a single day to school since October 7.

At the same time as the bombs fall over Gaza, the violence and tensions in the West Bank have increased. According to the UN, more than 300 people there have been killed by Israeli settlers or Israeli military since the outbreak of war. A quarter of those killed are children. Taha Mahamid was 15 years old and unarmed and was shot dead with three shots by Israeli military on an open street in front of his siblings.

At the Augusta Victoria Hospital in East Jerusalem, the healthcare staff are still waiting for their cancer patients to be released from Gaza so that they can receive the life-saving specialist care that is only available at that specific hospital. None of the over 700 patients waiting for care have been allowed to leave Gaza since the war started, not even any of the 28 children. At the hospital, the staff fear that several of the patients have already died, even though care is available just a few miles away.

All pressure must be put on Israel to achieve a permanent ceasefire now.

Mr. Speaker! In South Africa's submission to the International Court of Justice, what struck me most in the interviews conducted with people in Gaza was the description of what it is like to be a parent in a family that still has living family members: All strength goes into trying to act as if the situation is normal for the children. How does one maintain a sense of normalcy when nothing that is happening is normal, yet it has become everyday life?

Mr. Speaker! A famine catastrophe is currently unfolding on the Horn of Africa, affecting almost 50 million people. More than 11 million children under the age of five suffer from acute malnutrition. Poverty and vulnerability are great in the internal refugee camps, and everyday life becomes even harder for children with disabilities. Every day, 13 children die of severe malnutrition in the Zam Zam camp in northern Darfur in Sudan as a consequence of the ten-month-long war in Sudan.

Aid actors work to ensure that children receive humanitarian support, access to schooling and aids that can give them development, self-esteem and tools to create a future for themselves with income and security as adults. Swedish aid makes a difference.

In Afghanistan, after two decades of increased school attendance for girls, they have been thrown back to the Middle Ages as the Taliban do everything they can to prevent girls' education. In Iran, girls risk corporal punishment if they do not wear a veil, whether they want to wear it or not. I could continue, because when we talk about human rights and peace and about putting an end to violence and war, it is for the children's sake - the children in Palestine, Israel, Ukraine, Congo, Yemen, Iran, and Afghanistan and in many other places.

Mr. Speaker! According to figures from Save the Children, one in three children in the world faces double threats: high vulnerability to the extreme weather that comes with climate change as well as poverty. This concerns 774 million children, a third of all the world's children. The children with the worst conditions today will continue to be hit the hardest. The injustice will only increase. The increasing number of climate disasters, such as floods, cyclones, forest fires, and heatwaves, affect children in different ways. Children in Sweden are also worried, both because of the war in Ukraine in our vicinity and the climate crisis.

We as politicians have a major role when it comes to increasing trust in society and hope for a positive future. The Convention on the Rights of the Child has been Swedish law since 2020, and it should also permeate Swedish aid and foreign policy because it is based on every individual child's rights. We must show through action that we are doing everything we can to put an end to violence and find a solution to the climate crisis. What is the Swedish government doing then? Well, it is strangling aid and lowering the standard for Swedish foreign policy.

Mr. Speaker! Miljöpartiet wants to see a feminist foreign policy that listens to the world's common needs, sees the challenges we all face, and acts powerfully. We want to see a Sweden that is upright and takes the child's present and future seriously. We want to see a Sweden that invests in aid, stands up for human rights and democracy, and dares to introduce sanctions against states that clearly violate international law. We want to see a country where efforts to find diplomatic solutions always take precedence over the spine reflex to deploy the military. Sweden can be and do all of this. But the government has chosen another path, and for that, it should be ashamed.

Think of being able to answer the question "Daddy, is the war over now?" with: "Yes, the war is over." Or even better: "Beloved children, there was never any war."

(Applause)

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

Joar Forssell (L)

Mr. Speaker! The world's dictators, the world's anti-democrats, and the powers that dislike the liberal, democratic world order are cooperating more and more and more deeply. The axis of evil - China, Russia, and Iran - are cooperating and together constitute the greatest threat to human freedom and our prosperity in our time. The liberals want to meet this with a straight-backed and values-driven foreign policy where we do what is right and what is required for liberal democracy to triumph in the ongoing struggle over which world order shall prevail.

Mr. Speaker! When Hamas carried out its horrific acts of terrorism on October 7, it did so partly with North Korean weapons and with training and intelligence information from Iran. When Russia bombs in Ukraine, it does so partly with the help of drones that are manufactured in Iran with Chinese components.

Mr. Speaker! China uses trade to steal technology and knowledge from other countries in a calculated manner. There are actually no private companies from China. It is not a liberal market economy where public and equal ownership is guaranteed by an impartial judiciary. On the contrary, China uses the unified front policy and other legislation to control what could have been private companies and subject them to the Chinese Communist Party. All Chinese actors are in practice agents of the authoritarian and anti-liberal Xi Jinping, the dictator in China, and should be treated as such.

By pressuring and indebting entire countries, China is conducting an aggressive neo-colonialism on the African continent. Through threats of both sanctions and violence, they attempt to stifle democratic opposition both at home in China and in other countries.

Here in Sweden, China's ambassador recently made a laughingstock of himself and his country by attacking local politicians, most recently in Gothenburg, because of their commitment to the liberal democratic world order.

Mr. Speaker! The Iranian regime oppresses the people in Iran and wants to spread its authoritarian Islamism to surrounding countries. The regime in Iran is guilty of countless crimes and of a oppression of women without equal. It supplies Russia with weapons. It manipulates and controls its puppets in terror groups and other regimes in the region to attack democracies and challenge the rules-based world order.

The responsibility for the terrorist acts on October 7 and the subsequent war also rests on their shoulders. IRGC is a terrorist organization and must be classified as such. Iran is a terror regime and must be treated as such. Iranian influence and its proxy groups must be pushed back.

Mr. Speaker! Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine is an attack not only on Ukraine but also on all of us who live in democracies or who want to do so. That Russia loses the war is as important as Ukraine winning. Russia's ideas of a Great Russia, a tsardom, their revanchism and their historical revisionism must be forced out. Not only the country but also the ideas must be forced to capitulate, otherwise the war will return in a new era and in a new guise but with the same twisted motives.

That is why Ukraine must receive every single weapon and capability that is required. It is also why we cannot stop at any limit for which sanctions we can impose against Russia. Every Russian asset, from money to real estate and for that matter the movable property of oligarchs and their friends or families, should be seized and liquidated to finance our war against Russia. Russia must lose in all dimensions - militarily, economically, culturally and ideologically.

Mr. Speaker! Taiwan is in practice a free and independent democratic state. They have a clearly defined people, a defined territory, and a well-functioning state power. They fulfill all the criteria required to be a state, if one asks the political scientists. They prove that a democratic development can happen quickly, and they are a hope also for Mainland China's future and for all the other authoritarian countries or dictatorships that exist in the surrounding area.

Sweden must immediately deepen its relations with the country of Taiwan on all levels - economically, diplomatically and internationally. If we Liberals alone were to decide on Sweden's foreign policy, we would immediately establish a representative office in Taipei, encourage and simplify for deepened cooperation between universities and colleges between our countries and push for a far-reaching free trade agreement. We need Taiwan, and Taiwan needs us.

Mr. Speaker! Israel's defensive war against the terror group Hamas is legitimate and completely necessary. A two-state solution cannot be achieved unless Hamas's military capability is neutralized. One must stay within the framework of international law, and one must avoid civilian casualties as far as possible. If this is the case, there is no doubt, and if this is the case, there are no divisions in the Swedish Riksdag, which the left sometimes wants to paint.

Every civilian victim, regardless of side, is a tragedy. At the same time, it cannot be overemphasized that it was Hamas that started the war on October 7. It is Hamas that uses Palestinian civilians as human shields for propaganda purposes. It is Hamas that has rejected opportunities for a long-term ceasefire. It is Hamas that continues to hold Israelis hostage.

Furthermore, the war must be placed in its historical context, Mr. Speaker. The terror attack on October 7 was one in a series of pogroms against Jews that go back as far as antiquity, or in this region at least several hundred years.

Hamas' antisemitism and extreme Islamism have roots that are much older than the founding of the modern state of Israel. That Hamas chooses to continue the war instead of releasing the hostages and achieving a ceasefire does not only show how they completely disregard the situation for Palestinians but also underscores how crucial it is that these terrorists are eliminated. It is deeply unserious to speak of a two-state solution and a sustainable peace without simultaneously having the ability to emphasize this. The hostages must be released, and Hamas must surrender unconditionally.

Mr. Speaker! When the world's dictatorships cooperate more and more deeply, we democracies must do the same, whether it is in support of Taiwan, by participating in efforts in the Red Sea, or by countering Russia, China, and Iran from gaining increased influence. The liberal democratic world order is under attack, and we have a common duty to defend it.

(Applause)

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I think it became clear in a couple of previous exchanges that one of the reasons why we sometimes have difficulty understanding each other across the block boundaries is that we seem to have different information.

When we Social Democrats discuss the Middle East issue, we are very keen on incorporating information from both sides, both the Israeli side and the Palestinian side. When we visit the Middle East, we visit both Israel and Palestine. When I myself made a visit there, Ramallah, Hebron, Jerusalem, Bethlehem and Sderot were on the program. When Ann Linde was in the area just a few months ago, she met both Israel's president and Palestine's prime ministers. When Johan Büser is going there this Friday for the Palm Center, he visits both Israel and Palestine.

To you, it sounds as if you are only taking information from one party. That is a major concern. It became almost glaringly obvious, I would like to say, in the autumn. When Israel's ambassador was here in the Riksdag to show the film about the horrific atrocities that Hamas committed on October 7, we Social Democrats were on site because we wanted to see this and take it in. But when Palestine's ambassador was here in the Riksdag and showed his film about the war in Gaza and about the harassment of the Palestinians in the West Bank and the killing of them, not a single representative from the government's supporting parties was on site. No one from M, no one from SD, no one from KD and no one from L was interested in seeing this.

What does Joar Forssell think about that? Is it the case that you are only interested in information from one side?

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

Joar Forssell (L)

Mr. Speaker! I am very pleased that Member Johansson is asking this question. I think it is very important. The short answer is no. We are not only interested in information from only one side.

I am not interested in receiving information from Hamas or other terrorists. It is not particularly interesting to me. We have no common values whatsoever. I simply do not want to listen to terrorists.

Member Johansson's question concerns the Palestinian authority, as I understood it, Mr. Speaker. We have no problem looking at films or reading documents sent to us. I do not think anyone in this chamber does. As a member, I receive information from all possible sources daily. That is completely uncontroversial, I think. What I do, however, have a problem with is meeting actors who do not unreservedly distance themselves from and condemn Hamas's terrorism, Islamism, and other extremism. If one wants to meet us, one must first be able to say, unreservedly, without any ifs and buts: "We condemn Hamas, we condemn terrorism, and we condemn extremism."

Mr. Speaker! I share the view that I believe Morgan Johansson has, namely that there must be actors on both sides of the conflict that one can speak with in order to achieve a two-state solution and a peaceful solution in the long term. We have clarified in previous exchanges here that Hamas is not such an actor. Hamas must be eliminated for a two-state solution to be reached.

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Absolutely, we are in complete agreement there: No settlement in the area can include Hamas. That is, of course, the case. I fully agree that Hamas's military capacity must be dismantled in order for one to be able to make any progress at all.

It is not Hamas, however, that I am asking Joar Forssell to have contact with or obtain information from, but rather the Palestinian side or simply the Palestinian authority. I have never seen Joar Forssell at any of the Palestinian embassy's receptions or in such contexts. I believe it would be good if more from the government's supporting parties also obtained information from there.

The week after October 7, our party leader, together with the Social Democratic foreign affairs group, met both the Palestinian ambassador and the Israeli ambassador, because we are keen to receive information from both. Next time there is a reception, film screening, or similar, I hope that we will see someone from the government's supporting parties on site at that occasion.

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

Joar Forssell (L)

Mr. Speaker! I will not visit Palestine's so-called embassy in Stockholm because I do not think that Palestine should be recognized before we have a two-state solution in place. I think that a recognition of Palestine should be part of a two-state solution and a peace negotiation. Until then, I do not recognize it as an embassy in the way that makes me want to visit it.

If, however, representatives from Palestinian organizations come to the Riksdag or if someone emails or calls me, I have no problem speaking with or reading emails from anyone, if they are people coming from organizations that unreservedly condemn Hamas and all forms of extremism that they stand for.

I followed the Palestinian Authority's communication very closely after October 7, where they first came out and condemned Hamas in a Facebook post but then withdrew the condemnation. For me, it is very unclear whether they condemn Hamas unreservedly or not.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! Member Joar Forssell can rely on the fact that we will ensure that he now receives many invitations to various meetings that we want him to attend.

(JOAR FORSSELL (L): How nice!)

The Liberals often try to have a high tail-wagging when it comes to the work for human rights.

In 2017, Joar Forssell's liberal colleague Fredrik Malm said this regarding the social democratic government arranging a trade delegation to Azerbaijan: This is an invitation to corruption and bribes. The entire setup is about connecting Swedish companies with corrupt state actors in Azerbaijan. It is remarkable that Swedish trade policy unreservedly and nonchalantly invites Swedish companies to build contacts with one of the world's most corrupt countries.

But already in 2011, the Liberal Malm had reacted to Azerbaijan's dictatorship. At that time, he wrote a debate article where he pointed out that the security service in Azerbaijan had conducted home visits to all 43 people who had voted for the neighboring country Armenia in Eurovision, because the countries were in conflict with each other. When Eurovision was held in Azerbaijan in 2012, the Swedish artist Loreen visited human rights activists and, after a strong performance, was able to travel home with a victory for Sweden.

The distancing from Azerbaijan does not, however, seem to apply to the Liberal Party's chairman in Tyresö, Heinz Sjögren. Heinz Sjögren has, in his role as CEO of the Chamber of Commerce for Eurasia, organized several trips to and meetings with Azerbaijan. And his work has yielded results: Since 2022, Sweden's exports have increased by 40 percent. The main reason that the latest trip was not so successful was that Sweden missed the European Football Championship rather than Heinz not wanting to organize a trip.

Much has happened since 2011 and 2017. Azerbaijan has fallen in Transparency International's corruption index. In the latest measurement, the country is worse than countries such as Iran, Russia and Belarus - countries that Joar Forssell highlighted in his speech.

What then is the liberal view? Should Sweden expand trade with the dictatorship of Azerbaijan?

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

Joar Forssell (L)

Mr. Speaker! I am quite poorly informed both regarding football and regarding the specific incident that Member Svenneling describes. Our position is not that we should expand relations with dictatorships, and I share the view that Azerbaijan is a very authoritarian dictatorship. There is a scale, and on that scale, Azerbaijan is an extreme player, if it can be called that in football. Instead, we should develop our relations with democratic countries.

Then, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I know Heinz as a person who, above all, works to open up for and conduct trade with Ukraine. I think this is important, and it is something that I hope we will continue to develop.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! It sounds good that there are other tasks for Heinz to do in the Liberals. Strengthening trade with Ukraine will become important in the reconstruction of Ukraine.

One becomes worried when the Liberals have such a high level of tail-wagging, but at the same time, as soon as there is a football match between Sweden and Azerbaijan, they are quickly there and organize wine tastings at embassies and ensure that meetings are created with the dictatorship's representatives.

Previously, Joar Forssell has tried to express himself quite clearly regarding Azerbaijan, and that is why I find it so surprising that it does not gain traction in the Liberal Party when it concerns such high representatives as the party association's chairman in one of all the municipalities in Stockholm District.

I want to ask Joar Forssell: Does he want to drink wine with Azerbaijan or introduce sanctions?

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

Joar Forssell (L)

Mr. Speaker! It is always interesting to try wines from new countries, but in this case, I would rather introduce sanctions than drink wine with Azerbaijan's representative.

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

Kerstin Lundgren (C)

Mr. Speaker! It is always exciting to listen to the opposition within the government. I believe I have heard it in some of the recent posts. It might also explain some of the wording in the foreign policy declaration.

I note that the foreign policy declaration speaks of that "China's actions towards Taiwan cause concern." I perceived that there was a completely different stance from Joar Forssell, and here I become curious because Joar Forssell's party is part of the government.

Now, the question of a House of Sweden in Taipei has been discussed for a year and a half, and we still have not seen anything come forward. Is it that incredibly difficult? What is it that stands in the way of just this? If the Liberals want to open a representative office, one should surely at least be able to go the way of a House of Sweden? That would be something the Liberals could work for and not just prepare, prepare and prepare?

So, I am curious to hear if there is another answer than the one we heard from Magnus Berntsson earlier regarding the terror listing of IRGC. There, the problem is that the basic documents that the EU has do not create that space. It has been almost a year since the Riksdag decided on this in broad agreement, but we have received the answer that nothing will happen. That is the government's position because they consider that what exists works. Why are the Liberals not making more of an impact to achieve a change? I wonder what has happened in the preparation.

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

Joar Forssell (L)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member Lundgren, for the good questions! I really appreciate them. It surprises me a bit how quickly one forgets what it is like to sit in a coalition with other parties. I remember when the Center Party and the Liberals cooperated and the Center Party wanted to provide subsidies for diesel for agricultural machinery while the Liberals did not want that, and so we argued about it.

Somewhere you eventually find a line that you think is okay. But that does not mean that the political dividing lines are blurred or disappear. The Center Party still thought that one should contribute to diesel in work machines, and we did not think so. There are constantly those types of questions in coalitions.

Mr. Speaker! When it comes to Taiwan, it is the Liberals' view that we should do exactly the things that I described. A House of Sweden should not be that difficult. One can actually just replace the sign outside the office that exists there already now, and further ahead one can fill it with content.

I am pleased that we in the Liberals are contributing to moving the positions forward when it comes to Taiwan. I think that can be seen in both government statements and foreign policy declarations since this government took office. We are moving the positions forward when it comes to Taiwan.

Regarding the IRGC, I am very pleased that the Center Party has joined the Liberals' position on reviewing the criteria for how we designate organizations as terrorist, because it is not just about the IRGC. It could be about an organization such as NMR in Sweden, which perhaps should also be designated as terrorist because they are preparing acts of violence against, for example, political authorities. The rules we have today are outdated, and we are very pleased that the Center Party has also realized this. I thank Member Lundgren for that.

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

Kerstin Lundgren (C)

Mr. Speaker! I must congratulate the Liberals for now acting with concern regarding moving the positions on the issue of Taiwan. It is a position that I have heard several governments use previously.

Mr. Speaker! I know that Joar Forssell received a joyful addition to the family and was on parental leave for a period. Perhaps he has therefore missed that it was precisely I and the Center Party who set this requirement. We have also through the motion process set requirements that the directive in the EU should be reviewed. I have not heard that the Liberals have driven that issue. But from our side, we have clearly done so, and I am glad if there is support for this now.

Mr. Speaker! Are the Liberals prepared, in the government, to push for the establishment of a special Ukraine fund, as we propose, with 1 percent of the gross national product borrowed to secure Ukraine's conditions to win the peace?

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

Joar Forssell (L)

Mr. Speaker! If I begin with Taiwan, it is not just about the things that Kerstin Lundgren chooses to pick out. One can go back and see the government's entire policy regarding Taiwan in the government's statement and other documents.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs previously accounted in the debate for a number of areas where we intend to move the positions forward. It is an opening that has not been present with previous governments. I think that the Center Party should be pleased about this.

Regarding the IRGC, I am fully aware of what happened in the committee and what happened in this chamber during my parental leave. But I do not believe that Member Kerstin Lundgren is as well-versed as I am, who is nevertheless a foreign policy spokesperson, in what positions the Liberalerna have held as a party. I have followed the Liberalerna's political development for many years.

When it finally comes to the Ukraine fund, we do not exclude such things. I have not heard about this proposal before this debate. But it is very good with support for Ukraine.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I probably won't use my entire speaking time, as I have been awake since six o'clock and haven't eaten anything since I had breakfast. And I assume that Joar Forssell is also quite hungry.

Joar Forssell wanted me to ask a question about climate aid. But I actually did not intend to do that. I want instead to ask a question about the conflict that we have talked quite a bit about today, and that concerns, of course, the Middle East.

What do the Liberals want to be done with the settlers in the occupied areas? This concerns the existing settlements, the expansion of settlements, and so on. What is your position on the settlements?

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

Joar Forssell (L)

Mr. Speaker! We believe that all people should stay within the boundaries of what is right and wrong and what is both legally and morally right and wrong. We are against settlements on occupied land. We are strongly critical of all forms of settler violence. One must distance oneself from this, and there must be legal consequences for those who have committed this violence. I perceive that this is the position of the Liberals, Sveriges, and all other parties.

If I am to be a little honest and a little frank, within the framework of a peace negotiation and a two-state solution, one will need to sit down and look at all possible borders back and forth and see which land areas shall belong to whom and so on. It is no secret that reality looks like that. There are different ideas about what is right and wrong in these issues, and it must be possible to discuss them. It is possibly an answer to the long-term.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for the answer. It pleases me.

Then I would like to ask a follow-up question. Does it also mean that you would be prepared to potentially push for certain of the existing settlements to simply be dismantled just to avoid a future Palestine looking like a Swiss cheese?

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

Joar Forssell (L)

Mr. Speaker! As I said, we oppose, and have always opposed, settlements that have occurred on incorrect grounds and on grounds that are not compatible with the law. When one builds something, one must build it on one's own land. It is no stranger than that. In future peace talks and solutions, it is clear that there will be a lot of such discussions that one must address.

I do not intend to stand here and point out which house should be moved and so on. However, I and all intellectually honest people understand that there will be both people who are satisfied and people who are dissatisfied on both sides of a negotiated peace. It is not that strange. That is how it usually is when one has had many-year conflicts and is to agree on a solution forward.

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

Matilda Ernkrans (S)

Mr. Speaker! Europe is going to elections in a serious time marked by crisis and war. The war continues to burn on our continent, and conflicts around the world persist. We have soon passed the two-year anniversary of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and not far from the Swedish border, Ukraine fights every day for our common peace, freedom, and democracy. We see how international cyberattacks hit Sweden's municipalities, and we see how Russia's digital warfare is a constantly present threat.

It is important that Europe continues to show its support for Ukraine and for the fight they are fighting. I am pleased that the EU's member states have recently shown the strength that lies in being able to unite across national borders to continue supporting Ukraine for as long as is required. The most effective remedy against populism, extremism, and authoritarian leaders is solidarity.

Mr. Speaker! Transnational organized crime continues to infect the entire European body of society. We see how the drug and weapons trade feeds gangs across borders. Gangs are also firmly anchored in the white economy. Crime in the labor market is a major source of income for the gangs. The money intended for our common school, healthcare, and elderly care instead contributes to the gangs advancing their positions, recruiting more children, and committing more crimes.

Parallel to this, the terror threat against Sweden has increased, and we see how right-wing extremists, Islamists, and populists do everything in their power to scare us into doubt and threaten our way of life. To limit and combat cross-border crime and terror threats, politicians who can unite, not divide, are required. We Social Democrats believe that the time is now ripe to bring together countries' leaders and police authorities to crack down on the gangs. It is obvious that we need more cooperation between Europe's countries, not less.

Mr. Speaker! The climate crisis continues to make itself felt. To increase the pace of the climate transition, it is required that Europe's countries act together. For a sustainable Europe and Sweden for our children and grandchildren, for clean air and clean waterways and for reduced climate emissions, it is required that we gear up, not down. EU cooperation shall drive forward so that more countries take responsibility. More international cooperation is required, not less.

All around our continent and in our country, the economic crisis continues to make life difficult for many. We see how the healthcare crisis worsens and how the government does not do nearly enough to provide the resources required in both healthcare and school. Electricity and food prices make Swedes poorer with every passing day, and as in so many other crises, inequality continues to increase. The government's and SD's class politics mean that those who are hit hardest by the cost crisis are those who already have it worst.

We Social Democrats want to use the EU to get the Swedish economy back on its feet. We will stand up for the Swedish people's economic interests in the EU. More decisiveness is needed here, not less.

