Foreign policy debate

Utrikesministern Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)

Mr. Speaker! Lana Tjornohorska was a journalist, LGBTQ activist, artist – and drone pilot. She did not have to fight, but like so many other Ukrainians, she could not just stand by while loved ones were affected by Russia's war of aggression. On New Year's Day this year, she shared a mandarin with her friend Ignatius. He joked that he would tell the world about the sweet girl he shared a mandarin with. Ten minutes later, Lana died in his arms, after being hit by a Russian drone. Now Ignatius is doing what he said he would do: He is telling the world about Lana. When I met him a few weeks ago, he asked me to think of Lana when I think of Ukraine and of all those who, like Lana, have given their lives for Ukraine and for a free, democratic Europe.

Mr. Speaker! We are in a time of transition. The security architecture, the international rules of the game, and the free trade that have made countries like Sweden safe and wealthy are being challenged. We see serious violations of international law. The Government meets this development with clarity and decisiveness.

In his first government statement, the Prime Minister spoke about how foreign and security policy needed to be reoriented to meet the threats that Sweden and Europe face. Sweden would become a member of Nato, increase support for Ukraine, reform aid, and deepen cooperation in our immediate vicinity. The government has delivered on all these points, because we have prioritized them. Foreign and security policy is about will, but just as much about choice. We have chosen to safeguard the security of Sweden and its people.

Mr. Speaker! Russia's brutal war of aggression against Ukraine has now been ongoing for almost as long as the First World War. How the war ends will affect security in Europe for at least a generation to come. Support for Ukraine therefore remains the government's primary foreign policy task.

We support Ukraine's efforts in the negotiations that are now ongoing together with European and American partners. We are ready to take responsibility if an agreement can be reached. In addition to extensive support, Sweden is then prepared to contribute to a multinational reinsurance force.

As long as the Russian aggression continues, Sweden nevertheless stands by our two-point plan: more support for Ukraine and increased pressure on Russia. The support for Ukraine is a moral duty and an investment in Europe's security, independence, and future.

Last year, according to the Kiel Institute, Sweden, together with Norway and Denmark, were the countries in the world that provided the largest military support to Ukraine in relation to GDP. The total Swedish support – the military support and the aid – saves lives and strengthens Ukraine's resilience.

I want to thank for the broad support that exists in this chamber for Ukraine's cause. It is a Swedish show of strength, which sends a clear signal to the rest of the world that Sweden supports Ukraine for as long as it is required.

(Applause)

Mr. Speaker! We know that Russia's objectives extend beyond Ukraine. Sweden and Europe need to prepare for a long-term, far-reaching confrontation with Russia. Together with our allies and partners, we shall counter Russia from a position of strength.

NATO's deterrence and collective defense are fundamental pillars in the policy of counteraction. Sweden's membership in NATO makes our country safer. We do not stand alone in a restless time. Our overriding interest as an ally is to maintain the political and military credibility of NATO's Article 5.

Now NATO faces a shift where Europe will take a significantly greater responsibility for its own security. Sweden is ready to take its responsibility in that shift. We have shown this during our first time as an ally through extensive contributions on the ground, at sea, and in the air around the Baltic Sea, in the northern areas, and along NATO's eastern flank. In May, Sweden will host NATO's foreign ministers' meeting in Helsingborg, where one can see shadow fleet ships passing almost daily on their way to less scrupulous buyers who feed the Russian war chest.

Sweden's military presence in Latvia is of tangible importance. We have now also assumed the responsibility as the framework nation for NATO's forward presence in Finland, which demonstrates the increased importance of security in the Arctic and the northern regions. Sweden will also contribute combat aircraft to the NATO operation Arctic Sentry. Work on developing a new Arctic strategy is ongoing.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden and the USA have been united by family ties for generations. The USA and Europe are also linked by the world's two most integrated economies and by the world's leading defense alliance. The USA is crucial for Swedish and European security and prosperity, but Europe's relationship with the USA is now entering a new era.

It is evident that the USA is increasingly acting in a way that is damaging to trust and that contradicts Europe's values regarding global cooperation and international law. Let me therefore emphasize what is obvious: Sweden will not compromise on our neighboring countries' territorial integrity. Only Denmark and Greenland decide on matters concerning Denmark and Greenland.

The bilateral cooperation with the USA remains strong. We have developed cooperation in areas such as defense and space, and we have opened consulates general in San Francisco and Houston.

Now that the transatlantic link is in a state of change, we must strengthen Europe. The government is therefore developing closer relations with allies and partners in Sweden's immediate vicinity. We are driving the Nordic and Nordic-Baltic cooperation, which has never been deeper. We are strengthening the security policy cooperation between the countries around the Baltic Sea.

That Poland chose Sweden as a partner to build up its submarine capability creates new opportunities for and between our countries. It shows that the Swedish defense industry is an important asset also for allies and partners. We have also strengthened our strategic partnerships with Germany, the United Kingdom, France and Canada.

Mr. Speaker! In this period of transition, there are certain constants. One is the European Union – a community of values and Sweden's most important foreign policy platform. In crises, the EU has repeatedly shown its collective strength. The EU is our best chance to continue working for democracy, freedom, and international law.

Sweden wants to see a more geopolitical and action-oriented EU. The foreign and security policy dimension needs to be strengthened, and more decisions need to be made by qualified majority.

Sweden welcomes the emerging defense dimension within the EU. The Union plays an increasingly important role in strengthening the defense industry, military mobility, and civil preparedness in Europe.

The EU is crucial for powerful and long-term support for Ukraine and for the counter-policy against Russia. Sweden is leading in the EU for sanctions against the Russian shadow fleet, to reduce Russia's energy revenues, and to use the frozen Russian assets for the benefit of Ukraine.

Sweden wants to expand the sanctions against Belarus as a result of the domestic repression and the country's support for the Russian aggression. The government supports the Belarusian people on the path towards a free and democratic Belarus.

Many countries are now knocking on the EU's door. They want to become part of the free Europe and of the world's largest internal market. It is in our interest to help the candidate countries to approach the union.

The Government is pushing for further steps towards EU membership for Ukraine and Moldova, both of which have carried out impressive reform work. In the Western Balkans, Albania and Montenegro are making great progress.

Sweden deeply regrets the developments in Georgia, while we remain firmly committed to continuing to support the democratically and pro-European forces in the country.

The Government continues to support democratic development in Armenia and welcomes Armenia's efforts for closer cooperation with the EU.

Mr. Speaker! The developments in the Middle East give reason for both hope and concern. The Security Council resolution that approved the American peace plan for Gaza confirms the great international support for peace in the region. It is crucial that civilians are protected, that humanitarian aid is allowed in unhindered, and that a meaningful Palestinian participation in the reconstruction of Gaza is ensured. Hamas must be disarmed and cannot have a place in a future governance of Gaza.

The serious development with the increase of settlements and settler violence against Palestinian civilians in the West Bank must come to an end. Sweden continues to work for further EU sanctions against extremist settlers, as well as against extremist Israeli ministers who are driving the illegal settlement policy.

In the long run, a negotiated two-state solution based on international law is needed. It is the only sustainable solution for Israelis and Palestinians to be able to live in peace, freedom and democracy, side by side.

Iran and its proxies are weakened, but Iran continues to bear a great responsibility for the negative developments in the region and for security risks in the West.

The situation in Iran is appalling. The government condemns the extensive deadly violence against peaceful protesters in Iran and the large-scale, arbitrary arrests that have occurred in the wake of the recent protests. We clearly stand behind the brave Iranian women and men who are exercising their freedom of expression and assembly.

Sweden welcomes that the EU has agreed to list the Islamic Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization. It is an issue Sweden has pushed for a long time, with the support of a unanimous Riksdag.

In Syria, the fall of the Assad regime has brought an opportunity for the Syrian population to finally shape their future. Sweden is clear regarding its expectations for the transitional government: that all Syrians need to be included in the construction of the new Syria. The participation of women and ethnic and religious groups must be ensured.

We expect that the rights of ethnic and religious groups – including Kurds, Christians, Alawites and Druze – are respected. Sweden will continue to emphasize the importance of accountability for the crimes that have been committed both now and previously in Syria. Sweden and the EU are increasing their support as there are now, despite the fragile situation, better conditions for a brighter future for Syria's population, including the possibility of gradually returning home.

Mr. Speaker! Asia and Oceania is the part of the world where the greatest economic growth is expected to occur. Security in Asia and Europe is becoming increasingly interconnected. We are strengthening cooperation with Japan, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand – all important partner countries to Nato. We are deepening the dialogue with the Asean countries, and we are developing our partnership with India. Through the trade agreement and the partnership within security and defense between the EU and India, a new era of cooperation is beginning.

China is the world's second-largest economy and a leading nation in research and technological development, while the country has an authoritarian rule and growing geopolitical ambitions. We pursue 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. We continue to point out violations of human rights together with the rest of the EU. Sweden's relationship with China is and shall continue to be anchored in a European strategy.

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.

Mr. Speaker! Global challenges cannot be solved solely with our allies or closest like-minded nations. Together with like-minded countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America that care about and uphold common institutions and rules of the game, we can create a force that does not compete but unites.

A reform of the UN Security Council is urgent. Sweden supports a more just representation from all continents in the Security Council and will work for more permanent and non-permanent members. The possibility of the veto should be limited.

It has almost been 65 years since UN Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjöld passed away. Sweden continues to support the UN's investigation aimed at clarifying the circumstances surrounding his death.

In trade policy, Sweden works to defend the rules-based order and maintain EU unity. The agreements on free trade deals between the EU and India as well as between the EU and Mercosur are successes for free trade globally. That the Mercosur agreement can enter into force promptly is a Swedish interest that our government base supports. I can only regret that large parts of the opposition oppose the agreement at a time when we need to tie more, not fewer, bonds with the rest of the world.

The level of ambition for our promotion has been significantly raised, with important results, not least regarding the export of defense materiel. We see an increased need for international cooperation at the intersection of technology, innovation, trade, and security. It is important to reduce the vulnerabilities that come with unilateral economic dependencies. It is only a growing economy that makes it possible to equip the defense and have readiness in harsher times. A strong Swedish economy builds security in an uncertain time.

Mr. Speaker! The aid strategy for Ukraine is the single largest country strategy ever. This year, the government is increasing the aid to Ukraine to at least 10 billion kronor.

At the same time, Sweden continues to be a generous donor to the world's most vulnerable. This applies in particular to Sweden's humanitarian aid and support for sexual and reproductive health and rights. From Gaza to Sudan and Ukraine, Sweden continues to make a difference where the humanitarian needs are greatest.

Sweden has one of the world's most generous climate aid programs. Through Sweden's presidency of the Green Climate Fund in 2026, we continue to support international climate work. It is only through global cooperation that climate change can be combated.

Mr. Speaker! Equality is a core value in Swedish foreign policy. It is a matter of human rights and a priority area for Sweden in the UN and for our aid. During Sweden's presidency last year, UN Women's strategic direction was strengthened. Sweden's work is important to strengthen the rights and 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.

Mr. Speaker! During this parliamentary term, Johan Floderus, Saeed Azizi, Joakim Medin and Galina Krasnianskaja have been released and allowed to return to Sweden. Dawit Isaak, Gui Minhai and Ahmadreza Djalali must also be reunited with their families.

I have, as the first Swedish Foreign Minister, traveled to Eritrea, which is to be seen as a new approach to dialogue regarding Dawit Isaac's fall and other important issues for and between our countries.

As the first Swedish Foreign Minister in eleven years, I have visited China, where I raised the case of Gui Minhai.

We also have a direct dialogue with Iran regarding the deprived Swedes who are still waiting to be reunited with their families.

For us, it is not an option not to speak with others when it comes to Swedish interests and the security of Swedish citizens. We will not give up our efforts.

(Applause)

Mr. Speaker! International law, including the UN Charter, is a cornerstone of Sweden's foreign and security policy. A world where the right of the strongest takes precedence over international law and where great powers do as they please is not the world order we want to see.

Sweden stands behind the independence and integrity of international courts. We welcome the establishment of a special tribunal for accountability for Russia's crimes of aggression against Ukraine.

Human freedoms and rights must be defended. Every individual's equal value regardless of gender, age, sexual orientation and religion is a matter of freedom. Violations of freedom of religion are a growing global problem. Freedom of religion and belief is therefore an integrated part of Sweden's work for human rights worldwide.

Mr. Speaker! We do not know what awaits after this period of upheaval, but we know that we need to face a more brutal world. We need to stand firm in our values but also navigate pragmatically based on what is best for Sweden. Security and law and order in the world around us, especially in our immediate vicinity, is necessary for Swedes to be able to feel hope for the future and security.

The threat in the east and the signals from the west are of completely different natures, but the answer is the same: We need to utilize the strength of the Swedish economy, arm our defense, and work even more closely together with our allies and partners. We need to build global partnerships that make us both safer and economically stronger. We need to continue to support Ukraine and never forget Lana and all those who fight for both their own and our future.

Ultimately, it is about safeguarding Sweden's peace, freedom, and security. There is no more important task.

(Applause)

In this speech, Fredrik Ahlstedt, Helena Bouveng, Jan Ericson, Gustaf Göthberg and Marie-Louise Hänel Sandström (all M), Erik Hellsborn (SD), Gudrun Brunegård (KD) and Fredrik Malm (L) agreed.

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, for the foreign policy declaration! I will return to it in my speech. I intended in this reply to concentrate on the Israel–Palestine conflict.

Last week, the Israeli government decided to practically declare the entire occupied West Bank as Israeli property. It is a major step towards a de facto annexation of the West Bank and another flagrant violation of international law, the UN resolutions, and the Oslo Accords.

In the autumn, we were on site with a delegation from the Riksdag at Västbanken, consisting of five of the eight parties. We were then able to observe that the violence by Israeli settlers against Palestinian civilians, both Muslims and Christians, has increased significantly in recent years. The Israeli settlers, who in my opinion should be regarded as terrorist organizations, can assault and kill Palestinian farmers without risking any punishment whatsoever. We receive reports of this every single day from those we meet, not least from Israeli human rights organizations.

With this decision, the oppression will increase further. We have seen reactions from the UN and the EU where they condemned Israel's decision, and that was good. I saw that the Foreign Minister also condemned the decision, but for some reason, she did not dare to take it eye to eye with Israeli representatives here in Sweden. Instead, she sneaked it out on X – strange, I can think.

But it was not actually this that I intended to ask about, rather I intended to ask about concrete measures. One such concrete measure concerns the export of war materiel. Israel's government is suspected by the International Criminal Court of very serious war crimes and crimes against humanity in connection with the war in Gaza. Nevertheless, Sweden continues to export war materiel to Israel. It is an export that has actually quadrupled in recent years.

My question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs is: Is it really reasonable that a country suspected of serious war crimes and crimes against humanity can continue to purchase war materiel from Sweden? Does the Minister for Foreign Affairs intend to do anything about this?

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

Utrikesministern Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Morgan Johansson, for the question! The Government views the developments in the West Bank extremely seriously, which I also addressed in my speech. It is also about the continued expansion of Israeli settlements and about the settler violence.

I too have received reports that it is becoming increasingly difficult for Christians on the West Bank. This is something that I myself raised with Israel's Foreign Minister when I met him on-site in Israel.

Sweden condemns Israel's latest decision, which aims to increase Israel's control over the West Bank. The decision undermines the two-state solution, violates international law, and hampers the ongoing peace efforts.

The government, together with several other countries, has condemned the Israeli plans to approve extensive expansions of settlements in the West Bank, including in the so-called E1 area. We urge Israel to revoke the E1 settlement plans.

The government has been and will remain clear that the settlements and the settlement policy violate international law, undermine the two-state solution, and contribute to an elevated level of conflict. And in my world, that does not mean sneaking things out when you post them on X, because that tends to reach quite a lot of people.

In conclusion, I want to mention this regarding the export of war materiel. I believe that Morgan Johansson is well aware that no new permit has been issued since October 10, 2023. It is ISP that handles the issuance of permits.

We have traditionally held a very strict view on the export of war materiel to Israel. The export in question concerns, in practice, follow-up deliveries of such materiel that were not classified as war materiel at the time the agreements were concluded.

Let me pose a counter-question to Morgan Johansson. From the left side, I hear a lot about Israel's responsibility, but I hear very little about what one wants to do regarding Hamas. I would very much like to hear more about that.

(Applause)

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Hamas naturally cannot have any role in the future governance of Gaza. But it is not Gaza we are talking about here. We are talking about the West Bank and about the increased violence in the West Bank against ordinary Palestinian civilians, which continues day after day.

I listened carefully to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. She reports no concrete measures. It is not enough just with words and condemnations, one must also be prepared to do something concrete. From our side, we have proposed that one should push to pause the association agreement between Israel and the EU. We have pushed to stop settlement products from entering the Swedish market. Now we say that we should also stop the export of war materiel to Israel.

It is not enough to just talk about this, Foreign Minister, one must also be prepared to take concrete action. Otherwise, the signal will go out to the rest of the world that we apply double standards – some countries can behave however they please, but we go hard on other countries. In that case, one undermines respect for international law and international law, and Sweden has a responsibility to try to uphold that.

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

Utrikesministern Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)

Mr. Speaker! Forgive me, but I assumed, of course, that Morgan Johansson listened to my speech here earlier. There, I was very clear that we want to introduce additional sanctions against extremist settlers and also against Israeli ministers who push for the settlements. This is extremely concrete, and we will continue to work to gather the support required in the EU.

The war in Gaza is one of the foreign policy issues that has stirred up the most emotions here in Sweden. I do not believe that it can be seen in isolation from what is happening on the West Bank. It is not strange that it stirs up emotions – it concerns everything from Hamas's massacres, which claimed the lives of over 1,200 people, to the horrific situation we have seen and still see in Gaza. The war has entailed enormous human suffering.

I understand that the left has an interest in using this conflict as a domestic political battering ram, but I will not go that route. I intend to keep my focus where it belongs: on reducing suffering and on putting pressure on both Israel and Hamas to comply with the peace plans.

(Applause)

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! When Foreign Minister Maria Malmer Stenergard read the foreign policy declaration last year, she said: "Sweden's and the USA's bilateral relations are very good." At that time, we heard a declaration that in practice mentioned almost everything except just USA's President Donald Trump.

Now, a year later, the situation is clearer. Donald Trump is a dangerous president. He is a dangerous president because he violates international law. He is a dangerous president because he threatens other countries and because he undermines the UN and tries to create his own organ, where he always has the last word. Added to this is a trade war with everyone and everything, the result of which is only higher costs and prices.

In the Foreign Minister's declaration, we hear that last year's irrelevant talking points about the USA have now been replaced. But the question is whether there is any analysis of the new USA and, above all, whether there is any strategy.

For several years, we have been pumped with the message of a strong transatlantic link. But now it turns out the link is weak, yes, even broken. In the USA's new national security strategy, Europe is instead pointed out as a threat. Trump's threats and attacks against Greenland and Denmark are more than just signals from the West. They indicate something completely different than a functioning link.

I now wonder what the Minister for Foreign Affairs is prepared to do.

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

Utrikesministern Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)

Mr. Speaker! Unlike the left-wing parties, my focus as Minister for Foreign Affairs is to safeguard the security of Sweden and its people. That international law is respected lies in Sweden's security policy interest, and I have been very clear about that. For that reason, I have also been clear when it has been evident that the USA's actions have violated international law, as in Venezuela, or when the American administration has been threatening in its rhetoric towards Denmark and Greenland.

We can observe that we see an American administration that acts unpredictably and that its at times divisive rhetoric undermines the trust between Europe and the USA, just as I said here earlier.

I will continue to be clear when the actions of the American administration harm Sweden or, for that matter, our common interests. But I do not intend to express myself in a state of affect just because Håkan Svenneling wants it. How I express myself will always be based on what is best for Sweden. That is my absolute duty, above all.

The relationship with the USA will continue to be important regardless of the administration – the relationship is good, for example, between companies. That is why the government, unlike the Social Democrats, did not take sides regarding the American presidential election. The USA is crucial for Swedish and European security, and the USA is Sweden's second-largest export market. Therefore, we continue to safeguard the transatlantic link and the breadth of contact points that exist between Sweden and the USA – this is much greater than just the administration.

Moving forward, we clearly need a stronger Europe where we take greater responsibility for our own security, competitiveness, and future. That is how Sweden sees it, and we act accordingly. But the path there does not go through creating division, but through uniting, not least the countries around the Baltic Sea, which the left-wing totally neglected when they were in government.

But I can take the opportunity to ask Håkan Svenneling why he does not want to forge closer ties with the Mercosur countries.

(Applause)

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! I intended to do something quite unusual in the Riksdag, and that is to give the Minister for Foreign Affairs a gift. It is a book, not by some leftist guy like myself but by the American researcher Daniel Immerwahr. It is called How to Hide an Empire, and it is about the USA's imperialist policy to expand its territory. The book was written a few years ago, but it shows how imperialist expansion has run as a red thread through the USA's 250-year history while many measures have been taken to hide and not make this fact visible.

It matters today. When Donald Trump rages over the fact that the rapper Bad Bunny performs in the American football halftime show, it is also about the fact that Bad Bunny's Puerto Rico is classified as a territory, not a state. When Donald Trump makes references back to the Monroe Doctrine in his national security strategy, it is a way of turning back the clock both to the last and the previous turn of the century in American imperialist policy.

(Applause)

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

Utrikesministern Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you very much for the gift.

The government has done what it said it would do. We have taken Sweden into Nato. We have increased support for Ukraine, and we have strengthened the security policy cooperation in our immediate vicinity. All of this is about our focus being on the security of the Swedish people and Sweden. Here we stand in very clear contrast to the Left Party and large parts of the Social Democrats' government base. The Left Party doesn't even want to be in Nato. The Left Party wants us to leave the DCA agreement. And when the world really needs more cooperation between like-minded countries, the Left Party wants to cut ties with important countries in South America. That is not how this government works. It is noteworthy that I received no answer in that part.

(Applause)

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

Kerstin Lundgren (C)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, for a foreign policy declaration that we can, of course, agree with on many points. This concerns, for example, the support for Ukraine. We would like to see more of it than the government does, but we press. It also concerns the pressure against Russia. More can be done. It is, of course, about the support for Denmark and Greenland and the Swedish position there.

That Dawit Isaak, Ahmadreza Djalali and Gui Minhai must be released is a very clearly stated opinion from the Riksdag and from the Center Party. I would also wish that the democracy fighter who was very recently sentenced in Hong Kong, Jimmy Lai, had been noticed. He is one of the people who stands up against the Communist Party's regulations in China. Journalists and political prisoners exist in many countries, not least in China.

Foreign policy is about making choices – the right ones. We regret that the government has chosen to view the global south as relatively uninteresting. It is a matter of stepping back to the immediate neighborhood and leaving behind, for example, the important Africa, which will determine how we manage to shape a new order.

Mr. Speaker! Then it concerns the climate. This with the Arctic and security is very clear. The Government sees it more as a management issue in relation to China. It does not feel like the most natural partner when one is to reason around this.

I wonder: How does the government view climate issues and security?

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

Utrikesministern Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)

Mr. Speaker! It was somewhat of an exposé. It was not entirely easy to know where the member would land this.

We can start with Jimmy Lai. I mentioned a number of Swedish citizens. But naturally, the situation for rights in China is very serious, which I also raised with my Chinese counterpart during my trip to Beijing last autumn. In connection with the sentencing of Jimmy Lai and his former colleagues, the government has, through the EU and like a number of like-minded countries, made statements condemning this verdict. Sweden has also commented on the case within the framework of the Media Freedom Coalition and, together with other EU countries, attended the trial.

The global south – it is not always a very popular expression but a very important area – is truly prioritized by this government. We see an enormous development in Africa, and Sweden has engaged in many different ways when it comes to forging closer ties with African countries. I myself was quite recently together with the Nordic ministers in Zimbabwe for a meeting between the Nordics and the African Union. Not many have that type of meeting, and it is extremely appreciated when it comes to forging closer ties. I have also traveled to South America and met many of my South American colleagues, for it is another area that we need to forge closer ties with.

It is unfortunate that the government base we see on the left side does not want to forge closer ties. More free trade and more cooperation are precisely what we need.

When it comes to China, I said very clearly that there are areas where we can cooperate and other areas where we are very cautious. But it was not the climate that I spoke about primarily, but I mentioned it briefly. On the other hand, I said that we are one of the largest donors of climate aid. We know that the climate issue is global. Therefore, we must work with other countries, even in the global south, to reduce climate emissions. And it is a very important priority for the government.

(Applause)

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

Kerstin Lundgren (C)

Mr. Speaker! I agree that the Minister for Foreign Affairs mentioned the climate most quickly. It is naturally not a sign of a particularly important prioritization.

It is obvious that the climate is an extremely important issue for security policy. If one works with Swedish security and with security globally, climate issues are a central issue that should be prioritized. It is good to have support for the green fund, but it is not enough. The government must set a clear climate policy agenda – it has not reported one.

Mr. Speaker! I must make a comment on the Mercosur agreement. The Centre Party clearly stands for free trade. It is a very important part, and it is good that we have reached that agreement. Do not mix apples and pears here, dear Minister for Foreign Affairs, but keep order yourself on this!

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

Utrikesministern Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)

Mr. Speaker! We have a very clear climate agenda, and we see what many unfortunately do not see, which is that the issue is global. If one truly believes that the climate threat is real, then the most important thing must be to reduce emissions as much as possible for every krona invested. That is also why Sweden is one of the world's most generous donors when it comes to international climate financing. And that is why it is not our most important budget negotiation issue to get through an e-bike premium, as it was for Centerpartiet under the previous government.

I believe the Centre Party when they say they are for free trade; I know that they are. But the problem is that one risks hitting a wall because one is expected to cooperate with the Left Party if the left side were to win the election.

(Applause)

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! The government's foreign policy declaration follows a very clear pattern. It describes a global situation that essentially corresponds directly to the global monitoring we receive daily in the media. The lack of analysis is great, which means it becomes impossible to try to understand what Sweden wants to achieve with its foreign policy and why. The pieces are, however, in the foreign policy declaration without the Foreign Minister succeeding in putting them together into a coherent picture.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs says that a world where the right of the strongest takes precedence over international law and where great powers do as they please is not the world order we want to see. She mentions, among other things, China and its enabling of Russia's war in Ukraine. Despite the total lack of the word diplomacy in her speech, she nevertheless reaches the conclusion that we, together with like-minded countries in among others Africa that care about and uphold common institutions and rules of the game, can create a force that unites – and very much so.

Sweden has long and good relations with the small West African country Liberia, where Swedish companies in the 60s and 70s broke iron in the world's largest iron mine. Liberia is one of the world's absolute poorest countries and, despite bloody civil wars during the 90s, has managed to elect Africa's first female head of state and subsequently changed governments peacefully and democratically three times.

It is a country that, more clearly than any other African country, takes a stand for Ukraine and a country that, since January 1, sits in the UN Security Council. Liberia is simply the like-minded country in Africa that we can ally with and that we, from a Swedish security perspective, should also utilize our good relations with in order to be able to put pressure on Russia.

As a member of the Security Council, Liberia has everything that the government is requesting. But what is the government doing? One chooses to end the bilateral support to Liberia, one shuts down the Folke Bernadotte Academy's incredibly important peace work, and one shuts down Sweden's embassy in the country. I cannot reconcile the logic in this and hope that the Foreign Minister can clarify how they have thought – if they have thought at all.

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

Utrikesministern Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)

Mr. Speaker! Several African countries today belong to the world's fastest-growing economies, while at the same time many actors are also competing for influence in Africa. This naturally has great consequences for both Sweden and Europe. We have a common interest in, together with African states, facilitating trade, promoting peace and security, and not least upholding international law. Therefore, the government has both safeguarded and developed relations with African countries during recent years.

We have deepened the cooperation with Nigeria, which is Africa's most populous country and one of the continent's largest economies. Last year, Business Sweden opened offices in Nigeria's largest city, Lagos. We have opened a new embassy in Dakar, which strengthens our presence in French-speaking West Africa and becomes a hub for Sweden's engagement in the Sahel region. We also have an extensive bilateral and regional engagement on the Horn of Africa: in Sudan, Ethiopia, Kenya, and Somalia.

Sweden has a strong brand in Africa and a good foundation to also build relations on. It is noticeable when we are now increasingly moving from relations with African countries based on aid to relations based on trade. It is a development that this government truly welcomes. We have a broad embassy presence and, as said, a broad cooperation with African countries.

It is evident that we are leading the work in the international contact group for the Storasjö region this year, to mention one thing, and we are placing, as mentioned, greater emphasis on cooperation regarding trade than on aid.

In the reallocation of aid, we have had to prioritize, and we have prioritized Ukraine because it is our primary foreign policy priority. We have also had to reprioritize resources, but just as I said to my foreign minister colleague from Liberia when we recently spoke, our relations with Liberia are more important than ever.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I had intended to shift focus and begin talking about another word that is not in the foreign policy declaration, namely the word occupation. Given the answer I received from the Minister for Foreign Affairs, I choose however to remain on this question.

The Minister said at the end that we have stronger relations than ever with Liberia, but yet you choose to close the embassy. I cannot reconcile the logic. From January 1st, Liberia sits in the UN Security Council. We have historically had very good relations with Liberia, not just when it comes to aid. We have traded with this country, and we have even drained it of resources. Sweden has enriched itself from this country.

Now Liberia is in the UN Security Council. They voted for the first time in a very long time against the USA in the General Assembly last year when it concerned a resolution against Russia, for Ukraine. They voted together with the EU countries. It is a strong ally even though it is a very economically weak country.

One chooses to close the embassy. I cannot make the logic add up.

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

Utrikesministern Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Jacob Risberg, for mentioning exactly the UN Security Council, where Sweden has chosen to second a person to support Liberia in just this. It was also something we discussed in my conversation with the Foreign Minister.

