Foreign policy debate

Utrikesministern Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden faces a difficult period in security policy. We – Sweden, the EU, and Nato – are in a long-term, far-reaching confrontation with Russia. Our task is inescapable: We must counter Russia's ability to harm us, not least by supporting Ukraine.

We shall have our national security interests, our democratic values, international law and our belief in a free and strong Ukraine as guiding stars, and we shall forge even closer ties with our allies and partners in the Nordics and the Baltics, in the EU, in Nato and globally.

The world's solidarity after last week's horrific mass shooting in Örebro shows that Sweden never stands alone.

Mr. Speaker! Support for Ukraine is the government's primary foreign policy task. Sweden has increased the support to Ukraine for every year that the war has continued. Sweden's total support since the full-scale invasion began amounts to approximately 70 billion kronor.

On the battlefields in Ukraine, it is being decided whether the future of Europe shall consist of sovereign states. Russia's goal is to force through a sphere of interest with vassals and satellites - also in the Baltic Sea.

For Sweden, the support for Ukraine is a moral duty and an indispensable investment in Europe's and thus our own security, independence, and future. It is up to Ukraine whether and if so when negotiations shall be initiated. Our unequivocal focus is to make Ukraine's position stronger.

The pressure on Russia's war economy must increase. Europe's defense capability must be strengthened, and our military support to Ukraine must be reinforced. Therefore, the government has recently presented an 18th military support package - the largest so far.

Only a peace that Ukraine achieves through strength can be sustainable. A peace negotiated from a weak position would only encourage continued Russian aggression. Sweden continues to support Ukraine for as long as it is needed - politically, humanitarily, militarily and economically.

Mr. Speaker! Together with our allies and partners, we shall counter Russia from a position of strength. The foundation of the policy of deterrence is that NATO's Article 5 is politically and militarily credible.

Our geography and our capabilities give Sweden the opportunity as an ally to strengthen deterrence in all of Northern Europe. We fully embrace the responsibility that it entails. It benefits Sweden, our neighbors, and the entire alliance.

Swedish soldiers are now part of NATO's forward presence in Latvia. Sweden contributes to the presence and surveillance of the Euro-Atlantic area also in the air and at sea. We shoulder our regional responsibility in the role of framework nation for NATO's forward presence in Finland.

Within the framework of the EU and Nato, we are strengthening our resilience against hybrid attacks – antagonistic activities aimed at destabilizing our societies. These can be cyberattacks, disinformation, and sabotage against critical infrastructure. Nato's reinforced activities following the recent damage to undersea cables in the Baltic Sea region demonstrate the alliance's cohesion, speed, and strength.

Sweden is making a powerful contribution to NATO's operation Baltic Sentry with up to three warships and a radar reconnaissance aircraft. Sweden is proactive in the EU's work to develop a specific strategy to counter Russia's hybrid activities. We are also working to ensure that NATO strengthens deterrence against hybrid attacks.

The national security strategy establishes that internal and external security are linked. The Government shall continue to work internationally against cross-border organized crime. It is also necessary to intensify our bilateral cooperation so that criminals abroad who orchestrate crime in Sweden can be extradited and prosecuted. More also needs to be done in partnership with third countries to reduce irregular migration and increase returns.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden shall continue to build security together with others, above all as a member of Nato and the EU. Sweden pursues a solidarity-based alliance policy aimed at strengthening security and stability in our immediate vicinity as well as in the entire Euro-Atlantic area. We shall maintain a strong defense capability in order to contribute to the national and the collective defense. Sweden shall take its responsibility for a fair burden-sharing within Nato.

The transatlantic link is crucial for Swedish and European security. It must never be taken for granted. European NATO countries need to take greater responsibility for Europe's defense and security, and this also applies to the support for Ukraine.

Sweden's and the USA's bilateral relations are very good and are strengthened by the fact that we are allies in Nato. The USA is a partner of particular importance for Sweden and for Europe - commercially, security-wise and politically. Cooperation with strategic allies, such as our Nordic and Baltic neighboring countries, the USA and the United Kingdom, is particularly significant for Sweden's security. We are developing our strategic partnerships within the EU with Poland, Germany and France.

With Sweden as a NATO member, the Baltic Sea region, the North Atlantic, and the Arctic can be interwoven. Sweden has received greater responsibility and reason to engage in Arctic issues and develop our policy for the northern areas.

During 2024, Sweden was chair of the Nordic Council as well as the informal Nordic and Nordic-Baltic foreign and security policy cooperation N5 and NB8. It strengthened the cooperation with our Nordic and Baltic neighbors.

Security cooperation in our immediate vicinity should be further deepened. Together with Finland, Sweden has taken the initiative to utilize the Baltic Sea States Council, CBSS, for security policy dialogue. The former Estonian president Toomas Ilves and the former Lithuanian Foreign Minister Gabrielius Landsbergis will present a report before the ministerial meeting in May. We want to see CBSS as a regional security policy forum that also includes Poland and Germany.

In these uncertain times, one thing is certain: In our region, we stand together, and we stand strong.

Mr. Speaker! This year we note that it is 30 years since Sweden joined the EU. The EU is a community of values and Sweden's most important foreign policy platform. A strong EU gives Europe strength and Sweden a stronger voice in global issues.

Our priorities in the EU work are clear. It is about our time and our continent's major, cross-border issues: the war, crime, the climate, and competitiveness. It is about our prosperity and our security.

The EU is crucial for securing long-term and powerful support for Ukraine and for countering Russia. The Union plays an increasingly important role in strengthening the defense industry, military mobility, and civil preparedness in Europe. The EU is central to achieving effective sanctions.

Sweden has pushed for sanctions against the Russian shadow fleet, against Russian liquefied natural gas and for giving the proceeds from frozen Russian assets to Ukraine. Sweden has also contributed to establishing a new sanctions regime against the political repression in Russia and to sanctions listings against Belarus on the grounds of the repression in the country. The Government supports the Belarusian people on the way towards a free and democratic Belarus that is part of the European family.

Sanctions require effective implementation. The Government is continuously working to strengthen the national effort and will during the spring submit a bill to the Riksdag with proposals for a new law on international sanctions, which expands the criminal scope and tightens the penalties for sanction violations. The EU's continued expansion and cooperation with partners in our near area have great security policy and economic significance.

The expansion of the EU is a geostrategic investment in peace, democracy, security, stability, and prosperity. It is in our interest to help the candidate countries approach the union. The government is pushing for further steps towards EU membership for Ukraine and Moldova, both of which have made impressive reform progress. At the same time, it is important that progress also occurs in the candidate countries in the Western Balkans.

Sweden's support for the candidate countries is great, but not unconditional. The candidate countries' pace of reform is crucial. The Georgian government's actions run counter to the values and principles that the EU is built on. The parliamentary election in October was characterized by unequal conditions, strong polarization, pressure, and threats against voters. The violence against peaceful demonstrators is unacceptable, and Sweden wants to see sanctions against those responsible. We must simultaneously continue to support the democratic and pro-European forces in Georgia.

Sweden has an important and close relationship with the United Kingdom, not least in the area of security policy. We are pushing to strengthen cooperation also at the EU level and welcome the summit between the United Kingdom and the EU taking place in May.

Mr. Speaker! Increasing growth goes hand in hand with increasing Sweden's and Europe's security. A financially strong Europe is a safer Europe. It is the EU's internal market and the opportunities for trade exchange that make us interesting to the rest of the world. The Government looks forward to the EU Commission's strategy for the internal market. It is pleasing that the EU Commission has concluded the negotiations on a trade agreement with the Mercosur countries and modernized the EU's overarching agreement with Mexico.

The Government will continue to work actively to ensure that more free trade agreements are negotiated. At the same time, the Government views with great seriousness the risks regarding actors who want to exploit vulnerabilities and economic dependencies. We see an increased need for international cooperation at the intersection of technology, innovation, trade, and security.

To utilize the potential in new digital technology, secure and trusted infrastructure is required. Sweden is a world leader in mobile communication networks, and we cooperate with like-minded countries for secure connectivity within the EU and globally. As cyber issues and digital issues grow in importance, the government has adopted a specific strategy for this within foreign and security policy. In the near future, a new national strategy for cybersecurity will also be presented.

Mr. Speaker! The developments in the Middle East are difficult to predict, but in recent times, important steps have been taken in the right direction. We have ceasefires in Gaza and Lebanon. The brutal Assad regime has fallen. Iran and its proxies are weakened.

The government stands behind Israel's right to defend itself against Hamas after the worst massacre of Jews since the Holocaust. At the same time, we are clear that Israel has an obligation to protect the civilian population in Gaza and ensure access to humanitarian aid. International law, including humanitarian law, must be respected. Sweden supports the efforts for all hostages to be released, for the humanitarian situation to be significantly improved, and for the ceasefire to become lasting.

The government also views the settler violence on the West Bank and the expansion of the illegal settlements with great concern. In the long run, a negotiated two-state solution based on international law is needed. It is the only sustainable solution where Israelis and Palestinians can live side by side in peace, freedom, and democracy. A political prerequisite for this is a Gaza free from Hamas rule.

Iran bears a great responsibility for the negative developments in the region and for security risks in the West. The government will not tolerate Iranian actions to destabilize Sweden or conduct terrorist activities here via proxies.

The fall of the Assad regime represents an opportunity for the Syrian population to shape their future and build a free, democratic country. The EU should contribute to a Syrian-led, peaceful and inclusive process where all Syrians' human rights are respected. The participation of women and ethnic and religious minorities must be ensured.

Mr. Speaker! Oceania and Asia are the region where the greatest economic growth is expected to occur. Furthermore, security in Asia and Europe is becoming increasingly interconnected. China is the world's second-largest economy and a technological leading nation while the country has an authoritarian rule and growing geopolitical ambitions.

China's actions towards Taiwan cause concern, and threats of military violence are unacceptable. China's enabling of Russia's war in Ukraine has a direct, negative effect on Sweden's and Europe's security.

We seek 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 address the climate issue. In parallel, we continue, together with the rest of the EU, to point out violations of human rights. Sweden's relationship with China shall be anchored in a European strategy and in close transatlantic cooperation.

India is a central actor in addressing global challenges. Sweden is pushing for a free trade agreement between the EU and India.

Sweden is deepening its cooperation with Japan, which is an important partner country to Nato and a significant export market. Sweden's participation in the World Expo in Osaka will be a step toward strengthening the competitiveness of Swedish business in Japan and the region.

Mr. Speaker! Swedish aid shall create conditions for better living conditions for people living in poverty and oppression. Development cooperation has an important role in working towards free and well-functioning democratic societies and shall to a greater extent be directed towards areas where Sweden can contribute with clear added value.

The Government sees potential in finding synergies between aid and trade to meet the growing global challenges. One example is the green transition. Sweden has one of the world's most generous climate aid programs, and Swedish companies have innovative climate solutions. Sweden's chairmanship of the Green Climate Fund in 2025 constitutes an opportunity to streamline international climate aid.

Sweden is one of the world's largest humanitarian donors in a situation where over 300 million people need humanitarian support. For 2025, Sweden is doubling the humanitarian support that previously went to UNRWA by allocating 800 million kronor to the hard-hit civilian population in Gaza and the region.

Furthermore, we continue to meet acute humanitarian needs in Ukraine and in other crisis-affected places such as Sudan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen. We also continue in these crises to advocate for humanitarian access so that aid can reach the most vulnerable. In all these parts, civil society organizations are indispensable partners.

Mr. Speaker! Equality is a core value in Swedish foreign policy. Right now, we see how equality globally is in decline. In countries such as Afghanistan and Iran, a comprehensive, systematic oppression of women constitutes the foundation of the authoritarian rule.

Sweden's work is important for increasing the empowerment of women and girls. Swedish aid shall contribute to increased access to care for pregnant women and mothers, comprehensive sex education, and measures against all forms of sexual and gender-related violence. It is an important part of our broad commitment to global health.

During 2025, Sweden is the chair of the UN Women board. It is a unique platform to drive the global equality work forward, where Sweden will particularly emphasize the importance of women's economic empowerment.

Mr. Speaker! International law, including the UN Charter, is a cornerstone of Sweden's foreign and security policy. Sweden stands behind the independence and integrity of the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court.

Human rights and freedoms must be defended. Every individual's equal value regardless of gender, age, sexual orientation or religion is a matter of freedom. Several minority groups, such as Christians and Uyghurs, are being subjected to oppression all around the world.

It is worrying when human freedoms and rights are undermined by authoritarian states such as Russia, China, and Iran, which want to reshape them based on their own value systems. Sweden will continue to be engaged in arms control, disarmament, and non-proliferation. In the autumn of 2025, Sweden and the Philippines will take over the chairmanship of the so-called XIV process, which aims to have the moratorium agreement on nuclear weapons enter into force.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden's diplomatic presence abroad is one of our primary tools for asserting our interests. Therefore, the government has conducted a review and can today announce a number of new establishments and other reinforcements.

The Swedish presence in the USA is being expanded. A new consulate general in Houston strengthens cooperation within important industrial sectors such as space, aviation, defense, energy, IT, and life science. The consulate general in Brussels is being upgraded to an embassy in Belgium, which is an important partner for Sweden in the EU and Nato. During 2025, Sweden will open a new embassy in Senegal, with the responsibility to promote our interests in French-speaking West Africa and the Sahel. We are strengthening the presence in the trade and security-politically important Indo-Pacific region through the appointment of a new Stockholm-based envoy for the Pacific. Additionally, a Stockholm-based envoy for Peru is being established to further promote the relationship with important partners in Latin America.

Overall, these reinforcements aim to strengthen our partnerships and improve the conditions for trade, investment, and innovation.

Last year, the two Swedish citizens Johan Floderus and Saeed Azizi, who had been held unjustly imprisoned in Iran, returned home to Sweden. The Government will continue the work to achieve a release of the journalist Dawit Isaak, the publisher and poet Gui Minhai, and the researcher Ahmadreza Djalali.

(Applause)

Mr. Speaker! The government's foreign policy rests on a European, Nordic-Baltic and transatlantic foundation. With a war on our continent, the immediate vicinity will have the highest priority in foreign and security policy. At the same time, Sweden has an unwavering global commitment. We will continue to act in the UN through alliance-building, long-term perspective and purposefulness. Our commitment and our partnerships with important countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America are further strengthened.

We face a difficult time, a time when we must have the ability to defend our interests and values in order for them to be respected. Together with our allies and partners, we shall counter the authoritarian forces that want to divide, rule, and destabilize our open societies. We shall stand guard over the cohesion of the democratic world. And ultimately, we shall safeguard Sweden's freedom, peace, and security. There is no more important task.

(Applause)

In this speech, Jörgen Berglund, Helena Bouveng, Crister Carlsson, Ludvig Ceimertz, John E Weinerhall, Gustaf Göthberg, Ann-Charlotte Hammar Johnsson, Johan Hultberg, Caroline Högström, David Josefsson, Marie Nicholson, Ulrik Nilsson, Carl Nordblom, Johanna Rantsi, Adam Reuterskiöld, Mats Sander, Jesper Skalberg Karlsson, Helena Storckenfeldt, John Widegren, Viktor Wärnick and Boriana Åberg (all M), Magnus Berntsson and Gudrun Brunegård (both KD) as well as Joar Forssell and Mauricio Rojas (both L) agreed.

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Minister for Foreign Affairs, for the foreign policy declaration!

I will return later to the major issues regarding international law, international law, and not least the barrage of strange statements we are now hearing from the US side, but in my reply I intended to address the Middle East and the policy that Sweden is currently pursuing.

Just before Christmas, we received the alarming news that Sweden was scrapping all core funding to UNRWA. It was a flagrant breach of the UN line. It was a flagrant breach of the EU line. It was also a flagrant breach of Sweden's own line, as we had only a few weeks earlier stated in the UN that UNRWA is indispensable for getting out support and aid to those suffering in Palestine.

The government justified the decision by stating that all support to UNRWA risked becoming meaningless because Israel had new legislation. Therefore, the money would only remain, as you said, in a bank account.

Now it has turned out to be wrong. Despite Israel's laws, UNRWA has been able to operate in Gaza. During the two weeks that the ceasefire has been in effect, UNRWA has reached 1.2 million people with food shipments, opened ten new tent camps for returning Gazans, repaired water pipes and organized waste stations for almost half a million people, and established mobile health centers that can receive up to 17,000 people seeking care per day. Furthermore, UNRWA also has operations in Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria.

The Swedish government was therefore wrong when it said that UNRWA could not reach Gaza. UNRWA reaches those in need of help.

My question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs is therefore: Does the government intend to reconsider its decision now that you hear about all of this and again support UNRWA?

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

Utrikesministern Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)

Mr. Speaker! The humanitarian need in Gaza is almost unimaginable. The same applies to Syria, which continues to be one of the world's largest crises. There are also other areas in the surrounding region that truly need our support.

Sweden is a large and persistent humanitarian donor and partner. Just as the UN humanitarian chief Tom Fletcher noted when he visited Stockholm in January, Sweden is a humanitarian powerhouse. Swedish humanitarian aid alleviates distress and saves lives, and the government constantly strives to ensure that every krona can do the greatest possible good to help those in need of support.

The government's decision to allocate 800 million kronor in humanitarian aid to Gaza and the region during 2025 is a concerted effort for exactly this, to meet the needs, seize the opportunities, and do so in the best possible way. One should also know that this targeted support complements the already extensive core support to several of the organizations that are on the ground in Gaza, such as the World Food Programme, Unicef, and the International Committee of the Red Cross. Through such flexible funds as Sweden provides, several of our partners were able to almost double their efforts on the very first day immediately after the start of the ceasefire. So we make a real difference.

We will, of course, continue to follow the developments in the region. We have repeatedly, alone and together with others, criticized the UNRWA laws, because Israel has an obligation to ensure that the organizations can operate on the ground. But that is not contrary to trying in every instance to ensure that the money ends up where it does the greatest possible good. And Sweden is truly making a difference.

(Applause)

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Mr. Speaker! But the government was wrong about UNRWA. UNRWA's emergency aid is reaching its destination.

We also met Tom Fletcher when he was here, and he emphasized how important UNRWA is. Everyone else sees this too. The EU, the UK, France, and Germany back UNRWA, but Sweden is failing. We are failing the Palestinians when they need help the most.

This does not only apply in Gaza, but unfortunately also in the West Bank. Now, for example, we are receiving reports that Sida is withdrawing support for the Ecumenical Escort Program, that is, the program that has involved accompanying Palestinian children to school so that they are not attacked by militant settlers. It has operated in the West Bank for 20 years and has been very important. Now Sida is withdrawing the support as a direct consequence of the Palestine strategy being revoked and replaced by something else. How are Palestinian children supposed to dare to go to school when they are attacked daily by settlers?

The Minister for Foreign Affairs! My question is: Why is Sweden failing the Palestinians when they need help the most?

(Applause)

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

Utrikesministern Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)

Mr. Speaker! I believe that Morgan Johansson must have listened very poorly to my previous contribution in this exchange, but also to my main speech. Sweden has doubled the humanitarian support to Gaza and the region to reduce the suffering in Gaza and the surrounding area.

We ensure that the aid reaches its destination by giving it to actors who are active in the region, who can deliver the aid and who can help children and alleviate famine. We have therefore doubled the support, Morgan Johansson.

(Applause)

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! The foreign policy declaration contains many things, but one person that the Foreign Minister precisely avoids mentioning is the new US president Donald Trump. Last week, Trump presented plans for the USA to take over Gaza and continue the occupation that Israel and Netanyahu's government have intensified. Trump also clarified that Gaza's inhabitants, the Palestinians, shall be displaced to the neighboring countries. Gaza shall be bought and owned by the USA and turned into the Middle East's Riviera, according to the US president. It is a staggering violation of international law, and it is like a dream for the Israeli settler movement, which is cheering loudly.

I wonder what the Foreign Minister thinks about Donald Trump's proposal to forcibly displace Palestinians from Gaza. What is the government doing to uphold international law, when both Trump and Netanyahu clearly want to violate it? This summer, a judgment was issued by the International Court of Justice, ICJ, which implies that third countries, such as Sweden, must ensure that they do not support Israel's occupation of Palestine. The Swedish government has consistently refused to investigate what the consequences of the judgment mean for Sweden. Instead, the government base dreams of increased arms trade with Israel, all to consolidate the occupation.

It is time for a change in the government's policy. The military ties to Israel must be severed, and the genocide must have consequences for the Israeli state.

At the same time, we now see Trump imposing sanctions against the International Criminal Court, ICC. Two weeks ago, we heard that the Foreign Minister wanted to use the EU's blocking statute to stop the effects of Trump's sanctions. What is the government doing to protect the International Criminal Court, ICC?

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

Utrikesministern Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)

Mr. Speaker! My foreign policy focus will be about safeguarding Swedish interests, in contrast to the previous government's. It is about safeguarding Sweden's and the USA's relations, among other things, regardless of which administration is in power. There we actually have the same interests as the USA's president, that is to say, safeguarding our country's best interests. Everything else is actually irresponsible. We do not always land in the same conclusions or statements, but it is a fact that Sweden and the USA have many common interests, not least when it comes to trade but also when it comes to security policy. At the same time, there will obviously be issues where the USA and Sweden disagree, and then we will stand firm on our values.

When it comes to Gaza, it is first and foremost a home for those who live there. As has been established, the reconstruction needs in Gaza are enormous, and here the rest of the world needs to step in with support. This also constitutes a part of the agreement on the ceasefire.

From the side of Sweden and the EU, we are clear: the ceasefire must hold, and negotiations on a two-state solution must begin. Many countries will need to be involved in the reconstruction of Gaza. It must be remembered that the USA has been a completely central party in the work of achieving a ceasefire and still has an important role to play as well moving forward. But, as said, the goal must be a two-state solution, where the construction of a Palestinian state, in which Gaza is included, is an important part.

When it comes to the ICC, I say the same thing as when I heard the news last week: This is very worrying. The sanctions risk seriously affecting the court's ability. The EU is now looking at what measures can be taken to mitigate the effects of the sanctions for EU companies whose services the court is completely dependent on. One of the measures being considered is the blocking statute, which we support. I also want to remind that we support the ICC in every possible way. We second prosecutors and also investigators from the police.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! In Denmark, foreign policy is now being overhauled. To say that the USA is the most important ally no longer works, when Trump is militarily threatening to take Greenland. The transatlantic link has gone from being a chain to becoming a leash - a leash that Trump can pull to make the Kristersson government obey.

It is time for Sweden to suspend our DCA agreement with the USA. We cannot give the USA access to 17 military bases in Sweden. We must safeguard and secure our national sovereignty.

The same applies in the Middle East. Time and again, Trump has shown that he only intends to advance the agenda of the genocide-accused Netanyahu, as he did when he moved the embassy and recognized the occupied Golan Heights. We must have a Minister for Foreign Affairs who is capable of condemning statements such as that about building the Middle East's Riviera. Now Sweden, the EU, and the rest of the world must create their own path to peace, together with Palestinians and Israelis. It must be a path forward that provides clear support for the Palestinian state and, above all, for the Palestinian people.

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

Utrikesministern Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)

Mr. Speaker! We all know what we actually stand for. Vänsterpartiet does not stand behind Nato's nuclear deterrence. Vänsterpartiet does not want to be part of Nato, instead Vänsterpartiet wants us in Sweden to be alone and defenseless. They take every chance to push their agenda, and this time their pretext is a new American administration.

I want to be very clear regarding the DCA agreement. Unlike what has been claimed by Vänsterpartiet, no one can place nuclear weapons or permanent bases in Sweden without our consent. The Left is in fact spreading fear propaganda, which really does not serve Swedish interests. But I will always pursue the foreign policy that serves Swedish interests. I will not put the Swedish political debate in the front row.

(Applause)

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

Kerstin Lundgren (C)

Mr. Speaker! We have heard a rather cautious foreign policy declaration. That can perhaps be understood given the security policy situation we find ourselves in. From the Center Party's side, we can agree with many parts: Russia as a long-term threat, the view on Belarus and also Georgia and EU membership for candidate countries in the Western Balkans as well as for Moldova and Ukraine, to name just a few examples.

Support for Ukraine is a moral duty, but if one says it is a moral duty, it creates an obligation. From the Center Party's side, we have long waited for us, from the Swedish side, to be able to do as France has now done, by sending aircraft to Ukraine. We are waiting for the government to make a decision on JAS to Ukraine and begin training pilots in Sweden. But we have had to wait for quite a long time. Can the Minister for Foreign Affairs give an announcement today that this will now happen?

We have also set 1 percent of our gross national product annually as the framework for the support to Ukraine. The government has consumed a rather large part of this year's budget framework for the Ukraine support with its 18th package, which we support, but it will be too little. We need to be prepared to do more.

Mr. Speaker! I have read the declaration and looked for the impact of the climate threat on our security. I find "climate" once, and then it is about us cooperating with China.

Mr. Speaker! The climate threat is truly here. By the year 2030, it is estimated that 130 million people will live in poverty as a result of climate developments. Of the affected countries, 70 percent are also among the most fragile countries. This is a basis for new threats, wars and conflicts. But the climate issue is conspicuous by its absence in the government's foreign policy declaration. Why, Mr. Speaker?

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

Utrikesministern Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)

Mr. Speaker! I was very clear that the support for Ukraine is Sweden's most important foreign policy task. The 18th package that we presented recently is also the largest military support that we have ever given to Ukraine. We will continue to stand by Ukraine's side for as long as is required.

The cooperation that we have with our Nordic and Baltic colleagues is also absolutely crucial to reach out in Europe, where there are many who can do significantly more, including countries that have been mentioned here in the debate. But also the rest of the world must understand that now is the time to stand up for international law, which means that the big and strong shall not seize power at the expense of the other. We will, of course, constantly evaluate how we best support Ukraine.

Now the focus is on other aircraft systems. We also contribute, as is well known, with the Aska, which Kerstin Lundgren knows very well. But preparations are also underway to potentially be able to send Jas to Ukraine if needed. This is, as mentioned, our most important foreign policy priority.

The climate issue, which Kerstin Lundgren mentions, is also an immensely important security policy issue. I also mention the climate issue and that it is important that we work more effectively to ensure that every krona does the greatest possible good. International climate aid is absolutely crucial for us to be able to persuade the large emitters to reduce their emissions. There, the dialogue with USA, China, India and Brazil – the truly large emitters – is also absolutely crucial, and therefore we also care about raising this in our bilateral dialogue with them.

I also mentioned the work in the Arctic, which has a close connection to climate change. There, new opportunities are being created, but also new threats.

(Applause)

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

Kerstin Lundgren (C)

Mr. Speaker! It is clear that there is more to be done regarding Ukraine and the support for Ukraine. We have submitted a number of proposals that I hope the government will also listen to.

Climate is an issue that is conspicuously absent, and I really could not hear the Foreign Minister say why.

I hear the Arctic, however, and the Arctic is interesting. We have demanded a new Arctic strategy. The old one from 2020 remains and is still valid, but we have demanded a new one. I would have expected some news to come from there, but no, nothing was said there. Nothing was said either about Greenland, where we must be very clear that we back up what is also the EU's position and stand behind Denmark.

Mr. Speaker! I hope that the Minister has some news to deliver regarding the Arctic issue.

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

Utrikesministern Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)

Mr. Speaker! I do not know if Kerstin Lundgren will consider it to be a major news item, but I want to mention that there is a very intensive work ongoing at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs regarding just the Arctic issues, and we are also doing it in close cooperation with other Arctic countries. There is also a very intensive dialogue among the NATO countries, where we can see that what is called "High North" in a NATO context is becoming increasingly strategically interesting for countries that we should keep an eye on, not least China. This is something I will continue to work on very intensively. I can guarantee that to Kerstin Lundgren. I also very gladly do so in cooperation.

(Applause)

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, for the foreign policy declaration! It was a long enumeration of things happening around the world, but I think that in much, visions and ambitions are lacking. What does the government actually want to do? It feels as if one doesn't quite know if one likes this with foreign policy at all.

The only thing that is brought up where there are some kind of ambitions is trade. One speaks of expanded trade: We shall expand trade with the USA, East Asia, and Latin America. It is very much about trade.

However, trade will never be able to replace the need for aid, because trade never reaches those who have the greatest need and those who are the most vulnerable.

Trade can also be used to influence in other ways. In two weeks, the Foreign Minister, together with the other EU foreign ministers, will make a decision to extend the import ban that exists for goods from Russian-controlled areas in eastern Ukraine. One can, therefore, quite simply stop trade from areas that are occupied.

Do we recognize this from anywhere else? An occupation of Palestine is ongoing. It has been ongoing for at least 58 years. But even today, we allow the import of goods from illegal Israeli settlements. We were very quick to make decisions on import bans regarding goods from Russian-controlled areas in occupied eastern Ukraine, but we still have no decision to ban imports from Israeli settlements, from the occupied Palestine.

I wonder: Is this something that the Foreign Minister will push for? How can we continue to allow the import of goods from illegal settlements on the West Bank and in East Jerusalem?

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

Utrikesministern Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)

Mr. Speaker! Jacob Risberg's question actually consists of two parts.

First, Jacob Risberg states that he does not understand why trade is so important. That does not actually surprise me; I will return to that. Then he wonders why we still trade with Israel.

Let me begin with the first part. It is no news that parties on the left wing, including Miljöpartiet, do not understand the importance of trade across the world, nor do they understand what I say in the foreign policy declaration, that there are clear synergies between trade and aid. It is trade that increases our prosperity and our opportunities to help those who have the absolute greatest need for help. If one does not understand this fundamental connection, it is very difficult to have a debate on the importance of developing trade. It also explains the actions in many other parts concerning this.

When it comes to Israel, we have been very clear in our criticism where it has been justified. We view the violent settlers in the West Bank with great concern. Jacob Risberg and I have had countless debates about this in the chamber. There, I have also answered the other question.

This means that I welcome that an association council is held between the EU and Israel on February 24. It will be a good opportunity to raise difficult issues linked to the war, while at the same time we can address other issues. That we want to utilize that channel for dialogue, the opposition in the Swedish Riksdag has been critical of ever since I took office, but I am convinced that we need more direct and honest dialogue and not poster politics.

(Applause)

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Minister for Foreign Affairs, for the answer!

I have never claimed that trade is not important, but foreign policy consists of so many more parts than just trade. It is about lifting people out of poverty. It is about increased diplomatic relations and so on. There are many other parts. There are other types of relations in the world than trade relations.

It is very good that there will now be an association council. It is unfortunate that it took Israel eight months to even find a date for this, which was invited to already at the end of the spring last year.

What red lines does Sweden have when it comes to the association council? When will one be ready to pause it? Will one demand a ban on the import of, for example, goods from Israeli settlements? Will one demand an amendment to Israel's law on UNRWA? Will one demand a total stop to the settler violence and that Israel should come up with a plan for the dismantling of settlements in accordance with the International Court of Justice's ruling? Will one demand a total military withdrawal from the occupied territories? Will this be included as requirements from Sweden when it concerns the association council?

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

Utrikesministern Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)

Mr. Speaker! I want to be very clear that the government stands behind the International Court of Justice and the statements that the court has made. This is something that we also constantly put forward in our dialogue with Israel, and it becomes easier to do this if one actually has a dialogue, so I truly welcome that. Then we will convey criticism against, for example, the actions on the West Bank.

I also note that there are different markings for products coming from there, and that is something I think is good. We have also raised this in previous debates.

I also want to be clear that we cannot look back now, but we must look forward. Now we have obtained a ceasefire, a fragile ceasefire, but it is absolutely crucial for us to be able to get the hostages released and reduce the suffering, but also take important steps for a negotiated two-state solution, so that these peoples can finally live in peace and freedom.

(Applause)

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Mr. Speaker! This year marks exactly 80 years since the Second World War ended. It was a war driven forward by a far-right nationalism in Germany, Italy, and Japan, which came to cost over 60 million people their lives and also led to the worst genocide in history – the Holocaust of Jews and Roma, the killing of homosexuals, dissidents, and all others whom the Nazis did not think fit into their new Third Reich.

It was a global catastrophe of an unprecedented scale. But from the ashes of the Second World War, a new world order arose. It was not that all countries became democracies; it did not turn out that well. But at least most world leaders, democrats and dictators alike, came to understand the enormous risks of an unregulated world order, risks that had furthermore increased manifold with the invention of the atomic bomb.

Never again, they said, and so they established international regulatory frameworks and global and regional institutions that would monitor those frameworks – all to reduce the risks of a third and, for humanity, completely devastating world war. Then we got the United Nations, the Council of Europe, the UN Declaration of Human Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights, the Geneva Convention, the World Health Organization, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and so on. Eventually, we also got the European cooperation that would become the EU.

A rule-based world order was created, based on international law and international law. Even though we have since seen many wars, we have been spared a new world war. We can thank the rule-based world order for that.

For 80 years we have maintained that stability. Now it is threatened. It is, of course, threatened by Putin's Russia through his attack on Ukraine nearly three years ago, through his claims on territories in, for example, Moldova and Georgia, and through his attempts to infiltrate the politics in a number of EU countries and in the Balkans. Russia is and remains the great threat to Europe for the foreseeable future, and we must build a bulwark against it.

But - it is just as well that we say it straight out - the rules-based world order is now also actually being undermined by the American administration. One cannot say anything else after the last few weeks' spectacular statements - that the USA is to lay claim to Greenland, that Canada is to become a state in the USA, that the USA is to take over the Panama Canal and that the USA is to take over Gaza and expel millions of Palestinians from their homes to make room for some kind of holiday resort for Westerners. The latest is that the USA demands access to Ukraine's natural resources. Otherwise, they will not continue to support Ukraine but rather, in practice, sell out the country to Russia.

I believe that many are thinking: What is actually happening? Has the world gone mad? In such situations, there is only one thing to do, and that is to take a deep breath and go back to the basics - international law and international law.

Olof Palme once said that one must call things by their right names, and there are words for wanting to subjugate other countries. It is called imperialism and colonialism. We thought we heard those belonged on the scrap heap of history. There are words for wanting to expel millions of people from their homes. It is called ethnic cleansing. To forcibly displace a population, as one is apparently considering to do in Gaza, is criminalized in Article 7 of the Rome Statute, under the heading Crimes against humanity.

To commit extortion against a country - Ukraine - which has been at war for three years, which has lost tens of thousands of its countrymen, which has seen its children abducted to Russia and which has been subjected to every war crime that exists in the law book, requires a very special form of morality or lack thereof. How low can one actually sink?

Such statements are deeply destructive. They divide the West. They play into Putin's hands. They undermine the rules-based world order.

The international community, the EU and Sweden must be very clear regarding all such plans. This can never be accepted, regardless of from which side it comes. Here, Sweden must speak with a clear voice. We cannot accept that millions of people in Gaza and on the West Bank are displaced from the land where they have lived for generations. We cannot accept that settlements are made over the heads of the people of Ukraine for the purpose of accessing the country's natural resources.

If we accept such things, the rule-based world order will soon be nothing but a memory. And who loses the most from that? In the first instance, it is of course the small and medium-sized states. The great powers will always be able to assert themselves, but for small and medium-sized states to be able to assert their rights, it is required that there is a rule-based world order. But in the long run, Mr. Speaker, it is much more that is at stake. If the world reverts to a pre-war order of a war of all against all, with chaos and anarchy and where the right of the strongest shall prevail, the entire world will soon be in turmoil, and then no one knows where it ends. Therefore, we must offer resistance, and we must speak plainly. We must build broad global support for the rule-based world order.