Mr. Speaker! Every day we see debate articles and statements where the Sweden Democrats spread their EU criticism. The message is one: Smash EU! The Sweden Democrats' ambition is clear – they want to dismantle and destroy the EU from within. Right-wing nationalism's goal has always been to destroy the EU cooperation. It has been a long time since it has appeared so clearly.

When we look out over Europe, we see right-wing nationalists and populists moving their positions forward every day. They are gaining ground and succeed in putting spokes in the wheels when the EU is to make big and important decisions. The message is clear: fewer decisions should be made, ambitions should be lower, and influence should be weaker. After the presidential election in the USA, we may also get a president who is called far-right and who takes a long step away from the common security order we have built up.

We Social Democrats will take the fight against the divisive forces that want to reduce cohesion and undermine international cooperation. We are ready to take the fight for the Swedish people.

Mr. Speaker! What is important for us Social Democrats here at home is also important for us in Brussels. To combat crime, increase security in Europe, stand up for the Swedish people's economic interests and accelerate the pace of the climate transition, more social democracy is needed in the EU.

The Swedish government and SD have instead embarked on a path where Sweden abdicates from using the EU as a platform to solve difficult societal problems. I want to assert the opposite: In a time when right-wing nationalist and populist forces want to deprioritize the climate transition and dismantle EU cooperation from within, a clear counterforce is required that advocates for a sound and effective EU cooperation based on fundamental democratic values.

We Social Democrats want to use EU cooperation to solve cross-border societal problems, because it is good for Sweden. In a time of crisis, it matters who is in power. We Social Democrats are convinced that we need to think more, not less, about Sweden's best interests in the EU. It is to take responsibility for Sweden and the EU.

(Applause)

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

Aron Emilsson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! It is sometimes fascinating to listen to the Social Democrats' representatives in this chamber. I do not know if Matilda Ernkrans has been under a stone for far too long or how one views the EU's development in recent years.

For the Sweden Democrats, our basic perspective is very clear: We put Swedish interests first. We can and shall do so within the EU cooperation, and we can and shall do so within the NATO cooperation. We can and shall do so also on many other levels.

What we are very clear about – and I want to ask the Social Democrats how they actually view that development within the EU – is that it is planned, and over the recent years, further transfer of even more areas of competence from the national parliaments to the European Parliament has been carried out. We have seen an increase in the EU fee and continued debt financing, and it is now planned for an introduction of EU taxes during the next mandate period. What is the Social Democrats' message to the Swedish people? Are they for or against this?

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

Matilda Ernkrans (S)

Mr. Speaker! We Social Democrats have, throughout all the years that Sweden has been a member, fought for an EU cooperation where we take responsibility for what also works in Sweden. So, Emilsson can be at ease there. Darkness is usually found under stones, so where the darkness is located in Swedish EU policy, the Sweden Democrats will have to account for.

The question one nevertheless must ask you in the Sweden Democrats, Aron Emilsson, is: You explicitly advocate for almost exactly the same policy that we can see your friends in Hungary represent. Do you think it has been successful for Hungary, for the EU, and for the support for Ukrainian soldiers in the trenches? Do the Sweden Democrats think that way of cooperating within the EU – that one sits on their side, folds their arms, leaves the negotiating table, and lets the EU's member states call together for a new expensive EU summit just to reach an agreement – is successful? Do the Sweden Democrats think so?

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

Aron Emilsson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! No, that is not the short answer to Matilda Ernkrans's concrete question. It is the opposite; just as I pointed out in a previous exchange, the Sverigedemokraterna were pushing for support for Ukraine even before the full-scale invasion.

However, the Social Democrats hesitated, referring to the fact that it was not possible according to the regulations. We have later been able to see that it was not only possible but also entirely reasonable to support with all available means. The Sweden Democrats have therefore, for a long time, been forward-looking when it comes to Ukraine and in showing solidarity economically, humanitarily, financially and politically.

What we want to do is to ensure that Swedish interests are safeguarded in the European Union. We need to be a credible conversation partner both within the EU and towards the United Kingdom, which has left the EU cooperation. We need to review the conditions for introducing a referendum lock on the major issues – those that concern transferring even more enormous areas of decision-making competence from the national parliaments. We have a great deal of legislation even at the regional and local level that is a consequence of EU decisions. This shall be placed under the consideration of the Swedish people.

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

Matilda Ernkrans (S)

Mr. Speaker! Now you in the Sweden Democrats must finally say it as it is, Aron Emilsson, namely that you want to leave the European cooperation. That is, in fact, the effect of what you are proposing.

There is a country in Europe that acts exactly as the Sweden Democrats want to do, that is, threatens to leave the EU cooperation, makes awkward demands on others and forces all EU countries to organize an extra, expensive EU summit in order to be able to reach an agreement. There is a country that acts that way, and it is your source of inspiration. If every single country in the EU were to act in the same way, we would no longer have any EU cooperation.

It is not about taking responsibility for Swedish interests, it is about tearing apart the EU cooperation from within. It does not benefit Swedish wage earners - ordinary Swedish people. On the contrary, the EU is an important arena for creating jobs and driving our prosperity forward. We do that best at the negotiating table, by being clearly critical of what is bad and extracting what is good.

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

Markus Wiechel (SD)

Mr. Speaker! As has been mentioned previously in the speaker's chair, we are now in a very alarming security policy situation. The fact is that it is the most serious situation since the Cold War. Suddenly we see that within just a few years there could be a risk of war even in our Sweden. This makes our foreign policy positions today more important than in a very long time.

Russia today is not only an unpredictable country. Its dictator also shows that one is completely irrational and is willing to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of Russian lives and much more solely for Putin's fanatical desire to expand Russia's territory. That Sweden, together with like-minded countries, therefore supports our Ukrainian sisters and brothers is not only a self-evident matter but also a duty so that we together within the free world can stand up against the evil states' aggression.

Mr. Speaker! It is truly so today - it stands today to a greater extent than ever between good and evil, and the front line in this battle is in Ukraine. Russia cooperates with other rogue states, such as North Korea, Iran, Belarus, Nicaragua, Venezuela and Cuba, to name a few examples. All of these have in common that they carry out extensive oppression against their own, in some cases extremely subjugated, population, and in many cases they also show clear imperialist ambitions. They support everything from other states' aggressions against free peaceful countries to pure terrorism.

Sweden is an established part of the free world and, hopefully, very soon also a part of the free world's defense organization Nato. As a part of the free world, we shall do our utmost to support, to the greatest extent possible, the freedom fighters we see in the totalitarian states. The democracy movements in Iran, Cuba, Belarus and so on are in many cases extensive, but they are in great need of support, and not just economically, from state actors. It is because only state actors can exert pressure in the form of embargos, sanctions and legal measures in the event of abuses. Here, Sweden should stand in the leading position.

Mr. Speaker! Another authoritarian state with clear global ambitions that we must not forget is China, which is also approaching the Russian circle with great strides. Their recurring threats against democratic Taiwan are completely unacceptable. As I have mentioned countless times before in this rostrum and in other places, China's inflammatory rhetoric and threats should be met with more cooperation with precisely Taiwan. And not just Taiwan – we should intensify cooperation with all full-fledged democratic states in the region – Japan, South Korea, New Zealand and Australia – to demonstrate the strength within democracies but also so that we can manage to withstand the negative democratic development in the world.

In addition, we must expand cooperation with India, the world's most populous country, and of course with Mongolia, the world's most sparsely populated country. Both have shown a positive democratic development but are partially dependent on authoritarian neighbors.

Mr. Speaker! Now I intended to move on to another country that has in the highest degree participated in the free world's struggle against evil, namely Poland. The Polish population knows unequivocally the meaning of resisting the form of oppression that follows the Russian military power, with historical memories from both the indescribable cruelty of Nazism and Soviet communism.

Poland has contributed by receiving a very large number of Ukrainian refugees, but Poland has also sent enormous amounts of war materiel and humanitarian aid to Ukraine as well as constituted a clear diplomatic counterweight against Russia, despite its geographically very vulnerable situation. I therefore see that it is our duty as elected representatives to stand up for the Polish population when we see how their freedoms are threatened.

Since the latest change of power in Poland, we have been able to witness a number of violations of the rule of law principle, including the arrests of members of parliament in defiance of court decisions. In addition, we see government-sanctioned attacks against public media. The newly appointed government sent police straight into the headquarters of the largest state-owned TV company to then shut down websites, YouTube accounts, and ongoing live stream broadcasts for two public service channels. More and more it now appears that Donald Tusk is doing his utmost to eliminate critical media by using government power. They are using, among other things, laws to stop public broadcasts.

Mr. Speaker! Respect for the rule of law is the cornerstone of a democratic society. Given the tones we have heard earlier regarding Poland from this chamber, it is therefore very strange that so few are saying anything now.

Mr. Speaker! I had intended to speak much more. But I see that the time has run out, so I must thank you for my time.

(Applause)

In this speech, Rasmus Giertz (SD) agreed.

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Mr. Speaker! I requested the floor to raise an issue that has not been mentioned at all today, namely Morocco's illegal occupation of Western Sahara. Markus Wiechel said earlier that he stands up for freedom fighters and people's right to self-determination all over the world, but I heard nothing about Western Sahara specifically.

The Sweden Democrats stood behind a decision in 2012, which we received a majority for here in the Riksdag, to recognize the Western Sahara state. It was a good position. But unfortunately, neither the Social Democratic nor the bourgeois government has followed the Riksdag's decision. I wonder: How are the Sweden Democrats and Markus Wiechel working to ensure that this position becomes a reality?

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

Markus Wiechel (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Lotta Johnsson Fornarve for the question. It is always pleasant when one receives praise in some way, in this case from Vänsterpartiet, for something that the Sverigedemokraterna have done well.

But the question is quite complicated. It is not entirely simple to solve given the circumstances prevailing in the region. We have seen problems in Morocco and in particular Western Sahara with various terrorist groups acting in different ways. Against that background, I would say it is important that one now takes a cautious line and does nothing hastily. It is not as simple as one might sometimes think in this matter. I do not believe that we can solve the question in a parliamentary debate here in Sweden.

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Markus Wiechel for the answer.

I think it is very simple. Morocco has no right whatsoever to the territory of Western Sahara. Morocco has illegally occupied Western Sahara for almost 50 years against the UN's will and in conflict with what the International Court of Justice in The Hague has stated. It is crystal clear that Morocco has no right whatsoever to Western Sahara.

Recognizing the Western Saharan state would be extremely significant for advancing the positions of the Western Saharawis and helping them in their work for independence. Here it seems that Markus Wiechel and the Sweden Democrats are failing. I am becoming worried - are you now going to betray the Western Saharan people?

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

Markus Wiechel (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Polisario has had a very extensive lobbying activity in Sweden. It has also been successful, one might say. The image has been created that it is as Lotta Johnsson Fornarve has said: that it is a pure occupation. I do not believe it is that simple. On the contrary, I would like to assert that the realities on the ground on site are being forgotten. I would gladly go there myself to see and learn more and talk to the people in Western Sahara. But the fact is that what we see suggests much more that it is actors from outside, for example from Algeria, who influence the currents that are spread through Polisario.

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

Matilda Ernkrans (S)

Mr. Speaker! Since Aron Emilsson did not seem to have read Åkesson's latest debate article, I am testing again with a new Sweden Democrat. "Everyone who has negotiated knows that one must be ready to leave the negotiating table to get the desired result. . It signals that Sweden . has the readiness to leave," it says verbatim in the latest Åkesson statement on the Sweden Democrats' EU policy.

The question is: Who profits from this? This is Hungary's EU policy, and it inspires Sweden Democrats and right-wing nationalists throughout the EU. It benefits neither Swedish nor Hungarian taxpayers, and least of all Ukrainian soldiers. There are actually only losers with this type of EU policy.

Is it not time for the Sweden Democrats to say it as it is? You want and are pushing forward that one should leave the EU cooperation. Who benefits from that?

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

Markus Wiechel (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I do not know if it can be any clearer. We in the Sweden Democrats have been very clear about what our EU policy entails. We primarily serve Swedish interests in all contexts, including within the EU.

It is not a matter of us wanting to leave the union today. On the other hand, it is a matter of us seeing a need for reform work within the European Union so that we can get more power for Sweden and not less, as the Social Democrats have repeatedly worked for.

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

Matilda Ernkrans (S)

Madam Speaker! It is really not clear from the Sweden Democrats.

Not everything is really perfect within the EU cooperation. But we Social Democrats are convinced that we need to think more, not less, about Sweden's best interests in the EU. It is to take responsibility for Sweden and for the EU.

Not least, it concerns using EU cooperation as the political arena it is. It concerns our own security, not least just now when we have war and crisis. How do we become better protected against Putin? How do we better protect Ukrainian soldiers in the trenches?

How do we better protect Swedish taxpayers and our common money by being the force that aligns us with Orbán and says that we should leave EU cooperation when we have war on our continent? How does that better serve Swedish interests?

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

Markus Wiechel (SD)

Madam Speaker! I think that Matilda Ernkrans, if anyone, should be very careful when she speaks about support for Ukraine.

No other party in Sweden's Riksdag was as clear as the Sweden Democrats in wishing for military support to Ukraine. We have for a long time had the policy that is most anti-Putin in this chamber. We have clearly warned against Russia's aggression, which subsequently also unfortunately became a reality.

The Social Democrats, on the other hand, did not want to send weapons initially, just as Aron Emilsson mentioned in an exchange of remarks earlier. They claimed that it was not even possible, which was wrong. It was possible and perfectly reasonable, which Aron Emilsson also deservedly explained.

I think that Matilda Ernkrans should be very careful when she speaks about being pro-Ukrainian. If there is any party in this chamber that is pro-Ukrainian and always has been, it is the Sweden Democrats.

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

Magdalena Thuresson (M)

Madam Speaker! There is undeniably much to address in a foreign policy debate on February 14, 2024.

The process of becoming a member of Nato, which began in the spring of 2022, is heading towards its goal. Sweden will soon be a member of Nato. Only one member country's final ratification remains. This means that we can soon begin the next part, to build a defense together with our allies. Sweden no longer stands alone.

In December, the government presented the new reform agenda which points out the direction for the Swedish, very extensive, aid in the coming years. The situation in the Red Sea is intensifying and could have extensive consequences. The protests in Iran are no longer at the top of the agenda, but the brave people in Iran continue to need the world's support.

In less than 100 days, the voters can go to the polling stations and vote in the European Parliament election. This autumn there is a presidential election in the USA, an election that will also affect us.

Madam Speaker! I have only six minutes at my disposal. I will therefore limit myself to two things, the long-term support for Ukraine and the humanitarian situation in Gaza.

Russia has for a long time challenged and threatened the European security order. Many have warned, but most did not want to acknowledge the seriousness of Russia's actions. Less than two years ago, no one could turn a blind eye any longer.

What we thought could not happen happened. It was a full-scale invasion of an independent, peaceful and democratic country in Europe - war. Despite many saying before the invasion that the price of an invasion would be too high for Putin, that is how it became.

The political leadership in Russia acts lawlessly and does not hesitate to use military violence and violence against civilians to achieve its political goals.

Madam Speaker! It is uncomfortable to think about the war. It is not far away, and it is brutal. Russia's attacks against civilians evoke disgust. The thought of the kidnapped and abducted Ukrainian children leaves no one untouched. Ukraine must not only win this war. The world must also hold Russia accountable for its crimes.

Sweden has so far supported Ukraine with support equivalent to 30 billion kronor. It is extensive support. But we must be prepared to support Ukraine for a very long time, and it will cost a lot of money.

But the price of not supporting Ukraine is much higher, Madam Speaker. What would it mean for Swedish security and security in our immediate vicinity if Russia's illegal and unprovoked war pays off?

It would be catastrophic, because it would send a signal to Russia that it can achieve its goals by totally ignoring all international agreements that we have agreed upon since the Second World War.

Russia wants to change the international legal order and is furthermore a nuclear power. The rest of the world must show Russia that military violence cannot move land borders.

It is therefore completely crucial for security in Sweden, in our part of the world, yes for the whole world, that Ukraine wins the war against Russia. Because for that, the world's support will be crucial.

Most observers predict that the war will continue for a long time, and that Russia is waiting for the West to become war-weary, for support for Ukraine to diminish, and for other conflicts to take our focus and our energy. We must be crystal clear that this will not happen.

I am grateful that the Prime Minister in the government statement, and now today also the Foreign Minister in the foreign policy declaration, has so clearly expressed that we will support Ukraine for as long as it is required.

I am also grateful to note that this stance is shared by all parties in the Swedish Riksdag. But, Madam Speaker, these are words that commit us. We all have a responsibility to keep the issue of support for Ukraine at the top of the agenda even when other things call for our attention. We will not lose focus on Ukraine.

Madam Speaker! I will now move on to say a few words about the humanitarian situation in Gaza. It can be described in no other way than as appalling. Sweden as a country is not, and shall not be, passive when so many civilians and not least children are suffering.

Israel has the right to defend itself against Hamas. But the warfare must take place in such a way that civilians are protected. It is a very difficult task in an area as densely populated as Gaza, but it is not something that one can refrain from because it is difficult.

Hamas should be urged to surrender immediately to end the war. Hostages must be released immediately and unconditionally. It is impossible to watch reports from Gaza without being deeply affected, and we must contribute to prevent death and alleviate suffering.

More humanitarian aid must enter Gaza so that the suffering of the civilians can be alleviated. For this to be possible, a humanitarian ceasefire is required. Sweden and the EU need to put pressure on Israel to open more routes for humanitarian aid into Gaza.

In the long term, there is only one way forward for a sustainable peace, a negotiated two-state solution between Israel and Palestine. It will not be a simple process, but it is the only way forward.

Madam Speaker! It is a nearly impossible task to touch upon these two subjects during such a short speaking time. There is significantly more I would have liked to say, but due to the speaking time, I must stop here.

(Applause)

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Magdalena Thuresson, for the speech! According to the UN, more children have been killed in Gaza than in all other conflict zones on earth in the last year. Four months of bombings have resulted in thousands of injured and killed children. Almost 1 million children have been forcibly displaced and now live in cramped, overcrowded areas without sufficient access to water, food, and shelter. The children suffer from serious injuries and are severely traumatized.

The Convention on the Rights of the Child is law in Sweden, and it means that we are obliged to protect children both in the country and internationally. Stopping the aid to the UN organization UNRWA is not protecting the children in Gaza. UNRWA is the organization that ensures that the aid reaches the ground. I consider it deeply irresponsible to stop the aid to UNRWA and thereby risk the lives of thousands of children, and naturally other people, in Gaza.

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

Magdalena Thuresson (M)

Madam Speaker! I did not quite perceive any question, but I shall comment on what Lotta Johnsson Fornarve says and remind of what the Foreign Minister said earlier in the debate: The aid is not frozen and stopped for all time, but it is paused until an investigation is complete. When this investigation is then on the table, we can take a position on how we proceed.

We have a responsibility to act. But our loyalty is not with a single organization, rather our responsibility is to ensure that the aid reaches its destination. Therefore, we have also increased support to other organizations while waiting for the investigation to be completed. The important thing is that more humanitarian aid comes in. There are other actors. Sweden shall support them until we have an investigation to take a position on and can see how we proceed thereafter.

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the answer, but to stop or pause the aid to UNRWA in this situation means that one risks the lives of thousands of children in Gaza right now.

It is UNRWA that has the muscle. They are the ones who have the infrastructure, and they are the ones who have the capabilities to reach out. This is also said by all the other large aid actors inside Gaza, who state that they are dependent on UNRWA to deliver their aid.

Stopping the support therefore really means taking a great risk, and the lives of many people are at risk. It is 2.2 million people who are facing a famine catastrophe. The support is needed here and now - we cannot wait! This is all too important.

There are several countries that have not stopped their support to UNRWA in the way that Sweden has. Why is Sweden so harsh when it comes to this?

(Applause)

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

Magdalena Thuresson (M)

Madam Speaker! There is no conflict when it comes to how incredibly necessary and important it is that emergency aid reaches the extremely hard-hit civilian population in Gaza.

However, there are more countries than Sweden that have made decisions to pause their payments to UNRWA until an investigation is complete. I also want to emphasize that this is a decision made by the agency. These are standard procedures. When suspicion of corruption or, in this case, something as serious as the occurrence of terrorism arises, it is routine for the agency to pause payments, receive investigations, and then see how to proceed.

Emergency aid to Gaza must increase. That is why we have allocated more money to other organizations. As I mentioned in my speech, we need to put pressure on Israel to open more routes for humanitarian aid inside Gaza. A ceasefire is also needed for humanitarian reasons so that we can prevent death and alleviate distress. It is extremely important.

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

Matilda Ernkrans (S)

Madam Speaker! When the world's second-largest democracy is soon going to an election, I think it deserves an EU-political debate during the foreign policy debate. But when the EU Minister is not here, the Moderaterna, the party she belongs to, receive my questions.

Swedish EU policy has for decades been agreed upon across party lines and across block lines. It has been a strength in Swedish EU policy that when one, as a minister, travels to Brussels to negotiate on behalf of Sweden, has known that one has broad support across party lines and block lines in Sweden's Riksdag behind them.

We Social Democrats have several times extended our hand to the government to say that we are here if the government wants to continue this good tradition. But it has been a cold reception. Instead, the government makes deals in dark rooms at the Government Offices with the Sweden Democrats' men.

How do the Moderates mean that this is what will be best for Sweden?

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

Magdalena Thuresson (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the question! I do not share the picture that has been presented. The Government wants increased engagement in the EU, as has been stated in the foreign policy declaration today.

The EU is Sweden's most important foreign policy platform. From the government's side, it has been clear that if we are to strengthen the Swedish voice and Swedish influence in the EU, which is extremely important, it is also important to enter processes early and to be engaged. It is this government, and it intends to continue to be.

The government has a very forward-leaning position in the EU cooperation and wants to increase Swedish engagement in these issues. It is important to enter processes early. It is of course good to have large and broad agreements, and I find it difficult to see that Jessika Roswall would refuse to have talks with the Social Democrats. One has talks with all parties and anchors the government's position in the EU Committee, just as is customary.

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

Matilda Ernkrans (S)

Madam Speaker! This is not a picture that one cannot share, but these are facts. The Swedish government is turning a cold shoulder and refuses to reach out to the Social Democrats and make broad agreements across block boundaries when it comes to Swedish EU policy. I think that is bad. It is bad for Sweden, and it is not taking responsibility for Sweden's best interests.

It is a special dance, this new Swedish EU policy with the government consisting of three parties but which is the weakest minority government we have ever had in Sweden. One party, namely the Socialdemokraterna, is alone larger than the minority government. It is, therefore, a special dance.

There is a boss, who is not Kristersson. As long as the Moderates, Christian Democrats and Liberals do as the boss says or do not threaten the boss, they are allowed to run around a bit freely. But as soon as there is something that the boss is not satisfied with, he pulls the leash or gives a command, and then the government falls into line. It is a very special dance that is taking place now.

I believe this dance is bad for Sweden. It would have been better if the government had taken the extended hand from the Social Democrats and made a broad agreement on Swedish EU policy.

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

Magdalena Thuresson (M)

Madam Speaker! It is to serve Sweden's interests in the EU to have a forward-leaning position and enter processes early. That is how one can truly exert influence. Processes in the EU take a very long time, and if one enters towards the end, the opportunities to influence are significantly more limited than if one has a forward-leaning position, is involved from the beginning, and lets Sweden have a clear voice.

It is also a priority for the government to increase the number of Swedes in the EU institutions. It is also an important way to make Sweden's voice stronger and to increase our influence in the EU cooperation.

It is simply a matter of ensuring that Sweden's voice is heard from the beginning and that Sweden has a position early in the processes so that we can influence for Sweden's best interests. It is an EU policy that takes Sweden's best interests into account.

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Madam Speaker! The world is less secure now than it has been for several decades. For the government, it seems to be enough to join Nato and to arm the Swedish defense.

We do not believe that it is enough. We believe that Sweden must also continue to work for a peaceful and secure world order. It is an important reason to invest in Swedish aid, which since our time in government has been world-class.

Effective hunger and poverty reduction as well as support for democracy movements and for those who stand up for human rights and equality are some of the most important actions we can take to avoid new wars, hunger, and refugee catastrophes.