Jacob Risberg has dropped a few words here that he says he lacks in the foreign policy declaration. One example is the word diplomacy. I think this becomes telling in some way. I spoke, for example, about all the Swedish citizens who have been imprisoned around the world and whom we have managed to get home. That work has, of course, been carried out through diplomacy.

We do not, however, always need to shout about words, because we show such clear results. It is the same thing as the bickering over a feminist foreign policy. We have led UN Women and truly changed the agenda. We are making a difference for women and girls all around the world.

(Applause)

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to once again thank the Minister for Foreign Affairs for the foreign policy declaration.

We live in a very dramatic time with sharp turns and rapid changes. It is of the utmost importance that a country like ours can read the times correctly and draw the right conclusions.

In many parts we agree with the government. This applies, for example, to the view of Russia as the greatest security policy threat for the foreseeable future. It applies to how we should act within Nato to strengthen our defense capabilities in our immediate vicinity, and it applies to the continued support for Ukraine.

When it comes to the assessment of the developments in the USA and how they should be addressed, it is however obvious that we have made a different assessment during the year than the government. In my opinion, the government has acted indecisively and has not quite been able to orient itself in the new environment we have received as a result of the USA's policy.

This emerged already a year ago, when Trump threatened Denmark and Greenland for the first time. Then we from the Social Democratic side said that it was unacceptable and that Europe had to give a sharp response. At that time, the Foreign Minister commented on it and did not criticize Trump for his threats, but us for having taken a stand against him. The Foreign Minister said that it was extremely irresponsible of the Social Democrats.

If there is anything this year has shown, it is that one cannot respond to Trump with flattery and timidity. It leads nowhere; it only gets worse. Trump and his government must be met with clarity, with unity, and with strength. That was how Denmark and Europe acted when Trump threatened with tariffs. Mette Frederiksen and Lars Løkke Rasmussen, with Europe behind them, stood their ground with clarity and strength. If one does that, he is forced to back down. That is the most important lesson we can draw from this year.

Now the government is sharpening the descriptions of the USA in the foreign policy declaration. We welcome that; it is about time. It is true, of course, that the tone in Marco Rubio's speech at this year's Munich Conference was not as aggressive as in JD Vance's speech last year, but the content was the same this year too: Europe is doing poorly and is weak. Europe has destroyed itself through investments in welfare and free trade. The climate crisis is a fabrication, and the USA does not intend to follow any international laws or respect international law. The rules-based world order has played out its role – that was the message this year too.

Behind the scenes, the USA is therefore pressuring Ukraine to make them cede territory to Russia and organize elections in the middle of the war. The USA's claims on Greenland also remain, but that is not all – the entire Western Hemisphere is to be the USA's sphere of interest, regardless of what the people in these countries think. After his speech, Rubio also went directly to Budapest to meet Viktor Orbán, the most authoritarian leader in Europe and a support point for Putin in the EU.

Initially, Rubio's speech was met with standing ovations from some. The Foreign Minister said after the speech that many felt relieved, but the truth is that Rubio expressed exactly the same message as Vance, just not as aggressively. I therefore do not believe that one should go for this good cop, bad cop strategy, Mr. Speaker. There is no reason to feel relieved. Europe's reaction cannot be standing ovations.

The European reaction must be to continue to guard the transatlantic link and the cooperation with the USA, but at the same time understand that we must significantly reduce our strategic dependencies on the USA. This applies militarily, it applies technically, and it applies economically. We must instead expand our cooperation with other countries and regions. Canada's Prime Minister Mark Carney has taken the initiative for new broad global alliances for the small and medium-sized states, and Sweden must join in. This concerns Canada, Japan, South Korea, New Zealand and Australia, but also Latin America, Africa, India and the rest of the global south.

We Social Democrats raised this already a year ago; that is why we requested that the Defense Committee be reconvened to conduct an updated security policy analysis. It was first dismissed by the government, but eventually we were heard. Now, for a couple of weeks, there has been a new Defense Committee in place, and we thank for that, even if, as was said, a year was lost. This is absolutely necessary, and we look forward to constructive discussions where, hopefully, a consensus can finally be found on how the world situation should be interpreted and met at this moment.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden shall be a strong voice for international law, international law, and human rights. We shall be a strong voice for the Palestinians' right to a state of their own and for the Iranian people's self-evident right to liberation from the mullahs' brutal oppression and to decide their own future. We shall be a strong voice for Western Sahara's right to independence and self-determination – yes, wherever these values are threatened, Sweden's voice shall be clear and distinct.

Sweden must also be a clear voice for nuclear arms control, especially now when central agreements in the nuclear weapons area have expired. New initiatives must be taken here to prevent a nuclear war devastating for humanity at all costs. But unfortunately, the most common comment one now receives about Sweden in international contexts is: Where is Sweden? Where has Sweden gone?

That is understandable, because the picture is that Sweden has withdrawn more and more from the international scene. We no longer participate at the ministerial level at important meetings, such as the climate summit in the autumn or the meeting this summer on development financing for the poorest countries. The Foreign Minister is absent from every third meeting of foreign ministers.

Sweden is also closing the embassies in Bolivia, Liberia and Zimbabwe and phasing out all aid to these countries. Aid is also being terminated in Tanzania and Mozambique, as well as in Mali, South Sudan, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Iraq and Afghanistan. When Sweden and other Western countries withdraw, the vacuum is instead filled by other actors, such as Russia and China.

Sweden has cut back on almost all UN organizations we have previously supported: UN World Food Programme, UNFPA, UNDP, UN Women and UNRWA. Sweden is thus contributing to further worsening the situation for the UN.

We are no longer exercising any leadership either – not even by setting an example.

Sweden used to be a country with low unemployment, high growth and a low proportion of poor people. Today we have 500,000 unemployed, a growth at the bottom of the EU scale and 700,000 below the poverty line, a doubling in three years.

Sweden used to be a country that led the climate transition. Today, emissions are increasing, and Sweden is missing all climate goals. We are throwing our waste to our neighbor.

Sweden used to be a country that stood up for the rights of women and girls. Today, feminist foreign policy has been abandoned, and the aid cuts hit women and girls very hard in, for example, Africa and Afghanistan.

Sweden used to allocate 1 percent of the national income to aid. Today, we are quickly heading below the shame threshold of 0.7.

Mr. Speaker! In conclusion: Our vision is that Sweden shall be a good citizen in the international community. A good such citizen sets an example for others, takes responsibility for both itself and the common good, and is active and global, not passive and provincial. A good such citizen dares to show leadership and sometimes also go first, well aware that it often ends with one being last if one never dares to go first.

Sweden shall be a good citizen in the international community, but it requires a reorganization of the foreign policy.

(Applause)

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

Aron Emilsson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The Social Democrats are associated with two things. The first is to stick out a finger and feel which way the winds are blowing in order to adopt the perception that is popular and can thus give the red-greens power back – even if one has been of the exact opposite opinion shortly before. The second is to act reactively – to swing under the gallows when one stands before the completed fact that the map must be adapted to the terrain.

We have seen this in the repositioning regarding Nato and now in the lack of policy on what Sweden should do within Nato. We see it in the lack of decisions regarding anti-personnel mines and the forward presence in Finland. We see it in the lack of security policy consensus on the left flank close to the election.

How are Morgan Johansson and the Social Democrats to get the red-green crew to row in the same direction when everyone is holding their own oar and their own compass, one of which says no and the other says yes to the DCA agreement – and fundamentally to Natomedlemskap? The only thing that seems to unite you, Morgan Johansson, is the consensus that you do not want to cooperate with each other.

My short and important question is therefore: What line will we get with a red-green government if, against all odds, they were to win the election this autumn?

(Applause)

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I have just outlined that line. Sweden shall be a good citizen in the international community, that is to say, a country that takes responsibility both for itself and for others. In that case, it is not sufficient to, for example, have a climate policy that means we contribute to the problem rather than trying to solve it. It is also not sufficient to cut back on important development aid efforts in precisely those countries that need the support more than ever.

When it comes to defense policy, our parties are in complete agreement on how we want to develop it. We have reached an agreement, in a broad settlement where the Sverigedemokraterna are also included, to increase defense spending. We also add how important it is that we acquire new defense capabilities and so to speak bind together our part of the world, that is, bind together the defense organizations in the Nordic countries, the Baltic countries as well as Germany and Poland in a common defense.

These were just a few examples where we on our side are in complete agreement. But what is the situation really with the Sweden Democrats and the other side? I saw how Jimmie Åkesson sat on TV and begged for support from Trump. He wants Trump to step in and back up the Sweden Democrats in the upcoming election campaign. If the right side were to win the election and the Sweden Democrats end up in the government, Jimmie Åkesson could become Foreign Minister, and then the question is: What line will that government take on the Ukraine issue and the Greenland issue if one asks for support from Trump and the MAGA movement? Do the Sweden Democrats believe that the support is free if they were to receive it?

One can, therefore, try to point out some differences of opinion on our side, but the question I think Aron Emilsson should ask is what policy SD and Jimmie Åkesson will actually pursue in a government position.

(Applause)

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

Aron Emilsson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I note that Morgan Johansson avoids the two very crucial security policy issues where there is disagreement on the left wing and instead speaks about all other issues. That is where we need answers. What line will we get with a potential red-green government? I get no answers to that.

What characterizes the Social Democrats today is that they want to be some kind of orchestra conductor for a pitch-perfect symphony orchestra but lack a conductor, a second violin, a common sheet of music, and a repertoire.

Morgan Johansson mentioned that feminist foreign policy has been abandoned. What does the Social Democrats want to fill a feminist foreign policy with then? This government, in cooperation with the Sverigedemokraterna, has shifted the course towards a results-oriented and effective equality work worldwide. Do the Socialdemokraterna want to return to a policy where they arrange writing workshops to write Wikipedia articles, count men and women on boards in the foreign representation, and want 50–50 invited at various receptions? What is it that they want to fill the feminist foreign policy with?

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I must say that Aron Emilsson has a very arrogant tone when it comes to the rights of women and girls, in the same way as the Foreign Minister just did when she said that feminist foreign policy was just fuss.

It is actually not that. Feminist foreign policy has been about highlighting women's and girls' rights, representation, and resources in all contexts. I would say that this is more important than ever in a situation where women and girls in Iran and Afghanistan are fighting to get rid of oppression. Even in Western countries, people are fighting for rights that were previously taken for granted, for example, the right to abortion. In that case, it is more important than ever that Sweden has the strength to stand up for it.

Don't just talk about writing rooms or anything of the sort! Look instead at the evaluations that have been made, including those by the Expert Group for Aid Analysis. It has been clearly stated that the feminist foreign policy had lasting and important effects, especially on the aid side. We will re-establish that.

(Applause)

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

Utrikesministern Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is certainly election campaign now; one notices that.

There was a great deal in Morgan Johansson's speech about what he does not like about the government's policy. Just like my colleague, however, I did not hear much about what the Social Democrats themselves want. It is perhaps not so strange.

We must nevertheless consider Morgan Johansson as the Social Democrats' foreign minister candidate. It is certainly no easy task to unite the left side when it comes to foreign and security policy. Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet are putting spokes in the wheels of the EU's trade agreement with the Mercosur countries in South America. Half of Morgan Johansson's so-called government basis said no to Sweden joining Nato. Vänsterpartiet wants to terminate the DCA agreement with the USA, which I know Morgan Johansson does not want.

Sweden needs a foreign and security policy that strengthens cooperation with neighboring countries and does not neglect them. We need a foreign and security policy that strengthens Sweden's and Europe's economy and defense instead of binding us and making us weaker.

This is what we agree on on our side of the politics. Sweden cannot afford a leftward turn in foreign policy that blocks trade agreements and cooperation to make Sweden safer.

I have three questions for Morgan Johansson.

First of all: How is he going to put together a government that wants to make Sweden less secure and poorer?

Secondly: Has Morgan Johansson even spoken with Mette Frederiksen? They have shown enormous gratitude for the support we have shown them. We have calibrated the tone exactly according to what they want.

For the third: Which taxes does Morgan Johansson actually intend to raise for ordinary, hard-working people to finance the very expansive donor policy that he has just expressed?

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I can state that we are in agreement regarding defense policy. This applies not only to Maria Malmer Stenergard and me, but all eight parties are in agreement within the framework of the settlement that was made in the Defense Committee last year. I do not quite understand what Maria Malmer Stenergard is referring to when she talks about us making Sweden more insecure.

All parties, from left to right, agree on the increases in defense spending that we are going to proceed with. We agree on a strategy to bind together the countries in Sweden's immediate vicinity and deepen the defense policy cooperation so that it becomes almost seamless between the Nordic countries, the Baltic countries, Poland and Germany in order to be able to defend this part of the world.

What there is no agreement on is the financing of this part. We have said that we want a readiness tax that can partially finance the large expenditures on the defense side. Why do we say that? Yes, we say it because we do not want to pass the entire bill on to future generations. We do not want our children and grandchildren to have to pay for this. We also do not want this to completely crowd out important investments in health care and school. However, the Moderaterna have said no to this.

Defense is not so important for the Moderaterna that one can imagine that the very richest should be prepared to let go of another hundred or thousand kronor, but it is someone else who will have to pay for this at some point in the future.

We are going to an election on an increase in the tax for those with the very highest incomes in order to, in that way, get back some of the money that the government has already spent. The Minister and her colleagues have themselves received 6,000 kronor a month in tax cuts during this mandate period. This has been done instead of investing the money in important welfare areas or letting it go towards a co-financing of the defense costs.

(Applause)

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

Utrikesministern Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)

Mr. Speaker! I want to thank Morgan Johansson for being so clear that it will become very expensive for hard-working Swedes if the Social Democrats take over. This government, instead, makes priorities – that is an important task.

From this government's side, we have done what we said we would do. We have taken Sweden into Nato. We have increased the support to Ukraine. We have strengthened the cooperation in Sweden's immediate vicinity and for Sweden's security. Nothing is more important for this government than the security of Sweden and the Swedish people.

So that was not actually the case with the previous government. The S-led government hardly went to the Baltics. When first Stefan Löfven and then Magdalena Andersson were Prime Minister, they only made bilateral visits to the Baltic countries once during the years 2014–2018 and not a single time between 2018 and 2022. Gathering votes for their own UN campaign was more important than uniting the neighboring area for strengthened security. Tahiti was more important than Tallinn.

It is not about being a strong voice in the world, Morgan Johansson. Are you prepared to reprioritize and prioritize what is truly important?

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I do not think perhaps that the Minister for Foreign Affairs should lecture others on attendance at meetings considering that she herself is absent from a third of all foreign ministers' meetings, even though she said in the foreign policy declaration that the EU is our most important foreign policy platform. I think she should tone down that criticism somewhat.

When it comes to money and distribution, we have seen that this government has ignored even thinking about the financing of, among other things, the defense expenditures. They have chosen to push the entire bill onto the future. At the same time, Sweden has had very low growth. We have been at the bottom of the EU's pit when it comes to growth. Then you don't get more money.

We have now seen that Elisabeth Svantesson has gone out and said that she has emptied the barns. This does not only concern this mandate period, but she has also signed away the entire reform space for the next mandate period. There is no money left.

If we are to turn the situation around, we must be prepared to ensure that those who have the very highest incomes are involved and contribute a little more. I actually believe that there is a great deal of support among the Swedish people for this.

(Applause)

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

Kerstin Lundgren (C)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Morgan Johansson, for the contribution!

I heard nothing about the climate as a security issue in Morgan Johansson's contribution. For the Center Party, it is extremely clear that the climate is a security challenge that is not solved with military means in the short term but may require this in the future. We know, after all, that climate issues lead to conflicts in the future. I would like to hear how the Social Democrats view the climate as a security risk that must be addressed.

I also wonder about the China policy, because I heard nothing about China. I am curious whether the Social Democrats see that the time for the "one country, two systems" stance is over, given the developments in China and that even Hong Kong, which was part of the second system, is becoming more and more a blueprint of the party in Beijing.

Finally: Orbán's Hungary has taken the EU hostage on far too many issues. It has moved slowly, and the EU has stalled when it comes to, for example, sanctions against Russia. Would Morgan Johansson and the Socialdemokraterna be prepared to introduce sanction possibilities at the Swedish level so that we can get ourselves out of Orbán's claws?

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I interpret the last question as not being about sanctions against Hungary, but against Israel or other countries. I would like to review this possibility, and I know that there are other countries that do this. But even today, there are measures we as a nation can take, for example, stopping the settlers' goods from entering the Swedish market. The EU Commission has stated that the settlers' goods are not covered by the trade agreement, and thus we have an opportunity to enact national legislation to stop these goods. It is a type of national sanction that we can proceed with already now.

I mentioned the climate and said that Sweden used to lead when it comes to the climate transition. We no longer do that. We are missing all climate goals and increasing our emissions. I expressed it as that we are throwing the trash to the neighbor. We let someone else take care of our emissions. Instead of leading and showing that one can solve these problems, we hand it over to someone else and to future generations.

Of course, the climate is an important security issue. When the climate changes and it leads to natural disasters in the form of floods, extreme storms and so on, and thereby to increased poverty, conflicts between people also increase.

When it comes to China, I want to stick to the policy we have had, but in line with how the European Commission has expressed it, it concerns de-risking, not decoupling. We should view China as an important trading partner but also be aware that there are goods and services that we perhaps should not trade with China. There must be a caution here. That is how the Social Democrats view this.

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

Kerstin Lundgren (C)

Mr. Speaker! When it comes to China, it is important that we are clear that the one-country, two-systems model that was introduced when Britain handed over Hong Kong to China no longer works. There is only one China, and China policy is about meeting the Communist Party's China and the strong grip it has over its entire territory. It is also important to support Taiwan because the two-systems model no longer exists.

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Mr. Speaker! To continue with China, it is a self-evident matter that we must point out violations of human rights in all contexts. We must also, in all contexts, criticize the development where great powers attempt to create spheres of interest and dominance in their part of the world. For example, the American behavior regarding the Western Hemisphere is serious because it sends signals to other great powers that one can behave in this way. We must stand guard over all peoples' freedom and opportunity for self-determination, and this applies everywhere in the world.

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

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Under the Social Democratic government, there was often talk of dialogue tracks and diplomatic openings towards Iran. At the same time, we see how the Iranian regime continues to finance Hezbollah, Hamas, and others. They also brutally suppress their own population and plan and support security threats in Europe. Today we know more. We know that Iran not only destabilizes the Middle East but also actively tries to influence and threaten European societies. Recently, we have also seen Iranian regime-loyal flags in Palestine demonstrations, which raises questions about how the regime tries to normalize its influence even here in Sweden.

My question to Morgan Johansson is therefore: Does the member believe that the Social Democrats' previous line was sufficiently sharp? Are the Social Democrats prepared to work for significantly tougher and more consistent sanctions against Iran due to Iran's support for terror-labeled proxy groups? Are the Social Democrats also prepared to more clearly acknowledge the connection between Iran's actions in the region and the concrete threat we see to security in Europe?

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Just as I said in my speech, the regime of the mullahs in Iran has for decades been an enormous problem. The people in Iran have lived under a brutal oppression, and in the last months we have seen its worst manifestations with thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of people killed.

I welcome every development in a democratic direction and for increased human rights in Iran, and the rest of the world must do everything it can to advocate for this and increase the pressure. That was why we, a few years ago, among other things, agreed that we would push hard to designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization, which we agreed on from left to right. A few years later, it is a reality, and it is a great success because it reduces the possibility of recruiting for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard and makes it harder for them to operate in Europe.

We Social Democrats intend to do everything to increase the pressure on the Iranian regime to achieve a different development and once and for all get rid of the terrible oppression that has suffocated people in Iran for decades.

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

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member Johansson for elaborating on his position in his response. In his main argument, there was very much focus on the USA and very little focus on Iran, so I thought that my question was relevant.

Many of us have seen images from the Social Democrats' time in power when Swedish representatives and ministers in veils met the Iranian regime with almost submissive kindness while people in Iran were imprisoned, tortured, and executed.

That is why I ask Morgan Johansson: What is it that makes us believe that the Social Democrats today stand for a clearer line against Iran than the one you stood for previously? What specifically has changed in your analysis, policy, and readiness when it comes to putting pressure on the regime?

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I know that images from our government visit to Iran are circulating. At that time, the assessment was made that the visit could contribute to the release of a number of political prisoners, which in fact also happened. In different contexts, one must try to use the channels that exist to try to drive forward change, such as the release of political prisoners. It is against this background that the visit should be seen.

I do not think that the debate should be lowered to that level. When we have diplomatic contacts aimed at what I mentioned, one should not try to turn it into something that it is actually not about.

As I have clarified here in the speaker's chair, our line is clear: We want to increase the pressure on Iran to achieve a democratic development.

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Mr. Speaker! I read in the media that the Social Democrats are going to the election on a platform of reintroducing the so-called feminist foreign policy, and this also emerged here during some exchanges of remarks.

I call myself a feminist, my party as well, but what we saw of the social democratic so-called feminist foreign policy last time it happened was a complete catastrophe. It was words, words, words but very little action.

But a clear action was indeed taken, and it went viral globally. It was in 2017 when Social Democratic ministers traveled to Tehran in Iran and female protesters showed their reverence for the reactionary and misogynistic mullahs. They marched in a parade in front of them, dressed in hijabs and with arched backs in a scene of submission.

After that, Mr. Speaker, the government concluded five cooperation agreements with the ayatollahs. One of these concerned equality. Prime Minister Stefan Löfven received a question about this from Aftonbladet: How will this agreement help women in Iran? Stefan Löfven answered: Iran shall develop it itself. How, one might wonder. Why should Sweden give legitimacy in agreements and give free rein to a woman-hating regime to itself define what it considers to be equality?

Is it more of this, Morgan Johansson, that we will see if the Social Democrats move back into the Ministry for Foreign Affairs this autumn? I would say that would be devastating for oppressed women in the world.

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Just as I explained in the exchange with Magnus Berttsson, we do not only stand behind the sanctions against Iran, but we have also pushed in the Committee on Foreign Affairs to expand them.

It was among others we who, a few years ago, took the initiative to push forward a terror designation of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard. Together with other parties, we reached a consensus on the declaration that the Riksdag then directed to the government. And now we are there – the Islamic Revolutionary Guard is terror-designated.

Fredrik Malm is a man of big words. He said that the feminist foreign policy was a catastrophe. Has he read the Expert Group for Aid Analysis' evaluation of the feminist foreign policy and its significance for aid? It is about highlighting women's right to representation and resources in every context and highlighting women's and girls' rights in every context. He obviously has not done that, for if he had, he would not have expressed himself in that way.

What we have seen instead now, with Fredrik Malm at the helm, is a dramatic reduction of support for girls and women all over the world. Just take Afghanistan, where all aid is being phased out, which among other things affects Rädda Barnen, which now has to break already entered agreements with local actors and leave girls and women in Afghanistan in the lurch. That is what Fredrik Malm stands for. Or take Africa, where Sweden is also withdrawing to a large extent, in a situation where people are suffering. We are talking about perhaps the greatest humanitarian catastrophe on earth right now, and then Sweden withdraws.

It is clear that Fredrik Malm can stand here and pull out an image from 2017 and make some kind of rhetorical point, but in practice, it is he who has dismantled the support for women and girls around the world. This, Mr. Speaker, is what we intend to turn around.

(Applause)

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Mr. Speaker! ”Fredrik Malm is a friend of big words,” said Morgan Johansson, but those who wield big words are Morgan Johansson and the Social Democrats, who are now going to run on a feminist foreign policy. I am, as I said, a feminist. I do not believe, however, that a foreign policy becomes feminist just because one says that it is; rather, it is about what one does.

What this government has done is to provide 90 billion Swedish kronor in military support to Ukraine. This means that Ukrainian women do not need to be raped and occupied by a Russian fascistoid state power that claims to stand for so-called traditional values. It is feminist foreign policy.

This government stands for providing maximum support to Moldova and its female president Maia Sandu. It is feminist foreign policy.

We create opportunities to strengthen women's rights through actions, not words.

(Applause)

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Mr. Speaker! We have been in agreement on the support for Ukraine – every new support package. The truth is that it was the Social Democratic government that initiated the support to Ukraine. I was personally responsible for part of the first package, which we decided on already four days after the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

We have, therefore, agreed on that. That is not what the conflict is about, but rather that Fredrik Malm's government has systematically dismantled support for, among other things, women and girls in the world. I mentioned Afghanistan and all those countries, not least in Africa, where we are withdrawing and reducing our aid.

Talk to the civil society organizations that have worked with this locally, Fredrik Malm, and let them describe to you what they are now allowed to do! They are allowed to withdraw and leave their local actors because they no longer receive any support from the Swedish government.

Part of the feminist foreign policy that the Social Democrats want to reintroduce is that Sweden should once again be able to help in those respects and in the areas that have been left behind.

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

Aron Emilsson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! We live in the new era of disorder. Our continent is shaken by great war and terror. Old friends become new enemies. Red lines are replaced by red carpets. Old truths and common rules are rejected. Strength takes precedence over right, and without the former, one stands no chance.

We live in a time when the fog is thickening over Europe, a time when what was just recently taken for granted can no longer be assumed, and a time when security is not an abstract word in a policy document but a question of society's transformation and actual survival.

We live in a security policy environment that is not only serious but also volatile. Over the past year, it has become clear that the world we have grown accustomed to since the end of the Second World War has changed. Rule-based order has increasingly tilted towards rule-breaking disorder. International law is colliding with international injustice.

Mr. Speaker! The USA is an important partner, but Nordic territory is not a real estate market. With the current administration in Washington and its actions in relation to our neighboring country, an uncomfortable insight has emerged: We can no longer assume that the USA is always the stable ally it has been. When claims are directed towards Greenland – a Nordic territory – we see a paradigm shift. Paradigm shifts are not ignored. They are met with clear answers and effective measures aimed at safeguarding the Nordic region and the future of the transatlantic link.

Allies do not treat each other as potential prizes. Greenland is not a strategic vacuum. It is a land with a people and a history and with a right to self-determination within the Danish realm. To understand the island as a chessboard between great powers is exactly the rootless globalism that we conservatives combat, regardless of where it comes from – signal-politically from Washington or realpolitically from Moscow or Beijing.

But sharp rhetoric is not enough. Words must be followed by action. Europe and in particular the Nordic countries should, together with Denmark, establish an increased presence around Greenland, defensively but clearly, to raise the threshold symbolically and practically against any thought of intervention or an imposed so-called solution, regardless of the sender. It is quite rightly, as the USA also points out, that even China and Russia need to be met by a powerful and robust Nordic and Nato in the Arctic. This is something the Sverigedemokraterna have pointed out for a long time in this chamber.

This can and should happen through, for example, strengthened surveillance and maritime security, recurring joint North European exercises, expanded civil and military infrastructure, clear marking of sovereignty, increased Nordic presence and joint investments.

Such a presence is based on Nordic cohesion and is not anti-American. It is pro-European. It is pro-national. It says: Here, the law prevails over power. Here, borders are respected. Here, the West arms itself collectively against the axis powers China and Russia in the east.

Mr. Speaker! At the same time, the war in Ukraine continues to rage. The front lines are largely static, but static is not the same as stable. For both the soldiers at the front and the civilians, the horrors of war are a constant, ice-cold, whipping blizzard. The Russian attacks against civil energy infrastructure continue and paralyze people. A locked front can at any time be broken by a surprise attack from the ground, from the sea, or from the air. The Russian airstrikes have intensified, and the threat does not stop at Ukraine's borders.

Mr. Speaker! Russia is not only arming itself militarily but also at the deep and systemic level of society. They are expanding bases in our immediate vicinity, converting their industry, and mobilizing their population. Schoolchildren are being indoctrinated. Criminals are being recruited. An entire society is being shaped for war. It is not a coincidence. It is a strategy – the Russian bear's imperialist march.

Sweden's response is and must be persistent, stubborn and comprehensive support to Ukraine, militarily, humanitarily and politically. As recently as a couple of weeks ago, we presented from the Sweden Democrats' and the government's side a new support package to Ukraine of 1 billion kronor to support the country's energy sector.

Power lines are knocked out. Heating plants are bombed. Millions of people are left in cold and darkness. Energy is more than electricity. It is warmth for a child who is going to sleep. It is light for a doctor performing their work and hope for families who refuse to give up despite the attacks raining down. Then we support Ukraine and its brave people with power plants, space heaters, and spare parts that enable the repair of damaged infrastructure.

Including the new support package, Sweden's total support to Ukraine since Russia's full-scale invasion amounts to a total of approximately 114 billion kronor. The blue and yellow ribbons are historical, but they are now also being twisted strongly for a future where two free nations shall be able to burst forth towards the spring: "What do we care about the tsar? Look at the heron, look at the heron!"

Iran and North Korea support Moscow. In Iran, brave people have taken to the streets and demanded freedom. They have been met with bullets, torture, and mass arrests, and thousands and thousands more have been killed. The world's pressure on the regime must increase, and the Islamist dictatorship must fall. In North Korea, the nuclear weapons program continues in the shadow of the world's concern. Oppression inward and aggression outward is the pattern.

At the same time, China is emerging as a global power with the ability to project strength far beyond its immediate vicinity, including in ours. It is arming itself massively. It is building an ocean-going fleet and expanding its strategic nuclear arsenals. It supports Russia and is allowed to continue doing so at a rapid pace toward a new world order.

As if this were not enough, for the first time since 1972, the world is without an agreement that limits strategic nuclear weapons. The new START treaty has expired.

In this situation, everything other than naivety and wishful thinking is required. Nordic coolness and a proactive and responsible approach are required.