I think that the Swedish government has been far too vague, far too silent and far too passive in the challenging situation we find ourselves in. For example, I think one should have been much clearer when Trump made his Greenland move. It is clear that one can never accept when an ally threatens another ally with violence. That must be expressed immediately, and one must immediately give Denmark and Greenland all the support they need in such a situation.

But the most serious mistake is that Sweden, under this government, has withdrawn from the global arena to focus almost entirely on Europe. This manifests in many ways. Support for the UN and its organizations has been significantly reduced. UN work is no longer prioritized. One abstains in important votes in the General Assembly. Aid is being drastically cut so that we will soon be below the shame threshold, that is, 0.7 percent of the gross national income, while the humanitarian needs are greater than ever. One is withdrawing from countries in Africa and Asia. In the Middle East, support for UNRWA is completely scrapped, important aid on the West Bank is cut, and support for Palestine is wavering.

This is an enormous mistake. Now that the rules-based world order is in flux, it is not enough to focus on Europe, on the contrary. Broad support must be built for the rules and the institutions that have maintained stability in the world for 80 years. The world is larger than Europe. It is more important than ever that Sweden's government shows that it understands that.

(Applause)

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

Aron Emilsson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Fundamentally, I believe it is wise that we have an order in Sweden and the Swedish Riksdag where we are relatively in agreement and have a great consensus on security policy issues. It benefits us in this world political situation.

But the Social Democrats have almost made a brand for themselves, and climbed in the league, by always changing their minds, always being reactive and then stating that they have always thought something they have never thought. We have seen it in migration policy. We have seen it in a good deal of security policy. We have seen it in a number of political areas.

Now Morgan Johansson claims that one should return to the basics, in a security and foreign policy situation that is the worst since the Second World War. It only underscores the Social Democrats' almost utopian and reactive foreign policy, which means that one will once again need to change one's mind on a number of essential areas.

The Social Democrats do not seem to realize that a new reality requires completely new and realistic measures, a realistic foreign and security policy. The Social Democrats have been out there comparing a, after all, democratically elected leader, Donald Trump in the USA, with one of the world's currently worst war criminals, namely Putin in Russia, in the question of Greenland, for example.

It is naturally the case that we in the Nordic countries and from the Swedish side have diametrically different views than the USA on a number of foreign policy issues, not least that of Greenland. There we should be clear that Denmark's and Greenland's cause is ours. There we are in agreement.

But to go out in such a security policy situation and compare a leader like Trump, who leads the world's largest democracy, with one of the world's worst war criminals is truly bad. It is also directly in conflict with Denmark's plea and line.

The question is how Morgan Johansson himself feels that one acts in line with keeping the Nordic countries together.

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Now, perhaps Aron Emilsson is not the right man or the Sweden Democrats the right party to talk about other parties changing their minds. We have seen the Sweden Democrats do that in a few issues recently, which has had its consequences.

What I said in my speech was that in all cases we must maintain the rules-based world order and that it must apply to everyone. There are no special rules for certain countries. No countries have the right to make claims on other countries' territory. No countries have the right, in relation to other countries, to threaten with violence to seize their natural resources. I think that is a self-evident fact.

When a country acts in this way - whether it is the USA, Russia or another country - the international community must be very clear and say no, we do not accept this.

I was the Minister of Justice during the previous period when Trump was president. I have four years of experience of that situation. I was involved in a number of situations where we received statements from the American president and the American administration. My experience is that one must respond very clearly and very quickly. Otherwise, one risks being overridden.

I would like to say that it is now worse than ever. Now it is not just about Greenland, but it is about Gaza and Ukraine. Now there are so many balls in the air. Then it is even more important to stand firm by the rules-based world order.

My counter-question to Aron Emilsson is whether he means that we should abandon the rules-based world order and that we should have different standards for different countries. Where exactly does Aron Emilsson think we will end up then? My perception is that we risk ending up in a much more dangerous place. It is a place where we have to go back to the pre-war history and where the development can become extremely serious. I think it is extremely important that Aron Emilsson stands firm on the rules-based world order.

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

Aron Emilsson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The rules-based world order is a self-evident fact for me and for the Sweden Democrats. I do not know how many times I have repeated this in the Committee on Foreign Affairs, here in the chamber, in the media, and in various contexts. It is perhaps the most important thing we have as a medium-sized state in Northern Europe when imperialistic states want to subjugate other states in imperialistic endeavors – not least Russia in our immediate vicinity. This also applies to others. China makes African independent states dependent on them and their investments.

This is a widespread problem. The rules-based world order is central, but in the rules-based world order, one must also to some extent acknowledge that it is also about combating extremism and the terror that today is an international problem. Israel is a front state for holding back that terror.

Morgan Johansson has previously commented and said that the situation in Gaza is a children's graveyard. A bloated rhetoric and an anti-Israel sentiment has long characterized large parts of the Social Democrats. In what way does this favor a discussion that can pave the way for a rules-based world order even in these regions? On the contrary, this is undermined, and it causes antisemitism to simmer.

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Mr. Speaker! My point is that one cannot apply double standards. The same rules must apply to all countries. When Israel occupies land they have no right to, it must be pointed out. One must demand that they withdraw from there.

In line with international law, one must also point out when disproportionate warfare is being waged. When the USA makes claims on other countries in a way that contravenes international law, one must point it out, and when Russia wages a horrific war against Ukraine, one must point it out. One cannot treat different countries in different ways. It then becomes a slippery slope where one eventually begins to accept things depending on who is making these demands. Then, as we said, we will soon be back to a pre-war situation, and that situation will be extremely serious and extremely dangerous.

No, Mr. Speaker, we must stand up for the rules-based world order and for the institutions that uphold it.

(Applause)

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

Utrikesministern Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)

Mr. Speaker! The Government has in several contexts been very clear that it is Denmark and Greenland that decide in matters concerning Denmark and Greenland. We also said this just hours after Trump's statement, in contrast to what Morgan Johansson said in his lies on the radio this morning.

I thank Morgan Johansson for his so-called foreign policy advice. It is quite obvious that he has not been in contact with his Social Democratic colleagues in Denmark. Nor is it the first time that the Social Democrats in Sweden have had a poor grasp of how the foreign and security policy debate is proceeding among their Nordic sister parties. The Social Democrats did not understand what S in Finland did when it came to Nato, because they were so preoccupied with their own political game.

The government in Sweden has been in constant contact with our colleagues in Denmark. We have done and said exactly what they have asked us to, when they have asked us for this. Both the Prime Minister and I have expressed Sweden's support for the messages the Danish government has put forward in these issues, and we stand wholeheartedly behind our neighboring country.

Why does Morgan Johansson not do what he said in his speech is the best to do in this difficult situation, that is to take a deep breath and perhaps take out the mobile and call the colleagues?

(Applause)

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I can assure the Minister for Foreign Affairs that we have very close contact with our Nordic party friends in all situations, and particularly in the situation we have now. We have it both party-wise and between the Swedish and the Danish Foreign Affairs Committees. We also had that during the entire Finnish Natoprocess. The ministers who were in charge of this during that spring traveled in shuttle traffic between Finland and Sweden during that period to constantly coordinate with our Nordic party colleagues. It is completely wrong to claim that we do not have any such contact.

I must, however, say that I was a bit surprised by the Foreign Minister's reaction when I criticized Trump's move regarding Greenland. It took several days, by the way, before we received a proper comment both from the Prime Minister and from the Foreign Minister. You were very low during those days, Maria Malmer Stenergard.

When the reaction finally came, I was surprised that it was not primarily a clarification of the government's position. Instead, it was an attack on me because I, and we from our side, had said that Sweden must now stand behind Denmark and Greenland and stand up for this. In that way, it was we who were irresponsible when we said what is actually obvious, that is, that we must maintain the rules-based world order regardless of who criticizes it or who undermines it. I was actually surprised by this.

I believe that the Foreign Minister, now that she sees all the new developments regarding Gaza and Ukraine, perhaps is beginning to understand that with a president like Trump, there is actually only one way to handle the situation. It is to be very clear, and to be so from the very beginning.

Mr. Speaker! I look forward to the Swedish government being that moving forward.

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

Utrikesministern Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is quite obvious that Morgan Johansson only has media coverage on his own name. It is obvious that he does not follow what the government has actually said about Greenland, and when we have said it, but only follows what concerns himself and what concerns his own party.

Morgan Johansson claims that he has had contact with his Social Democratic colleagues in Denmark. It is then even worse that he goes out in complete opposition to their wishes, while we, of course, listen very carefully to what our colleagues in Denmark say.

I still want to go back to the speech that Morgan Johansson gave. Did one note that he spoke more about Trump than, for example, the EU, which is our most important foreign policy platform? This is in some way symptomatic of the Social Democrats: They are unable to navigate a very difficult security policy period. The only thing they are capable of is picking up quick domestic policy points, and it is not putting Sweden's best interests first.

(Applause)

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Mr. Speaker! It may happen that the Minister for Foreign Affairs receives a round of applause in here when she resorts to personal attacks against me, but I do not think it is a good way to handle foreign policy when we are now in the worst security policy situation in the post-war period. Stop focusing on the person; focus instead on the difficult challenges we have ahead of us!

The difficult challenges right now are that the rules-based world order is threatened by Putin but unfortunately also undermined by the American administration through the moves it makes. That is the only thing I am asking for. I am not making any personal attacks against Maria Malmer Stenergard, but the only thing I am asking for is that one should be clear and early when such statements are made. It is about everyone understanding what Sweden's line is, that is to say, a total alignment behind international law, international law, and the rules-based world order.

(Applause)

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

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! The Social Democrats have traditionally been strong defenders of the UN system, as well as strong critics of the state of Israel both during the war in Gaza and long before that. Therefore, I would like to ask the member what his position is on the UN's alleged bias in issues linked to Israel.

Let us look at the statistics. In the UN General Assembly, 154 resolutions were directed against Israel between 2015 and 2023, while 71 resolutions addressed all other countries in the world. In 2024 alone, the UN General Assembly adopted 17 resolutions against Israel and only 6 regarding the rest of the world - one each for North Korea, Iran, Syria, Myanmar, Russia, and the USA.

Personally, I think it is very difficult to claim that this is exactly how the world looks. The statistics cannot solely be due to the fact that the conflict between Israel and the Palestinian actors is one of the world's most difficult. Rather, it is due to the fact that many countries that drive and vote through these resolutions have a long history of political and ideological hostility towards the State of Israel. It is often a matter of dictatorships that themselves have an extremely questionable view on human rights and which actively persecute dissenters, deny women basic rights, and silence free media.

My question to Member Johansson is therefore: Does the Member see this as a disproportionate criticism of Israel within the UN system, and if so, what is the reason for that? If not, how does the Member explain the extreme imbalance regarding resolutions?

(Applause)

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Mr. Speaker! The simple explanation is that this conflict is one of the most long-standing conflicts we have had. It goes all the way back to the formation of the UN in the late 40s and is still an unresolved conflict. It is clear that one continues to raise the issue time and again as long as it is not resolved. I see nothing strange about that.

Then Magnus Berntsson says that we have criticized the state of Israel. I just want to say that we do not criticize the state of Israel as such. We criticize Israel's warfare when it is disproportionate, and we criticize the occupation. We do that in exactly the same way as we criticize other warring parties when they violate international law.

Our view is that we want to see a development where Israelis and Palestinians can live side by side in a two-state solution. For that to be achievable, it is actually required that the occupation ends. It is required that the settlements end. I know that Magnus Berntsson belongs to a party, Kristdemokraterna, which has had close contacts with the settler movement. I hope that they have been severed now, because the fact that the settlements continue, I mean, is one of the major obstacles to a long-term peace in this region.

In my opinion, we have never, from our side, expressed any unbalanced criticism in any way. We stand up for the State of Israel's right to exist within secure, well-defined, and internationally recognized borders. We also stand up for a Palestinian state, and we intend to work for such a state. But that presupposes, as stated, that the occupation is terminated, that the settlements are terminated, and that the warfare is stopped.

(Applause)

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

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! For all of us who defend the rules-based world order, the UN is a central institution, and its role in upholding international law and promoting peace is crucial. But is there not a risk that the UN loses its legitimacy if its actions are perceived as unilateral and politicized?

I can understand that Israel is dissatisfied; we have seen how UNRWA premises are used to hold some of the hostages and how heads of UNRWA's teachers' unions in both Gaza and Lebanon simultaneously have had leading roles in Hamas. We also see several other things. That being said, I want to be clear that my party considers that Israel does not always make the right decisions and that we are deeply critical of the handling of the settlement issue.

As a follow-up question, I wonder: Does the member not see a risk that the UN loses its legitimacy when their criticism becomes as one-sided as the statistics show?

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Mr. Speaker! The answer is: no, actually the opposite! I believe that the UN would have lost its legitimacy if it had not dared to address the question that has now remained unsolved for decade after decade. Then the UN would have, so to speak, played out its role and lost its legitimacy.

Then I actually believe, now that Magnus Berntsson says as he does about the settlers and the two-state solution, that we do not stand particularly far apart on the core issue. We both desire a Palestinian state and an Israeli state that can live side by side. However, compromises are required from both sides in order to be able to reach that. Let us work together so that it can be done! If we have a constructive starting point, I believe that the conditions could actually be quite good despite the situation being as it is.

(Applause)

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

Joar Forssell (L)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you to Member Johansson!

The Social Democrats do not directly have a strong history of standing up for the rules-based world order, quite the opposite. One can reflect on Palme's love for Castro or how Morgan Johansson's predecessor put on a veil and crawled for the terror-mullahs in Iran. But where we stand today, where the rules-based world order is primarily challenged by the axis of evil powers China, Russia, and Iran together, one wonders a bit what the social democrats in the world are doing and what the Social Democrats in Sweden are doing to correct other social democrats. I therefore have three questions for Morgan Johansson.

What are the Social Democrats in Sweden doing to stop the British Labour government's plans for a mega-embassy from China, which has been described as being to become a spy base for China's activities in all of Europe?

I also wonder: What are the Social Democrats in Sweden doing to ensure that the social democrat-led government in South Africa stops flattering China? For example, it has stated that it supports China's claims on Taiwan regardless of what means China wants to take.

Finally, I ask: What are the Social Democrats doing – and what have the Social Democrats done – to pressure the Social Democrats in Germany, with Scholz at the helm, who have refused to send Ukraine the weapons that Ukraine has needed? They have also refused to let Ukraine use the weapons they have received in the way they need to be able to win the war.

The Social Democrats in Sweden have a lesson to learn, and they would need to take a bit more responsibility to push social democrats in other parts of the world. China, Russia, and Iran are the greatest threat to democracy in the world.

(Applause)

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I can assure you that we from our party present our positions in the dialogue with our brother and sister parties.

When it comes to China's embassy in the United Kingdom, I find it difficult to see what the actual problem is. China has embassies everywhere - why should they not be allowed to establish themselves on a larger scale in the United Kingdom?

The second question concerned South Africa's stance on China. We will have an opportunity for that soon. The Foreign Affairs Committee is traveling to South Africa in just a few weeks. Then there will be an opportunity to discuss both the relationship with China and the relationship with Russia – that discussion must also be held – with representatives of the South African government.

What Joar Forssell said about Germany is actually wrong. The threat to continued German support for Ukraine is not the German social democrats. The threat comes instead from Alternative für Deutschland, that is, from the right-wing extremist opposition. There is a risk that this opposition now wins influence in Germany. That is where the threat lies, Joar Forssell, and that is what you should address.

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

Joar Forssell (L)

Mr. Speaker! Those listening can hear how lightly the Social Democrats take what Social Democrats do in other countries and how lightly they take the threat from China. The mega-embassy that China intends to build in the United Kingdom, with the support of the Labour government, has been described as a spy hub for all of Europe. It is not just an embassy, but it is an embassy that will constitute the hub for Chinese espionage activity - and oppression against European Chinese, for that matter - in all of Europe.

During the past week, thousands of Britons demonstrated on the streets of London. They were Uyghurs, Tibetans, people in exile from Hong Kong and people from Taiwan. They demonstrated because this is an enormous threat, but the Social Democrats in Sweden just shrug it off.

The Social Democrats also cannot answer the question about Scholz. It is obvious that the lack of weapons and the way Ukraine has been allowed to use them has been a threat to Ukraine and the country's right to win the war.

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Mr. Speaker! It is becoming a bit ridiculous. If I remember correctly, the German liberals sat together with the Social Democrats in the government that Joar Forssell claimed did not support Ukraine sufficiently. I can pose a counter-question: What did Joar Forssell do then for his liberal colleagues? Now he has no right of reply, but he has a later speech where he can answer this.

All countries decide for themselves regarding their diplomatic relations. I do not think it is strange that China has an embassy in London. I do not think either that it is strange that China has an embassy in Sweden. Should I interpret Joar Forssell as wanting to change that and break the diplomatic relations? I do not hope for that, because in my opinion we must maintain diplomatic relations broadly.

I think Joar Forssell is completely out of his depth. I can, however, assure him that we have our party contacts in the manner that we should and that we put forward our views.

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

Aron Emilsson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The foreign policy debate this spring is extraordinary in a time when the world as we know it is strained, conflict-ridden, unpredictable, and fluid. Authoritarian regimes are stretching the rules-based world order. Old truths are being transformed into new falsehoods. The right of the strongest tends to trump international law and the sovereignty and freedom of action of free and independent nation-states.

War rages in Europe. Humanitarian catastrophes of historical proportions, such as the crisis in Sudan, are drowning in the noise of more ideologically charged conflicts where there is a clearer line of conflict and more to win or lose for major players in the international community. This lies in the nature of politics and calls for reflection.

Today we report on foreign policy goals and priorities. It is clear for both me and the Sweden Democrats that Swedish interests and realism shall be in the foreground. This requires an understanding of the effects of Swedish foreign policy. It requires that one does not simply believe that we in Sweden receive the greatest influence in the areas where we donate the most money, or that one listens to us most where we have the highest tone. Historically, it could have been precisely the opposite.

Since the 2022 election, Sweden has had a foreign policy that, to a greater extent, is based on Swedish interests and realpolitik priorities rather than utopian expectations that reality can be adapted to a socialist map if one shouts louder.

Since the 2022 election, we have had a government base with parties that have carried out a thorough revision and reform of the aid and development policy, which is an important foreign policy lever. This has been linked to a greater extent to expectations of the counterparty, and the synergies with trade and migration commitments in the form of the repatriation of citizens have been developed. Humanitarian support and disaster relief are central, as is a strategic development policy.

The reform agenda is promising. I am pleased with the constructive cooperation that prevails, not least among the Tidö parties in the Committee on Foreign Affairs. It bodes well for the future.

Mr. Speaker! Nordic cooperation is prioritized, which warms a Nordicist. The Nordic-Baltic circle forms a strong axis of like-minded nations in our immediate vicinity. Together, our countries are coordinated, efficient, and orderly in our international cooperation. Together, we stand at the forefront of an active and responsible foreign and security policy. And note well: Denmark's and Greenland's cause is ours!

Together with Poland and several others, we lead the support to Ukraine, tirelessly and unwaveringly, for as long as it is needed. Our blue-and-yellow brother people are also fighting for our cause in the east. That is where our defense line runs today.

Regardless of which direction we look, and regardless of whether we turn our gaze upward toward the sky or downward toward the seabed, we face new and old threats. Through both traditional and modern warfare, our capabilities and our security are tested. Antagonists such as Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea appear in the east, south, west, and north. Through economic, military, and political cooperation, they lubricate, interconnected with one another, each other's opportunities to continue conducting warfare and aggressive intelligence gathering in the conflicts raging across the world.

So it also happens on our own continent. The Russian war economy is strained, but it survives through the shadow fleet, the bypassing of sanctions and not least the Chinese financial and banking sector. North Korean soldiers are fighting in Europe. Iranian drones are making life unbearable for civilians in Ukraine. Russian influence in the Middle East is there, as is China's and Russia's expansion in Africa and Asia.

In this situation, the European Union lacks clear leadership, even though I have great confidence in, not least, the EU's new High Representative Kaja Kallas. She has both the commitment and the sense of the optics we need to view Ukraine with, the importance of winning freedom and peace, as well as the significance of seeing Russia lose and what is required for this.

We certainly do not need to look in any particular direction to see the most serious security situation in the world. If we look upwards, we identify the space race and how the global commons above the clouds have to an ever increasing extent become an arena for great power political demonstrations. It is pleasing that Sweden has good conditions to act in the space domain in a defensive, civil, and responsible manner.

If we look downwards, we see how underwater warfare, not least in the Baltic Sea, has escalated recently. Through sabotage, hybrid warfare and generally shabby ships, infrastructure, aviation and shipping are threatened, and the shadow fleet threatens the sensitive marine biological environment.

It is obvious that a review of international conventions is required that prevent us from acting to a sufficient extent in time.

It is also completely obvious that we need to adopt the Norwegian perspective that settlement is also a security policy readiness issue. Without eyes and ears in the archipelago, mountain environments, and rural areas, a nation is vulnerable to foreign powers. There are clearly regional political perspectives as well in foreign and security policy. I know that myself as an archipelago resident in the municipality where Gustav Vasa once founded the Swedish navy.

Mr. Speaker! In the world, we have friends and enemies and actors who turn out to be both one and the other. We know for certain that alone is not strong. In the Nordic region, we need each other. Europe needs a narrower and sharper EU. The EU needs the USA, and the USA needs the EU. In a world where China and Russia cooperate to tear up the rules-based world order, we fundamentally gain nothing from dancing a customs tango across the Atlantic or from the EU acting reactively. Sweden as an independent state and the union as such need to act more transactionally, speak with farmers in farmers' terms and with scholars in Latin, learn the new language in the American administration and demonstrate to the USA that settlements with Europe are favorable and decisive in a global state where the rules-based world order is challenged by common antagonists. The EU and the USA are both losers if the transatlantic link is weakened in terms of relations, trade, defense and security, and competitiveness. Europe needs to stretch out and radiate faith in the future, strength, and clarity. This has proven successful, not least in Canada's dialogue with the USA.

The Sweden Democrats are a Europe-minded party with an EU-critical profile. In the current situation, I am at the same time the first to say that the EU is needed both more and less than ever. The EU was needed more in issues that are cross-border, such as trade, economic cooperation, foreign and security policy cooperation and so on, but significantly less in the form of domestic political meddling and growing bureaucracy that becomes extra expenses, cumbersome administration and a burden when we need to support the defense industry, other industry and innovation within our union in relation to other global actors.

We need to strengthen and structure the cooperation with partner countries in other parts of the world. I am talking about Japan, the Philippines, Taiwan with several others in Asia, as well as countries in Latin America and Israel. These are countries in different situations but with the commonality that they are democratic nations in vulnerable positions. In one case, it is about an imminent threat from communist China, and in the other, Islamist terrorist movements acting internationally are at play. This is also our problem. In both cases, there are good opportunities for increased exchange, not least regarding trade, innovation, and research.

Regarding the situation for Israel and Palestine, there is every reason to reiterate our support for Israel's right to defend itself after the worst terror against the Jewish people since World War II and to emphasize the demands to release the hostages, fulfill the agreement in the fragile ceasefire that still prevails, ensure humanitarian access, and eliminate Hamas's terror.

Mr. Speaker! The Nordic cause is ours, and together we in the Nordic region can work for the rules-based international world order.

(Applause)

In this speech, Nima Gholam Ali Pour, Erik Hellsborn, Mona Olin and Markus Wiechel (all SD) concurred.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! What the Sweden Democrats think about the developments in Syria is not entirely easy to understand. It seems that different Sweden Democrats think completely differently. The Sweden Democrats are, to begin with, the only party that has visited the al-Assad regime in Syria through Martin Kinnunen, member of the EU Committee, and Markus Wiechel, former member of the Foreign Affairs Committee. The latter, Wiechel, has in two written questions expressed concern over what is happening with the HTS takeover in Syria. How will it go for the minorities, he wonders. He wants to protect their rights.

Another Sweden Democrat, Nima Gholam Ali Pour, is concerned about the Turkish settlement policy in the Kurdish-dominated areas of Afrin, which is practiced "through various abuses, such as torture, murder and kidnappings, to scare away the people living in Afrin." He concludes his question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs by stating that the settlement policy, which violates international law, also creates a breeding ground for future armed conflicts in Syria. Member Sara Gille agrees and notes that Syria today is one of the world's most unstable regions.

At the same time, Member of Parliament Ludvig Aspling and MEP Charlie Weimers express concern in a debate article that they are not allowed to deport people to Syria simply because the security situation is not good in the entire country. With the somewhat odd argument that deportation is good for Syria's economy, they are trying to get an EU ruling changed. Ludvig Aspling has also been clear that he wants to revoke all residence permits for Syrians, which means 180,000 people in Sweden. It sounds like the Swedish version of Donald Trump.

From the UD, however, the messages are clear: The airport in Damascus is open for international traffic, but the UD's advice remains.

Mr. Speaker! What do the Sweden Democrats actually think about Syria? Does the Sweden Democrats make a different assessment of the security situation in Syria than the Ministry for Foreign Affairs does?

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

Aron Emilsson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Håkan Svenneling for the questions.

Many are engaged in the Syria issue, and it is evident that there is a great interest, not least among Sweden Democrat members in both the Riksdag and the European Parliament. It is also evident that for a long time and long before the Natoprocess before the entry, we warned against the influence that Turkey with allies has on Syria when it comes to the Christian minority and how they have behaved towards the Kurdish self-governing areas. This problematic has not disappeared after the revolution in Syria when the al-Assad regime was thrown out of the country.

Of course, many place great confidence that the development in Syria will move in a constructive direction and that more will be able to return to rebuild their old homeland and reunite with their relatives. This is not in any way in opposition to our assessment of the current security policy situation. Here, we make no other assessment than UD.

But we certainly have a hope and, of course, a dialogue with the government that return shall be the ambition as soon as the situation clearly stabilizes and HTS and those who rule promise to act constructively and not persecute Christian minorities and others who return. The objective is that people from, for example, Syria who live in Sweden today and do not have citizenship and have not integrated into Swedish society shall be able to return to rebuild their old homeland. Many also want this. There was almost a roar of jubilation among exiled Syrians, and many of them want to return to their old homeland as soon as it is safer. This future we can now discern, but it remains to be seen when it becomes a reality.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! I believe that SD's policy is fundamentally about one thing: looking down on immigrants, in this case Syrians. It doesn't matter how well-established they are in Sweden or what the security situation in Syria is, because "away from Sweden" will always be the Sverigedemokraterna's goal. So, that is what a racist foreign policy looks like.

After 14 years of war, Syria needs the world's commitment to peace and democratic development. We need to increase aid and reduce sanctions, especially the economic ones. We need to give clear support to the Kurdish-dominated self-administration in northeastern Syria, a self-administration that the government has increased the distance to for Turkey's sake in order to be able to join Nato. We also need to continue to fight IS.

Sweden has a special relationship with Syria. We have long worked for peace and democracy in the Middle East. Sweden is also home to thousands of Syrians from different ethnic groups who have sought protection from the terror of the al-Assad regime. Our responsibility is to contribute to a new, democratic Syria.

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

Aron Emilsson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! When it comes to Member Svenneling's conclusion and the underlying spirit that Sweden should be a constructive force to rebuild a free and independent Syria, there is no greater contradiction between the Left Party and the Sweden Democrats.

Is it a racist foreign policy to let people return who want nothing more than to build up their old homeland, contribute to its economic development and social development, reunite with elderly relatives and take root again? Many who have lived a long time in exile have a desire to be able to return and with their own hands build up their own country's economy and contribute to social development. It is constructive, if anything. It is the very opposite, regardless of which superlatives we use as a prefix before foreign policy.

We need to read the ongoing and immediate security situation but also strive to ensure that Syria develops in the right direction. As mentioned in the exchange of remarks, Markus Wiechel will later in the debate present the Sweden Democrats' positions.

(Applause)

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

Kerstin Lundgren (C)

Mr. Speaker! I am a bit curious. I listened to Aron Emilsson, but I did not quite hear the usual words. It makes me wonder, because it has been said that the Tidö agreement does not cover foreign policy. I am becoming a bit curious about whether the Sweden Democrats fully stand behind the government's foreign policy declaration. Have the Sweden Democrats given their blessing for the Swedish foreign policy? That is my first question, which is easy to answer yes or no to.

My second question concerns our two motions, which the Sweden Democrats have also supported. One of them is about us abolishing the legal assistance agreement with Hong Kong, which has existed since 2018, because Hong Kong's agenda no longer differs from the Communist Party's. I had expected that something would come up regarding this.

I also expected that the second announcement, which concerns us supporting Taiwan through a House of Sweden and scaling up our relationship with Taiwan, would be taken up either in the government's foreign policy declaration or in the Sweden Democrats' speech. I heard neither.

The third question I would like to take up with the Sweden Democrats concerns the terror listing of the IRGC. It has also been one of the clear signals that this chamber has given to previous and current governments, but I heard nothing about it either, neither in the foreign policy declaration, which may have been given, nor in the Sweden Democrats' statement.

Where do you actually stand here, Aron Emilsson? Are you still driving the issue? Why is it not included?

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

Aron Emilsson (SD)

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

What I noted and addressed most clearly in my speech was that the government and the Sweden Democrats have together coordinated and negotiated the reform agenda for Swedish aid policy fundamentally and in the details. It is an important foreign policy lever, and it is an important part of our development policy, trade policy, and to some extent foreign policy.

In other parts, we have no regulated agreements when it comes to foreign policy, which means that the government has greater freedom to present its own foreign policy declaration. It is not a Sverigedemokratisk product.

Kerstin Lundgren may have noticed that in my speech I emphasized some parts that are not included in the foreign policy declaration. I am completely convinced that there are good conditions to deepen cooperation in that area as well in the future. We have been able to see that through a constructive dialogue.

Kerstin Lundgren brought up Taiwan, which I mentioned explicitly in my speech to emphasize that we need to seek increased cooperation with countries like Taiwan. It has been a Sverigedemokratisk hobbyhorse for a long time. Kerstin Lundgren knows that too.

We have had common positions, stances, and viewpoints regarding the need both for a House of Sweden and for strengthening a number of different parts of diplomatic relations, student exchanges, business connections, and so on. There is much more to do there, also in defense industry cooperation and in security policy cooperation in relation to China.

Listing IRGC and Iran as terrorists is fundamentally a Sweden Democrat position that the chamber and the Riksdag have also adopted. We have been in agreement there, but at an early stage, it was a Sweden Democrat motion that gained traction in the Foreign Affairs Committee, where we had a clear demand to list IRGC as a terrorist organization. It became part of the report that the committee drafted, so there are no differences of opinion there either between the Centre Party and the Sweden Democrats.

We are, of course, still driving this, and we will not back down on that point.

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

Kerstin Lundgren (C)

Mr. Speaker! Did the Speaker hear a yes or a no to the question of whether the foreign declaration has received the support of the Sweden Democrats? I did not hear it, Mr. Speaker. I heard "greater freedom" for the government. It sounds like someone is giving a certain amount of space for the government and that it is the Sweden Democrats who have that position. It would be interesting to know in that case.

Then I heard IRGC and House of Sweden in Taiwan mentioned, but nothing about the mutual legal assistance agreement. Why? Now the government has been in power for a number of years. Why has the government not managed to take a position on these areas, as the Chamber has demanded? Why have the Sweden Democrats not pushed that issue and gained traction with the government? Tell me!

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

Aron Emilsson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! As Kerstin Lundgren knows, it involves compromises when one enters into a cooperation. We in the parties have our positions which we put forward, but in the foreign policy area, much of the policy is a prerogative of the government.

The foreign policy declaration is a government product, as I said in my previous exchange. On the other hand, there are a number of other areas in foreign policy where we have had coordination and reached agreements, not least when it comes to the important restructuring of the aid policy, which I also mentioned in my speech. It is therefore not a difficult question to resolve. That is where we stand.

We have a number of opportunities where we can certainly find consensus with the Center Party regarding the issues that Kerstin Lundgren mentioned, such as the terror listing of the IRGC, how we position ourselves towards Hong Kong in relation to China and, not least, strengthened support for Taiwan in a number of different areas. Here I see great potential, so there is no contradiction there.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Aron Emilsson, for the speech!

When one is to write their speech before the foreign policy debate, one notices that the 8 minutes one has is quite a short time, especially considering that the Minister for Foreign Affairs is given 20 minutes to speak and lay out the text. There are many things that one does not have time to take up or elaborate on properly, and I intended to go into a bit of some of these issues.

One of them is that the Sweden Democrats today are not as open with their support for Donald Trump as they were a few years ago, when they, among other things, nominated him for the Nobel Peace Prize. Time and again we see how the party is inspired by Donald Trump and his movement. It is a political movement that threatens democracy, the rule of law, and climate commitments.

A Sweden Democrat delegation traveled to the USA to get tips from Trump's election campaign, and now that Trump is back in the White House, I am very curious about how the Member of Parliament views some of Trump's latest moves.

During his first weeks, President Trump has expressed a desire to expand American territory with Greenland, Gaza, and the Panama Canal. He has left the WHO and the Paris Agreement, he has imposed sanctions against the International Criminal Court ICC, and he has shut down the aid agency USAID in the USA, just to take a snapshot of the foreign policy moves that can have far-reaching global consequences.

I wonder therefore: What does member Aron Emilsson say about Trump's new foreign policy line? It was missing in the speech, perhaps due to a lack of time.

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

Aron Emilsson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! To begin with, the undersigned and Morgan Johansson just discussed these very questions in P1 Morgon this morning. There, we laid out the text about the Trump administration and how one now acts in a new foreign and security policy situation.

As Member Risberg said, there is much to elaborate on regarding the text. What can be stated is that it is clear that the Republicans as a conservative movement and Trump in certain domestic policy aspects have a great deal in common with the Sweden Democrats. It concerns the view on migration policy, how one should support industry and entrepreneurship, and how one operates in a domestic policy arena.

However, in a foreign and security policy context, there is much that sets us apart. As I emphasized in a previous exchange of remarks, there are, both from the Swedish side, from the Sweden Democrat side, and from the Nordic side, many dividing lines between us and the new Trump administration when it comes to how one should view the right to self-determination, sovereignty, and integrity of nation-states and self-governing territories. It is about being able to decide one's own security policy collaborations and so on. It naturally applies to Greenland. It applies to the Panama Canal. It applies to how one views trade wars with friendly neighboring states and so on.

But just as I mentioned, I believe that we, across all party lines and even in Europe and the EU, must become better at reading the new administration's language in order to be able to show what our expectations are and show clarity, strength, and ambition in the negotiations to come, because it is a transactional administration. We can stand in a corner with an older form of poster politics and hope that the Trump administration will act differently, but I believe it is better to be prepared to respond in kind when necessary but also to seek constructive cooperation when we can. We have, as said, Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea, with several of them threatening our common security.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the answer! Unfortunately, I did not listen to the radio this morning; I simply did not have time for it.

I want to highlight another issue that Member Emilsson raised in his speech. It concerns Israel.