We also see that Ukraine must win the war against Russia, and it is good that Sweden, together with the rest of the EU, does not waver in its support and that Sweden is a strong voice. But it does not need to occur at the expense of development cooperation in the rest of the world.

I would therefore like to ask: Why do the Moderates not see that continued strong development cooperation with the rest of the world is also important for Swedish security?

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

Magdalena Thuresson (M)

Madam Speaker! Equipping the defense and joining Nato is about making Sweden safer. In the speech by Janine Alm's party colleague Jacob Risberg, he said that he wished he could say, freely from memory: Beloved children, there was never a war. It is precisely so that parents can say that to their children that we do all of this—equip the defense and join Nato. It is so that there will not be a war. It is a very important aspect to include in the debate.

Regarding development aid, the government has established that it is one of the most important foreign policy tools for ensuring Swedish interests, peace and security. Development aid is a very important foreign policy tool.

Sweden still has a huge amount of aid, and we must focus and analyze it better than what has been done previously, for example for more security.

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the answer.

My question was about why Nato and the buildup is what the Moderates most often bring up in the debate as that which should make us safer. Why do the Moderates not instead bring up, for example, peace work or support for civil society that works with poverty reduction and democracy development? Why is it no longer seen that strengthening weak societies around the world is also a priority for increased Swedish security?

NATO and rearmament in all its glory, but one still cuts back on aid. One cuts back on peace work. One cuts back on that which would make the world safer in a larger perspective. That was what my question was about.

I'll take it again: How is it that the Moderaterna do not see this?

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

Magdalena Thuresson (M)

Madam Speaker! What Janine Alm Ericson says is simply not true. It is clearly stated in the government's budget for expenditure area 7 that this is one of the most important foreign policy tools. It is also not true that aid is decreasing. What the government has done is changed the budgeting principle for aid. We no longer stand behind that it should be linked to a certain percentage of bni every year, but instead have a framework.

If one looks at how much money Sweden spends on aid during the three years during which we agreed on this framework, 56 billion annually, and how much money Sweden spent on aid during the three years before, one can see that the aid is increasing.

These are important issues, Janine. This is one of the most important foreign policy tools, according to the government, and the aid is actually increasing in the coming years. However, we no longer stand behind the principle that aid should increase automatically year after year linked to the share of GNI. Instead, we have this new model with a framework.

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Madam Speaker! In our immediate vicinity, the war in Ukraine is raging, and the civilian population has been hit hard. Of course, we must continue to assist the Ukrainian people in all ways – politically, humanitarily, and militarily. But we must not turn a blind eye to the conflicts occurring in other parts of the world. I am primarily thinking of the war raging in Gaza.

Of course, we condemn Hamas's bloody attack on Israeli civilians on October 7, but that does not justify Israel now punishing the entire Palestinian population in Gaza in what increasingly resembles a massacre. After four months of bombings, thousands have been injured and killed, half of whom are children. The majority of the population has been forcibly displaced and now lives in cramped, overcrowded areas without sufficient access to water, food, and medicine. 2.2 million people face a famine catastrophe.

To stop the aid to UNRWA in this situation is deeply irresponsible. UNRWA is the organization that ensures the aid reaches out. There is no organization that can take over UNRWA's work. This is confirmed by the organizations themselves. It is also confirmed by Josep Borrell, the EU's high representative. Do it again and do it right! Resume and strengthen the aid to UNRWA and Palestine! But most importantly: Act with force for a swift permanent ceasefire!

That the government and the Sweden Democrats have already previously abandoned the one percent goal and reduced aid at a time when extreme poverty is increasing and the needs are greatest is a blow to the people who are struggling the most. Vänsterpartiet stands up for the world's poor and still allocates 1 percent of GNI to aid.

In the reform agenda, aid is linked to a greater extent to promoting trade, investments, and Swedish companies' interests. If trade policy can be used to lift people out of poverty, that is of course welcome. However, the needs are greatest in poor or conflict-affected countries where the business opportunities for companies are small. Aid should not stem from Swedish business interests but from poverty reduction and the recipient's needs.

It is deeply concerning that aid is being reduced or completely withdrawn to some of the poorest and most vulnerable people in the world in countries such as Cambodia, Mali, South Sudan, and Burkina Faso. Particularly serious is that the well-functioning democracy support to Cambodia is being withdrawn.

In Afghanistan, two-thirds of all children are dependent on emergency aid to survive. More and more children are forced to work instead of going to school, and girls are particularly hard hit. In this situation, the government chooses to significantly cut aid to Afghanistan. It is serious. This is done even though there are organizations on the ground that can make a difference and, for example, contribute to providing girls with a safe education, such as Rädda Barnen, Svenska Afghanistankommittén and Unicef.

The government has promised an expansion of climate aid, but it is unclear how it will be implemented and who will receive the aid. Sweden can demonstrate international leadership for a just global transition by leading nationally, by elevating the climate to a foreign policy priority, and by increasing environmental and climate aid to the most vulnerable countries and groups.

Equality is a key factor for development. Unfortunately, oppression against girls and women as well as hbtqi persons is increasing globally. Many girls did not return to school after the pandemic. Violence, child marriage and teenage pregnancies are increasing. Education and healthcare but also access to sanitation and clean water are important equality issues, as is having an intersectional perspective. UN reports warn that we are far from reaching the global goals for equality.

In this situation, the equality agenda must permeate all parts of foreign policy. It is therefore serious that the feminist foreign policy has been scrapped and that the support for UN Women has been halved. Vänsterpartiet considers that half of the aid should go to girls and women and that 10 percent should be earmarked for SRHR, sexual and reproductive health and rights.

In Iran, the oppression has increased after the nationwide protests that broke out following the murder of the Kurdish woman Jina Mahsa Amini. Thousands of dissidents have been arrested. Nowhere else in the world were so many executed during the past year as in Iran, over 700.

Sweden must continue to stand up for the women's and democracy activists in Iran. Sweden must act with force to terror-label the Revolutionary Guard. Sweden must also do everything so that Nobel Prize winner Narges Mohammadi and other political prisoners are released, including the imprisoned Swedes Ahmadreza Djalali and Johan Floderus.

For 49 years, Morocco's illegal occupation of Western Sahara has been allowed to continue, an occupation that violates international law, the will of the UN, and the International Court of Justice in The Hague. In connection with Morocco's war of aggression, a large part of the Western Saharawis were forced to flee to refugee camps in the Sahara Desert, where they still live under very difficult conditions. 90 percent suffer from food shortages and one in ten children suffers from acute malnutrition. The need for assistance is acute. The Western Saharawis who remain in the country are subjected to constant harassment and persecution.

The situation has worsened after the ceasefire was broken by Morocco in November 2020. This ceasefire was concluded in 1990 after the parties, namely Polisario and Morocco, agreed to hold a referendum on the country's independence - a referendum that has not yet taken place due to Morocco's sabotage. The international community has failed in its mission, and Morocco's occupation and looting of the country's raw materials can continue.

It is high time that the UN and the EU begin to demand that Morocco accept the referendum and that the EU listens to its own court and stops entering into agreements that include the occupied Western Sahara and in that way legitimize the occupation. Sweden must act so that the UN envoy de Mistura is given the opportunity to carry out his mandate without hindrance to guarantee Western Sahara's right to independence and freedom. Sweden can also contribute to a solution by recognizing the Western Saharan state in accordance with the Riksdag's decision from 2012.

(Applause)

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

Katarina Tolgfors (M)

Madam Speaker! I shall begin with something positive. I shall give Member Johnsson Fornarve a piece of information. In the document that I am now showing to the members of the Chamber, the government's aid agenda is summarized. Here, there is a separate chapter on the climate aid that the government is investing in, but also a separate chapter on the investments made through aid that are directed towards girls and women in the world. It is reading that you, Lotta Johnsson Fornarve, can devote yourself to in the evening. You shall receive this from me.

Madam Speaker! There is something that worries me. The terrible situation in Gaza is rooted in Hamas's barbaric attack against Israeli civilians on October 7. Israel, as an internationally recognized state, has the right to defend itself and strike back. But as the Foreign Minister also mentioned in the foreign policy declaration, Sweden and the government also see the terrible humanitarian situation prevailing in Gaza.

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Madam Speaker! I did not quite perceive any question. But when it comes to the situation in Gaza, the most important thing right now is that we work for a permanent ceasefire, so that the killing of Palestinian civilians can come to an end.

It is obvious that Israel has not taken sufficient regard for the civilian population. We also saw this in the preliminary ruling from the International Court of Justice, which required that everything be done to protect civilians. That has not been done. In that case, no fewer than 30,000 people would have been killed, half of whom are children. There is an incredible amount to be done here.

We must also ensure that support reaches the severely vulnerable population. We cannot stop the aid to UNRWA. It is impossible. It is UNRWA that has the muscles required to ensure that the aid reaches out.

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

Katarina Tolgfors (M)

Madam Speaker! It scares me that Hamas's responsibility and the horrific massacre carried out against Israeli civilians are in no way mentioned in the Left Party's rhetoric and posts regarding the situation in Gaza. I would like to hear a condemnation from the Left Party here today regarding Hamas, that one clearly marks against the terrorists' attacks.

The government is, as mentioned here earlier, for a line that implies that one should gradually be able to find a way to a two-state solution. But then Hamas, as a terrorist organization, must disappear, be annihilated.

It scares me that the debate that the left side is advocating for is one-sided and narrow-minded. Only one side is seen. I miss the nuances. It is truly uncomfortable.

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Madam Speaker! I read from my speech: "Of course, we condemn Hamas's bloody attacks on Israeli civilians on October 7." That is what I said in my speech. That is what we stand for, and we have done so from day one. It is important to do so. We also naturally demand that the hostages be released.

But continuing the bombings in Gaza only leads to the situation worsening even more. The only thing that happens is that more and more Palestinian civilians are killed. One escalates the conflict.

What is needed is a permanent ceasefire to end the killing and to gradually find a long-term solution to this long conflict. It is not war that solves the situation.

(Applause)

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

Anna Lasses (C)

Madam Speaker! Faith, hope and love - these are three fundamental things that we humans need in order to be able to live. Today is February 14th, and we celebrate the day of love. Consideration for our fellow human beings is something that contributes to cohesion and understanding. Hope gives the strength to change. And faith is to have a goal in life. We believe that the work we put in every day leads to a better life for us and for our children.

It is about this aid. It is about awakening the power for change that exists within every human being, the power to build a secure existence for oneself and one's family, the power to lift people out of poverty and the power to stand up against oppression and for freedom.

The government speaks of efficiency, priorities, and transparency. One speaks of focusing on countries where there is a good will for cooperation and where democracy and the rule of law are already well on their way to developing. The efforts shall be efficient, short, and result-oriented. They shall give the most bang for the buck.

Absolutely! That will certainly have a local effect in the short term. But are those really the right priorities? Or should one now introduce precisely faith, hope and the power to change as metrics for the effectiveness of aid?

It is good that we focus our money, and it is good to highlight trade and entrepreneurship as ways to get more for the money we invest. But to leave people living under oppression or in conflict zones with reference to that it is wasted money that risks ending up in the wrong hands is dangerous, short-sighted and cowardly as the world looks today.

It is dangerous because it leaves the field open for anti-democratic forces to exploit the situation and grow stronger. It is short-sighted because it risks increasing the divisions and conflicts around the world. And it is cowardly because we more and more often hear the excuse: We are only doing what everyone else is doing.

Sweden should instead take the lead and say: Okay, we see that it will be difficult and take a long time, but building democracy and security for people is the most important thing we can do in the world we live in right now.

We must safeguard long-term development support to the most vulnerable places in the form of democracy support and in the form of support for education for girls and women, for female entrepreneurship and for hbtqi persons' rights. Then they can get the tools to create influence and a secure livelihood without being referred to dependency and oppression. It builds hope and power in people, which is truly effective.

Climate is a matter of destiny. Even though the serious climate situation is conspicuously absent from the foreign policy declaration, there is talk of investments in climate aid in the reform agenda. But it is unclear how. And we have not quite been able to see some investments in Sida's climate fund.

In the reform agenda, there is a lot of focus on trade and on countries with large emissions. The government refers to new climate-smart technology and Swedish companies' opportunities. That is good. But what happens with climate adaptation in the most vulnerable countries? And what happens with efforts for biodiversity? Even less is said about that.

Even though we agree with several of the government's starting points, we do so with a slightly different approach. Where we in the Center Party start from DAC and Agenda 2030 and say that work is crucial for lifting people out of poverty, the government focuses on Swedish trade and Swedish interests. Where the Center Party believes that trade and innovation, when used correctly, are effective tools in the work to achieve sustainability, the government seems to believe that trade and innovation automatically lead to sustainability. And where the Center Party sees Swedish civil society as an important part of Swedish aid, the government is currently doing everything to make it more difficult for the important commitment that exists.

I want to mention Gaza briefly. Let us for a second look beyond the causes of the war and see the people. Aid to Palestine must get through. A humanitarian ceasefire must occur immediately, and the freezing of development aid must cease.

Sweden must push forward. If there is anywhere where we need to send faith, hope, and love and say "We see you," it is to the children and parents in Gaza and to those in Israel who have their loved ones held hostage.

(Applause)

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

Magdalena Thuresson (M)

Madam Speaker! Aid shall improve the living conditions for people living in poverty and oppression. That is the goal of the expenditure area; if we are in agreement. But Sweden does not give aid to all the world's countries and not to all organizations. We choose partners and must prioritize in our aid.

The government has, among other things, said that we need to review aid and how it is channeled to countries that, for example, refuse to accept their own citizens who have been deported from Sweden. The Centre Party has historically opposed this. My question is how it is that the Centre Party cannot even imagine considering the possibility of using aid as a foreign policy tool, for example linked to returns and migration.

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

Anna Lasses (C)

Madam Speaker! It is actually quite simple. Just as Magdalena Thuresson says, aid is an incredibly important instrument for foreign policy, but we believe that the focus should be in the recipient country. It is also in accordance with the rules established by DAC. That is where the resources should be deployed, and that is also how you build resilience and ensure that people do not need to flee.

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

Magdalena Thuresson (M)

Madam Speaker! I can state that there is no conflict regarding the goal of the expenditure area for aid, but there is a conflict regarding Swedish migration policy. I can also state that if one is not even prepared to examine this possibility, one probably does not quite see the major problems that Sweden has and has had with returns.

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

Anna Lasses (C)

Madam Speaker! We believe that it is precisely the link between migration policy and aid policy that is incorrect. We believe that there are other ways to work with migration policy. One should not mix these two. Otherwise, I agree with the description.

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

Yusuf Aydin (KD)

Madam Speaker! The government's foreign policy declaration focuses heavily on the uncertain global situation and the important support for Ukraine. That is right and correct. Sweden shall continue its strong support for Ukraine as long as it is needed.

We strongly condemn Hamas' despicable attack against Israel and its civilian population on October 7 and stand behind Israel's right to defend itself. At the same time, Israel needs to do more to protect civilians, and the humanitarian situation in Gaza is appalling and urgent. Therefore, a humanitarian ceasefire is needed, and more aid needs to reach the affected civilians.

My colleague Magnus Berntsson has in a good way accounted for important parts of our foreign policy. Another colleague, Gudrun Brunegård, will account for the aid part. In my speech, I will focus more on another area that we Christian Democrats have for a long time worked with, both in this chamber and within the EU, namely religious freedom and the persecution of religious minorities.

Freedom of religion and belief is a fundamental human right. However, the violations of freedom of religion are significant in an international context. In many countries, a negative development has been seen in recent years. Approximately three-quarters of the world's population live in countries where freedom of religion and belief is heavily restricted by states or different groups in society. It prevents people from living in freedom, counteracts the development of equal, peaceful and democratic societies and often also contributes to life in poverty and vulnerability.

Madam Speaker! The persecution of Christians is particularly extensive and has increased significantly in recent years. The international human rights organization Open Doors publishes a list every year of the 50 countries where persecution is greatest. On January 17, the list for 2024 was released, and it shows that the persecution has worsened. The situation has deteriorated and is assessed to be quite extreme or serious in many countries. The list is topped by North Korea, Somalia, and Libya. One in seven Christians on our earth, a total of 365 million Christians, is subjected to persecution because of their faith. This means that Christians are the largest persecuted religious group in the world. The figure was 100 million in 2014. It is a very negative development in just ten years.

The expansion of many aggressive Islamist extremist groups in countries south of the Sahara in Africa has also led to a sharp increase in deadly violence against Christians in countries such as Somalia and especially Nigeria, which accounts for a large part of this. During the Christmas weekend itself, Nigeria's Christians were subjected to a series of coordinated attacks where over 200 people were killed and many, many were injured or forced to flee. This was condemned by the European Parliament in a resolution last week.

In the Middle East, many Christians risk being forced away from their countries of origin where the Christian minority has decreased drastically just during the last 20 years. It is about nearly 85 percent. Many continue to live in vulnerability or under very difficult conditions in neighboring countries such as Lebanon and Turkey. They need our and the world's support to be able to live in their home countries.

Despite this extensive and extreme persecution, the issue of religious freedom has until now had a non-existent role in Sweden's foreign policy. We Christian Democrats have long worked for religious freedom to be prioritized in Swedish foreign policy, but the interest from the S-led government remained absent, and we were met with silence. With the Christian Democrats in government, there will now be a change, and religious freedom is being prioritized.

In today's foreign policy declaration, as well as in the government's reform agenda for aid, strategy for cooperation with civil society, and strategy for Sweden's global cooperation on human freedoms and rights, freedom of religion has finally been prioritized with clear formulations. They concern that the government shall specifically work to strengthen human freedoms and rights such as freedom of expression and freedom of religion, promote freedom of religion, and support religious minorities - especially Christians - who constitute a particularly persecuted religious group. We Christian Democrats are pleased that freedom of religion is now highlighted and prioritized in foreign policy in support of all persecuted and vulnerable people.

Madam Speaker! In conclusion, I would like to highlight some other areas and events that are not in focus but deserve to be noted.

In Myanmar, the situation has deteriorated significantly since the military coup three years ago. There, the humanitarian situation is very serious.

Armenia received over 100,000 Armenians who were driven out from Nagorno-Karabakh within a few days after Azerbaijan's military attacks. They continue to pose a threat to Armenians.

In China, Uyghurs are placed in re-education camps and subjected to serious abuses.

A civil war is being fought in Tigray in Ethiopia. It has spread to other regions and has caused a major humanitarian catastrophe.

In these times, it is important that Sweden focuses on combating oppression and poverty.

(Applause)

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Madam Speaker! I heard that Yusuf Aydin said that Gudrun Brunegård will give the speech on the aid, but unfortunately, I will not be able to stay and must therefore ask my question now. It concerns the support to civil society.

Time and again, the government says it prioritizes aid to Sweden's popular movements, but in practice, it decreases with every budget. We hear alarm after alarm from capable and well-established civil society organizations that the Swedish people have supported with time and money for decades.

In Sweden, there has traditionally been a view - which the Christian Democrats and the Green Party have clearly shared, at least previously - that it is important to have a broad civil society with strong popular roots. This applies to everything from the churches to the youth movement, the farmers' movement, and the environmental movement.

Now this is crumbling. The grassroots support that has taken generations to build up is now being torn down by the government at a furious pace, which is incredibly regrettable. I would like to ask the Christian Democrats how they can agree to that.

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

Yusuf Aydin (KD)

Madam Speaker! The part concerning civil society, I do not believe, has changed at all.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs stated in the foreign policy declaration that civil society and its partners will continue to constitute an important part. In the strategies and reform agendas that I briefly mentioned, it also states that civil society and its important role in channeling a part of the aid constitutes a fundamental part and will continue to be supported. Also, the strategy that was developed just a couple of weeks ago reinforces this.

Civil society and its important, unique contributions will therefore continue to receive support. It will also be based on much of the work that civil society already performs and has performed in a meritorious way, so one can be sure that we will continue to support it.

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the answer.

I know very well what both the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Development Cooperation say about this, but I also know what civil society says about it. I see cuts in various forms of aid myself.

I also see how the government's expectations of civil society have changed. From being an actor in its own right, it is to become more like a contractor for the government's policies. This concerns very many.

The peace organizations have a long and strong tradition in Sweden, and the Christian Democrats have shared the view that they need to be a strong voice for peace and solidarity in the world. Now, their contributions are also being withdrawn.

One can see that there is a difference between what the government says and what the government does. I would like to ask once again when the Kristdemokraterna intend to stand their ground and ensure that there is a stop to this impoverishment.

(Applause)

In this speech, Jacob Risberg (MP) agreed.

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

Yusuf Aydin (KD)

Madam Speaker! I would say that the Christian Democrats have negotiated and in a very good way succeeded in both defending and strengthening civil society's role in the aid policy.

There are clear formulations in the Tidö Agreement that the part going through civil society shall increase. In the strategy that was adopted just a couple of weeks ago, the formulations regarding civil society's important function and role in development cooperation are reinforced. There are also not the types of limitations that were feared regarding geography and such.

The government will, of course, make some other priorities within the framework of the aid policy, but the support and civil society's fundamental role as an important partner in channeling aid to help people in oppression and combat poverty will continue in a strong way.

(Applause)

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Madam Speaker! Today, the war in Gaza has been ongoing for 130 days. It has been days of devastation and destruction, of destroyed lives and communities. Thousands have been killed, many of them children, and those who have survived now risk dying of starvation instead. The whole world is following it practically in a live broadcast, and it is absolutely horrific to see.

Instead of trying to stop the war and the ongoing humanitarian catastrophe by all available means, the Swedish government has stopped the payments to UNRWA, the organization which, according to all international observers, has the best conditions right now to help the people in Gaza. Now, instead, people are being left to die while the rest of the world watches.

Instead of making their non-binding statements, the government should recognize the seriousness of the situation and, together with the UN and the EU, push for more aid and immediately reinstate the support to UNRWA.

For decades, Sweden has been a voice for peace, freedom, and solidarity in the world. It is a clear foreign policy and a robust and long-term plan for our international development work that has taken us there. But now, several parts are crumbling before our eyes.

Feminist foreign and development policy has for many years strengthened women's and girls' rights and opportunities for a life free from violence and oppression. The conditions for women's self-sufficiency have been strengthened, access to education has increased, and more women have been able to take their place in the corridors of power. It is a policy that has built schools for girls in Afghanistan, trained midwives in Zambia, and defended human rights activists who stand up for their freedom against authoritarian regimes.

This is something I am proud of, but it is a work that this government is now in the process of dismantling. It is said that equality is a core value in Swedish foreign policy, but it is not followed up in action. Sweden's voice for equality is beginning to fall silent.

In the shadow of armed conflicts, war and poverty, the climate crisis and environmental degradation also grow with each passing day. The situation in already affected areas worsens significantly when the water runs out and the harvests fail, and both droughts and floods have in many places become the new normal.

We in the rich countries in the north have caused the emissions, and now we are sending the bill to the countries that are struggling with their development. It is a profound injustice that we must be aware of and act upon.

Even this, the government says, is a priority, but still we see no increase in climate aid. We do not see that which is supposed to lower emissions, and we do not see that which is supposed to adapt societies. If we cannot stand up for a just climate transition, who can then?

Climate change also affects the possibility for local communities to produce food, and food is a human right. Without basic needs for food and security being met, it is very difficult to build strong communities that are capable of lifting their inhabitants out of poverty. Without enough food, there is very little strength to stand up against oppression and work for freedom.

The government says it wants to counter the root causes of why people have to flee from their homes. Still, we see that less and less is being invested in building resilience in the countries where we know this is absolutely crucial. Instead of scaling up, support is being reduced to the civil society that is capable of providing support for resilient local food production and to those who fight for human rights and democracy, both in Cambodia and in Guatemala.

An effective development policy must hold together. Agenda 2030, when it was established, laid the foundation for which global goals every leader needs to work towards and was a clear indication that all parts of society must be involved to reach the goals, both the policy as well as civil society and the companies, because if everyone does not help each other we will fail despite the fact that we actually have the tools.

An important part is to maintain the levels of aid so that more countries have the opportunity to make their transition.