The Sweden Democrats see the need to act powerfully in the current deteriorated security situation and a great need to strengthen nuclear deterrence. Nato is inferior to Russia regarding tactical nuclear weapons, both quantitatively and qualitatively. It is that category of nuclear weapons that poses the greatest threat to Sweden. Therefore, the Sweden Democrats already in 2024 submitted proposals that Nato should strengthen precisely this deterrence. Unfortunately, that proposal was not passed in the chamber. On the contrary, we have seen how the nuclear threat has not been taken seriously enough over time. The Social Democrats proposed as recently as 2022 that Sweden should declare limitations in its Nato membership regarding nuclear weapons and not function fully in the new defense alliance.

Contrary to this passive approach, Sweden should actively seek to strengthen nuclear deterrence in Europe with our Nato allies. We should not rule out that even in the gray zone time that prevails between total war and peace, nuclear weapons could be stationed on Swedish territory if so deemed advantageous for Swedish security policy interests.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker: We need to deepen cooperation with other democracies living under existential threats. Taiwan lives under constant pressure from China. To stand up for Taiwan is morally right, but it is also strategically wise. There, there is high technology, innovation, and expertise that can contribute to mutual development and defense capability.

To summarize: The new era of disorder is no time for hesitation, no time for sluggishness and no time for symbolic politics. When future generations look back on our time, they should be able to say: They took their responsibility so that freedom could live on and so that Sweden stood strong even when the storm rolled over Europe.

(Applause)

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I intended to follow up on the exchange we had earlier regarding SD and Trump.

We have seen quite a few examples over the years of how the Sweden Democrats first served Russia's interests. Your former party leader Mikael Jansson, who sat on the Defense Committee, spread Russian narratives. Your former defense policy spokesperson Roger Richthoff is also linked to Russian interests. Last week it turned out that your top name in Jimmie Åkesson's home municipality Sölvesborg, Emilie Pilthammar, has exactly the same sympathies. Reading her blog posts is like diving straight into the Russian rabbit hole.

In recent years, this has been mixed with not infrequently quite devout tributes to Donald Trump. SD is, after all, Trump's party in Sweden. You cultivate contacts with the MAGA movement and send members of Parliament to Trump meetings, which they then enthusiastically report back from. Tobias Andersson has been there, and Josef Fransson has been there.

SD is also a party that has nominated Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize, not once but twice. On one occasion, it was Mattias Karlsson who did it. He expressed himself as follows when he nominated Trump: "No honest judge can deny the enormous contribution he has made for a more peaceful world." It is therefore a president who has renamed his defense department to the war department.

There is something a bit strange here. First, you cultivate contacts with the Russians. Then Russia invades Ukraine, and then you understand that it wasn't so good. Then you cultivate contacts with Trump and with the MAGA movement. Then Trump threatens Denmark and Greenland, and then you understand that that doesn't look so good either and try to get out of it.

I actually only have one question. I saw how Jimmie Åkesson sat in TV this week and said that he would gladly like to receive support from Trump in the upcoming election campaign, and that was after Trump had threatened Greenland and Denmark. So my question is how one should interpret this. Have you broken with the MAGA movement now, or have you not done that?

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

Aron Emilsson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Sometimes it is a bit astonishing to hear Morgan Johansson pontificate both here in the chamber and in the media about various alleged connections to both Trump and the MAGA movement and even to Russia when one, on the other hand, in this house, in the nation's highest decision-making body, knows exactly what the Sweden Democrats stand for and what result and what track record we have.

When it comes to the support for Ukraine and countering the Russian aggression, we stood here a decade before the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine and warned against the Russian aggression. We fought against the type of disarmament and downscaling policy that Morgan Johansson and the Social Democratic government were responsible for.

I think this is astonishing. One must nevertheless take history into account and what we have actually done in relation to the Russian threat. Historically, they burned and lived as bandits in the region I myself come from, and they are now doing the same thing in Ukraine. Therefore, we have a unity and a strength in the message that we stand by Ukraine against the Russian aggression.

I have also been very clear during my years as foreign policy spokesperson and chair of the Committee on Foreign Affairs: We have seen a shift in the USA. They have today, as I mentioned in my speech just now, an administration that is unpredictable and erratic and which has attacked our western neighbor with rhetorical threats. That must be met with actions and clear demarcations. I mentioned several examples; I did not hear Morgan Johansson mention any actual examples of how to meet this. Again, it was only words and symbolic politics. It provides no deterrent or realpolitik effect when we have a serious signal policy from the USA and an even worse military threat from Russia and China.

(Applause)

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I cannot quite make this add up. Aron Emilsson says that Trump and the USA are unpredictable and erratic and notes how they have behaved towards Ukraine, Denmark, and Greenland. In the next breath, you in the Sweden Democrats are begging for support from Trump. Jimmie Åkesson says that he would welcome it if Trump backed the Sweden Democrats in the election campaign.

Then one must know that this is serious. It is not some kind of fantasy, but it is exactly as JD Vance and other representatives of the American administration have said: They are prepared to back right-wing extremist parties in Europe ahead of various elections. That is why they back different parties in, among others, France, Germany, Hungary and the United Kingdom.

If you were to receive that support from Trump, it would not be free. Therefore, my question earlier was: If Jimmie Åkesson were to become Foreign Minister in the next government, what line will he then pursue? Is it the line that Aron Emilsson is talking about now regarding Ukraine and Greenland, or is it Trump's line that he will pursue?

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

Aron Emilsson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! To begin with, Morgan Johansson must have missed the statement that Jimmie Åkesson, the undersigned, and Mattias Karlsson made when the Greenland crisis was at its most difficult. There, we listed examples of measures that Denmark, the Nordic countries, and Europe now need to take to raise the threshold and symbolically mark against all types of intervention against Greenland, with the point clearly aimed at the current administration in Washington. It is a fact, and it happened after the latest Greenland disaster.

Furthermore, I have also seen the clip that Morgan Johansson refers to. I have seen it several times, and it is completely obvious that Jimmie Åkesson at several occasions describes that it is not desirable to have any form of foreign election interference in the Swedish election. It is explicitly stated. If someone then hypothetically thinks that it is good if it goes well for a party, that is a completely different matter, but it is not desirable to have any foreign election interference in the Swedish election. This has been repeated by me and by several representatives of the party leadership.

It is what Morgan Johansson should take to heart. The Swedish election is for the Swedish people.

(Applause)

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by welcoming Aron Emilsson back to the Riksdag after his parental leave.

I am wondering about a vote that took place in the European Parliament during Emilsson's parental leave, on November 13 last year. At that time, the European Parliament urged the EU to address the actions of authoritarian regimes to subdue, control, and silence political opponents and other critical voices abroad. This is a major problem that we have seen many examples of here in Sweden from various regimes, such as the Iranian regime's persecution of Swedish-Iranians or the Chechen activist and blogger who was attacked in his home in Gävle a few years ago. Two people were subsequently convicted of attempted murder on him. Another well-known example is the Swedish book publisher Gui Minhai who was kidnapped from Thailand, taken to China, and has remained imprisoned since 2015 – a Chinese action that we have condemned many times in the Swedish Riksdag.

According to Freedom House, there have been 1,219 direct physical incidents in 103 countries since 2014. 80 percent of the cases of cross-border persecution come from ten countries: China, Russia, Belarus, Iran, Turkey, Tajikistan, Egypt, Cambodia, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan.

But for some reason, the Sweden Democrats Dick Erixon, Beatrice Timgren and Charlie Weimers voted against the resolution to do everything we can to stop this persecution – Weimers who otherwise seems to spend most of his time arguing with Swedish authorities that, in addition to his high salary of 120,000 kronor a month, he should also be entitled to child benefit, even though he and his family live in Belgium.

I cannot make sense of this. Why did the Sweden Democrats vote against the resolution to stop the persecution of human rights defenders?

(Applause)

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

Aron Emilsson (SD)

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

It is good and important that we Members of Parliament, including committee chairs, can show that we are human beings. At that time, I was fully occupied with, among other things, taking care of our newborn daughter and am therefore not aware of what happened in this matter in the European Parliament.

We both know, however, as everyone here in the chamber does, that a vote is many times part of a larger voting package. We know that it is preceded by various committee treatments and that there are processes behind it. I do not have insight into these here and now, partly because of what I mentioned but also because we have had quite a lot of other things to think about given the foreign and security policy situation.

Unfortunately, I have no good answer to give on this question today given that I do not know the matter in detail, unfortunately.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! Now this resolution passed in the European Parliament with a large majority. The development, which the Sweden Democrats vote against, is nevertheless a sign of the times. We see how the Sweden Democrats are pushing for a shrinking democratic space both in Sweden and globally.

According to the organization Civil Rights Defenders, the Tidö group, with the Sweden Democrats at the forefront, has withdrawn support from organizations that are critical of their policies, given higher salaries to officials who drive Tidö policy, and politicized several appointments. They have repeatedly attacked the media, especially public service, and criminalized entire groups.

A clear example in foreign policy is that certain individuals have not been considered entitled to consular assistance based on their opinions or because they have held dual citizenship.

When we vote the Sweden Democrats out of power, we will also see a stop to the shrinking of the democratic space both in Sweden and globally.

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

Aron Emilsson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Now, the Sweden Democrats do not have full influence over foreign policy today. I think, however, that an incredible amount has moved in the right direction during the last parliamentary term. Håkan Svenneling also knows that the Sweden Democrats have been pioneers in many of the major and important issues concerning both the defense of human rights and the rise of democracy in countries that have lived under oppression and dictatorship.

Many are speaking today about Iran. We have been driving in the Riksdag to put the Iranian Revolutionary Guard on the terror list. Both in the European Parliament and here in this chamber, we have worked for more entry bans for regime supporters and their relatives, more sanction listings, more MR sanction listings, and so on. Several of us have been present at many of the largest people's uprisings against the Iranian regime to put pressure from the outside world so that the regime will fall.

The same applies in the question of China. The same applies in the question of persecuted Christians around the world, who suffer in a large number of countries. There, we in the Sweden Democrats have been clear in our defense of these groups.

(Applause)

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

Kerstin Lundgren (C)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Aron Emilsson for the contribution.

I had not intended to raise this specific point, but given previous remarks, I must nevertheless ask the question: Will the Sweden Democrats refuse MAGA support for their think tank? That is what has been promised from the US side. It would be good to have a clear statement and not just a general declaration.

Mr. Speaker! When I listened to the contribution, I did not hear a single word about the EU – perhaps I was listening poorly. It is impossible to avoid the fact that the EU must take a clearer position. The EU is Sweden's most important security policy arena, and therefore I naturally wonder how the Sweden Democrats view the EU.

In your principle program, it appears that there should not be more majority decisions in the EU. Is that still the Sweden Democrats' opinion? Nor should security be an issue for the EU, but most believe that the EU must take a much clearer position and take a clearer responsibility for building security and defense in Europe. Does the principle program apply in a referendum, if one were to occur? Is it a referendum requirement that will be put forward by the Sweden Democrats in the upcoming election campaign?

Finally, it was the question of China. Four years have passed, and we have still not seen the government take a position on strengthening relations with Taiwan. The question of a House of Sweden we have pushed for a long time. The Riksdag has voted for it, but nothing has happened yet – not even now. Will the Sverigedemokraterna push forward?

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

Aron Emilsson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! There were many questions to answer. I will start immediately, and then we will see if I have time.

First and foremost, Henrik Vinge from the party leadership and I have expressed that we will take a critical stance if any rumors emerge regarding some kind of foreign support in the Swedish election campaign. It is elementary, fundamental, and reasonable given that it concerns the fate of the Swedish people.

Regarding the specific support to the think tank, I do not have any closer picture of what it concerns. I will have to investigate that and get back to you.

I often say in different contexts that we need the EU both more than ever and less than ever at the same time. That is the complex picture, and it is important to keep two thoughts in mind at the same time.

The EU has become an incredibly important and completely central security and defense policy arena in this security situation. We benefit from making joint large-scale procurements regarding the defense industry. We benefit from scaling up joint systems, jointly supporting Ukraine militarily, and strengthening our own rearmament and capability, which has been long overdue.

We benefit from coordinating ourselves in trade wars, for a common trade policy and in economic cooperation – especially today. On the other hand, I am still, and have always been, of the opinion that the EU should do less when it comes to domestic affairs. There we still see various overreaches in decision-making competence that do not belong in Brussels at all but belong in this chamber, that is, the Swedish people's highest decision-making body. There still are – it is both.

If significant new transfers of decision-making competence to the EU were to occur, especially of the kind concerning domestic political affairs, we have been clear that there is a referendum lock. We cannot simply give the EU new powers, own taxing rights, or decision-making competence in new areas without further discussion.

Then it was the question of China. I truly wish that we can do everything we can to counter the Chinese regime, including its support for Russia. I therefore also explicitly mentioned the importance of standing up for Taiwan in my speech.

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

Kerstin Lundgren (C)

Mr. Speaker! I have three questions that can be answered with yes or no.

Are the Sweden Democrats prepared to say no to support for their think tank from the Magarörelsen? If one is critical, one should be able to utter a yes or a no.

Yes or no to majority decisions within the foreign and security policy area for the EU?

Yes or no to House of Sweden in Taiwan?

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

Aron Emilsson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I can only repeat that I am not enthusiastic about the specific question regarding support for a think tank. I cannot comment on a specific support for a think tank. We usually comment on questions regarding party support or the Riksdag's affairs in the chamber, but I must return to the question about the think tank.

I have been clear that we as a party shall not accept support from the Magarörelsen or from any other political movement, state or country in the Swedish election. It is a matter for the Swedish people, and it is the fate of the Swedish people.

Sverigedemokraterna also continue to consider that the foreign affairs area should not be subject to qualified majority, but rather unanimity should be required there.

Then there was the question of House of Sweden. Kerstin Lundgren knows, and I am glad we agree, that we both belong to parties that have pushed for a House of Sweden with greater powers and greater opportunities to develop on-site. I certainly hope that we can go further in that matter. There we are in complete agreement.

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Mr. Speaker! My reply relates to the previous reply, namely regarding European cooperation.

Aron Emilsson's party colleague Mattias Karlsson was chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs during the autumn when Aron Emilsson was on parental leave. Mattias Karlsson was interviewed in Svenska Dagbladet. There, he argued that Sweden should act for a Nordic union as an alternative to the EU and Nato. He does not want to leave the EU, but he wants a Nordic union.

Since I myself am a warm friend of Europe, Mr. Speaker, I consider this to be somewhat concerning. They are not in opposition to each other. We in Sweden have for decades had a very close cooperation with our Nordic neighboring countries in the Nordic Council, in the European Union and in a broader EU context, since not all Nordic countries are members of the EU, and now in Nato.

The problem with these arguments is that from the Sweden Democrats' side, the cooperation in the Nordic countries is being set against the cooperation in the European Union. But what we need to do is rather to strengthen the Nordic-Baltic, Northern European, and Baltic Sea regional dimension within the European cooperation, not to turn more inward, turn our backs on European cooperation and commit to deepening it when it is needed.

And if we are to be honest, Mr. Speaker, the rest of the Nordic countries do not look upon Sweden only with admiration and a pounding heart either. The trust that Sweden will always be there for the rest of the Nordics is, for historical reasons, not as strong among our Nordic neighbors. We are now beginning to build up the trust again through, among other things, the NATO membership and the buildup of our defense.

Was this, Aron Emilsson, a solo performance from a party colleague? He was, after all, chairman of the committee at that time. How does Aron Emilsson view this?

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

Aron Emilsson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The Nordic countries and the NB8 region, as well as Poland, the United Kingdom and several others, are our primary and most important foreign policy priority from the Sweden Democrats' side. We share that priority to a large extent with the government, which the Foreign Minister presented in the foreign policy declaration.

Therefore, I see, just like Fredrik Malm, no contradiction. Mattias Karlsson was also clear in the interview in Svenska Dagbladet that it is not about leaving the EU or Nato, but about strengthening the Nordic pillar. I see it as that there is an enormous amount more to do in the Nordic cooperation. We are not finished. The greatest achievements were made during the years before and after the formation of the Nordic Council in 1952. It was freedom of movement, removal of border barriers, and increased internal mobility within the Nordic region.

There is an enormous amount more to do in the area of defense and security when it comes to the military framework or the deepening of Nordefco – even within Nato. We have heard many speak about this. We have heard Jan-Erik Enestam and Claes Westberg. There is more to be done according to the Stoltenberg report. There are amounts of measures we could take to strengthen the Nordic dimension even within Nato as a defense alliance. I see no contradiction in this – quite the opposite – now that Sweden is to take responsibility for the forward presence in Finland within the Nato cooperation, with troops in Latvia and so on.

There is more to be done, and there are also a number of examples within Nato of good regional cooperation. Nato has no prohibition against this, and there are no legal obstacles to strengthening regional cooperation within the defense alliance. On the contrary! In many cases, there are even requests for it. It has been expressed in Nato that now that a united Norden is part of Nato, more should be done together to strengthen the capability in the Nordic region and in the Baltic Sea area. It would be extremely positive if we could deepen and strengthen the Nordic defense and security cooperation.

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Mr. Speaker! The Sweden Democrats really do not want to leave the European cooperation. I truly welcome that moderation from the Sweden Democrats.

But, Mr. Speaker, what is it that is wanted? All those processes and the deepened cooperation in the defense and security policy area that Aron Emilsson mentions are ongoing processes. But at the same time, European cooperation is also being deepened. It is also an ongoing process. After the migration crisis, we received an asylum package. The climate crisis has led to various climate packages. And the financial crisis led to us getting a stability pact in Europe, a banking union, and much more. Every crisis leads to European cooperation being deepened.

Is it the case that the Sweden Democrats only want to rename the Nordic Council? Is that what the Nordic union is? We once had a union with Norway, but they did not want to be part of it. Before that, we had the Kalmar Union, which led to bloodbaths. We got out of that, and that is why Sweden exists as a nation-state today. It might be good to clarify what the Sweden Democrats mean by this.

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

Aron Emilsson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The Nordic region is one of the world's most integrated regions. We share languages, we share social systems, we share culture and we share history. We are integrated on an enormous number of points and have the lowest threshold effects, I would still like to say, to integrate ourselves further in the areas where we are not today.

There are plenty of things we could do. The Nordic countries, which are also EU members, could for example become much better at coordinating the implementation of EU directives. There are a number of examples where we have not coordinated and have instead implemented EU directives completely differently. In those cases, we have not strengthened the Nordic pillar but rather spoken different languages within the EU. I think that is negative.

We would need to tear down significantly more barriers, share more common intelligence, strengthen common operational planning and create more actual interoperability between our Nordic countries in the areas, not least for defense and security reasons, where we do not have it today. But that is certainly a separate debate.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! Much has happened with Donald Trump as USA's president since we had this debate a year ago. And there is a long time left of his mandate period. Three more years we shall live through.

I usually call this time we are living in now the return of the imperialists. It sounds a bit like something out of Star Wars. Carl Bildt, and also Aron Emilsson, have called this time the era of great disorder. But then I think one misses the intentions of the leaders of several states. What they actually want is to expand their respective territories through imperialism, through threats of violence and through actual violence – regardless of whether we are talking about Ukraine, Taiwan or Greenland. It is however not only the three superpowers that stand for an imperialist ideology. Leaders in countries such as Israel, Syria and Turkey show the same kind of power ambitions.

Is Donald Trump an imperialist? Definitely. His goal to take Greenland is firm. It is clear that he wants to write himself into the history books as one of the US presidents who has expanded the US territory.

Is Donald Trump a fascist? Absolutely. The state-sanctioned violence from ICE in Minneapolis is a clear example of that. Two people's lives were taken without any accountability whatsoever. Instead, high-ranking state officials have engaged in mudslinging regarding the murdered, Renee Good and Alex Jeffrey Pretti.

Is Donald Trump the billionaire's man? Absolutely. With his presidency, the economic elite in the world have received a simple entry to power and influence. As long as you stay on good terms with the president, your economic interests are secured.

Sweden has previously shifted its security policy line regarding China. From happily believing that increased trade with China would also entail democracy and respect for human rights, China has in recent years rather been seen from the perspective of what security threat it poses, especially towards its neighboring countries.

The same thing has happened when it comes to Russia. Even though there has long been a Swedish suspicion towards the Russians, the 90s optimism that economic reforms would lead to democracy has been shattered. Putin's strong grip on power in the Kremlin is clear.

After the full-scale attack on Ukraine four years ago, the government gathered the parties in the Riksdag and agreed on a new security policy analysis, particularly regarding Russia. Now we need to do the same when it comes to the USA. The probability is high that the next leader in Beijing will come from the Communist Party and that the next leader in Moscow is drawn from Putin's right-wing nationalist circle. In the same way, the probability is high that the next Republican presidential candidate has MAGA tattooed on their chest.

There is a crossroads now. Either we continue with the laissez-faire mentality and hope that everything will get better again – then the government continues to talk about a transatlantic link and that the USA can be trusted – or we take the words from old right-wing figures like Bildt and Hökmark seriously and redefine Sweden's relationship with the USA.

This is not about left or right. It is about how we read and analyze the actual current situation. That is why it is good that the government has tasked the Defence Preparedness Board with updating the previous security policy report from 2024. It needs to focus on the USA.

Mr. Speaker! A clear first step that Sweden can take is to terminate the DCA agreement with the USA. We cannot have American soldiers in 17 locations across Sweden at the same time as the USA threatens our neighboring country Denmark and Greenland. When Donald Trump now so clearly violates international law, he also poses a threat to our security.

Mr. Speaker! We are now seeing historically high levels of conflicts globally. The number of conflicts has doubled since 2010. In a shaky world, tools for peace are needed. When the number of conflicts increases, Sweden needs to be a voice and an active actor to work for peace.

Since the 1990s, Norway has been involved in peace and conflict diplomacy in over 40 different countries by both leading and participating in various peace processes. The insights into the value of the engagement and the need to systematize and professionalize mediation work resulted in the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs establishing a special section for peace and reconciliation in 2003. After that, in 2008, a special independent foundation, Noref, was also established to be able to contribute to and support the work for peace diplomacy.

What does peace cost then? Given the resources being spent on military buildup, one might think that the economic costs of creating peace are enormous. But with only 0.68 percent of the Norwegian UD's budget, the special section for peace and reconciliation manages to work.

And the Norwegian mediation has yielded good results. The work has led to peace in Nepal, where peace agreements were concluded 20 years ago, and these have largely been followed and implemented. It has led to peace in Colombia. Ten years ago, the long-standing conflict finally reached an end. It has led to peace in the Philippines through the establishment of the autonomous region Mindanao. In 2025, it is estimated that 26,000 of a total of 40,000 former combatants will have been demobilized.

Sweden could, like Norway, be an actor for peace. In a time when conflicts and wars are increasing, we must, together with other states, constitute a counterforce for peace. But then we must fight to achieve the UN's goals of no hunger, no poverty, equality, and to combat climate change. Then we cannot forget wars and conflicts, for example on the African continent. In that regard, we cannot create a trust in weapons of mass destruction, nuclear weapons, which always hit civilian victims.

In this declaration, diplomacy is not mentioned. We must put peace, security and disarmament at the forefront of our foreign policy. We cannot let it become the return of the imperialists. It shall be the return of peace.

At the same time, we see around the world that people are resisting the imperialists' ambitions. In Iran, the people have once again risen in protest against the mullahs' regime. A horrific massacre was the regime's response. But the signs are clear: One day, the regime in Iran will fall.

In Syria, the Kurds and other ethnic groups, the clear mosaic of ethnic groups that Syria consists of, are showing resistance. In Turkey, the Kurdish question has finally reached the top of the agenda, and the parliamentary committee's work gives hope for reconciliation, liberation, and the future.

In Palestine, the Palestinian people continue their struggle against centuries of imperialism with many decisions being made over their heads. At the same time, the past year has been important, as state after state now recognizes Palestine as a state.

In Europe, we see how the people in Belarus and Georgia resist their rulers when they submit to Putin. Russian disinformation is flooding into Moldova, but a popular majority clearly chooses Europe. The Ukrainian resilience continues to impress. Russia's invasion has totally failed, and the Ukrainians continue every day to fight for their freedom.

At the same time as we see these resistance fighters, many of us are asking ourselves why Sweden does not stand up for those who seek to come here for protection from the violence and oppression of these imperialists. That this Riksdag devotes itself to deporting teenagers is, for me, nothing other than a shame that we must immediately cease.

(Applause)

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

Kerstin Lundgren (C)

Mr. Speaker! I listened to Håkan Svenneling to hear how he views solutions regarding our security and the challenges we face. On the website, one can read a lot about both capital and all sorts of other things. It is the usual rhetoric, which one wants to take a fight with. My question concerns the EU. EU treaties should be fought, and so on, it is said, but the EU is needed. The EU is currently, together with Nato, the most important foreign and security policy arena. How Vänsterpartiet views the EU and its role in building a European leg in Nato when it comes to defense and security was a completely absent question in Håkan Svenneling's post. I would like to hear, Mr. Speaker, how Håkan Svenneling views the EU.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! Firstly, I think Kerstin Lundgren misses the most important security policy arena we have for creating global security, namely the UN. The big problem with this government's policy is that it has so clearly moved away from the UN and its accountability. Instead, it focuses on others.

Secondly, I think Kerstin Lundgren is taking a dangerous path when she mixes up the EU and Nato. It is true that both institutions have their headquarters in Brussels a short distance apart and that there are shared services. But the EU is the EU and Nato is Nato. If we cannot manage to keep the two separate in the Swedish debate, I think it is very dangerous.

Much of what I warned about before the Swedish NATO membership has occurred, and many of the changes in positions that have been made since last year are such as I have pointed out and requested. We cannot rely on the USA. We must have a strong defense of our own. We must cooperate with other like-minded democracies in our immediate area. We must be for a regionalization of NATO, so that we ourselves can decide over our immediate area together with our neighboring countries; we do not want other countries to be there and rule and decide.

I absolutely believe that the EU can play a role for our security alongside Nato. We have also, from the Left Party's side, been in favor of a number of the complementary initiatives from the EU's side. But the EU completely lacks generals and military structures. I believe it is very dangerous to think that within the EU we can build a European army that is then to make up for the USA. I believe in a strengthened Swedish defense, where all defense components are in Sweden and we do not trust anyone else. I do not think we should rely on a nuclear umbrella, regardless of whether it is American, French, or British.

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

Kerstin Lundgren (C)

Mr. Speaker! It was exciting to hear the last part of Håkan Svennelling's reply. Is it the case that the Left Party and the Sweden Democrats will now put forward a joint demand for Swedish nuclear weapons? They do not rely on the American nuclear umbrella, nor on the discussion being conducted from France's side, in which the United Kingdom and others are also interested in participating.

Mr. Speaker! I heard Håkan Svenneling say that one actually shouldn't trust anyone. But we build security together with like-minded people, and in the EU we have like-minded people. We also have structures, and that is important. Yesterday, I believe, we could see that Canada joined Safe, which is part of a resource that is to build stronger military capability. It is not about an EU army. It is about building capability.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! I am actually beginning to understand why the Center Party is so totally lost in Swedish politics. One thinks, then, that the Sweden Democrats and the Left Party are going to submit proposals together. This is truly the great threat that must be highlighted at every party meeting.

We are from the Left Party's side very clear that we are against nuclear weapons regardless of what nationality they have and that one must work for nuclear disarmament. It is also therefore that we submit a proposal that Sweden should work with peace diplomacy much more clearly than this government does.

One must remember that Canada is not in the EU. It is very good that Canada gets to be part of the Safe instrument, but geographically the country is located in North America. In the EU, however, there is a Trojan horse called Hungary. Hungary stands incredibly close to Vladimir Putin. They visit Moscow when they hold the presidency in the EU and consistently oppose all types of attempts to bring Ukraine closer to the EU. That makes me think that in this situation we should not rely on the EU to the extent that Kerstin Lundgren does.

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

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Member Håkan Svenneling, who spoke a great deal about peace in his contribution, has been involved in proposing Francesca Albanese for the Nobel Peace Prize. But in recent days, several countries, including France, Germany, and Italy, have publicly demanded her resignation as special rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories in light of her recent statement at an al-Jazeera forum in Doha.

The criticism is based on the fact that she said: We who do not control large amounts of capital, algorithms, and weapons now see that we as humanity have a common enemy. She continued with: The Western world's support for Israel contributes to such a situation. She attributed, in other words, a role to Israel as humanity's "common enemy."

A special UN rapporteur is expected to be objective, impartial, and accurate in their formulations. When one is perceived as biased, it actually affects the trust in the entire UN.

My question to Håkan Svenneling is therefore: Do you stand by your nomination of Francesca Albanese for the Nobel Peace Prize, despite her latest statement with insinuations that Israel is the world's common enemy?

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! Strictly speaking, I actually believe I missed submitting the nomination before January 31, but it is quite true that I have stated that I think she should receive the Nobel Peace Prize. I think that is reasonable. Francesca Albanese has, in fact, stood up for international law at a time when violations of international law have been more and greater than in a very long time.

We have witnessed a genocide in Gaza for which the rest of the world has done far too little to stop. I mean that precisely the support that the rest of the world gave to Israel after the horrific attack by Hamas on October 7 led to Israel getting the green light to carry out the attacks that have led to that genocide.

Francesca Albanese has released several important reports on the crimes that Israel is now being prosecuted for in the International Court of Justice. She has also, for example, reported on other states' support for Israel and various types of support from companies. Volvo and Alfa Laval are companies that are mentioned. One can see that products from these Swedish companies have been used both during the occupation of the West Bank and in Gaza to, for example, demolish buildings.

This is something we must take seriously, and I do not think we have done so to a sufficient extent. On the other hand, it is definitely the case that I do not agree with the vilification when one speaks of a common enemy against the world. I cannot stand behind all of her statements.

It is also very important that one manages to maintain a line so that one does not slip into antisemitic statements and argue that it is somehow the fault of the Jewish people.