We know now that the Sweden Democrats have an enormous enthusiasm for Israel - a bit strange given the party's Nazi roots. At the same time, the member says that one stands up for international law and a rules-based world order, so I simply thought to ask if the Sweden Democrats consider the occupation of Gaza and the West Bank including East Jerusalem to be illegal and that Israel, in accordance with the International Court of Justice's ruling, should dismantle the settlements.

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

Aron Emilsson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! We have on many occasions declared our view on the Israel-Palestine issue and the regional conflict in the Middle East. It is quite obvious that one needs to hold several thoughts in one's head at the same time.

First and foremost, Israel, which is perhaps the only functioning democratic state in the Middle East, constitutes a front state against the heinous international terror threat that the Islamist terror movements pose, not only in the immediate region but also globally and with sympathizers in our own country. Therefore, our unequivocal support is needed.

It is naturally the case that we safeguard and stand up for the ceasefire, which is now fragile. It needs to hold, both for humanitarian access and for better conditions for the civilian population, but then the hostages must also be released and the international community must have a constructive dialogue with Israel.

Again: If one is to be able to achieve success, one needs to understand the opponent's arguments but also argue in the same language. There is much to work with here. But our support for Israel is unequivocal, as is the support for the civilian population in Gaza.

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

Joar Forssell (L)

Mr. Speaker! Thanks to Member Emilsson for the speech!

One of Ukraine's highest dreams right now is to become a member of the European Union. It is not by chance, but it is so because it is through our community in Europe that we build strength. Not even a country as large as Ukraine is strong on its own.

Member of the Board Emilsson - Aron - says in his speech that he wants to see a narrower and sharper EU. He calls himself a Nordicist, which pleases me. I am also a Nordicist; I think it is important.

I note that in Norway, the debate about EU membership has flared up significantly now, due to the war in Ukraine but also because of the new administration in the USA. Iceland is to have a new referendum on EU membership within a year because more and more people see that this community is important.

Previously, the Sweden Democrats have wanted to leave the EU. Since then, they have changed their position to wanting to evaluate the membership - even though some Sweden Democrats continue to motion to take down the EU flag behind me here in the chamber. I wonder if it is the case that the Sweden Democrats have finally changed their position for real. They want, as Aron said, a narrower and sharper EU. Do they therefore want to continue to be in the EU? Have they changed their position to no longer want to leave the EU? It would be pleasing to hear for me and for all who believe in the rules-based world order and believe that Sweden is stronger together with others.

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

Aron Emilsson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Joar Forssell, for the questions!

Yes, the Sweden Democrats removed the withdrawal requirement in 2019 in relation to the previous ambition to leave the European Union. It has been a while since then. It is quite something that we are not pushing at all today.

However, there is a very great value, I believe, in making the European Union become precisely narrower and sharper. As I emphasized earlier, the form of both administrative and bureaucratic superstructure that currently prevails has been incredibly unfavorable for the EU's opportunities to meet competitive disadvantages in relation to China and other countries that are strong on the world market and that have a completely different way of relating to rules and agreements. One has put spokes in the wheels of its own opportunities for research and innovation and industrial development, among other things through an all-too symbolic climate and environmental policy that has not been realistic, according to our way of seeing it.

It is definitely as I also said that the EU is needed more than ever. It may not be every day that one hears a Sweden Democrat say it, but it is based on today's security policy situation. Alone is not strong. We need a strong Norden in the EU, and we need a strong EU in Europe in these matters.

Today we have movements both on the left wing and on the far-right wing that have a very strange approach in their support for Russia in the war between Russia and Ukraine and in relation to the sanction instruments against Russia in order to be able to outmaneuver Russia and ensure that Ukraine wins the war. Previously, only the opposition on the right wing has been noticed, but it is at least as widespread on the left wing – for example, in the socialist leadership in Slovakia.

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

Joar Forssell (L)

Mr. Speaker! It is well known that the Sweden Democrats deleted that one wants to leave the EU and instead wrote that one wants to evaluate the membership. By many, that wording has been interpreted as the Sweden Democrats wanting to appeal to both those voters who do not think it is so important to leave the EU and those voters who very much want to leave the EU - and perhaps not just voters. Perhaps this has also been important internally within the Sweden Democrats.

Mr. Speaker! What we are now seeing in the foreign policy debate in the Swedish Riksdag is that Aron Emilsson is moving this position even further. The positive EU rhetoric that we have heard from Aron Emilsson today, we have never heard before from the Sweden Democrats.

Therefore, I wonder about one thing regarding this shift in position. Is it the case that we here in the chamber today see how the more radical wing of the Sverigedemokraterna, with Jomshof who has been very much in the media in recent days and perhaps Tobias Andersson who has been critical of the EU, has lost another battle within the Sverigedemokraterna? Have the Sverigedemokraterna permanently changed their rhetoric? Will they be EU-positive going forward, in conflict with the radical wing?

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

Aron Emilsson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! It is somewhat entertaining to hear Joar Forssell's argumentation behind what we are discussing now, but I would not rely too heavily on it.

What I said was that the Sweden Democrats are a pro-European party with a EU-critical profile. One must be able to be both at the same time. I believe that is possible. We have many countries that have a leadership that acts constructively in the European Union today, which also holds the view that the EU needs to become narrower and sharper.

Is it EU-positive rhetoric? Yes, perhaps in the Liberals' world. But for my part, it is about being sound and balanced in the view of the European Union and what one should actually devote oneself to. One should not devote oneself to forbidding villa owners from burning straw on their own lawn or anything else stupid, but one should devote oneself to trying to unite in a very difficult time for security policy.

Just as I said, the EU was needed less in the form of domestic political meddlesomeness but more in the form of foreign policy unity. That is the path we need to take.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! As we are now writing in the year 2025, we find ourselves in the middle of the 2020s, and it may be appropriate to stop and reflect on the time we are currently living in. It is a restless time. Some have called it a time of grave concern.

We have moved away from the period after the terrorist acts on September 11, 2001, with security and counter-terrorism as the primary drivers for political change. The US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq led to repercussions that the world is still grappling with today. That our world would have become safer feels completely impossible to say after the beginning of this year in Sweden, especially with Risbergska in Örebro in mind.

Now we have instead come to a new time, a new era: the return of the imperialists. It is a time that resembles both the world order of the 1920s and the 1930s with economic crisis, military buildup, and fascist currents. It is a time when politicians, whether they are democratically elected or dictators, exhibit the same arrogance towards international law and an international world order and instead are guided by their own interest, an interest to expand their country, their sphere, their empire.

We see it in Russia, which, instead of living in peace, attacks and invades the neighboring country Ukraine, this despite the countries' long historical ties to one another - first in 2014 with the annexation of Crimea and eastern Ukraine and then with the full-scale invasion in 2022 in a war that, after three years, is still ongoing.

We see it in Turkey, which, despite that al-Assad's rule has fallen in Syria, daily through its extremist mercenaries poses a threat to the Kurdish-dominated areas in northeastern Syria. It is a Turkey that for a long time acted as a border crossing for IS terrorists in order to undermine a democratic Syria. But now a new Syria is taking shape, with a regime with links back to al-Qaeda - just those who were to be fought in the war against terrorism.

We see it in China, where Hong Kong in a few years has gone from a democratic hub to a totalitarian one-party state and where Taiwan every day feels an increased threat from its neighbor. We see how the number of violations of airspace and maritime borders increases and how cyber and hybrid attacks are becoming more frequent, while at the same time the Taiwanese people show resilience and have chosen political leaders who are clear about both democracy and independence from China.

We see it in Israel, which, after Hamas's horrific attack on October 7, 2023, has a government and a military that have tried to exterminate all human life in Gaza through the deliberate starvation that has been classified by international courts as a crime against humanity and the genocide that we have seen before our eyes. At the same time, Israel has attacked Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, and Iran. A stable peace in the Middle East feels very far away right now. Now, however, the ceasefire has finally come to Gaza. Aid deliveries are finally arriving. But a permanent ceasefire and a real peace are still missing.

We see it in Iran, where demands for freedom and democracy in the "woman, life, freedom" protests following the murder of Jina Masha Amini were brutally suppressed, while at the same time the Iranian Revolutionary Guard IRGC feeds proxy actors and dictatorships all around the world.

We see it in the USA, where Canada is to be made the 51st state according to President Donald Trump, while military threats have been directed at Panama and Greenland by the same president. Gaza is to be turned into the "Riviera of the Middle East". From a historical perspective, Trump's demands for territory link to a long American history of territorial claims and power seizures, a history that Trump now wants to become a part of.

Greenland is a Danish colony. Ever since Denmark took control of the icy island in 1721, the Danes have had a colonial attitude towards the island and its population. That Greenlandic women have been secretly sterilized by Danish doctors is just one of many colonial examples throughout history. As recently as 2009, Greenland received its current self-government act. But the fact that Denmark has treated Greenland poorly does not mean that it should become a new American colony. The Greenlanders shall decide their own future, and as both the leaders of Greenland and Denmark have stated, Greenland is not for sale.

With Putin, Xi Jinping, Erdogan, Netanyahu, Khomeini and Trump, we have received political leaders who direct imperialist threats against people who want to live in peace. It is an imperialist wind we thought belonged to another era. It is the return of the imperialists.

Mr. Speaker! What shall Sweden then do to stand up against the return of the imperialists? What shall Sweden do to stand up for democracy?

Yes, so far the Swedish right-wing government has indulged in wishful thinking. Not to clash with the president and his entourage of billionaires has been more important than criticizing Trump and his policies. That he shrinks democracy, pushes back women's rights, LGBTQ+ rights, and diversity work is what the Swedish government prefers to remain silent about. The world's richest man has also been tasked with shutting down the world's largest aid organization. Trump's distribution policy is, quite simply, a reverse Robin Hood policy.

As late as June last year, the Swedish Parliament approved a military agreement granting the right to an American presence at 17 military bases in Sweden, called the DCA agreement. The Left Party's argument in that debate, that Donald Trump could become president, was waved away then. Now it is a reality, a reality that the Swedish people must live with. Sweden did not become safer with the DCA agreement. Instead, we gave an authoritarian president power over our country.

The Swedish government must now send a clear signal to Donald Trump and to the rest of the world. I and the Left Party believe that the DCA agreement must be suspended as long as Trump is in power. With him as president, the USA constitutes a direct military threat to our neighboring countries Denmark and Greenland. Sweden's military cooperation shall increase safety for Swedish citizens and security in our immediate vicinity, not the opposite.

The government's dear so-called transatlantic link has gone from being a chain to becoming a leash, a leash that Trump can pull to make the Kristersson government obey.

Mr. Speaker! Now the global south is directing criticism towards Sweden. The feeling that double standards have been introduced becomes ever clearer when different imperialists face different consequences.

To restore confidence in Swedish foreign policy, the government must immediately act powerfully and clearly for international law. With the ceasefire in Gaza, the Foreign Minister must establish a to-do list to accelerate the work. It could look like this:

Help Swedish citizens consular to leave Gaza.

Receive patients from Gaza. Just as we support Ukraine, we must save Palestinian children and cancer patients.

Increase the aid. Cutting aid is not the right way to go in a more restless world.

Introduce, like the Swedish Union of Dockworkers, sanctions against Israel for the genocide and crimes against international law that its government is carrying out.

Hold Israel's government accountable in the courts of the ICJ and the ICC.

Establish a real plan for peace and a two-state solution in the Middle East.

To stand up against imperialists, regardless of which country they come from, is crucial to reversing the development of shrinking democracies and refocusing on justice, peace, and equality.

(Applause)

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

Kerstin Lundgren (C)

Mr. Speaker! I thought for a long time not to request a reply to Håkan Svenneling. But then we reached the end of the speech, and then an old rhetoric emerged. We have heard it before. We heard it for a long time during the discussion about our NATO membership, where the Left Party warned against the USA and took hold of that hatred towards the USA that exists in several places. It is clear that Trump has renewed the interest in that rhetoric for one or another.

Mr. Speaker! Our security must, however, be in focus. Our security is about us being members of Nato, and as part of the Nato membership, we must stand up for the common order we have agreed upon. That includes the DCA agreement as an important part – an important part for us and our security but actually also for our neighbors in the Nordics and our entire region.

We have a DCA agreement, Norway has a DCA agreement, Finland has a DCA agreement, Denmark has a DCA agreement and so on. It is a way to build security. If we want to stand for a rules-based order, we should not throw the baby out with the bathwater, Mr. Speaker, but rather we should be careful and safeguard the agreements. It surprises me – or perhaps it does not surprise me – that precisely Håkan Svenneling wants to try to do precisely this, that is, throw the baby out with the bathwater to feed a USA-hatred that exists in the Vänsterpartiets surroundings, even if I do not know how much it exists in Håkan Svenneling himself.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! I like the USA. I like traveling in the USA, I like the food and the culture, and I like playing baseball – and therefore have quite a bit of body aches right now. But I do not like the USA's politics, and I particularly do not like it when Donald Trump is president.

It was with great concern that I realized that Trump could become president, and therefore I raised that question in last year's debate on a DCA agreement in Sweden when we were to make a decision on the matter.

Kerstin Lundgren was one of those who primarily brushed aside my arguments about Trump. She clearly said that I was trying to make up new arguments to stop the DCA agreement. But that is not what I was actually trying to do, namely to warn that it could become a reality for us that we are sitting with an agreement with Donald Trump as president.

I believe that the Danes are now reflecting a lot on how one has been so close to the USA for a long time and has been the country where the most soldiers per capita have died in the war in Afghanistan. Parts of Denmark have historically been sold to the USA. Still, from Trump's side, one is prepared to direct a military threat against Denmark.

It is important to remember that when we in Vänsterpartiet say that the DCA agreement should be suspended, it is precisely about the DCA agreement, that is to say the bilateral agreement between Sweden and the USA regarding military cooperation. It even states in the bill that it is not the case that Sweden has the same rights in the USA, but it is only Sweden that gives the USA rights at 17 military bases in Sweden. It also states in the bill regarding DCA that it is not about Nato – that the agreement is not a specific part of Nato but is something beyond the Nato cooperation.

I was very critical of our decision to join Nato, but I can fully accept that it is a reality. And that is also why I am leading a delegation to Nato as soon as next week. It is a political choice that Sweden's Riksdag and government have made, and now we must act on it. But it does not mean that we must act on everything that comes from Trump, his defense minister, and his foreign minister. Therefore, we should suspend the DCA agreement.

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

Kerstin Lundgren (C)

Mr. Speaker! I thought almost that Håkan Svenneling personally is quite happy in the USA! But I have a feeling that his joy for the USA is not shared by the Left Party's grassroots. There, there are probably quite a few who applaud when hate rhetoric arrives on the scene again.

Mr. Speaker! Let us nevertheless make it clear that we have not given up Swedish territory to anyone else. It is clear that the DCA agreement gives Sweden full rights, that the Swedish constitution applies and that Swedish law applies. Nor has anyone set demands implying that borders have been crossed and that Sweden has remained silent. Should that happen, I assume that Sweden will not remain silent.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! It is difficult to summarize what all the grassroots of the Left Party think about the USA, but I think one must state that the hate rhetoric comes from Donald Trump, not from me.

To say that Sweden still has full rights is actually completely wrong. It was also clear when we moved to a decision on the bill regarding the DCA agreement. The situation is that American legislation shall apply to American military personnel, their families, and also subcontractors to the American defense. In different parts of the 17 military bases – they are indeed part of Swedish military bases – Sweden will not have the right to enter, open the door and check what is in the stores.

What does this mean? For example, the Americans chose to establish nuclear weapons at the Thule Base in Greenland during the days of the Cold War. Denmark had no right or control over that part of its territory. That is where Trump wants to go back, and that is why he highlights Greenland in the way he does. He has a colonial and imperialistic approach to the world, and that is what we see in the Greenland issue.

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

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! The Left Party has over the years adopted a foreign policy line that has often differed from the other parties. Among other things, the party in the European Parliament has opposed legislative proposals to increase the production of ammunition and missiles to accelerate deliveries to Ukraine.

But I would like to discuss the view on the regime in Venezuela. In 2013, the then party leader Jonas Sjöstedt congratulated Nicolás Maduro after his first electoral victory. In 2019, Member of Parliament Svenneling questioned the recognition of opposition leader Juan Guaidó as interim president, even though the election that gave Maduro power was generally recognized as rigged. In 2021, the Vänsterpartiet's then Member of the European Parliament Malin Björk voted against a resolution condemning the regime's crimes and the serious situation in the country.

In September 2024 it happened again. The European Parliament adopted a resolution by a clear majority that condemned the election fraud and the persecution of democratic forces, and recognized González Urrutia as Venezuela's legitimate president. Nevertheless, the Left Party's two Members of the European Parliament, Jonas Sjöstedt and Hanna Gedin, chose to vote against. This position was, however, changed in a later vote.

That is why I want to ask Member Svenneling how the Left Party actually views the situation in Venezuela. Do you unreservedly condemn Maduro's regime and its violations of human rights? If so, why do you so often vote against resolutions that support the Venezuelan people?

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member Berntsson for the question. It is fundamentally interesting regarding how we can support a democratic process in a country where the political system has failed, which has led to an economic crisis and large migrant flows. It is important in terms of how Sweden acts and views its foreign policy.

I think one should remember that when Maduro was first elected in 2013, it was under democratic forms. That election did not receive strong international criticism in that way. When he was elected in 2018 and took office in 2019, it was clear that there were flaws in the election. I have also been clear about that on repeated occasions.

However, I was also clear, unlike everyone else, that one cannot recognize someone who has lost an election. We therefore could not recognize Juan Guaidó as the legitimate president in Venezuela at that time. Therefore, I thought that instead, support should be given to the political process, which has been called the Barbados process. Barbados, Mexico, and our neighbor Norway have been important players in creating a political process.

The political process led up to the last election held last year. The opposition was given some space to run, but on election day and during the vote count, it was clear that Maduro still had full control to be re-elected himself.

That is why I actually chose to change the Left Party's position during the written consultations on Venezuela. We did not object at the last occasion against the written consultation that took place in the Riksdag.

When it comes to the vote in the European Parliament, we did not vote against in the way Berntsson suggests, but we chose to abstain in the vote. This was because the resolution from the right is too far-reaching when it comes to recognizing a person who has not won a legitimate election. I think instead that one should continue to give legitimacy to political processes that lead to holding new elections in Venezuela and that the Venezuelan people get to say their piece about who they want as their leader.

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

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the answer. It is positive to hear that the Left Party has changed its mind here in the chamber. We shall have to see what will happen in the European Parliament moving forward.

It is clear that the Venezuelan regime with Maduro at the helm is not only trying to cling to power with the help of electoral fraud and persecution of political opponents, but they also have imperialistic claims on neighboring countries, for example Guyana.

In addition to Member Svenneling's speech earlier, it would be interesting to also hear a strong condemnation from him of the Venezuelan regime, not least for that reason. I would look forward to hearing that.

I also hope that in the future we can see the same clear positions that other parties have taken regarding Venezuela and, in that regard, also Cuba. We have, after all, been able to make joint positions regarding, for example, Ukraine.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! I want to be clear that it was largely I who decided from here in Stockholm how they voted in the European Parliament. No shadow shall therefore fall over our Members of the European Parliament. We tried to show a clear, stringent line from our side; we are critical of the election process but at the same time do not think that one should recognize leaders in the way that was done in that resolution.

I am not aware of these imperialist tendencies in Maduro. But just as I pointed out in my speech, I think we need to view both democratically elected leaders and dictators in the same way when we see their imperialist ambitions and tendencies.

I think we need to return to the main question: How do we counter the economic crisis that is affecting the Venezuelan people? We have far too much focus on political games and too little focus on the enormous migration flow that the Venezuelan people have been affected by, as a consequence of the suffering.

Venezuela has gone from being a middle-income country to one of the poorest countries in the world, simply due to a political crisis. It is absolutely created by Maduro, but there are many who are responsible for the fact that the crisis is not resolved.

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

Joar Forssell (L)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member Svenneling, for the speech!

It pleases me to hear that Svenneling decides from here in Stockholm how things should be done in the European Parliament, which we heard in the previous exchange of remarks. I have, in fact, a question about what the Vänsterpartiet does in the European Parliament.

Whoever listens to Svennelius's speech hears that it is important who one cooperates with and what policy those one cooperates with pursue. Large parts of the speech were about that. The most important foreign policy issue for the government and most of the opposition parties in Sweden seems to be that Ukraine must win and that Russia must lose the war. That is good. We stand united when it comes to this.

But in the European Parliament, the Left Party works in a party group where members from extremist parties go to work every day and support Putin. Svenneling's party comrades from other countries in the European Parliament vote together with AFD from Germany and Fidesz from Hungary to support Putin and undermine Ukraine. The Left Party has often voted well. The Left Party should take that credit. But one still allies with these extremists and Putinists who vote with AFD and with Fidesz for Putin and against Ukraine.

Mr. Speaker! If Svenneling thinks it is important who one cooperates with, if Svenneling stands behind the fact that Ukraine must win the war, and if it is the case that Svenneling decides from Stockholm how Vänsterpartiet shall act in the European Parliament, would it not be time for Vänsterpartiet to leave its party group in the European Parliament, where there are Putinists?

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! I think we in Vänsterpartiet have actually chosen a very good strategy when it comes to Ukraine and the European Parliament. Leaving the left-wing group that we belong to, I think, might perhaps be the worst decision. I shall justify this.

Jonas Sjöstedt now sits in the Committee on Foreign Affairs in the European Parliament, which is called AFET. There, he has taken on Ukraine as one of his most important issues. If I have understood it correctly, he also sits in the Ukraine delegation as one of the left's representatives in the European Parliament. He has been very clear that the shadow fleet is one of the absolutely most important issues, raised it at the European level, and stood behind one of the important resolutions that have passed there.

When it comes to the shadow fleet, for example, it has been clear that the Swedish government has been on its toes, and I have not had to do much in my role as an opposition politician. But at the EU level, there has been an opportunity for us to raise the important issue of countering the Russian shadow fleet.

When we entered the left group, we knew it was a divided group, and we have chosen to cooperate with the parties that make the same analysis as we do when it comes to Ukraine. We have also strengthened our cooperation with the Ukrainian left and with the East and Central European left to an increased extent. We have even hired from the Ukrainian left in the European Parliament to get closer to them.

We know that we must have a dialogue with those who do not think like we do and put forward our arguments. That is what those who are down in Brussels are working on - I will soon travel down and meet them.

I also participate in a number of conferences held by the left where peace is discussed. At those conferences, I am always that annoying type who is contrarian and explains that we best achieve peace by supporting Ukraine militarily, politically, humanitarily and economically, as the Foreign Minister said in the foreign policy declaration. That is how we strengthen Ukraine's ability to negotiate and ensure that it does not become a bad peace with Russia when they eventually come to the negotiating table and reach a peace.

I am therefore trying to work against those in the group who have a different idea, rather than saying: Okay, I leave them to their fate.

(Applause)

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

Joar Forssell (L)

Mr. Speaker! I agree that it can sometimes be good to have a dialogue also with people or politicians whom one disagrees with. Often, we in the Liberals – believe it or not – do not agree with all politicians in the European Union, for example. But it is clear that there must be boundaries. Are the genocide and the war crimes that Russia is committing in Ukraine not a reasonable red line when it comes to whom one can have a deep cooperation with? Sitting in the same party group obviously implies a deep cooperation. Is it not a reasonable boundary not to cooperate with Putinists?

Mr. Speaker! I am pleased that Svenneling highlights the important work that Vänsterpartiet has done in the European Parliament to counter the shadow fleet. It is only that when it was presented to the European Parliament, Vänsterpartiet's parliamentary group voted against, together with AFD in Germany and Fidesz in Hungary. It is time for Håkan Svenneling, who decides from Stockholm, to ensure that Vänsterpartiet leaves that group in the European Parliament.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! I have no problems with Joar Forssell's historical description and how he describes the situation. But it feels a bit strange to be lectured by a Liberal on how one should work in the European Parliament. We know that the Liberals are the party that other parties in the liberal group have the most problems with sitting in the same group with. Several of them, especially the French liberal party, tried to exclude just the Liberals from the liberal group because they here in Sweden cooperate with the Sverigedemokraterna, as part of the government base.

I gladly accept good advice on European cooperation. I may not have as positive a view of all parts of Europe as Member Forssell does, but I still believe I will take the advice on how to cooperate in Europe with a certain pinch of salt when it comes from the Liberals.

Mr. Speaker! I note that we in the Swedish Riksdag are nevertheless in agreement at the core when it comes to the support for Ukraine. And we shall continue to be, with the clarity that exists today.

(Applause)

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

Kerstin Lundgren (C)

Mr. Speaker! In this time, we have to deal with war and climate crisis, hitherto based on trust in the world order shaped by the lessons from World War II. That order is now being torpedoed by leaders in both autocracies and democracies. This places us in Sweden, which is an open and free-trading country, before new questions and challenges. Many ask: Who in the whole world can one trust?

Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine is now entering its fourth year. It is a war that was started eleven years ago in Crimea, Donetsk, and Luhansk. Now there is talk that the war must be stopped. But that requires us to learn from our history and not repeat it, Mr. Speaker.

Ukraine has learned. They stand up for their and our right to own territory and to independence. We must do it together with Ukraine - nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine. Sweden, the Nordics, the Baltics, Poland, the UK and the EU must show that we can be trusted. This applies to everyone or in a coalition of the willing. If the weapons fall silent in Ukraine, it must be because Ukraine truly wants and believes in it, not because someone has pressured them or betrayed promises to support as long as required.

Centerpartiet does not want to see any new agreement like those in Munich, Budapest, Minsk or Yalta. Putin wants it, and perhaps a newly elected president wants it now. The EU will be tested as a peace project in the coming years. Here, Sweden must be clear: the EU must also be part of all negotiations that may occur – nothing about the EU without the EU.

Sweden, like several other countries, has a bilateral agreement on security cooperation with Ukraine. We must collectively stand up for and secure this. The Center Party has, for its part, proposed that Sweden should take greater responsibility and provide a framework for the support at 1 percent of GDP annually. We have long demanded Jas. Now we must be ready to, together with others within the EU and Nato, create credible deterrence and find ways to provide Ukraine with multilateral military security at Ukraine's invitation the day the weapons fall silent.

Sweden's voice must clearly assert the foundation of the multilateral world order which, despite challenges, has served us all well. The UN is a cornerstone for us but is today crippled and exposed to significant risks. Fundamental foundations are undermined and disregarded entirely by members of the Security Council. Russia's crime of aggression, to change borders by military means, is a flagrant violation of the UN Charter. When the newly elected US president speaks of expanding US territory and changing borders, even by military means, he speaks of violating the UN Charter. It is still only words, but they are words with high signaling value to others. Should the USA accept and recognize that Israel's borders are changed by military means and push forward something that is de facto an ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from Gaza, it confirms that power precedes right. Sweden's voice for international law must be clear and distinct. No borders are changed by military power.

Centerpartiet stands behind the 2024 defense decision but has clearly signaled that we need to provide additional resources, at least 3 percent. Denmark now has the target of 5 percent, and Poland indicates 5 percent for 2026. This concerns security for our country, for the EU, for our democracy and for our values in Europe. We do this as members of Nato aiming for increased safety and security in order to raise the threshold against an attack with the goal of preventing war.

Mr. Speaker! In 2024, a new world heat record was set. It was the year when the Earth's average temperature for the first time exceeded 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels. The consequences have been visible throughout the world. The levels of greenhouse gases are at record highs and the rise in sea level is record-breaking. Climate change constitutes a clear security threat to us, to the EU, and to the entire world. The climate threat does not pause because measures and adaptation are paused. The risks will then increase, and so will the costs. The warming will increase armed conflicts and wars. Sweden must not blink or pause but should instead do the homework and provide assistance also globally, not least to countries in Africa and threatened island nations.

We in Sweden need to aim to return to an aid level of 1 percent of GNI - not follow in the footsteps of the USA but take our responsibility to solidarily support people in poverty and oppression and assist in the changes, well aware that every country must take its responsibility to achieve real change, with education, sustainable economy, free judiciary and democracy for a world where children do not die of hunger but survive and receive education and freedom and where free entrepreneurship and trade drive development power. Anna Lasses will speak more about this later today.

Mr. Speaker! Aid is an important part of all foreign and security policy. It is about solidarity and promoting our values – peace, democracy, and freedom. Unfortunately, the government's actions in the Middle East undermine Sweden's voice globally when one speaks with a divided tongue. We stand up for international law, for a Palestinian state, against settlements in the West Bank, and for UNRWA in the UN. That is good. But at the same time, the government stops all aid to UNRWA, the UN organization that since 1949 has had the mandate and responsibility for all Palestinian refugees in Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza.

A year ago, aid was suspended to examine UNRWA and its potential links to the terrorist organization Hamas. After investigations, the government found that the aid could be resumed. Now, one year later, it is being stopped entirely at Israel's request. The government is turning a blind eye to the fact that UNRWA is part of a negotiated peace with the formation of two states with recognized borders – Israel, of course, but also a Palestine for Palestinians in the region. Sweden's actions are noted in many countries and contribute to further undermining Sweden's voice and the UN's position.

Mr. Speaker! In a time when we see how autocracies are increasing and the freedom and democracy of more and more people are being threatened, it is crucial that we in Sweden and the EU stand up for our values, in stark contrast to dictatorships and authoritarian regimes such as Russia, China, Iran and others. When the new US leadership states that the multilateral world order that the USA has been both an initiator of and a defender of is obsolete, it has consequences. Four years can go by fast. We know that much can happen and that Russia, China and BRICS benefit. Here, the EU must clearly stand up for our values. Together, we can become a voice for security, freedom, climate and a freer and more peaceful world.

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

Aron Emilsson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Kerstin Lundgren invited us a short while ago to dance in issues where we believe we can find common ground. Now I intend to do the same. I actually had not intended to request a reply from the beginning. But when Kerstin Lundgren mentions the Israel-Palestine conflict and UNRWA and repeats the view that Sweden's actions in relation to the new Israeli legislation as well as our own decision to choke off support to UNRWA and instead double the humanitarian support to Gaza through other organizations would be problematic, I wonder if, in the opinion of Kerstin Lundgren and the Center Party, it is more important that a bird of a kind foreign to the UN system, which has historically locked Palestinian refugees into a permanent refugee status, receives the international economic resources for humanitarian access, or if it is more important that the humanitarian support reaches all the way through dialogue with Israel in a constructive spirit and can actually reach those in distress.

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

Kerstin Lundgren (C)

Mr. Speaker! It is still a bit strange to hear from the Sweden Democrats that UNRWA would be a strange bird to the UN system. This bird was shaped in large part by our first Swedish peace mediator at the UN, Bernadotte, who tried to find a solution based on the UN General Assembly's position. UNRWA was the first organization created by the UN General Assembly in 1949. The purpose was to ensure that a solution could be found in accordance with the plan that the General Assembly once adopted and which was the basis for the idea of two states, one for Israel and one for Palestine, both with secure and recognized borders. UNRWA is part of the origin of the UN system and a foundation for the organizations that have come later.

What can be seen now, Mr. Speaker, is that UNRWA is still making efforts in Gaza to help the World Food Programme deliver resources. The reality, which representatives of the government have also spoken about previously, is that it is UNRWA that has the possibilities to reach and be operational in Gaza.

Then one must remember - and I tried to remind of that - that it is fundamentally about a peace solution. The Palestinian population would not have been a part of UNRWA if we had received a peace solution that secured a state. We obviously and unequivocally stand for Israel, but also for the Palestinians to get their state.

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

Aron Emilsson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! One still senses some kind of opening. I hear from Kerstin Lundgren that it is clear that if we were to achieve a two-state solution, UNRWA would ultimately not be needed.

At the same time, the state of affairs is such now that what I mean by UNRWA being a strange bird in the UN system is that we have a worldwide organization in the form of UNHCR that works with refugee status and refugee aid.

I still have not heard anything from either the Center Party or anyone else in the opposition who usually fights for the fact that it is important that UNRWA, just because it bears the name UNRWA, should ensure that the humanitarian support reaches its destination. I have not heard any argument as to why it cannot be brought into the organization that has global experience in refugee aid. It is not possible to just live on old merits.

It is also evident that Hamas has utilized a number of UNRWA's UN facilities, in addition to having used civilians as human shields in the war in Gaza. UNRWA has for many years spread antisemitism through its textbooks and educational materials. That history, the Centre Party cannot ignore either. World Food Programme, Unicef, the Red Cross and many others can take over this role.

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

Kerstin Lundgren (C)

Mr. Speaker! I hope that the Sweden Democrats and others can realize that UNRWA has a role other than purely humanitarian. It has a role in securing education, securing waste management and a long line of things that would be the Palestinian state's responsibility if it existed. But now the Palestinian state exists very limitedly. It has a small part in area A.

It is also about securing in Syria, Jordan, and for that matter Lebanon, so that the situation is not further destabilized. Then one must ensure that there is an organization that can live up to the commitments that the UN has made. That is not UNHCR's role. It is truly a matter of a peace and two states that can solve this task.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! I begin by thanking Kerstin Lundgren for her clear line of argumentation regarding UNRWA in the previous contribution.

I wanted to ask about the developments in Georgia, where it is clear that the democratic development is moving backwards. After more than a decade in power, the party Georgian Dream is now shrinking the space for democracy.

The election held in October has not been considered free and fair by international election observers. Member Kerstin Lundgren was one of those who were on site and served as an election observer.

Recently, the Council of Europe decided to withdraw the Georgian delegation's rights. This led to Georgia not sending any delegation to the latest meeting in the Council of Europe.

In NATO's parliamentary assembly, Georgia has been an associate member since 1999. Following Russia's illegal invasion and annexation of the Georgian territories of Abkhazia and South Ossetia in 2008, the Georgia-NATO Interparliamentary Council, called GNIC, was established.

We are now seeing day by day how the political oppression is increasing in Georgia. Inspired by the Russian legislation, the Georgian Dream party introduced a law on foreign agents last year that targeted the opposition and civil society.

Decision by decision, it is clear that every political decision is an approximation towards Russia and a step away from democracy. Those who are now protesting in the streets and squares are met with police violence and harsher punishments from Georgian authorities. The EU has introduced visa requirements for Georgian diplomats to the EU.

Both Kerstin Lundgren and I have been appointed to be part of the Swedish delegation to NATO's Parliamentary Assembly. I wonder if Kerstin Lundgren considers that NATO's Parliamentary Assembly, in accordance with its Article 4, should suspend meetings with Georgia and representatives of the Georgian Dream party.

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

Kerstin Lundgren (C)

Mr. Speaker! It is undoubtedly the case that Georgia is unfortunately going very wrong. In principle, the discussion on EU membership has been put on hold because they are going completely wrong.

I have followed Georgia for a long time and had great hopes for the Georgian people's dreams of becoming members of the EU and obtaining NATO membership. We were once given gold cards from Nato together.

There has been a strong popular will to take those steps. Unfortunately, Georgian Dream, under Ivanishvili's heavy-handed leadership, has chosen to go in a completely different direction. They are simultaneously deceiving the Georgian people. The Prime Minister recently said: We will be members of the EU in 2030. It is all fake news. It is incorrect as they are now acting.