I also want to point out that it is fundamentally good that the government sees the potential that trade can have for development and that there are clear synergies with Sweden's international development cooperation. We in Miljöpartiet have also long highlighted this. But aid is intended to help the most needy out of hunger, poverty, and oppression. It is not intended to benefit Swedish export companies.

The latter now seems to be the government's ambition. It is becoming increasingly clear, especially in light of the opposition to stricter rules for Swedish and European companies to take more account of workers' rights and the companies' impact on the environment and climate. We see that as completely unacceptable.

I want to conclude with what I started with, namely the brutal war that is now claiming lives in Gaza. I truly want to appeal to the government and to every one of you members who represent the government base to rethink and do so quickly. Reinstate the funds to UNRWA! Demand more humanitarian access and more humanitarian aid, and put pressure on Israel to achieve a ceasefire!

(Applause)

In this speech, Jacob Risberg (MP) agreed.

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

John E Weinerhall (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Janine, for the opportunity to discuss these important issues! I believe we agree on one thing: What is unfolding in Gaza is a terrible humanitarian situation, where innocent people, not least women and children, are losing their lives following Hamas's heinous terror attack against Israel on October 7.

One must nevertheless remember that it was not Israel that desired or started this war. It was Hamas that started the war with its massacre, the largest massacre of Jews that the world has seen since the Holocaust. This must be kept in mind when we talk about this issue.

When it comes to UNRWA, I would like to hear how Janine, who has extensive experience in aid issues, reasons when it is the aid agency Sida itself that has stopped the aid, as part of the routines one has at the agency. It is not the government that has demanded a pause in the payments, but it is Sida, after all. How does Janine view that matter?

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Madam Speaker! I consider it incredibly serious. Regardless of whether it is the government or the government's agency that does such a thing, it contributes to a collective punishment that I do not think Sweden as a country should stand behind, as a principle. Of course, Hamas must be condemned. Of course, it was not Israel that started this, but it is Israel that now continues.

What it is about now is that we must stop the killing of civilians. We can only achieve this through a ceasefire, a truce, and by ensuring that aid comes in. And as everyone who knows anything about the aid in this region and the work in Gaza, which was already incredibly difficult before the war, says: Without UNRWA's infrastructure for the aid, it will not arrive. The freezing, regardless of who decided on it, means de facto that innocent civilians are dying. It is not acceptable.

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

John E Weinerhall (M)

Madam Speaker! We can, of course, have discussions about UNRWA as an organization and what it has been previously, before October 7, what it is now and what its role will be afterwards. It is also an incredibly important issue, which we talk about far too little about: what is to come after this and how we are to build up and establish a long-term two-state solution so that Israelis and Palestinians can live side by side in this region.

But it is, after all, not only Sida that has launched an investigation into this, but also most other countries in Europe. The EU has stopped the payments, as has the USA. Even the UN has appointed an investigation, which shows how serious this is.

I would still like to ask: Does Janine Alm Ericson really think that the government should step in and override its own expert authority in the area, even though the money could end up in the hands of terrorists?

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Madam Speaker! I naturally think it would be completely unacceptable if Swedish aid funds were to end up in the hands of terrorists or in any way support such activity. The investigation is therefore welcome, and the dismissal of those suspected of having been involved in this is naturally completely correct.

But to freeze the payments that must be made for the humanitarian aid in Gaza to function is completely unacceptable. I did not think that the Moderaterna would stand behind something such as a collective punishment. I may unfortunately have to rethink.

(Applause)

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Madam Speaker! According to Donald Trump the other day, Russia can do whatever it wants to NATO countries that do not pay enough for their defenses. This is, of course, a shocking statement, but not particularly surprising given who made it. It is, however, a very important reminder of how serious the time we live in is.

Donald Trump's open encouragement to Russia to invade more countries after Ukraine ties into a strengthened American opinion that the USA pays too much and its Nato allies invest too little in their defense forces. This is true in several ways. Europe must pay more for its own defense, Madam Speaker. Nato's two percent requirement must be met by more countries.

It is not unreasonable to assume that Donald Trump, if he wins the presidential election in the USA this autumn, will also do everything to reduce the USA's engagement in Nato. This would be, to put it mildly, a catastrophe for security in Europe. Fundamentally, Nato, as well as our security, rests on the USA's military strength, defense guarantees, and solidarity.

We must, I mean, in Sweden and Europe scale up our defense investments. We must enable a larger production of weapons and ammunition as well as mobilize the entire society to increase our readiness and resilience - regardless of Trump and the choices USA may consider making.

The game plan may have been completely redrawn already at the turn of the year, after the American presidential election. We must then, Madam Speaker, sincerely ask ourselves how much of our prosperity, our standard of living and, ultimately, our lives we are willing to invest in our security and freedom, if we have to rely on ourselves in Europe. What happens in a situation where we need to put 5, 10, 15 or perhaps 20 percent of our prosperity into our defense? What do we do in a situation where Russia invades a Baltic state, for example?

Russia has switched to a war economy. Iran and North Korea have done so for a long time. Step by step, the volumes of ammunition, artillery, drones, etcetera have increased on the Russian side. In addition, one has a reservoir of millions and millions more Russian men to force to the front.

At the same time, the European Union is not anywhere near reaching the volumes of military support to Ukraine that were promised in March 2023. Of course, we are very grateful that the EU was finally able to finalize the large economic support package to Ukraine of 50 billion euro over four years this week. But if the production of defense materiel is not scaled up, it will become increasingly difficult for Ukraine to maintain its defense lines and, not least, its air defense.

To secure Ukraine's existence and push back Russian imperialism, a collective mobilization similar to the one that occurred during the corona pandemic is required. In a short time, a massive mobilization took place to research a covid vaccine, then produce it, and subsequently distribute it in several rounds to all individuals. We must secure the defense of freedom and democracy with the same sense of urgency.

It is not possible to think away Ukraine. This war continues. The Russian invasion continues constantly, day by day, with massive shelling both along the front and against cities and communities all over Ukraine. There is, Madam Speaker, no other conceivable path than to continue supporting Ukraine and ramp up the military support – the faster, the better.

We in Sweden are, whether we want to or not, involved in the larger conflict ongoing between the world's democracies and dictatorships. Ukraine's fate will determine our Swedish security calculations and doctrines for generations to come. We simply cannot be mentally or materially unprepared for the demands that are now being placed on us.

In conclusion, I want to say that together with the former Moderate politician Gunnar Hökmark, I organize the meetings at Norrmalmstorg every Monday in support of Ukraine. We are soon reaching a hundred meetings. Similar meetings are held outside the Russian Federation's terror embassy on Kungsholmen in Stockholm and also in other places in Sweden. In these meetings, we see an enormous commitment from Swedish civil society to both help Ukrainians here in Sweden and to help in Ukraine.

I really want to urge everyone listening to this speech to seek out organizations such as Blågula Bilen, Skicka vidare till Ukraina or Operation Aid and donate money to them.

These organizations are making enormous efforts to get vehicles, humanitarian aid, and medical aid to the Ukrainian population and also to the Ukrainian front, which today finds itself in a very difficult situation due to the Russian shelling and attacks. They are fighting heroically so that Ukraine can continue to exist - not just the Ukrainian state, but the Ukrainian nation, the Ukrainian culture, the Ukrainian identity, and the Ukrainian history.

Even though one is supposed to speak Swedish here in the chamber, we therefore say: Slava Ukraini!

(Applause)

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Madam Speaker! Swedish aid has been used to combat poverty and to provide support for the most vulnerable in the world. Now the government chooses to do the opposite by withdrawing the important democracy aid to Cambodia.

Sweden has provided aid in Cambodia for nearly 30 years, with a focus on human rights and that the principles of the rule of law should be respected, and it has been a successful work. This has been evaluated.

Despite an extremely repressive and corrupt government, human rights defenders in Cambodia are increasingly standing up for their rights and holding those in power accountable. But international support and international presence have been absolutely crucial for them to have the strength and courage to raise their voices.

So now the government has decided that this aid is to be phased out. How can the Liberals defend this?

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Madam Speaker! I just have to mentally switch gears here. First, I will give a six-minute speech on the importance of defending Ukraine, and then I will receive a reply regarding some specific aid allocation concerning Cambodia!

The only case I am aware of where Cambodia has historically been relevant in Swedish politics was when a former Speaker, I believe—not a Left Party member but a Social Democrat—denied the genocide in the 1970s. It was at that time the country was called Kampuchea, if I remember correctly.

We Liberals would like to give as much as possible in aid and support every single democracy movement in the world. We also realize that Swedish aid will need to be focused.

As I see it, moving forward we will make a stronger prioritization in Swedish aid towards both humanitarian support and our immediate neighborhood. Ukraine specifically belongs there right now. This means that it is not only in Cambodia but also in other parts of the world that reductions have occurred so that we can ramp up in other areas.

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Madam Speaker! One must be prepared to receive all possible questions if one participates in the foreign policy debate, Fredrik Malm.

Without Swedish support, Cambodia's human rights activists become increasingly isolated, and the playing field is left free for forces such as Russia and China. That can hardly be in Sweden's interest.

It is about standing up for democratic, human, and trade union rights in a very harsh environment. There is an enormous need to support people who stand up for democratic values now that democracy is in retreat in large parts of the world. This applies not only to Cambodia but also to other parts of the world, such as Somalia, South Sudan, and Afghanistan, where aid is being withdrawn. Why are you doing this if you mean that one should stand up for the most vulnerable people in the world? It does not correspond with reality.

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Madam Speaker! I can repeat what I said in my previous contribution. If it were possible, Sweden would of course increase the aid radically. We could triple, quadruple, or quintuple it.

If I look out over the world, I see that there are enormous injustices. There are enormous sufferings. There are hundreds of millions of people living in a situation where they risk that the security police, regardless of whether it is called GRU, KGB, Mukhabarat or something else, boot into their apartments and drag people to a prison cell where they are tortured to pieces. We have enormous challenges in the world.

But we also have to take into account that we must be able to focus and streamline Swedish aid. It can also mean that certain initiatives are reallocated.

I cannot answer on the exact considerations regarding Cambodia, but I have full confidence in this government's aid policy.

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

Alexandra Völker (S)

Madam Speaker! That the earth is round without a beginning and an end is old knowledge. What happens in one part of the planet has great consequences for what happens in another.

When the UN was formed, it was based on the idea of creating a place where all the world's countries can meet to discuss common problems and find common solutions that benefit all of humanity. The need has definitely not diminished during the nearly 80 years that have passed. The need has perhaps never been greater than it is right now.

In addition to the brutalities that people have subjected and continue to subject others to - violations of human rights, war, ethnic cleansing, and genocide - we have also created a climate catastrophe whose consequences we have only seen the beginning of. Climate change is literally redrawing the world map. Besides the fact that we need to work together to stop global warming, climate change creates enormous challenges that we need to work together to meet. The extreme heat and drought that several countries are struggling with today are unfortunately only the beginning.

Madam Speaker! East Africa is one of the regions where the consequences of climate change are clearly visible. The drought leads to livestock dying and grazing land disappearing. Millions are forced to leave their homes in search of food and water. In Ethiopia, the drought, together with serious conflicts, has led to more than 20 million people being in acute need of humanitarian support. In the country, we have in recent years seen several conflicts that have had terrible consequences for civilians.

From the Amhara region, we receive recurring reports of attacks on civilians. In the hunt for Fano soldiers, raids are carried out by the Ethiopian military where civilians are harmed and many times also lose their lives. Through the use of drones, attacks are carried out that kill children, women, and the elderly. The Amhara people have also been persecuted because of their religion and ethnicity in western Ethiopia. The UN has expressed concern over reports of deliberate killing of civilians. Civilians must be protected. The attacks must cease, and an independent investigation needs to be appointed.

Madam Speaker! The consequences of climate change become particularly brutal in countries where governments do not take responsibility for their citizens. In Afghanistan, after the Taliban's retaking of power, we have seen enormous consequences, not least for women and girls. The fact that it is also one of the countries in the world hardest hit by climate change makes the situation catastrophic. The UN flags major challenges regarding the financing to meet the acute needs this year.

In that situation, the government chooses to reduce the development grant to Afghanistan. This year's budget implies a reduction of 40 percent compared to 2021. At the same time, they are also reducing support to UN agencies that play a key role in coordinating humanitarian efforts in Afghanistan. If we give up on Afghanistan, decades of work are lost. Then the Taliban have truly won.

Madam Speaker! In Iran, people fight every day to achieve the dream of freedom and democracy. They fight to not have their lives limited by an undemocratic regime, a regime that rules with terror as a means of power, not only for people in Iran but also outside Iran's borders. Time and again, we see how Iran uses kidnapping as a method. They deprive foreign citizens of their liberty on arbitrary grounds.

And for those who are considered Iranian citizens by the regime and engage in resistance against the regime, there is not only the risk of being taken on Iranian soil. On several occasions, Iran has taken political opponents outside the country's borders and brought them to Iran, where in several cases they have been faced with the irrevocable death penalty.

Through its armed branch, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard, the Iranian regime acts as a terrorist organization. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard must therefore be blacklisted as a terrorist organization. A united Riksdag was clear already last spring, and we expect that the government, with the Foreign Minister at the helm, works so that the EU blacklists the Islamic Revolutionary Guard.

Madam Speaker! What happens in one part of the world has major consequences for what happens in another part. Drought and famine in one country have consequences that spread across the entire planet, just as a conflict in one country can exacerbate a hunger catastrophe on a completely different continent.

The world is interconnected, and the world faces enormous challenges. Therefore, we must safeguard the institutions where we can work for common solutions. The UN is a member organization, and it is we, the member states, who constitute the UN. It is we who decide which direction the UN shall take. Therefore, we must always prioritize the UN.

(Applause)

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

Yasmine Eriksson (SD)

Madam Speaker! It can be observed that a great deal has happened on the global arena since the last foreign policy debate was held here in the chamber a year ago. The rulers in Gaza have entered Israel and carried out barbaric murders and kidnappings. We have problems with supply chains as a result of attacks against ships in the Red Sea. We have had a tough year behind us with high inflation, which has not only affected us but has resulted in millions of people falling into poverty. We have war in Sudan and in Nagorno-Karabakh. Russia's war against Ukraine continues to this day. Finland is in Nato, and Sweden's application to the defense alliance has taken steps in the right direction.

This is, of course, only a small selection of what has happened around the world over the past year.

Part of Swedish foreign policy can be seen through the initiatives we make on international aid. The Sweden Democrats and the government already stated in the Tidö Agreement that aid needs to be reformed, and we have now charted a new course for Sweden's international aid.

It is exactly now 56 billion that is distributed annually, and I know that many are critical of aid when we have glaring needs here at home. We have people in Sweden who are homeless and who suffer from a lack of sanitation. People are dying in care queues. We have widespread gang crime, and we are exposed to cyberattacks daily.

This is system-threatening and affects both individuals and companies. But shall we, despite this, be generous and annually allocate 56 billion; the aid needs to be managed in a credible, transparent, and secure manner. A reform was needed to better reflect the voters' will, for it is still their voices we are here to represent.

Despite the fact that our four parties – the government parties and the Sweden Democrats – have some different starting points in how we want the aid to be handled, we have landed on a common product that we all stand behind and where our respective parties' wishes have been taken into account in different parts.

To tackle all the world's challenges, however, aid alone is insufficient. Sweden is a major aid donor, but even if we were to devote our entire state budget to aid, it would not be enough to meet all the world's needs. But the aid we actually provide must go towards thoughtful, well-considered interventions. We must have a responsible aid policy. Tax funds shall not be paid out to organizations where we cannot ensure that the money goes where it was intended.

It is, in fact, a fact that there is a considerable amount of corruption among organizations. Every year, the Swedish Agency for Development Cooperation receives hundreds of reports of suspected corruption. The reports increase year by year, which can be interpreted in two ways: either corruption is increasing, or better reporting possibilities and whistleblower functions have been developed. Regardless of the reason, the issue of corruption is real. In the majority of the cases reported to Sida, it has been possible to establish that corruption has occurred. It concerns embezzlement, theft, bribes, and so on.

With this said, I am pleased that anti-corruption within aid is a high priority today. I also have hopes that the new Director-General for Sida takes this very seriously. No tax funds shall be paid out to the corrupt!

Madam Speaker! Swedish aid should focus on transparency and efficiency. Effective development aid should, in the long run, no longer be needed. That must be the objective.

In other words, the objective should not be to pay out as many funds as possible, but the goal must be to get the best return for the money. The aid shall go to the interventions where it does the best and most good. We cannot, as I have previously mentioned, from the Swedish side help the whole world, but we shall do the best we can with the funds we have.

There are several actors who mobilize capital where every krona invested in a project is multiplied many times over. Credit guarantees are also an important tool to enable investments in developing countries. This helps people in vulnerable places to be able to start businesses, secure their own income, and at the same time contribute to a positive social development in the country or in the locality where they are active. This is an important part of combating poverty.

Madam Speaker! It is no secret that the Sweden Democrats consider that the previously conducted migration policy has been unsustainable. We have repeatedly pointed out that it is extremely inefficient to devote large resources to the few of the world's refugees who have made their way to Sweden while millions of refugees still remain in their surrounding areas. Therefore, it is good that we now have a cap on appropriations for aid to fund migration to Sweden.

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

Olle Thorell (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Yasmine Eriksson, for the speech!

I think it is astonishing that one can speak for six minutes and provide an exposé of the world and important events and suffering here and there without mentioning Gaza or the nearly 30,000 dead in Gaza, the majority of them women and children, not with a single word. I think it is peculiar.

I would like to ask Yasmine Eriksson about the conflict she paints between quality of aid and anti-corruption versus size. There is no difference of opinion between the member and me, or anyone else in here, regarding the fact that aid should go to what it is intended for, that it should be effective and that it should yield results. No one thinks otherwise. No one just wants to throw away money unnecessarily.

The difference is that you want to give a little less. Wouldn't it be appropriate to just admit that?

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

Yasmine Eriksson (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Olle Thorell, for bringing up Gaza! Unfortunately, I did not have time to do so in my speech. This debate differs slightly from other debates we have in the chamber of the Riksdag due to a strict time limit where we do not speak for longer than our six minutes. Therefore, I did not have time for my entire speech.

Just as Olle Thorell mentions, the situation in Gaza is appalling for very many people. From the Sweden Democrats' side, we also want to see humanitarian openings so that we can get aid into Gaza. The checkpoints for the trucks that are to enter Gaza need to be expanded and staffed so that what enters Gaza is actually humanitarian aid and not something that in the long run can harm one side or the other.

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

Olle Thorell (S)

Madam Speaker! It is strange that if one cares about the civilian population in Gaza, one stops aid to UNRWA, the aid organization that has the best infrastructure, the greatest opportunities, the most employees, and the most facilities to distribute the aid. That one stops aid there, withholds payments in a panic, following unilateral accusations from Israel that a few employees would have participated in Hamas's despicable attacks on October 7 is terrible. This shall be investigated thoroughly, and if it is true, they shall be fired. But one cannot punish an entire organization and, in the long run, millions of civilians fleeing bombs and misery in Gaza. How does Yasmine Eriksson explain that one, in a panic, stops payments to UNRWA?

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

Yasmine Eriksson (SD)

Madam Speaker! It is high time that the aid to UNRWA is stopped. Year after year, remarks have been made regarding how personnel from UNRWA behave and what sympathies they appear to have.

In Olle Thorell's first remark, it sounded as if he has an exact understanding of where the money should go, efficiently and to the right things. But in UNRWA, it is the opposite. There, the money seems to go to the wrong things. In that case, it is better to spend the money on organizations with higher credibility, for example World Food Programme.

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

Margareta Cederfelt (M)

Madam Speaker! Six minutes is not a long time. Therefore, I begin by saying that I agree with the Moderates who have spoken before me.

Foreign policy is one of the state's core tasks and a matter for all of us. To safeguard the values that make Sweden a safer, more secure and more prosperous country, we all are needed - now more than ever.

I am convinced that Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine will define Swedish foreign policy in the coming years. Russia's attack against Ukraine is unjust, and it is a flagrant violation of the UN Charter and international law. I would like to emphasize that it is an unacceptable fact that Russia, a permanent member of the UN Security Council, is carrying out an unprovoked aggression against the neighboring country Ukraine.

But it is not only a war that is ongoing, Madam Speaker, but Russia has also changed its legislation. It is a legislation that makes it illegal to criticize Russia's war, and there are several examples of what happens to the brave people who criticize Putin's war.

One of the more prominent is Vladimir Kara-Murza. He stated in an interview with CNN that Russia's war is wrong. Two hours later, Vladimir Kara-Murza was imprisoned, and he has been sentenced to 25 years in prison for high treason.

Another opponent is the journalist Aleksandra Skotjilenko, who has criticized Russia's war against Ukraine. Skotjilenko put up small notices in grocery stores, and for this, Skotjilenko was sentenced to seven years in prison.

The sanctions backed by the EU, USA, and Canada are necessary and important. More than 1,900 Russians are covered by the sanctions, meaning their economic assets within the EU have been frozen, and they are prohibited from entering or passing through the EU.

It is heartening that there is further good evidence that the world stands united. Sweden, together with 42 other states, has stated that an investigation must be conducted into war crimes, genocide, and human rights violations committed by Russia. The ICC has complied with the request and will investigate Russia. Sweden supports the ICC with 7 million kronor to the prosecutor's office and with an annual contribution to the court of 30 million kronor. In addition, Sweden has seconded three prosecutors and the Police Authority has seconded six investigators. This shows that Sweden supports a proper investigation to hold Russia accountable.

Let me mention an issue that has not been raised in the debate earlier, namely China's oppression of Tibet and the Tibetan population. The oppression has been ongoing since the 1950s. The oppression has furthermore resulted in Tibet being in a process of reshaping. Tibetan autonomy is gone, and Chinese control has increased.

Chinese authorities are implementing a policy aimed at assimilating Tibetan culture and the Tibetan language. One example of this is the forced relocation of Tibetan children to boarding schools, where the children are forbidden from speaking Tibetan. They are also not given instruction in Tibetan culture. The UN human rights rapporteur criticized Beijing in the spring of 2023 for implementing mandatory vocational training programs and labor relocation in order to systematically prevent Tibetans in Tibet from practicing their religion and their culture.

Freedom House's investigation shows that Tibet ranks last when it comes to respect for political and civil rights. But this is not due to Tibet, this is due to China.

I want to conclude by saying the following. Sweden stands up for human rights and the principles of the rule of law, but it has shown that more and more countries take these principles very lightly. It is not just Russia and China but significantly more countries. Therefore, it is important that we here in Sweden stand together with like-minded [nations] and continue to stand up for our fundamental freedoms and rights as well as continue to cooperate for respect for human rights, the principles of the rule of law, international law, and the market economy.

(Applause)

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

Lorena Delgado Varas (V)

Madam Speaker! I have been asked by the Speaker to remove my kufiyya - the scarf I am holding in my hand and placing here on the table - because, according to the Speaker, it is a political scarf. These are somewhat strange times we live in, where a scarf meets such great opposition that it cannot be worn in the chamber. But in the same chamber, one can write laws that make a difference between people. It is a sad development.

I have worn the scarf in every room I have been in in support of the Palestinian people. Students and teachers all over the country are met with words that they are not allowed to wear a kufiyya or a Palestinian flag because they are considered political. They wear them to show support for the Palestinian people, and they wear them because the state of Palestine has a right to exist.

I will now proceed to my speech.

We have come to a time when the murder of children is not a priority. This is a time when Israel has the best opportunity to commit genocide. Sweden has a government that proposes laws that make distinctions between people here. Then it is easy to understand that it is much easier to make distinctions between people outside of Sweden. It is enough to see the handling of the war in Ukraine and compare it with how one handles the genocide in Palestine. Human lives are weighed differently by this government. I do not mean to downplay what is happening in Ukraine; they have our support.

I can also observe that the Foreign Minister, in his declaration, avoided speaking about the State of Palestine and instead spoke about the genocide of Palestinians as a new serious situation in the Middle East. Let me say that the serious situation is genocide in Palestine and that it is Israel that is committing it.