I am often very careful to point out that it is the Israeli government, which is currently a right-wing nationalist government under Netanyahu's leadership, that we need to be critical of. Netanyahu himself and several of his ministers and former ministers are wanted by the ICC, the International Criminal Court, for these crimes against international law.

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

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I perceive it as that the member thinks that one can say things such as Israel is the world's common enemy and still be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, if one remembers to submit the proposal.

Let me remind you that the criticism against Albanese did not start now. It existed long before the member proposed nominating her for the Nobel Peace Prize. She has made statements that have truly aroused disgust. She has spoken about the USA being subordinate to the Jewish lobby. It is an expression that lies uncomfortably close to classic antisemitic conspiracy theories. She has questioned the motives behind the attacks on October 7.

Therefore, my question remains. Does Håkan Svenneling consider these statements to be compatible with the moral authority and judgment that should characterize a recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize? Is this what is meant by what the member defined as the "return of peace"?

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! I think it is up to the Nobel Committee to decide who should receive the Nobel Peace Prize. It goes a bit so-so for them some years.

In the last year, one chose a Venezuelan opposition politician, against whom I absolutely see an oppression. But she herself takes very little responsibility for the Venezuelan people and has rather supported the crimes against international law that Trump has committed in Venezuela.

The Nobel Committee will have to give it some thought as to whom they should appoint. I have previously suggested that Greta Thunberg is a person who should receive the Nobel Peace Prize.

I absolutely think that one can direct criticism towards the statements. Albanese must really be clear in the line of argument so that one does not fall into antisemitic tropes.

At the same time, I believe one should keep in mind that everyone who has had the job that Albanese has always had has had an incredible amount of criticism directed at them. I met a predecessor of hers when he recently received the Palm Prize here in Stockholm.

It shows that it is very difficult to speak plainly about Israel without being met with massive opposition and criticism from the Israeli side.

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Mr. Speaker! Håkan Svenneling, many others and actually even I myself argue that we in Europe must not be too dependent on countries like the USA and China. In that case, it is great that the European Union, after 26 years of negotiations, was just a few weeks ago able to hammer out the free trade agreement with Mercosur.

It would mean that we open a market with 700 million consumers and create the world's largest free trade zone. This will happen at the same time as Trump makes claims on Greenland, at the same time as the war in Ukraine rages, and at the same time as we see China's destructive actions.

What happens then? Well, then Håkan Svenneling's Left Party and Green Party members from Sweden, together with agricultural lobby interests in France and Poland, along with right-wing extremists and left-wing extremists, Putin loyalists and all sorts of junk and debris in the European Parliament, trip everything up. It is sent further to the EU Court for two years. One thinks it is healthy and forward-looking, but it is straight into a wall.

It means that the EU and European companies will now lose approximately 4.5 billion euros every month solely in potentially lost customs costs with the introduction of duty-free exports. It is a huge problem for Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay and South America, which will lose jobs and growth. Furthermore, one is now playing away the opportunity to create a more independent Europe towards the other superpowers, who are acting for a different world order.

I must ask: How did Vänsterpartiet think here?

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the question, Fredrik Malm! I am glad that I get it since the Foreign Minister asked the same thing, but I had no direct time to answer then. Now we get that time.

The EU's dependence on the USA must truly decrease. This applies not least in light of Donald Trump's very harmful trade policy with tariffs. New trade patterns need to be created globally. The trade agreement with Mercosur has both flaws and risks that we must see.

There is a risk of increased deforestation and lack of labor rights as a result of the agreement. There is a concern that is not entirely unfounded. Provisions on food security and animal welfare were needed, which the agreement includes, including the Paris Agreement.

We mean that given the increased independence from the USA, the advantages of entering into the agreement outweigh. We are therefore in favor of the Mercosur agreement. We have previously been critical of agreements that have contained an investment clause which implies that companies can review democratic decisions. But the agreement does not contain such a review possibility. That is one of the reasons why we are in favor of the agreement.

Fredrik Malm is referring to the vote held in the European Parliament on January 21 this year. Vänsterpartiet voted then for the process to proceed correctly. The EU must not bypass the European Parliament, and EU environmental rules must be respected regarding the agreement for it to be able to enter into force. These are important parts for the agreement to become as good as possible. When there is a vote on the Mercosur agreement itself, we will vote yes to it.

It is also important to remember that there were members from all party groups who voted for the judicial review. In a time when the world is shaking a little extra much and people do not follow the rules that have been set up, I actually think it is extra important that precisely the EU stands firm and follows the rules that we have set up.

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Mr. Speaker! Vänsterpartiet is for the Mercosur agreement, says Håkan Svenneling. But when you voted on it a few weeks ago, you voted against. You have sent it to the EU Court of Justice, which will delay the entry into force by up to two years. We will vote for it when it comes back, says Håkan Svenneling.

Mr. Speaker! The Left Party therefore considers that the free trade agreement seems to be too large and comes too early for the Left Party. It is not enough that it has been threshed out between European member states, the EU Commission, parliaments, negotiators and the South American countries for 26 years. It is not enough for the Left Party. One must really sabotage the process and send the matter to the European Court of Justice for another two years.

The question to Håkan Svenneling remains. Why is it Argentine entrepreneurs and livestock farmers in Uruguay who should pay for the Left Party's anti-free trade line in the EU? It is absurd. This will cost Europe tens of billions of euros.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! The European Parliament voted on a procedural issue regarding how the agreement should be handled within the framework of the European Parliament, not on the agreement itself. They chose to take the legally correct path via the European Court of Justice. That is what will now happen.

I believe the right is a bit confused about what the Left Party thinks here. Since we are suddenly in favor of a free trade agreement, you have lost your way. Then you claim that we would be anti-free trade because in a procedural question, together with liberal members and right-wing members from a lot of countries, we vote for the EU to follow its legal rules.

We must not undermine the environmental rules that we have established in the EU by weakening them through the back door via the agreement. Here, it is important that we maintain the protection for Swedish consumers and Swedish producers and do not play it away by pushing things through too quickly.

We see how it goes in the migration issue when you push things through too quickly without looking at and listening to the authorities. Here we have the same thing. Let us take the time we need, but let us get the Mercosur agreement in place one day.

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

Kerstin Lundgren (C)

Mr. Speaker! Russia's brutal war of aggression against Ukraine is entering its fifth year but started twelve years ago in Crimea, Donetsk, and Luhansk. The idea behind this is the neo-imperialism Putin has developed after his reclaiming of the presidency in 2011. The Kremlin considers itself to have a historical right to take countries it views as its own, regardless of recognized territorial borders.

It is not the first time this has happened in history. But from the lessons of the Second World War, countries then agreed on a different order, codified in the UN Charter, which has served us and the world well since then. The multilateral order that has shaped the post-war period is in a state of change. In what way it happens is determined by Sweden's will and ability to cooperate and utilize its voice, but also by the great nuclear powers' will to shape their order based on their different and sometimes overlapping interests.

Russia wants to see a multipolar order where the country takes its place. The war of aggression against Ukraine is a Russian effort to achieve this. Russia wants to re-establish itself as a great power, and the Ukrainians are now paying the ultimate price. They are sacrificing themselves for their country's survival, for their freedom, for their right to choose their future, and for us. We must realize that we in Sweden and our partners could be next.

The disorder prevailing requires that we swiftly arm ourselves economically, militarily, and humanly. Sweden's military capability must be quickly strengthened and the five percent goal achieved as soon as possible. The strength in our combined capabilities and our endurance determines whether these memberships are sufficiently strong to create necessary deterrence and protection for our values and for our independence and freedom.

During this parliamentary term, Sweden has focused on supporting Ukraine, and it has been necessary, albeit slow, rash, and insufficient. Sweden must continue and quickly secure sustainable support for Ukraine. This applies socially, economically and militarily, and it applies to EU membership.

Centerpartiet has demanded and demands that Sweden gives 1 percent of GDP to Ukraine and that we create a Ukraine fund outside the budget. Thus, we provide long-term perspective and credibility for the support. Long-term perspective and predictability shall be a hallmark of our Sweden. Ukraine shall not, by any power, be forced into unsustainable settlements. The price for such will, in the end, we all have to pay.

We live in times of unrest. We must be ready to re-examine old truths, but not our values. We shall actively choose the liberal values that have shaped our country: democracy, a welfare state that functions throughout the country and provides faith in the future, our freedom of speech and press, our openness and humanity, and a well-functioning and independent justice system. Sweden's path shall not be that of the autocrats. We shall neither attempt to imitate these leaders' political rhetoric nor their agenda.

Centerpartiet chooses cooperation with like-minded countries in the Nordics, the Baltics, and the EU to, together with for example Canada, strategically and proactively assert and strengthen trust in the values that are now being threatened here at home and globally.

We must realize that the old world order is gone and seek to gather strong support to assert the fundamental principles and reform the institutions. We must ensure that power does not precede justice, whether in Ukraine, in Greenland, in the Arctic, or anywhere else. To meet the challenges, stronger European cooperation is required.

Sweden's voice must be clear and respectful and must be reliable. Sweden must be a country that does not fall silent when people's rights and freedom are oppressed, regardless of whether it happens in China, Iran, Belarus, Russia, Georgia or Turkey. Regardless of country, Sweden shall support people who fight for their and their country's freedom or against terrorism – whether it concerns Ukraine's war for its freedom, the Iranians' struggle for freedom from the mullahs' brutal abuses, democracy fighters in Hong Kong or the Palestinians' rights and independence. Sweden shall support international law, support accountability and follow the courts' decisions.

That the government is now setting repatriation and self-interest as Swedish interests devalues the soft power Sweden has had in many countries and in the multilateral system as an example for others. Sweden increasingly resembles other countries with their own agendas. Sweden becomes yet another voice with conditional aid – a transactional country. Instead of investing in development and global goals, repatriation and humanitarian emergency aid prevail.

Anna Lasses will later elaborate on the Center Party's view on development aid, where we choose to advocate for aid up to 1 percent of GNI without reducing the aid to Ukraine, which we secure in the Ukraine fund we propose.

Mr. Speaker! The EU is our most important foreign policy arena, which, in order to be strengthened, needs to transition to majority decisions in more matters and increase the competitiveness and the ability to defend the EU and Europe within European NATO.

The transatlantic link is still important but weakened as a result of the current US administration's actions. It also concerns values that are championed globally and towards the EU, and about territorial claims directed against Nato allies. With the clear sphere-of-influence policy that the USA now explicitly declares, both Denmark and Greenland are threatened. Today, the USA is becoming a strong voice for all autocrats who want to see an order with great powers' spheres of influence and a multipolar world where independent countries are to subordinate themselves.

Here it is again important that Sweden steps forward and, together with like-minded [nations], builds alliances to strengthen the voices for an order built on multilateral rules, on independence, and on freedom of choice. To safeguard the foundation on which the EU was formed is a clear Swedish interest when it comes to safeguarding Sweden, our democracy, and our freedom.

In this time of disorder, Sweden must stand up for important norms and agreements. We must stand up for a reformed UN, for fundamental conventions, but also for, for example, the NPT and the Paris Agreement.

The climate is a matter of survival for humanity, and we must not turn a blind eye or shift our responsibility onto our children and grandchildren. They will have to bear great costs because we have ignored the facts for far too long. For the first time, the world has experienced a three-year period where the average temperature has exceeded 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels. Carbon dioxide levels reached new record levels in 2025. We see how extreme weather hits us all hard. Floods, storms, and brutal heatwaves hit both people and food supply, and hit the economy nationally and globally.

A forward-looking climate agenda for Sweden, the EU, and the world is a central Swedish interest. Emissions must go down, and Sweden's and the EU's growth must go up. The green transition is an injection of new sustainable technology, more jobs, a strengthened economy and strategic autonomy and, Mr. Speaker, to strengthened security.

(Applause)

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

Aron Emilsson (SD)

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

I listened with interest because both Kerstin Lundgren now and Morgan Johansson in a previous speech mentioned China. They both claim to cooperate in an eventual change of government after the election, but I hear very different tones in the issue of China and China's support for Russia.

I heard the Social Democrats praise the trade relationship with China and mention that we perhaps should not trade with certain goods and services and that the same policy as before shall largely apply – this despite China's support for the Russian war economy and despite our security authorities identifying China as one of our major identified security threats.

My questions are therefore: Is Centerpartiet in agreement with Socialdemokraterna regarding some kind of laissez-faire policy à la the 90s, or does one want something different? And if so, what is it?

Kerstin Lundgren spoke earlier about the support for Taiwan regarding the Chinese threat. Is one prepared to work for Western pressure and sanctions against the Chinese sectors that feed the Russian war economy? And if so, is one in agreement with the Social Democrats that something needs to be done differently in relation to today?

We receive very different messages in relation to what is currently the dimensioning security threat to the global power order, that is, China.

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

Kerstin Lundgren (C)

Mr. Speaker! I could take up a mirror and ask Aron Emilsson if he agrees with the government on its China policy. One thing we have seen is that the government emphasizes trade policy as important. The Foreign Minister visited China but has, over four years, done nothing when it comes to the Taiwan issue. We have agreed on this in this chamber and had a majority to strengthen the Swedish presence and upgrade the relationship with Taiwan. It is important in this situation.

We know that Taiwan is experiencing a threat. It may be happening already this year, but 2027 has otherwise been pointed out as the year China is preparing to attack and take over Taiwan. We must act and react in time together with like-minded [nations], strengthen support and stop all such plans from China.

Then, naturally, it is such that China is a large country, and we will, regardless of government, have trade with China. But it is central not to proceed and do as we have done previously, but to see the security risks. We have been clear when it comes to Chinese investments in Sweden in strategic areas. It is extremely important to see this. It concerns, for example, the export of products with dual uses. It is a matter of ensuring that a gap is not created for Russian needs where products are sent through from the Swedish side which are then found in weapons developed in Russia.

There are many ways to try to act, but we do not discuss that with the Social Democrats. We go to elections as an independent party, but the Sverigedemokraterna possibly do not.

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

Aron Emilsson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Yes, if there is anything we do, it is to run for election as an independent party. I can only note that I do not agree with Kerstin Lundgren when she describes what the government has done.

It is very true that the Sweden Democrats would have liked to go further in the strategic protection, our resilience and our resilience towards China and, above all, also pursue increased Western unity to sanction and exert pressure regarding the sectors that most severely feed the Russian war economy. It is about the banking and finance sector. It is also about other sectors. Russia has actually been flooded with dual-use components and similar items that can be used in the warfare against Ukraine. We believe that one should go further. But it is also about gathering support for that.

I thought the Foreign Minister was clear that a repositioning is taking place in relation to China. Cooperation occurs where it benefits Swedish interests, where we need it, but also distancing is taken from those areas that are obvious security threats from China.

What I hear is that the Center Party and the Social Democrats do not seem to agree at all on the view of China, its soft power and its hard security power and the security threat we see from the Swedish side.

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

Kerstin Lundgren (C)

Mr. Speaker! I represent the Centre Party in this rostrum, and we represent our own policy, not any negotiated policy. It is possible that Aron Emilsson represents a policy negotiated with the government and runs for election on it. But that is not what the Centre Party does.

I note that nothing has happened regarding the legal aid agreement, which the Chamber has decided on. Regarding Hong Kong, it would be terminated. It is a remaining vestige of a policy concerning one China, two systems. It does not apply today.

I asked earlier about the one-China policy, but received no clear answer. I believe there is a homework assignment to be done for the Sverigedemokraterna regarding negotiating with the government about the policy they want to pursue jointly before the election regarding China.

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

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! We live in a time where authoritarian forces are advancing their positions and where people all around the world pay a high price for standing up for their rights. In such a time, foreign policy must be clear. It must be anchored in values but also in responsibility.

Mr. Speaker! This weekend, hundreds of thousands of people gathered in Munich to express support for a free Iran. They carried pictures of those who have been killed. They shouted the names that the regime has done everything in its power to silence. They demanded freedom, dignity, and an end to oppression. I myself had the opportunity to speak at the demonstration and express my party's and our country's support for all the brave Iranians who are fighting at this moment. I also had the opportunity to meet Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi, who has emerged as the de facto leader of the movement demanding an alternative to the Islamic Republic. He spoke of an Iran that one day can become free, secular, and democratic – an Iran where power ultimately belongs to the people and where the rule of law replaces fear.

The Iranian regime has responded to the protests with brutal repression. People have been shot in the streets, and women have been assaulted for refusing to submit to coercion. Students, journalists, and minorities have been persecuted. The regime has carried out violent crackdowns against the protests. Many people have been deprived of their liberty.

It is not a series of isolated abuses or a system that is not functioning as intended; it is a system that functions exactly as it is constructed, a system whose power is dependent on the application of violence and fear. The Islamist Revolutionary Guard's task is to ensure that the regime is protected at all costs as well as to spread the revolution beyond the country's borders, which has made Iran's regime the single largest contributing factor to regional instability and terrorism in the Middle East.

The EU's decision to blacklist the Islamic Revolutionary Guard was an important and long-awaited decision and something that we Christian Democrats and Sweden have long pushed for. However, the sanctions need to be tightened further. Those who, through their economic networks and family structures, maintain the oppression, as well as relatives of Russian oligarchs, should not be able to enjoy holidays in Europe. As long as the country conducts a war of aggression, the relatives of the Iranian regime should also not be able to do so. Furthermore, support for civil society needs to be strengthened with the measures required to contribute to securing access to the internet and free information.

Mr. Speaker! Iran is not an isolated issue. In our immediate vicinity, the most decisive conflict of our time is Russia's brutal war of aggression against Ukraine. How this war ends will shape Europe's security for generations. Therefore, the support for Ukraine is both an act of moral solidarity and an investment in our security. Sweden stands on Ukraine's side, politically, militarily, and economically for as long as is required. These are not just words, which Sweden has shown. We show, and we will continue to show, action.

We shall continue to increase the pressure on Russia through sanctions. We shall work to ensure that frozen Russian assets are used for Ukraine's reconstruction. We shall support the work to establish a special tribunal to hold accountable the crimes that Russia has committed against the people of Ukraine.

Sweden's membership in Nato was a historic step. We no longer stand alone. We contribute to the alliance's deterrence and collective defense. We strengthen security in the Baltic Sea region, in the Nordic region and in the Arctic. Europe needs to take greater responsibility for its own security, and Sweden shall be an active and credible part of that work.

The EU is our most important foreign policy platform. In a world marked by conflict and competition, Europe needs to be strong, united, and capable of taking action. The EU's support for Ukraine is crucial. The EU's defense dimension is growing in importance, and the EU's expansion to Ukraine, Moldova, and countries in the Western Balkans is a long-term and strategic investment in peace and stability.

Security is also about economy, trade, and resilience. We need to deepen cooperation with like-minded countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. We need to defend rules-based trade and reduce dangerous unilateral dependencies. A strong Swedish economy builds security in an uncertain time.

We must also be clear in our view on China. China is the world's second-largest economy and plays a central role in global trade and technological development. But at the same time, the country has an authoritarian rule that systematically undermines international norms and freedoms, which we most recently saw in the ruling regarding Jimmy Lai. The goal must therefore be to secure Swedish and European economy by reducing our dependence and not putting all our eggs in one basket.

An excessively great dependence on an actor that uses economic investments as a tool for political control and pressure entails significant security risks in itself. We saw this, not least, in Europe's former dependence on Russian energy. We need to strengthen the European and transatlantic value chains, diversify our partnerships, and at the same time defend our democratic principles from pressure from Beijing. At the same time, we of course embrace dialogue and cooperation in line with our interests and values.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden shall continue to be a strong donor of aid. In a difficult economic time with war in our vicinity, the reductions in aid in real terms have stopped at a few percent. In 2026, Sweden will be the fourth or fifth largest aid donor in the world per capita. The Swedish aid strategy for Ukraine is the largest strategy ever.

At the same time, we continue to contribute humanitarily where the needs are greatest, from Ukraine to Sudan and other crisis areas. Swedish aid to sexual and reproductive health and rights and to equality and global health is a central part of our foreign policy. It is about stability. It is about preventing conflicts before they grow larger.

The Christian Democrats continue to push for development aid to be channeled in a larger proportion through civil society actors.

Mr. Speaker! From Kyiv to Tehran, we see people who risk everything for freedom and faith in the future. Our task is not to replace their struggle. Our task is to never betray them. Our task is also to stand up for freedom, for human rights and for international responsibility. Ultimately, it is about safeguarding our peace, freedom and security.

(Applause)

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! The root of today's conflict stems from the displacement of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in 1948 in the so-called al-Nakba. This was followed by the six-day war in 1967, where Israel, in violation of international law, occupied Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem.

With the 1993 Oslo Accords, the West Bank was divided into areas defined as A, B, and C areas with different forms of governance and rules. Since the Oslo Accords, the number of Israeli settlers in the West Bank has increased four to five times. Now, more than 30 years later, it has also led to the map of the West Bank looking like Swiss cheese, with separated infrastructure for Palestinians and settlers respectively. But for Palestinians, despite this separation, encounters with violent settlers are everyday life. During 2025, 1,800 attacks were recorded, and over 1,000 Palestinians have been killed in the West Bank.

Now Israel's far-right government is taking even more steps to expand the occupation and annexation of the West Bank. In practice, they are trying to achieve a division of the West Bank into a southern and a northern part, separated from each other with the help of Israeli settlers between the areas. It concerns the so-called E1 area.

As recently as Sunday, February 8, a new decision was made to strengthen the Israeli military's control over the West Bank and simultaneously make it harder for Palestinians to prove their right to their land and easier for settlers to buy land and expand their settlements.

As late as Monday, 60 percent of the West Bank of Israel was redefined as state Israeli land. This concerns land that is today inhabited by 300,000 Palestinians but also by 325,000 settlers, which fundamentally is the right-wing government's voter base.

Now even Donald Trump is upset about the Israeli decisions, but the strong condemnations have still been conspicuously absent. What do the Christian Democrats think about the right-wing extremist Israeli government's decisions?

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

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! The Christian Democrats have always been clear that the settlement policy is an obstacle to achieving peace. It is not compatible with the decisions that have been made in the UN. We have clearly, both from the Christian Democratic side and from the government's side, criticized the plans for the so-called E1 area. It is a bigger problem than just a regular settlement, because it is also a way to cut off the entire West Bank and thereby make it even harder to find a path to peace. It is in this situation we find ourselves right now, when we are about to begin discussing peace agreements in the Middle East.

This is part of the fact that we have now moved on to part 2 of the so-called peace plan. We have not seen any concrete steps there so far, but this needs to happen so that we can truly see a long-term stability in the area, so that people can live side by side and see that they have much to gain by cooperating.

Trump's so-called peace council can, despite all the problems we see with it, be the first opportunity since the Oslo Accords that there is a possibility to get a new peace discussion started, which would be worth pursuing.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Magnus Berntsson, for the clarity regarding, among other things, E1. I believe it is incredibly important that Sweden is clear in all criticism towards Israel.

The far-right ministers and several in the Israeli government have clearly stated that the goal is to eliminate the possibilities for a Palestinian state by dividing it – not just into two parts, Gaza and the West Bank, but also into a northern and a southern part.

I think, however, that the Swedish government has so far been far too unclear. One has thrown out 280 characters on the Elon Musk-controlled platform X. That is not sufficient for me. I think one is hiding too much behind the EU.

One is happy to put forward tough demands at the EU level. That is good. But we see at the same time how Hungary and like-minded countries always block that type of initiative. Now we must increase the pressure so that there really will be peace and a two-state solution. Then one cannot get away with violating peace plans or, for that matter, the previously entered Oslo Accords.

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

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! A negotiated two-state solution is the only way forward that we from the Christian Democratic perspective see as possible. It is not simple. The recent years have not brought the parties any closer together.

But at the same time, some things have happened that actually speak for the fact that there are now better opportunities. Above all, the Gulf states' engagement has increased. Countries in the surrounding area also have a strong interest in normalization processes with Israel, which these countries also use to put pressure on the Israeli government to move forward with a negotiated two-state solution. This is indeed included as part of the so-called peace plan.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! There was one thing in the previous exchange that made me take notice a bit. Member Berntsson said that the Christian Democrats have always been clear that the settlement policy is incorrect and an obstacle to peace – or I don't remember the final point in the sentence, but the member did say in any case that the Christian Democrats have always been clear.

In August 2023 – we have talked about this before – Member of Parliament Berntsson, among others, made a trip to Israel with KKL, a settler organization. They have continued to make those types of trips, including together with Israel Allies Foundation. The Christian Democrats have invited, among others, Yehuda Glick, who is an Israeli activist and settler, and Ohad Tal, who sits in the Knesset for the Religious Zionism party. They have invited them to the Swedish Riksdag.

The Religious Zionism party is led by Bezalel Smotrich, who sits in the Netanyahu-led government and is one of the extremist ministers we are talking about imposing sanctions against, as some countries have already done. They have called for ethnic cleansing and urged the use of starvation as a weapon.

In May last year, KD invited the Israeli settler lobbyist Eugene Kontorovich to the Swedish Riksdag.

It can be some form of naivety and wide-eyedness – that one does not know who one is dealing with. A simple Google search can tell you exactly what kind of organizations and what kind of people one is inviting. Either it is naivety and wide-eyedness, or it is simply that what is being said is not true. The Christian Democrats have not always stood up for the fact that the settlement policy is incorrect and should be ended.

I would like to know what it is that actually applies.

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

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! It feels as if we are returning to the exchanges that I and the member have had in previous years' foreign policy debates. We truly differ in our views on KKL. I do not agree with the view that member Risberg has. KKL Sverige is, as I perceive it, a very serious organization.

Regarding the other invitees that the member mentions, I know that some of them have not been invited in the name of the Christian Democrats at all. For example, it was a gathering where members from all parties in the Knesset were present. That is how it is sometimes when delegations come to Sweden. We have, among other things, received delegations from Germany where even AFD has been included. What should one do in that situation? Should one say that not everyone is allowed to be included?

I say: The most important thing one can do in those contexts is to be clear about what one thinks about the issues. That is what I always try to be in those contexts.

Is it the word "always" that can be questioned in what I said? Strike the word "always" if it is possible to find any example. But the Christian Democrats are clear that the Israeli settlement policy is an obstacle to the two-state solution. And we want to see a negotiated two-state solution.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member Berntsson, for the answer!

Yes, we may have different views on what kind of organization KKL is. What kind of organization is KKL? Well, it is part of the Jewish National Fund, which was formed in 1901 with the purpose of purchasing and requisitioning as much land as possible in what was then Palestine. In the Jewish National Fund's statutes, it states that only Jews are allowed to build housing on the land that the Jewish National Fund owns. Today, they own around 17 percent of the land in Israel. On 17 percent of the land, therefore, not even Israeli Palestinians are allowed to build housing.

Since then, trees have been planted and parks built in previously erased Palestinian villages. Thus, not a single trace of the Palestinian villages is left. And in recent years, we have seen how they have invested millions in buying up land areas even on the West Bank.

It is a residents' organization, member Berntsson.

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

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I do not, as I have said, perceive that the member Risberg and I have the same view of what KKL Sverige stands for. It was with KKL Sverige that a number of Christian Democrats went on a trip to see the work that has been done with planting, not least forest, in uninhabited areas.

But what is important right now is that the peace process moves forward. There, we actually have an opportunity now from the world's side that we must not miss. We must ensure that we reach a negotiated two-state solution, where the parties in the area are engaged and where Europe helps. That is what can fundamentally change things so that one can get a situation where one can live together in the area.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! In a prison cell in Hong Kong sits the journalist Jimmy Lai, 78 years old. Last week he was sentenced to 20 years in prison under Hong Kong's national security law. His newspaper Apple Daily has been shut down. The editorial office has been silenced, and the message to other journalists is crystal clear: scrutinize power, and you risk disappearing.

This is not an isolated case, Mr. Speaker. It is a method, a way to step by step dismantle democracy by starting with those who expose the abuse of power.

Mr. Speaker! We live in a time where democracy is regressing. It is visible in overcrowded prison cells, in closed newsrooms, and in demonstrations that are suppressed with violence. And it is visible in the figures. Over 300 journalists were imprisoned at the end of 2025, and China, Myanmar, and Israel are the countries that imprison the most.

When journalists are imprisoned, it is not just about their freedom being taken away. It is the oxygen of society that is being strangled. When freedom of the press is suffocated, corruption becomes bolder, violence worse, and the abuse of power more risk-free. That is why the defense of journalists and the free word must be a core element of Swedish foreign policy – not a footnote, not a subordinate clause, not something one only mentions when it is convenient.

It is here that the question becomes uncomfortable but necessary. If the government is serious about defending democracy, international law, and a rules-based world order: What does Sweden do in practice when the world becomes darker?

Just at a time when journalists are being silenced, when human rights defenders are being persecuted and international law is being tested, Sweden's voice should be clear, consistent and present – not only in formal speeches but also in priorities, in aid decisions and in diplomatic leadership.

Mr. Speaker! The Minister for Foreign Affairs spoke about both democracy and the importance of maintaining common institutions and rules of the game. But at the same time, we see how the government is cutting back on that which actually builds democratic resilience in the world.

The government remains silent despite the airstrikes over Gaza having intensified again. One defends the arms trade with the United Arab Emirates despite the country worsening the conflict in Sudan. And one cuts the long-term tools. Just this year, one cuts the support to the UN body UNDP by 92 percent and halves the support to the democracy institute Idea.

It is not small technical adjustments, Mr. Speaker. These are political signals. The signal being sent is that Sweden is backing away from the role of being a clear voice for democracy and international law, just when that role was needed most.

Mr. Speaker! Under the Tidö government, Sweden's voice has become cautious. One refers to the EU and remains silent oneself, despite the extensive suffering we see.