I am prepared to also look at the NATO association in this situation. I have ongoing contacts with many in Georgia. I am careful to ensure that I also give hope and support and do not completely close doors.

That is why the sanctions do not affect the Georgian people but diplomats, and I can proceed with the leading positions. It is they who are now acting brutally against the opposition and against the Georgian people.

But one must be cautious. I listen first and foremost to what my contacts in Georgia say before I land on that question.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! I welcome Kerstin Lundgren's announcement here. I believe and hope that together we can highlight the issue within the Swedish NATO Delegation and that our delegation, together with others, can mobilize support within NATO's parliamentary assembly to look at the possibilities of withdrawing the rights for Georgia and clearly marking a changed approach towards the Georgian Dream party after the latest election. It is now an increasingly authoritarian and undemocratic regime.

I think it sounds wise to have a dialogue with the Georgian opposition before doing this. One does not want to throw Georgia out completely and fully. It is rather about limiting their access at this stage when one shows these authoritarian tendencies.

We also have some time. We are now in February. The annual first spring session will be in May. That means there is a space of a number of months if we put the issue on the delegation's agenda and seriously begin to discuss what measures NATO's parliamentary assembly can take against the authoritarian development in Georgia - to clearly point out the importance of democracy in order to be a part of NATO.

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

Kerstin Lundgren (C)

Mr. Speaker! For my part, the contacts with the opposition and the civil society contacts that I have have for a long time been extremely important. They need strong support. It is extremely important that they do not feel that they are being abandoned or that one can point a finger and say: Look, you have no support.

It is on that basis that I will have those types of contacts before I land on such an issue. We will see where it lands. It is a balancing act. We have previously spoken about how to handle countries whose leadership is moving in an authoritarian direction, dictatorships and others, in order to try to support the opposition.

It is a difficult balancing act. It is important that Sweden acts correctly and that we also act correctly in the context of NATO. NATO is still a hope for many.

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

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I want to begin by emphasizing that the world is in a period of uncertainty. Autocracies are challenging the rules-based world order, and the security that we for decades have seen as a given can no longer be taken for granted.

It concerns, not least, Russia's brutal war of aggression against Ukraine and North Korea's participation in the war, China's increasingly aggressive stances in the South China Sea and around the world, Iran's destabilizing actions in and beyond the Middle East, as well as Venezuela's oppression of its own population.

Sweden has chosen a side in this tug-of-war. We stand with democracies, with the principles of the rule of law, and with freedom, peace, and human rights. Therefore, our support for Ukraine is a must, and it must be long-term and sustained both militarily, economically, humanitarily, and politically. Whatever is said in Washington DC today, we must be clear about where the real antagonists are.

Mr. Speaker! Ukraine must win, not only for its own sake but because the security of all of Europe is at stake. If Russia wins and Ukraine is forced into concessions, it sends a message to every authoritarian regime in the world that aggression pays off and that borders can be redrawn with violence.

Sweden's support for Ukraine must therefore not be short-sighted. Today, it is not just about individual weapons systems or economic support, but about a long-term strategy to help Ukraine achieve victory and then rebuild its country. We must support Ukraine's path to EU membership, and we must ensure that Russian aggression has consequences, that sanctions are tightened, that war criminals are brought to justice, and that Europe's defense is built stronger. We know that Putin is betting on us in the West getting tired, that we will become divided, and that we will begin to hesitate. Therefore, our response must be the opposite: perseverance, unity, and determination.

Mr. Speaker! In the Middle East, we are currently seeing glimmers of hope with fragile ceasefires in both Gaza and Lebanon, and the Assad regime in Syria has fallen. Peace, however, is far from won. Hamas showed on October 7, 2023, that they are not a potential peace partner but instead reminded the world of their true nature: a terrorist organization whose uncompromising goal is to wipe out the State of Israel.

Israel has accepted a deal where several hundred prisoners, including life-sentenced murderers and perpetrators of violence, have been released in the first phase of the agreement in exchange for welcoming 33 abducted Israelis home. From the released hostages, we have heard that they have at times been held captive in UNRWA's premises but also that they have spent hundreds of days in the terrorists' tunnels.

Now follows the discussion on releasing all hostages and finding ways forward toward a future where one can live in coexistence. The suffering in Gaza is and has been great. The need is still great, even though supplies are now arriving in significantly larger quantities and no one any longer, according to reports, risks experiencing famine. This has however been a totally unnecessary humanitarian tragedy, and Hamas can no longer be an actor since one has held an entire people as hostages in Gaza while simultaneously attempting to massacre another.

It is furthermore the Christian Democrats' view that Israel must seriously address the unacceptable settler violence in the West Bank and cease the expansion of settlements. The settlements violate international law and undermine the possibilities of reaching a two-state solution. A negotiated two-state solution, where Israel and Palestine coexist side by side, is and remains the only sustainable path toward peace.

Mr. Speaker! In Lebanon, we now see a historic opportunity. Hezbollah's and Iran's grip on the country has weakened, and the era when Lebanon functioned as a pawn in foreign powers' games can, at best, be on its way to ending. After years of economic collapse, political instability, and sectarian oppression, the Lebanese population now needs a president and a government that stands up for the country's sovereignty and that puts economic recovery and the principles of the rule of law ahead of corruption and militia-led rule.

Sweden and the EU can, through trade relations and diplomatic support, contribute to Lebanon being rebuilt as a functioning democracy, where stability and prosperity replace decades of crises.

In Syria, Bashar al-Assad's time in power has come to an end, but the country's future is still uncertain. The Syrian people deserve a future free from dictatorship and destructive Iranian and Russian influence. Sweden must stand on the side of the inhabitants and work for a real transition to democracy and the rule of law.

The years of war have left deep wounds, and Europe must not turn away its gaze. We need to do our part to ensure that Syria does not return to oppression and become a platform for new conflicts. It is clear that not least Christians and other religious minorities still risk being subjected to persecution and marginalization in the unstable situation that prevails.

Mr. Speaker! The Iranian people are persecuted by their own government and its tool, the Revolutionary Guard, which arrests, tortures, and oppresses its own inhabitants while simultaneously having armed virtually all terrorist organizations throughout the Middle East. They carry out arbitrary arrests of foreign citizens and have planned murders of Swedish citizens here in Sweden. They support Russia in the war against Ukraine, and today there are few cities in Ukraine whose civilians have not been subjected to terrorist attacks from Iranian Shahed drones.

It is my firm opinion that the EU circle needs to terror-list the revolutionary guard. From the Riksdag and the government in Sweden, we agree on this, and with the judgment in Düsseldorf regarding the downing of PS752 as a legal basis, the issue should again be brought up on the agenda of the EU's Foreign Affairs Council.

Mr. Speaker! I would like to comment on Sudan, the Great Lakes, the Horn of Africa, Latin America, Agenda 2030, the climate, world trade and much more, but I hope to return to that in other contexts. My party colleagues Gudrun Brunegård and Yusuf Aydin will participate in the next part of the foreign policy debate and will then, among other things, speak about our view on aid and religious minorities and their rights.

I just want to conclude by thanking the Minister for Foreign Affairs for the foreign policy declaration, which we Christian Democrats agree with.

(Applause)

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I intended to ask Magnus Berntsson about the Ecumenical Companion Program in the West Bank. It is a program that has been run for 20 years by the World Council of Churches, and in Sweden, it is the Swedish Christian Council that has managed this. For 20 years, they have therefore been active in the West Bank, among other things by accompanying Palestinian children to school so that they do not have to be afraid of being attacked by militant settlers. They have also protected livestock herders, who are also very vulnerable to settler violence. They have documented the settlers' destruction and theft of property and illegal land confiscations.

During these 20 years, over 400 Swedes have participated in this important activity. Godmorgon världen had a segment on Sunday about the Ecumenical Companion Program. They visited a family in Jord Valley, and reported that the family says they sleep with their shoes and clothes on so that they can flee if they are attacked by settlers during the night. It has happened several times that they have woken up to one or more settlers standing in their tent. My brothers woke up the other day because a settler hit them, tells the 13-year-old Palestinian girl Masa.

Now Sweden is withdrawing support for the Ecumenical Companion Program, a direct consequence of the aid policy being restructured. The previous Palestine Program no longer exists, and when one asks Sida why they are withdrawing support, they refer directly to the government and say that it is due to the new policy.

I asked the question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs earlier but did not receive a very good answer. Magnus Berntsson may have a better thumb with the government than I do, so my question is simply whether he is prepared to make an effort to try to ensure that the Ecumenical Companion Program can be resumed.

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

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member Johansson, for the question!

First, I just want to again emphasize my powerful condemnation of the settler violence taking place on Västbanken. It is unacceptable and must be dealt with in every way and manner.

Back to the question I received regarding the Ecumenical Companion Program: Sida has made a decision based on the new conditions that have been given. We have made a major change in the aid policy which has resulted in more of the aid ending up in the neighboring area.

The aid to Palestine was very fragmented previously. We know that aid went to significantly more than 100 different actors, and I know that now that Sida has reviewed the whole thing, they have arrived at this decision. It is nothing that we as a party or the government have made a specific decision about, but the agency has made the decision based on the existing conditions.

I know that we have asked questions about why this specific decision was made. I do not have an answer, but I promise to follow up on the question. I therefore have nothing more to say on the substantive issue at this moment.

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I take Magnus Berntsson at his word when he says that he intends to follow up on this. Sveriges kristna råd has asked Sida why they are withdrawing support for this important program that has been ongoing for 20 years, and the answer from Sida is that it is entirely due to the government's reorganization of the aid policy. This means that the government, if they so wished, could at any time take an initiative to change that policy.

I actually think it is indecent to withdraw this support now that the violence is increasing at Västbanken. How are Palestinian children supposed to dare to go to school if they do not receive this protection?

I truly believe, as I said, Magnus Berntsson when he distances himself from the settler violence and says that it is an important issue. We will continue to follow up on this, because when settler violence increases, Sweden should not act in this way and reduce the protection for those who now need protection the most.

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

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I want to begin by again emphasizing that it is the agency that makes independent decisions. I also want to emphasize that the government has doubled the support that was previously given to UNRWA, where that activity existed previously, but which is now given to Gaza and to other areas. This will hopefully also have an impact on the stabilizing role in the region.

Settler violence and all violence in the region needs to be countered. In the long run, we hope that the dialogue that has now been started through the ceasefire, where we hopefully enter phases two and three, will lead to a negotiated two-state solution. It is that which, in the end, could create a long-term positive situation.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! As was mentioned in the previous exchange, the funding for the companion program in Israel and Palestine was therefore recently shut down after over 20 years. This means that yet another international observer's eyes on the ground in the middle of the conflict are disappearing.

What is the companion program then? The program was started by the World Council of Churches after a call for help from the churches in Jerusalem. The world responded. Sweden's Christian Council has sent down over 400 Swedish volunteers to be on site and contribute to peace.

But for some reason, the Christian Democrats are not liked when Christian people engage for peace. When I raised this issue with Magnus Berntsson's predecessor Lars Adaktusson in the foreign policy debate in 2019, he actually said this: "When it comes to the accompaniment program and the trips, there have been reports for many years that they have abandoned impartiality, and I agree with that." It created a massive debate then, and now you have chosen to shut this down.

Now there are reports of increased violence and killings on the West Bank and in eastern Jerusalem. Story after story, we hear how people feel safer with the companions' presence, that families can sleep safely and that children can safely go to and from their school. We hear stories about companions who protect the Christians in the Armenian quarters in Jerusalem from being displaced. In 2023, the companions made 195 church visits in 56 different churches in eastern Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Jericho, Hebron and Ramallah.

The Christian Democrats say they want to protect Christians in the world. That is what Magnus Berntsson said most recently in his speech. But here, the result is actually the opposite when even the violence against Christian Palestinians is increasing.

Why is the support for the companion program being abolished? Why does it feel as if the Christian Democrats are persecuting Christians who want to contribute to peace in the Middle East?

(Applause)

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

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I want to begin by saying that I do not agree with the description that Håkan Svenneling makes. It is very important for us that not only Christians who are persecuted are handled in a correct manner by the authorities and others who are nearby, but it applies to everyone. However, it is clear that Christians are the group that is most vulnerable worldwide. But there are many other groups, and not least is the group that the accompaniment program has worked with affected.

I want to return to the fact that this is an agency decision based on the conditions that the agency has to work with. We have not made any decision, either in the Riksdag or the government, that this specific program shall cease to be funded from the Swedish side; rather, it is Sida that has done so based on new assessments.

We too have asked questions about why this conclusion was reached, and I await more answers on that. I have already hinted that we want more answers regarding that question.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! Magnus Berntsson does not need to share my description, but the quote from Lars Adaktusson that there are Kristdemokrater who criticize the companion program is completely correct.

We are therefore wondering why the program is being shut down when the Christian Democrats have said that they want to protect Christians all over the world. This has been interpreted as a victory for the Christian Democrats, but it is the reduced aid together with a new Middle East strategy, where the Palestine strategy is abolished, that leads to Sida making this decision.

That Sweden's aid makes a difference is clear. Thanks to other Swedish support, a new group has been able to be established this year in South Hebron Hills, one of the areas from which Palestinians are being displaced most right now. The decision you have made regarding the aid has also led to that MR organizations and democracy organizations both in Israel and Palestine receive reduced support. These are organizations that have contributed to providing facts to the international courts' proceedings regarding genocide and crimes against humanity.

Therefore, I believe that there is actually a political background to the government's decision to reduce the support for the companion program.

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

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I was not a Member of Parliament in 2019 when the debate referred to now was held and therefore do not really know how the discussion was conducted. But I still want to emphasize that the authorities make their decisions based on the frameworks that the government and the Riksdag provide.

It has been very diverse, and a large variety of organizations have received grants. The National Audit Office has shown that it has been difficult to follow up and see if they have achieved the effects we had hoped for, and therefore it is part of the transition of the aid policy that we have been working on. It has also had an effect regarding the aid to the Middle East region.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Magnus Berntsson, for the speech!

After the ceasefire in Gaza took effect, we have seen an escalation of violence and abuses in the West Bank. The conflict has intensified with new forced displacements of Palestinians and violent raids from both Israeli settlers and military personnel.

On the West Bank, 224 children have been killed in the last two years. It is completely unacceptable and a clear example of the impunity that prevails regarding abuses against Palestinians. Despite this, the Christian Democrats and the government have continued to be relatively passive in the face of the developments. While they have spoken about the importance of international law and human rights in other parts of the world, there has been a severe lack of condemnation of the settler violence and also of the ongoing expansion of illegal settlements. It is not enough to just talk about a two-state solution; one must also act so that it becomes a reality.

Mr. Speaker! My questions to Member Berntsson stem from the fact that I know KD has a good number of good friends in the Israeli government. We have seen that certain ministers have been visited when traveling to Israel. I welcome that Magnus Berntsson is clearly opposed to the settler violence, but I wonder if KD will contribute to putting pressure on the government to stop the settlement policy and the systematic violence in the West Bank.

Will KD stand behind a Swedish and European ban on the import of goods from illegal settlements in accordance with international law?

Finally, I also wonder if KD will demand of the Israeli government that they, in accordance with the International Court of Justice's ruling, demand that Israel dismantle the settlements and leave all occupied territory.

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

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member Risberg, for the questions! I thought I was very clear regarding both settler violence and the expansion of settlements. It is not acceptable. Every new such step is an obstacle on the path toward a two-state solution and continued negotiations for such.

Regarding the question of the import ban, an association council will be held on-site within a number of weeks where all these questions are to be discussed. We will have to see what is concluded in the end.

Overall, regarding the settlement policy, the West Bank and Gaza, we must find ways toward a peace agreement. I believe that such an agreement will need to land quite close to the plan that was proposed already 25 years ago by Clinton and Barak. It is difficult to see any other viable path. Unfortunately, we have lost 25 years because the plan was rejected at that time. There has been an enormous amount of suffering since then. A two-state solution based on those premises would solve both the settlement issue and the issues of violence, and I hope that it will be discussed seriously in the future.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I note that it was not a particularly clear answer from Berntsson. Reference was made to peace negotiations from 25 years ago and the International Court of Justice's requirements from this past summer were not mentioned at all, when it was stated that Israel must dismantle all settlements and leave the occupied territories.

I want to return to another question. In a debate article on November 27 last year, Member Magnus Berntsson wrote that the ICC's arrest warrants against Netanyahu and Gallant are political. This implies that they would not be based on actual war crimes. He also wrote that the arrest warrants undermine the International Criminal Court's legitimacy. But is it not the opposite, that legitimacy increases when someone who commits war crimes is prosecuted in the court, even if they are our "friends"? The legitimacy has long been questioned - especially by many countries in Africa, because it has previously primarily been African leaders who have been prosecuted in the court.

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

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! The international judges must be independent and make their own decisions. We do not question their right to make decisions. However, we are concerned about their long-term legitimacy if they exhibit a clear bias or political agenda that causes concern, for example in this case where one in a way equates Putin's crimes of aggression in Ukraine with the situation Netanyahu ended up in with a defensive war after Hamas's acts of violence on October 7.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! On October 4 last year, the European Court of Justice made a decision that hardly generated a notice in the Swedish media. After several years of dispute, the court ruled that the trade agreement that the EU signed with Morocco violated international law because the agreement regulated trade with agricultural products and fish from occupied territory. Neither the EU nor Morocco had taken the needs and wishes of the Western Saharan people into consideration.

This decision is a reminder of how the legacy of colonialism lives on in a new guise. Market interests rule, while the rights of the inhabitants are sidelined. All over the world, we see how conflicts are intensified by the struggle for natural resources, while the people in these conflict-affected areas are deprived of control over their own assets.

Swedish and European companies are often involved in this through an unsustainable pursuit of and extraction of cheap raw materials in conflict-affected areas, which contributes to fueling the violence. This becomes extra clear in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where the extraction of minerals and the EU's trade agreement with the neighboring country Rwanda contribute to the escalating and very deadly violence. And in Tibet, China's occupation and displacement of the Tibetans is driven by the hunt for minerals in the ground that are needed in the battery industry.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden's trade and foreign policy can either contribute to reinforcing injustices and conflicts or be a tool for peace, justice, and sustainable development. With relatively small means, we can influence the world in the right direction. Therefore, Sweden must take a clear leadership role to ensure that international trade agreements respect international law and local populations' right to self-determination.

We should actively work to ensure that the EU stops trade with products from illegal Israeli settlements and occupied territory in the same way as the EU has already stopped trade with goods from Russian-controlled areas in Ukraine.

We must ensure that strict sustainability requirements are imposed on companies throughout the entire supply chain, from raw material extraction to the final product. The EU's directive on corporate responsibility must be fully implemented, not watered down to the minimum level that the government is now proposing.

Sweden must also champion a circular economy, where we reduce our dependence on newly extracted raw materials and instead invest in recycling and reuse. To continue exploiting people and the environment in already vulnerable areas is neither ethically justifiable nor long-term sustainable.

We cannot talk about sustainability internationally while we ourselves make minimal efforts to reduce our own destructive impact. Our dependence on fossil fuels fuels conflicts and oppression. Our electronics industry maintains systems of exploitation and environmental destruction in the global south.

It is time to take responsibility for our role in the world. If we are serious about a just and sustainable world, we cannot allow our trade to nourish injustices and conflicts. Let us instead use trade as a tool for justice, environmental consideration, and human rights.

Mr. Speaker! Our foreign policy should aim to build bridges. We must create arenas for dialogue instead of isolating ourselves in protectionism. We must strengthen diplomacy as well as involve local communities and civil society in conflict management and peace processes. Women's participation in peace negotiations and peacebuilding must increase.

We must increase our investments in the UN system. The UN is aware of its shortcomings, and the pact for the future shows that there is a willingness to find solutions. But that requires that states like Sweden stand firm in their core support.

We must also stand firm in our support for the rules-based world order and for the international courts. This means condemning violations of international law and human rights, regardless of who commits them. We must dare to be just as clear in our criticism of the USA and Israel as we are toward Russia, China, and Iran.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden has long been a pioneer in international aid work. Sweden's aid shall be solidary and long-term with the goal of creating conditions for better living conditions for people living in poverty and oppression. It shall not be governed by short-term political winds or national self-interests.

Women and girls often bear a disproportionately large burden in areas of crisis and conflict. They are the first to be affected by violence, discrimination, and a lack of basic rights. To create a just world, we must place women's and girls' rights at the center of our aid. It is not just about protecting them from violence and oppression, but also about giving them power and resources to shape their own future. Therefore, Sweden needs to reintroduce a feminist foreign policy and direct more aid to local women-led organizations and women's rights organizations, for it is these actors who have the greatest knowledge of how we can strengthen women's position in society.

Mr. Speaker! Trump's statements regarding Greenland, Gaza, and the future of the aid agency USAID testify to a policy that puts self-interest ahead of international solidarity. When Trump last introduced a global gag rule, Miljöpartiet rolled up its sleeves and increased support to UNFPA, Unaids, and the Global Fund to secure the global work for sexual and reproductive rights. In a time when other countries are withdrawing from their global responsibility, Sweden has the chance to show leadership and not do what our government is doing and scrap the support to Unaids. Let us seize that chance again!

Mr. Speaker! Climate change is our time's greatest existential threat. The countries in the global south are hit hardest, where climate and nature crises have increased in intensity and frequency despite accounting for a relatively small share of the emissions that have led us to where we are today. All countries must take responsibility to reverse the development, but it is the global north that has historically accounted for and still accounts for the largest emissions. At the same time, it is also the global north that has the greatest resources and room for maneuver to contribute to the transition. We must therefore take our responsibility and increase climate aid, not least to those who are hit hardest.

Mr. Speaker! Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine has now been ongoing for almost three years. Despite the EU's strong and necessary support for Ukraine's cause, we see how our dependence on fossil fuels continues to feed Putin's war chest. Despite the EU's stated ambitions to reduce dependence on Russian fossil fuels, the import of Russian liquefied natural gas has reached record levels. In 2024, Europe imported 17.8 million tons of Russian liquefied natural gas, an increase of over 2 million tons compared to the previous year. This means that Russia is now Europe's second-largest LNG supplier, after the USA.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden can and must be a humanitarian superpower again, with a feminist foreign and development policy. The global sustainability goals in Agenda 2030 and the Paris Agreement shall guide policy, and Sweden shall continue to be a strong driving force so that we reach them.

We can, through our own consumption and with strengthened sustainability requirements, address the predatory exploitation of nature. By increasing respect for international law, strengthening international courts, investing in increased diplomacy and a strong UN, we can secure the rules-based world order and create conditions for democratic development and peace. We cannot solve the world's conflicts with military power.

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

Joar Forssell (L)

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 manufactured in Iran with Chinese components. China's role in the war in Ukraine can also not be overstated. They are an enabler and stand on Russia's side. The Ukrainian blood that has been spilled drips from both Putin's and Xi Jinping's hands.

Mr. Speaker! Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine is an attack on all of us who live in democracies or who want to do so. That Russia must lose the war and Ukraine must win it is obvious. Russia's ideas of a Great Russia, a tsardom, their revanchism and their historical revisionism must be cleared out. It is not just Putin but also the ideas that must capitulate, otherwise the war will come again in a new era and in a new guise but with the same grounds of movement.

Ukraine must receive the weapons and capabilities that are required. All sanctions against Russia must be tightened further if possible. There are actually no limits. Every Russian asset, from money to real estate and, in that regard, the movable property of oligarchs and their friends or families, should be seized and liquidated to finance our common war against Russia, which is what this actually is about. It is the democracies' war of defense against Russia, which is attacking us.

Russia must lose in all dimensions – militarily, economically, culturally and ideologically. The frozen Russian assets should be used in their entirety, both for Ukraine's warfare, for the reconstruction of the state and to compensate individuals who have had their property destroyed in the war.

Mr. Speaker! China uses trade to steal technology and knowledge from us. There are no private companies from China. It is not a liberal market economy where public and equal property rights are 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 dictator in China, Xi Jinping, 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 sanctions and violence, they attempt to stifle democrats both at home in China and in other countries. The Communist Party in China is not an impressive dragon; it is a hydra with countless heads, all equally poisonous.

Mr. Speaker! In London, protests against the planned Chinese mega-embassy have gathered 4,000 demonstrators, and political representatives and groups from among others Hong Kong and Tibet as well as Chinese democrats are participating. The embassy will become a surveillance center and a threat to both national security and human rights in all of Europe. This is happening at a time when authoritarian forces from China, Russia, and Iran are waging a cold war against us and our freedoms. Great Britain and all democracies should stop such plans that can give China or Chinese actors more room.

Mr. Speaker! At the same time as this is happening in the United Kingdom, the shutdown of USAID risks leaving a dangerous vacuum where anti-democratic forces can gain greater influence, something that threatens both democracy's values and the humanitarian efforts that are crucial for countering oppression and promoting development worldwide.

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 Iran's 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 the country's proxy groups must be pushed back. They also conduct aggressive activities here in Sweden. The Islamic Republic's intelligence gathering must be stopped. Trade with Iran should also be stifled. The illegitimate dictatorship must be smoked out of its holes.

Mr. Speaker! Hamas started the war in the Middle East on October 7. 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's antisemitism and extreme Islamism have roots that are much older than the modern state of Israel. Hamas has repeatedly made a long-term ceasefire impossible. It is Hamas that has held and continues to hold Israelis hostage.

We want to see a two-state solution where the Palestinians can live in peace and freedom in their own state. This cannot be achieved as long as Hamas's military capability has not been neutralized. It is deeply unserious to talk about a two-state solution and a sustainable peace without simultaneously having the ability to underscore this. Hamas must be neutralized; they cannot be part of such a solution. Hostages must be released, and Hamas must surrender unconditionally.

All parties must adhere to international law and minimize civilian casualties as far as possible. Every civilian victim is a tragedy. All violations of this must be condemned, and all attempts to oppose a two-state solution must be stopped. Neighboring countries will need to take a very large responsibility for the stability and security in the region. Peace must be permanentized; civilians on both sides have suffered too much.

Mr. Speaker! Taiwan is in practice a free and independent democratic state. The country has a clearly defined people, a defined territory, and a well-functioning state power. It fulfills all criteria for being a state in its own right. This proves that democratic development can happen quickly and gives hope that also Mainland China's future could move towards democracy and that all other authoritarian countries or dictatorships could follow the same path.

Sweden must deepen its relations with the country Taiwan on all levels - economically, diplomatically and internationally. If we Liberals alone were to decide, 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 far-reaching free trade agreements. We need Taiwan, and Taiwan needs us.

Mr. Speaker! When the world's dictatorships cooperate ever more deeply, we democracies must do the same, whether it concerns support for Taiwan, participation in operations in the Red Sea, or countering the fact that Russia, China, and Iran are gaining increased influence. The liberal, democratic world order is under attack, and we have a common duty to defend it.

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

Alexandra Völker (S)

Mr. Speaker! It is a testing time. International law and our jointly agreed rules are being tested from several sides. According to Unicef, more than every sixth child in an area affected by conflict lives in such conditions. At the same time, climate change is becoming increasingly clear, with extreme weather leading to drought in one place and floods in another, causing famine, extreme temperatures, and suffering, and requiring that we act now.

When states simultaneously undermine international law and the multilateral system, it is more important than ever that Sweden stands up for it and that Sweden steps forward. Unfortunately, that is not what the current government is doing. In fact, Sweden is one of the countries that is reducing the economic support to several UN organizations. This applies to organizations such as OCHA, the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, which works to meet the enormous humanitarian needs in countries such as Sudan and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Sweden is reducing the core support to OCHA by 45 percent. It also applies to the World Food Programme, which receives 186 million less in core support this year. The core support is absolutely necessary for the UN organizations to be able to be present where the needs are greatest and to be able to quickly adapt when new crises arise.

It is difficult enough to operate in humanitarian crises when warring parties hinder aid from reaching its destination. Such is the situation in Sudan, the world's currently largest humanitarian crisis, where, alongside the fighting, restrictions have been imposed that prevent life-saving humanitarian aid from getting through. In Ethiopia, the World Food Programme testifies to how the current situation threatens their opportunity to support almost half a million people in the Amhara region alone. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the M23 militia's advance has led to thousands of deaths and to over 100,000 being forced to flee once again. When economic resources are simultaneously reduced, a difficult mission becomes almost impossible.

But it is not only the economic means that are needed. It is needed that we stand up for the UN system as a whole. With the speed at which development is occurring right now, we must be prepared for the fact that the coming years will be tough for the multilateral system. It will be required that we who safeguard humanitarian law and the peace-promoting work step forward.

To quote Anna Lindh: "Without the UN, we get the law of the jungle, where military strength is more important than the strength of arguments. Without the principles of international law, there is no security for us and other countries. Right must always precede power." So said Anna Lindh during her first speech of May 2003 - words that are just as true today.

Mr. Speaker! The President of the USA has decided to introduce sanctions aimed at the International Criminal Court in The Hague, ICC. The ICC's purpose is to hold individuals accountable for crimes against international law, genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes - a tool to live up to our international obligations. The sanctions now risk complicating the court's work.

It is good that the government, together with 78 other states, has signaled against the decision. Now it is important that the EU's member states, all of which have ratified the Rome Statute, act jointly to counteract the effects of the sanctions.

Since Russia invaded Ukraine, the EU member states have shown what power the EU can represent when we act together with one voice. That power is needed now, and Sweden should be leading in strengthening that voice.

Mr. Speaker! In authoritarian states, women's rights are shrinking rapidly. Two of the most frightening examples are Afghanistan and Iran - two neighboring countries with the commonality that women are subject to completely different legislation than men and are to be restricted in all respects. It is about systems of gender apartheid, something that should be recognized as a crime against humanity by the UN. In both Afghanistan and Iran, the international community must do everything to support girls and women.

In Afghanistan, despite everything, extensive work is still being carried out today by international civil society organizations, which support girls and women in particular through initiatives in both education and humanitarian aid. We must not back down.

In Iran, women continue to bravely protest for their rights and for freedom and democracy. At the same time, the regime repeatedly demonstrates what it is capable of both in Iran and outside the country's borders. Now that there is a legal basis, it is time for the EU to take the step and terror-list the Islamic Revolutionary Guard.

Mr. Speaker! It is a period that demands much of us. Sweden cannot back down but must, on the contrary, step forward.

(Applause)

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

Yasmine Eriksson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The world is interconnected. What happens in countries far from Sweden's borders can have a major impact on us in the long term. It would be desirable if the rest of the world were a bit more like Sweden: a democracy with low corruption, almost free healthcare, parental leave, several weeks of vacation, equality, free schooling and even free higher education. Many long for what we have achieved. But many simultaneously want the opposite, that we should become a bit more like them – that bribes should be the norm, that Sharia laws should prevail and that women should submit to men.

What do we do then to make the world a bit more like Sweden? Well, we use trade, diplomacy and aid as powerful tools.

Mr. Speaker! Aid is actually one of our most important foreign policy tools. It can be misinterpreted, but it is a win-win concept. When we provide aid, we are not only investing in other countries – we are also creating a more stable world, which also benefits us here at home in Sweden.

However, a dilemma arises when our own population, our citizens, those for whom we have primary responsibility, do not receive the help they need – when the homeless do not get a roof over their heads, the terminally ill do not receive treatment in time, psychiatry is insufficient, and shootings and explosions have become commonplace. Then, many question whether we should really be pouring billions into the citizens of other countries. And I understand that one questions it, but one must simultaneously understand that the world is interconnected and that we are affected by what happens in our global environment. Therefore, it is extremely important that we take responsibility for the aid we actually provide and that it goes toward interventions that are in Sweden's interest. Yes, it is actually our duty and obligation towards our voters, citizens, and taxpayers.

Mr. Speaker! In order for us to have responsible aid, the Sweden Democrats and the government have agreed on measures to improve the aid. We have departed from the model that the aid should amount to 1 percent of GNI. It was a symbolic political model that risked focusing on quantity instead of quality – a goal with a focus on being the best in class on paper by spending as much money as possible instead of focusing on the results of the aid. Now, we instead have a ceiling for the aid in real terms and clearer requirements for results and quality. There, we know in advance how much we have to allocate to different aid projects and to different organizations.

We have increased the humanitarian and most acute aid. At the same time, we want to redistribute parts of the aid from multilateral organizations in favor of civil society organizations that have better local anchoring. We have selected some prioritized thematic areas for the aid and reduced the number of country strategies.

We have an increased focus on results and efficiency. Organizations can apply in competition to receive a share of Swedish aid funds. This is so that we can have oversight and control over where the money goes, to ensure that the money is used where it does the most good and is distributed in a purposeful manner. We have simultaneously reduced the number of targets for the aid, which previously were a staggering 400 in number.

Mr. Speaker! Providing aid to other countries and civil societies fulfills many different functions. On the one hand, it improves the situation for the civilian population on site in the countries, on the other hand, it contributes to a more stable world. But if the aid does not have that effect, we need to see if reprioritizations need to be made. This is something the government and relevant authorities are continuously working on.

Mr. Speaker! It is almost impossible to participate in the foreign policy debate without speaking about the USA. The USA has recently made a major shift in its aid activities and paused all payments for 90 days. This has created concern worldwide, which is understandable. In large terms, it is also understandable that the USA wants to conduct a proper screening and audit of the aid projects it is involved in. But the method should be criticized. That one, as the world's largest aid donor, wants to counteract corruption and non-purposeful payments is good, not least when it comes to getting rid of unserious actors. But the pause unfortunately risks leading to unwanted suffering for many people who are dependent on aid. Every aid project must now be approved by the director of the Office of Management and Budget. If the USA does not lift the pause, I still want to urge the USA to make this process as fast as possible, so that every aid organization and project receives notification as soon as possible. The world does not need more worry and instability.

(Applause)

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Mr. Speaker! The Member mentions in her speech that she considers the aid to be extremely important. I can agree with that. But the Sweden Democrats are currently working together with the government to tear down a well-functioning aid system.

The government has itself admitted that aid funds are being used for domestic integration in a way that violates the regulations for aid. The government ignores it. Large sums are also going to Migrationsverket to pay for empty premises. Migrationsverket thus becomes one of the largest recipients of aid.

According to the OECD-DAC framework, only voluntary, safe and dignified return of refugees from one developing country to another can be considered development assistance. Repatriation from Sweden can never, ever be financed with any form of development aid.

Do not the Sverigedemokraterna and the member believe that Sweden should follow entered agreements and agreed frameworks for how aid may be used?

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

Yasmine Eriksson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Lotta Johnsson Fornarve, for many questions! I did not have time to note them all down.

It is we in the Swedish Riksdag who, together with the government and at the government's proposal, decide what we shall allocate aid funds to. Each individual country chooses which interventions it wants to make. Now we are in a situation where we have an extremely large number of refugees from a certain country, and we need to prioritize them. It has not been stable in Ukraine for several years. Russia's war of invasion has lasted longer than we thought and hoped. For that reason, it is important that we can use our funds to help those in need and refugees in our own country.

What the member is raising regarding rules and obligations is precisely about goals. We have approved these goals together with many other countries, but few of us achieve them.

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Mr. Speaker! I must thank Yasmine Eriksson for the answer, even though I thought it was a somewhat unclear answer to my question.