I do not think anyone has missed the hideous images from the killing of civilians in Palestine. Many of those killed are children. We are up to 30,000 killed, and 13,000 of them are children. There is also an unknown number of those killed under the rubble.

The Minister did not even mention the decisions from the International Court of Justice regarding Israel's war crimes. The International Court of Justice states that we are very likely facing a genocide. Israel was given a number of points that they had one month to address. Have they done so? No. This month has instead given Israel a reprieve to continue the genocide without the rest of the world doing even a minimum to stop it.

What has Sweden done after the ruling? We speak so nicely about international law that is supposed to apply to countries other than Israel. Where are the powerful statements when displaced Palestinians are being bombed in their tents in Rafah? Where are the sanctions to stop the human suffering? Where is the arms embargo to signal that the Palestinian people must be given food, water, and electricity?

The Billström declaration is a disgrace regarding what is happening in Palestine. It is a disgrace that the government, after 130 days of murder, has not taken a single measure to pressure Israel to cease its bestial actions.

What do we from Vänsterpartiet mean should be done? Some of these points we have pushed for for many years, as the war crimes have been ongoing for quite some time. We mean that the government, in order to achieve a permanent ceasefire, can exert pressure by terminating all cooperation with Israel. One can terminate the trade agreement and let Israel feel the economic pressure.

Today, Swedish companies also risk being dragged into the mud by indirectly supporting genocide. Here, I want to address Swedish companies that have sales or offices in Israel. Withdraw! If this government cannot lead the way, then you can do it, as you have done before – otherwise, you can be sure that you will be subject to the boycott that is now being directed at companies that have interests in Israel.

We particularly need to terminate military agreements and collaborations. We shall not have such agreements with states that commit genocide.

To the audience, I want to say: We will see each other at the demonstration on Saturday to stop the genocide!

I also want to send a greeting to Chile. I have seen with great sadness that hundreds have died in the forest fires while some in this chamber do not want to do enough for the climate or hold companies accountable.

(Applause)

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

Joar Forssell (L)

Madam Speaker! I thank Lorena for her speech.

Earlier today, the Left Party condemned the terror attacks on October 7, when over 1,000 Israelis were murdered. When the Left Party condemned the attacks, it was said that they condemned the killing of civilian Israelis. I wonder if the Left Party also condemns the killing of the Israeli soldiers who were subjected to the terror attack on October 7. Does the Left Party think it is legitimate to kill them in the way that Hamas did during its terror attack?

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

Lorena Delgado Varas (V)

Madam Speaker! We as a party, as many left-wing members personally have, have condemned the events of October 7. What has been missing in the Swedish debate is a discussion about the context.

What happened on October 7 is a very large event. There are also other events in Jewish history that point out that they have been attacked in this way, including by the Argentine dictatorship. But there are also very many events in Palestinian history that show that the Palestinians have been continuously attacked by Israel and that Israel has not respected the agreements that have existed. Approximately 200 Palestinians have been murdered every year by snipers or in other ways. There are very many Palestinian children in prisons and so on.

We must begin to discuss the context more in order to be able to achieve peace in the area.

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

Joar Forssell (L)

Madam Speaker! I would like to have a clear answer, without reservations, ifs or buts. I interpret it as that the Left Party condemns both the killing of civilians and the killing of Israeli soldiers on October 7 when Hamas committed its horrific acts of terrorism. I would like to hear this clearly from the member.

The other day, a Left Party member of the Swedish Riksdag was booed when she was about to give a speech during a pro-Palestinian demonstration and began by distancing herself from Hamas and emphasizing the importance of a two-state solution. I wonder if Lorena Delgado Varas condemned those at the demonstration who booed out her colleague.

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

Lorena Delgado Varas (V)

Madam Speaker! I find it interesting that Member Joar has stood up here several times today.

Very many Swedish citizens have lost family members or loved ones in Gaza who have been murdered. The Swedish government has done nothing. Even Swedish children have died in Gaza, but the Swedish government has done nothing.

We are being condemned time and again, but I would like to hear the Liberals' condemnations of the State of Israel's actions. Israel has indeed murdered very many innocent people, and the International Court of Justice has stated that it concerns war crimes.

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

Margareta Cederfelt (M)

Madam Speaker! I will give Lorena Delgado Varas a chance to answer the question that Joar Forssell asked. Does Lorena Delgado Varas distance herself from the fact that a member of the Left Party was booed and not allowed to participate in a demonstration when she stated that Hamas is a terrorist organization? What does Lorena Delgado Varas think about this?

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

Lorena Delgado Varas (V)

Madam Speaker! I think we have analyzed it differently. There is nothing to criticize in the content itself. Vänsterpartiet stands for a two-state solution, and we have several times condemned Hamas's attack.

One must, however, understand the context. The Swedish government has done nothing for the Swedish citizens in Gaza or to help those who have loved ones in Gaza. Some have lost their entire family there.

We in politics must meet each other more. Now you stand blindly on Israel's side and do not see the human suffering in Palestine. You are not willing to condemn the Israeli state for the war crimes it commits. The Israeli state was given a month to show that they are not committing genocide, but they have not shown that. And you are doing nothing.

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

Margareta Cederfelt (M)

Madam Speaker! Foreign Minister Tobias Billström devoted a large part of his main speech to speaking about what is the government's position.

But I want to hear Lorena Delgado Varas state that Hamas is a terrorist organization. On October 7, Hamas attacked the Jewish population during a holiday and took 200 people hostage, including children. At least 130 people are still being held hostage without a single word having leaked about them. It is the work of a terrorist organization.

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

Lorena Delgado Varas (V)

Madam Speaker! Hamas and I are in no way on the same side ideologically, and I have condemned Hamas in demonstrations and here in the chamber. I do not know how much you want to demand from politicians who do not agree with you politically.

Margareta Cederfelt is worried about the hostages. But how does it help the hostages that one has bombed all of Gaza and murdered 30,000 civilian Palestinians, of whom 13,000 are children? Relatives of those among the hostages are asking the far-right Israeli government to stop the bombings of Gaza and rescue the hostages.

I also want to hear from the Moderates that they condemn Israel's policy regarding this.

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

Katarina Tolgfors (M)

Madam Speaker! Speaking of context, Member Delgado Varas: Israel is an internationally recognized state while Hamas is a terrorist organization that in every way shows that they do not care one bit about the residents of Gaza but instead use them as human shields. After October 7, Palestine activists around the world, even on Swedish streets, celebrated this bestial assault against civilians. It was horrific. Now I want to hear a clear condemnation of both October 7 and Hamas as an organization.

It is not true that the government is doing nothing. Before Christmas, 150 million was provided in an extra support package, and an additional 69 million kronor is on its way to support the population in Gaza.

I want to hear the member clearly condemn Hamas and what she thinks about the 7th of October. There are two sides, and as she herself said earlier, one should not take a side.

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

Lorena Delgado Varas (V)

Madam Speaker! That was yet another interesting contribution from a Moderate politician that demands a condemnation from me that I have already made. I will not repeat it, because I have already said it several times here and many times before.

But I still have not heard the Moderates condemn Israel's actions. It is 30,000 civilians who have been murdered, of which 13,000 are children, and children are starving in Gaza today. Israelis stand at the border to Egypt and block the small delivery of food to Gaza. But there is a complete lack of condemnation of this from the Moderates. It is perfectly okay to condemn many other countries but not Israel, even though Israel, according to the International Court of Justice, is committing war crimes and probably genocide. Sharpen up, Moderates! People are dying. Swedish citizens have been murdered.

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

Katarina Tolgfors (M)

Madam Speaker! The member is swinging around with words like genocide. It is quite serious. She wants Sweden and I, as a member, to condemn this. Sweden's government and the Moderaterna stand behind Israel's right to defend itself. Whether war crimes or even genocide have been committed is not for us to decide. The International Court will look into whether this has occurred. It must be proportionate, and it is not for me to judge. I do, however, stand behind Israel's right to defend itself and its population. Of course, I do. But the government also supports the population in Gaza humanitarily. There are two sides. But I only hear one side in the member's statements, and I find that frightening.

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

Lorena Delgado Varas (V)

Madam Speaker! What is frightening is that international law is not being followed and that one stands behind this law or not regardless of which country is committing the crimes. The International Court of Justice stated that war crimes have been committed in Palestine. Historically, we have also seen how Israel has repeatedly murdered innocent Palestinians and even imprisoned children. I do not know if the member is aware of this. Time and again, the Moderaterna refuse to condemn this. I understand that the economic interests are large, but this is about war crimes and genocide.

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

Gudrun Brunegård (KD)

Madam Speaker! It has surely not escaped anyone that today is Valentine's Day. It fits very well, because today's debate provides an opportunity to speak about something that is very close to my heart – that in the midst of all the problems that this debate depicts, we also give a piece of our hearts to those people who do not have the same circumstances as we do.

Through our Swedish aid, we can contribute to improving the conditions to escape disease, poverty, oppression, ignorance, and vulnerability. In this way, tensions and conflicts can be reduced, both within countries and between countries. It is also an expression of a deeply human solidarity and care for our fellow human beings. It is a matter of the heart even for my party, Kristdemokraterna.

A large part of my heart is in Africa, after four years as a nurse in rural Tanzania. We have returned there approximately every other year over a total period of forty years.

Having been able to follow a country's development for such a long time has provided many deep insights, not least regarding the importance of civil society for building sustainable structures for democracy and development, as well as for women's and girls' rights and opportunities. The organizations add value through local presence and anchoring and by providing opportunities for people to influence and improve their own living conditions themselves.

Sweden shall contribute to a vibrant and multifaceted civil society in developing countries. It provides strength and long-term perspective when people who have a common value base and share interest focuses cooperate across national borders and continents. It also reduces the risk of corruption, as a loyalty arises between faith- and interest-kin that makes one want to manage the resources so that they will suffice for much.

Madam Speaker! Children are often those who are most affected by poverty, war, climate change and disasters. Children are covered by human rights but also have their own rights that must be protected. Through investments in the younger generation, one can, through aid, lay the foundation for a more long-term positive development in poor countries.

Respect for human civil and political rights is consistent throughout the government's policy. I am pleased that the government repeatedly addresses freedom of religion and acknowledges the fact that Christians are a particularly persecuted group in the world. It is very worrying to see reports of attacks against religious minorities in India. Last summer, hundreds of Christians were murdered in Manipur and churches were burned down. When the world protested, the wave of violence was halted, but reports continue to come from different parts of the country regarding religious harassment directed at both Muslims and Christians.

India is considered the world's largest democracy, at least the most populous, and is an important trading partner for us in Sweden. We must press the Hindu nationalist government that human rights also apply to Christians and Muslims.

Climate change hits hardest those who already live in vulnerability. The government's focus on climate aid is therefore extremely important, and action is being taken on several fronts in parallel. Through Swedfund and the international development banks, we can potentiate the Swedish aid funds and support a green transition in order to reduce emissions on a large scale in countries with a large share of fossil fuels. In many such countries, there are also good conditions for solar and wind power.

At the same time, resilience against climate change needs to be strengthened, for example through support for organizations that contribute to climate-efficient small-scale farming. In this way, a path out of poverty is opened while better cultivation methods ensure that the soil is enriched, harvests become better, the land is utilized in a more efficient way, food suffices for more people, jobs are created, and the local market is strengthened.

Madam Speaker! We live in a difficult time. The democratic space is shrinking in many countries. The Covid-19 pandemic threw countries and people twenty years back in development, which particularly applies to the rights of girls and women. Millions of girls had to drop out of school and were married off. This led to more teenage pregnancies with increased risks both for the mother, who herself is a child, and the newborn child.

Climate change leads to conflicts, food shortages and the risk of infectious diseases spreading. All of this leads to people becoming more vulnerable.

The reform agenda that was decided in the middle of December is important for streamlining Swedish aid so that it reaches more people. The prerequisites are specified in the various strategies that have been decided since then. This concerns the strategy for democracy and human rights and the civil society strategy.

As an example of the importance of civil society, I can mention how civilians stepped up in Armenia when their compatriots fled headlong from Nagorno-Karabakh last autumn. They stood at the border and distributed food and water, they made their cars available for transport, and they opened their homes.

With the government's strategy, I see good opportunities that the ambition we have for an effective and generous aid of world-class standard can be realized.

(Applause)

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Madam Speaker! I thank Gudrun Brunegård for the speech. The Government, in which the Christian Democrats are included, says that equality is a core value. However, the fact that women and girls have different circumstances is completely missing in foreign and development policy.

Women and girls are subjected to [discrimination/violence/oppression] partly due to their gender depending on patriarchal structures, and partly due to individual factors, such as disability, sexual orientation, gender-diverse identity or expression, ethnicity, religious belief, and age.

How do the Christian Democrats in the government work to integrate gender equality throughout foreign policy in a way that takes into account individual circumstances according to an intersectional perspective – in line with the EU's action plan for gender equality, which applies to all member states?

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

Gudrun Brunegård (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Lotta Johnsson Fornarve for the question.

The question of all people's equal value, that is, equality, is one of the fundamental principles both for our country for many years and decades and for the government we have today. In the various programs, documents, reform agenda and not least the strategy for democracy and human rights, which the member can read, these issues are included.

We need to work on strengthening the rights of girls and women. We also need to strengthen the rights, opportunities, and conditions for hbtqi people, because there are countries where people are oppressed and persecuted for deviating from the prevailing norm.

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Gudrun Brunegård for the answer. Unfortunately, I lack a holistic perspective when it comes to equality issues. Equality should permeate the entire foreign and aid policy, I believe.

It is obvious that the government has scrapped the feminist foreign policy, which has the very purpose of permeating all activities. I also know that the feminist foreign policy has made a real difference. Now the government says instead that equality shall be taken into account where it is relevant. Equality shall therefore only be taken into account sometimes and not permeate all activities. I mean that this is a step backward for the work on equality.

If the government means that equality was truly important, why does it then choose to halve the support to UN Women? And why are there no descriptions of how the government intends to integrate equality throughout the foreign and aid policy in a way that takes into account individual circumstances according to an intersectional perspective?

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

Gudrun Brunegård (KD)

Mr. Speaker! It is perhaps the case that one reads with slightly different glasses.

In my opinion, these issues remain all the time, but the little signal word "feminist foreign policy" has been removed.

Our experience during the previous government, or the previous governments rather said, was perhaps that it had rather become a badge of honor that one hung here and there without it perhaps making such a big difference.

We want to work with it instead, but we also realize that it might not be relevant in every single context to attach gender equality, let's say when it comes to which crops are suitable to plant on certain soils, to take a very concrete example. The questions are there where it is relevant.

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

Azra Muranovic (S)

Mr. Speaker! You spoke about it being all hearts' day, Gudrun Brunegård, and that your heart beats for aid and the children. That pleases me, because mine does too, especially for children's rights. I think it is a very important area where the entire future depends on how we work with the issue.

Since you belong to the governing party, Gudrun, I want to ask you: How has the foreign policy and the aid policy that the government is currently conducting been aligned with the Convention on the Rights of the Child?

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

Gudrun Brunegård (KD)

Mr. Speaker! We have a series of different international conventions where everything is reconciled against how it correlates.

It was actually the Christian Democrats who, during the alliance government, took the initiative for the Convention on the Rights of the Child to be incorporated into Swedish law and implemented in all areas, where children's rights shall carry the greatest weight and always be considered. Of course, it is also included in this document.

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

Azra Muranovic (S)

Mr. Speaker! I am pleased that the question is important and that the initiative was taken, but I still wonder how the aid policy, the reform agenda for aid, and the foreign policy being conducted have been reconciled, given that it is children who are suffering immensely in the world today and that Sweden is backing down in many places.

Gudrun spoke warmly about Tanzania, but when it comes to Mali, Burkina Faso and South Sudan, it does not quite rhyme with the ambitions that Gudrun speaks about, as one withdraws completely there.

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

Gudrun Brunegård (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Azra Muranovic, for the supplementary question!

In the reform agenda and the path for aid, children's rights are included from the very beginning. In the overall and introductory part, there is a specific paragraph that emphasizes precisely children's vulnerable position and that we must safeguard children's specific rights. It is therefore included from the very beginning in the introduction, where the tone is set for the government's policy.

Regarding the countries the member mentioned, those are countries where the government has stated that we are withdrawing the bilateral development agreement. However, nothing prevents, for example, the children's rights organizations working in the countries from continuing to do so. Global aid is there, and the civil society agenda is there.

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

Emma Berginger (MP)

Mr. Speaker! We stand in a time defined by wars and the serious security policy situation. It is Russia's war against Ukraine, Israel's war in Gaza and the increasingly tense situation in the Middle East. It is war and armed conflicts in Yemen, Sudan and the Democratic Republic of the Congo and in a number of other places in the world, with an enormous humanitarian suffering as a result and with consequences that leave marks for generations.

Those who dare to speak about peace are questioned and ridiculed, but we must dare to say that peace is what we strive for. The peace that we as a country have enjoyed for over 200 years is a prerequisite for the successes, the prosperity, and the development that we have had, and the opportunity for development that peace entails is something we want other countries in the world to also have. At the same time, we must acknowledge that the path to peace is often far from simple. For a peace to be sustainable, many important prerequisites need to be met.

To prevent war and to promote and preserve peace must be an overarching goal for foreign policy, and also to dare to build peace after war. But when abuses and crimes against the rules-based world order based on international law are committed, when democracy and human rights are violated, and when the diplomatic tools are exhausted, we must have a total defense, both military and civilian, that acts as a deterrent to war and that, in the worst case, can defend our country, our population, and our democracy in war. To have a good preparedness is a deterrent to war and promotes peace.

Mr. Speaker! Russia's brutal and illegal large-scale war of aggression against Ukraine has, in ten days, been going on for two years. It is a terrible war with great suffering and many killed and injured. Russia shows great ruthlessness, even towards the civilian Ukrainian population, and the laws of war are not respected. The aggressor shows great indifference towards lost human lives. Not even the lives of its own soldiers are accorded any greater value, but are wasted as a consumable.

The experiences from Ukraine show that conventional wars over territories are still a reality and something for which we need to have a readiness to be able to meet. Miljöpartiet supports that Sweden should continue to help Ukraine with both weapons as well as humanitarian aid and civil and financial support, and we wish that the government presents a plan for how Sweden can support Ukraine in the long term.

That we help Ukraine defend itself against the aggressor Putin is important for the security, democracy, and freedom of the entire Europe. It also has a decisive significance for the view on international law if Putin's crimes are allowed to pay off, something that risks affecting many conflicts around the world. Therefore, the government must continue to work to ensure that the EU stays united in its support for Ukraine and put pressure on the USA to continue to contribute.

Mr. Speaker! Parallel to the Russian aggression against Ukraine, internal repression in Russia is increasing. It is becoming increasingly difficult for democratic forces and fighters who do not support Putin's policies to show this openly. Some direct competitors are not allowed in the upcoming presidential election.

We in the Defence Preparedness Committee have in our report Allvarstid stated that Russia poses a long-term threat to European and global security. Russia is shifting its economy towards more of a war economy that becomes completely dependent on producing and supplying large quantities of war materiel, which implies an increasing risk for the rest of the world.

Mr. Speaker! Since Hamas's horrific terrorist act on October 7, which has rightly been condemned, Israel's counterattacks have killed around 30,000 people in Gaza, a large proportion of whom are women and children. Far more have been injured.

The images of parents carrying their children's wrapped bodies, children with their names written on their skin to facilitate identification, and the terrified voice of the six-year-old little girl Hind who falsely begged for someone to come and fetch her from the car where she was trapped with her dead relatives – all this bears witness to the cruel consequences of a war that completely lacks proportionality.

The killing of civilians can never be justified. A permanent ceasefire was needed. Israel's massive, indiscriminate bombings of the civilian population in Gaza cannot be defended in any way and must cease.

Now the Palestinians are not only threatened by the bombs, but the humanitarian situation is becoming increasingly worse. There is a shortage of food, water, medicine, and sanitation, and in the midst of this, the government decides to stop the support to UNRWA due to the reports that a number of employees had links to the Hamas terror attack. However unacceptable these reports may be, hundreds of thousands of people cannot be punished for what individuals have chosen to do. The government must rethink and resume the aid to UNRWA immediately.

Sweden should also work towards achieving a sustainable peace process that leads to a just two-state solution and to ensuring that crimes against humanity and war crimes are investigated. Of course, both the hostages and other illegally detained persons held by Hamas and Israel must be released.

Sweden has had a long and proud tradition of being an active actor on the global arena, but since the SD-led government took office, the feminist foreign policy has been scrapped, aid has been slashed, and the government has chosen to turn its gaze away from the world. This is extremely unfortunate, because in a time of increasing tensions in the world, there is a greater need than ever for global actors who can work for peace and conflict prevention and mediate in ongoing conflicts.

(Applause)

In this speech, Ulrika Westerlund (S) agreed.

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

Olle Thorell (S)

Mr. Speaker! In an increasingly uneasy world, Swedish aid plays an important role. When wars rage and over 100 million people are fleeing, when climate change is spiraling out of control, when women's rights are in retreat, when fewer and fewer people live in democratic countries, when children's rights are not recognized and when workers' rights are violated, when biodiversity is threatened, when water and sanitation are substandard for millions of people, and when inequality within and between countries increases, then it is required that the international community steps forward and that countries like Sweden lead the way.

Instead, we see how Sweden's voice is becoming quieter. The one percent goal for aid has been scrapped, and the feminist foreign policy has also been scrapped. We turn our backs on large parts of the world as we move from being an active, progressive and global actor to being a passive, reactive and regional actor.

The focus on ensuring that policy is coherent and leads to global development has been replaced by narrow Swedish self-interests to be benefited, even though we know that for aid, it is both inefficient and yields poorer results. Swedish aid is of the highest class in the world, and we risk our reputation now that the government's narrow focus on Swedish self-interest is becoming apparent. Using precisely aid as a tool for reduced migration to Sweden is an example of how the perspectives have shifted.

We are also critical of how Sweden is now leaving some of the world's poorest and most vulnerable countries. Sweden is turning its back on Mali, Burkina Faso, South Sudan, and Cambodia. In doing so, one leaves the field free for extremism, radicalization, as well as exploitation of natural resources and people. Furthermore, space is given for countries such as Russia and China to fill the vacuum that arises. Is it a Swedish interest? No, hardly.

Mr. Speaker! The situation in Palestine, especially in Gaza, is unbearable, apocalyptic, catastrophic. Words are hardly enough. Almost 30,000 innocent civilians have been killed, mostly children and women. Sweden must act even more to alleviate distress, ensure that aid reaches its destination, that there is a ceasefire and an armistice, and that the killing stops. The wounds that are now being torn open among the peoples in Palestine and in Israel breed hatred and a desire for revenge that can persist for generations.

Hamas' horrific terror attack on October 7 cannot be anything other than condemned. The terrorists in Hamas must be fought. But a violation of international law can never justify another. The death and destruction that Israel has caused to the civilian population is neither just, proportionate, nor reasonable. Israel has a given right to defend itself but must follow international law and the laws of war.

We mean that Sweden is not doing enough in this situation. Last year, the budget for aid to Palestine was cut by half. Now, development aid to groups working against Hamas and for democracy and human rights is being frozen, and most recently, payments to UNRWA have been stopped, somewhat in a panic, after unconfirmed reports emerged that a handful of employees out of the 30,000 employees possibly participated in the Hamas attack on October 7. That is, of course, terrible and must be investigated thoroughly. But to collectively punish Palestinian civilians who need the help that only UNRWA can provide is shameful. The government could have acted like Norway or Spain and increased the aid instead. I am very disappointed by how short-sighted and weak the government has acted in this difficult situation.

Mr. Speaker! Finally, I shall say something about China. The great drama in our present time is the power struggle between the USA and China. How it is decided will affect Sweden and all other countries for centuries to come. China is an increasingly active actor globally, a greater military power and an increasingly obvious challenger to the democratic and rule-of-law-based world order that we want to see. China takes up more and more space in international forums and shows its military muscles regionally and globally. The minorities in China are becoming increasingly vulnerable. The Tibetans have been mentioned. The Uyghurs in western China are subjected to ethnic cleansing, and millions are placed in so-called re-education camps. The people in Taiwan live in the shadow of a China with increasingly authoritarian behavior.