Don't misunderstand me, Mr. Speaker! EU's foreign policy cooperation is important, but the EU can never become an excuse for Sweden to abdicate its own voice. Behind the phrasing "we lean on the EU" often hides something else, such as not wanting to take a fight, not wanting to risk friction, or not wanting to make oneself uncomfortable. When the government weighs the words as if they were more dangerous than the abuses, Sweden loses its direction.

Direction is needed. Direction is daring to be clear when civilians are affected. Direction is being able to say: This is wrong, regardless of who is doing something. Direction is holding fast to the same principles in all conflicts, not just in those conflicts where it is politically convenient.

It also concerns the right to self-determination for Greenlanders and Ukrainians, but also for Western Saharawis and Palestinians. International law is not something one can simply choose when it suits them. Either you stand up for it or you don't – and then the world quickly becomes a place where the right of the strongest takes over.

Mr. Speaker! Miljöpartiet wants to see a new foreign policy that increases security through global solidarity, international law, and a just climate transition. We want to see a foreign policy that does not cower but holds the line. Concretely, this means several things.

First of all: Strengthen Sweden's presence in the world – not only militarily or economically but also diplomatically and politically. Build relationships with countries, movements, and local change agents who fight for democracy and human rights. Strengthen and defend the UN's key role in upholding international law in both actions and resources, and condemn crimes against international law regardless of where they are committed or who commits them. Also promote mediation and peacebuilding efforts, for it is always cheaper, more humane, and wiser to prevent than to repair.

Mr. Speaker! Secondly: Bring climate into security policy, where it belongs. The climate crisis and the nature crisis drive conflicts, instability, and migration flows. Climate adaptation, emission reduction, and protection of biodiversity are necessary to increase security globally and here at home. This requires climate financing, global goals, and long-term rules of the game for industry.

For the third: Re-establish a feminist foreign policy. Sweden shall defend women's and girls' rights and sexual and reproductive health even when they are attacked by our ally in the White House. This means a broad view of security that puts people's security in focus. It guarantees women a place at the tables when peace is to be negotiated and ensures that Swedish weapons never end up in the hands of dictators.

It also means that trade policy must be fair and sustainable. Issues regarding corporate responsibility for human rights and the environment must be given a central role to ensure that trade contributes to development throughout the entire value chain and not just at the end.

Mr. Speaker! There are many people who feel anxiety about the developments in the world. In that case, a government is needed that acts powerfully and that signals hope.

Hope is not naivety. Hope is to build institutions that hold. Hope is to stand up for those who risk everything to write the truth, to dare to speak plainly when international law is broken, and to understand that global solidarity is security policy.

Miljöpartiet wants Sweden to be a country that makes a difference again and that has a clear voice for justice, action that strengthens democracy and a climate transition that is just.

Mr. Speaker! So we build security and freedom in Sweden, in Europe and in the world.

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Mr. Speaker! In his speech, Jacob Risberg concluded by mentioning that we need hope and trade, as he says. What does Miljöpartiet do in those matters?

The EU came up with a negotiated trade agreement with Singapore. The Green Party said no. The EU came up with a free trade agreement with Japan. The Green Party said no. The EU came up with a free trade agreement with Vietnam, one with Canada, one with Guatemala and one with South Korea – but the Green Party said no. The Green Party has, I swear to you, said yes to only one free trade agreement in the EU. That is the one with New Zealand.

This is about the fact that Miljöpartiet does not think it is particularly important that people in, for example, South America or Central America or in other countries, regardless of whether they are rich or poor, should be able to be given increased access to European markets. Therefore, Miljöpartiet is working to stop these free trade agreements in an alliance with various groupings that are very far to the left and very far to the right and which have very strong agricultural lobby interests.

One has a narrow European interest in this. One speaks of being a globalist, and one speaks of standing for the environment and climate. In practice, however, one denies poor countries the opportunity to achieve increased prosperity through trade. Billions of people have been lifted out of poverty thanks to free trade, but Miljöpartiet has not paid any attention whatsoever to this.

The Green Party has now contributed to the Mercosur agreement being sent to the European Court of Justice. This means that European companies will lose 4.5 billion euros every month in missed potential reduced customs duties as a result of precisely the duty-free status.

Why are you taking this line, Jacob Risberg? There is no logic in it.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I believe we should distinguish between substance and process here. One thing is the Mercosur agreement itself and its content, and another thing is how this has been negotiated and how it has reached its current state. It has so far bypassed national parliaments and also to a large extent bypassed the European Parliament.

The agreement creates a possibility for companies to sue the EU if the EU suddenly increases its ambitions regarding, for example, climate, human rights or environmental issues. We want to know if that is true, because no one has been able to clarify that so far. We want to know whether it is true that it is sufficient for Ursula von der Leyen to decide to sign this for it to be legal. There are many question marks regarding how this process has been developed. That is what we want to find out: Is this how it should go when we enact new laws in the EU?

When it comes to the actual content, quite a few ambitions that we take for granted here in Europe are missing regarding emission reductions, environmental issues, and human rights. All of this is mentioned, but only as "should" requirements in the agreement itself. They are not "shall" requirements. This, linked to whether we can ensure that these rules will be followed, constitutes a very large question mark.

When it comes to the strange thing about being locked out of the market, it is not that one is locked out of the market. The EU is already today one of the largest trading partners with the Mercosur countries. This agreement will not facilitate small business owners or small farmers, because the legal text and the conditions that must be met are thousands of pages long, and it will even take one and a half years to translate them into our local languages.

It is only large companies that will have lawyers who will be able to understand what is required for us to be able to trade duty-free. There are no small businesses that will be able to manage it at all. Then they will be shut out from the duty-free market.

There are so many question marks surrounding this, so I would very much like to bounce it back to Fredrik Malm: Is this correct?

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Mr. Speaker! Jacob Risberg says that one must distinguish between substance and procedure, but that is not what the Green Party is doing. The Green Party is against this agreement, and together with the majority of those who in the European Parliament voted to send this to the European Court of Justice, they are using procedural hurdles to block this agreement because they are against it. These are forces that do not want foreign competition.

This is exactly like the customs battle in Sweden in the 1870s. If Jacob Risberg had lived then, he would have stood there and said that we should have continued customs to Sweden. If one does not want competition from others, it simply means that one is afraid of Uruguay, Argentina, Guatemala, Singapore and South Korea.

I am a liberal. I am not afraid of these countries. We see that trade leads to increased prosperity. Miljöpartiet, however, does not see this, but instead happily goes into lockstep with these special interests to block the opportunity for poor countries to gain increased access to European markets. I actually think it is very shameful.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the talk about going into the arms of [the other side], because this is actually nothing that has been negotiated between the Greens and the far right within the EU.

I want to correct a couple of things. It is not that the process is postponed indefinitely. It is, in fact, as follows – and Fredrik Malm should know this – that a provisional agreement begins to apply as soon as Argentina ratifies the agreement. Then they can begin to trade duty-free. As soon as Uruguay ratifies the agreement, they can begin to trade duty-free with the EU. The process is therefore not delayed, but it is only the actual signing of the major agreement that is delayed. There is every possibility in the world to already start trading duty-free as soon as the agreement has been ratified; that is how it is built.

When it comes to how important free trade is, I want to say that one and a half years ago we stood here in the chamber and discussed the free trade agreement with Chile. I was here, but Fredrik Malm was not here. No one from the Liberals was here. No one from the Moderates was here, no one from the Christian Democrats was here, and no one from the Sweden Democrats was here and discussed that agreement.

So suddenly it is important to negotiate free trade agreements, but when it was to be debated last time, not one of you showed up, Fredrik Malm.

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Mr. Speaker! On Tuesday, it will be four years since Russia attacked Ukraine.

When the full-scale invasion began, conclusions were drawn that Ukraine would be defeated within a few weeks, and Volodymyr Zelenskyy was offered to go into exile. But Ukraine has heroically stood tall and defended its country.

It is an existential war of defense that Ukraine is waging, Mr. Speaker. Vladimir Putin and his accomplices are not only making claims to Donbass, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson; no, Russia's goal is that Ukraine shall cease to exist as an independent state – that Ukraine shall become a parenthesis in history. Russia denies the Ukrainians' right to define their own country. One denies Ukraine's history and the Ukrainian identity.

As the war now enters its fifth year, it happens in an increasingly insecure world. The world order that we so painstakingly built up after Hitler and Stalin burned down our continent is not only being challenged, but it is being dismantled step by step.

The current American administration views Russia's invasion, hybrid warfare, and destructive actions primarily as Europe's headache and concern. We can think what we want about this, but it is a fact. Just as the Foreign Minister stated and as is mentioned in the declaration, the USA is acting in a breach of trust today. What is required is continued, sustained, and more extensive support from Europe to Ukraine.

At the same time, we see enormous progress regarding innovation on the Ukrainian side, not least when it comes to drone technology, tactical warfare, defense against Russian infiltration, and attacks against supply lines and depots deep into the Russian Federation. Ukraine will contribute enormously to other countries' defense capabilities through the technology that they, as a consequence of the Russian invasion, are developing.

Mr. Speaker! Every Monday at twelve o'clock since the full-scale invasion began, Gunnar Hökmark and I have stood at Norrmalmstorg in Stockholm and held rallies of support for Ukraine. It has been more than 200 Mondays now, and the Monday Movement gathers between 300 and 500 people every time.

At these meetings every Monday, there are a dozen volunteer organizations present in the square. It is absolutely incredible to see how many Swedes are volunteering entirely voluntarily for Ukraine, Mr. Speaker. Through donations, they ensure that ambulances, fire trucks, and other vehicles, as well as drones, power generators, camouflage nets, clothes, medicines, jamming equipment to combat Russian drones, and much, much more, can be delivered. This mobilization must be the largest Swedish civilian effort for another country since Stalin attacked Finland in the Winter War in 1939.

Through the government and the Riksdag, Sweden has so far provided 90 billion kronor in military support to Ukraine, and in addition, we have provided approximately 25 billion kronor in civilian support. But we, just like many others, will need to do more. This concerns, among other things, issues regarding frozen assets, the shadow fleet, Belarus's role, third countries that help Russia with the import of components for weapons production, and countries that in various ways circumvent sanctions.

Mr. Speaker! The enormous brutality that the regime in Iran has directed against protesters over the past month must be put into the right context. In a few days, tens of thousands of unarmed civilians were killed indiscriminately. They also shut down the internet so that communication is impossible. I believe we must see what this killing corresponds to in order to understand the extent of the brutality.

I believe there are only two massacres in Europe during the 20th century that have been of this magnitude and occurred over such a short period. One is the massacre at Babi Yar, where the Jews of Kyiv were killed during World War II, and the other is the Katyn massacre, when the Soviet Red Army liquidated Polish officers – also during World War II, in the 1940s.

We can consider what the Iranian regime, which is now committing these crimes, could do if it also possessed the world's worst weapons, that is, nuclear weapons. We can only imagine what the Iranian regime would be prepared to do against its own population if it also possessed these weapons, because it would then be more immune to other countries' possible interventions.

Nothing would be better for the Middle East than if the Iranian regime fell, Mr. Speaker. It would give the Iranian population – which consists of almost 100 million people, many of whom are well-educated – the opportunity to build a democratic society. They could build a secular Iran where all population groups are respected – Persians, Kurds, Azeris, Balochis, Armenians, Arabs and many more. Iran could become a country that contributes to democracy and stability instead of, as it does today under the current ayatollah regime, wanting to dismantle all such things.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker: I think the Foreign Minister, both in his statement and in the exchanges of remarks, expressed himself very clearly regarding Greenland. Sweden's position is very clear: We completely follow the Danish line. It is, of course, the only reasonable thing.

To this, it should be added that Sweden is now also continuously deepening its engagement in the Arctic. In that perspective, I can mention research icebreakers, which is something that I and also my party have worked for in the Riksdag. I truly hope that the government and subsequently the Riksdag can as soon as possible make a decision to procure a new research icebreaker for Sweden in order to raise ambitions in the field of polar research. Not least in the geopolitical and security policy order we now have, this investment is needed.

The research icebreaker Sweden has today, Oden, lies for the majority of the time in Luleå harbor. It breaks some ice in the Gulf of Bothnia, especially now when it is such a winter, and during summer, autumn and late spring, Oden can be on expeditions, not least in the Arctic region. Oden will, however, reach its technical lifespan in a few years, so it is high time that Sweden makes a decision on a new research icebreaker.

(Applause)

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! Welcome back to the Committee on Foreign Affairs after your stay of a few years, primarily in the Committee on Education, Fredrik Malm! I do not know how many years during your very long parliamentary career you have sat in the Committee on Foreign Affairs, but it is wonderful to have you back. You are a knowledgeable person who I know knows a lot about the Middle East and Syria, which is what I intended to ask you about.

In Syria, the development after 14 years of civil war has proceeded very quickly, with a change of regime and a new government in the form of HTS, which previously had links to al-Qaeda but then became more independent. Eventually, they succeeded in taking power from al-Assad in Damascus.

Now the HTS regime has shown itself to be quite brutal towards different ethnic groups. Alawites, Druze and Kurds have all in different ways been subjected to violence from the HTS regime's military troops or military groups with links to it.

In September, the Swedish government decided to change the support provided to Syria so that it is also possible to provide it to public institutions. This is relatively unusual. Previously, the Liberals in particular, I perceive, have been quite careful that one should not support states but rather support other types of projects to achieve their aid goals. In a response that I received last week from Minister for Development Cooperation Dousa, he was however very clear that this is about migration; it is intended to facilitate the return of Syrians. This applies to the region as a whole and specifically to Sweden.

I am wondering why we do not get more information about where these funds to Syria go. Is it in the same way here as when it concerns Somalia and the so-called Somaliagate? Money has been given to people who are close to Somalia's president, who has turned out to be a Hamas supporter.

I would like to hear Malm's comment on this.

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Mr. Speaker! I truly suffer with all the Syrians. Syria is a country that has been tormented for a very long time, from the time Hafez al-Assad took power long ago. He was the father of Bashar al-Assad, who then took over. We have seen decades of oppression and persecution in the country. As a consequence of the Arab Spring, which gained momentum in Tunisia and several other countries, the civil war in Syria raged for 15 years, just as Håkan Svenneling said.

Then it went very fast. It became some kind of – very fragile – stability, with a Kurdish-controlled area east of the Euphrates and jihadist rebels closer to the Turkish border in the northwest. The regime controlled the capital and a few other cities. Then it only took three or four weeks before HTS, which is actually an extension of what was called Jabhat al-Nusra at the beginning of the war, with various links to al-Qaeda, took over in Damascus.

These are some starting values that I think are quite central here, Mr. Speaker.

Very many Syrians have fled during this war. I do not think one should oppose those who want to return doing so or that they are given sensible opportunities to do this.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs mentioned in her speech that she has visited Eritrea. In the world we have right now, Sweden must be able to have points of contact even with a country like Syria, given a number of different aspects and issues. I think that one must try to get the regime in Syria to become less vulgar and less extreme and act in different ways to create stability in the region. If we can contribute to this, it is good.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! Towards the end, Malm was [commenting] on the Syrian regime's direction. It is, after all, somewhat worrying that one has gone hard against three different ethnic groups with violence. It is also said that one has not been able to control certain instances of violence.

At the same time, one has opened up for supporting public institutions. In practice, it means that one supports the previously jihadist-linked groups now that they have the power.

This will be extra challenging if Sweden has a strong self-interest. The Liberals are involved in governing Sweden together with the Sweden Democrats, who have migration as their main issue. We also have a development minister who has very clearly brought migration into the development policy.

I wonder how one views this trade-off. I believe we all hope that Syria can be rebuilt, that it will become safer and that there will be some form of freedom. With the path the government is taking, however, one points quite clearly to the self-interest of directing migration back to Syria as the goal. One also gives money directly to the Syrian state.

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to say that it is important to put this into context. It is not that we in Sweden in any way deviate from what countries in our surroundings, other European countries or the USA do. This is a trend. People want, in different ways, to find forms to solve issues regarding the reconstruction of Syria. Previously, sanctions were directed at Syria and it was said: We are not talking anymore, instead, we are directing sanctions at you.

Now there is a new regime, which says that it is prepared to rebuild Syria. The important thing for Håkan, me, and everyone else is that we are very clear and set extremely tough demands on the new government. If we are in any way to have relations that involve getting greater opportunities to create stability in Syria, it requires quite extensive counter-performances. We have seen how they have acted in Sheikh Maksoud in Aleppo. We have seen what they have done against Druze and attacks against Christians. It is the new Syrian government's responsibility to ensure that such attacks and abuses are stopped.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I also would like to take the opportunity to welcome Fredrik Malm back to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, even though we have not sat in the committee together before. We have nevertheless had a number of debates, and I have appreciated them. I agree with the previous speaker that Fredrik Malm is a very well-read and interesting person to debate against.

At the beginning of the 90s, the then folkpartist Maria Leissner wrote a motion concerning the establishment of a democracy institute. It took a few years, but then Sweden, together with a number of other countries, participated in establishing Idea. It has been precisely a democracy institute that has monitored democratic processes all around the world. Sweden has been the most important financier. Idea is headquartered just across the water as seen from the Riksdag.

Since 2022, the support to Idea has decreased by 75 percent. The message from the Minister for Foreign Affairs has been that the aid, after the reorganization, shall primarily go to Swedish interests.

A reorganization of aid was made from the mid-90s onwards. Instead of sending money to corrupt leaders who received Swedish tax kronor without it being known what the money was used for, the aim was to invest in building up democracy all around the world. It was very laudable, I think. Folkpartiet was, of course, involved in pushing this through. Transparency and democracy were important watchwords.

Now we are practically slaughtering the support for Idea at the same time as we are sending 100 million kronor to a corrupt and antisemitic president in Somalia with rather questionable purposes. I would like to ask Fredrik Malm what he, as a liberal, actually thinks about this.

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you very much, Jacob Risberg, for the kind words! I too have appreciated the exchanges we have had. I also think it has been rewarding both to listen to and to participate in this debate.

It is very true that Idea is located a few hundred meters from here, at Strömsborg. However, I have sat in the Riksdag for 20 years without seeing anything from them. I have never received a publication from them. I have never, during my ten years in the Committee on Foreign Affairs, been contacted by them. I find it very difficult to make an assessment of what Idea has achieved. That question should rather be asked of the Minister for Development Cooperation at some point when he is here in the chamber. I believe he can better account for that specific resource allocation or why the grant has been reduced.

Changes are always being made to the aid frameworks; they are made all the time. Given the large support that we also need to continue providing to Ukraine, I foresee that it will be necessary to continue making some bold prioritizations in the aid.

Mr. Speaker! When it comes to Somalia, I think one should ask this: Is it really unreasonable for Sweden, in its relations with countries that continuously – year after year – are recipients of large sums of Swedish taxpayers' money, to set what appears to be reasonable requirements, furthermore entirely in accordance with international law, that these countries are prepared to receive their own citizens if they are not to remain in Sweden? I have understood that for Miljöpartiet, this is some kind of red line. For us, it is not that, but it is a perfectly reasonable part of a foreign policy that is to serve Swedish interests that countries are prepared to receive their own citizens if they have committed serious crimes in, for example, Sweden. I do not think it is particularly strange at all.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member Malm for the answer.

I have only sat on the Committee on Foreign Affairs for three and a half years, but I was invited to visit IDEA a couple of years ago. It was very interesting to hear about everything they do. They are, among other things, election observers and work to strengthen democracy in different parts of the world and to strengthen parliaments and parliamentarians.

But it is difficult for this type of institute that receives Swedish tax money to inform us about what is happening, because the government has cut back very heavily on precisely the information part of the grants Sweden provides. The idea, therefore, is not that those who receive aid money should be able to inform us members of parliament about the wonderful things they are doing.

Regarding the money for Somalia, Somalia shall receive the persons who return regardless of whether we give them money or not. They are bound by international law to do so. They shall receive them regardless of whether we give them 100 million or not. There is no reason to send 100 million to a corrupt leader when Somalia, according to international law, is forced to receive them.

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Mr. Speaker! As I have said, I am not well-versed in the exact details regarding a specific grant to a specific recipient, such as Idea.

I note that Miljöpartiet held the position of Minister for Development Cooperation from 2014–2022. For eight years, Miljöpartiet was therefore responsible for development aid. After the debate, Jacob Risberg, we can well go to openaid.se and look at how much aid you gave to Somalia during those eight years. I believe it exceeded 100 million. I believe it even exceeded 100 million per half-year.

It is easy to say that the government has given 100 million to Somalia. But the Green Party spent billions in exactly the same government in Somalia, furthermore over a period of eight years. It would be pleasant to admit that if one is to have that debate.

(Applause)

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

Alexandra Völker (S)

Mr. Speaker! In Sudan, 25 million people suffer from extreme hunger. For nearly three years, the civil war has raged in Sudan, and what was already a serious humanitarian crisis before the current war has developed into the world's largest humanitarian crisis. About 12 million people are fleeing, and in addition to nearly half of the country's population suffering from extreme hunger, famine has been observed in several places. Areas where farming was previously practiced have been transformed into pure battlefields. The humanitarian crisis is exacerbated by climate change, which has led to extreme weather such as droughts and floods.

That humanitarian crises are exacerbated by climate change is something we see in several places in the world. In Ethiopia, climate change has led to severe drought and a shortage of both water and food. At the same time, the extensive violence in several regions over the last decade has hit the population hard. In Afghanistan, the population suffers not only from the brutal Taliban regime but also from the consequences of climate change. Afghanistan is one of the countries in the world that is worst affected by climate change and at the same time least equipped to handle them.

Despite increased needs, the Tidö government chooses to withdraw from the countries where the needs are greatest. At the same time as 1 million Sudanese have fled to South Sudan, where the population has suffered from severe poverty for a long time, the government is abolishing the bilateral aid to precisely South Sudan.

Despite several Swedish organizations being clear that they can make a difference in Afghanistan, the government is abolishing the bilateral aid and forcing organizations such as Rädda Barnen to prematurely terminate their activities in Afghanistan.

Now is the wrong time to back down. Now is the wrong time to step back. On the contrary, it is now that Sweden must step forward. We are a country with a proud tradition of being a strong and proactive voice in foreign policy. With a world order in flux, a growing climate crisis and several wars and humanitarian conflicts, and as USA's incumbent president launches a world council with himself as eternal chairman, democratic countries that take responsibility are needed.

When the world becomes more brutal, more unequal and more fragmented, stronger common institutions are needed. Then a strong UN is needed, and now there is a unique opportunity for Sweden to influence the UN's future. The UN is in a reform process under the slogan UN80. It provides both an opportunity and a responsibility to act. But the government does the opposite and significantly reduces support to UN bodies such as UNDP.

When the UN's fourth summit on development financing took place this summer, not a single Swedish minister was present. When our neighboring countries sent their heads of government to the General Assembly's 80th anniversary in the autumn, Sweden's Prime Minister instead prioritized a table tennis event in Eskilstuna. When the UN organized its 30th climate summit in Brazil, not a single Swedish minister was present during the negotiations themselves.

The government likes to talk about our security, but what are climate change issues about if not precisely our security? How do we create common security if not precisely by prioritizing our common institutions?

Large areas of land may become impossible to live on and off in the future. Climate change threatens our existence, it threatens our food systems and it threatens our security. We see it even here in our immediate vicinity. In the Arctic, the ice is melting at a frightening pace, which has major consequences for the ecosystem. At the same time, it opens up new trade routes and opportunities to extract natural resources, which has led to a growing great power interest, something that has hardly escaped anyone in this chamber.

To speak of peace and security without speaking of climate change is to turn a blind eye to reality.

Mr. Speaker! In Iran, the brave population has once again demonstrated against the illegitimate regime and for their freedom, and once again we have seen the regime meet the protests with ruthless violence. By suppressing the country, the regime, under total control, was able to mistreat, imprison, and murder its own population. Last night, Skeppsholmskyrkan was filled to honor those who brutally lost their lives.

We do not yet know for certain how many have been killed, but what we do know is that the only thing the Iranian regime has is its capital of violence – a capital of violence that it is not afraid to use against either its own population or the rest of the world. The regime constitutes a threat to Iran's population, a threat to Europe, and a threat to Sweden.

That the European member states could now finally agree that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard on the terror list was important. But it is shameful that it should require thousands of dead to reach that agreement. The Iranian people have shown an immense courage, and it is our responsibility to be brave in return and support them in their struggle for freedom. The illegitimate regime's time must come to an end, and the people must be allowed to decide over their own future. It is a choice that must be theirs, no one else's.

(Applause)

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

Anna Lasses (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Alexandra Völker, for the fine speech regarding the climate. But I have a completely different question.

The Social Democrats have presented a new aid agenda, but there is no proposal in it on how the money for Ukraine can be financed in a good way. We from the Center Party have proposed that the aid to Ukraine should be moved out to a Ukraine fund together with all other support. Is this something the Social Democrats have considered? How can one get more long-term support for Ukraine without it affecting the rest of the aid?

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

Alexandra Völker (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Anna Lasses, for the question! Aid is an issue where I believe we share very much the same view. We agree that Sweden must return to the one percent goal.

Aid must truly be prioritized, and support must not be given at the expense of the rest of the world. But that is exactly what we see now. Just as I pointed out in my speech, we see how Sweden is backing away from countries where we really need to be present, such as Afghanistan and South Sudan. There are infinitely many examples of countries where Sweden is backing away. It is extremely problematic.

In the aid program we have now launched, it is clear: Sweden must continue to take a large responsibility in the world. How we are to do this, I believe we need to discuss moving forward. We probably need to look at all possible variants, but we Social Democrats are very careful with that principle.

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

Anna Lasses (C)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the answer.

We can observe that Ukraine will need support for a long time to come. Taking money for Ukraine out of the aid budget becomes unsustainable. They need long-term support, and they need to know how much it will be so that they can plan. At the same time, we hope that the war will be over at some point in the future and that Ukraine will become a member of the EU. Then the support will be removed at once.

Would it not be reasonable to find a solution outside the ordinary assistance budget when it concerns precisely the support to Ukraine?

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

Alexandra Völker (S)

Madam Speaker! As said, we truly agree that the support for Ukraine is firm. It must be robust and long-term. I also completely share the member's view that we hope the war will soon end, that we can welcome Ukraine into the EU and that they can stand on their own feet in a free and secure Ukraine.

I also share the view that the aid must be broad and comprehensive and that we must look at the needs we face. I am very afraid that the current government chooses to turn a blind eye to the incredibly great challenges we face and also chooses to turn a blind eye to how our own security here at home is affected.

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

Rasmus Giertz (SD)

Madam Speaker! Today we are addressing the government's foreign policy direction and how Sweden should act in a time of war, terror, and growing tensions. Against that background, I want to focus on the Middle East, where the difference between democracy and Islamist terror is most distinct and where Europe's and Sweden's moral compass is being tested.

In Gaza, a US-brokered ceasefire has been in effect since October 10, 2025, which is linked to a broader peace and stabilization plan, but it is fragile. As recently as February 15 this year, reports were made of Israeli airstrikes after Israel accused Hamas of breaking the ceasefire, while Hamas accused Israel of the same. This illustrates the core problem: ceasefires can curb violence, but they do not resolve the conflict as long as Hamas maintains its military capability and its ideology.

Now, Madam Speaker, Israel has also, according to reports, given Hamas a 60-day deadline to lay down their weapons. Otherwise, a new military offensive is threatened. Regardless of what one thinks of the form, this shows that the question of demilitarization is not a detail in the margin, but it is completely central. A peace that leaves Hamas armed and politically rewarded is not a peace but a pause before the next act of terrorism.

The Sweden Democrats have been consistent from day one. We condemn Hamas's terror, we stand up for Israel's self-evident right to self-defense, and we refuse to relativize the difference between a democracy and a terrorist organization. At the same time, we acknowledge, without exception, the deep civilian suffering, but we also refuse to let the suffering be used as a propaganda tool to wash away Hamas's responsibility or to delegitimize Israel.

However, we cannot turn a blind eye to the spiral of violence that extremist settlers contribute to on the West Bank. Violence against civilians and violations of the rule of law must be met with a clear stance and legal consequences.

Madam Speaker! It is also important to see the whole picture. Gaza is not an isolated conflict but part of a regional power struggle where Iran is the most important destabilizing actor. Iran arms and finances proxy groups and drives a spiral of violence throughout the entire region. While some would like to pretend that this can be managed with goodwill and dialogue, without counterclaims, we see how dangerous the situation is.

Yesterday, February 17, new talks between the USA and Iran regarding the nuclear issue began, while Iran simultaneously carried out military power demonstrations in the Strait of Hormuz, with clear signals that they are prepared to threaten global trade and energy flows. This is not diplomacy in good faith, but rather classic extortion logic from an Islamist regime.

The Sweden Democrats' message is clear: Iran must be met with toughness, not concession. Sanctions must be tightened and targeted at decision-makers and their closest circles. We shall continue to pursue a principled line against the regime's oppression, support for terrorism, and regional aggressions. Therefore, we welcomed that the EU recently formally blacklisted the IRGC, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard.

The Sweden Democrats have been persistent on this issue for a long time. The IRGC is not a common military structure, but rather the regime's tool for repression at home and terror export abroad. Calling things by their true names is a prerequisite for a credible foreign policy.

Madam Speaker! In this situation, Sweden needs a foreign policy that is consistent, but it is precisely consistency that is lacking among the Social Democrats and the left-wing opposition. When it comes to Israel, they are quick with condemnations and symbolic gestures, but they are significantly quieter when it comes to Iran, Islamist mobilization, and the fact that terrorist groups systematically hinder humanitarian aid by threatening, seizing, and manipulating civilian structures.

It is not enough to say "international law" as a mantra if one simultaneously closes their eyes to how terror actors cynically exploit the very good intentions of international law and the humanitarian systems. We see this also in the view on international institutions. Sverigedemokraterna stands behind Sweden's accession to the Rome Statute, but we view with concern the politicization that erodes legitimacy. When international processes create an impression of moral equality between democratic decision-makers and terror leaders, it risks becoming part of the problem rather than part of the solution.