The question is: Do not the Sweden Democrats and the member believe that Sweden should live up to the OECD-DAC rules for how aid may be used? Sweden does not do this today. It violates the rules by using aid funds for domestic integration and for repatriation. It is not compatible with how aid may be used.

I would like a clear answer to my question. Should Sweden not live up to entered agreements on how aid is to be used?

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

Yasmine Eriksson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I believe I need to clarify this. How we in Sweden structure our budget is a national matter. Neither the OECD-DAC nor the UN are binding there.

We will report such aid as we provide and which is considered to be compatible with OECD-DAC. They will compile this as part of the aid that Sweden provides. It will be part of the total. If they then choose to exclude or include certain interventions, that is up to them, in accordance with their regulatory framework.

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

Alexandra Völker (S)

Mr. Speaker! When I listen to Member Eriksson's speech, I cannot help but react to what is being described - the contradiction between the aid and the enormous needs that exist in Sweden. The truth is that the largest budget investment, that which you primarily chose to prioritize in the latest budget, was tax cuts for those who earn the most, not the Swedes who have the greatest needs.

During these years, you have also reduced the aid to Afghanistan. You have completely cut off the aid to South Sudan - you bear a great responsibility now with the catastrophe prevailing in Sudan. You have lowered the support to the majority of the UN organizations - UNDP, UN Women, OCHA and World Food Programme. The list is long.

What does member Eriksson actually consider to be Swedish interests?

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

Yasmine Eriksson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The answer to the member's question is quite simple. The Swedish interests are precisely those listed in the reform agenda. We have openly stated that the thematic priorities are what lies in Sweden's interest regarding aid. It is those thematic areas that we are focusing on now and that we will focus on in the coming years.

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

Alexandra Völker (S)

Mr. Speaker! Can the member see that Swedish interests are harmed by choosing to reduce aid in the way that is being done? Can the member see that what happens in a part of the world also affects us here? Can the member see that climate change constitutes one of our greatest security policy threats now and in the future?

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

Yasmine Eriksson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! As we all know, Sweden's aid funds are not enough, even though they are very, very generous. We choose to prioritize allocating the aid to those organizations or projects where we see that it does the most good. We need to redistribute the funds. Some organizations receive less one year, and others receive more. Others may receive aid funds for the first time. We have then seen in their applications, for example, that they have a very efficient work model and are results-oriented.

That we in Sweden are affected by the rest of the world, I mentioned several times in my speech. It is obvious that we are. Furthermore, we have, together with the government, increased climate aid. We see what impact the climate has on the whole world and perhaps most on the most vulnerable countries, which do not have sufficient protection systems for the climate changes.

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

Emma Berginger (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I heard Member Eriksson describe the USA's realignment of aid policy as a significant shift. One could still say that is an understatement of the year. Eriksson also mentioned that they are pausing the aid. But what the USA is doing right now actually has dreadful consequences all around the world. When a superpower with a large economy chokes off its aid and shuts down USAID, it has consequences for people. It is about poor people who need help and about children who need vaccinations.

Is a pause reasonable? Do the Sweden Democrats see a model in Trump's actions that they would like to use as a model for Sweden? Or what is actually Eriksson's analysis of the situation?

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

Yasmine Eriksson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I find it a bit funny that I am receiving questions about things I mentioned in my speech. I described what catastrophic consequences the pause that is now being taken has for people who are dependent on aid. I also pointed out that the pause is not desirable because of the effects it has. I urged them to, if they do not cancel the pause, handle each project and organization as quickly as possible so that all organizations can receive notification as quickly as possible, so that they know whether they have a future or not.

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

Emma Berginger (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I cannot interpret what Member Eriksson says in any other way than that she is relatively downplaying what the USA is doing with the aid right now, what President Trump is doing to poor people all around the world and the consequences this has.

I think a significant distancing is required from the policy that the USA is currently pursuing regarding aid. I think it would have been tasteful of Eriksson if she had been clear on that point and not described it as a pause and a major rethink, which suggests the idea that this is a desirable reform. This is actually something that has enormous consequences, and in any case, I am worried that this is something that has inspired the government and the Sverigedemokraterna when it comes to continued reductions of aid.

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

Yasmine Eriksson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! In order to preserve the effectiveness and credibility when it comes to aid, it is important that all aid-giving countries are careful to review whether the interventions they are involved in yield results or not, so that they do not allocate aid funds to projects that yield no results. The aid funds could then instead have gone to other interventions that actually yield results.

As I said earlier: Having such a long break is not desirable. It affects far too many people far too negatively. It would have been much, much better to do this revision and to maintain one's commitments in the meantime.

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

Stefan Olsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I want to begin by thanking the Minister for Foreign Affairs for the foreign policy declaration. The declaration explains in a very clear way what Sweden's primary foreign policy focus is - to stop the Russian aggression and support Ukraine for as long as needed. It is pleasing that the government so clearly marks that this shall take place in solidarity with our closest neighbors in northern Europe.

The close cooperation within the Nordic region but also in the NB8 format, that is, the Nordic countries and the three Baltic states, as well as NB8 plus Poland, has proven to be a success.

We are all NATO members nowadays. I know there are those who warn against building an alliance within the alliance, but I still believe that is how we should do it. NATO is our new security policy platform. But the organization is ultimately based on voluntary cooperation, and it is precisely here around the Baltic Sea that we have our closest friends, those whom we can certainly rely on.

Mr. Speaker! The Social Democrats have several times called this new foreign policy provincial and, by that, meant that the government's foreign policy is short-sighted. In response to that, I would, in that case, instead like to thank the government for actually being provincial. I do not know if the Social Democrats have thought about this, but a war is ongoing in our province. The nuclear power Russia has attacked Ukraine, and the war has been ongoing for three years. Russia is also our neighboring country. Ukraine's survival is therefore directly related to our own survival.

What do the Social Democrats mean that the government should have focused on instead? South America? Africa? Of course, Africa is also affected by war, and we need to engage there as well. But our primary focus must still be to always defend Sweden first?

Mr. Speaker! As I have said, I agree with the government that the Baltic cooperation should be a cornerstone of Sweden's NATO policy. However, it is evident that Sweden - despite being the alliance's newest member - must also engage in getting all the alliance's members to wake up and understand that the time we have entered will demand much more from the alliance as a whole. Here, I am primarily thinking of the importance of all NATO members investing in their own defense.

Today, more than half of the NATO members invest more than 2 percent of their GDP on defense, but far from all. This is a major problem, because we know that we may very well need to go up to 3 percent or more. It cannot be reasonable that Europe should be completely dependent on the USA for its defense.

There is a significant imbalance between the USA and NATO's European members. It is not just that the USA is currently spending a relatively large share of its GDP on its defense, but it has done so for several decades. The consequence is that the USA has many defense capabilities that NATO's European countries do not have.

Some examples of such defense capabilities are nuclear deterrence, satellites for reconnaissance and GPS, and the ability to project military power throughout the world with, for example, aircraft carriers. More examples are a unique defense technology, well-supplied ammunition depots, and a worldwide intelligence service in the CIA – which, when needed, serves as an intelligence service for the entire democratic world.

In Europe, we have long taken for granted that the USA will provide these resources if we end up in war. So, one cannot think that way in the long run. Europe must build up its own defense capability that at least approaches the USA's capacity. We do not need our own nuclear weapons or aircraft carriers in the Pacific, but in the current situation, we cannot even defend shipping through the Red Sea without the USA's help. It is far too weak.

Mr. Speaker! When I say this, I also want to take the opportunity to mention that we in the Moderaterna also see it as a matter of course that every country finances its own defense. Within the EU, a discussion has arisen about whether the EU's budget should be able to be used to strengthen the member states' defense or for the union to be able to borrow money, roughly like with the corona fund.

We turn against this. There is no free money lying around anywhere. Sweden should be clear that the financing of a country's defense is something everyone must do with their own money. If one has poor public finances, one simply must tighten up and sanitize them.

Madam Speaker! In conclusion, I would like to say a few words about Ukraine. A war has now been ongoing for three years, and the Ukrainians have defended themselves with rarely seen bravery and perseverance. Remember that few believed they would even hold out for three days! They have now held out for three years. Russia is not an unstoppable war machine but has proven to be unexpectedly militarily weak. Its power today rests only on nuclear weapons.

I know it can be difficult to believe that the war will end, now that it looks to have reached a stalemate. I am, however, still optimistic and therefore want to send a big and warm thank you to the Ukrainian people.

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Stefan Olsson, for the speech! I naturally agree on the importance of supporting Ukraine in all conceivable ways. On that, we are in complete agreement.

I would, however, like to broaden the perspective a bit and go back to the war that has just concluded in Gaza, where a very fragile ceasefire now prevails.

I want to ask the member how it is possible that the Swedish government first stood behind a UN resolution that expressed its clear support for UNRWA and declared that UNRWA is indispensable, only to completely terminate the support to UNRWA just a few weeks later. It is an organization that, just a few weeks earlier, was considered indispensable.

This simply does not add up. It is incomprehensible, incorrect, and catastrophic. UNRWA is the UN organization that has the mandate to help and support Palestinian refugees with, among other things, education and healthcare in Gaza, the West Bank, and in the Palestinian refugee camps in the region.

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

Stefan Olsson (M)

Madam Speaker! This question has been debated earlier today, and the answer is that we stand behind UNRWA's work for purely legal reasons. As long as the organization exists, we cannot be against it in that way.

The government has, however, clearly stated that UNRWA must change. It is quite obvious on which points the change must occur. UNRWA in Gaza is infiltrated by Hamas. We cannot pay money to Hamas. It is not possible. We also know that UNRWA in Gaza has had grossly anti-Semitic content in its textbooks. Swedish tax money cannot go to this when one sees the consequences of the gross anti-Semitism in Gaza.

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the answer!

There is no evidence whatsoever that UNRWA would be infiltrated by Hamas. Independent investigations have been conducted which show that there is no evidence whatsoever for that. This is discredit and smearing of UNRWA, which, among others, the Israeli government is responsible for.

Stopping the supplies to UNRWA is about so much more than just getting supplies into Gaza, even though this obviously has a high priority. It is about standing up for the basic needs of the Palestinian people in the entire region - in Gaza and in the West Bank. It is the organization that has the UN's mandate.

It is actually incomprehensible that one day you say that you think UNRWA is indispensable – for that was exactly what the Swedish government stood behind – and a few weeks later withdraw support for UNRWA.

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

Stefan Olsson (M)

Madam Speaker! I understand that the Left Party does not believe there is any evidence that UNRWA in Gaza is infiltrated by Hamas. That is because the evidence that has been presented comes from Israel. I understand that the member does not believe anything that Israel says.

This summer, Israel handed over names to various funders of UNRWA of a hundred people who are members of Hamas but who also have employment in UNRWA. It is very regrettable that no one has followed up on this, but I have no problem trusting Israeli intelligence information.

Let me ask one final question to Vänsterpartiet. Honestly, doesn't Vänsterpartiet think it is a problem that Swedish tax money has been used to finance antisemitism in school books in Gaza? Is that not a problem for Vänsterpartiet?

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

Anna Lasses (C)

Madam Speaker! I absolutely agree with much of what Stefan Olsson said in his speech, so it is no surprise.

It will be a bit of a repetition of questions on approximately the same theme. This concerns what was previously said regarding UNRWA.

I became even more confused because as recently as last autumn, the Foreign Minister spoke very clearly about how incredibly important it is that we continue to support UNRWA, because the organization has the special role it has. Now Stefan Olsson says that one of the reasons that support has been withdrawn is the suspicions regarding Hamas.

I thought it was about getting the support now that Israel has adopted this legislation. I would like some clarity on this, thank you.

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

Stefan Olsson (M)

Madam Speaker! I must refer to what the government has said. I unfortunately cannot reproduce everything verbatim, but the member must probably go back to the government's various statements. They are, of course, available on the government's website.

I can explain how the Moderaterna view precisely UNRWA and that issue. In the longer term, we want to phase out this entire organization, because we believe there should not be a specific refugee organization in the UN that exists only for a single ethnic group. The refugees in the world are quite numerous, and all other refugees in the world are cared for by another refugee body, which the member knows.

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

Anna Lasses (C)

Madam Speaker! This became a bit more clarifying, as I see that the government has a position and that the Moderaterna have their own reasoning.

I am still wondering about something, however. I agree that UNRWA obviously should not exist once Palestine has become a state. The whole point of UNRWA is that the agency is to help build up the state of Palestine. Then there are absolutely problems there, but the question remains: Do the Moderates – may I almost ask in this case – consider that role in a build-up to no longer be relevant? Do you prefer another form for building up Palestine when we finally get there?

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

Stefan Olsson (M)

Madam Speaker! Yes, in the long run, UNRWA is not to be involved in the construction of a Palestinian state, but the Palestinian state shall, of course, manage that itself.

UNRWA is also present in other parts of the area, for example in Jordan and Syria, and the authorities in those countries must actually take care of the Palestinian group on their own territory. It is completely unreasonable that Sweden and other countries finance basic welfare for Palestinians in Jordan when Jordan could do it themselves.

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

Jamal El-Haj (-)

Madam Speaker! Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the International Criminal Court ICC have published several reports stating that Israel practices apartheid against the Palestinians.

These international human rights organizations have based their conclusions on extensive documentation of Israeli treatment of Palestinians, including discriminatory laws and systematic abuses. Despite this, the Israeli state has dismissed these institutions and accused them of being antisemitic.

The Israeli human rights organization B'Tselem has expressed the same view and considers Israel an apartheid state. These reports and analyses are based on concrete evidence of how Palestinians are systematically discriminated against and subjected to violence.

How does the member view these allegations?

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

Stefan Olsson (M)

Madam Speaker! I mean that Israel does not conduct an apartheid policy. However, I am fully aware that the conditions, for example in the West Bank, are very brutal. That has to do with the occupation and Israel's need for security. It is primarily for that reason that the security barrier has been erected, traffic has been separated on different roads, and so on. This is described as an apartheid policy, but it is thus motivated by a security issue.

A counter-question to the member is whether the member considers that Israel has a security interest regarding the West Bank and that it is therefore reasonable with a security barrier or some form of border crossing. Or is there no threat against Israel from radical elements in the West Bank?

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

Jamal El-Haj (-)

Madam Speaker! Of course there are threats against Israel, but Israel has behaved in this way for 76 years. It is not new. We have experienced massacres, and we have seen how Israel has treated the Palestinians for years. We see with our own eyes how Israel regularly murders children and bombs civilian targets such as hospitals, schools, mosques, churches, and residential areas. Ethnic cleansing is being carried out both in Gaza and in the West Bank. These atrocities against human life and human rights are impossible to ignore.

Despite these facts, the member, the Swedish government and the Moderaterna want to deepen their cooperation with Israel. This occurs despite the fact that Israel in practice continues to pursue a policy that violates international law and fundamental human rights. Why does the member continue to defend Israel in that way?

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

Stefan Olsson (M)

Madam Speaker! I do not defend Israel as such, but I defend Sweden's relationship with Israel. We have not decided to sever all ties with Israel. Most EU states have not done so either, and we are cooperating with them.

Our view, however, is that the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory shall cease. That is our goal. We do not advocate at all that the policy that Israel has pursued for so many years should continue, on the contrary. In all speeches as a representative for my party, as well as a representative for the government, it appears that we want the Israeli occupation to cease. The land that Israel has claimed for, for example, the security barrier shall be returned to the Palestinian state that we want to be built.

We have recognized a Palestinian state, but it is de facto difficult to see that there is a Palestinian state today. It is, however, our ambition that a functioning Palestinian democratic state should be built.

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

Olle Thorell (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank Stefan Olsson for his speech, where it became very clear that the member would like to debate the view of the world with the Social Democrats.

It is not that we have missed that a war is ongoing in Ukraine or that we do not think it is important with the new NATO cooperation, Nordic relations, or other aspects of foreign policy within this area. Of course, they are important. But Stefan Olsson makes a mistake: He says that we accuse the government of conducting a provincial foreign policy, and then he proves it by giving a provincial speech that deals with just provincial matters.

It is clear that we should be able to engage in Ukraine and Nato, but Sweden is part of the world. Agenda 2030 are important matters, and it is not mentioned at all in the foreign policy declaration. How is that? Has the government stopped having ambitions regarding Agenda 2030?

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

Stefan Olsson (M)

Madam Speaker! Agenda 2030 naturally plays a role, but if one really, really, really must choose a focus for one's foreign policy and then must choose between Agenda 2030 and pushing back Russian aggression – how does one choose then? Yes, for the Moderates, one chooses to push back the Russian aggression and support Ukraine. That is our first focus. We may become so one-sided here that one thinks we are not working on anything else, but that is, in that case, a criticism that we can probably endure.

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

Olle Thorell (S)

Madam Speaker! It is required of a government that it can do more than one thing at a time and think two thoughts simultaneously. It must be able to have as its highest priority to ensure that Ukraine wins this war and at the same time both care about the world's poorest countries and realize that the roadmap towards sustainable development is Agenda 2030 and that one needs to work with it in Sweden.

One does not exclude the other, rather one is a prerequisite for the other. Building global security and building a just, sustainable future in the whole world benefits Sweden, benefits Ukraine, and benefits development in the whole world. I think it is frightening that we have a government and a group leader in the Moderaterna who are so one-sided and provincial in their thinking.

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

Stefan Olsson (M)

Madam Speaker! Again: This is not about not being able to work with all types of issues. If the member takes another look at the government's foreign policy declaration, he will see that it covers pretty much everything.

If it were only up to me, it could focus even more on the immediate vicinity. One can call this provincial, which is a word that is only used as something negative, that is to say in the sense that someone cannot look out over the world, is not educated enough, is narrow-minded and so on. That is the reason why the Social Democrats use that word. But I take that word and, I think, turn it to my advantage by saying that the situation is so serious that it is right to start with the provincial – namely, to stop the war in our immediate vicinity.

(Applause)

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Madam Speaker! The need for international aid is growing rapidly as a result of war, conflict, and climate change. Then the USA chooses to freeze humanitarian aid and shut down its aid organization USAID. It is completely unjustifiable. Sweden and Europe should respond by strengthening their aid, but the Swedish government continues to cut aid. Next year we are approaching a shamefully low level.

It is possible to build a strong welfare state and at the same time provide good aid. Vänsterpartiet invests significantly more in school, healthcare, and elderly care in its budget than the government does, and still stands firm on the one percent goal for aid. The government instead prioritizes lowering taxes for the very richest.

The paradigm shift for aid that the government, with the help of SD, is in the process of implementing risks shattering a well-functioning aid system. Furthermore, the government is eroding aid by using aid funds for things that, according to the OECD-DAC rules, may not be counted as aid. This applies, for example, to domestic costs for integration and repatriation.

It is also deeply concerning that the government, in the reform agenda, emphasizes the importance of the aid benefiting Swedish interests such as trade and business. The aid should not originate from Swedish interests but from poverty reduction and the recipient's needs. Furthermore, the government is cutting the important support to the UN.

The government abolished the feminist foreign policy but simultaneously says that equality is a core value. This is difficult to take seriously when the government reduces support for equality. Among other things, they are significantly reducing support to UNFPA, which is the most important UN organization for work with SRHR, i.e., sexual and reproductive health and rights.

Trump has signaled that he will choke off aid to organizations that even mention family planning and abortion. The decisions that Trump has made so far threaten the lives and health of millions of people, especially women and girls. In a time when equality, LGBTQ+ rights, and the right to SRHR are under attack, Sweden needs to act as a counterweight and increase support.

Vänsterpartiet considers that the gender perspective should permeate all aid activities. This is something that is missing in the reform agenda. Vänsterpartiet also considers that half of the aid should go to women and girls and that 10 percent should be earmarked for SRHR. We know that investments in equality benefit peace, democracy, and the entire social development. The most effective way to increase equality in a country is to provide direct support to women's organizations.

Equality is also an important security issue. Instead of cutting support to peace organizations and the work for women, peace and security, the government should increase support and guarantee that Sweden implements the agenda for women, peace and security in its entirety. We must also not forget that access to clean water and basic sanitation is an important equality issue and something that can save thousands of lives.

Sweden must return to the successful feminist foreign policy.

In our immediate vicinity, the war in Ukraine is raging, and the civilian population has been hit hard. Of course, we shall continue to assist the Ukrainian people in all ways: politically, humanitarily, and militarily. The reconstruction of Ukraine will cost enormous sums. Here, the rest of the world must find other solutions than solely burdening the aid.

It is deeply worrying that aid is decreasing or being completely withdrawn to some of the poorest and most vulnerable people in the world, for example in Cambodia, Mali, South Sudan, Burkina Faso, Yemen and Afghanistan. Those who are hit hardest are democracy, environmental and human rights organizations as well as women and children, who get poorer access to, among other things, maternal care and school.

Sudan is facing perhaps the worst humanitarian catastrophe in the world, with millions of people fleeing war, rape, and famine. Support for Sudan must be strengthened.

The conflict in Congo has escalated again. The civilian population has been hit hard, especially women and girls. There are also enormous needs for aid here.

The West Saharan refugee camps are also in acute need of support following major budget cuts, an increased number of refugees, and heavy rains.

Gaza has finally received a fragile ceasefire, but the needs for aid are enormous. Virtually all children are traumatized. Thousands have died or been injured. Hospitals, schools, and residential buildings have been leveled, and the shortage of supplies is great. That Sweden, in this situation, stops the support to UNRWA is completely unjustifiable. Since 1949, UNRWA has had the UN mandate to protect and support Palestinian refugees. This organization has the capacity to reach out. Israel's government is doing its best to discredit UNRWA and attack the UN. Instead of criticizing this, Sweden has taken the same side. It is completely incomprehensible, wrong, and catastrophic.

The climate issue is prioritized by the government, but the government's focus has shifted towards countries with large emissions and cooperation with the business sector. This risks leading to reduced support for the countries that are hit hardest. The world's wealthy have caused the climate crisis and still have the greatest negative impact on the climate, but it is the developing countries that will have to bear 75-80 percent of the climate crisis's damages and costs. The wealthy countries must therefore increase support to poor countries. It is not enough to take resources from the shrinking aid.

For real and long-term change, it is required that the unsustainable debt burdens are managed and that measures are taken to achieve a more just tax system and to stop the global flight of capital and taxes. 3.3 billion people today live in countries that pay more in interest than they spend on health or education, according to a report from Unctad.

Finally, we must, of course, ensure that civil society's important aid work is given the right conditions and resources to continue providing good aid for democracy, human rights, and women's rights.

(Applause)

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

Anna Lasses (C)

Madam Speaker! In a situation where democracy and human rights are being dismantled at a rapid pace around the world, we can no longer just talk about how important aid is; it is action that matters. Aid is simply one of our most important tools for a safer world. It does not work for Sweden, which is a strong leader in aid, to suddenly start backing down, playing follow the leader and doing what everyone else does, that is to say, cutting back on aid, choosing to invest in simpler projects in countries that already have some structure, reducing long-term support when it is needed most and instead investing a larger portion of the money where the catastrophe is already a fact.

Furthermore, stretching international rules and making aid conditional on countries taking back refugees who have fled to Sweden to seek safety is poster politics. Experience also shows that this does not work.

In a time when the USA, the world's largest aid donor, is stopping and more or less crumbling its aid, the rest of the world must take greater responsibility. This applies primarily to countries like Sweden. We can do this. We know how to conduct aid in an effective way. We still have a strong civil society with a network that extends across the entire world and which, if used correctly, can help build up the local community in the most vulnerable places in the world.

Therefore, it is serious that the government is now, in misguided good intentions, implementing changes that threaten the Swedish civil society's opportunities to continue its work. In practice, it means a nationalization of the aid work - tasks that until now have been handled by Swedish civil society shall now be handled by the state. This is likely a decision that is both expensive and short-sighted, which also risks the Swedish commitment to the world.

Sweden shall lead. However, we cannot do it alone, but we must do it together with like-minded [countries]. Our work within the EU is crucial. When the USA is now scaling back, the EU is the absolute largest donor. Therefore, it is precisely now crucial which path the EU chooses to take in this area and what role Sweden chooses in this. Aid in the EU must be protected and developed, and here Sweden has a key role.

Madam Speaker! As everyone understands, I and the Center Party are very concerned about the direction the government has chosen regarding aid. However, there is still time for a different direction, one that is adapted to today's reality. The one percent goal must be restored. The Center Party also proposes that the support to Ukraine be collected in a separate fund. In this way, we ensure that Ukraine receives the support it needs while we can continue with our aid in the rest of the world.

Equality is under threat and is receding all around the world. Sweden must defend liberal feminism and have equality in mind in every situation and every negotiation. Now that the USA has reintroduced the gag rule and removed support for SRHR, this is even more important. But it is not enough that we prioritize equality and SRHR. We must get other donors to do the same. Sweden must be the one that shouts out in defense of equality, hbtqi, and all people's right to live a safe life.

Madam Speaker! It is happening fast now. It is no longer about signs of climate change, but we are in the midst of them. Assistance for climate transition and long-term food production is therefore crucial. This is something I know the Swedish government cares about. But we must ensure that this also happens in the most vulnerable areas while democracy development occurs and acute emergency aid is provided.

Education, education, education! I raise it every time. Children's education is still one of the most important tools for building a democratic and sustainable society. It should be a portal paragraph in a modern aid agenda.

Madam Speaker! I shall finally return to what should be Sweden's most important priority. No one can do everything, and therefore we need to focus the aid in an effective way. In a situation where democracy and human rights are retreating in the world, we need to be where people are most vulnerable and not leave it open for authoritarian countries such as China, Russia and Iran or terrorists to offer people help. We need to think long-term. So in a situation where more and more people are chasing the acute interventions, Sweden must lead and invest more in the long-term development in the world's most vulnerable areas.

Briefly summarized, I have the following plea to the government: Think! Focus more on long-term aid and on the most difficult places! Lead, maintain and defend the aid work in the EU! Shout out in defense of equality and LGBTQI! Listen to civil society!

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

Gudrun Brunegård (KD)

Madam Speaker! Last week I was on a study trip in Kenya and Ethiopia together with Members of Parliament from different parties. We were not home when the terrible school shooting occurred, but we followed it via the media. It was striking how well-informed our African hosts were. The chairman of the Ethiopian Foreign Affairs Committee offered condolences, and the meeting with the Ethiopian Orthodox Church began with a minute of silence. It was moving to encounter this consideration and compassion in a part of the world where one is oneself grappling with gigantic challenges, not least after the announcement of the closure of USAID which had come a few days earlier. We live in a globalized world. The humanity and consideration we experienced we must, of course, also show towards our brothers and sisters in other parts of the world.

The purpose of the study trip was to study how faith-based organizations work with SRHR, sexual and reproductive health and rights. It is a theme that can be sensitive in a context characterized by religion and different religious beliefs. For us Swedes, the world's most secularized people, it can be difficult to imagine how much religion means in other countries. In much of the world, existence is permeated by religion, and what the religious leaders formulate affects people more deeply than we can understand.

We in Sweden must become much better at cooperating with local churches to achieve greater impact for issues that can change and improve the lives of the population. This adds an extra dimension and driving force for change that many Swedes overlook. There is a concept, religious literacy. If we learn to understand the religiously influenced contexts in which our Swedish aid operates and take advantage of the impact it entails to be able to address people locally in a way they understand, it can become truly effective. This is best done through the civil society organizations' local partners.

One example is the Maasai tribe in Kenya. Among the Maasai, female genital mutilation is a widespread custom. The girls are usually circumcised at the age of twelve. The circumcision involves great risks during the procedure itself and causes great suffering for the rest of their lives. Pain during toilet visits, not to mention during sexual intercourse, and complicated births with severe tears. PMU carries out work there together with its Kenyan sister church to change attitudes and eliminate the custom.

We met schoolchildren who had received education on children's rights and powerfully manifested the right to their bodies, their lives, and the right to health and education, like "Stop! My body!". "I don't want to be circumcised, I want to study! I don't want to be married off, I want to educate myself!" they chanted. The girls receive support and protection to be able to resist pressures regarding circumcision.

In parallel, adults, both men and women, have also been taught. A former circumciser told that she is a midwife. She had never before seen what an uncircumcised adult woman's vulva looked like and how it functioned before she delivered her son's wife, who came from another tribe and was not circumcised. She was astonished by what she saw. "When I saw how easy her delivery was and how her vulva adapted to the child's head, I thought: Is this how it is intended to work? When Christianity came to the village, and they told that God created us as man and woman, I thought: Should we then cut apart what he has created? So now I have stopped performing circumcisions."

In this area, circumcisions have decreased by 80 percent.

Madam Speaker! This example needs to be spread. I want to emphasize that very much fine work is also being carried out by secular organizations, such as Plan International and Rädda Barnen.

We also visited a village where We Effect, with support from Act Svenska kyrkan, taught the villagers new cultivation methods that improved the harvests and were less sensitive to climate change. A loan via Oikos with a Swedish credit guarantee made it possible to deep-drill a well to get better water to wash the coffee beans in. The quality of the coffee beans improved, and they received more payment from the buyers. The women's efforts in production were made visible. They received an equal share of the profit as the men, and they gained economic empowerment. One family we visited could have built a house in stone with a sheet metal roof that withstands the rainy season better than mud houses. They had a couple of cows and goats that improved the diet and provided fertilizer for the crops. Their standard of living was radically improved.

So Swedish aid can combat poverty for real and reduce the vulnerability to climate change through product improvement and increased competitiveness and furthermore in a radical way improve women's empowerment and improve equality.

Madam Speaker! Swedish aid is among the five most generous in the world. We have great reason to be proud, but we cannot rest on our laurels. The needs in the world are endless. Let me remind you of the boy who walked on the beach and threw washed-up starfish back into the water. He realized that he could not save them all. But for those I save, it makes a difference, he said.

(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.

Of course, we must do everything we can to stop the horrific female genital mutilation; we are in complete agreement on that. It is an incredibly serious violation of women.

Equality is a core value for the government, but despite that, the important work for women, peace and security, i.e., the 1325 work, receives fewer resources and is not even mentioned in the government declaration. Equal countries are more peaceful and more democratic. Direct support to women's rights organizations and feminist organizations is the most effective way to increase equality in a country. Dismantling Sweden's international equality work now obviously has negative consequences.

Will the Christian Democrats in the government work to ensure that Sweden implements the agenda for women, peace and security in its entirety, with a focus on women's equal participation in decision-making regarding peace, security and conflict prevention?

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

Gudrun Brunegård (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the question!

As the member stated, women's and girls' rights and opportunities are one of the prioritized thematic areas in the government's reform agenda. Likewise, democracy support is one of our priorities, and in that complex, it naturally includes supporting women.

Just as in the example I told about in my speech, we saw during our study visit several examples of how women's empowerment has been strengthened in different ways regarding both economy and the right to their body, their life, their independence and their integrity. This is a work that we are proud of and that we absolutely want to continue to stimulate.

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the answer. However, beautiful words are not enough; it must also involve economic resources if we want to strengthen women's and girls' rights in various ways.

The fact is that the government is cutting back on the support for the important work with women, peace and security. It is a fact. This is deeply worrying, because it is incredibly important that women really get to participate in peace negotiations and so on regarding their own situation so that they can become active participants. It is an incredibly important security work. It is also important for developing the whole society so that it becomes more peaceful and democratic.

I ask therefore again: Will the Christian Democrats, in the government, work for Sweden to implement the agenda for women, peace and security in its entirety?

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

Gudrun Brunegård (KD)

Madam Speaker! I must admit that I have not noted that funds for that specific part have been withdrawn, but it is clear that one of the government's priority areas is to increase women's influence and equality in various ways.

I cannot answer in detail exactly how it looks, but I will find out.

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

Anna Lasses (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Gudrun Brunegård, for an important story!

I have a question concerning what is now happening in light of the US's stopped funds, especially for the large-scale investments that have been made on HIV assistance. It is a catastrophe on several levels.

First and foremost, patients risk developing resistance to the medicines after only a few weeks of interruption. It is a catastrophe for the individual, but it is also a catastrophe for global health, with the risk of resistance and spread of viruses.

Now I ask myself if you in the government parties are discussing this. How does one intend to counter the acute situation, and has one considered how it should be solved in the longer term?

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

Gudrun Brunegård (KD)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for an incredibly important question. I have myself worked as a nurse in Africa in an area where 5 percent of the population were HIV-positive and dependent on the medication that was needed to keep the infection in check so that it does not break out into a fulminant AIDS disease and to reduce the infection in contact with relatives and loved ones.

I have not managed to discern yet how the USA thinks, but I noted with relief that the day after the first announcement it was said that life-saving treatments will of course continue. Exactly how this will take place I do not know, but it is clear that we must push on.

The USA is the world's largest aid donor, and there will be catastrophic consequences. This concerns not only the HIV disease and the risk of spread but also other things.

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

Anna Lasses (C)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the answer. I understand that there is no elaborated answer on this, given that it is moving very fast now.

What I hear, at least from Gudrun Brunegård, is that this is an issue that at least Gudrun Brunegård will take with her. Hopefully, the governing parties will discuss the issue and take it further, in communication with the USA but perhaps especially within the EU, where one must consider this moving forward.

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

Gudrun Brunegård (KD)

Madam Speaker! If it so happens that the USA really follows through on what they have said and cuts back on aid significantly, it will change the entire world order when it comes to aid. The USA is the world's largest aid donor, and it is difficult to step in and cover all parts.

We need to discuss with our close allies, not least in the EU circle, as the member mentioned, and see which parts it is absolutely most necessary to cover. We shall not anticipate that process, but we will of course keep an eye on it.

We do not want HIV to spread across the entire world. We must be aware that in Africa, HIV is primarily spread heterosexually. It is therefore not isolated to the homosexual group, and through that, it achieves much greater spread in the population.

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

Jamal El-Haj (-)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for your fine speech!

A few months ago, Sydsvenskan reported on the last Christian family struggling to keep their land. For over 100 years, the Nassar family has owned and farmed their land outside Bethlehem, but the surrounding settlements are becoming larger and their inhabitants increasingly aggressive. Felled trees and stolen animals are now commonplace for the last Christian family in the area. A passage from the Bible is located at the entrance to the Nassar family's farm.

At the end of August last year, ten of the Christian Democrats' members of parliament went on a week-long trip to Israel. The trip was arranged by an Israeli settler organization that finances illegal settlement projects. The Christian Democrats say that they do not support the Israeli settlement policy. How does this add up? What is the member's perception?

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

Gudrun Brunegård (KD)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for an important question.

Just as my colleague Magnus Berntsson said in his speech earlier during the foreign policy debate, one must remember to keep two things in mind at the same time. We strongly criticize Israel's settlement policy.

I myself was on a trip to Palestine and the West Bank, but unfortunately, we could not get to Gaza due to the security situation. It was in January 2023. I visited the farm with the Christian family outside Bethlehem, and I am full of admiration for how they, despite the hatred and the resistance they experience and described when they visited the Riksdag shortly before Christmas, still manage to stand by their peaceful non-violence orientation.

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

Jamal El-Haj (-)

Madam Speaker! The Nassar family has received orders to demolish the entire farm 27 times, despite having papers showing that it is their land. Several times it has been about them having collected rainwater. For 32 years they have fought in an Israeli court to keep their land.