When Putin upsets the world order by invading an innocent neighboring country, the leadership in Beijing watches with interest and carefully notes the world's response and perseverance.

Sweden and the international community must show both Russia and China that we stand up for the rules-based world order and that our support for Ukraine is both persistent and sufficient.

We must be clear towards China in our criticism of the violations of human rights and support the people in Taiwan to decide their own future themselves.

Mr. Speaker! Lastly, I would like to take the opportunity to demand an immediate release of Gui Minhai but also Johan Floderus in Iran and the other Swedes in Iran as well as Dawit Isaak. It requires decency of me to do so.

(Applause)

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

Magdalena Thuresson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Olle Thorell for his speech.

Olle Thorell spoke in his speech, among other things, about aid as a tool in migration policy and that it is something he is critical of. He expressed himself in a similar way in the budget debate here in December. Then he said: "We are critical of aid being used as a tool to force greater returns."

This debate took place on December 15 last year.

In December 2021, the then Minister for Justice and Home Affairs Morgan Johansson held a press conference regarding repatriation. It was stated there, among other things, that aid is based on respect between the country that receives and the country that gives. The announcement was that the Social Democrats want to use aid as leverage in deportations.

My question is: When did the Social Democrats change their perception, and above all, why?

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

Olle Thorell (S)

Mr. Speaker! Magdalena Thuresson's frenzy to search through Social Democratic press conferences to find inconsistencies in our messages pleases me. I do not believe that Morgan Johansson said verbatim that aid shall be used as a tool for increased return. However, I know that we had talks with, for example, the regime in Afghanistan before the Taliban took over - government to government - regarding a repatriation agreement concerning their citizens. In these talks, all the relations that one has between two countries were discussed. There, aid is one thing. Laws, extraditions, and return are another. These we have had as topics of conversation. But we do not have as a starting point for aid policy that it shall serve as a tool for increased return. It is not on the map for us.

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

Magdalena Thuresson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I can state that the Social Democrats say one thing and do another in quite many areas. It is not entirely simple to understand. The message from Olle Thorell in the speaker's chair is clear. But the latest entry is not entirely clear. Do the Social Democrats think it is reasonable to use this tool also to test the conditions for achieving a better return? Otherwise, it is very unreasonable. They say they want to use the aid in one way but do not do so. This is recognizable from many policy areas. They say they want to turn over many stones. But then they are not prepared to turn over so many stones in any case.

I can only state that if the Social Democrats are not prepared to even consider this, then they also do not see the major problems that Sweden has had and that Sweden has regarding the fact that a no has not always been a no.

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

Olle Thorell (S)

Mr. Speaker! We Social Democrats do not think that aid should be used as a lever - a tool - for increased return migration from Sweden to other countries. On the other hand, we naturally believe that international law and international law should apply. If you do not have the right to stay in a country, you must return to your country of origin, and states have a responsibility to fulfill international law as the international law it is a part of.

This includes talking to countries, but threatening to cut aid - which does not go to states and governments but to civil society organizations, MR activists, and women's organizations that often work against governments - does not help the return at all. That is what we think is so backward about the government trying to use this as a tool: It is not even a tool that can be used.

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

Katarina Tolgfors (M)

Mr. Speaker! Member Thorell speaks of how Sweden has historically been a major donor in the world. Sweden will continue to be so even with the reform agenda. We will make other priorities, but we will continue to have a strong commitment in the world.

The need is infinite in the world; Member Thorell knows this, as he has been involved in these contexts longer than I have. At the same time, the budget is limited. Even the opposition proposed a reduced budget for aid in their shadow budget. I would therefore like to hear what priorities Member Thorell and the Social Democrats would make with the reduced budget that they, too, have to work with. Could you provide some concrete proposals, Olle Thorell? What is it that would disappear?

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

Olle Thorell (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the question, Katarina Tolgfors! I could give a hundred examples, but I only have 56 seconds of speaking time left.

I would say this: Precisely because the needs are infinite, it is important to stand firm on the one percent goal. There will always be legitimate purposes for providing aid, but the one percent goal also constitutes a limit. There will never be money for all the good one would want to do in the world, and that is also the case with the 56-billion ceiling that you have set, Katarina Tolgfors.

The difference between us is not that we alone want to do good in the world, for Katarina Tolgfors and all the Moderates surely want to do that too. The difference is that you want to do it for a little less money. You are a little less generous with our gross national income than we are. We think that 1 percent is a decent and reasonable goal, and we will promptly return to it when we get back power. But you think, together with the Sverigedemokraterna, that the aid should be a little less.

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

Katarina Tolgfors (M)

Mr. Speaker! Yes, as the opposition says, we are reducing the aid. We are moving away from the one percent goal and have a budget of 56 billion over three years. That is a lot of money; it is as much money as the defense budget stood at for many years. It is, however, higher now.

It is not always just about what pot of money one has, but about how one uses the money – what governance one has, what efficiency one has in the missions and efforts that are to be carried out, and where the money is directed. If I could have wished, Mr. Speaker, I might also have wanted to have infinitely more money to help the poor in the world, create development, and ensure that more people get to live in freedom and democracy. But one must prioritize, and therefore I ask the question again: Could Member Thorell give two or three concrete examples of what would be prioritized? Perhaps he can then also tell what would not fit, given that not everything can be included.

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

Olle Thorell (S)

Mr. Speaker! I shall mention three quick things we would prioritize. For the first, we would reinstate the support to UNRWA immediately. For the second, we would develop a ladder for a return to the one percent level. For the third, we would restore the contributions to UN Women, which have been halved under this government. Those were three quick things.

It is interesting, this matter of the one percent goal. The Moderates criticize the one percent goal for aid and say that we cannot just have a spending goal but must look at the quality – but when it comes to defense, it is different. No defense politician says that the most important thing is not how much money we spend on defense but that the important thing is how effective the cannons are and how well we use the money. How large the overhead costs are and how much disappears into bureaucracy is certainly not heard from the Moderate side when it comes to defense expenditures, but strangely enough, that is only heard when it comes to aid.

It is, however, only an excuse because one does not want to say: We want to give a little less to the world's poor.

(Applause)

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

Rasmus Giertz (SD)

Mr. Speaker! On October 7, the Islamist terrorist group Hamas carried out a brutal and inhuman attack primarily aimed at civilian targets in Israel. We have witnessed horrific images of murdered civilians – women and children. We have seen how women and children were slaughtered, raped and kidnapped.

As can be expected from a democratic state with a people-anchored defense, Israel has responded militarily based on the principle of precaution, in order to avoid civilian losses. Israel has both a duty, a right, and an obligation to secure its population, its territory, and its existence, and to ensure that something similar does not happen again. Hamas must be neutralized, and support for Israel's military operations is a matter of course for the Sweden Democrats.

Mr. Speaker! The humanitarian situation in Gaza is simultaneously very serious. We see great suffering for civilians due to the war but also due to Hamas's brutality and indifference towards civilians. All civilian victims are a tragedy.

Israel has taken far-reaching measures to protect civilians in Gaza. Israel has warned civilian Gazans, provided space for evacuation and clearly declared that it intends to attack military targets. Hamas's cowardly strategy of hiding behind the civilian population and completely going against the foundations of international law has, however, resulted in civilians falling victim. It is a tragic circumstance, regardless of side in the conflict, and something that should be avoided.

It is absolutely fundamental that the strong support we have seen for Israel continues and that all democratic forces stand behind Israel's right to self-defense. The response needs to be powerful and clear, and Hamas needs to be crushed at its core. We also have full confidence that Israel has both the will and the capacity to do this.

Mr. Speaker! It is repulsive to see how Hamas's bestial attack against civilians was celebrated here at home on Swedish streets. People who were allowed to move to our country thus went out and celebrated that Israeli civilians were subjected to murder, rape, and kidnappings. These are people who should never have been allowed to come here and who have no business in Sweden. Islamism and antisemitism have no place in Sweden and need to be fought with the full force of society.

Mr. Speaker! The Sweden Democrats have for a long time watched with concern how the UN agency UNRWA has conducted its work. There are several examples of terror propaganda and antisemitism in textbooks, and its involvement with the terror group Hamas is well-documented.

Since the revelations that employees at UNRWA participated in the horrific terrorist attack against Israel on October 7, Sweden, like other countries, has chosen to pause aid to UNRWA, something that the Sweden Democrats, of course, welcome. Just a few days ago, the IDF also claimed that they had found Hamas tunnels under UNRWA's headquarters.

It is also not reasonable that the UN has an entirely separate body for Palestinian refugees when other UN organizations, for example the UN's main refugee agency UNHCR, can handle the issue.

Mr. Speaker! The Sweden Democrats have for a long time worked to revoke the recognition of Palestine and move the Swedish embassy to Jerusalem. The hasty recognition of Palestine that the previous, Social Democratic-led government pushed through was a hasty and incorrect decision. It also cannot be seen as representative of Sweden, because the government at that time lacked a parliamentary majority. The decision also lacked a basis in international law. There is now nothing to indicate that we will see a long-term functioning government. It was the wrong decision then, and it has turned out to be the wrong decision even today.

Mr. Speaker! The situation in the region is very serious. Hamas's terrorist attacks must be condemned unreservedly. Civilians must be protected. Humanitarian aid must be ensured. Escalation must be avoided. We must not lose focus on a negotiated two-state solution where Israel and Palestine can coexist. A two-state solution is and remains the only sustainable path toward a long-term sustainable peace.

(Applause)

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

Johan Büser (S)

Mr. Speaker! It is welcome that Member Giertz takes a strong stand against terrorism and against antisemitism. It is something that we Social Democrats also do.

But then Member Giertz enters the support for UNRWA. We think it is incredibly regrettable that the government and its support party, Sverigedemokraterna, are reducing the support so significantly to the agency that can help women, children, and the civilian population on site. Member Giertz said from the rostrum that it is well-documented what interactions UNRWA has with Hamas. I would like Member Giertz to account for what examples he has of it being well-documented that UNRWA has clear links to Hamas.

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

Rasmus Giertz (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member Johan Büser for the question. For the Sweden Democrats, it is obvious that the Swedish aid to UNRWA must now be paused. Then we will see what it leads to when the respective investigations have been completed. But this type of connections at UNRWA has been noted for a long time, not just recently. For a very long time, we have seen how antisemitism has been spread by UNRWA and entered school books and other things, and how antisemitic propaganda has been spread. I would like to hear from the Member if he distances himself from this type of activity, which UNRWA has also conducted.

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

Johan Büser (S)

Mr. Speaker! UNRWA is the UN's agency to help refugees in Palestine. It is the agency that can deliver food and emergency aid to all those suffering in the extremely difficult humanitarian situation that currently prevails in Gaza.

I note that I received vague examples. I received no concrete examples. I think we should be careful with which words we use in the chamber when it comes to people. Thousands of women and children have died in this conflict. We have found 12 suspected persons within UNRWA among 30,000 employees. What does member Giertz actually think is worse – is it that we have found these 12 employees among 30,000, or is it that women and children are dying? Who is going to do this work when the government cuts back on those who are currently most in need in the entire world? Answer that!

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

Rasmus Giertz (SD)

Mr. Speaker! At the same time, the aid intended to help Palestinian refugees in Gaza has increased through other areas.

UNRWA is suspected of having employees who participated in Hamas's horrific terrorist attack. At the same time, UNRWA has profound problems with antisemitism. For me, it is obvious that no Swedish tax money should go to such an organization.

I noted that Johan Büser had difficulty condemning this type of antisemitic activity from UNRWA. I would like to hear if Johan Büser intends to do so.

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

Andreas Lennkvist Manriquez (V)

Mr. Speaker! The death toll in Gaza continues to rise and now exceeds 28,000. Of those killed, 70 percent are women and children. The world's largest open-air prison has become the world's largest graveyard. The humanitarian situation is so acute that more than half a million people are threatened by famine. In the hospitals, doctors perform amputations on children and cesarean sections on women without anesthesia.

Last week, the UN Secretary-General stated that only 10 of 61 planned convoys with humanitarian aid reached northern Gaza during the month of January, despite the International Court of Justice ordering Israel to take all measures to prevent genocide. This includes, among other things, ensuring the supply of humanitarian aid to Gaza.

Mr. Speaker! We have all seen the images from Rafah after this weekend's bombings. It is a new Guernica that has been played out before our eyes. The laws of war are based on proportionality, but the relentless bombing of civilians that we are seeing is far from proportionate. It is a war crime. Those responsible must be held accountable, and Sweden must immediately terminate all military cooperation with Israel. It is high time that the government acts and, in words and deeds, increases the pressure on Israel to comply with the decision from the International Court of Justice. It is time for the government to condemn Israel's terror bombings of civilians in the same harsh terms as we all here today have condemned Hamas's bestial attack on October 7. It is time for the government to demand an immediate and permanent ceasefire in Gaza.

(Applause)

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

Linnéa Wickman (S)

Mr. Speaker! The world is entering an era of chaos, the UN Secretary-General António Guterres recently said. Authoritarian regimes are increasing their power. Conflicts and contradictions are being intensified. Respect for international law is being eroded. The rights of girls, women, and minorities are facing a pushback. Workers are being attacked or even murdered because of trade union engagement for human rights in the workplace.

All of this is part of a democratic regression. It is becoming increasingly difficult to reach the global Agenda 2030 goals, which the world's countries agreed upon, and the climate crisis is worsening. At the same time, our country's security policy situation is the most serious since World War II, with a war on our continent. Russia's unjust war in Ukraine will soon enter its third year.

Mr. Speaker! What gives me hope in such a dark time is meeting the brave and committed women and women's rights defenders around the world who, locally, often with strong opposition from very conservative forces, work to concretely improve the living conditions for girls and women in a difficult environment. It is UNFPA's "safe spaces," which enable safe zones to strengthen the empowerment of girls in Zambia, a country where one in three girls has a child before they turn 18. It is the women's organizations in Armenia that support women fleeing from Nagorno-Karabakh and that stand up for the right to abortion and access to contraceptives. It is the women's cooperative on the West Bank in Palestine that I visited just over a year ago and which, with its agricultural cooperative, has strengthened the economic conditions and the political power for the women in their village. These women are crucial for making the world better step by step.

Mr. Speaker! According to a report from Women to Women, 75 percent of the world's women human rights defenders have been subjected to threats and hate, and every fourth has been subjected to death threats. This has primarily come from far-right and anti-feminist movements, but also increasingly from the victims' own governments.

We can also see how women and children are hit hardest by war and conflicts. Women and children are the majority of those who have been killed in the war between Hamas and Israel. We also see how sexual violence is used as part of the warfare from terrorist groups such as Hamas or rogue states like Russia.

To be a girl and a woman is still, in many parts of the world, associated with oppression, violence, abuse, violated human rights, and not infrequently, being murdered. It also often means that you are excluded from peace processes and are not seen as an actor in your own right.

It is against that background that we must remind ourselves that the government has abolished the feminist foreign policy. Despite the words that equality shall continue to be prioritized in foreign and aid policy, we now see the beginning of a different direction.

Sweden's support to UN Women has been halved. We also saw how the support to UNFPA, which works with sexual and reproductive health, was cut during last year and remains at a lower level than before. Nor did the government give Sida a single new assignment in its regulatory letter linked to equality, except for a reporting assignment on the agenda for women, peace, and security.

I wonder, of course: How does the government justify this? What impact assessments underlie these decisions? How does the government believe that the pursued policy contributes to a better world for girls and women?

Mr. Speaker! The world's countries now have eight years to achieve the global goals. But the latest progress report shows that we have moved further away from achieving most of the 17 goals, not closer. Here we know that the global pandemic caused great damage. But we are also obligated to unite so that we can eradicate extreme poverty, minimize the climate crisis, combat inequality, and promote peace.

This is the second year in a row that Agenda 2030 is not even mentioned in the foreign policy declaration. Swedish authorities are no longer to report on how they work with Agenda 2030. Agenda 2030 has simply started to disappear and plays a very obscure role in both foreign and domestic policy.

The year 2023 became the warmest year ever recorded. As climate change worsens, the consequences are becoming increasingly clear. It is rising sea levels, floods and droughts that are becoming more common and which fuel economic, political and social tensions. Of those forced to leave their homes due to climate change, 80 percent are women. So even in this area we can see that those hardest hit are women and children in the most vulnerable and exposed countries.

Something that is crucial here and that the government says it prioritizes is an efficient and expanded climate aid. At COP 28, unlike countries such as Denmark, Norway, the United Kingdom, and Germany, Sweden gave no indication of whether Sweden will contribute to the fund for climate-related damages and losses. Even in this area, it is now up to the government to prove it can simply follow up on the words it utters with a concrete policy.

Mr. Speaker! Rarely has the need for faith in the future and a strong, clear and reliable Swedish voice in the world been so important. When the UN Secretary-General warns of an era of chaos, all political leaders must stand up for a rules-based world order and international law, and they must support the people and organizations that locally resist authoritarian forces.

(Applause)

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

Björn Söder (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Let me begin with a quote: "It is possible to construct entirely alien future scenarios for Russia's development. It can neither be ruled out that the reform policy returns, that development continues in the same direction, or that the collapse accelerates. It also cannot be ruled out that the political leadership is replaced by red-brown forces with political ambitions that threaten our immediate neighborhood or perhaps the entire world."

The uncertainty is great. A dismantled defense takes years to build up again - we may not have that time on the day the political situation changes. Our insurance is called: Swedish Defense!

The quote is from 1999 from an article I wrote in our party's youth bulletin. I can state that as a twenty-year-old, I was able to make better analyses then than the representatives in this chamber could.

When we in 2008 could truly see where Russia was headed, through the invasion of Georgia, people were still sleeping in this chamber.

When we stood in this rostrum after the 2010 parliamentary election and warned about what might happen if we did not arm our defense, people were not just sitting there sleeping; they almost mocked us and called the Swedish defense a special interest.

Only after the invasion and annexation of Crimea did the other parties begin to gradually wake up. But it went slowly. Not even after the full-scale invasion of Ukraine did some in here realize that when reality changes and security orders are completely disrupted, one must dare to rethink and redraw the map according to the new terrain.

Despite this, the then Minister of Defence, Peter Hultqvist, sat on Sveriges Television, two weeks after the invasion, and announced that he had not changed his opinion on Swedish membership in Nato. That says something more about the analytical ability of those who have previously governed this country.

Mr. Speaker! Ukraine constitutes today our primary front line against the Russian aggression. It is therefore so important that we continue to provide our support to the country. There is neither time nor room to falter in the support. It is pleasing that there is such a broad political consensus around this here in the Riksdag today. Unfortunately, this does not apply to all other EU countries. We can see how Hungary wavers, and not least Slovakia's new social democratic government under Fico's leadership has adopted a more pro-Russian stance.

But that is not the only thing that is worrying. At the same time as the EU as a whole says it stands behind Ukraine, it has agreements with and finances a regime that sends soldiers to fight and battle on Russia's behalf against Ukraine. The so-called political dialogue and cooperation agreement, PDCA, with the Cuban communist regime shows the hypocrisy in the EU.

The EU also finances 80 projects in Cuba to a value of 155 million euro. These are projects that highly benefit the regime. Here, the Swedish government, following pressure from SD, has said that it wants to review the agreement. But for that, it is required that more countries' governments join such a review. We will continue to push to get rid of this shameful agreement between the EU and Cuba's communist regime.

Mr. Speaker! We must also not forget other conflicts occurring in the shadow of the war in Ukraine. Large parts of Georgia are still occupied by Russia. In Nagorno-Karabakh, Azerbaijan has carried out ethnic cleansing of Armenians. It is 120,000 people who have been forced into flight, and the country continues to provoke its neighbor to the west.

Azerbaijan continues to break the 2020 agreement, commit war crimes and human rights abuses, and refuses to participate in peace negotiations. As a first step, the international community should impose sanctions against individual regime representatives who are behind Azerbaijan's actions. I have raised the issue with the Foreign Minister, who does not dismiss such a measure but usually hides behind the rest of the EU. In the EU, we know how successfully Azerbaijan has used its caviar diplomacy to buy its support.

In the shadow of the war in Ukraine, we also see how Communist China is taking the opportunity to expand its violations and provocations against democratic Taiwan. Here, it is also important that Sweden, like the rest of the world, stands up for an independent Taiwan.

Mr. Speaker! A conflict that has not been overshadowed by the war in Ukraine is what is happening in Israel. Here, the rest of the world must be clear in its support for Israel's right to defend its country and its people. After the despicable terrorist attack on October 7 last year, where the terrorist organization Hamas slaughtered thousands of Israelis, I have full understanding that Israel is now with full force ensuring that these terrorists are removed from the face of the earth.

But at the same time, Mr. Speaker, I feel immediately nauseated by seeing how there are people in our country who have come here and taken part of our hospitality who, on our streets, hail Hamas and celebrate the slaughter of Israelis. There should be an end to our hospitality for these people, and they should have a one-way ticket back to Gaza. Those who hail terrorism have no place in Sweden.

In these so-called "Mellotider," it also makes me feel nauseous to see how the Swedish cultural elite is now trying to stop Israel's participation in Melodifestivalen. I would have expected at least some on that list they have compiled to have more backbone than an amoeba. But that is too much to hope for. It is shameful in any case, and the artists who have signed that list should be ashamed!

Mr. Speaker! Today we see how conflicts abroad are being moved to our country and how it affects those who live here. The conflict between Israel and Hamas has had direct consequences for Jews in Sweden. The extensive mass immigration that has occurred to Sweden during the last decades of people who now walk our streets and squares and hail terrorism and slaughter has resulted in that Jews in Sweden are less safe than ever. They are forced to hide their attributes and conceal that they are Jews.

But in Sweden, a Jew should be able to wear their kippah on their head and their Star of David around their neck without risking being subjected to harassment or anything even worse. Let us together ensure that instead, we remove those who are responsible for violence and the glorification of extremism. They have no business in our country.

Mr. Speaker! There is much to say about foreign policy, and time is short. I just want to say in conclusion that it is a very good action on the government's part that they are now freezing the payments to UNRWA - an organization that time and again has been caught spreading anti-Semitism, cooperating with the terrorist organization Hamas and inciting violence.

(Applause)

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

John E Weinerhall (M)

Mr. Speaker! The world is a more restless place than it has been since the Second World War. We live in a very serious time. On our own continent, the full-scale war of aggression from Russia against Ukraine has been raging for two years.

At the same time as the war rages in Europe, dark clouds are gathering in other parts of our world. There is war in the Middle East, civilian shipping is threatened in the Red Sea, and in even more places we see conflicts, unrest, and risk of war and human suffering. Therefore, I would also like to allow myself to take a more distant view today.

The world order that the world has grown accustomed to since the Cold War is being pushed to its limits as we now see authoritarian states challenging it time and again. This applies to Russia, communist Mainland China, Iran, Venezuela, and North Korea, to name a few. They are all authoritarian states with clear power ambitions both economically and militarily. To meet the threat from these, a united and cohesive Europe with a strong transatlantic link is required. It is crucial for maintaining the rules-based world order we rely on.

At the same time, Mr. Speaker, it is important that Europe strengthens its independence. Many European countries have for far too long hitched a ride and relied too much on America. It is therefore good and welcome that most European countries are now strengthening their defense and contributing to the fact that we can together defend ourselves against the threats that surround us.

Alongside Russia, China is the greatest long-term security threat to the world order we safeguard, and a China on the offensive demands everyone's vigilance. Chinese actions in the South China Sea, with its claims to virtually the entire sea and the country's annexations of island groups, raise great concern. Beijing's nine-dash line lacks a legal basis and encroaches on neighboring countries' territorial waters. Added to this are also China's pressures and repeated threats against Taiwan.

The passages in the South China Sea are extremely important for world trade. Half of the world's maritime cargo passes there. Furthermore, it is estimated that there are large natural resources in the form of oil and gas in the area, and I do not even need to mention the importance of access to semiconductors. There are therefore major both economic and security policy aspects that play a role in the region.