Madam Speaker! The Sweden Democrats' line is therefore clear and realistic:

First of all: Zero tolerance towards terrorism. Hamas must never be rewarded, and demilitarization must be a real, verifiable part of every sustainable order.

Secondly: Support for democratic allies. Israel has the right to defend its population, and Sweden shall pursue a policy that clearly distinguishes between democracies and terror actors.

Thirdly: Stronger pressure against Iran. This requires sanctions and terror listings and an end to naive arrangements where the regime can continue to threaten the region.

For the fourth: The aid must reach civilians, but it must never become a resource that prolongs the conflict or strengthens extremist structures.

(Applause)

In this speech, Erik Hellsborn (SD) agreed.

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

Fredrik Ahlstedt (M)

Madam Speaker! We gather today at a time when Europe's security order is still being tested by Russia's brutal war of aggression against Ukraine. The war has reminded us that peace and freedom can never be taken for granted.

For us Moderates, the starting point is clear: Sweden's foreign and security policy shall be based on strength, responsibility, and solidarity with our democratic friends.

Firstly, we have Ukraine. Sweden's support for Ukraine must be long-term, powerful, and sustained. Ukraine is not only fighting for its own territory but for the principles that all of Europe rests upon: sovereignty, international law, and every nation's right to choose its own leaders and its own path. We shall continue to contribute with military, economic, and humanitarian support. At the same time, we must work to strengthen Europe's collective defense capability and ensure that Ukraine's cause remains high on the international agenda and, not least, on the EU's agenda. We must simply do as much as we can to support Ukraine in the fight for freedom. A Russian defeat in Ukraine is crucial for the future security of Europe and Sweden.

Madam Speaker! Secondly, we have Nato. The Moderates have long advocated that Sweden should apply and join Nato. Sweden's membership in Nato marks a historical shift in our security policy. We have moved from military non-alignment to full participation in the strongest defense alliance in the world. This means, of course, security but also a great responsibility. Sweden shall be a credible and active ally. We shall contribute to Nato's collective defense, invest in our own defense, and deepen cooperation with our allies. A strong Nato and thus a strong Swedish defense is the primary guarantee for peace and stability in our immediate vicinity.

Thirdly, we have the Nordic and Baltic cooperation. In an uneasy world, Nordic and Baltic cooperation is more important than ever. Together with Finland, Norway, Denmark, and Iceland, we can build a security policy whole that makes the Nordic region one of the world's most integrated and stable regions. It is about joint defense planning, strengthened crisis preparedness, and deepened economic cooperation. The Nordic region shall be an engine for security, innovation, and competitiveness in Europe. In this work, Sweden has a special responsibility.

For the fourth, we have civil defense. A strong total defense requires more than military capability. Civil defense is crucial for protecting our society against crises, cyberattacks, disinformation, and disruptions in our supply chains. We must strengthen the robustness in energy supply, transport, healthcare, and digital infrastructure. Authorities, municipalities, the business sector, and civil society need to work more together. A resilient society is a prerequisite for a credible defense. We have seen this, at least, in Ukraine. Ukraine's civil defense is a prerequisite for the military defense to function.

In this perspective, Sweden has become an example around the world in terms of how one can powerfully increase both civil and military capability in a relatively short time. One small but quite important thing is how one communicates with the public and with the companies. Our blue and yellow brochures "If the crisis or the war comes" have become well-known all over the world, and many are now following our efforts in that area.

For the fifth, we have business and trade agreements. Sweden's prosperity is closely intertwined with an open and rules-based world trade. In a time of increasing protectionism, we must stand up for free trade, competitiveness, and innovation. New trade agreements create jobs, strengthen our companies, and reduce our dependence on authoritarian states. By deepening cooperation with like-minded democracies, we can build more secure supply chains, promote sustainable growth, and ensure that Swedish companies can compete internationally.

Through the free trade agreement with South America, the so-called Mercosur agreement, and the agreement with India, the EU and Sweden are taking an alternative path with several different possibilities and are not putting all their eggs in one basket. This provides strength and stability as well as good conditions for Swedish companies.

Madam Speaker! Our time demands clarity and decisiveness. Sweden shall be a strong voice for freedom, democracy, and international cooperation. By supporting Ukraine, deepening our engagement in Nato, strengthening Nordic cooperation, building up civil defense, and promoting trade, we lay the foundation for a safer and more prosperous Sweden.

(Applause)

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the floor.

I intended to ask a question that is perhaps more about the Foreign Minister's speech and the aid than about the policy that the member spoke about in his speech.

In its latest regulatory letter, the government says it no longer wants to increase but instead wants to streamline climate aid for reduced emissions. Efficiency is good, of course, but one wonders a bit what that means in practice.

Even though the government now announces that it maintains support for emission reductions, it unfortunately does not do so for climate adaptation. Sweden's support for the adaptation fund and the fund for the least developed countries ceases.

Besides the fact that this is devastating for the land for those who must be able to support themselves, it sends a bad international signal and damages Swedish global climate diplomacy. Why is the government doing this, and how is this prioritizing the climate?

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

Fredrik Ahlstedt (M)

Madam Speaker! Member Alm Ericson knows very well how the government has chosen to prioritize these different areas.

We have for a long time worked with the reform agenda for aid. We have above all prioritized the immediate vicinity, not least Ukraine. On that line, the government has worked to ensure increased aid to Ukraine. We shall ensure civilian aid, which concerns the reconstruction of energy supply systems, healthcare, and other infrastructure needed in Ukraine. It shall complement our support when it comes to the military defense.

The priority, therefore, lies in increasing the efforts in the immediate area and thus to Ukraine.

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the answer, even if some parts perhaps were omitted.

We are very well aware of both the government's reform agenda for aid, which is actually a reduction and deprioritization agenda, and that support for Ukraine has been prioritized.

When it comes to the support for Ukraine, we stand fully behind it, but we do not think it should have to be paid for by the world's poorest. Unfortunately, that is the prioritization the government is making – one chooses to redirect money from giving people the opportunity to support themselves and grow food and ensuring that societies remain stable.

At the same time as the Moderates and this government say they are in favor of proper climate aid with both emission reduction and adaptation, they now choose to cut back. How is it that the government thinks it is the most vulnerable who should pay for the support to Ukraine?

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

Fredrik Ahlstedt (M)

Madam Speaker! Member Ericson knows very well, especially after his involvement in the Committee on Finance, that all our expenditures must be financed. This is therefore an important prioritization.

It is not that we have abolished aid. Sweden is still one of the world's largest aid donors in several areas. Now, however, we have said that we feel, know, and think that it is right and proper that we should prioritize aid to Ukraine.

Ukraine is incredibly important for Swedish security and for Swedish and European stability. Therefore, this government has chosen to prioritize the aid in our immediate vicinity to Ukraine.

There is only a certain amount of money. We have been very careful that we do not intend to allocate more funds. In this context, the aid to Ukraine shall be prioritized.

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

Anna Lasses (C)

Madam Speaker! I continue on the climate track. As the member mentioned, security is extremely important, and I completely agree with the description when it comes to Ukraine. But that is not quite what this is about. What it is about when it comes to climate aid is that instead of investing in vulnerable areas – and then we are not talking about Ukraine but about the global south – one invests in climate aid to middle-income countries, i.e., the low-hanging fruits that the government often talks about.

In the vulnerable areas, the situation will now become even worse. There will be more conflicts. We will get more refugees and increased migration, which the government does not want. At the same time, instead, they are helping the countries that have it a bit easier.

How is it that this prioritization is being made?

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

Fredrik Ahlstedt (M)

Madam Speaker and Member Lasses! In order to increase the effect of the allocated aid funds, the government does not want to spread the aid over too many different parts. Several of you have heard the Minister for Development say that we are no longer going to use our water sprayer but concentrate the aid to achieve increased effect.

It is also, just as in the previous discussion, a prioritization: to ensure that the aid has a much higher effect than what could be seen at previous occasions.

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

Anna Lasses (C)

Madam Speaker! I would recommend that both the Minister and the Government and the Moderaterna stop with that analogy. Everyone who knows anything about gardening knows that sprinklers are better than pouring all the water in one place.

It is still the case that one invests in these countries. One shifts aid from the most vulnerable countries to the slightly less poor countries. I suspect that one does it because one knows that these projects lower emissions. Then one can include it in the Swedish climate budget, so to speak, and then one says that we have lowered emissions but done so outside of Europe.

At the same time, however, this means that one increases the problems in the most vulnerable areas, gets significantly higher migration, and reduces security in the world. I still wonder why one is making this prioritization.

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

Fredrik Ahlstedt (M)

Madam Speaker! The government's approach regarding the reform agenda for aid involves several different parts. An important part has been to try to increase the effect of every invested Swedish krona. In that perspective, the government has said that we shall reduce the number of countries we provide aid to in order to increase concentration and achieve higher effect. It will certainly result in higher effect on the climate. It will certainly result in higher effect on growth. There is also a possibility that we can obtain better trade with different countries.

Overall, it is still about increasing concentration to achieve better effect. It is an important part of the government's reform agenda.

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Madam Speaker! The member speaks a lot about security policy. We are in complete agreement on the importance of the support to Ukraine. The member does not, however, mention the importance of international aid as a security policy aspect. He also does not mention climate aid, which is incredibly important.

Not only is the government now abandoning some of the world's poorest and most vulnerable countries in Africa and Asia, it is also ending support for climate funds that would truly make a difference in countering the climate crisis and contributing to climate adaptation. This is a security policy risk – does the member not see that?

During the past month, extreme storms have swept across southern Africa with major consequences for both people and nature. Enormous amounts of rain have created the region's worst floods in several decades. Millions of people have been affected.

Support for climate adaptation in these countries is absolutely crucial for survival, not least for women, children and other vulnerable groups in many places that have been affected by this extreme weather. It is therefore serious that the government completely abandons these countries.

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

Fredrik Ahlstedt (M)

Madam Speaker! In this debate, it sounds as if Sweden has completely abolished its climate aid. We are still one of the world's most generous countries when it comes to climate aid.

As I have said in my previous exchanges, the government wants to increase concentration to achieve higher effect. The government has also chosen to prioritize aid in the near area, and there, Ukraine has been prioritized. The work of defending Ukraine and rebuilding the country with healthcare, energy supply, and other infrastructure parts is an important part even for Sweden. For Sweden's security, we must prioritize the aid to Ukraine.

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the answer.

I truly agree on the importance of supporting Ukraine. However, we believe that it must not occur at the expense of the world's most vulnerable people and countries. We also believe that the support to Ukraine must be provided additionally, outside of traditional aid.

The support that has disappeared concerns the phasing out of important strategies in several countries. Support for the adaptation fund and the fund for the least developed countries has also been abolished. This is an incredibly important climate support. It is the support that is needed for these countries to be able to withstand the major climate disasters that occur and for them to be able to develop and, for example, support small-scale agriculture and in other ways build up a strategy against this.

That we abandon this support is a security policy risk and leaves the field free for other, authoritarian regimes to enter instead.

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

Fredrik Ahlstedt (M)

Madam Speaker! This government has endeavored to truly create an important reform agenda for aid. An important part was that we wanted to prioritize the support to Ukraine. We have increased the aid to Ukraine to just over 10 billion kronor – an incredibly important prioritization in the aid budget.

Sweden continues to be one of the largest climate aid donors in the world. We will continue to carry out a number of different projects. Unlike Vänsterpartiet and a few additional parties, however, we do not have an unlimited budget with unlimited funds. When one does not have that, one must learn to prioritize. That is what this government does: We prioritize Ukraine. We also continue to provide aid – humanitarian aid, climate aid, and other aid.

(Applause)

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

Linnéa Wickman (S)

Madam Speaker! A power struggle over the world order is currently underway. It is taking place in our own immediate vicinity in a very clear way in the Western Balkans, where Russia is deliberately and actively trying to undermine candidate countries' efforts towards EU membership, strengthened democracy, and increased equality.

At the forefront of important reforms and thus also for our own security stands the women's rights movement. But due to the government's cuts, they are now forced to cease their crucial work, for example when it comes to reviewing legislation and supporting women who have been subjected to violence. This is happening in Serbia, Kosovo, Albania, Bosnia, Montenegro and North Macedonia.

How does this square with the government's claim that equality is a core value in foreign policy and that our immediate neighborhood should be prioritized?

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

Fredrik Ahlstedt (M)

Madam Speaker! In my previous remarks, I have spoken about an important part of the government's reform agenda regarding aid and the budget. There is a budget, and we have increased the support to Ukraine by just over 10 billion this year. At the same time, it requires a prioritization, and some projects will disappear or be reduced. Furthermore, it is about the fact that we can simultaneously concentrate resources on several different projects.

Sweden is still one of the world's most generous donors when it comes to development aid, but it is also a matter of us using the money in the right way. It is about prioritizing and ensuring that we get as much as possible out of different projects.

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

Linnéa Wickman (S)

Madam Speaker! We have repeatedly heard from the government that equality is a core value in foreign policy. We have repeatedly heard that the near area is important, but now it seems to be merely a label because not even women's rights organizations in our own near area that stand up against Russia are safe from the government's cuts.

In the Western Balkans, they have been hit hard by the Trump administration's cuts, and there is no other actor that can now step in and support the organizations that Sweden is leaving.

Kvinna till Kvinna has pleaded with the government to conduct a reassessment so as not to cut the only program where women's participation is secured in reform work in the Western Balkans. It is also serious that the cuts are occurring when democratic forces are so pressured.

Is the member prepared to act to save the aid to at least these women's rights organizations so that they can continue their crucial work?

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

Fredrik Ahlstedt (M)

Madam Speaker! I have said previously, and the Foreign Minister also took it up in the foreign policy declaration, that it is important that Sweden's work involves strengthening the rights and empowerment of women and girls.

Sweden is still one of the largest aid donors, and we will still have a multitude of different aid projects ongoing. We are also continuing to work on developing the aid in Ukraine. Ukraine is the most prioritized aid area, but we are also continuing to work with aid in the surrounding area.

Sweden has a good and recognized reputation among aid organizations, and we continue to work with the issues. Sweden has traditionally given a lot of aid and still has a large aid budget.

(Applause)

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Madam Speaker! Pandemic, climate crisis, war and conflicts mean that the need for international aid is greater than it has been in a very long time. When the USA under Trump cuts its aid very significantly, something that could lead to at least 14 million people, of whom one third are children, potentially dying by 2030, responsible countries should cooperate with civil society and multilateral organizations to strengthen the aid. Instead, the government and SD choose to carry out further large cuts. It is obvious that the government prefers to favor Sweden's richest with large tax cuts rather than helping the world's most vulnerable.

Vänsterpartiet stands up for the goal that at least 1 percent of GNI shall go to aid, and we promise that we will do everything to gradually restore the aid to 1 percent if we gain influence during the coming mandate period. Furthermore, the government undermines the aid by using aid funds for things that may not be counted as aid according to the OECD-DAC's rules. This applies, for example, to domestic costs for integration and repatriation. It is particularly serious that the government has sent 100 million to one of the world's most corrupt leaders, namely the Hamas-related prime minister in Somalia, in exchange for Somalia accepting deported Somalis. Aid must never be used as a bribe.

It is also serious that the government emphasizes the importance of the aid benefiting Swedish interests such as trade and business. The aid should benefit the recipient and not the donor. The government is abandoning more and more poor countries in the world – something that goes completely against the objective of assisting the most vulnerable.

In total, twelve poor countries have been left. It hits the work for democracy, human rights, women's rights, and the climate hard. Important progress that has been achieved risks being rolled back. Many examples can be highlighted of well-functioning projects that are now forced to end, such as support for poor farmers in Tanzania and Mozambique or support for street children in Afghanistan. Sweden has over decades built an international reputation as a reliable partner. That position is now rapidly being lost. It may prove extremely costly in the future to turn our backs on these countries when we leave room for authoritarian forces to take over.

The reason for the cuts is that the government wants to transfer more resources to Ukraine. Of course, Ukraine's severely vulnerable civilian population needs all the support, both military and humanitarian. However, it is not reasonable that the world's most vulnerable should pay for this support. It would not have had to be that way if one had chosen to finance the civilian support to Ukraine in the same way as the military, that is, outside the ordinary aid framework.

Women, girls, and LGBTQ+ people around the world are now facing a historic backlash against equality and sexual and reproductive health and rights. The government abandoned the feminist foreign policy but emphasizes that equality is a core value, which is difficult to take seriously when we see how aid for equality is instead decreasing. Between 2021 and 2024, the proportion of Swedish bilateral aid that had equality as its main purpose fell from 18 to 10 percent.

Investing in women's opportunities for self-sufficiency and empowerment is a key factor for favorable societal development. Women's leadership is also absolutely crucial for peace and stability. Access to clean water and basic sanitation is also an important equality issue.

Vänsterpartiet believes that the gender perspective should permeate all aid activities, that half of the aid should go to women and girls and that 10 percent should be earmarked for SRHR. We also want to reintroduce the feminist foreign policy and strengthen support for civil society organizations and the UN – especially the core support to UN Women and UNFPA.

In Sudan, one of the world's largest humanitarian catastrophes is currently occurring as a result of the war. Over 30 million people are in need of humanitarian support. 4 million people have fled to one of the neighboring countries, and 9.6 million people have fled within Sudan. The international community must act to end the war, protect civilians and humanitarian aid workers, establish humanitarian access, and increase humanitarian support to local actors and groups.

Despite the fragile ceasefire in Gaza, the need for aid will be enormous for a long time as a result of Israel's genocide and total destruction of Gaza. At the same time, we see how the violence in the West Bank is increasing. Palestinians are being killed and displaced, and Palestinian communities are being destroyed. A key organization is the UN agency UNRWA, which has for decades had the UN's mandate to assist Palestinian refugees. Despite this, Sweden's government has chosen to withdraw support to this indispensable organization. We in the Vänsterpartiet therefore earmarked 1 billion to UNRWA in our shadow budget. The aid to UNRWA must be reinstated as soon as possible, including the support to the ecumenical accompaniment program and other organizations that work for peace, democracy, and human rights.

We must also not forget the importance of humanitarian aid to the most vulnerable Western Saharan refugee camps in the Sahara Desert.

Aid cannot solve all the world's challenges, but it can contribute to a positive development. For real and long-term change, it is required that unsustainable debt burdens are managed and that measures are taken to achieve a fairer tax system and stop the global flight of capital and taxes. Every year, developing countries lose more money due to corporate tax evasion than they receive in aid. These are funds that are needed for investments in, for example, schools and healthcare.

(Applause)

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

Anna Lasses (C)

Madam Speaker! What does the government actually want with Swedish aid? What is the purpose, and what goals does it have? These are questions I ask myself more and more often. I experience, in fact, that the government paints a picture that does not always correspond with what is done in reality.

The reform agenda that the government has developed during the mandate period gives the picture that aid shall be long-term, effective and transparent. We shall value civil society and the local perspectives highly, and equality and education are important tools to achieve the parliamentary goal: to combat poverty and oppression.

But when one follows what is actually being done, it looks like it is developing in the exact opposite direction. Long-term governance has been replaced by jerkiness. Development projects in the most vulnerable parts of the world are being replaced by short-term projects. Money is moved from the most vulnerable contexts to more orderly conditions and makes it a free pass for states like China, which stand ready with expensive loans and completely different values.

What does the government actually want with Swedish aid? Let us see aid for what it is. It is not a solution to all of humanity's problems. But it is an opportunity to contribute to a slightly better world and can give people the opportunity to live a slightly better life, get a job or an education, demand democracy and influence and become a little freer.

Aid is also an important foreign policy tool that Sweden has managed well for a long time. By showing that we are a reliable and long-term partner, we have gained credibility, and doors have opened and given us influence in world politics.

Madam Speaker! This is not something we usually talk about. Too many Swedes believe that aid is only a cost for Swedish taxpayers. But the truth is that aid has given Sweden power and influence in the world in a way that weapons never could for the same amount of money.

Is everything that is done today bad? No, absolutely not! I do not question the organizations and companies that receive aid funds and work with this. What I and the Center Party question is the government's management and purpose and how it affects Sweden's influence internationally in the long term.

What does the Centre Party want then, Madam Speaker? In the chaotic world we live in, where climate change leads to more conflicts and where democracy and human rights are retreating, Sweden has a super-important role to play. When the other aid donors withdraw from difficult contexts, we shall be there. Then we shall invest in children's education, women's empowerment, small-scale entrepreneurship, climate adaptation, and civil society's resilience against oppression.

This is not fluff. It is smart. Every ounce of security and resilience that we can spread in the world ensures that we in Sweden and Europe get a safer life. And it promotes trade and development. Long-term perspective and sustainability in aid must come first.

Centerpartiet wants an aid policy permeated by liberal feminism. And we want a clear plan back to the one percent goal.

At the same time, we want to move aid to Ukraine out of the ordinary budget. We want to establish a fund, equivalent to 1 percent of the GNP, where we collect all support for Ukraine, both military and civilian. This makes the support to Ukraine clear and sustainable.

Aid should not be a migration tool. The Tidögänget usually defend the link between migration policy and aid by saying that it must end that Sweden gives aid without setting requirements. It is clear that we shall set requirements! We shall set requirements on follow-up and results and on that the recipient shall uphold the principles of the rule of law, human rights and international law.

But what the government means by requirements is that one is willing to pay for the countries to accept persons whom we want to deport – 100 million for thirty people to Somalia and 295 million for 128 people to Syria. And more countries are in the works, for example Afghanistan with several.

How is this making demands? Let us call it a bribe or, at best, an incredibly dubious transaction.

Aid and migration are absolutely linked. By reducing poverty and oppression and increasing security, fewer people will need to flee from their homes. Likewise, it is reasonable to withdraw aid from partners who do not stand up for the principles of the rule of law, human rights, and international law. But aid must not and must never be a migration tool used to bribe another country's government to accept people whom we want to deport.

Madam Speaker! Finally, I want to turn to all of you in Swedish civil society and Swedish companies that every day work with our aid around the world. With an invaluable global network and regardless of government, you adapt and do your best so that the world will become a slightly better place. For the Center Party, it is clear that it is you who are the experts and must be involved in how Swedish aid should be developed moving forward.

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

Yusuf Aydin (KD)

Madam Speaker! My colleague Magnus Berntsson has in a meritorious manner accounted for important parts of our foreign policy regarding Iran, Ukraine and other parts, as well as for the aid policy. In my speech, I shall focus on another important area, which we Christian Democrats have worked for for a long time: religious freedom and persecuted Christians.

Freedom of religion and belief is a fundamental right. Nevertheless, the violations are extensive, and the development in many parts of the world is moving in the wrong direction. Today, around 70 percent of the world's population live in countries where freedom of religion is restricted in various ways, either by regimes or by different extremist groups. Religious persecution often contributes to poverty, marginalization, and social instability and counteracts inclusive and peaceful societies.

Madam Speaker! The persecution of Christians is particularly extensive and has increased in recent years. Open Doors publishes a list every year of the 50 countries where the persecution of Christians is worst. According to the latest report, which was published in January, it has worsened further. Approximately 388 million Christians, which means every seventh Christian in the world, are estimated to be subject to persecution because of their faith. This can be compared with 2015, when around 100 million were considered to be subject to persecution. It is a dramatic deterioration over a decade.

Despite this development, religious freedom and the persecution of Christians have for a long time had an almost non-existent role in Swedish foreign and aid policy. But with the Christian Democrats in the government, this becomes a clear priority. In this year's foreign declaration, as well as those of the last three years, persecuted Christians are highlighted, and the work for religious freedom is emphasized. This is also reflected in the government's reform agenda for aid and in several aid strategies.

Madam Speaker! In the Middle East, Christians risk disappearing from their historical countries of origin, from the cradle of Christianity. Over the last two decades, the Christian population in Iraq and Syria has decreased by nearly 80 percent. Damascus was previously the capital of the Aramaic Empire, already a thousand years before Christ, and there Aramaic was the lingua franca and the language that Jesus spoke. Today it is still used by Christian Arameans, Syrians, Assyrians and Chaldeans but only by a few people who remain in the region.

The Syriac Orthodox Church, of which I am a member myself, is one of the oldest. It was founded in the year 37 AD by the apostle Peter. Right now, there may be more Syriac Orthodox Christians in Sweden than there are remaining in parts of the Middle East. It was in Antioch that the disciples were first called Christians, as it stands in the Bible.

For the Christians in Syria, the fall of the Assad regime brings certainly hope but also uncertainty. The country is in a sensitive situation. There is an opportunity to build a democratic and inclusive government, but the development is far from a given. Therefore, it is of the utmost importance that Sweden and the EU engage actively in Syria's future and demand a democratic and inclusive government that guarantees all Syrians, including religious and ethnic minorities, equal rights and protection throughout the country.

The situation in Iraq is in many ways equally serious. After many years of war and terror from the Islamic State, the Christian population has decreased by about 80 percent, from previously 1.5 million to perhaps 200,000–300,000. When the large city of Mosul was captured by Daish in the summer of 2014 and emptied of its Christian population, it was the first time in 1,700 years that the church bells fell silent. The Nineveh Plain, the historical area for many Christian groups, is particularly hard hit. Although some have returned, it is a heavily decimated and reduced number. One proposal would be to strengthen their presence in the long term and give the Nineveh Plain the status of an administrative province within Iraq's constitutional framework. Such a solution could strengthen local self-governance, security, and representation for Christians, Yazidis, and other minorities while Iraq's territorial integrity is respected.

Madam Speaker! In a time marked by uncertainty and growing conflicts, Sweden's foreign policy voice must be clear, both in our immediate vicinity and globally. Sweden and the EU must stand up against oppression and persecution. We shall promote peace, freedom, human rights, and democracy. We have a responsibility to stand up for those whose voices are silenced and whose freedom is restricted. Sweden shall be a voice for religious freedom and for persecuted Christians and other vulnerable minorities in the world.

(Applause)

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the speech. I truly agree that it is important to act against the persecution of Christians and other religious groups. Freedom of religion is truly an important issue. We have worked on this together on several occasions.

But I intended to ask a completely different question, and it concerns the aid to Somalia. The government has sent away 100 million to one of the world's most corrupt leaders, namely the Somali prime minister. It is a prime minister who is not only corrupt but has also expressed his strong support for the Islamist organization Hamas. How is this possible?

The support is given in exchange for Somalia promising to accept a number of Somali refugees whom Sweden wants to deport. Far from all are convicted criminals, it has been shown. Among others, there are people who are both well-behaved and well-established with their own livelihood.

Should Swedish aid funds go towards bribing an Islamist, corrupt prime minister? What does the member think?

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

Yusuf Aydin (KD)

Madam Speaker! I would first like to thank you for the commitment to freedom of religion. At the same time, it is a bit strange. I looked at the foreign policy declarations from the previous government, which the Vänsterpartiet supported. For eight years in a row, I believe, I could not find any writings that touched upon freedom of religion and the importance of standing up for it in foreign policy. That goes a bit against what is being said here and now. But it is good that one ultimately chooses to align with that line.

Regarding the issue of aid, it is of course obvious that there are people who have received deportation decisions and need to get to their home countries. I think it is important that different instruments can be used to promote that in different ways. But the money must not go to any Islamist or terrorist organizations.

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Madam Speaker! I received no very clear answer from the member. Should Swedish aid funds go towards bribing an Islamist, corrupt prime minister? These 100 million kronor have actually gone directly to projects that are very close to this prime minister.

I would also like to raise another issue, namely the support for the Ecumenical Companion Program at West Bank. It is also supported by the World Council of Churches. Sweden has been strongly pushing for it. It is a very important project that involves supporting Palestinians who are vulnerable, for example by accompanying Palestinian children to school, but also documenting various abuses against the Palestinians.

Sweden has now withdrawn its support for this incredibly important project. What does the member think about that?

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

Yusuf Aydin (KD)

Madam Speaker! It is now clearly stated in various decisions and strategies that aid shall not go to extremist and Islamist groups. In some cases, projects may in some way take place in cooperation with, for example, authorities in a country, but I cannot account for exactly all projects. One must return to that part.

We also think that the accompaniment program has had an important value during the period and historically. Actually, there is no concrete or specific decision to phase it out. Based on certain changes and updates in strategies, Sida has assessed that it might not fit anymore, but there is no specific decision that just that intervention shall be phased out.

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

Anna Lasses (C)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member very much for a very fine contribution which specifically concerned vulnerable Christian minorities.

I remember when we had joint discussions before the reform agenda. I and the person from Kristdemokraterna raised the religious communities, but we also raised education. It was actually precisely our parties that were very keen on getting education into the reform agenda.

Now that Tanzania's country strategy is being phased out, I can state that education remains in only one of the thematic strategies. The funds allocated to this correspond to only 0.3 percent of the Swedish aid budget, despite knowing how incredibly important education is to escape poverty. How does the member view this?

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

Yusuf Aydin (KD)

Madam Speaker! Education is an important part, like many other thematic areas in the aid agenda. Regarding bilateral country strategies, the direction is that one should try to have fewer of such to focus more, as a colleague previously mentioned. Obviously, the aid to Ukraine has also meant that one partially needs to reprioritize. But that does not mean that certain themes completely disappear. As mentioned, there are many thematic strategies. There is also a civil society strategy. It has been very important for us to both preserve and strengthen it in order to give civil society actors opportunities to work with many thematic areas based on the needs that are seen in the countries and among the partners that one cooperates with.

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

Anna Lasses (C)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the answer, and I agree – civil society's engagement is immensely great and important. But we cannot depart from the fact that education, especially of children, is one of the absolutely most important factors for lifting people out of poverty.