Amal Nassar tells: Because of the wall that runs through West Bank, we are completely cut off from Bethlehem. We get no electricity and no water here, and we are not given permission to run any cables.

Water is obtained by the family by collecting the rainwater that comes. But it is illegal for Palestinians to collect rainwater in Area C, which constitutes over 60 percent of the West Bank.

It is forbidden to collect rainwater in Israeli politics. How can the Christian Democrats accept that and furthermore visit settlers and support the settler policy that prevails?

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

Gudrun Brunegård (KD)

Madam Speaker! Firstly, I want to state that I have no information that my party colleagues visited settlers.

Secondly, I have visited this family, and I know how they struggle - with a non-violence orientation.

We do not defend the settlers' aggressive behavior towards Palestinians who have lived in the country for hundreds of years and who have papers for their properties. One must be able to see that both sides can make mistakes, and we do.

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

Emma Berginger (MP)

Madam Speaker! The world faces enormous challenges. War, the climate crisis, and authoritarian forces threaten the international order, human rights, and our collective security. But in the midst of this darkness, there is also a way forward – a way that is built on cooperation, solidarity, and respect for international law. We need to cooperate with like-minded democratic countries and stand up against authoritarian forces regardless of where they are located.

Madam Speaker! It has almost been three years since Russia launched its horrific, illegal, full-scale invasion of Ukraine in a war that claims lives and maims and injures both soldiers and civilians. The suffering and trauma of the war will take generations to heal.

The war is not only an attack on Ukraine but on international law, on democracy, and on the European security order. It is of crucial importance for the view of international law whether Putin's crimes pay off—if he is allowed to take land by military force. It is something that risks affecting very 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 contributing. Sanctions need to be tightened and Russia's revenues from oil and gas exports must be choked off.

That we help Ukraine defend itself is important for the security, democracy, and freedom of all of Europe. Sweden needs to be ready to, together with others, increase the support and invest long-term in Ukraine. The government's three-year framework for support needs to be extended and also include support to rebuild Ukraine.

Sweden shall be a strong voice to strengthen Ukraine's defense but also to ensure accountability for Russian war crimes and to prepare for a just reconstruction of the country.

Madam Speaker! We live in a time where democracy is in retreat in the world, where authoritarian powers are on the advance, and where international law and the rules-based world order based on the UN Charter are being challenged. But we know that the only way forward is through cooperation. No state can alone solve the climate crisis, manage conflicts, or meet the security threats of the future.

The EU is Sweden's most important foreign policy arena, as has been said here, and through EU cooperation we can exert influence. Through the EU, we can stand strong against authoritarian regimes, and through the EU, we can lead the green transition. Miljöpartiet wants to see a more ambitious and action-oriented EU where climate, democracy, and human rights are at the center.

We must also strengthen the UN. We see how great powers undermine the UN's work and ignore resolutions. Despite this, we must not give up the rules-based world order based on the UN Charter.

The government has reduced Sweden's core support to the UN, which is the wrong path to take at this time when we need to stand up for democracy and human rights and promote peace and détente.

Madam Speaker! The USA has been and is an important partner for Sweden and Europe. But the new presidential administration, with the unpredictable President Trump at the head, is leading the USA in a dangerous direction.

It is completely unacceptable to express oneself in the expansionist manner that the new US president does when he talks about Greenland, Canada, and the Panama Canal. That the USA threatens allies regarding territory is completely unreasonable and indefensible. It is something that we must clearly mark our opposition against. Denmark and Greenland decide for themselves, and using threats and violence to redraw land borders is what authoritarian leaders like Putin engage in.

Even Trump's statements about Gaza are completely unacceptable. Now that a fragile ceasefire has been achieved, he risks restarting the killing and further worsening the humanitarian catastrophe. A two-state solution where both Israelis and Palestinians can live in peace and security is the only reasonable solution, and in that case, Israel's occupation must cease. That the US president says he wants to take over Gaza and expel the Palestinians to create a Riviera is horrific and could constitute a crime against humanity.

What the world needs right now is cooperation and cohesion between democratic states. Europe needs the USA, but the USA also needs Europe. It is high time that President Trump practices a bit at cooperating with other countries.

Sweden must be an independent voice in foreign policy that clearly speaks out even when the one who is doing wrong is a great power we are allied with. We also need to build a more independent and sustainable security and foreign policy and reduce our dependence.

Even towards China, we need to reduce our dependence. We see how China is increasing its global influence, and China is an authoritarian state that challenges global security and the rules-based world order. It has continued a close cooperation with Russia during the ongoing war in Ukraine. Like so many authoritarian states, it also practices internal repression and oppression of minorities such as Uyghurs.

Sweden must, together with the EU, stand up for democracy and human rights. We must reduce our economic dependence on China and strengthen ties with Taiwan and other democratic states in the region.

Madam Speaker! In conclusion, I want to say that Sweden can and must be a global force for democracy, human rights, peace, and climate justice. It requires that we dare to stand up against authoritarian regimes and that we invest in cooperation and put climate and equality at the center of our foreign policy.

(Applause)

In this speech, Jacob Risberg (MP) agreed.

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

Mauricio Rojas (L)

Madam Speaker! Almost 8 million people have left Venezuela to seek protection and a better life, according to the United Nations refugee agency UNHCR. That is more than the around 6.5 million who have left Ukraine or Syria. This corresponds to a quarter of Venezuela's population. Never before has anything similar occurred in the Americas. As the European Parliament has noted, it concerns one of the largest displacement crises in the world.

This is the result of 25 years with a heavy-handed left-populist regime that is now a pure dictatorship. It has transformed a democratic country that was once the richest in Latin America, with the world's largest known oil reserves, into a bottomless pit of misery, desperation, and unfreedom. Only communist Cuba can compare with Venezuela in this regard.

Madam Speaker! On July 28, 2024, a presidential election was held in Venezuela. Already on election night, Nicolás Maduro was declared the winner by the government-controlled electoral authority without any documentation being presented to support such a result.

It was not believed that the result could be disproven, but the opposition had, through tens of thousands of election observers, obtained copies of or photographed most of the vote counting protocols from the polling stations. In that way, the election fraud could be proven beyond all reasonable doubt. The opposition's candidate, Edmundo González, had received almost 70 percent of the votes. Since then, a peaceful and very extensive mobilization of tens of thousands of Venezuelans both in Venezuela and around the world has been ongoing, demanding that the election result be recognized and that democracy be restored.

The regime's response has been violent.

A delegation from the United Nations already stated in September last year that an unparalleled oppression has plunged the country into an acute crisis for human rights. In a long report from October 2024, the same delegation described in detail the crimes against humanity that the regime has committed, including murder, torture, sexual assault, and thousands of arbitrary arrests, including of at least 150 children.

Madam Speaker! At the forefront of Venezuela's struggle for freedom stands the opposition leader Maria Corina Machado, who, together with Edmundo González in September last year, received the Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought from the European Parliament. The justification reads: "They represent all Venezuelans in and outside the country who are fighting for the restoration of freedom and democracy. The EU thus recognizes their unwavering commitment to freedom, human rights, and democratic principles and supports their struggle for a democratic future in Venezuela."

In the same month, the European Parliament recognized Edmundo González as the winner of the presidential election and Venezuela's next rightful president. On January 23, 2025, the European Parliament, in a new resolution, condemned Nicolás Maduro's grotesque installation ceremony as president on January 10 and urged more countries to recognize Edmundo González as the country's legitimate president.

Madam Speaker! Finally, I would like to ask the Swedish government to further intensify its important efforts aimed at supporting the people of Venezuela in the struggle to regain both freedom and democracy. At the same time, I would like to express my hope that more and more countries, including Sweden, will soon follow the European Parliament's resolution and give their official recognition to Edmundo González as Venezuela's elected and legitimate president.

(Applause)

In this speech, Fredrik Malm (L) agreed.

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

Jamal El-Haj (-)

Madam Speaker! Even though the member's speech was about Venezuela and Latin America, I would like to ask a question regarding Israel.

Israel's military is the strongest in the world. Israel has one of the world's most powerful air forces, which is even larger than Great Britain's. They have over 500 different variants of the F-16 aircraft and over 2,000 tanks. They are also said to possess 200-300 nuclear weapons, which gives them the capacity to destroy all Arab countries in just a few hours. Furthermore, Israel manufactures its own weapons and defense systems.

Despite this, a Liberal Member of Parliament has proposed that Sweden should sell weapons to Israel. However, I am pleased that the Liberals have rejected the proposal.

What does the member think about the proposal that Sweden should sell weapons to Israel?

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

Mauricio Rojas (L)

Madam Speaker! I truly regret what is happening to the Palestinian people. It is deeply tragic. I also do not accept Israel's policy in the occupied territories.

We have for a long time argued that the only solution is a two-state solution. But as my colleague Joar Forssell said earlier: There is no possibility for such a solution as long as terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah have weapons and power in certain areas of Palestine. I know that Member El-Haj, like myself, is concerned that terrorists have power over parts of the Palestinian territory.

That is how we can build up a peaceful situation between Israel and Palestine. Both states must be built up, but on democratic principles.

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

Jamal El-Haj (-)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Mauricio Rojas, for your support for Palestine! I am, of course, in favor of a negotiated two-state solution. Both Israelis and Palestinians shall be able to live in peace and harmony together. I hope that we agree on this.

My concern is that there are members in your party who want to sell weapons to Israel, even though Israel actually has nuclear weapons. Israel is one of the strongest countries in the region.

Then my question is what your perception is. Should it be done? Should Sweden be allowed to sell weapons to Israel? Can I get an answer on this?

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

Mauricio Rojas (L)

Madam Speaker! Whatever the liberal Members of Parliament say, they must stand by. One must discuss with them.

Our party's position is very clear. There is also Swedish legislation stating that you may sell weapons to certain countries but not others. Above all, we must cooperate with and sell weapons to democratic countries. I must unfortunately state that the only democracy that exists in the Middle East is Israel. I hope that Member El-Haj can enlighten me about other democracies in the Middle East. But I repeat: As long as Hezbollah, Hamas, and other terrorist organizations have power over parts of the Palestinian territory, there will be no possibility of peace or of a Palestinian state being built up.

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

Olle Thorell (S)

Madam Speaker! The world's richest man is taking on the world's poorest. Elon Musk and Donald Trump are now carrying out a catastrophic slaughter of international aid. The shutdown of USAID is a death blow to the world's vulnerable. Millions of people are left without food, medicine, and education.

Here in Sweden, we see a worrying development at the same time. The government has scrapped the policy for global development, PGU. They have eroded aid and de facto given up Agenda 2030. Sweden is abandoning the one percent goal and is on track to fall below the UN's recommendation of 0.7 percent of GNI for developed countries. It is shameful. We, one of the world's richest countries, are withdrawing when the needs in the world have never been greater.

At the same time, we see how the government uses Ukraine's struggle as an excuse to dismantle aid to the world's poorest. I want to be clear: Sweden shall provide all the support required for Ukraine. We shall stand by Ukraine as long as it is needed. But it must not become a pretext to cut aid to those living in famine or in conflict in South Sudan, Yemen, and Afghanistan. To pit the world's vulnerable against one another is not worthy of Swedish foreign policy. It is also short-sighted and unstrategic.

When the government abolished PGU, the policy that ensured all Swedish decisions would move in the same direction for a more just and sustainable world, it was claimed that Agenda 2030 would replace it. But in the foreign policy declaration presented today, Agenda 2030 is not mentioned with a single word. It is no coincidence. The government has simply lost interest in long-term development issues.

A review from the Riksdag's investigation service, which we have ordered, shows that the government's Agenda 2030 work is essentially erased. Previously, there were 15 concrete initiatives and 21 instructions to drive sustainable development. Now, only five initiatives and nine instructions remain.

This is a dramatic dismantling of Swedish development policy, and it is very worrying. What does it mean in practice? Well, that Sweden's voice in the world becomes quieter. We have been a reliable partner in the international community, a voice for democracy, human rights and development. But now we are reducing core support to the UN, cutting back on collaborations and hoping that others will take over.

But that is not what happens. Other forces are stepping forward. China and Russia are strengthening their roles in developing countries in an aggressive manner. When we also see how the USA turns inward and the EU struggles with its own crises, Sweden could take a greater responsibility, but instead, we do the opposite.

The government is also cutting back on development research, that is to say, that which gives us knowledge on how we best combat poverty and create sustainable development. Without research, aid becomes ineffective and is driven by short-term priorities instead of evidence. It is irresponsible and damages Sweden's international reputation.

We also see how Sweden and the government are abandoning important starting points in development policy. Instead of basing it on long-term development and proven research, they let the aid policy be shaped by protectionist and nationalist interests that the Sverigedemokraterna are driving.

But we Social Democrats have a different plan. We intend to take back the policy that the government has abandoned. We will re-establish a feminist foreign policy, and we will ensure that trade and development go hand in hand with workers' rights. We will pursue a foreign policy based on an enlightened Swedish interest that global development, sustainable societies, and democratic states of law are good for Sweden, not just narrow economic or migration policy self-interests.

We will strengthen Sweden's role in the UN and the EU, where we shall be a voice for justice, democracy and cooperation. We will return to a more balanced Middle East policy where we defend and take initiative for a two-state solution.

We Social Democrats will never give up the fight for a strong Swedish voice in the world. During the spring and the rest of the year, we will meet, among other things, a large number of aid and civil society organizations to develop our future aid policy. It is a policy that we will present in a year's time at next year's foreign policy debate in the election year 2026.

Madam Speaker! Sweden has for generations shown that solidarity knows no borders. Sweden has stood up for the oppressed, supported development and helped in crises. We have done so because we understand that our prosperity can never be built on the misery of others, that a safer world benefits us all. Being a humanitarian superpower is nothing to apologize for. It is part of who we are and who we should be, and it is a policy that we Social Democrats intend to carry forward.

(Applause)

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

Rasmus Giertz (SD)

Madam Speaker! The Middle East is a region that for centuries to a large extent has been characterized by recurring conflicts, political instability, and humanitarian crises. The complex composition of historical, cultural, and political factors in combination with widespread antisemitism has hindered the possibilities for lasting peace and stability in the region.

Iran, together with Russia and China, constitutes the axis of evil of our time. The wars in the Middle East have largely been a result of Iran's involvement. Iran has actively assisted Hamas and Hezbollah as well as provided support to the Houthi rebels in Yemen. Furthermore, Iran has carried out attacks against Israel with long-range weapons in a manner that is unparalleled in the region.

Madam Speaker! The Middle East's only functioning democracy, Israel, is the country that has most clearly taken up the fight against the Islamist theocracy Iran and its proxy warriors. Israel has a moral and legal right, as a home for the Jewish people after the Holocaust and after centuries of persecution, to defend itself against the world's worst terrorist organizations, which are also concentrated in its immediate vicinity.

Israel successfully defends not only its own country and people against these Islamist terror sects, who have as their stated goals to annihilate the Jewish state, but Israel also stands at the forefront in the defense of the free world against dictatorship, oppression, and Islamism. It is absolutely fundamental that the strong support we have seen for Israel continues and that all democratic forces join behind Israel's right to self-defense.

Madam Speaker! Since the Islamist terror group Hamas carried out the worst massacre of Jews since World War II on October 7, 2023, Israel has fought a defensive war for its existence. The Sweden Democrats have long warned of the risk and the threat of Islamism. It is something that Israel has now been hit by most severely, and the country is still fighting for its security and existence. It is absolutely fundamental that Israel has our clear support in the country's defense against this terror and antisemitism.

Even though Israel has taken extensive measures to minimize the number of civilian casualties, the death toll has been high, and the negotiated ceasefire that entered into force on January 19 is necessary to achieve an immediate release of the hostages and humanitarian access to alleviate distress and prevent further death. It is therefore very serious that Hamas is not following the agreement and returning the remaining hostages, thereby putting the entire negotiated ceasefire in jeopardy.

It is important to emphasize that there was a ceasefire before Hamas's attack on October 7. The democracy Israel has been forced to negotiate with an Islamist terrorist group, which now threatens to escalate the situation in the region again. Hamas must honor the entered agreement and immediately and unconditionally release the remaining hostages.

Madam Speaker! The Sweden Democrats have for a long time worked to revoke the recognition of Palestine and to move the Swedish embassy to Jerusalem. The hasty recognition of Palestine, which 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 behind it. The decision also lacked a basis in international law, and 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.

Madam Speaker! When it comes to the reconstruction of Gaza, it is central that Hamas cannot be a part of the reconstruction and that a state leadership in which Hamas is included cannot be regarded as legitimate. A recognition of Palestine with Hamas in a coalition government has already, even before the terror attack on October 7, been completely excluded for the Sweden Democrats. Even if it is the existence of states and not the composition of the government that is recognized, this is an additional complicating circumstance. Sweden's previous government should at least, in its recognition, have clearly distanced itself from Hamas and declared that Hamas cannot be seen as a legitimate party in a coalition government.

It is also crucial that the destruction of Hamas's infrastructure, such as tunnel systems and weapons depots etc., is a central part of the reconstruction and that ensuring that the infrastructure that is built in Gaza will not be able to be used for military purposes so that an attack like the one that occurred on October 7 never happens again.

(Applause)

In this speech, Daniel Lönn (SD) agreed.

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

Lorena Delgado Varas (V)

Madam Speaker! We stand today before a world where colonialism still shapes societies, economies, and living conditions. We must begin to speak plainly about the shadow of imperialism and the responsibility we have to break it. Let us therefore speak about Greenland, Congo, and Palestine, three countries where colonialism is highly relevant and where the people need our support and our solidarity.

Denmark has for centuries exploited Greenland's resources while the rights of the Inuit have been violated. The struggle for independence and against military installations and structural discrimination characterizes the everyday life for many Greenlanders.

Vänsterpartiet supports the Greenlandic people's right to self-determination, and we urge Sweden to take a clearer stand against the continued colonial control and to work to ensure that the people of Greenland can decide their own future without pressure from the USA or other countries.

Unfortunately, Greenland is not mentioned in the declaration. It is truly unfortunate that we cannot stand up for countries within the Nordic region. I think that we in the Swedish Riksdag can start by working to give Greenland full membership in the Nordic cooperation. We can also clearly signal to the USA that Greenland is not for sale.

Madam Speaker! In Congo, we see one of the world's worst humanitarian crises. It is no coincidence. Under Belgian rule, the country was dragged into one of the most brutal colonial regimes in history. Millions of people were murdered so that King Leopold and Belgium could enrich themselves. But it was not only Belgium that enriched itself, but also a number of companies from both Europe and the USA. And Sweden was the third most represented country in Leopold's army. It is something that is not addressed in our history books.

Imperialism did not end there, however. Large corporations and external actors, including Western governments, continue to exploit Congo's natural resources. Cobalt, gold, and diamonds are extracted at the expense of the local population, and armed groups are supported to serve external interests.

According to the Geological Survey of Sweden, we import approximately 350 tonnes of cobalt, mainly for the steel industry, and an additional 650 tonnes in the form of lithium batteries. A significant portion of that cobalt comes from Congo. The extraction is often associated with conflicts and human rights violations. Vänsterpartiet demands a radical reassessment of Sweden's and the EU's trade relations. We must put a stop to our contribution to this exploitation, and we must work for fair trade where it is the Congolese people and not international large corporations that benefit.

The link between colonialism and violence in Congo leads us directly to the question of Rwanda. The country has for many years been an actor in the Congolese conflict through support for armed groups and looting of natural resources. Despite this, Sweden has continued to provide aid to Rwanda's government. Several countries, including the Netherlands and Germany, have stopped their aid to Rwanda due to the country's role in the conflict. We in Vänsterpartiet demand that Sweden does the same. Swedish aid should not go to regimes that actively contribute to violence and exploitation.

Last but not least, I want to talk about Palestine. There, the genocide, the occupation, and the oppression continue. The genocide in Gaza and the systematic violations of international law by Israel show that colonialism is not past history. It is happening here and now.

We in the Left Party have always stood on the side of the Palestinian people in the struggle for self-determination. We demand that Sweden goes further than just making symbolic recognitions and instead actively pushes for sanctions against Israel. We want Sweden to put a stop to cooperation and trade with Israel and that our foreign policy is characterized by solidarity and respect for international agreements and courts.

We in Vänsterpartiet choose a foreign policy built on solidarity, anti-colonialism, and justice. We do not choose a foreign policy designed to appease great powers or large economic interests. The people in Greenland, Congo, and Palestine have the right to shape their future in freedom, and it is our responsibility to act.

(Applause)

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 difficult security policy period and the uncertain global situation in which we find ourselves. In that, we shall focus primarily on peace, freedom and security, as well as on defending our interests and values.

My colleagues Magnus Berntsson and Gudrun Brunegård have in a meritorious manner accounted for important parts of our foreign and aid policy issues. In my speech, I will focus on another important area that we Christian Democrats have for a long time worked with in this chamber: religious freedom and the persecution of religious minorities.

Freedom of religion and belief is a fundamental human right. But violations of freedom of religion are widespread in our world, and we can observe that in many countries there has been a negative development in recent years. About 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. This prevents people from living in freedom. It works against equal, peaceful, and democratic societies and contributes many times to a life in poverty and vulnerability.

The persecution of Christians is particularly extensive and has increased in recent years. The international human rights organization Open Doors publishes a list every year of the 50 countries where the persecution of Christians is greatest. The list for 2025 was published a few months ago and shows that it has worsened and intensified. Approximately 380 million Christians, or one in seven Christians on earth, are subjected to persecution because of their faith. This means that Christians are the largest persecuted religious group in the world. This can be compared with about ten years ago when the corresponding figure was 100 million. It is a very dramatic deterioration in just ten years.

Despite this extensive and extreme persecution, the issue of religious freedom has played an almost non-existent role in Sweden's foreign and development policy in previous years. It is something that we Christian Democrats have focused on for a very long time.

With us in the government, it will make a difference. In foreign affairs and especially in aid issues, this has taken a clearly prominent role. We are also working so that Sweden will appoint an ambassador or a special envoy for religious freedom, something that several other EU countries have already done.

Madam Speaker! I will also speak about the Middle East, where Christians risk disappearing from their countries of origin and the cradle of Christianity. After decades of conflict and instability in the Middle East, the region has begun to undergo significant changes. With a weakened Hezbollah and a newly elected president in Lebanon, the fall of the Assad regime in Syria, and a diminished Iranian influence in the region, the Middle East faces a potentially historic shift.

For the Christian minorities, who have historically been subjected to severe persecution, the last two decades have been devastating. The Christian population in Iraq and Syria has decreased by nearly 80 percent and risks disappearing from their historical areas of origin. Damascus was the capital of the ancient Aramaic kingdom as early as 1000 BC, and the Aramaic language was the lingua franca in the region. It was also later the language spoken by Jesus, and it is still used by Syrians, Assyrians, Chaldeans, and others. These groups thus have over 3,000 years of history in the region. They therefore constitute its indigenous peoples and should also be recognized as such.

For the Christian ethnic groups in Syria, the recent events mean uncertainty but also a certain hope. One needs to navigate a new political reality that can hopefully lead to a democratic and inclusive governance. The EU, Sweden and others need to engage in Syria and work for a democratic and inclusive governance as well as a new constitution that guarantees all Syrians, including minorities, the same rights, so that Christians and other ethnic groups can contribute to the country's development as an integrated part of the Syrian people.

In these uncertain times, it is important that Sweden's strong foreign policy voice is heard and that Sweden continues to engage for the weak and the vulnerable. In that work, freedom of religion is an important part. We need to continue to ensure that this is included in the foreign policy, the aid policy, and the agreements that Sweden and the EU sign with the rest of the world.

(Applause)

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

Ulrika Westerlund (MP)

Madam Speaker! We are currently seeing a global retreat for human rights. Authoritarian forces are taking hold in more and more countries, and rights that we previously took for granted are being questioned and rolled back. Women's rights are being restricted, LGBTQI people are being persecuted, and the position of minorities is being weakened. This is a development that we must resist with strength, clarity, and solidarity.

Madam Speaker! It is nothing new for anyone in this room that Trump in the White House means bad news for the rest of the world. The Trump administration has reintroduced the so-called global gag rule, which prohibits aid from the USA from going to any actors who in any way work with abortion or reproductive rights, which also in practice prevents work concerning access to contraceptives, maternal care, HIV prevention and so on. The USA has also withdrawn its support for the UN Population Fund and left the World Health Organization. Now Trump has also shut down USAID. This is a development that has catastrophic consequences for the world's poorest, especially women and girls.

There are opportunities here for Sweden to step up. When the world takes steps backward, Sweden must move forward. Equality is the key to sustainable development and poverty reduction. With a reintroduced feminist foreign policy for peace, justice, and climate, Sweden can contribute to improving the lives of millions of women. Australia has recently raised its ambitions in its international equality work under the leadership of Foreign Minister Penny Wong. Sweden should do the same.

But Swedish aid policy is undergoing drastic change under the government's reform agenda. Among other things, all support to Unaids has been withdrawn. For over two decades, Sweden has been a leading actor in the global work against HIV and AIDS, but now the government seems to want to put the necessary work on the shelf.

The government's decision to withdraw support to Unaids threatens vital interventions to combat the disease and the stigma and discrimination that often follow in its wake. Unaids plays a crucial role in coordinating international work to stop the spread of HIV and ensuring that those most at risk of having the virus transmitted, such as girls and young women, hbtqi persons and people who receive compensation for sex, get access to care and preventive interventions.

Cutting the support does not only mean that Sweden is betraying its long-standing commitment to global health and human rights, but also that we are contributing to a development where more people are infected with the HIV virus and more lives are lost. Trump's unfortunate decisions regarding aid make it even more central that other states step forward and take responsibility. Sweden must reinstate the support to Unaids. To do anything else would be unacceptable.

Madam Speaker! All around the world, people are persecuted, harassed, and discriminated against solely because of their sexual orientation and their gender identity. In seventy countries, same-sex relations are completely prohibited. International support for those who work with the rights of hbtqi persons is crucial for many organizations.

In the autumn, I had the privilege of participating in the world conference of the international LGBTQ+ umbrella organization ILGA. This was just after the presidential election in the USA, and the topic of conversation was obvious. Especially the delegates from the USA were very clear that the risk was great that during the coming four years we would experience a world that we have not seen before.

Now Trump has taken office, and their fears have become reality. The new president has taken a number of measures, both national and international, aimed at restricting rights and hindering the work for the right to health. We have probably not yet seen the end of this. Unfortunately, Trump's second presidential term coincides with a time when several other countries, which had previously been major donors in aid cooperation where hbtqi persons' rights have been in focus, have chosen to scale back their efforts.

In this time, it is even more central that Sweden chooses to stand up, both with money and concrete commitments and in words. What is said in Sweden and by Swedish politicians may perhaps not have as great an impact as what is said by Trump. But the government can rely on the fact that the world's hbtqi people will listen and expect Sweden to continue to be a strong voice and a strong ally. We in Miljöpartiet will also expect this. In the government basis, there are representatives who oppose hbtqi people's rights. Therefore, clarity from the government's representatives is even more important.

(Applause)

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Madam Speaker! I have just returned from Ukraine. It is painful to see the enormous hardships that the Ukrainian population is now living under. At the same time, it is incredible what courage and what heroism the Ukrainian population shows in resisting the Russian aggression.

We must understand that for Russia, this is not about the Crimean Peninsula, Donetsk and Luhansk. It is about wanting to crush the Ukrainian state, the infrastructure, the economy, the population and the identity. They want to make the Ukrainian nation a historical parenthesis. Simply put, they deny the Ukrainians the right to have a Ukrainian identity.

Madam Speaker! It is very important that we understand this imperialism. For a long time, Russia has had a political mentality in its leadership that is similar to the way Islamists think and reason - a territory that was once controlled by Russia should always be. Land violations are not accepted.

We can look at this historically. In 1917, at the end of the First World War, Vladimir Lenin and his comrades carried out a coup d'état in Petrograd. Their goal was to gain control over Russia, but also to at all costs take Russia out of the First World War, because the Eastern Front, that is, Russia's western front, was bleeding.

It led to a peace in the spring of 1918 in March in Brest-Litovsk where Russia ceded large land areas. Suddenly, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Finland were ceded a few months earlier, Ukraine, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan and so on. All these areas that previously had been Russian saw the light of day and became independent states.

Then Germany capitulated in the autumn, which meant that the peace no longer applied. Vladimir Lenin and his accomplices in the Bolshevik regime immediately set to work trying to retake those areas.

One had previously intervened in the Finnish Civil War and supported the red side there. Now, one waged war in Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. One attacked Poland and Warsaw in 1920. One fought in Ukraine and incorporated Ukraine into the Soviet Union so that it became a Soviet republic. In Baku, the Red Army's armored cars and tanks rolled in in August 1920. Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Georgia were incorporated again into the Russian Empire.

But there were some countries that escaped the Russian ravages then. It was Finland, which managed to keep its freedom. It was Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland. They got away. They kept their independence.

What did the Soviet Union do then? Well, then they waited until the Second World War began. They attacked Finland in the Winter War, carved up Poland in a pact with Hitler, and then occupied Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania and re-incorporated them.

Then the Russian Empire was intact once again. It was only that it was Bolshevik-communist instead of as before tsar-fascistoid. It was NKVD and KGB that the security service was called instead of Okhrana, but otherwise it was the same thing.

Then we go forward to 1990. Then the Soviet Union collapsed, and then these countries became independent again. It was Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. It was Ukraine, Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan. But Russia did not accept this.

What we are seeing now is that Georgia was attacked and parts of Georgia were occupied. Armenia was betrayed in practice in a way that caused Armenia to suffer an ethnic cleansing from Nagorno-Karabakh because the Armenians wanted to take a different path than Russia. They have launched a full-scale attack and attacked Ukraine in what could ultimately lead to a genocide and a nuclear war.

If the rest of the world in this situation tries to impose a peace on Ukraine that gives Ukraine nothing in return, it means that one freezes the conflict approximately where the front lines lie now. Russia will stockpile and continue to mobilize while the rest of the world will tell Ukraine that they do not need as many weapons now, because now there is peace. Then Russia will attack Ukraine again after one and a half years or two years. Or we will get a development where Russia instead goes against some other country where their independence is not accepted.

Madam Speaker! What we must understand is that the imperialism and colonialism that we see from the Russian side is based on a notion that Russia must be ruled autocratically and that Russia can take it upon itself to attack, to dominate, to insult, to wage hybrid warfare and so on against its neighboring countries. We see this in Sweden all the time. We see, for the most part every day, how Russia acts towards us, and we have never been a part of the Russian Empire.

Madam Speaker! When we look at our own history, we know everything we have gone through historically, and we know about the Western world's colonialism and imperialism. A previous speaker here mentioned Congo, for example. It is very important that we look at our own history in the Western world.

But we must also understand to include Russian colonialism and imperialism in that context. Colonialism and imperialism are not solely something that the Western world has engaged in. It is to a large extent something that Russia has engaged in. It does not matter whether it is under Vladimir Putin's regime, if it was during the Soviet Union with Stalin, Lenin, Brezhnev, Khrushchev and so on, or if it was under the old tsar empire. Therefore, Ukraine must win this war.

(Applause)

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

Linnéa Wickman (S)

Madam Speaker! The year 2025 is a jubilee year for the global struggle for equality. International Women's Day celebrates 50 years. 30 years ago, the Beijing Platform for Action, the most progressive global action plan for women's rights, was adopted with the support of 189 countries. 25 years ago, UN resolution 1325 on women, peace, and security was decided. 15 years ago, UN Women was formed.

But at the same time as we celebrate the progress, we also face an ever-strengthening opposition. Girls' and women's rights are being questioned and blocked by backward-looking forces. This makes it even more important to defend the international agreements. The Beijing Conference led to more countries criminalizing violence against women. For the first time, we received comprehensive statistics on gender-based violence. Women's role in peace processes was highlighted. It paved the way for resolution 1325.

But this jubilee year for equality is also characterized by new and stronger threats. Sweden and the international community will need to act forcefully against this. We have a historical task to shoulder for the millions of girls and women who live under the harshest of oppressions under repressive regimes such as in Iran and Afghanistan, and for the women who are hit hardest in wars and conflicts in Gaza, Ukraine, eastern Congo, and Sudan.

But it also concerns those women who now see their own empowerment diminish when the Trump administration, with the world's richest man at the helm, reintroduces the global gag rule. When the world's largest aid country, the USA, prohibits aid organizations from even informing about safe abortions, it means that millions of women lose access to contraceptives, maternal care, and HIV prevention.

Only during the days that the USA has stopped the aid has the International Planned Parenthood Federation had to shut down health services and services for millions of girls, women, young people and hbtqi-persons in 13 countries in Africa and Asia. It is aid that will not come back. The consequences are almost unfathomable.

We know that the result will be more unsafe and dangerous abortions, unwanted pregnancies and deaths. Girls, women and hbtqi-people pay the price when well-funded alliances of value-conservative, nationalist movements undermine the right to one's own body and health.

Sweden and like-minded countries must increase support for the UN and civil society organizations. When Trump last sat in the White House, Sweden acted under the Social Democratic-led government. We must do that again. The government cannot stand passive when women's rights are threatened.

Madam Speaker! The Sverigedemokraternas and the government's decision to deprioritize equality in foreign policy is a historical mistake. It is not enough to call equality a core value if the policy is simultaneously being worsened. Feminist foreign policy has been abolished.

The global equality ambassador has disappeared. The support to Unaids has been removed. The core support to the UN Population Fund is decreasing. The Swedish female mediation network has been shut down. The government's aid framework makes equality a matter of relevance instead of a self-evident part of all work. A clear action plan for equality is missing.

At the same time, the UN and civil society organizations are struggling to fill the funding gaps following the Trump administration's policies. But they cannot do it alone. Act, the Church of Sweden, and RFSU have urged the government to act and unite like-minded countries to stop the setbacks. The government must step forward. I wonder: What is the plan to defend global equality? Despite countless debates and questions month after month, we receive no answer.

Madam Speaker! The world we want to live in is not an uncertain and dangerous world where authoritarian forces and the law of the strongest shall be allowed to dictate the terms for democracy and human rights.

We see in Gaza and on the West Bank how Israel's government violates the principles of international law. Impunity for abuses against Palestinians is spreading. In Western Sahara, the Sahrawis are being deprived of their right to self-determination. In Georgia, people demonstrate bravely month after month against authoritarian developments and Russian-inspired laws. We who were on site as international election observers during the autumn elections can attest that it was a democratic deficit that characterized the parliamentary elections.

Oppression, occupation and violence always hit the most vulnerable hardest. When democracy retreats, it is women, girls and hbtqi persons who pay the highest price. It is a clear pattern, but it is something we can never accept.

We must not waver when others hesitate. We must not retreat into the future. Now is the time to raise our ambitions.

(Applause)

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

Markus Wiechel (SD)

Madam Speaker! We find ourselves in a particularly alarming time globally, where we see an increasingly clear cooperation between the rogue states Iran, Russia, China, and North Korea. These nations continuously challenge the values and principles that the world's democracies stand for, including respect for human rights, sovereignty, and international law. Through their growing cooperation, both economically and militarily, they strive to upset the international world order and strengthen their own authoritarian regimes.