Regarding China, it is partly about the country's minorities, such as the Tibetans in the now non-autonomous Tibet and the Uyghurs in Xinjiang, where China is guilty of cultural genocide, environmental destruction, and oppression of individual rights. But it is not only ethnic minorities that are severely affected by cultural and religious persecution, but it also applies largely throughout all of China. Political freedom is almost entirely curtailed and freedom of the press abolished, and cultural censorship is very extensive. The imprisoned Swedish citizen, the author and publisher Gui Minhai, is just one example of this.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden has a long history as a free-trade-friendly country. It is through trade and cooperation that we create both prosperity and deeper relations with other countries. But Sweden also has a long tradition of working for and highlighting human rights. Here, it is important that Sweden continues to be a clear voice and that we collectively in the EU work to ensure that the narratives from China and Russia do not gain a foothold around the world.

Above all China, but also Russia, has great interests in many countries in both Asia and Africa. Here, Sweden and the EU therefore need to step forward and be a better alternative as a partner on equal terms. European cooperation and socially responsible investments must always be a better alternative than Chinese debt traps.

We must be long-term oriented and nurture the good forces that exist despite the miserable world we live in, and which are even gaining ground in some places – there is a little hope in this debate too!

It concerns, for example, Burma, where the military junta is now losing more and more control over the country and, for the first time in years, there are actually glimmers of hope regarding the military coup. The same applies to Guatemala, which, with the newly elected president Bernardo Arévalo, has chosen the path of democracy, anti-corruption, and the rule of law.

In many places, the good hangs by a slender thread, and therefore we must never abandon the struggle for democracy, the rule of law, and international law.

Mr. Speaker! The Swedish commitment to an order where justice takes precedence over power must continue. This applies both in our immediate vicinity and across the entire world.

(Applause)

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

Tomas Eneroth (S)

Mr. Speaker! Not so long ago, the social democratic candidate Bernardo Arévalo won the presidential election in Guatemala. He did so after a long period of opposition from the sitting government and from judicial organizations in Guatemala – a corrupted state that did what it could to prevent a democratically elected president from being able to take office. They tried to invalidate the party, and they tried to invalidate his candidacy. But he won because very many went and voted this time.

This is the result of successful aid work over a long period, where not least Diakonia but also many other both Swedish and international organizations have worked systematically to support civil society and stand up for human rights. There are several of us here in the Riksdag who have met people who have been forced to leave Guatemala to find sanctuary somewhere else.

In that way, we can see that aid plays a role and that it actually works to persistently provide support to MR organizations and to civil society and in that way pave the way for a democratization. We could see how the EU acted with clear statements from Borrell and how the USA put persons on the sanctions list who tried to prevent Bernardo Arévalo's access to power. Aid works. It is persistent, and then we can also pave the way for democracy.

Mr. Speaker! Joar Forssell and I in the committee were just recently in Cambodia and could actually see a similar development there. It is a country that is subject to both corruption, oppression, poverty and ignorance and which has a growing engagement from China, which I believe accounts for 40 percent of the investments and 20 percent of the land. In different ways, China tries to prevent a democratic development despite a strong economic development in the country.

Also here, Sweden has been active in civil society with support to Transparency International, support through Diakonia to several different organizations, and support to Union to Union to ensure that one mobilizes for a democratic development in a country, Cambodia, which is geopolitically interesting to us who want to safeguard democracy and human rights.

We might have been able to see the same development as in Guatemala in about a year, but now that is not happening. A reform agenda got in the way—a reform agenda that said no support was needed for Cambodia. In the days before Christmas Eve, a letter arrived stating that all bilateral support to civil society organizations was being withdrawn. We met several of the representatives for these now that we were on site, and they were deeply disappointed in Sweden. They also realized that they would not be able to find other funding so easily, and they would begin to wind down their operations. It is claimed by Sweden's government that there are regional strategies that resources can be obtained from instead. But it became clear on site that it is not possible, because these funds were already locked.

The same development as now in Cambodia as a consequence of the reform agenda – that democracy is pushed back and that we open the way for a strong Chinese and totalitarian influence – we now see in several African countries. When Europe and Sweden withdraw, that vacuum will be filled by both Chinese and Russian interests. The price for that will be a worsened struggle for human rights, for equality, and for democracy. The price will be increasingly worse conditions for civil society organizations that would have wanted to operate there but do not receive resources, and for UN organizations that receive less and less support. We have heard here in the chamber how, for example, UN Women has received a reduction of first 25 percent and then 40 percent, a radical and brutal saving on their resources for aid work. This is also an effect of the reform agenda.

Sweden is failing, when instead we could have made a different choice - to work together with other Nordic countries to create broad alliances for strengthened aid, to continue acting strongly within the UN and assert the UN's right to act through its organizations instead of cutting core support, to use the World Bank or the European Investment Bank and be an active actor there to develop countries and their democracies and to set clear MR requirements on opportunities for states before they borrow money.

Instead, resources are being withdrawn. The most dramatic example is UNRWA, which has been debated a lot here today. In a situation where 25,000 people have been killed in Gaza, their resources are being withdrawn.

Sweden has a history and a legacy of being a humanitarian superpower, a country that dares to act and dares to take the lead. We have names like Hammarskjöld, Edelstam, Palme, Alva Myrdal, Anna Lindh, Margot Wallström - the list is long of Swedes who throughout history have been able to show that we are what is called a humanitarian superpower, a country that dares to stand up for values and sometimes also challenge a legal order where the superpowers have claimed too much power.

What will the legacy be for this government? What will be the legacy for a reform agenda that shrinks Sweden's engagement, reduces ambitions, lowers aid, and looks away when thousands of people die?

(Applause)

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Today's Iran is de facto an occupied country. Since 1979, the Iranian people have been forced into an Islamist lifestyle that is completely foreign to them. This Islamist lifestyle is imposed on the Iranian people through armed forces that harbor no loyalty toward the Iranian state or the Iranian people, but toward the regime of the mullahs and its leader Ali Khamenei.

If it is not a formal occupation, it is still as close as one can get to an informal occupation.

There are few Iranians who see the mullahs as their compatriots. The mullahs are strangers who have occupied Iran and see the Iranian people as slaves who must submit to the oppression of Islamism. It is not a state that has occupied Iranian territory; it is the mullahs as an institution that have occupied Iran.

After 45 years of Islamist oppression, there is now a new generation in Iran that says no to the mullahs' foreign traditions, to the mullahs' foreign culture and to the mullahs' Islamist ideology. Yet another generation of Iranians rises up and says no to the Islamist occupation. It also does not matter if it takes 500 years: the Iranian people will never accept the barbarism that the mullahs' regime stands for.

With every passing year, more and more politicians in the West are becoming aware of how dangerous the regime of the Moors is. It is a regime that will sooner or later acquire nuclear weapons. It is a regime that is not afraid to start major regional wars. It is a regime that is prepared to murder people in Sweden and the rest of Europe. It is a regime that takes Swedish citizens as hostages and executes them.

A change of regime in Iran is in the interest of the Iranian people but also in the interest of all democratic countries.

Fortunately, more and more in Sweden have understood that it is not possible to cooperate with the regime in Iran. It is not possible to approach the regime in Iran. There are no democratic forces among the mullahs. There is a consensus today that the mullahs' regime is a pariah.

Ten years ago, it was controversial to talk about regime change in Iran. Today, it is controversial not to talk about regime change. There is simply no alternative to regime change when the Iranian people have so clearly rejected the mullahs' regime. The protests and sacrifices in Iran have also convinced many politicians in the West that the mullahs' regime will not hold and that it is not sustainable to sign trade agreements or other treaties with such a regime.

On May 10 last year, a unanimous Riksdag decided to task the government with creating unity within the EU to list the Islamic Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization. That decision also means that from May 10, 2023, the Swedish Riksdag, representing the Swedish people, considers the Revolutionary Guard to be a terrorist organization.

Furthermore, we know that the revolutionary guard is an integrated part of the moles' regime. If the Riksdag considers the revolutionary guard to be a terrorist organization, one has also indirectly asserted that the moles' regime is a terrorist organization. It is important that the government follows up on the Riksdag's decision.

Let me be clear: There is no way back for the regime of the moles. They are pariahs and will remain pariahs. Now we must introduce the sanctions required for them to be treated as pariahs.

Today, there is no doubt that Ali Khamenei, the dictator of Iran, is a criminal person who is responsible for gross crimes against humanity. More sanctions must be introduced against the regime, especially against the regime's leader Ali Khamenei and against those who work at his office and support him.

The regime of the mullahs consists of an elite that sends its family members to the West so that they can live a life of luxury. This must not be allowed. The sanctions must also include relatives of the persons who lead the regime in Iran. They must not be able to come here and spend their blood money.

Right now, the regime in Iran is trying to send the message to the Iranian people that all protests are in vain and that those who protest against the dictatorship will be silenced in various ways. We who are in freedom must be the voice of the oppressed.

I personally have sponsored the political prisoner Mojahed Kourkour. I hope that more members of Parliament will sponsor political prisoners. It sends a message that those who fight for freedom will not be forgotten. It sends a message that we who sit in this assembly stand up for human rights not only in words but also in action. It also sends a signal that we who stand up for democracy are for a global struggle against Islamism wherever it oppresses people.

(Applause)

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

Stefan Olsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Let me use this opportunity to speak in the chamber today to explain, in the same way as the Foreign Minister previously did in the foreign policy declaration, why our party consistently holds to the idea of a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine as the path the two peoples should take and which Sweden should therefore support.

There is an agreement on that matter in the Riksdag, but outside, the debate is often heated and not always particularly constructive. When my colleague from the Upplandsbänk, Ilona Szatmari Waldau, was to speak at a pro-Palestinian demonstration this weekend, she began her speech by clearly stating that her party, Vänsterpartiet, recognizes the State of Israel's right to exist, that Vänsterpartiet condemns Hamas's terrorism, and that a two-state solution must be the future. For this, she was booed by the audience. But I have also in my daily flow of updates on social media found so-called pro-Israeli posts where it is shown how large the Arab world is and where it is argued that the Palestinians could simply move or be deported.

As long as the debate is conducted with these unrealistic images in mind, a Palestine emptied of Jews or an Israel emptied of Arabs, the conflict will never reach an end. There is therefore reason to repeat the basic facts, the realities, which cause pretty much everyone who has looked into the details of the conflict to sooner or later arrive at the same conclusion.

It has nothing to do with the history of the two peoples. It has nothing to do with who was there first, who has lived in the country the longest during which historical period, who can demonstrate the most interesting archaeological finds, or who is a victim or perpetrator in the past. All of that is irrelevant.

The realities are these: In the area that today constitutes Israel and Palestine, two large ethnic groups live - Jews and Arabs. The groups are equal in size, at approximately 7 million each. There are also other ethnic groups, but these two are dominant. Neither of them will move away from the area voluntarily.

If the outside world, against all odds, were to suddenly decide that the Jews should have to leave the area, a major war would break out. Israel was formed to protect the Jews, among other things against the kind of oppression they had had to endure in Europe. The country has the Middle East's strongest defense.

The Palestinian people, in turn, are not as well-organized. One actually has no state, even though Sweden has recognized that there is a Palestine. But if the rest of the world were to attempt to carry out a major deportation, people would still organize a violent resistance.

It would also happen if Israel were to annex the West Bank, even if they were to give all Palestinians Israeli citizenship. In five red seconds, a nationalist liberation front would be created, and it could very well use terror again, in the same way as now.

Mr. Speaker! It is when one adds up the facts that truly matter that one cannot draw any other conclusion than that a two-state solution is necessary. The idea that only one of the ethnic groups could live in the area, that only Israel or only Palestine would exist, is a fantasy.

Mr. Speaker! For Sweden's part, the focus must be on supporting the work for a future two-state solution in every way. In the short term, it is about ending the war in Gaza. Here, I have no other opinion than the one that the Foreign Minister has already set out and therefore refer to his speech.

In the longer perspective, it is first and foremost about helping to build a functioning democratic Palestinian state. Israel is a democracy and will never be able to rely on anything other than another democracy as its closest neighbor. Unfortunately, the conditions do not exist today to build a Palestinian state. It does not look particularly good, in any case.

The Palestinians are a politically divided people. No democratic Palestinian leader who enjoys broad popular support seems to exist. A large part of the population has been enticed to join or sympathize with the terrorist organization Hamas. The Palestinian Authority is considered corrupt by many.

The absence of a functioning Palestinian state also says a great deal about how ineffective Sweden's and other Western countries' aid has been. A major rethink of the Palestinian aid is desirable.

Of course, Sweden must also set demands on Israel. The occupation policy that has been ongoing since 1967 must come to an end. Palestinian land that has been illegally seized for the security barrier and for settlements must be returned, and extremist settlers must be stopped.

Mr. Speaker! As I initially mentioned, there is a consensus in the Riksdag that Sweden should support the work to achieve a two-state solution. The debate outside the Riksdag building is unfortunately not being conducted in the same spirit. We can therefore help each other, across party lines, simply by informing about what is actually required to create peace.

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

Johan Büser (S)

Mr. Speaker! This year's foreign policy debate, which has been ongoing for quite a few hours now, takes place in a very restless world. If that, we have spoken a lot about today. In a week's time, it will be two years since Russia launched its violation of international law in Ukraine and thereby shattered the security for millions of people. In addition, the security policy situation in our part of the world also changed.

One usually remembers where they were when decisive events occurred. For my part, I was in Vienna in connection with OSCE's winter meeting. OSCE is an organization where both Ukraine and Russia are members. The news that a member country in conflict with the European security order had attacked and invaded another member country was difficult to take in. Sweden's and the world's support for Ukraine shall and must continue to be as strong as it is persistent.

Mr. Speaker! The Swedish OSCE delegation visited another country, Georgia, in January this year, which, like Ukraine, has been to the highest degree affected by Russian aggression. Today, 20 percent of Georgia's internationally recognized territory is de facto controlled by Russia and Russian interests.

We in the delegation had the opportunity, together with the EU's crisis management mission, to visit the administrative dividing line in South Ossetia. The territory, which is located only a few miles from Georgia's capital Tbilisi, has been controlled by a foreign power for more than a decade.

We met, among other things, a woman whose garden had been cut off. She had also not been allowed to meet her elderly brother for several years. He was on the other side. We visited a small village where the cemetery had also been cut off and where people were no longer allowed to meet their relatives from the other side or visit their relatives' graves. Worst was the example where the village church had been taken over. The son of those who had built the church chose nevertheless to visit it one last time. For that, he paid with his life. It happened in November.

Georgia is a country whose population now wants to join the EU and which last year received notice of becoming a candidate country in the union. Later this year, Georgia will also go to elections.

Mr. Speaker! It is not only Georgia that is going to an election. A large proportion of the world's population is going to vote this year. Perhaps the most noticed election will be the American one. Donald Trump is not only a security policy threat but also a threat to democracy as a whole.

In our time, democracy is not something given by a higher power. Democracy must be defended every day. We know that if democracy is challenged, our security, our human rights, and ultimately our collective security are challenged. A rules-based world order where international law prevails must always take precedence over a world with imperialist great power interests.

Mr. Speaker! Today's foreign policy debate also provides an opportunity to highlight the situation in countries that we do not encounter daily in our news feeds. One such example is the illegal occupation in Western Sahara, which has been discussed previously here in the chamber.

Our international law, with its rights and obligations, must apply to everyone. And we who can must raise our voices for this. It applies regardless of whether you live in Ukraine, Western Sahara, Israel or Palestine.

Yesterday, we in Aftonbladet could read Karin Pettersson's article with the headline "The Swedish betrayal of Gaza is unbearable." Pettersson states that the rules-based world order proved to apply only to certain countries and that Sweden contributes to the weight of silence that makes the illusion of a world order now clearly shatter in many people's eyes.

Mr. Speaker! I must admit that lately it has at times been almost hopeless as a member of the Swedish Riksdag to see how Sweden's government ducks and does not raise its voice in a clear way against the hellish human suffering in Gaza. This is seen by the rest of the world, and this is seen by many in our country.

Many members of the Riksdag in the Tidö right-wing group have also failed to see the suffering on both the Israeli and the Palestinian side in recent months. We Social Democrats have from day one condemned Hamas's horrific acts of terrorism and demanded that the hostages be released immediately. In line with the UN and many other countries, we demand an immediate ceasefire, and we demand that the Swedish government immediately resumes support to UNRWA. We also support that the International Court of Justice is granted full access to investigate war crimes. We also support the demand that Israel immediately takes all measures to prevent genocide.

It is a two-state solution that must now be achieved. The only way forward is the path of diplomatic solutions to a stop to the violence with international law as the guiding star.

Morgan Johansson mentioned that I will travel down later this week to Israel and Palestine to visit both sides. That is how we Social Democrats work. We see both sides, and we demand a two-state solution and clearer action from the Swedish government's side for a world where international law prevails.

(Applause)

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

Mattias Eriksson Falk (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I hereby make my debut in the foreign policy debate. It is a debut I choose to make by speaking on an issue where we are in agreement in the Swedish Riksdag, namely that of the support for Ukraine and their struggle to safeguard their sovereignty and their democracy after Russia's illegal invasion nearly two years ago.

I am proud of the support that Sweden and many other countries have shown and given to Ukraine. It is not just about the support we have given in the form of weapons, protective equipment, and money, but also about the moral support. We as a nation, together with many others, clearly stand up for their right to defend themselves – which is a self-evident matter – and also show that the support is sustained.

Unfortunately, a conflict that lasts for a long time can be characterized by exhaustion and become normalized in people's consciousness. We must never end up there. When one of the support packages was discussed in the Finance Committee earlier, I said that a scenario where Russia succeeds in its invasion is completely unthinkable.

Mr. Speaker! I really want to emphasize that we cannot accept a scenario where Russia's invasion leads to the erasure of the independent democracy Ukraine, because in the end, it is not just about one country - it is about all of Europe.

I am pleased with the initiatives that have been taken even at the local level to support Ukraine. From my home county of Gävleborg, for example, ventilators have been donated to strengthen the health and medical care in Ukraine. It was needed, as hundreds of thousands of civilians and soldiers need care in a war. We have seen how Russia not only bombs military infrastructure but also engages in pure terror bombing of civil infrastructure such as residential buildings and hospitals. Thousands of private individuals have donated aid to Ukraine, for example in the form of ready money to various support organizations but also in the form of clothes, baby products and electronic equipment.

Mr. Speaker! Postnord is a company that has many times been criticized regarding mail handling, but here I want to take the opportunity to highlight their support for Ukraine. They have made it possible for people in Sweden to send supplies to Ukraine free of charge. This is something they continue to do today. I encourage everyone who can to continue contributing and sending supplies to Ukraine through Postnord. According to information on Postnord's own website, as of November 29, 2023, they had completed 126 transports with approximately 93,400 packages on 3,946 pallets. It is absolutely fantastic!

Now it is important that we continue to support Ukraine together and keep the importance of the support in the consciousness of both elected representatives and citizens. Together – as individuals, companies, municipalities or states – we can do a lot for Ukraine's opportunity to protect its population and save its country. Because just as I said earlier when we decided on one of Sweden's support packages to Ukraine, a scenario where Russia succeeds with its invasion is completely unthinkable.

Mr. Speaker! Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine with terror bombing of civilian infrastructure has shown that we even here in Sweden have things to learn, including how an aggressive enemy deliberately attacks infrastructure that is important for civilians. We can also draw lessons from the Ukrainian will and resilience. It has been about quickly repairing and getting society running again and about saving lives and showing that the fight for democracy is fought all the time and in many different ways.

We have reason to learn about the importance of being prepared. It is partly about how one can work to protect the infrastructure, what resources are needed and what spare parts and materials must strategically be on site in Sweden to ensure our own important infrastructure, partly about how the preparedness of municipalities and regions must be raised so that the country as a whole is ready. While we contribute to Ukraine's struggle, we must ourselves learn and make our country ready to ensure that we in Sweden can be defended while society can function.

Finally, I want to point out the importance of the fact that Sweden also has much to contribute to Ukraine when the country and destroyed cities are to begin being rebuilt again. Regardless of whether it concerns knowledge or support, we in Sweden can contribute, and we shall continue to do so.

(Applause)

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

Katarina Tolgfors (M)

Mr. Speaker! As has been stated here in the speaker's chair today, we live in a restless and uncertain world where authoritarian states and forces want to change the rules-based world order we have today.

On February 24, it will be two years since Russia started its illegal war against Ukraine. In August last year, I was there. I am very pleased that the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in the foreign policy declaration, began by emphasizing Sweden's continued and long-term support for Ukraine and Ukraine's freedom.

The list is unfortunately long regarding the conflicts and hotspots we see in the world. To mention something that is not highlighted as much today, we see a worrying trend in South America, where several countries are retreating from democratic development and where we see alarming signs that human rights are being violated and the rule of law is not respected.

Mr. Speaker! As the world changes at an ever-increasing pace, it is timely that the government and the Tidö parties reform Swedish aid. Sweden will continue to be a strong force in the world and have a commitment to work towards contributing to reduced poverty, economic development, better health, as well as increased freedom and democracy for more people. But there are limits to what we in Sweden can manage, and therefore we must cooperate more, for example through the EU but also by nurturing the transatlantic link and cooperating with several countries.

We must simultaneously set higher requirements and counter-requirements on the countries that receive Swedish aid, that is, the money of Swedish taxpayers. A budget framework for three years of 56 billion kronor is a very large amount of money. Increased quality and increased transparency are therefore important and overarching goals for Swedish aid. There must also be a high degree of focus on promoting Swedish interests.

Mr. Speaker! Due to the increased number of conflicts in the world, climate change, poverty and hunger driving millions of people into flight, the government attaches great importance to humanitarian aid in its reform agenda. At the same time, support for civil society and the defense of human freedoms and rights and democracy is being increased.

The threats against Sweden and against the society we have and continue to want are not only territorial. We also see ideological forces that want to change society away from the openness and the freedom we enjoy in Sweden.

A main strategy to achieve greater economic freedom for more people and more countries is to link development aid more closely to trade-promotion efforts, to increase the proportion of private capital and investments, and to promote efforts to counter corruption so that aid money does not end up in the wrong pockets but reaches all the way through.

Mr. Speaker! I intend to conclude my speech by highlighting the area in the aid agenda that is aimed at strengthening the empowerment and freedom of girls and women.

It pleases me very much when I read the government's reform agenda that initiatives that directly or indirectly shall strengthen and support girls and women are included in several sections. For me as a Moderate, equality and equity are important issues of freedom.

The government focuses in the reform agenda on two overarching areas to drive a strategic equality work through the aid policy: firstly to promote women's opportunity to freely decide for themselves over their lives and their bodies and secondly to strengthen girls' and women's economic empowerment.

Mr. Speaker! I will give some concrete examples of how these strategies are to be achieved. It shall be done by

focus on strengthening women's and girls' full enjoyment of SRHR and other human freedoms and rights

promote efforts to counter norms and practices that limit the freedom and self-determination of girls and women and work for the enjoyment of equal rights and equality before the law for women and girls in the partner countries

support work against all forms of sexual and gender-related violence, exploitation in prostitution and human trafficking and harmful practices such as female genital mutilation and forced sterilization

prioritize the work against child marriage

contribute to accountability in conflicts, not least when it concerns sexual violence and abuse

promote girls' education, especially in crises and conflicts, and promote women's participation in peace processes.

Mr. Speaker! There are further parts remaining in the aid agenda, and the government is awaiting another report from Sida. But Sweden shall, with more effective aid work, raise the quality so that more people in the world can rise out of poverty, so that equality and equity increase, and so that more people can live with greater economic and personal freedom in openness and democracy.

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

Azra Muranovic (S)

Mr. Speaker! It has been almost two years since Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine began, and it has been almost ten years since Russia annexed the Crimean Peninsula and the city of Sevastopol. Ukraine is currently fighting for its people, its independence, its right to choose its own path and its future, but also for all of us others.

I am proud that the Social Democratic government from day one clearly gave its support to Ukraine after the attack, and I am pleased with the unity prevailing in the Riksdag that Sweden must continue on that path and secure peace in Europe.

Putin's Russia has increasingly developed into a pure dictatorship with an imperialist longing where dissidents are imprisoned, tortured, and silenced forever - in Russia as well as outside the country's borders. The lives and well-being of its own people are not something that concerns Putin; we see that clearly.