It is also something that one retains. Even though it is now crisis and catastrophe in Afghanistan, we know that the girls who have received an education there have something to build on, which provides a resilience. How is it that we only allocate 0.3 percent of our aid budget to education?

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

Yusuf Aydin (KD)

Madam Speaker! Even though the specific part has been revised, there are, as previously mentioned, opportunities to continue working with projects aimed at providing assistance with education and strengthening the level of education in many countries through various thematic areas and particularly within the civil society strategy.

In the specific case of Afghanistan, there are also other parameters that have limited the operations, such as the return of the Taliban regime and some other connections. This meant that Swedish organizations and others unfortunately found it more difficult to operate there.

It is an incredibly gloomy and negative development that we see there. It has been difficult for some organizations to continue their operations for reasons other than the reform agenda that we have presented.

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for an important speech! We completely agree that no one should be persecuted because of their religion.

I want to speak about another issue that I believe we actually stand behind, namely the upholding of humanitarian principles. In recent years, we have seen how these have not been upheld by various combatants.

We have seen how conflicts have changed and become significantly more dangerous for aid workers. Many colleagues in organizations around the world that have historically been peaceful are now no longer so.

It is even more important to protect humanitarian space and international humanitarian law. The truly flagrant examples we have seen recently are all the healthcare workers who have been killed in Gaza as well as Israel's legislation that prevents established humanitarian organizations from access.

I want to ask the member: Why are the Christian Democrats not acting more firmly against it?

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

Yusuf Aydin (KD)

Madam Speaker! In the foreign policy declaration, which a part of the government parties stand behind, it clearly states that humanitarian access shall not be restricted but enabled. It also applies that humanitarian access shall not be used to exacerbate people's vulnerability.

There, the government, of which we are also a part, has been clear when access has been restricted. We have criticized it at various occasions. We have also been active when there have been justified measures that have been subject to criticism.

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Madam Speaker! Member Aydin!

It is welcome that it states about humanitarian access and humanitarian principles in the foreign policy declaration. At the same time, it is perhaps not words in a declaration that can exert the decisive pressure here.

It is about there being a political will to use the tools that are needed. When we see violations of humanitarian principles and when there is no access, should one not then act more firmly?

When it comes to Russia's violations, we are very clear and use sanctions and everything we can in the book. But that is not the case when Israel commits violations.

How is it that this duality exists from the government's side?

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

Yusuf Aydin (KD)

Madam Speaker! I would say that we are quite consistent even in this area. However, sanction mechanisms and many of the other measures being discussed are tools that are applied collectively within the EU.

Sweden has, at various times, as the Foreign Minister has also reported, pushed for further sanctions and sometimes also some other type of measure, such as criticism.

Within the framework of the EU, we have used the tools available and pursued the line that the Swedish government has had regarding the humanitarian situation in Gaza.

It has also had an effect. Access has been able to increase after a certain period. Clear criticism has also been voiced from time to time.

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Madam Speaker! Much has been said about security policy here today. Our time's greatest security threat respects no borders. It is not stopped by drone protection or trade agreements. The climate crisis and the nature crisis are imminent threats for all the world's people and are already today driving catastrophes, conflicts, and migration flows.

Recently, British intelligence services warned that the climate crisis and the loss of biodiversity are not only an environmental issue but a threat to national security and prosperity. The report shows that life-sustaining systems – such as coral reefs and boreal forests – could begin to collapse as early as the 2030s. When key regions for food production are wiped out, the result could be skyrocketing food prices and geopolitical instability, where states are forced to compete for increasingly scarce resources.

This is the reality: The nature crisis and climate change are an acute and imminent security threat for the entire world's population. Therefore, the solutions must be powerful and collective. This is where development cooperation comes in as a key, with reduced emissions and global justice as the guiding principle.

Madam Speaker! Is it fair that those who have emitted the least should pay the most in ruined harvests, floods, and collapsing social functions?

Is it fair that countries that already carry a heavy debt burden are forced to borrow even more to repair damages that others have caused?

Is it fair that women and girls, time and again, are hit hardest when water must be fetched from further away, when schools are closed and when violence increases in crisis and conflict?

Of course, the answer to those questions is no, but they also place demands on powerful action from the Swedish side. Aid is more than charity. Aid is solidarity and security policy. Development cooperation is not a sideline in foreign policy, but it is a tool to prevent crises before they become wars.

It is about aid that strengthens societies' climate adaptation and food security, which increases democracy and equality and which prevents conflicts before they explode. It builds stability before people are forced to flee.

Madam Speaker! The Tidö government is retreating into the past. At the same time as the needs in the world are increasing, one chooses to reduce the ambitions. One has drastically reduced aid and is making capricious reprioritizations that have major consequences.

Support for climate adaptation is decreasing and making it harder for more and more people to make their food last. People who fight for freedom, democracy, and human rights, such as women and hbtqi persons, are increasingly left on their own in that struggle.

It does not happen by chance. It is a conscious prioritization by the government. It is deeply problematic that Sweden, which should be leading the way, is also pursuing a policy that increases emissions. It weakens our credibility internationally, and credibility is hard currency in foreign policy.

We in Miljöpartiet want instead that Sweden should take the lead. Sweden can and shall be a motor, both itself and through the EU, for stricter global climate goals, stronger tools such as climate tariffs, and an industrial policy that ensures that fossil-free technology grows. Long-term rules of the game are crucial for both investors and for people.

Climate aid must increase to reduce emissions and contribute to adaptation in the societies that are hit hardest. When wells run dry, when harvests fail, and when storms tear down homes, Maria Malmer Stenergards fine words do not help. Then resources are needed.

Sweden needs a feminist development policy – and no, it is not just beautiful words. Equality is crucial for sustainable development and poverty reduction. By strengthening the rights of women and girls, one benefits the entire societal development.

I noted that the Minister for Foreign Affairs spoke about everything the government has done for global equality, but unfortunately, it is mostly empty words because the support for equality in practice has decreased. But in these days, one must be happy with the little, and words are still something.

When we are talking about money, we must also dare to speak plainly about the economic injustice in the system. Sweden must be clearly proactive in stopping the international tax evasion that every year drains developing countries of resources. These are funds that could have gone to healthcare, school, and climate adaptation. We must work for increased debt cancellations when debt burdens lock countries in crisis instead of enabling investments in the future.

A strong and democratic UN system is crucial to meet our time's great global challenges. The UN is a cornerstone of a rules-based world order. Therefore, it is serious when Sweden reduces core support and hinders the UN organs' opportunities to act both quickly and long-term. It risks making the entire system more vulnerable just when the world needs it most.

We must also speak about civil society, both the Swedish and the international. It is civil society organizations that know the local community, and it is they who remain when the crisis comes. It is they who reach people when conflicts erupt and when democracy shrinks. In that case, it is not possible to treat civil society as a tool that can be switched on and off or as just any budget item.

Miljöpartiet wants Sweden to have a goal that at least 1 percent of GNI should go to aid, because global justice is not a side issue in foreign policy but the very prerequisite for peace and security and a future within the planet's boundaries.

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

Gulan Avci (L)

Madam Speaker! Woman, life, freedom – these are not just words, but they are the front line in the fight against Islamist dictatorship.

That struggle begins with the women. It is the women who have refused to bow their heads, who have torn off the veil of coercion and defied the violence of the morality police and shown the whole world that they refuse to let the state control their lives and their bodies. Iran's women have become the symbol of the resistance. Despite threats, beatings, imprisonment, and deadly violence, they have shown that the struggle is not just about politics but about dignity and the right to live as a human being. Now, generation after generation rises and says: Enough is enough!

When the protests broke out during the final days of 2025, it was the women who led the way. When the opposition called for mass demonstrations at the beginning of this year, no one knew how many would dare to take to the streets and squares and defy the regime's bullets and torture. But the response was historic. Millions of people took to the streets. They did not call for small reforms; instead, what they demanded was an end to this Islamist dictatorship's 47-year rule in the country.

The people overcame their fear, but how did the regime respond? It responded with mass murder. It shut down the internet and mowed down women, students, journalists, and parents who protested for their children's future. When a regime cold-bloodedly murders its own people with sniper rifles and machine guns, it is not about politics; it is about war crimes and a state-organized mass murder of peaceful demonstrators whose only crime has been that they have demanded their freedom.

Madam Speaker! The Iranian regime is one of the most brutal and destabilizing forces in the Middle East. It exports violence, supports armed groups, fuels conflicts, and threatens regional peace. Its rhetoric and actions are repeatedly directed against the existence of the State of Israel. A stronger and more militarized Iran would plunge the entire region into an even deeper conflict than the one it finds itself in today.

At the same time, Iranian military technology is being used in Russia's war of invasion against Ukraine. Iranian drones strike against cities and against the civilian population. Thus, the regime in Tehran is also an actor and a direct threat to Europe's and Sweden's security.

The EU has during the last year and this year made important decisions on new sanctions and measures against Iran's military support to Russia and taken steps towards isolating the Revolutionary Guard. Sweden has stood behind all of this. It is good and important. But we need to do more.

It is about, among other things, tightening the sanctions against the regime's power center, ensuring that accountability can be demanded and, most importantly, continuing to openly stand on the side of the Iranian people and stand up for the women who have led the struggle.

Madam Speaker! I know many Eritreans here in Sweden who watch with horror what is happening in their other homeland. I asked an acquaintance what he would like us to state from this rostrum now that we have this important foreign policy debate.

He was clear that he and many Swedish-Iranians want to see even more powerful measures against the dictatorship regime in Iran. They want us to deport Iranian diplomats linked to the regime's security structure. They want us to tighten the scrutiny of regime-linked networks in Sweden and that we reduce the diplomatic representation here as it constitutes a threat, not only to Swedish security but also to Iranians in our country. They want us to protect threatened exiled Iranians who are persecuted by the regime's henchmen even on Swedish soil. These are reasonable demands, and one can imagine that this is how the Swedish-Iranian group feels about and experiences the situation.

Madam Speaker! The question we must ask ourselves is: What kind of world do we want to live in? Do we want a world where dictatorship mows down its people, where women are silenced and where violence is rewarded, or a world where freedom, courage, and dignity win and where tyranny is met with resistance? Ultimately, this is about which world we accept. Is it a world where women are silenced or a world where voices shape the future?

The Islamist regime lacks legitimacy. It rules by violence and not through the will of the people. Sweden must be clear. We must stand on the side of freedom. We shall continue to stand on the side of the Iranian people and women.

(Applause)

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

Anna Lasses (C)

Madam Speaker! Many thanks, Gulan Avci, for a very important speech! I agree one hundred percent.

When one is to work preventatively – so that it does not end up this way – aid is a tool. The EU is now the world's largest aid donor. I can state that aid in the EU is now being developed in three parts: one part where it is tied very closely to migration, one part where one primarily looks at technological development and infrastructure, and one part that concerns the humanitarian.

Above all, the earmarking has been removed when it concerns things that are directed towards equality and women. Is this something that the Liberals could imagine pushing for, that is to say, to protect the aid in the EU that is directed precisely at equality and women's freedom?

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

Gulan Avci (L)

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

For the Liberals, aid policy has always been important. We have always had as a clear starting point that it should hit where it makes the most difference.

I note that the government just a few weeks ago announced support for, among others, the women and the democracy movement in Iran, who now, at risk of their own lives, are standing on streets and squares and fighting for their freedom. We have allocated 10 million which shall, among other things, go towards strengthening civil society and the brave women.

I do not think one should fixate on the total amount of aid and exactly what it is used for. Most important is that there is a main direction. I mean that Sweden has the right focus now. We can probably do even more, but that a part of the funds goes to strengthening women remains.

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

Anna Lasses (C)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the answer. Fundamentally, I agree. We should not have to earmark. But what we see now is a risk that EU aid aimed at women's freedom and women's empowerment will be sidelined because the focus is instead on infrastructure and technological development – which is also very good to invest in. But a plea from me and everyone else is that we must fight together to ensure that a part of the EU's large aid reaches women and goes toward fighting for women's freedom.

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

Gulan Avci (L)

Madam Speaker! I can reassure Anna Lasses that the Liberals will always continue to fight in different ways, both nationally and internationally, for the rights of women and girls. I think the picture becomes a bit misleading. We do, after all, have a focus that is about girls getting the opportunity to go to school. We make efforts that strengthen women in the third world.

Anna Lasses also knows that it is not always the easiest to reach an agreement with all countries in the EU system. The most important thing is what we do here at home. Now, Member Lasses does not have the opportunity to answer. This is not a rhetorical question but a message. When it comes to the aid direction on the side where the member's party has currently parked, I am not so sure that there will be any major change in the view of what the Centerpartiet wants to do.

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

Olle Thorell (S)

Madam Speaker! The global situation is very serious. The rules-based world order is being challenged. Wars are raging. The climate crisis is deepening. Authoritarian forces are rapidly advancing their positions. In this situation, Sweden must be clear about what role we want to play in the world.

We Social Democrats want Sweden to return to the one percent level in aid. We want to once again pursue a feminist foreign and development policy. Aid policy is a central part of foreign policy, and the choices we make there directly affect Sweden's place in the world. Foreign policy and development policy are linked, and Sweden faces a strategic choice.

At the same time as we see that needs are increasing in the world, major donor countries are cutting their aid. USA and many countries in Europe are reducing their international engagement, and when others step back, the balance of power changes. But Sweden is not destined to follow this path. When vacuums arise, they are filled. China systematically strengthens its global influence through investments, infrastructure projects, and loans without requirements for transparency, democracy, or human rights. Russia, the Gulf states, and other authoritarian forces are doing the same.

A struggle is underway between democracy and authoritarian forces. It is political, economic and institutional. It also represents an opportunity, because when others step back, Sweden's opportunity to influence increases. Our influence can grow if we choose a different path. International solidarity is therefore not the opposite of national interest; it is a part of it.

In a globalized world, instability, poverty, and conflicts also affect us. Extremism, hunger, and collapsing societies create misery, oppression, and security threats that also reach us. Investing in global development is therefore not naive. It is strategic, forward-looking, and wise policy.

Madam Speaker! It is in this light that we Social Democrats present our new aid policy program, developed in dialogue with over 70 organizations, researchers, and experts. We have clear priorities. We want to restore aid to the one percent level. We want to increase support for the multilateral system. When several other countries reduce their support for it, Sweden needs to be a stable partner.

We want to achieve a new start for the Agenda 2030 work. It is a consensus policy that ensures Sweden's politics move in the same direction. We want a strategy to be able to handle the goal conflicts that exist openly and systematically.

We also want to develop a new long-term strategy for Africa. It shall be based on partnerships, trade, education, climate cooperation, democracy support, and so on. Africa is a continent in rapid change, and Sweden and Europe need to have a unified strategy for it.

Sweden shall not be a passive spectator in a world in change. We shall be an active and reliable partner.

A central part of the Social Democrats' program is a strengthened cooperation with civil society. Popular movements, trade union organizations, women's organizations, human rights groups etc. are the backbone of democracies. They build trust, create participation and demand accountability. We want to provide civil society with long-term and flexible conditions to operate. Their independence is crucial.

In many countries, faith-based organizations are the actors people trust the most. They reach where the state is weak or absent. To cooperate with them, with respect for freedom of religion and belief, is a strength. A strong civil society strengthens the legitimacy of aid here at home. Transparency, results, and partnerships build trust.

Madam Speaker! The global backlash against the rights of women and girls is very serious. In that situation, Sweden must take the lead again. That is why we say that Sweden must once again pursue an updated, feminist foreign and development policy. It is not a label. It is a prerequisite for sustainable development, stable societies, and lasting peace.

Madam Speaker! There are those who set national interest against international solidarity. We do not do that. We know that in a globalized, interconnected world, one is a prerequisite for the other.

Investing in development, equality, poverty reduction, democracy and gender equality is also to invest in Sweden's security, in our influence and in our common future on the globe we all live on. It is a realistic and wise policy in a very restless time. That is how Sweden takes responsibility. That is how Sweden strengthens its role in the world.

(Applause)

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

Magdalena Thuresson (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Olle Thorell, for the presentation! The Social Democrats in the Committee on Foreign Affairs launched an aid policy action program yesterday, if I understood the matter correctly. I listened carefully to the presentation to try to take part in what new positions the Social Democrats have taken in connection with this.

I have a concrete question: Can Olle Thorell explain how the Social Democrats view conditional aid? It is about, for example, being able to set requirements that countries accept citizens who have been deported from Sweden. What does the Social Democrats' new aid policy action plan say about this – is one in favor of making aid conditional in this way?

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

Olle Thorell (S)

Madam Speaker! We are taking this up in our program. It is not a new position, but it is the same line that we have in previous congress decisions. That is to say, we say that one can condition the aid on that countries should accept deported citizens, for example. But we exempt humanitarian aid and civil society support. That we condition aid in that way should not affect ordinary people in the countries.

We can include this in a conversation about the relationship with a country, but we will not do what the government and the Moderaterna have done in the Somali aid. There, you are paying bribes to a corrupt prime minister so that the country will fulfill its commitments. There we draw a line: Bribes, no thank you!

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

Magdalena Thuresson (M)

Madam Speaker! I perceive that the Social Democrats have flitted back and forth a bit on this issue. There have been statements that one is in favor of this. Then, not least the member himself has had a very high tone in these matters. In the budget debate in December and certainly even later, one has had an incredibly high tone in these issues.

If you have now pivoted again in your action plan, I would like to ask the member: Why were you wrong before? Why is it right now, and why was it wrong then?

I think it is completely reasonable to set this type of requirement linked to the aid. It is also something that the citizens can expect us to do.

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

Olle Thorell (S)

Madam Speaker! The Moderates would very much like the debate to be about completely different things. Of course, we think that countries should receive their citizens who have been sentenced to deportation. But we do not think that Sweden should pay bribes to a corrupt regime so that it will fulfill its international law obligations. That is the difference between the Moderates and us.

If we are to be able to have a full cooperation with a country when it comes to aid, trade and other things, the country must, of course, also fulfill its international law obligations. But we do not intend to pay cash from Swedish taxpayers to corrupt officials and an Islamist Hamas-supporting prime minister so that they will do what they are internationally legally obligated to do. That is the difference between the Moderaterna and us.

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

Margareta Cederfelt (M)

Madam Speaker! Having just returned from a meeting in the IPU, the Inter-Parliamentary Union, at the UN, I can state that the work being carried out within the UN to save money is very good. The UN has major problems. It is about lack of payment from member countries. It is also about expenditures that are too large and costs that are too high.

The UN is needed. That is obvious. And Sweden contributes significantly – we are among the top ten if we look at payment per country. But a major and serious problem that I rarely hear mentioned concerns when countries choose to pay their membership fees. If the fee is paid at the beginning of the year, it enters the budget. But if countries pay late – and here there are several large contributors, such as China – and the money is not used during the year, the amount is returned to the paying countries. Something here needs to change if the UN is to be able to function. I am pleased when I hear that Sweden's government is pushing for countries to pay earlier.

Let me also mention a couple of other issues. I am also very pleased about the free trade agreement that has been signed between the EU and India. We know that countries that conduct trade also get a better economy. India is a country with 1.2 billion inhabitants or more. It is the world's most populous country but also a country that is in strong development. It is also positive for Sweden.

Sweden has had a large number of companies in India for many decades, and there are calculations showing that the number of Swedish companies in India could double. It could be up to 600 companies by the year 2032. This means advantages for both Sweden and for India. I hope, however, that it will not mean that the Indian engineers who are in Sweden will leave Sweden. They are people who are very valuable both in Sweden and in other parts of the world.

Let me mention a few more things that I find extremely problematic today. I am pleased that a large part of the Foreign Minister's declaration concerned precisely Ukraine. There, it is about an aggressive party trying to take over the country. It began with Maidan, where Ukraine's inhabitants spoke about wanting to become members of the EU. Then the annexation of Crimea occurred in 2014 and the full-scale war in 2022.

The war must be stopped. But as Russia behaves today, it is clear that the country is not working to end its war. Then the heating systems would not have been destroyed. Then the bombings would not have increased. Russia speaks with a divided tongue.

Here I am pleased that Sweden and the EU stand united in their efforts to support Ukraine and thereby the free world. I look forward to the day when Ukraine can become a member of the EU.

I mentioned China initially, and I want to say a few things. China is an aggressor. We can see that when it comes to how China acts. Taiwan has been mentioned several times here, but I also want to mention Tibet.

Tibet has been annexed by China. The Tibetans themselves say that they want their autonomy. His Holiness the Dalai Lama is a bit over 90 years old. This summer we could hear China state that it is China's right to appoint the next Dalai Lama. That is not the case! It is naturally the Tibetans themselves who appoint their Dalai Lama and not any other regime.

Here in the Riksdag, we have an MR-group that writes letters and pleads for the release of political prisoners. At our last meeting, we wrote a petition letter regarding political prisoners in China. A large number of Members of Parliament signed it. What do you think I found in my mailbox today? I found the letter from the MR-group. It was returned from China, unopened. China acts so poorly today. It is good that there are strong countries that stand united and act collectively against what China is doing.

Of course, China builds infrastructure. People talk about Belt and Road and Silk Road. But we have seen what happens with the roads that are built. In Montenegro, a bridge collapsed. We have seen what happens in Africa. There, China does not fulfill its commitments either. I can mention example after example.

But thank goodness we can trust that Sweden does what Sweden promises.

(Applause)

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

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

I truly agree that the UN was needed. Therefore, it is deeply regrettable that Sweden has reduced support to precisely the UN.

I requested the floor to ask a question about equality. One of the first things the government did was abandon the feminist foreign policy, even though it has had a clear effect and resulted in several countries following the Swedish example. This is to send the wrong signals to the rest of the world.

The government says that equality is nevertheless a core value for the government. But it is difficult to take it seriously when we see how the support for equality drastically decreases in the Swedish aid budget at a time when we see an enormous setback for support for women, girls, and hbtqi-persons globally, not least due to the withdrawn support from the USA. We also cannot see that equality permeates the reform agenda.

We mean that equality must permeate all foreign, security, and aid policy. Does the member agree with this?

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

Margareta Cederfelt (M)

Madam Speaker! I would like to thank you for the question.

I have a counter-question. I mentioned initially that a large number of countries in the UN choose to pay their fees late. Then, on paper, it may look like high fees are being paid, but in reality, they are tiny fees because fees paid late during the year must be refunded if the UN has not used the money. What does the member believe should be done so that the amounts stated are actually also paid into the UN? Sweden pays its fees. This is not being discussed.

It is also not mentioned that Sweden is actually among the top ten when it comes to paying fees to the UN – per capita. I think that is something to be proud of. It is something that we members of the Swedish Riksdag should be very proud of.

When it comes to women, Sweden was chair of UN Women last year.

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the answer, even though I do not think I received a proper answer to my questions.

Of course, countries should pay their fees. It is good that Sweden does so, even though we have reduced the support. But I would still like to have an answer to this regarding the fact that Sweden's share going to equality in aid has been reduced quite drastically. How does the member view that? How can you say that equality is a core value when you drastically reduce the support to just equality? The support has decreased by 5 billion between the years 2021 and 2024. I do not think this is acceptable.

This is so important now when we see how, above all, the USA is scaling back support for women, girls, and hbtqi people. Then Sweden should step up. We are incredibly good at this issue.

Does the member think that equality should permeate and be integrated into all aid and foreign policy?

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

Margareta Cederfelt (M)

Madam Speaker! The Swedish government works for equality. Since a minute goes fast, I only managed to say that Sweden was chair of UN Women last year. Sweden works so that more girls can receive an education, so that more women can support themselves and so that women also are counted, have the right to vote, can run for office, can run companies and can inherit. It is about everything that makes women count in society. This is included in foreign policy, and these are issues that are important. It is about education, about being able to support oneself and about being able to be independent. These are core values that Sweden and the Swedish government stand for.

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

Alexandra Völker (S)

Madam Speaker! I am pleased that the member chose to raise the UN. It is not something one hears very often from Moderates these days. Therefore, I think it was very positive.

I do, however, become a bit curious about what Sweden is doing regarding the UN reform, as the only signals we receive are that the Swedish government chooses not to participate actively at the ministerial level meeting after meeting. I mentioned in my speech earlier that our Prime Minister prioritized a ping-pong event over the UNGA's 80th anniversary. And one chose not to participate in either the climate summit or the development aid summit. It has been a rather consistent trend that, from the government's side, one chooses not to prioritize the UN.

I wonder therefore: What is it that the Swedish government is driving when it comes to the reform of the UN?

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

Margareta Cederfelt (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the question. It is extremely important.

I urge the member to also be active at our committee meetings, because it is there that our Foreign Minister and our Cabinet Secretary actually tell us about what is being done in the UN from the Swedish side. Sweden is driving in the UN. Sweden is driving in the OSCE. Sweden is driving in the Council of Europe. Sweden is driving in the organizations where we are members and active.

Let me mention issues that rank high on the Swedish agenda – those are precisely the core values of the UN. Human rights, the Foreign Minister spoke of as an important part. Democracy issues are also something that is important – and peace and security, of course.

Since then, we have the reform agenda, where Sweden is one of the driving countries. It is about us having a strong UN and a UN that becomes older than its 80th anniversary. This requires strength.

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

Alexandra Völker (S)

Madam Speaker! It is precisely because I actually listen very attentively to the committee meetings that I choose to ask this question. I have, in fact, not experienced receiving this type of notification.

We can also observe that it was only when Sweden was the chair of UN Women that the decision was made to increase the core funding. Before that, it was lowered. And when it was increased, it was still not at the same level as in 2022. So, this thing about prioritizing the UN is therefore not quite true.

I still wonder what is being prioritized when it comes to the reform. What the Foreign Minister said here today was that one wants to see a reform of the Security Council – absolutely. But what else? There is quite a lot on the table when it comes to UN80, for example, the merger of different UN bodies. There are discussions about whether one should merge several different organizations. Then it also becomes a question of what mandates they will receive.

We have not received any clear information here on where Sweden actually stands and what the government is driving. If the member has anything to share here, I would be very grateful.

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

Margareta Cederfelt (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the questions! But I do not share the view.

Sweden is among the top ten if we look at how much is paid per capita. Here we have 192 member countries. Then we, as Swedes and as Swedish taxpayers, should actually know that Sweden is among the countries that pay the highest fee per capita. I mentioned earlier how incorrectly a good number of countries act when the membership fee to the UN is paid. They pay late so that the money cannot be spent. Then the UN must pay back. This means that the UN receives effectively lower amounts than it appears.

Sweden belongs to the countries that pay on time and demand that other countries also pay. This is an issue that I really hope we can get more pressure behind in the Swedish Riksdag, and I hope that this issue can also be carried out outside the circle of members of parliament. The government is driving it.

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

Malcolm Momodou Jallow (V)

Madam Speaker! Allow me to begin my speech by honoring my mentor Reverend Jesse Jackson, who passed away yesterday in the USA. He was a civil rights activist and a man who not only shaped American foreign policy but also the global conversation on justice. He taught us that solidarity is not a national strategy but a moral responsibility. When power remained silent, he spoke, and when the world wavered, he stood up. His voice reminds us today that foreign policy is ultimately about human value. I carry his voice with me today in this chamber.

Madam Speaker! There are moments in history when a country cannot hide behind formulations, investigations, or diplomatic considerations but is forced to answer a simpler question: Who are we when it really matters? We are living in such a moment now.

There was a time when Sweden did not measure its voice in decibels but in courage. When we stood up against apartheid, it was not because it was comfortable but because it was right. There was a time when we defended international law even when superpowers frowned and when we did not ask "what does this cost us" but "what does it cost humanity if we do not act – if we choose to be silent?" That was why the world listened to Sweden when we spoke. It was not because we were the biggest but because we were consistent.

Madam Speaker! Today we see something else. As the only EU country, Sweden chose, in the midst of a humanitarian catastrophe and a genocide of historical proportions, not to resume support for UNRWA – as the only EU country. This is not a footnote; it is a tragedy.

When severely injured children from Gaza need life-saving care, the government responds: No, we do not help. It is not because we lack competence and not because we lack resources, but because the political will is lacking. These are not technicalities but moral choices, and every choice defines us as a nation.

In Gaza, children are buried under rubble, and hospitals are being bombed. Doctors operate without anesthesia, and parents dig out their children with their bare hands. This is not rhetoric and not propaganda. It is reality documented by the UN, doctors, and journalists on the ground.

In the midst of this, Sweden's government chooses hypocrisy. It chooses to use the language of caution and to withdraw support from the organization that tries to prevent hunger and diseases – when what is required right now is clarity. We cannot be selective in our view of civilian lives. Either every child's life is equally worth something, or it is not. If we begin to rank the value of children, we have already lost our moral compass.

Madam Speaker! We stand united behind Ukraine's right to self-defense. We speak clearly about Russia's violation of international law, and that is absolutely correct! But international law cannot be geographically selective. Either it applies to everyone, or it loses its legitimacy.

When Sweden is uncompromising in one conflict but evasive, cautious, and even complicit in another, the world sees it, and when the world sees double standards, the international rule of law is weakened. It is not just a moral risk, but it is a security policy risk. When the rules are perceived as selective and when cynicism increases, stability decreases.

Madam Speaker! In Sudan, massacres, ethnic cleansing, and systematic rapes are taking place. Millions of people are fleeing, but the world's attention is conspicuously absent. When some lives mobilize the world's conscience while others are met with shrugs of the shoulders, a dangerous hierarchy of human value is created. Sweden shall not contribute to that hierarchy.

In eastern Congo, people are dying in conflicts linked to the minerals the world demands: cobalt, coltan, and lithium. We mostly talk about trade and about the green transition, but for many Congolese, this looks like yet another plunder. If our climate transition is built on exploitation, it is not just, and what is not just is never sustainable.