We must not forget that there is an unpleasant but tangible risk that we ourselves will be in a war within just a few years. It will then be extra important that we continue our generous support to Ukraine when we see how important donors like the USA potentially waver in their support. Furthermore, the USA has now chosen to leave its leadership role in the Ramstein Group, which gathers the states that support Ukraine militarily.

Ukraine is fighting heroically against the Russian aggression, and the Ukrainians' resistance defends not only their own freedom but also Europe's security and stability. Furthermore, it is extremely important that we strengthen cooperation between the world's free states and other democracies around the world. If we take Asia as an example, I am speaking of everything from well-developed democracies such as Taiwan, South Korea and Japan to countries such as India and Mongolia.

For Sweden, it is crucial that our role in Nato, which we have now been a part of for nearly a year, is active and constructive. Our membership in Nato strengthens our national security and contributes to the collective defense capability within the alliance. As a country in a strategically important region, we must demonstrate our commitment through active participation in the political cooperation within Nato and by contributing our unique knowledge and innovations within the defense industry. Nato is today the primary guarantor of security in the free world.

It is also of great importance that we work for a democratic change in Belarus, whose regime, as is known, belongs to the sphere surrounding the previously mentioned countries in the axis of evil. The Belarusian population has long lived under a repressive rule, and their struggle for democracy and freedom deserves international support. I am therefore immensely proud that we, from the Sweden Democrats' aid foundation Hepatica, are now participating in and supporting the diplomatic activities carried out by the democratic opposition under Sviatlana Tsichanouskaya.

Madam Speaker! Nearly two years ago, the Riksdag voted yes to the Sweden Democrats' motion to blacklist the Islamic Revolutionary Guard IRGC. Since then, the government has actively taken a stand to pursue this line, and has worked to create a consensus around this within the EU circle. With reference to a lack of legal basis, the process has however been difficult, but now we see light at the end of the tunnel as, after several interesting indictments, we now also have a final judgment in Düsseldorf that can be used as a legal basis. I therefore assume that the Foreign Minister and the government are doing their utmost to follow up on this.

Something else worth repeatedly highlighting is the Islamic Republic's extensive intelligence work in Sweden, which the Security Service (Säkerhetspolisen) can testify to. They engage in espionage and influence operations.

Regarding the latest, it was not long ago that we could follow TV4's revelation about how the Middle East chief of the Institute of Foreign Policy has been a part of and participated in a regime-loyal network, formed by the Islamic Republic's Ministry of Foreign Affairs. It concerns individuals who have had the task of influencing the West in favor of the Iranian rogue regime. For several of us who have long been involved in these issues, the revelations about this person are far from surprising. I therefore assume that the government takes the necessary measures.

The Islamic Republic's intelligence gathering is systematic and extensive. We know that it takes place through its base Imam Ali Islamic Center in Järfälla and through the embassy in Lidingö. Even here, I assume that the government is acting.

Madam Speaker! Even though I see the substantial improvements in foreign policy in general that have occurred when we have moved from a Social Democratic government to a Moderate-led government, I cannot emphasize strongly enough the catastrophic handling of the prisoner exchange last year.

I am, of course, very happy that Swedish kidnapped citizens have been allowed to return to Sweden, but the way it happened was beyond all criticism. Suddenly, every Swede has been made into a potential target that the Iranian villain regime can kidnap in order to get its way. In addition, a person who is guilty of despicable crimes has been released only to then be hailed as a hero.

Last but not least, Madam Speaker, I thought I would speak a little about Syria, given that this has been touched upon earlier in today's debate. Everyone who has followed my involvement in this issue knows that both before and after the study visit I made to the country, I have clearly condemned the Assad regime and all the crimes Assad has committed. Our trip was strictly humanitarian and was characterized by study visits to UN bodies and the like. It is therefore nothing strange to then criticize the terrorist sect that has now taken power in the country and simultaneously mention that a dictator cannot be replaced with a terrorist sect.

(Applause)

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

John E Weinerhall (M)

Madam Speaker! The world is now 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 against Ukraine from the Russian side has been raging for nearly three years.

At the same time as the war rages in Europe, dark clouds are also gathering in other parts of the world. In many places in the world, we see conflicts, unrest, and the 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 authoritarian states repeatedly challenge it. This applies to Russia, communist Mainland China, Iran and North Korea to name a few. They are all authoritarian states with clear power ambitions both economically and militarily.

To meet the threat, 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. Sweden's membership in the Western defense alliance Nato constitutes a fundamental cornerstone here, just as the EU constitutes our most important foreign policy forum.

At the same time, Madam 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 welcome that most European countries are now strengthening their defense and contributing to the fact that we can together deter and, if necessary, 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 that is on the offensive demands everyone's vigilance. Chinese actions in the South China Sea, with its claims to virtually the entire sea as well as its annexations of island groups, cause great concern. Beijing's nine-dash line lacks a legal basis and encroaches on the neighboring countries' territorial waters. The passages in the South China Sea are immensely important for global trade - 50 percent of all transports across the oceans pass through there. Furthermore, it is estimated that there are large natural resources in the form of oil and gas in the area.

To this also come Mainland China's pressures and recurring threats against Taiwan with its actions in the Taiwan Strait. I do not even need to mention the importance of the availability of semiconductors. There are therefore both major economic and security policy aspects that play a role in the region.

Furthermore, regarding mainland China, I want to address its treatment of minorities, for example, the Tibetans in non-autonomous Tibet and the Uyghurs in Xinjiang. It is obviously morally reprehensible. China is guilty of cultural genocide, environmental destruction, and oppression of individual rights.

It is not only ethnic minorities that are severely affected by cultural and religious persecution; it also applies to China in large. Political freedom is almost completely curtailed, freedom of the press is abolished, and cultural censorship is very extensive. The imprisoned Swedish citizen, the author and publisher Gui Minhai, is just one example of this.

Madam 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 promoting human rights. We shall, of course, continue to do that. It is important that Sweden is a clear voice and that we collectively in the EU work to ensure that narratives from China and Russia, together with the rest of the axis of evil, do not gain a foothold.

I would now like to speak about another one of these powers of evil that pose a great threat to our world order, and that is Iran. The terror regime does not only oppress its own population, which is bad enough, but they use their proxies in Hamas and Hezbollah as well as the Houthi rebels so that these shall run the regime's errands in the Middle East. Furthermore, they use gang criminals here in Sweden to commit state terrorism, including against Jewish and Israeli targets in our country. This we can never allow. The government is also working to ensure that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard is listed as a terror organization in the European Union.

Above all China, but also Russia, have 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 conscious investments must always be a better alternative than Chinese debt traps. We must be long-term and appeal to the good forces that, despite the miserable world we live in, still exist and even gain ground in some places.

Mr. Speaker! The Swedish commitment to an order where justice takes precedence over power must continue both in our immediate vicinity and across the entire world.

(Applause)

In this speech, Gustaf Göthberg (M) agreed.

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

Tomas Eneroth (S)

Mr. Speaker! The world's richest man, Elon Musk, sponsored Donald Trump's election campaign with 270 million dollars. Since then, Musk has become 150 billion richer as a result of some investments that the new administration has made. He has also received his own department, Doge. Now he spends all his time cutting support to the most vulnerable. He starts with USAID, the world's largest donor of aid, and shuts it down in just a few weeks.

The world's richest man attacks the world's poorest people. Is there any clearer way to illustrate the new greed than this?

It is outrageous, but it is actually not surprising. The world's five richest men have doubled their wealth since 2020. At the same time, 5 billion people across the world have become poorer. This is shown in Oxfam's latest report on the world's economic development. The pandemic, inflation, the recession, and a growing number of conflicts in the world have led to sharply increasing inequalities, while the opportunities to build own systems for financing, taxation, and welfare construction have decreased in many of the world's countries, not least as a result of the debt accumulation that has occurred where sometimes up to 60 percent of small, poor states' expenditures are now debt interest.

We have also seen the emergence of tax-free zones that pressure countries to almost subsidize establishments from international companies. We have also seen an increasing extent of tax evasion. Calculations show that hundreds of billions disappeared in tax evasion in Europe alone during 2022. In the developing countries, it concerns up to 1,700 billion kronor - money that could have been used to build up countries through investments in healthcare, education and infrastructure.

This is a development that has led to a strong concentration of economic power. 1 percent of the world's richest now own 43 percent of all global financial assets. Within the corporate sector, we see an increased concentration of power. Many of the world's markets are now dominated by only a few large international companies. A few extremely wealthy individuals now have both economic and, in the case of Elon Musk, political power to an extent that was not previously possible.

The increasing inequality in the world contributes to increasingly worse conditions for solving the truly great challenges - the challenge to democracy, climate change, and poverty. We can see that the conditions for reaching international agreements have deteriorated.

Sweden previously drew a lot of international attention to this. We have demanded measures against tax evasion and international tax havens but also taken our own initiatives, for example Global Deal which Stefan Löfven was able to present in 2016 together with the OECD and Canada's Prime Minister. We have had an active work with ILO's conventions. Sweden has been a driving force in creating international justice and equality.

This has spread internationally. In the World Bank's and the IMF's various support packages, both climate actions and issues regarding long-term social sustainability are now included. In the G20, this group consisting of a large part of the world's most powerful countries, they have partly developed a framework for a fair global corporate taxation, and partly as recently as this summer adopted a declaration with the ambition to tax the very richest.

In their statement, the G20 countries say that "wealth and income inequalities undermine economic growth and social cohesion and exacerbate social vulnerability." It is a progressive text that the Swedish government, unfortunately, may not live up to. The G20 countries are therefore daring to take a stand when they see the extreme gaps emerging because they long-term threaten growth and development in the world.

There are proposals that take the international goals for equality and sustainability further into joint action plans, such as taking responsibility for debt cancellation through joint commitments between the world's countries. Act Svenska kyrkan and many other organizations in Sweden and the world are conducting large campaigns and efforts to increase understanding of this, and I think it is pleasing that this is happening in large multilateral and international forums.

But in Sweden, we now have a government that has used this mandate period to lower aid, terminate aid projects in several countries, reduce core support to the UN, and counter climate financing efforts at the COP meetings. They have hardly put issues of the widening gaps in the world or poverty reduction primarily on the agenda.

In the foreign policy declaration that we heard earlier today, it became quite clear that Sweden no longer has the ambition to be a voice and an actor in the world for equality, parity or poverty reduction, this in stark contrast to the proposals that we in the opposition parties have, not least the Social Democratic proposal for an equality commission.

Now, the G20 meeting is coming up soon, and Sweden has been invited. I believe it is on February 27-28. The theme for that G20 meeting, which is held in South Africa, is solidarity, equality, and sustainability. It might be appropriate if Sweden's government went there with an agenda and doesn't just say "it was nice to come forward" but actually seriously takes the lead in the international discussion on global justice. That would impress the global south. It would increase the interest for European countries to also see what is happening on the African continent, not just China and Russia. That would be smart politics. That would be wise politics. Sweden can do better!

(Applause)

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

Björn Söder (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The European security order has been disrupted, and the entire rules-based world order is undergoing a transformation. In recent years, we have seen a dramatic change in the global security situation, where the axis of evil - China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea - are actively destabilizing the world.

China threatens Taiwan daily through military escalation and economic pressure. Sweden should not only continue but also deepen its cooperation with Taiwan. It is time that we recognize Taiwan as an independent state and strengthen and develop full bilateral diplomatic relations.

We must also not turn a blind eye to China's abuses against minorities. The regime commits systematic human rights violations, occupies Tibet and East Turkestan, and exerts oppression against Tibetans, Uyghurs, and other ethnic groups. Sweden and the Western world must actively reduce their dependence on China and, at every opportunity, condemn its abuses and occupations.

North Korea continues to threaten the world with its nuclear weapons program. The country's unpredictable leadership creates uncertainty far beyond the Korean Peninsula.

The mullahs in Iran continue to terrorize their own population and threaten the rest of the world. We see how the regime not only spreads its ideology globally but also influences Sweden by using gang criminals for its purposes. This must be condemned forcefully, and we should ensure that the rest of the world isolates the regime both diplomatically and economically.

The Russian aggression against Ukraine will soon enter its fourth year. Ukraine's population has shown a courage and determination that inspires the entire free world. We are pleased with the Swedish consensus on the support for Ukraine, but we must not rest on our laurels; we must continue to provide both humanitarian as well as economic and military support.

At the same time, we see that the Central Asian countries, with Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan at the forefront, are striving for increased independence from Russia. This is a unique opportunity for Sweden and the EU to strengthen cooperation in the region, which can benefit both us and the Central Asian countries economically and politically.

Within the OSCE's Parliamentary Assembly, we in the Swedish delegation have taken the initiative within the Nordic-Baltic group to deepen the contacts and relations between our regions.

Mr. Speaker! In the southern Caucasus, the situation remains unstable. Azerbaijan continues to hold political Armenian prisoners and refuses to grant them fair trials. Most recently, we have been able to see how a group of illegally detained Armenians from Artsakh, including the republic's prime ministers, following Azerbaijan's invasion and ethnic cleansing, have been subjected to political trial proceedings in Baku. Sweden must put pressure on Azerbaijan to ensure human rights and fair processes.

In Georgia, we see an extremely worrying development, and it is deeply regrettable that the country finds itself in an unstable situation with a strongly polarized society. I hope that Georgia continues its path towards EU membership, for it is in Europe that the country belongs.

Since the fake election in Belarus at the end of last month, the dictator Lukashenko has continued his terror. We must give our full support to the democratic opposition and the rightful president Sviatlana Tsichanouskaya. The Belarusian opposition is a strong example for all democratic opposition movements around the world, and I am proud that the Sweden Democrats' foundation Hepatica is so engaged and active in its support. Among other things, they work to strengthen Belarus' people's embassies in their work.

Mr. Speaker! The Middle East is still characterized by instability and unrest. Israel must receive the support the country needs in its fight against the terrorist organizations Hamas and Hezbollah. It is frightening to see how individuals on Swedish streets and squares openly support terrorism. This cannot and must not be accepted. Sweden must take decisive action and ensure that those who support terror do not have a place in our society.

The conflict in the Middle East has now been ongoing for nearly 80 years. We must realize that new thinking is required to find a solution to bring an end to this conflict. It will therefore be interesting to follow how President Trump will now act. During his previous presidential term, he successfully managed to secure agreements on the normalization of relations between Israel and four Arab countries.

Mr. Speaker! In Latin America, we see how communist regimes, for example in Cuba and Venezuela, continue to oppress their own people. Unfortunately, the EU continues to finance the Cuban regime through the political dialogue and cooperation agreement. I am pleased that the Swedish government, following my pressure, is now working to achieve a review of this agreement. But we need more EU countries on our side. It is nothing but hypocrisy that the EU continues its cooperation with and financing of the Cuban regime while this regime sends soldiers to Russia to fight against Ukraine.

In summary, Mr. Speaker, we face a time of great security policy challenges. It requires determination, clarity, and unity to meet the threats from these authoritarian regimes. Sweden has an important role to play in the international community, and we must actively work to defend freedom, democracy, and human rights worldwide.

(Applause)

In this speech, Erik Hellsborn and Markus Wiechel (both SD) agreed.

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

Katarina Tolgfors (M)

Mr. Speaker! Solidarity is a word that has long been hijacked by the left in Sweden. I would like to begin today's speech by saying something that I have experienced as solidarity during the past week. Sweden and the rest of the world have shown strong solidarity with my hometown Örebro after the terrible events and the consequences of the act of madness that was committed last week. For that, I would like to express my warmest thanks.

Mr. Speaker! We are here to discuss and debate Sweden's foreign policy.

Sweden's Moderate-led government is now implementing a clear shift in Swedish foreign policy, and an important part is the reforming of aid. The world is changing, and so are the global challenges. The rules-based world order is under threat. The need for humanitarian support and support for developing countries is great. Therefore, it is important that we ensure that the generous aid that Sweden provides truly reaches the right places and achieves the best possible results for those who need it most.

The aid budget amounts to 56 billion kronor per year during the period 2024 to 2026. That was also the average that the Social Democratic government's aid policy gave in Swedish kronor calculated during the eight years they were in government. It was even lower than that during certain years, depending on the economic situation and indexation.

The goal is to create order and clarity in the aid system and ensure that every tax krona provides maximum benefit and reaches where the support is most needed.

Mr. Speaker! As a consequence of more and more authoritarian states gaining ground, we unfortunately see more and more examples of how equality and human rights for girls and women are in retreat. In several countries, women's and girls' rights to both schooling and abortion have been rolled back.

In Afghanistan, women and girls are systematically oppressed, and they have limited opportunities to participate in society. In Iran, morality police patrol, and as a woman, you can be murdered if you do not wear a veil.

In our immediate vicinity, the horrors of war for the civilian population in Ukraine are still ongoing. Abuses continue as part of Russia's warfare even though the media's spotlight is now turning towards other parts of the world.

I have said it before from this rostrum and also want to remind today of the humanitarian support that through UN Women has contributed to a total of approximately 76,000 women and girls in Ukraine having received help through the safe space center which offers women psychological, humanitarian and social services and support.

I recently visited the Philippines. There, the number of teenage pregnancies is increasing, and mostly in the ages of 12-14 years. Of those infected with HIV in the Philippines, 47 percent are teenagers. We were able to visit a project that Sweden is involved in financing through the EU. It was a good example of how Swedish and European aid money makes a direct difference in the field. The project is called Park Avenue Initiative, and it involves professionals and volunteers in a geographically defined neighborhood informing the population in just this area about SRHR, sexual and reproductive health and rights for girls and women, and family planning. In the area, there is also a women's clinic where people can turn for questions regarding health and reproductive health for women as well as family planning.

Mr. Speaker! Let me move on to Latin America, which was recently visited by Foreign Minister Maria Malmer Stenergard. It is a region with economic development, but it is also a strongly religious region with religious actors who have great power and a great responsibility when it comes to enabling equality and SRHR rights.

Here, Sweden's work, together with other Nordic countries, plays an important role in cooperating regarding development and trade but also in fostering dialogue to counter a regression of equality and sexual and reproductive rights.

Mr. Speaker! For the government and us Moderates, equality is a core value in Swedish foreign policy, which the Foreign Minister mentioned in the foreign policy declaration. It permeates the government's work at all times, and it will be noticeable especially just this year.

As the Foreign Minister pointed out, Sweden is now taking over the presidency of UN Women. In these times, we would like to see much more active and forward-looking work from women's organizations. During the year, we will particularly highlight the importance of women's economic empowerment. It is about promoting women's ability to work and support themselves and about rights and opportunities for ownership. By strengthening the economic opportunities for women and girls, the probability increases that more girls will go to school and that women get better opportunities for education, work, and income.

This work begins by strengthening women's empowerment both at home, in the local area, and globally. Thus, a long-term and equal foreign policy is driven in order to strengthen girls' and women's freedom and empowerment. Everyone benefits from an equal and egalitarian society.

In this speech, Gustaf Göthberg (M) agreed.

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Katarina Tolgfors, for a speech that was good in many respects! I can agree with much of what was said.

The government considers equality to be a core value, and it requires more than words. Now we see how equality is retreating, not least against the background of the Trump administration's actions. Trump has signaled a withdrawal of all aid concerning family planning, abortion, and SRHR. The decision that the Trump administration has taken so far threatens the lives and health of millions of people worldwide, especially girls and women.

What initiatives does the government plan to take to counter the USA's significant cuts for girls and women?

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

Katarina Tolgfors (M)

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

We have perceived that the USA is about to significantly reduce its aid. One is conducting a policy that results in restricting girls' and women's freedoms and their right to their own bodies and to decide over them.

What can be done is that we discuss the issues in dialogue with the USA. American politics are decided by them themselves as a sovereign state. We work in other ways by trying to strengthen the rights of women and girls in the world.

It is obviously worrying if they reduce the aid as significantly as they have signaled. I saw the press conference when they presented this, and it emerged there that they have started to review aid that is not effective and which perhaps actually has nothing to do with aid. I have no comments on that. On the other hand, there is another development that is more worrying; I can agree with that.

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Mr. Speaker! I unfortunately do not believe that it is possible to reason with Trump on this issue. One must simply set a good example and instead significantly increase aid to women and girls in this difficult situation.

Unfortunately, we see how the government is cutting back in the area of equality. For example, you are cutting back on the support to UNFPA, which works specifically with SRHR issues, and you have also cut back on the support to UN Women, even though you increased it a little bit in the latest budget. Previously, however, you halved the support.

This is completely the wrong way to go. More resources must be provided. The last time Trump came to power, Sweden did exactly that. You increased support to UNFPA, Unaids and the Global Fund, and you mobilized support for SRHR. This is what we must do. Now we must step up for equality!

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

Katarina Tolgfors (M)

Mr. Speaker! That Sweden should compensate for the cuts in international aid that a country as large as the USA makes is completely unreasonable. I have listened to the opposition in the debate today, and it almost appears as if all the world's problems lie with Sweden and that we alone could manage to solve these problems.

We are reducing the aid budget, and we do so because we must prioritize. At the same time, we ensure that the aid we provide becomes more effective and precise. We prioritize SRHR and interventions that are to support and strengthen the safety, freedom, and empowerment of women and girls. It is a way of working systematically and having a clear goal. Unfortunately, we cannot be everywhere and give as much as we want to everyone. But we can make the right interventions, because we believe it is more effective. We cannot compensate for the USA's cuts.

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

Linnéa Wickman (S)

Mr. Speaker! First, I would like to thank the member for the contribution. I agree with much of what the member said in their speech.

What becomes clear in the debate, however, is that even though Trump's Project 2025 is very clearly a roadmap to, among other things, cut aid and reintroduce the global gag rule, we have nevertheless known about this for several months. No one in the debate has claimed that Sweden should do everything alone. On the other hand, Sweden can take the lead in acting and mobilizing resources and commitment for SRHR in the world.

I wonder what the government's plan is.

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

Katarina Tolgfors (M)

Mr. Speaker! As I have said, investments in girls and women and SRHR is one of the main strategies in the aid agenda. The Government does not direct exactly what should be done, but we have set goals and then channel our aid to Sida and other organizations that work with this out in the world. They have a mandate to identify which interventions should be made.

We set goals and frameworks. It is very clear in the aid agenda and in the foreign policy that initiatives to strengthen girls and women are prioritized.

It would perhaps be good to read through the aid agenda once more and also listen to what the political opponents actually say. This is a prioritized area.

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

Linnéa Wickman (S)

Mr. Speaker! I must nevertheless state that it is not enough to listen to what is said, it also matters what is done.

On average, there are 130,000 women in the world who every day receive contraceptives with the support of USA-funded programs. During the 90-day freezing of funds, which we know will not return in this area, it is approximately 12 million girls and women who are denied this important care.

It is actually not sufficient to say that equality is a core value in foreign policy when we see this serious setback. At the same time, we hear how representatives for the government side are completely unresponsive when it comes to what plan and what preparedness now exists and what leadership Sweden is now taking together with like-minded countries to minimize and alleviate the damage.

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

Katarina Tolgfors (M)

Mr. Speaker! As I said, this is a priority issue. We cannot compensate for the loss that may occur now that the USA is scaling back so significantly on these types of investments. Sweden continues, however, to be a country that supports girls' and women's rights as well as human rights and development.

There is a plan because we set goals and frameworks. Then there are authorities and organizations that work to achieve these goals. We do this ourselves and together with other countries. That is what we can do; we cannot go in and influence American aid policy. We can conduct a dialogue, express concerns and views, and offer criticism. And we can take a leadership role, which we are doing now and which will be noticed when the government and Sweden now take over the presidency of UN Women, for example.

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

Matilda Ernkrans (S)

Mr. Speaker! In 2025, Sweden celebrates 30 years as a member of the EU. The Swedish people chose between staying outside and becoming a part of the European community. We can state 30 years later that not everything is perfect in the EU, but that EU membership has served Sweden well and that Sweden has served the EU well. The EU is, in essence, a peace project, where we build common security together with others. Sweden is a part of Europe, and Europe is a part of the world.

Mr. Speaker! At the same time, we live in an era characterized by anxiety, in both Sweden, Europe, and the world - a time of war, conflicts, and insecurity. Then the EU must unite against the forces that want to divide our cooperation. The EU is now being tested in its leadership, and it is more important than ever to hold together against divisive forces.

Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine continues with full ruthless force. In Ukraine, soldiers fight every day for their and our freedom. As is expected, there is broad support here in the Swedish Riksdag for the support to Ukraine. I visited Ukraine myself before Christmas and can only emphasize the importance of Sweden and the EU continuing with strong and sustained support.

It is about uniting around the support to stop Russia's war machine and war chest, putting in place new, sharper sanctions, and ensuring that the sanctions against Russia are complied with. This is one of the most important tasks we have.

The cohesion around this support must be stable and intact. Here, the EU's leaders must not waver, because ultimately it is about our own security. We must stand ready to defend our democracy and our freedom. A secure Europe is built militarily but also through a robust civil preparedness, with healthcare and welfare that function in both peace and wartime.

Mr. Speaker! Europe's competitiveness is built with green new industrialization as the engine and by ensuring that Europe can become a place for successful companies, innovations, and productivity. In the green new industrialization, Sweden has a unique chance to create jobs and growth in our country. The government must take that chance, for Swedish jobs and the Swedish economy. In Sweden, we have shown that it is possible to combine competitiveness with social security and an offensive climate policy. This should be guiding for Europe.

Workers' rights and a green industrial policy are the engine of competitiveness. Social dialogue, cooperation between parties, and the Swedish model build productivity and competitiveness.

Mr. Speaker! The fight against weapons and violence is not over. Safety continues to be the issue that worries Swedes the most, and it is our job to take that issue most seriously. The horrific mass shooting in Örebro, explosions and gang settlements strike fear into citizens in Sweden and Europe. Violence, weapons and gangs know no national borders, and therefore our solutions to stop this must not either.

The EU needs to be built stronger, safer, and more secure through more police cooperation. Europol is currently supporting Örebro, for example, in the work to produce a proper perpetrator profile after the horrific act. That is good.

We need to strengthen customs cooperation with legal powers, and we need to get offensive legislation in place to stop acts of violence that affect ordinary people.

EU cooperation also needs to manage to strengthen equality and social sustainability.

Mr. Speaker! The EU shall be a union of democracies. All around the EU, we see that democracy is threatened and challenged by both external and internal forces, which put spokes in the wheels when the EU is to make decisions on important political proposals and challenge the EU's fundamental values such as democracy and the principles of the rule of law. The authoritarian tendencies affect ordinary people, not least in their everyday lives, through lack of freedom, propaganda, and arbitrary decisions by authorities and the judiciary. Our citizens need to be protected against this. EU leaders who want well for the EU must take this task seriously.

I stand by what I said as recently as yesterday in the chamber, when the EU Minister assured that the Swedish government is pushing forward for democracy and the principles of the rule of law - which we, for our part, could not see anything of in the Foreign Minister's foreign policy declaration. I stand by that we give our full support to the government if one seriously wants to undertake work to strengthen democracy and the principles of the rule of law in the EU, in order to protect democracy in the EU. This is of decisive importance in the time we are living in now.

Security, safety, competitiveness, democracy and cohesion - this must be the EU's task in the time we live in. EU cooperation is at its strongest when we can reach a broad agreement, across national and party boundaries, to solve difficult cross-border problems. Here, the EU can show leadership. We must work every day for cohesion rather than division because it is good for the EU, for Sweden, and for people's safety.

(Applause)

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

Erik Hellsborn (SD)

Mr. Speaker! A few hundred miles from here sits a dictator who strikes fear into his neighboring country - a smaller, democratic state with its eyes turned westward. The dictator says that the neighboring country is ruled by fascists and that he must destroy these alleged fascists. The dictator also maintains a high tone towards democratic states in the West that support the small neighboring country. He says that through their help, they threaten peace and stability in the region.

Mr. Speaker! I am not talking about Vladimir Putin. I am not talking about Russia or Ukraine. Southeast of Ukraine lies the Caucasus and the countries of Azerbaijan and Armenia. For many decades they were republics in the Soviet Union, but since the 90s they have been independent states. But while the Christian Armenia has developed in a democratic direction and today has a government that sees a future with the West rather than in Putin's post-Soviet sphere of interest, it looks drastically different in the Muslim Azerbaijan.

Azerbaijan has been a dictatorship since independence, today under President Ilham Aliyev, who inherited the post from his father. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, the region has been plagued by several armed conflicts over territory between the two countries, primarily over the mountain region of Artsakh. It is an area that has long been inhabited by Christian Armenians, who for natural reasons wanted to be part of Armenia, which, however, was not accepted by Azerbaijan, with reference to the border demarcations made by Joseph Stalin. A tyrant uses another to justify his claims.

The latest chapter in this story came in September 2023. After nine months of blockade and humanitarian suffering, the Azerbaijani army entered and took control of Artsakh. What followed was an ethnic cleansing. Over 100,000 Armenians, 99 percent of the region's population, were forced, with fear for their lives, to leave the home where they had lived for generations.

Artsakh has since become the least free place in the entire world, according to the well-respected think tank Freedom House. It is a black hole where no freedom, no rights, and no human dignity exist. Not because Azerbaijan as a whole is much better. The country is, as said, a dictatorship and ranks lower than both Russia and Belarus, this due to the lack of free elections, the imprisonment of opposition members, and an oppression of minorities, where the anti-Armenian racism has almost become a state ideology.

But this is not just about what has happened or what is happening right now, but also about what could come to happen. The dictator Aliyev repeatedly uses a warlike rhetoric against Armenia. He makes claims to territory, and he describes the democratically elected government as fascists whom he wants to exterminate. The risk of a new war does not feel far off.

This is not talked about very much in Europe, which perhaps is not so strange. Azerbaijan is a significantly smaller country than Russia and does not pose a threat in the same way as Russia. To stand up for Armenia against Azerbaijan is first and foremost a moral obligation. The democratic West should always stand up for democracy and against barbarism.

But for those who do not consider morality to be a sufficient reason, there are also good strategic reasons. Armenia has moved away from Russia and in the direction of Europe in recent years. However, it is not a given that this positive development continues. There are voices who think the change of course was a mistake and instead lean towards Russia. There are also those who see the neighboring country Iran as a better security guarantee than the West. It is, of course, in the democratic West's interest that more countries tie bonds with us than with the regimes in Moscow and Tehran.

Let us therefore in Sweden and the rest of the West support Armenia to the best of our ability and make it clear to the regime in Baku that we do not accept the way they treat either their own population or their neighbors – for democracy, freedom and human rights, but also for a stronger Europe and a stronger Western civilization.

(Applause)

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

Gustaf Göthberg (M)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden's support for Ukraine is unwavering. Russia must be defeated. It has been said many times before during the hours we have been here, but when the words echo in a chamber that during the day has been partly emptied of listening members, they deserve to be repeated. Sweden's support for Ukraine is unwavering.

Speculations about a future US-brokered peace agreement in Ukraine are looming, almost on a minute-by-minute basis. It remains to be seen when and how such a peace plan is developed, what it contains, and how it is received in Kyiv, in Brussels, and also in Stockholm. When the weapons have fallen silent in Ukraine, it must inevitably happen on Ukraine's terms. Our own Swedish commitment is a commitment for coming decades. Ukraine is Sweden's most important foreign policy priority today and tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker! This is the first foreign policy declaration to be debated in the chamber since Sweden fully became a Nato ally. When I visited the Nato headquarters Allied Command Transformation in Norfolk, USA, last week, it became emphatically clear what contribution we provide to Nato on a daily basis and have provided since day one.

Sweden's membership and our contribution to Nato is deeply appreciated, and working with Swedish troops or Swedish officers is a promise of working with competent personnel and capable and ambitious colleagues. We make Nato stronger and better.

Our military capabilities - the world's best fighter jets, our underwater capability, our intelligence competence, our knowledge of Russia and the broad public support - are envied by our allies. It provides confidence. Even here in the chamber, the support for Nato is compact.

That is why it was strange, Mr. Speaker, when I opened Aftonbladet this morning and could see that the Left Party had collectively woken up in a bad mood. The Left Party demands, without analysis and deeper reasoning, that Sweden unilaterally should leave its defense cooperation agreement with the USA. The argument put forward is that one does not like Donald Trump.

Sweden has not, therefore, entered into any agreement with Donald Trump or with any Republican or any Democrat. It is with the United States of America that Sweden signs international agreements, with the aim of increasing our own security. This is what one now wants to abandon overnight, after a sullen morning. That is not how one treats Swedish security policy!

The question remains hanging in the air. I have noted the silence from the government base to the left on this issue. Is this something we can count on happening in the future, should the worst happen and Håkan Svenneling becomes Foreign Minister under Magdalena Andersson? Will Swedish security policy be treated in this way?

We remember how the Social Democrats have traditionally handled international issues: how Sten Andersson refused to say that the Baltics were occupied, how a Swedish commitment to the Baltics from this rostrum was regarded as crusader mentality, and how Margot Wallström was the first foreign minister in decades who chose not to condemn the regime in Belarus in her foreign policy declaration. And we remember how Magdalena Andersson, during Svjatlana Tsichanouskaja's, Belarus' rightful leader, first visit to Stockholm, did not have time to receive her. Then Magdalena Andersson called the Swedish NATO membership destabilizing, only to then stand first in line to take the credit.

Peter Hultqvist was right in itself that there would be no NATO membership as long as he was defense minister. I believe many of us are glad that Pål Jonson had managed to take over.

There is a difference now. Sweden is led by a government that seriously has Ukraine as its primary foreign policy priority, which took us into Nato and which brought Johan Floderus home to Sweden.

Mr. Speaker! We live in troubled times. We are horrified by the scenes we see daily from Georgia, which have been discussed extensively in this chamber during today's debate. Georgia now stands on the edge of the abyss. Sanctions must be implemented. This is what the government is working for at the EU level. We owe it to Georgia not to forget them.

Mr. Speaker! "The world is dreamed by a sleeping god." Karin Boye's words shine clearly when we look out over a dangerous, uncertain and unpredictable world. We do not know how it will go. Clouds are gathering in all directions.

With clarity, distinctness, defending our Swedish interests broadly in this chamber and cooperation with our allies, Sweden stands strong, secure and free. We usually do so in broad agreement and always with good intentions. It is a principle to guard: Everything in the nation's interest, everything for our allies - everything for Sweden.

(Applause)

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

Azra Muranovic (S)

Mr. Speaker! We live in a time when the foundations of international law are being challenged in a way we have not seen in decades. War, oppression, and lawlessness characterize our world. It is our duty as a country to stand up for the values we believe in - international law, the rule of law, democracy, freedom, human rights, and above all, international solidarity.

Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine continues to be the most serious security policy crisis in our immediate vicinity since the Second World War. The people of Ukraine are fighting not only for their own freedom but also for the security of all of Europe. We must be clear. Ukraine needs our long-term support - militarily, economically and humanitarily, but also politically and morally. Only Ukraine can decide when and if Ukraine is ready to negotiate peace. Ukraine also decides which borders it shall have. Russia does not, and neither does the new US administration.

Mr. Speaker! Georgia is facing a very worrying development. The democratic regression is moving away from the country's path towards EU membership. And the new regime is cracking down on peaceful demonstrators. The violence against these demonstrators is completely unacceptable.

We see thousands of oppositionists imprisoned in Lukashenko's brutal dictatorship. The Belarusian people deserve our unconditional support in their struggle for freedom and democracy. They also deserve to receive protection in Sweden when they seek asylum.