To achieve its imperialist goals, Russia wants to paralyze Ukraine and make the country submit to Putin's will, but it also wants to intimidate its neighbors into submission.

The method used to force Ukraine into submission is pure brutality. The Ukrainian people are being bombarded, shelled, raped, tortured, and murdered. Children from Ukraine are being kidnapped to Russia as part of a strategy to kill the Ukrainian identity.

We are witnessing how neither the Russian nor the Ukrainian population lives safely when Putin has decided to try to fulfill his imperialist dreams. Instead of peace talks, all signs point to Putin preparing Russia for a long war, both militarily and mentally.

I really want to emphasize that it is incredibly important that we understand that it is in Ukraine that the fight for the European security order and our values is being waged. It is in Ukraine that the fight is being fought for human rights, for international law, and for democracy. Ukraine's cause is our cause, and we must do what we can so that Ukraine wins peace.

We have all, together with the Ukrainians, learned that freedom and independence are something we can never take for granted. We have learned from history that we can never accept what Putin is doing. We must therefore show resilience in all its forms, and we must have the strength to help Ukraine win this marathon.

Mr. Speaker! Since Russia's illegal aggression against Ukraine began, it seems that international law has retreated in favor of the language of power and military violence. It is a frightening development that we see in several places on earth, not least in Europe.

One example is how the conflict-ridden region of Nagorno-Karabakh and the ethnically Armenian population have been handled by Azerbaijan since they blocked the Lachin Corridor and finally took over the region with the help of military force. A frozen conflict spanning decades was handled in a few weeks and ended with over 100,000 ethnic Armenians fleeing from Nagorno-Karabakh to an already heavily pressured Armenia. All of this took place while the Russian peacekeeping forces were supposed to guarantee peace in the region. It is not possible to trust Putin.

Armenia is now being pressured hard from all sides and must carefully consider its positioning to avoid further conflict with its neighbors - most recently last night.

Sweden's government should act together with the EU so that scenarios from Nagorno-Karabakh are not repeated in the Western Balkans, where we see those tendencies.

A cohesive and expanded EU is crucial for creating peace in our region. The alternative would be the rule of the strongest taking whatever they want and ignoring the sovereignty of states.

Several countries in Europe, including Sweden, are under constant influence campaigns, cyberattacks, and undermining of society from among others Russia's side. In Moldova, the hybrid attacks are most tangible and press the Moldovan society hard.

The Russian war of invasion in Ukraine led to Ukraine, Moldova, and Georgia applying for membership in the EU in their endeavor to maintain their freedom and their independence. That these countries, as well as the countries in the western Balkans, seek the EU is important for the security of Europe and Sweden. These countries must feel that there is a brighter European future for them.

Mr. Speaker! Finally, I would like to speak about children.

Millions of children and young people live with diseases that are easily cured with medicine. Millions of children and young people have no food for the day and are starving. They are subjected to violence. They are kidnapped. They lack a roof over their heads. They are forced to work instead of going to school. Girls who have just started their period are seen as marriageable. Hundreds of thousands of children and young people live in war with constant fear and anxiety for the next attack and with a trauma they will carry with them for the rest of their lives. But today, it is worst of all to be a child on the Gaza Strip. There, around a hundred children are killed per day. That is one child every ten minutes.

In this situation, the Swedish government chooses to scale down aid to organizations that work with children specifically, when it should be the opposite. Sweden, a country that has introduced the Convention on the Rights of the Child as Swedish law, does not anchor its foreign or aid policy in the Convention; it is obvious.

Children's rights, protection, and schooling should be seen as an investment in a secure future. But unfortunately, there are many countries in the world that fail to create security for children. It is devastating to see values such as freedom, democracy, equality, and gender equality regress around the world. We who have this should counter the regression powerfully with a stronger UN and with more aid.

Instead, this government uses aid as a political punching bag. It hollows out aid, not just as a concept but as a tool for a free, just and democratic world.

(Applause)

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

Erik Hellsborn (SD)

Mr. Speaker, colleagues in the Riksdag and listeners! On July 5, 1921, the Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin drew a line on a map. With this line, he decided that the area known today as Artsakh, or Nagorno-Karabakh, should belong to the predominantly Muslim Azerbaijani part of the republic rather than the Armenian—this despite the fact that a large majority of the inhabitants in Artsakh were Christian Armenians.

This was with great probability a very conscious Soviet strategy. By drawing new borders that split old ethnic and religious communities, one reduced the cohesion in the sub-republics and thus the risk of uprisings against the communist central power in Moscow.

Since then, 100 years have passed. The Soviet Union is dissolved, but that line that Stalin drew still remains today. When the Soviet Union was dissolved, both Azerbaijan and Armenia re-emerged as independent states. The Armenian majority in Artsakh wanted to belong to Armenia, but Azerbaijan did not agree to this, referring to that line. The result was the first of several violent conflicts in the area, with Azerbaijan on one side and Armenia and the Armenian self-government in Artsakh on the other. During the years that have passed since then, Armenia and to some extent also Artsakh have developed in a democratic direction, while Azerbaijan, on the other hand, has remained a dictatorship of Soviet type.

The latest chapter in this story can be said to have begun on December 12, 2022, when Azerbaijan began a blockade of the only road between Armenia and Artsakh. The result was a humanitarian catastrophe. Food, medicine, fuel, and electricity became scarce. Operations had to be performed without anesthesia. Pregnant women suffered miscarriages due to malnutrition.

The blockade lasted for just over nine months and ended in September, when the Azerbaijani army chose to invade and take control of the entire area. What followed was de facto an ethnic cleansing, when over 100,000 Armenians, more than 99 percent of the population in the area, fled to Armenia and abandoned the homes where their families had lived for many generations.

In addition to this, we have been able to see how statues and monuments with Christian motifs have been destroyed and how churches have been converted into mosques. Azerbaijan is not content with displacing the inhabitants of Artsakh - they also want to destroy their culture and history. Artsakh, which is one of the areas in the world with the longest Christian history, is now being Islamized and Turkified.

In the democratic West, Azerbaijan has been criticized for its actions in Nagorno-Karabakh, its aggressions against the neighboring country Armenia, and the lack of democracy and human rights within its own borders. The criticism has, however, at times been somewhat mild and from some European countries almost non-existent.

The reason for this is spelled energy dependence. When the EU introduced sanctions against Russia, they turned instead to Azerbaijan to import gas and oil - this despite the fact that Russia and Azerbaijan have tied closer bonds over the last four years and there are strong indications that much of the gas and oil exported from Azerbaijan originally comes from Russia. One of Ursula von der Leyen's less honorable moments can be said to be when she took the hand of the Azerbaijani dictator Aliyev and called him the EU's reliable partner.

Here, a greater responsibility falls on us, who have come further in electrification and are not as dependent on gas, to stand up for peace, freedom, and human rights in the southern Caucasus. This is, in fact, not only about what has happened but just as much about what may come to happen in the future. Just as many fear that Putin will not be satisfied if he succeeds in subjugating Ukraine, there are strong reasons to believe that Aliyev will not be satisfied with having subjugated Artsakh. He has previously given aggressive speeches where he has spoken about Armenia lacking the right to exist as an independent country, and he has described the whole or parts of the country's territory as western Azerbaijan.

Mr. Speaker! According to my original manuscript, which I wrote last week, I would now say that there is a risk of more military violence in the near future. Unfortunately, it has since turned out that the future is now. Yesterday morning, Azerbaijani military attacked an Armenian border position and shot four border guards dead. The dictatorship's aggressions are happening now. People are being killed now.

The world has a responsibility to make it clear to Azerbaijan that this will not be accepted. In this regard, France has been a model more than any other country. It has been just as clear in its criticism of Azerbaijan as in its support for Armenia - a model to follow and be inspired by.

(Applause)

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

Denis Begic (S)

Mr. Speaker! It has been a long day with many important discussions. Many important matters have been mentioned today. Therefore, I will concentrate a little on another part of Europe and the world, which has strategic importance for both Sweden and the EU.

We stand at a critical juncture regarding Europe's future, where the Western Balkans' path toward integration into the EU is both a necessity and an opportunity. This region, rich in cultural diversity and history, struggles with several challenges but also carries enormous potential.

The Western Balkans have long struggled with political instability and fragmentation, which has led to economic difficulties and social unrest. Unemployment, low economic growth, and infrastructure deficiencies are just some of the problems plaguing the region. This has created a situation where young and well-educated individuals seek opportunities outside its borders for better prospects, leading to a depletion of the region's workforce.

Despite these challenges, there is also reason for optimism. The Western Balkans is a melting pot of cultures and traditions, which makes the region an important link between East and West. The region also has great economic potential, with opportunities in tourism, agriculture, and energy. Its young population is dynamic and can contribute to innovation and growth if given the right opportunities and support.

For example, approximately half of the population in Bosnia and Herzegovina has expressed a readiness to work abroad. In Kosovo, with Europe's youngest population, the population has decreased significantly due to migration. Similar trends have been observed in Serbia and other countries in the region. This labor drain is not only a sign of socioeconomic problems in the region but also an obstacle to its development and future integration into the EU.

In order for the Western Balkans to be able to realize their potential, continued work is required to strengthen democratic institutions and the principles of the rule of law. The EU and other international actors have an important role to play by providing economic and technical support. It is also important to invest in education and labor market measures to retain the workforce and attract back people who have left the region.

The Western Balkans' integration into the EU is not only desirable but also crucial for the entire continent's future. By supporting this region on its journey into the EU, we are investing in a more stable, flourishing, and integrated future for Europe. It is a challenge that requires commitment, patience, and also vision.

Serbia plays an important role in the Western Balkans and has expressed a desire to approach the EU. But the country has its challenges. Serbia, for example, has not joined the EU's sanctions against Moscow, which shows a complex relationship with Russia and implies a potential risk regarding the EU's influence.

For Bosnia and Herzegovina, the EU's new approach, focused on economic governance, is now of great importance. The country has taken steps to meet the EU's requirements by implementing 14 key priorities established by the EU, but challenges remain, particularly regarding strengthening democracy and the principles of the rule of law.

North Macedonia has also taken significant steps forward, including by resolving the name dispute with Greece, which has been incredibly important for the country to be able to join the EU. This underlines the importance of resolving bilateral disputes and strengthening democratic institutions.

I also want to say that Albania has also made significant progress towards EU membership, but the country's journey is not without obstacles. It is important that the EU's member states work together to support Albania in its endeavor to meet these EU requirements.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that it is incredibly important that the part of Europe that we today call the Western Balkans becomes part of the community that Europe needs.

(Applause)

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

Johan Hultberg (M)

Mr. Speaker! The Nordic region means a lot to me and, yes, for us Swedes in general. Our national anthem is even about the Nordic region rather than about Sweden. But I think that Nordic issues and Nordic cooperation take up far too little space in the Swedish political debate. I want to be part of changing that. Therefore, I will devote this entire speech to Nordic cooperation and what I believe the cooperation should particularly focus on, namely free movement and increased integration between the Nordic countries.

Madam Speaker! The Nordic prime ministers have adopted an excellent vision for Nordic cooperation: the Nordic region shall be the world's most sustainable and integrated region by 2030. To reach the vision, an increase in pace is required during the coming years. What is also required is a focus on what today hinders integration and free movement in the Nordic region, namely border barriers.

Therefore, I am pleased that the Moderate-led government in the Swedish chairmanship program for the Nordic Council focuses very clearly on measures for increased cross-border mobility and integration.

Nearly 70 years ago, in May 1954, the first agreement on a common Nordic labor market region was signed. Requirements for residence and work permits to live and work in another Nordic country were abolished. This has meant a great deal for individual people, for the integration between our countries, and for the prosperity in the Nordic region. By creating a common Nordic labor market region, we have improved our competitiveness. The Nordic region shall be an engine for growth.

Madam Speaker! The Corona pandemic did, however, mean that Nordic cooperation and Nordic integration were slowed down. The pandemic, or rather how it was handled, made the national borders in the Nordic region brutally clear, especially for people and companies in border areas - including northern Bohuslän and Dalsland, which I represent. Svinesund, Öresund, Tornedalen and other border regions paid the price for border restrictions and lack of coordination between the Nordic countries.

What I now often encounter in conversations with people at home in my constituency, who live near the Swedish-Norwegian border, is a skepticism toward the political vision of the Nordic region as the world's most integrated region. People wonder what happens at the next crisis. Is it then again the people and the companies in the border areas who have to pay the price for deficiencies in Nordic cooperation?

That uncertainty and doubt must be stilled. I want the Nordic Council of Ministers to issue a border guarantee stating that the border closures and border restrictions we saw during the pandemic shall be prevented at all costs, and if that is not possible, that special solutions shall be designed to ensure that life in the border regions can function even in a crisis.

For, Madam Speaker, in the border regions, people already live according to the vision of the Nordic region as the world's most integrated region. At the same time, however, there are numerous border barriers that complicate life and business across the Nordic borders. Many of the obstacles are like pebbles in the shoe. They chafe and cause irritation. As a rule, they can be endured and managed, but all too often they bring things to a halt – a halt to investments, to expansion, to jobs and exchanges across the Nordic borders. We are all losers.

That Sweden, which has just taken over the chairmanship of the Nordic Council of Ministers, has identified as a priority area to contribute to creating an integrated Norden without border obstacles is very important and welcome. The pace in the work on border obstacles needs to increase. I hope that the Border Obstacles Council, whose mandate expires during the year, receives a new and reinforced mandate with heightened ambitions. That is what I and the entire conservative group in the Nordic Council, of which I am also a member, are pushing for.

Alongside raising the level of ambition for the work of removing barriers, I want to particularly highlight the need to also work harder and more systematically to prevent the emergence of new barriers. The Faroe Islands today, as far as I know as the only country in the Nordic region, have a specific routine to ensure that new legislation does not lead to new barriers. Every new bill in the Faroe Islands shall be screened against existing barriers and also to investigate whether new barriers risk arising due to the current bill. We here in the Swedish Riksdag should learn from our friends in the Faroe Islands. We should, in every committee, from a Nordic perspective, examine every proposition that arrives, and the government should, before submitting proposals for new legislation, do exactly what they do in the Faroe Islands, namely an analysis to see if the proposals affect existing barriers or create new ones.

As I have pointed out in my speech, the corona pandemic represented a serious test of Nordic cooperation, and we must be open and honest that the cooperation did not function well enough at all. Now it is a matter of us learning from the pandemic and ensuring that we strengthen and develop Nordic cooperation ahead of the next crisis, or as Winston Churchill is said to have said: Never let a good crisis go to waste - never waste a serious crisis.

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

Alexandra Anstrell (M)

Madam Speaker! Now, in this long and good foreign policy debate, we have been around the whole world. Johan Hultberg narrowed the debate down to the Nordic countries, and I intend to narrow it down to the Arctic.

A modern and proactive Arctic policy is central to Swedish and transatlantic security. Arctic knowledge is becoming one of the most important areas of knowledge that we take with us into Nato. A proactive Nato security policy therefore also presupposes a clear and well-founded Arctic policy.

The Arctic faces a number of difficult challenges that are worsening at an ever-increasing pace. The effects of climate change on the Arctic lead to the situation of the local population, the environment, and the global climate deteriorating. Melting ice sheets and permafrost make the living situation impossible for certain animal species, increase sea levels, and entail other risks.

Global warming also opens up new geographical areas for the exploitation of natural resources, which risks accelerating the process. It is therefore important to reach out in a number of issues, for example waste management, which may seem like a small issue but is just as important.

We can see that plastics all around in our seas largely come from the ten largest rivers in the world. Waste thrown into ditches and into watercourses ends up in the ocean. Even if it happens far from here, in China or India or somewhere else, it affects us here in the Arctic.

Rising water levels will, however, affect us all. Sweden needs to continue to work on long-term sustainable development, research, and environmental protection in the region. Strong work on environmental and climate issues is therefore not only an important security interest for Sweden but also an economic opportunity to manage the region.

Climate change also leads to the fact that new trade routes, such as the Northern Passage north of Russia, can be opened commercially, which will create new global trade flows and strategic interests. This is something that is already being exploited by Russia, and Russia prevents free maritime traffic in the area and claims Russian legislation over international maritime law.

It takes approximately 60 percent less time to travel from Europe to Asia with this route, which has the potential to change the global trade dynamics. More and more countries have realized this, and more and more nations and organizations, for example Japan, South Korea, China and the EU, are establishing strategies for this development. In order for trade to continue to flow smoothly, it is absolutely central that the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea is followed.

Russia has admittedly lost large parts of its Arctic ground forces in Ukraine but is developing qualified means of power at sea, not least in the form of modern submarines. In addition to the Russian interest in controlling trade routes and utilizing natural resources, it should be emphasized that the location of Russia's nuclear weapons bases on the Kola Peninsula and access to the Atlantic makes the Arctic a national security interest that Russia will want to protect.

The Finnish and Swedish NATO accession will be perceived and rhetorically described by Russia as a national threat, and the Russian buildup in the region will continue. It is therefore important that Sweden continues to prioritize the development of Arctic capabilities in cooperation with the other Arctic nations.

Madam Speaker! China considers itself to have a right to influence, power, and access in the Arctic areas and constitutes a party to be reckoned with. The country has for several years invested in strategic infrastructure in the region and has invested in starting an Arctic Silk Road. The initiative has, however, to a large extent not been made possible outside of Russia and has been stopped, among other places, by Norway and Finland.

However, it is important to observe the changed dynamics in the relationship between Russia and China in the coming years, where the Arctic will play a major role. Countries such as the USA, the UK, Denmark and Canada, as well as the EU, are now investing heavily in this area and are developing their own strategies to meet the developments in the region. A strong cooperation with these parties is therefore vital and desirable.

Madam Speaker! The Arctic region has also been subjected to various hybrid threats for decades, as cables between Svalbard and Norway have been regularly cut or damaged under mysterious circumstances, similar to the explosions against Nord Stream 1 and 2 during 2022. This is something that is ongoing and which will likely also increase in Sweden, which requires that this is taken into account even in future planning. We in the Riksdag's parliamentary delegation to the Arctic are planning a seminar in the Riksdag on April 17 which deals precisely with this: What happens if the Arctic is switched off?

Madam Speaker! At the same time as we develop the Arctic's defense capability, a strategic dialogue is also needed to reduce the risk of confrontation and mistakes. For this, it is required that either talks are opened within existing organizations or that we open up for new organizations with leaders within the political or military sphere.

I want to thank you for the attention regarding the Arctic, an immensely important issue. Everything that happens here in the Arctic affects the rest of the world.

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

Daniel Riazat (V)

Madam Speaker! Free Palestine! Long live Kurdistan! Zan, zendegi, azadi!

From being known for international solidarity for a few decades, Sweden is sinking into a moral collapse together with much of the Western world, with the USA at the forefront. In just a few years, the blue-brown government has managed the feat of betraying the civilian population in Afghanistan, whose country is in ruins after decades of colonialism from the West as well as the Taliban's reign of terror. One has betrayed the Kurds, who have stood up against IS and four dictatorships in the Middle East simultaneously with their lives at stake, and one has betrayed the political prisoners and especially the women in Iran who are subjected to brutality by the Iranian dictatorial regime.

Now we see how Palestine can be added to this list. 30,000 people are dead, but here in the chamber today, representatives from, among others, a party that has been founded in Nazism and antisemitism, as well as their partner parties, who increasingly sound like them, are throwing up smokescreens and pretending to be the Jews' friends and the Jews' foremost advocates.

It is now that we as a country and a continent, but also as politicians and human beings, show who we are. It is now we show whether Jina Amini, Nika Shakarami and Hind Rajab are worth as much as children and women in this part of the world, or if we make a distinction between life and life.

Some of you have already made that distinction. For those of you who have made this distinction, it is not enough that the mullahs in Iran execute thousands of political prisoners as long as Europe can derive economic benefits from cooperation with the country in the long term. For you, it is not enough that Kurdistan is being bombed by your now close friend, the dictator Erdogan, as long as you get to draw Sweden into a warring nuclear alliance. For you, it is not enough that children in Palestine are being massacred, starved, and tortured in their own homeland as long as Swedish weapons companies get to sell their weapons to Israel.

But remember one thing: the demonstrations in Iran may have been toned down in parts of the country due to non-existent support from the Western world, large parts of Turkey's pro-Kurdish opposition may be imprisoned and the infrastructure in western Kurdistan paralyzed, and Gaza, with the Western world's fond memory, may be subjected to multifaceted war crimes led by the extreme right-wing regime in Israel while you turn a blind eye to it or even actively support it. The future will show who stood on the right and wrong sides respectively.

The fight against imperialism, occupying powers, and dictatorships will continue even in the future. Buildings that collapse from bombs can be rebuilt in a few years. But the moral collapse that many of you, the Swedish government, and governments in the Western world stand for right now will not be so easy to repair.

No one is free until everyone is free. Iran, Kurdistan or Palestine - your concerns are also mine.

(Applause)

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

Margareta Cederfelt (M)

Madam Speaker! I have a question for Daniel Riazat. Does Daniel Riazat consider Hamas to be a terrorist organization? Does Daniel Riazat consider the crimes that Hamas committed on October 7 to be a crime committed by a terrorist organization?

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

Daniel Riazat (V)

Madam Speaker! I thank Margareta Cederfelt for the question.

It sounds like a vinyl record playing on repeat throughout the entire day. The Left Party is asked the same question about what we think of an extreme right-wing organization with extreme religious values that we have distanced ourselves from many times, both on the first day when the attack occurred and many other times.

It is not Vänsterpartiet that shares ideological values with extreme right-wing groups regardless of where in the world they are located, I just want to say, but if that were the case, it would be parties on the right wing and Margareta Cederfelt's party comrades.

Vänsterpartiet has always distanced itself from violations of human rights and terrorist organizations. We will continue to do so, and you have also heard it from the rostrum at least four times from different representatives from Vänsterpartiet today.

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

Margareta Cederfelt (M)

Madam Speaker! I asked Daniel Riazat if he distances himself from Hamas as a terrorist organization. I have not received any answer to that question.

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

Daniel Riazat (V)

Madam Speaker! This is going to be very strange.

Margareta Cederfelt! I was born and raised in a country where groups like Hamas brutally torture and imprison women and men and kill children. I have moved from that country, and I fight against these types of groups. Even getting up and asking if I distance myself from a group such as Hamas, which is like the Iranian regime to me, shows what Margareta Cederfelt and her party stand for.

Do you, Margareta Cederfelt, distance yourself from all the extreme right-wing groups that you cooperate with all around Europe? Do you distance yourself from what the Israeli government has done to thousands of children in Palestine in recent weeks? Do you distance yourself from all the crimes that the right and the right's friends have committed against civilian populations in the illegal invasions that you have supported all around in different countries?

Unlike me, who distances myself from Hamas and those organizations, you have never once distanced yourself from those groups. So sit down!

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

ANDRE VICE TALMANNEN

Since the number of remarks is limited, Margareta Cederfelt therefore does not have the opportunity to answer the questions. These questions become merely rhetorical.

I also, before the continued debate, must remind you that we address each other by name or as "ledamot", not with "you".

There are no further speakers registered for the debate, but now Margareta Cederfelt has requested the floor again.

The rules for signing up again for this type of special debate are not completely crystal clear, but I approve a contribution of maximum two minutes.

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

Margareta Cederfelt (M)

Madam Speaker! It is clear that there are tensions in the world and that the world is uneasy. This applies not only in our contacts as members with the outside world - not only in our actions - but it also applies here inside the plenary hall. We have noticed it today when there have been demonstrations from the gallery, we have noticed it when members have had political decorations on them and we have noticed it in the debate.

We must all work to make the world more peaceful. I know that the government does this, and it appears in the foreign policy declaration.

Mr. Speaker, we as members have a responsibility for how we address one another. Only we can take that responsibility. It is about tone, and it is about showing respect for one another.

Madam Speaker! I hope that our debates can continue in a spirit where we put forward our political views without resorting to personal attacks against one another.

(Applause)

In this speech, Johan Hultberg and Magnus Resare (both M) and Christian Carlsson (KD) agreed.

The foreign policy debate was hereby concluded.

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