Mr. Speaker! Even in our own immediate vicinity, the security situation is changing rapidly. Russia has bolstered its military presence in the Arctic and the Nordic region. We see cyberattacks, influence operations, and increasingly aggressive actions from the Russian side, but also very worrying statements from Trump. We in the Nordic region must cooperate even more intensively and strengthen our joint defense capability, for example through a joint defense commission. There is a race for Arctic resources. Sweden must work to ensure that the Arctic remains a region of peace and cooperation, not an arena for great power conflicts.

Mr. Speaker! I noted that the Minister for Foreign Affairs in his foreign policy statement did not mention children and children's rights issues at all. Despite this, children are those who are hit hardest in the world's conflicts today. Most of the world's countries actually stand in words for children's special rights in conflicts, but the words are not followed by action.

Russia has systematically removed thousands of children from Ukraine and placed them in Russian families with the aim of depriving them of their identity. It is a war crime. We must ensure that every child can be reunited with their family and their country and have their identity returned.

A civil war is ongoing in Sudan that hardly reaches our news feeds at all. Children are subjected to indescribable suffering. Children are recruited as soldiers, subjected to sexual violence, killed and denied food, so that they starve to death. We cannot betray them through our silence.

In Gaza, we see a terrible humanitarian catastrophe, where thousands of children have lost their lives and hundreds of thousands are starving. Healthcare has collapsed. Schools have been bombed, and entire generations are traumatized. UNRWA, which carries the largest humanitarian infrastructure, is being banned. And Sweden watches. We are redirecting our aid and accepting the unacceptable.

Sweden also refuses to allow seriously ill children and women to receive care in Sweden. It is a disgrace, and many of us are beginning to wonder how low one can actually sink.

Mr. Speaker! Justice and accountability are crucial to prevent history from repeating itself. Sweden cannot be a country that yields because it is politically inconvenient to stand up for what is right and what we have once collectively decided. Sweden cannot betray these principles, not even when Israel's government commits crimes against humanity or when the US president deliberately weakens international legal institutions.

Today, Sweden's Minister for Foreign Affairs said that the government will prioritize Sweden's relationship with the USA, regardless of what and regardless of which administration is in power. The Minister for Foreign Affairs should instead prioritize the rules-based world order, regardless of what and regardless of which administration the USA has.

Mr. Speaker! The government's foreign policy is characterized by passivity and a lack of a moral compass. We see how the government has refused to act to protect children's rights in Gaza and how Sweden's reputation in the world is weakened through shaky statements and concessions to right-wing populist forces. The government has reduced aid, has abolished the feminist foreign policy, is unclear regarding international law and says one thing and does another.

Our vision is a Sweden that takes responsibility, stands up for international law and the rule of law, and puts human rights at the center. We want Sweden to become a voice for justice in the world, a voice that does not yield to the pressures of great powers. If we fail and remain silent in the face of injustices, we do not only fail others, but we also fail ourselves as human beings and our entire country.

(Applause)

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

Katarina Tolgfors (M)

Mr. Speaker! These are serious accusations. It is of course so that Sweden's government stands up for human rights and for children's rights. It is an absurd accusation, I think, to say that Sweden is withdrawing and backing down and does not support children in Gaza and in other places, for example in Ukraine.

We are increasing the aid to Gaza. Even though it does not go through UNRWA, as the Social Democrats and the left prefer, we have therefore increased the aid. And we are working through the EU to ensure that humanitarian access is possible.

This cannot escape even the Social Democrats. Or perhaps you do not want to listen. This is a rhetoric that you are using. I think it is a serious accusation, and this simply is not true.

I would like to hear: What is your solution when it comes to ensuring that more people in Gaza receive help? What do you believe is the better solution?

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

Azra Muranovic (S)

Mr. Speaker! I am pleased with that question from Member Tolgfors, especially considering how you have wavered in your support since October 2023. You have cut support to UNRWA and paused it based on disinformation. You have been unable to follow the International Court of Justice's advisory opinion. You have voted in a way in the UN that has not benefited Palestinian children or children in Gaza at all.

The commitment to other countries has been increased. At the same time, it is known that UNRWA is the largest provider of humanitarian aid and has the best infrastructure. This is not something the Social Democrats are saying; it is something the UN itself says.

Support to OCHA has been reduced. It has not been possible to provide assistance with schools and healthcare.

I wonder how Katarina Tolgfors considers that one has actually done its part in Gaza.

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

Katarina Tolgfors (M)

Mr. Speaker! As I said, we have increased the appropriations. It is a fundamental error if one considers that UNRWA is indispensable. No organization is indispensable. Furthermore, as we have heard earlier today, one can see and suspect links to Hamas, the terrorist organization that rules and governs for the Palestinians in Gaza. It uses Palestinians as human shields and has taken hostages, who are now being released under despicable conditions. We can see images that make one think of the 1930s.

Sweden is doing what we can to support the civilians and the vulnerable in Gaza. There are more organizations than UNRWA that can do this - Unicef, World Food Programme, Red Cross, among others. It is a fundamental error if one has made oneself dependent on a single organization. And when there are suspicions that one is mismanaging the money that has gone to UNRWA, through the training of child soldiers and by money falling into the wrong hands, it is morally right to review this and ensure that the support reaches where it is supposed to.

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

Azra Muranovic (S)

Mr. Speaker! Already in July, that is more than half a year ago, the International Court of Justice issued its advisory opinion that countries that do not review their trade - including arms trade - with Israel risk being complicit in what is happening today.

I have two questions for Katarina Tolgfors. One is whether the Moderaterna can provide a better answer than the UN on who is the largest carrier of the humanitarian infrastructure. The other question is whether one can provide concrete sources on how UNRWA is infiltrated by Hamas. Everyone else has rejected this.

I also wonder why an investigation has still not been conducted into how Swedish foreign policy and Swedish business policy contribute to what Israel is now committing, namely crimes against humanity.

(Applause)

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

Fredrik Saweståhl (M)

Mr. Speaker! When we look around the world, the feeling is that as it stands today, the glass is half empty and not half full.

The war in Ukraine continues. There is ongoing crisis in the Middle East. Conflicts continue in various parts of Africa such as Somalia, Ethiopia and Sudan and most recently with renewed strength in Congo. One can briefly say that the situation for human rights in the world is not the best. Nor has democracy celebrated any major triumphs in recent years.

This is, however, no reason to give up or to concede defeat. We shall continue to stand up for our convictions and continue to work so that universal human rights actually become just that. We shall continue to work so that democracy in the world shall be strengthened and so that more people shall be able to live in peace and freedom. This is not only a universal human interest but a genuine Swedish interest.

Mr. Speaker! The Moderates', the government's, and Sweden's commitment to safeguarding and strengthening human rights is great and profound. The Moderates', the government's, and Sweden's commitment to safeguarding and strengthening democracy is great and profound. If there are no doubts about that.

A moderate foreign policy is based on safeguarding and standing up for clear values such as freedom, democracy, human rights, equality, sexual and reproductive rights and the rights of hbtqi persons, to name a few. By working for these Swedish interests, we contribute to also strengthening our own freedom and not least our own security, while simultaneously advancing the positions for these values in the rest of the world.

A moderate foreign policy is focused on achieving results and on doing so in cooperation with others. Sweden's strong commitment to the UN is important. That we are fully involved and shaping the EU's common foreign policy is a strength. By standing united within the EU, our voice also becomes stronger in the global contexts.

Mr. Speaker! The Moderate-led government has increased our focus on supporting freedom of the press and providing clear support to democracy activists and forces in civil societies around the world who work for democracy. These are good priorities.

The setbacks can only be countered through a genuine commitment on the ground when we and all other good forces stand behind what is already in place there. A recent example is, unfortunately, Georgia. There, we are now working together with others to give the democratic opposition and the popular protests against the regime the support they desire.

It is also a strength that we clearly align ourselves to provide support to countries and people who face threats to their freedom from outside forces. A clear example is Moldova. The moderate-led government is now strengthening the engagement there to safeguard democracy, freedom, and integration in Europe.

Our great and unwavering commitment to Ukraine is also given. This is also about more than just the purely military support. It is about supporting Ukraine when it comes to building a resilience that, in the long term, secures democracy and freedom.

Even in other parts of the world, this is our focus. One can rely on the Moderaterna, the government, and Sweden knowing which side we should stand on, namely the side of freedom, democracy, and human rights.

Mr. Speaker! Let me also say a few words about the Moderates', the government's, and Sweden's strong commitment regarding the rights of LGBTQI persons. It is a strength that Sweden has for many years held a clear line to support the rights of LGBTQI persons. It is a line we continue to hold with undiminished strength.

Sweden shall be a clear voice and a friend in the world for hbtqi persons and allies who fight to decriminalize same-sex relations and to stop discrimination, violence, hate, threats and stigmatization.

Unfortunately, this is also an area where development is diverging. Not least when it comes to the situation for trans people, there are a number of countries taking steps backward and rolling back gains that have been achieved. We also see that the oppression against hbtqi people is increasing in several countries that want to criminalize and stigmatize the group in various ways.

Same-sex relations are still prohibited in over 60 countries. This applies to the entire Middle East, obviously with the exception of Israel. It applies to large parts of Africa and Central Asia. This is unacceptable. We from the Swedish side are clear about this in all contexts in the UN, in the EU, in our aid, and in our multilateral and bilateral relations with regions and countries.

At the same time, we can see positive steps forward in several countries. To mention some good examples, Thailand, Aruba and Curaçao have legalized same-sex marriages in the last half year - lovely holiday destinations all of them, I suspect; I have never been there. Latvia has simultaneously introduced registered partnerships. In the last year, Dominica and Namibia have also decriminalized same-sex relations. Well done!

Mr. Speaker! It is clear that the rights of LGBTQI people are sacrificed or pushed aside where democracy fails. It is no coincidence that the countries that are democracies also lead the way when it comes to fully providing LGBTQI people with the opportunity to live free lives. Our commitment to democracy and to human rights is therefore generally crucial also for this issue.

Individual by individual and soul by soul, we shall convince the world that the rights of LGBTQI persons are human rights and that LGBTQI persons shall also be able to be themselves and live free, safe, open lives.

Mr. Speaker! Let me conclude by returning to the fact that we stand by our convictions. We continue the work so that human rights shall reach all parts of the world, so that democracy shall be strengthened and so that more people shall live in peace and freedom. That means that we stand on the right side in every conflict, and it means that we stand up for the genuinely Swedish interests!

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

Mattias Eriksson Falk (SD)

Mr. Speaker! When we as individual members of Parliament give speeches from the rostrum in the Swedish Parliament, it is usually from the different areas of responsibility we have in respective committees and the reports that are submitted for decision. To be honest, it is not particularly often that we members have the opportunity to engage in the many different political issues in the debates.

This, of course, differs from the work we do at home in our constituencies, in municipal councils across the country, in op-eds and on social media. There, we often appear in many individual issues concerning both the country as well as our own county or municipality.

On various occasions, we have major debates here in the chamber. In addition to the foreign policy debate that is ongoing right now, I am also thinking of the general political debate that begins every new mandate period here in the Riksdag. I am grateful for these opportunities, and it is also for that reason that I, as a member, take the opportunity to participate in this very important debate today.

Mr. Speaker! A little over a year ago, I stood here in the same speaker's chair in the then ongoing foreign policy debate. At that time, my speech was entirely characterized by the situation in Ukraine and the consequences of Russia's full-scale and illegal invasion. I spoke about the suffering to which the Ukrainian people are subjected while their struggle to save their democracy, their people, and their country continues. I also spoke about the importance of Russia not being allowed to win this war.

I also spoke about how Europe and other parts of the world have rallied behind Ukraine and their struggle. Through various forms of support, both military and civilian, we have contributed to Ukraine receiving support in its fight to save its country. At the same time, our support has most likely contributed to reducing the suffering and the number of deaths in Ukraine.

A year ago, we did not know if the war would continue a year later. Today, we unfortunately know that is the case.

The Ukrainian people's struggle continues day by day and has, for a little less than two weeks, been ongoing for three years. It is important to describe what reality looks like in Ukraine. A war can, in many people's eyes, be perceived as a battle solely between military forces on a battlefield, and yes, to a large extent, battles occur on the battlefield with military personnel. But they also occur in other ways.

Russian bombings of Ukrainian cities occur almost daily. Hospitals are bombed, civilian homes are bombed, and energy facilities of various kinds are bombed. All of this is a massive Russian attack on the civilian population to force a victory over Ukraine. Through attacks on energy facilities, the possibility of heating homes where families and thus children live is disrupted. It is a terrible terror against the civilian population that Russia engages in.

Mr. Speaker! When I speak with friends in Ukraine, friends who live in cities such as Kharkiv, they say: Every day that one wakes up, one knows that one is still alive. They are aware that the proximity to the Russian border makes them particularly vulnerable to various attacks and bombardments and that every day that they get a chance to open their eyes again is a day to be cherished.

I have received video clips sent to me of a city in darkness. You see nothing, but you hear. You hear the drones, which with their distinct, buzzing sound fly around up in the air, invisible, and search for targets to attack – military or civilian. Nothing escapes the Russian attacker in its quest to bring further death and destruction to a people who only want to live in peace in their democracy, with the right to decide over their own future, which friends they have and which other countries they shall cooperate with.

Mr. Speaker! In a debate like this and in my narrative about Ukraine's struggle for its country and how they do everything to protect themselves and their population, it is easy to forget to talk about that which continues to take place despite the war. Despite all the attacks that occur against Ukraine and its population and infrastructure, essential societal functions continue to function. Trains continue to run, schools are kept open, and the Ukrainian postal service continues its work. I am deeply impressed by this.

What I am about to say may perhaps be interpreted as criticism of our own Postnord, but it is not. It is rather a tribute to Ukrainian society. I received a package sent to me from eastern Ukraine - a package that took the Ukrainian post three days to take to the Polish border. It also took three days for the Swedish post to take the package from Malmö to my hometown Gävle.

It is extremely important that communications such as mail and, for example, social media function, because it gives people hope and an opportunity to keep in contact with family, relatives, and friends both in Ukraine and in the rest of the world.

Mr. Speaker! I want to conclude my speech by once again honoring the Ukrainian people's struggle for their democracy, their people, and their country. I also want to express my continued and strong support for Sweden, Europe, and the rest of the world to continue sending support of various kinds to Ukraine to help them in this struggle. In the end, it is not only about Ukraine's future, but it is about what Europe we want - now and in the future.

(Applause)

In this speech, Nima Gholam Ali Pour, Rasmus Giertz, Erik Hellsborn and Daniel Lönn (all SD) concurred.

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

Daniel Persson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! This is my debut in the foreign policy debate. I choose to make it by speaking on an issue where we are in agreement in the Swedish Riksdag, namely the support for Ukraine and their fight for freedom after Russia's illegal invasion nearly three years ago.

I am proud of the total support that exists in this chamber. From all parts of Sweden, we have sent weapons, money, medical equipment, clothes, protective equipment, sleeping bags and other supplies. We also see that in various political circles around all over Sweden, people are showing their support for Ukraine in different ways. This ranges from wearing a pin with the Ukrainian flag to the Ukrainian flag being seen publicly.

In my home county of Gävleborg, the Ukrainian flag was flown last year at the Gävleborg regional office on the anniversary of Russia's illegal invasion. The Ukrainian flag was also present in the regional council, and the regional council also observed a minute of silence to honor civilians and soldiers who have died in Ukraine. This year too, the Ukrainian flag will be present in the regional council around the anniversary of the invasion.

Sweden's support for Ukraine was given on several levels. It is of great importance that we constantly show our support and that it is a sustained support.

Mr. Speaker! I know that many in this chamber have declared their support for Ukraine over the years and not least today. Members from all parties have done so. I would like to take this opportunity to honor the memory of two party friends who left us in 2024 and who have left a great void behind them. I also offer a thought to their relatives today. I am thinking of Sven-Olof Sällström and Lars Wistedt, who also had a strong commitment to Ukraine's cause - for Ukraine's right to defend its country and its freedom against Russia's full-scale invasion. It was a commitment that Sven-Olof and Lars expressed both here in the chamber and outside these walls. I want to honor their commitment.

Mr. Speaker! I really want to be clear that we cannot accept an outcome where Russia's invasion leads to the annihilation of Ukraine. Since Russia's annexation of the Crimean Peninsula, we have seen a Russia that dreams of a new era of great power and now seems to be making strides in that regard. Is Ukraine the first step, and what happens if Ukraine falls? Ukraine's struggle is important from a European perspective - for Europe's security and for our freedom.

There is much that we have learned from Russia's full-scale invasion, but we probably have a great deal left that we need to learn from this war. Above all, we can be inspired by the total will to defend and the resilience of the Ukrainian people, which is admirable. We must constantly keep their struggle in our thoughts.

Mr. Speaker! Recently, both the presidents of Russia and Ukraine have said that they are ready for peace negotiations. Both Putin and Zelenskyy seem to be letting go of the position that one cannot talk to the other. Putin has previously refused to negotiate directly with Zelenskyy and claimed that he is an illegitimate president. He is referring to the fact that Zelenskyy's mandate period has expired and that no new election has been held due to the war. That may seem to be a rather thin argument considering how democratic the elections in Russia are.

Spontaneously, it still feels a bit hopeful that negotiations can take place. Above all, one must hope that there will be an end to this war and an end to the killing of innocent Ukrainians, who are now being murdered every day. One must also hope that the fight that has been waged has not been in vain and that Ukraine does not become a loser in any negotiations. I hope, as I said, truly that we will soon see an end to this terrible war.

Mr. Speaker! During the war, we have supported Ukraine, and in the future, support from Sweden will be needed when Ukraine's destroyed cities and infrastructure are to begin being rebuilt. We can, however, also provide support in other ways.

Ukraine became an independent state in 1991, and the separation from the Soviet Union has been a least complicated process. Perhaps it is in some sense still ongoing. But the journey towards a democracy has begun, even though there have been forces that have done their part to undermine that work. Although Ukraine has some work to do when it comes to democracy and civil liberties, the constitution has nevertheless been changed a number of times in a striving to become a more democratic and rule-of-law country. Formally, the courts have always been independent, and freedom of the press is guaranteed by law.

Some important parts are therefore in place. But the efforts that have been made for increased freedoms and rights and a safer justice system hang by a slender thread due to the war. Even here, we in Sweden can help Ukraine through our lessons from our history and our journey toward becoming a democratic country. Sweden can help to rebuild Ukraine in many ways.

(Applause)

In this speech, Nima Gholam Ali Pour, Rasmus Giertz, Erik Hellsborn and Daniel Lönn (all SD) concurred.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Almost two years ago, a unanimous Riksdag decided to issue a notice to the government that Sweden shall work to create unity within the EU to list Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization. Despite calls from several EU states and the European Parliament, the EU has so far refused to classify the Islamic Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization.

After the Riksdag's decision that the government shall work towards the EU designating the IRGC as a terrorist organization, the Swedish Security Service (Säkerhetspolisen) has stated that the Iranian regime uses criminal networks in Sweden to carry out acts of violence. Last year, it emerged that the regime in Iran had planned murders of Jews in Sweden. This is a violent regime that has no respect for Swedish sovereignty, for international law, or for Swedish citizens. There is no reason to have a dialogue with such a regime. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard must be designated as a terrorist organization as soon as possible, and Sweden must be a driving force in that work.

At the beginning of February, it could be read in the media that the regime in Iran uses the Imam Ali Islamic Center mosque in Järfälla as a platform for intelligence work. It has long been known that Imam Ali Islamic Center sympathizes with the regime in Iran and has a cooperation with this regime. Furthermore, Imam Ali Islamic Center is not the only mosque in Sweden that participates in foreign states' intelligence activities. Sweden is in need of legislation that makes it possible to dismantle certain mosques when there are regimes that, like the Iranian one, use mosques as platforms for intelligence activities.

Last year it was revealed that Iran's Revolutionary Guard has total oversight of the Iranian universities' international collaborations. Iranian students and researchers are forced to serve the Iranian regime. This is a dictatorship. If any Iranian student or researcher were to refuse, the regime threatens to harm their families.

There must be an understanding that the regime in Iran is prepared to use all possible means to achieve its goals. I am not entirely sure that this understanding exists in Sweden. Some seem to believe that the mullahs in Iran respect international law or international regulatory frameworks, but that is not how it works. The regime in Iran uses everything from labor migrants to students and researchers to achieve its strategic goals.

Therefore, it is obvious that a researcher or think tank that works with the Iranian regime has no credibility whatsoever. It is exactly as if a researcher or think tank were to work with Putin's regime or China's Communist Party. How much trust would one have in such a researcher?

It is not about being overly suspicious. This is a regime that has shown that it uses all means to advance its positions in the West and strengthen its antagonistic activities. This is an enemy. The regime in Iran is an enemy to the West and to Sweden. This must be made clear. More people must understand this. That understanding does not exist today.

I understand that there are people in Europe who still believe that the regime in Iran will be reformed. It is a comfortable thought, but it is far from reality. The Mullahs' regime is based on oppression. Reforms of such a government lead to an increased thirst for freedom and the regime's collapse. Therefore, there will be no reforms.

The basis of the mullahs' regime is the oppression of women. Why are the mullahs so obsessed with all women wearing a veil? It is because the regime is based on the oppression of women. Without the oppression, the regime falls. Democracy within the framework of the Islamic Republic is not only impossible but also contradictory.

The fact is that the Iranian regime's activities in Sweden have become more aggressive. The regime's great power ambitions have been strengthened. Now the regime in Iran is not only destabilizing the Middle East, but it is also delivering weapons to Russia for the warfare against Ukraine. This concerns both drones and ballistic missiles.

Cooperation or dialogue with this regime leads nowhere. This is fundamentally a weak regime whose values lack support among the Iranian people. That is why they must rule with violence. That is why they must impose a loathsome Islamist culture on the Iranian people.

Sweden must dare to openly support opposition forces working for regime change in Iran, not only because democracy is something good but also because this is a regime that continuously threatens Sweden's security. Sweden must defend itself against the mullahs' regime by working for regime change in Iran.

I urge this assembly today to close the door to the mullahs and begin cooperating more with the opposition forces who want to see democracy in Iran.

(Applause)

In this speech, Mattias Eriksson Falk, Rasmus Giertz, Erik Hellsborn, Daniel Lönn and Daniel Persson (all SD) concurred.

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

Daniel Lönn (SD)

Mr. Speaker! During the last decade, the world has witnessed how the so-called woke ideology has spread. It has concerned everything from academic institutions and international organizations to diplomatic relations and foreign policy decisions. The ideology, which primarily builds on a type of identity politics, collective guilt-tripping, and cancel culture methods, has been allowed to dominate national sovereignty and international relations for far too long.

In more and more countries, both in Europe and in the rest of the world, we now see a growing resistance against wokeism. In more and more countries, we now see that political leaders, academics, and cultural figures realize how harmful the consequences of this ideology's rampage can become. This is a positive development, not only for these specific countries but for the whole world. Therefore, Sweden should follow suit.

Woke fanaticism, with its eternal focus on identity politics, historical falsification, and censorship, has during the 2000s attempted to reshape entire societies fundamentally. In this way, it has created division where we previously had cohesion, weakened our institutions through its eternal pursuit of quotas, and undermined our freedom of speech through its aggressive cancel culture methods.

Mr. Speaker! This is nothing other than a modern form of sectarianism where absolutely everything and everyone must submit to a certain political agenda in order to not risk being branded as an enemy. But now the winds are beginning to shift.

Fortunately, we are now seeing some kind of global awakening. Many countries are backing away from the previously very normative woke fanaticism. We can see that more and more states in the USA are legislating away parts of wokeism in schools and at universities. People are beginning to understand that children should learn correct history and science and not be indoctrinated in pseudoscientific ideological theories. In France, President Macron warns against importing the American woke culture and also points out that it creates unnecessary polarization in society. That is, in fact, the case. When the corridor of opinion narrows ever more, critical voices are not allowed to make themselves heard. Therefore, it is gratifying that the ideology appears to be heading towards its death in many of the world's countries.

Mr. Speaker! What we are seeing now is a healthy, natural and directly necessary development for the world's countries. This hysteria not only threatens the freedom of independent thinking, but it also weakens our nations' self-esteem. By acting on an international level to work for a rejection of this ideology, the world can return to cultures where people are once again treated as individuals. Furthermore, we can restore a debate that allows different opinions to be aired without one needing to feel fear of being censored.

Mr. Speaker! World politics can no longer be allowed to be a playing field dominated by woke radicals. We must dare to stand up for common sense, freedom of opinion and expression, and cultures where history and identity are respected.

The world is slowly but surely beginning to wake up. When the world changes, it is high time for us to adapt to the new reality; this is what we in Sweden must understand. This means, among other things, protecting international institutions from ideological infiltration by working to ensure that the UN, EU, and other international organizations focus on their core missions instead of engaging in left-liberal activism. It also means strengthening Sweden's role as a nation where freedom of speech and free thinking are held in high regard by not contributing to the cancel culture and fluff that comes with wokeism.

The world is slowly waking up from the shadows of this ideology, and more and more countries realize that identity politics leads to division rather than cohesion, that historical revisionism leads to rootlessness rather than justice, and that collective guilt-tripping leads to conflict rather than reconciliation.

What we are seeing now is positive for the world, a world where nations are once again allowed to be proud of their history and where freedom of expression once again becomes a self-evident right in our free societies.

Mr. Speaker! Let us therefore realize this, embrace this development and thereafter adapt our foreign policy according to the prevailing reality.

(Applause)

In this speech, Nima Gholam Ali Pour, Rasmus Giertz, Erik Hellsborn and Daniel Persson (all SD) concurred.

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

Jamal El-Haj (-)

Mr. Speaker! I want to begin by expressing my deepest sympathy and regret for the horrific mass shooting in Örebro. It is an event that has not only touched us deeply but also shaken our society to its core. We honor those who fell, and we carry their memory with us through sorrow and reflection.

This tragedy reminds us of a larger perspective that we can no longer turn a blind eye to. We are exposed to forces that deepen the divides between us. We are fed with messages intended to divide, and we constantly hear that we should be afraid of each other and distrust those from other cultures and countries. Pointing fingers, hate, and racism are spread by leaders instead of us uniting. Over the past few years, we have repeatedly heard negative and hateful words about us immigrants, especially about Muslims. It must come to an end. It is time to restore dignity to our conversation. Polarization and hate are destructive not only for those they are directed at but for all of us as a society and a nation.

Mr. Speaker! On November 21, 2024, the International Criminal Court, ICC, issued an arrest warrant against Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for the war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in Gaza. The arrest warrant concerns war crimes through the use of starvation as a weapon as well as crimes against humanity through murder, persecution and other inhumane acts. Despite this, Netanyahu was recently welcomed to Blair House, the historic guest house adjacent to the White House, for the 14th time in a row. This is more times than any other foreign leader has been invited since the guest house opened in the 1800s.

Mr. Speaker! Almost all political forces in the world are shaking their heads at the man Trump, who now rules over the USA's nuclear arsenal. The USA has wandered far from the ideals that former presidents such as Franklin D Roosevelt and John F Kennedy stood for, and Israel with Netanyahu has followed deep down this dark path. The USA with Trump has become a real threat to the world.

Never before has the world been in greater need of a new leadership than now. Never has it been so palpable that such a leadership is conspicuous by its absence.

Mr. Speaker! Gaza is a place with a long and rich history, an ancient province that more than 3000 years before Christ was home to the ancestors of the Palestinians, the Canaanites. The name Gaza means strength and pride. Gaza has through the ages been a place that has been occupied by different powers, but the Palestinians have always stayed. Gaza has always been their home.

Now comes a new and utterly provocative idea from Trump: the Palestinians in Gaza should move to other countries while he promises to make Gaza the best Riviera. Do Trump and others really believe that the people who, for 15 months, have endured one of the absolute worst massacres and brutal genocides in modern times will content themselves with this offer? I am convinced that the Palestinians in Gaza would be ready to move, but only back to their rightful home in Palestine. UN Resolution 194 gives them the right to return and it is an inalienable right. It is also important to point out that this offer comes from two evil men, Trump and Netanyahu, who have both been called to account for their actions. These two gentlemen have not understood that the Palestinians' roots in Palestine are deeply anchored and extend far beyond their distorted historical narratives. They will not move. They will not sell their land for all the money in the world.

Mr. Speaker! The world can no longer stand by and watch as Palestine is annexed bit by bit, as the Palestinian people continue to be displaced from their homes and remain refugees, as Palestinians live under apartheid, as their families are collectively punished by the Israeli military, as the farmers' crops are systematically destroyed by illegal settlers, and as the symbol of peace, the olive trees, are uprooted. The Palestinians are, just like all other peoples, a nation that loves life. They want peace, freedom, and justice.

Mr. Speaker! We must continue to fight against antisemitism and hatred against immigrants and Muslims. Jews do not bear a collective responsibility for Israel's warfare. It is time to take responsibility for our actions and create a society based on understanding, respect, and tolerance. Let me conclude by quoting from Jens Stoltenberg's speech after the Utøya catastrophe: "Our response is more democracy, openness, and humanity. But never naivety."

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

Rasmus Giertz (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I was somewhat astonished when I listened to Member Jamal El-Haj's speech. He speaks of brutal genocide and apartheid. Freedom of religion is enshrined in Israel's declaration of independence, and there are Arabs in Israel's Supreme Court, parliament, authorities, and so on. There is no apartheid in Israel. In the Arab world, however, there is apartheid. There are no Jews there, and neither Jews nor Christians have any civil rights.

What basis does the member base their statements on regarding genocide?

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

Jamal El-Haj (-)

Mr. Speaker! Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the International Criminal Court, ICC, have published several reports stating that Israel practices apartheid against the Palestinians. These international human rights organizations base their conclusions on extensive documentation of Israel's treatment of Palestinians, including discriminatory laws and systematic abuses. The Israeli state has, just like the member, questioned this, dismissed these organizations and accused them of being antisemitic.

The Israeli human rights organization B'Tselem has, however, expressed the same view and considers Israel an apartheid state. Its reports and analyses are based on concrete evidence of how the Palestinians are systematically discriminated against and subjected to violence.

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

Rasmus Giertz (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The member speaks of statements that have been made from various sides, but the fact remains: There are Arabs in Israel's various authorities, in Israel's Supreme Court and in Israel's parliament. How can it then be a question of apartheid?

I wonder in what way Israel has institutionalized discrimination. Which laws in Israel are it that cause Palestinians to be systematically discriminated against?

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

Jamal El-Haj (-)

Mr. Speaker! I understand that the member is not informed at all about how the Palestinians are doing in Palestine, both that which was occupied in 1948 and the current one.

Of the Palestinians, 20 percent live in Israel itself today. How many of them are members of the Israeli parliament? Can Palestinians join the military? It is 20 percent who hold Israeli citizenship, but they are not allowed to join the military. Is that not discriminatory? I do not know what to say.

I heard your speech, member, and was close to taking the floor to answer the questions. The Swedish Committee against Antisemitism criticizes you in the Sweden Democrats and says that you lack credibility when it comes to, for example, antisemitism. The member may perhaps do some reading.

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

Arin Karapet (M)

Mr. Speaker! A few hours ago, the Armenian parliament passed a citizens' initiative concerning the adoption of a roadmap for joining the European Union.

South Caucasus has been marked by ethnic cleansing, where over 120,000 Armenians were forced to leave their homes in Nagorno-Karabakh and flee for their lives to Armenia. Georgia, which has been the gateway for South Caucasus towards Europe, has unfortunately taken several steps backward.

Armenia is the country in South Caucasus that is currently the bright spot for democracy and European values in the region. Under threats from Azerbaijan of perhaps being subjected to a new attack, the Armenian democracy lives on.

In Baku, there are over 20 prisoners of war and approximately 16 political prisoners who are not being released. Reuters has reported on, among others, Ruben Vardanjan, who has received international attention after politically motivated trials where no international media, but only Azerbaijani state media, were allowed in. Therefore, I raise this, Mr. Speaker.

Sweden has had a long commitment to the Minsk Group, where the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh was to be resolved through the OSCE. Armenia is a democracy and is developing into a stronger democracy that is moving towards the West and strengthening its relations with Europe and the rest of the world. The country is in the grip of Russia, and therefore Armenia needs our full support.

In order for there to be peace and for the border between Armenia and Azerbaijan to be demarcated, Armenia must receive stronger support, because it is in a military inferior position against a dictatorship that one is trying to negotiate peace with.

Mr. Speaker! I do not only want to bring up Armenia but also another country that is in the clutches of Russia, namely Moldova. Sweden gives strong support, but Russia is trying to crush Moldovan democracy by creating an energy crisis. Moldova is like Ukraine – two countries that are our European friends and who will hopefully join Europe and the union that we are members of in the near future.

I also want to lift my gaze towards the Gulf countries. Among others, Qatar has played a decisive role in brokering peace between Israel and Palestine. There must be an end to the conflict there. Saudi Arabia is making enormous reforms. It is unavoidable, as many reforms regarding human rights and women's rights are required. But things are starting to move, and this is something we must embrace.

Through trade and deepened relations with the Gulf countries, we can contribute to Swedish growth and Swedish innovation, but also be a force where we join forces with good forces down there so that they can reform their countries into more open democracies where human rights and the rights of minorities are upheld.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden is heading towards a new era - an era where we take our place in our global environment.

(Applause)

In this speech, Erik Hellsborn (SD) and Magnus Jacobsson (KD) agreed.

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

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! When I sat and read the foreign policy declaration, there was one passage that caught my attention extra much. It was the passage that deals with sexual violence in conflicts and how the government wants to work with equality but also with aid to assist those who suffer.

This is an extremely important area, because unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, it is often women and children who suffer greatly in wars and conflicts. We have seen that sexual violence is used for military purposes against the Rohingya, and we have also received reports that Uyghurs are suffering in that way.

We have the situation in Congo, South Sudan and Sudan, where there have been conflicts. We have the entire Sahel region, where unfortunately attacks from various military groups against sedentary populations are common. The purpose is to kidnap women, many times to then create a form of forced marriage. It is part of the sexual violence.

We see it also in other parts of the world. We have seen how the Russian army has marched into Ukraine and more or less systematically executed prisoners. Children have been kidnapped and taken to Russia, and sexual violence has been used as part of the warfare.

We are also many who have been horrified and appalled by how October 7 became an orgy of sexual violence against Israeli civilians. We have also seen it in Syria and in the conflict in Iraq, where Daish murdered families and kidnapped women who were sold on markets.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, sexual violence in war seems to exist in the majority of all conflicts that arise. We also see it in internal conflicts. One can take the drug cartels in Latin America, where children and women are not only exploited for drug trafficking but are also subjected to pure trafficking and sexual exploitation.

Mr. Speaker! That is why I was very pleased when I could read in the foreign policy declaration that the government points this out. I believe it is important that we in Sweden, regardless of what political stance and what starting values we have, can agree that these are things that we shall fight for together to counteract as much as possible.

Regardless of where in the world sexual violence against women and children occurs, it must be part of our common agenda to say that it is not okay and that we must combat it. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for today's foreign policy declaration.

The foreign policy debate was hereby concluded.

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