Madam Speaker! It is not about nostalgia. It is about direction. We can be a Sweden that weighs every word until it loses its power or a Sweden that speaks plainly when international law is violated. We can be a Sweden that withdraws when the world is burning or a Sweden that steps forward when courage is required.

The current government has chosen a narrower, colder and more protectionist foreign policy. We in Vänsterpartiet choose something else. We choose to be consistent, and we choose universal rights for real. We choose solidarity – not as a symbol but as policy.

One day this time will be described. It will write about bombed hospitals in Gaza, about mass graves in Sudan, and about looting and exploitation of mines at the expense of the Congolese people.

Madam Speaker! What I want Sweden to stand for is precisely international law. We shall stand on the right side of history. When international law is violated in Sudan and questions are later asked about what we did, I want Sweden to be able to answer: We stood up – not because it was easy, not because it was popular, but because it was right.

(Applause)

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

Ulrika Westerlund (MP)

Madam Speaker! In November 2024, I was at ILGA's world conference in Cape Town, South Africa. ILGA is the umbrella organization for the global LGBTQI movement. This was shortly after the election in the USA, and all the conversations I participated in were about this election and about other, upcoming, elections in other countries that have an important role to fill in international aid cooperation.

I particularly remember a contribution in a panel debate. The speaker wanted to make us realize the gravity of the situation, but I do not think he succeeded fully. His message was that the election of Donald Trump as US president for a second time would mean changes in international aid cooperation on a level that we could not imagine. We certainly tried to imagine it, but the speaker was right. We did not think it would become quite this bad.

As you know, one of the first measures that Trump took when he took office was to pause all aid to ensure that those who receive the aid have values that align with the USA's – that is, the USA's new values, to be clear.

Not entirely surprising, the USA reintroduced the Mexico City policy, i.e., the so-called global gag rule, which makes it impossible to provide aid to any actor that provides abortion care. Since abortion care is often part of the operations of actors who also work broadly with maternal healthcare and contraceptive counseling, very many different types of operations are affected by such a ban.

After these first quick decisions by the Trump administration, the drastic decisions have continued. Most well-known is likely the dismantling of USAID, which erased decades of work and knowledge regarding, among other things, the situation of women and hbtqi persons around the world. The Lancet estimated in an article last summer that the number of avoidable deaths due to these decisions from the USA until 2030 could amount to 14 million, of which 4.5 million are children under five years old.

The conversations about what the rest of the world should do to try to mitigate the consequences of the Trump administration's decisions have continued. In May last year, I was somewhat unexpectedly back in Cape Town for a meeting with European and African politicians about how we should handle the consequences of the USA's decisions. The politicians present from various African states stated that they found themselves in a very difficult situation.

In some countries, the aid from the USA had accounted for a very large share of the budget for healthcare. These funds had now practically disappeared, and even though the politicians agreed that it is reasonable to ensure in the future that a country is not completely dependent on aid for such a fundamental activity as healthcare, they also stated that it was completely impossible for them to suddenly replace all the aid they had previously received with their own funds.

In June last year, I was at World Pride in Washington DC, which is a large international pride festival for the rights of hbtqi people. It was a slightly shocked capital handling completely new experiences of organizing a large pride festival in an environment that had recently become hostile. Also here, conversations were held about the USA's withdrawn aid and, of course, also about the new domestic and foreign policy and its consequences for women and hbtqi people. Desperate pride marchers spoke about situations in their home countries, where healthcare budgets had been completely erased.

Before the debate we have here today, I asked the head of ILGA World what is the single greatest challenge for hbtqi people in the world right now. She answered that the withdrawal of US aid – and also withdrawn aid from other countries – is absolutely among the biggest challenges, but that it must be seen in the context that the USA has not only withdrawn the money but also moved from being an ally in general on hbtqi issues to becoming an outspoken enemy. This has had enormous political consequences, not just economic consequences.

In this context, I remember another conversation in Cape Town in November 2024. A Ugandan parliamentarian – the only one who voted against Uganda's law which, among other things, can entail the death penalty for same-sex sexual acts – told about a conversation he had with a Ugandan LGBTQI activist when the election result in the USA had arrived. The activist cried, not primarily because he saw withdrawn aid ahead, but because he was terrified of what the USA's new anti-LGBTQI rhetoric would have for consequences globally. It matters a great deal what political representatives say. It inspires others to statements and actions.

In conclusion, I want to say something about what happened very recently in the USA and which will make the situation even more difficult for many of those I have spoken with over the past few years. In January this year, the global gag rule was expanded to cover in principle all aid from the USA.

Organizations that receive aid funds from the USA are now prohibited from offering abortion-related services or counseling, even if they fund it with their own money. They also risk losing funding if they work with issues concerning equality in general, gender, hbtqi rights or so-called DEI, which stands for diversity, equity and inclusion and is a kind of diversity work and work for equal rights.

The criticism is, of course, harsh from civil society. The newspaper Global Bar reports, among others, about Amnesty International, which describes the new expansion of the global gag rule as an attack on human rights that condemns millions of people to poorer health and limited rights.

They also warn that aid organizations are faced with the impossible choice between limiting care or losing funding. Many organizations will be forced to choose between support from the USA – the little that remains – and support from other donors. The new rules also pose problems for the organizations that are to manage the 2 billion dollars in humanitarian aid that the USA recently announced.

In this situation, the responsibility falls heavily on the few other countries, including Sweden, that are willing to engage in international aid cooperation where support for SRHR, i.e., sexual and reproductive health and rights, and the rights of women and hbtqi persons are included. Here, I hope that Sweden wants to take the lead and ensure that strategic talks are held with other donor countries.

(Applause)

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

Joar Forssell (L)

Madam Speaker! Since my party colleagues have spoken about other issues here today, I intended to devote my speaking time to China.

Madam Speaker! China is committing genocide in Xinjiang. China occupies Tibet, and China engages in neocolonialism and sucking resources out of several countries in Africa. China carries out cyberattacks on Western democracies and the parliamentarians of Western democracies; we are certainly several here in the room who have been affected.

Madam Speaker! China finances – and is the main financier of – Russia's war against Ukraine. When questions are asked about this, there is no analyst in the world who does not say that Russia would not be able to continue its war against Ukraine if it were not for China. It is about money and about components, and China has fully stood behind Russia's invasion of and war against Ukraine.

Madam Speaker! It has always been morally right to distance ourselves from China. It has always been morally right to criticize the Communist Party, Xi Jinping, and what China does that actually makes the world worse every day. But it is also economically and factually completely right to distance ourselves from China, Madam Speaker.

Right now, we find ourselves in a time when China's pension system is shakier than ever. The population is over-leveraged, and the demographics are pointing in the wrong direction. Industry in China is faltering due to these factors. Politically, China is in a turmoil where several of the highest leaders in the military command have been removed in ways that look more like something Frank Underwood would be behind than something we want to engage in in democracies.

Madam Speaker! China is not a stable partner to lean on. Many times, the argument for having a close cooperation with China, despite the country committing all these crimes, has been that the country is stable and that one can build economic success by cooperating closely. But China is no longer stable. A dictatorship is always stable until it is no longer stable, Madam Speaker – and then it is as unstable as a country can ever be.

It is time to China-proof the Swedish and European economy. We need to have an economy that stands free from dependence on China, not only for moral reasons but also because it is not possible to build a future on such a shaky foundation. It is like building a house on gravel.

Madam Speaker! Instead, we must of course deepen cooperation with countries such as Japan, South Korea, the Philippines and Taiwan.

Taiwan is, as is well known, a country – if you ask political scientists about the definition of a country, they say, among other things, that a well-defined geographical area is needed, and one could say that Taiwan has that because it is an island. They further say that there must be a monopoly on violence and a judiciary. I have been to Taiwan and seen that it seems to work quite well there. They also say that there must be a clearly defined demos, that is, a people, and that one also has.

It is simply not possible to escape the fact that Taiwan is a country. One can think whatever one wants about it – Xi Jinping does not seem to think so – but Taiwan is a country regardless of whether one wants it or not.

With that said, it is obvious that Sweden should sell weapons not only to Japan, South Korea, and the Philippines but also to Taiwan. Taiwan could make great use of Swedish Jas Gripen, which works very well in the environment in question. Taiwan could use Swedish submarines, and Excalibur could be sold to Taiwan. It is primarily an American weapon, but Sweden owns a large part of the rights to the components.

Madam Speaker! There are good reasons for Sweden to take Taiwan's side and expand the exchange of students, expand economic exchange, and also provide military support. It could involve selling weapons, and it could involve Sweden participating in freedom of navigation operations, that is to say, the operations that protect the right to navigate ships in the shipping lanes off Taiwan. The operations are often led by the USA, but countries such as Germany, the United Kingdom, and Denmark have participated. There, Sweden could step forward and take a very active role.

Madam Speaker! Like-minded countries in the world must cooperate more. We live today in a world where countries such as China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran constitute the axis of evil. They are waging a new cold war against us. They are using Russia's war against Ukraine as a spearhead, but it is about their desire to overthrow the liberal democratic world order.

Madam Speaker! Xi Jinping's fragile leadership and China's shaky economy are not only a threat to our cooperation or to the stability of the cooperation that has existed between Western countries and China, but they are also an opportunity. If we now extend sanctions that affect Russia to secondary sanctions against China, which is financing the war, and if we expand free trade with like-minded countries, we can achieve a change. If we ensure that we have students in Sweden from countries other than China, for example Taiwan, we can achieve a change. If we ensure that we exert pressure, we can achieve a change.

Madam Speaker! Everyone in this chamber and everyone living in democratic countries would benefit if the Communist Party's power fell and Xi Jinping were removed from office.

(Applause)

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

Linnéa Wickman (S)

Madam Speaker! We are debating foreign policy in a historical shift. The rules-based world order is being challenged, authoritarian forces are advancing their positions, and rights that it has taken generations to win are being questioned and attacked. This concerns the rights of women and girls, it concerns the rights of hbtqi persons, and it concerns the rights of religious and ethnic minorities.

This is part of an authoritarian and extremely conservative wave. It is part of a political movement that is organized and very strategic in its ambitions to turn back the clock.

In such a situation, leadership is required. Then countries are required that stand firm when the wind blows and that have the strength to defend values when they are challenged. Sweden shall be such a country.

Madam Speaker! We must speak plainly about the developments here at home. After nearly four years with the Tidö Agreement's direction, and without the feminist foreign policy, the balance sheet for equality in Swedish foreign and aid policy is both clear and depressing. The proportion of aid with equality as a priority is the lowest in over 25 years. The support to UN Women and the UN Population Fund UNFPA, with crucial work within SRHR, has changed significantly from year to year.

Cuts in aid force women's rights organizations worldwide to scale back. At this moment, women's rights organizations that have been able to count on Sweden's support – for example in the Western Balkans, in Sweden's immediate vicinity – are forced to lay off staff. This occurs despite the fact that they stand at the forefront against Russian influence and for reforms that allow countries to move closer to the EU and work for increased equality in their societies.

Sweden is no longer a global leader in this area. The government is, at best, living on the merits of others. When the opposition to girls' and women's rights increases globally, Sweden should prioritize equality even higher – not deprioritize it. Equality is also fundamentally a matter of and a prerequisite for security, development, and peace.

Madam Speaker! We Social Democrats choose a different path. We have updated our development policy in dialogue with over 80 civil society organizations and experts. Our starting point is clear. Development cooperation is a part of our security policy and an investment in common security. Investments in a world with less poverty, stronger democratic institutions and increased equality are also investments in a more stable and secure world, even for us in Sweden.

We want the gender equality perspective to permeate development cooperation. We want Swedish aid to contribute to increased equality – the downward trend in this area must be broken. We want the support for women's rights organizations and civil society to be strengthened. We want Sweden to join forces with like-minded countries and be a clear global voice for SRHR when this is attacked worldwide. We want the agenda for women, peace, and security to be prioritized. It is about political content, priorities, and resources.

Madam Speaker! With four years remaining, the Agenda 2030 work needs to be placed at the center. The global goals are not only a development agenda but also a stabilization agenda. When poverty and inequality increase, conflicts also increase. When the climate crisis accelerates, both migration and insecurity increase.

Madam Speaker! The climate crisis is the defining issue of our time. It drives conflict and poverty, and it hits hardest those who are already the most vulnerable. Sweden needs to be a strong voice for a just climate transition and climate financing for the most vulnerable countries.

In a time when wars are also waged against nature – Russia's actions in Ukraine are a clear example of this – impunity must be combated and accountability strengthened. Large-scale destruction of nature and ecosystems – ecocide – must be recognized as a crime against international law.

Madam Speaker! This is a time when democracies must hold together. It is a time when support for democratic institutions, free media, and civil society is crucial for our future. Then, the struggle for the rights of women and minorities is also part of the struggle for peace and security. It requires perseverance, strong partnerships, and political courage.

Sweden cannot back down from the fight for democracy and human rights. We must do the opposite. We must stand firmer, act more clearly and provide support for equality, democracy and development.

It is not about idealism. It is about investing in a more stable and secure world. It is also an investment in our own security.

(Applause)

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

Erik Hellsborn (SD)

Madam Speaker! Members of the Riksdag! Audience! It has almost been four years since Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine. This war has since totally dominated European and Swedish foreign and security policy, obviously with all justification. Ukraine's cause is our cause. Putin's power claims and imperialist ambitions will not end in Kyiv or Donbass.

Swedish media are reporting intensively on everything happening regarding Russia and Ukraine. With that in mind, it is strange that one of Putin's foremost propaganda makers' threats of an invasion of a new country has fallen into total media shadow.

It was on January 11 that the Russian media personality Vladimir Solovyov spoke about the so-called military operation in Ukraine and argued that a similar invasion of Armenia should be initiated. To hell with international laws and the global order, were among the phrases he uttered.

In functioning Western democracies, one can of course not take statements from an individual debater as an expression of the official line or the government's positions. Russia, however, is as is known not a functioning democracy. There is in principle no free press, and the mass media narrative is tightly controlled by the Kremlin.

Solovjov has been honored and awarded medals for his loyalty to the regime. He is listed on the EU's sanctions lists due to his close connections to power. His hostile attitude towards Armenia also aligns well with what has been communicated from a more official level.

Since 2020, Armenia has moved in a more democratic and pro-Western direction, which has not been viewed with favor by the Kremlin. A threat of invasion from Solovyov therefore cannot be brushed aside, even if at the current stage it may primarily be about trying to intimidate Armenia into submission and getting the country to abandon its democratic aspirations in order to once again become part of the Russian sphere of influence. This must, of course, not be allowed to succeed.

Supporting Armenia's democratic aspirations is not only morally right but also strategically correct. The fewer allies Russia has and the smaller their sphere of influence is, the weaker they are and the lesser threat they pose to Europe and Sweden.

I have personally had the privilege of visiting Armenia and seeing with my own eyes how Swedish aid has been used to strengthen democracy and counter corruption. Earlier this year, I highlighted the continued support for Armenia through a written question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and I feel confident that Sweden will continue to work for democracy and against Russian influence in the region, at least as long as the Tidö parties govern Sweden.

During the past parliamentary term, it has unfortunately been quite quiet from the opposition regarding Armenia. They have also not uttered a word about it so far in this debate, but who knows – the debate is not over, so it might come. That would be positive and desirable.

The work of building long-lasting, strong and enduring relations between Sweden, the rest of the EU and Armenia is long-term, and it needs to continue regardless of who currently holds the majority in Stockholm or in Brussels.

(Applause)

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

Matilda Ernkrans (S)

Mr. Speaker! Russia's brutal war of aggression against Ukraine continues, and the security situation in Europe is the most serious in generations. At the same time, we see increased uncertainty surrounding US trade policy, new tariff threats, and a global economy that is slowing down. These are not distant crises. It is a geopolitical reality that affects people's everyday lives here in Sweden. When world trade shakes, Swedish export companies and Swedish jobs are affected. When energy markets are unstable, it is felt on the electricity bill. When uncertainty increases, unemployment rises. When security decreases in the world, anxiety increases in Swedish households.

But neither Sweden nor Europe needs to be submissive or surrendered to this. We have the power to stand strong, act, take leadership, and unite for the best of Sweden and Europe. The EU needs to map out the threats to industry, even from the USA, and meet them with a common industrial policy for green technology development and a coherent industrial policy. We need an EU that uses its strength economically and a European industrial policy that strengthens Swedish jobs.

Kristersson must stop looking backward. The Sweden Democrats' war against green technological development and the Moderates' 80s view that the state should be passive risks hundreds of thousands of Swedish jobs. Sweden becomes poorer and Europe's competitiveness weaker.

It is about having more order and clarity and fair competition. It is about Swedish and European competitiveness and security.

Support for Ukraine must be long-term and sustained. Europe's security begins in Ukraine. We must manage to hold together and strengthen our common defense capability, deepen cooperation and take greater responsibility for our own security. But a strong Europe presupposes strong societies. If people experience that they are left alone in an insecure world where costs rise, jobs are threatened and safety systems are weakened, trust is undermined. Without trust, we stand weaker, both in Sweden and in Europe.

Kristersson and Svantesson repeatedly state that Sweden is well-positioned in the uncertain times we live in, that the government, as the Prime Minister himself expresses it, is already doing everything right and that the Swedish economy is Trump-proof. This is not a picture shared by Swedish companies and Swedish families when the electricity bill hits the ceiling again, the Swedish automotive industry is bleeding, nearly half a million Swedes are without work and only Romania has higher youth unemployment than Sweden in the EU. The Prime Minister barely had time to leave the circle of Europe's leaders before his own Finance Minister called a press conference to announce that the room for reform is exhausted for the next four years.

The Fiscal Policy Council directed historically sharp criticism toward the Kristersson-Åkesson government in its report. With borrowed money, the government has lowered taxes for itself and other high-income earners. The barns have been emptied because large tax cuts were chosen for those with the highest incomes. At the same time, ordinary people are expected to bear the costs of an increasingly uncertain world. This is hardly the policy Sweden needs to build long-term competitiveness, and it hardly makes us an example for the rest of Europe.

The government speaks of European unity, but in practice, it leans on the Sweden Democrats, a party that for a long time has opposed central parts of the European cooperation, voted against support for Ukraine in the European Parliament, and questioned the union's values. The Sweden Democrats also wage their own little war against green technology. When Europe needs clarity, we get double messages. When Europe's security is at stake and we need unity, we get a policy that diminishes credibility.

Sweden needs a new direction and a clearer leadership that does the job in Sweden and in the EU for ordinary people. We need a Sweden that is a constructive, proactive and responsible member of the EU, a Sweden that combines international solidarity with a clear defense of Swedish interests and a Sweden that understands that our freedom, our security and our prosperity are linked with Europe's.

We shall strengthen our defense and our preparedness, we shall be a strong voice for Ukraine, we shall safeguard the rules-based world order and international law and we shall strengthen competitiveness.

But we Social Democrats also want to ensure that Sweden holds together and that the world becomes safer and more secure. That is why reinforcements are needed for school and healthcare. That is why we want to increase the child allowance and the student grant so that families get a more reasonable everyday life when prices rise. That is why we want to abolish the care day so that people are not forced to go to work while sick. That is why we invest in industrial policy and green technology development. That is why we propose a fair tax cut that strengthens ordinary people, not just those who have the most. That is why international solidarity is our choice.

Now it is the turn of ordinary people. Safety in everyday life is not a side issue in EU policy. It is a fundamental prerequisite. It must be the foundation in Sweden and in Europe, because only then can we stand strong in an uncertain world.

(Applause)

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Mr. Speaker! There is an idea that democracies are established by unarmed people who seek greater freedom in some way overcoming regimes that are armed. That sounds romantic, and one may have seen it in some movie. But it does not work when the regimes treat their population as the enemy and start shooting. It did not work in Saddam Hussein's Iraq, where the regime was prepared to use chemical weapons against its population. It does not work in Iran, where a regime armed to the teeth is prepared to use military weapons against its own population in an extremely brutal way.

The struggle for democracy and freedom always needs the world's support. When tyrants refuse to back down and become occupiers, the world needs to stand up for freedom on the side of the freedom fighters. That is how it has always worked. That is why the freedom fighters have triumphed throughout history.

It is unusual for dictatorships to fall solely because of demonstrations. When they have fallen, it has most often been because parts of the regime have shown an interest in the country changing. Dictatorships do not usually fall because unarmed demonstrators take to the streets. Support for these demonstrators must either come from within the regime or from the outside world.

It is precisely for that reason that the situation in Iran presents the rest of the world with a clear choice. The regime has shown that it is prepared to use lethal violence against its own population. In such situations, unarmed protests are not enough. The outcome is then decided by whether the rest of the world chooses to support the freedom movement or the regime.

In order to support the Iranian people in their revolution, the rest of the world must close the door to dialogue with the mullahs' regime. As long as dialogue with this regime continues, the Iranian regime's institutions proceed on the assumption that there is a certain acceptance of the mullahs among free and democratic countries. As long as this acceptance exists, internal critics within the mullahs' regime have no reason to stop showing acceptance for the mullahs' brutal oppression.

We in the democratic countries must lead by example, take the first step and say that what is happening in Iran is barbaric and that we refuse to have a dialogue with such a brutal regime. A diplomatic isolation of Iran is required. It is only then we can expect that military and police personnel within the mullahs' regime can begin to take the people's side. We in the world's democracies must show the courage to take the Iranian people's side before we can expect the dictatorship's henchmen to do so. We in the world's democracies must show that democracy, human rights and freedom are worth fighting for.

That is exactly why it is so important that the EU's member states have finally agreed to designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization. It is not merely symbolic. It is about marking that these henchmen of the dictatorship are nothing other than terrorists.

It is equally important to close the Iranian embassy in Sweden. Iranians in Sweden have no need for an embassy that has a long history of conducting illegal intelligence activities, specifically espionage, against Iranians living in Sweden.

The Iranian regime's embassy in Sweden is a threat to Iranians but also to Jews and other groups that the mullahs' regime views as enemies. It is time to shut down this spy nest and send the mullahs' ambassador home. The embassy represents the mullahs' dictatorship, not the democratic movement fighting in Iran.

It is time to choose a side, for the sake of democracy. It also means initiating a dialogue with the person who has become a symbol of the revolution, namely Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi. He is not in Iran, but he is the one the protesters in Iran are calling for. He can represent the Iranian people in a dialogue with European governments.

It is time to make a choice. Does Sweden want to continue the meaningless dialogue with the scum, or does Sweden want to talk about the future, after the scum? That choice, whatever it may be, will also be important for whether people in the future will rise up against tyrants and establish democracies or if they will accept the oppression and let democracy be reduced to a historical parenthesis.

(Applause)

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

Stefan Olsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! In the foreign policy declaration, the government mentioned that a reform of the UN Security Council is urgent. I therefore want to use my contribution in today's debate to truly emphasize the necessity of this and also mention that it is urgent.

Today's composition with five permanent members with veto power no longer works. The five-leaf clover – USA, China, Russia, France and the United Kingdom – represents how the world looked in 1945. It was the victorious powers plus China who created the UN, and the organization would likely never have survived without this strange construction of permanent members and veto.

Since then, much has happened. That which is usually called the south has grown economically, politically, and demographically. This has resulted in that the majority of the world's population is excluded from the influence over the world that Europeans and Americans themselves think they have a right to.

This order can no longer be maintained. The large, populous countries in the world – India, Indonesia, Pakistan, Brazil and Nigeria – must also be able to come into consideration for a permanent seat in the security council. Should it be with the same veto right as today? Perhaps not. Perhaps there should be new decision-making rules. I have no concrete proposal, but it is in any case impossible to continue as now.

Mr. Speaker! The UN and especially the UN Charter came into being because the world, primarily Europe, underwent two gigantic and hellish wars during the beginning of the 1900s. The norm that the victorious powers established regarding peaceful conflict resolution was set by those who themselves had experienced the horrors of war. They were not dreamers. They were not unrealistic theorists. Nor were they pacifists. The same states that founded the UN were also the first to acquire nuclear weapons, but what the leaders of that time absolutely did not want were new wars.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden has benefited greatly from the regulatory framework which states that conflicts must be resolved by peaceful means. It is true what is said that the great powers do not always follow them, and it is also true that there is no world police to uphold the rules. That does not make them meaningless, however, because what has a restraining effect on all the world's countries, including the great powers, is that the UN Charter is an agreement between countries. The countries have themselves voluntarily signed this agreement and thereby committed themselves to always resolve conflicts peacefully.

This works because no country can be a constant breaker of promises in the long run. We see it in Russia, which is the first major country that has attempted to break all entered agreements. It is not going so well. Russia is isolated.

A small country like Sweden will never be able to muster the military resources required to assert itself on the international arena, not even if we join forces with the Nordics and the Baltics and not even if we get the EU with us. Not even the EU is strong enough. For us, it has been much more effective in every way to uphold the international legal system.

Mr. Speaker! The global balance in the world has changed. As Finland's President Alexander Stubb has so well described it, one can simplified divide the world into three parts: a West consisting of the old democracies, an East that gathers the leading dictatorships, such as China, Russia and Iran, and a South that encompasses the rest of the world. It is this South that today is completely without influence in the security council.

What would happen if this group of populous countries gets tired of us in the West and instead concludes that they must align with the eastern side simply because we stubbornly refuse to listen to what they have to say? Simple mathematics says that we lose then. I therefore really want to emphasize how important it is to now reform the UN Security Council.

The UN system is unique in world history. It has prevented war, and it is to the benefit of just Swedish interests. I am pleased that the government shares this view, and I look forward to the upcoming work with this matter.

(Applause)

In this speech, Gustaf Göthberg (M) concurred.

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

Alexandra Völker (S)

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

I look forward to the UN debate that the committee will have here in a few weeks. It will be incredibly interesting to be able to discuss the UN a bit more in detail.

But my question to Member Stefan Olsson is on a completely different theme. It concerns Afghanistan. I and the Member sat together in the investigation that evaluated Sweden's collective contributions to Afghanistan over 20 years, including the aid that was given and the massive aid efforts that Sweden made in Afghanistan during those years.

Even after the Taliban succeeded in coming to power in Afghanistan with their capital of violence, a number of organizations have been able to continue carrying out incredibly important activities in Afghanistan, to support the civilian population on the ground and ensure that children can go to school and that girls and women receive the support they need.

Last summer, however, the Tidö government suddenly decided to terminate all aid to Afghanistan. It came quite shockingly, not least for the Swedish aid organizations that conducted aid work in Afghanistan, which was to be phased out in just half a year. The decision also meant that projects had to be terminated prematurely. I therefore have a few questions for the member.

I wonder if the member considers it a responsible aid policy to break entered into agreements and if this is what the Tidö parties mean by predictable and responsible, when one even demands that organizations should pay back disbursed funds. It is actually exactly what has happened in the case of Afghanistan.

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

Stefan Olsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Unfortunately, I cannot answer exactly what the agreements look like, as I am not familiar with that issue. More detailed questions about the agreements should be posed by Member Völker to someone who can answer the question better, for example, the Minister for Foreign Affairs. She could interpellate him in this matter. I believe that would be more productive.

Then I want to object to the member's description of what the aid to Afghanistan looked like. She actually called it massive. I want to remember that it amounted to perhaps 800 million kronor at most. It cannot be described as massive, for the simple reason that Afghanistan, if I remember correctly, has a population of perhaps 40 million people. It naturally does not become a massive effort with such a sum.

This is the problem with almost all aid activities: interventions that are claimed to be large are not that large. It is one of the reasons why the government has chosen to concentrate many aid projects in fewer countries in order to achieve larger projects and better effect.

I do not agree that this was massive, effective, and the best aid that one could ever have had.

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

Alexandra Völker (S)

Mr. Speaker! I still believe we agree that the total international aid, of which Sweden's aid was a part, was quite massive. But we do not need to have a debate about words here, instead we can say that it was extensive aid.

Just to inform the member, it is the case that, for example, the Swedish Save the Children has been forced to terminate projects in Afghanistan prematurely, projects where they had also given promises to families. Children who otherwise perform child labor on the street had been promised that they would be able to resume their schooling and catch up on the knowledge needed to be registered in school, while their parents would receive cash support to make the family finances work. That is what one was, therefore, forced to terminate prematurely.

These are projects that really make a difference on the ground. That is where we and the Moderaterna differ: We see what incredible effect this can have in the small. That is also how one achieves change.

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

Stefan Olsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I can only repeat what I said in my previous contribution, namely that I believe the member is speaking to the wrong person. I believe she should take these questions to the presiding official in the matter, who is the Minister for Development Cooperation. That is how the system works – it is the government's representatives who are familiar with the details.

Individual Members of Parliament cannot know everything about all aid projects. The Member knows that there are quite a few projects, right? There are thousands of them. It is not possible for every Member of the Swedish Parliament to have the detailed knowledge that Member Völker has acquired ahead of this debate.

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

Johan Büser (S)

Mr. Speaker! We meet in this foreign policy debate at a time when our world order is being shaken to its core and the European security order, upon which we have built our common security during the post-war period, is being challenged.

Russia's brutal war of aggression against Ukraine continues to claim lives, destroy cities and shatter the security of millions of people.

Last year I visited Ukraine. Something I will never forget after that trip was when we stood at the memorial site just outside Kyiv for soldiers who defended their country after the full-scale invasion nearly four years ago. On several memorial stones, it said birth year 2003 and death year 2022. These were soldiers who were only 19 years old. They were 19-year-olds who should have begun their lives but who died for their family's, their country's, and Europe's freedom.

Sweden's support for Ukraine must continue to be strong, long-term and sustained.

Mr. Speaker! International law is also being tested in other places.

In Western Sahara, an occupation that has been ongoing for decades continues. The government's recent realignment of Swedish Western Sahara policy means that Sweden now accepts the occupying power Morocco's autonomy plan. It is in conflict with international law and Western Sahara's right to self-determination. International law does not only apply when it is convenient. It always applies.

In Georgia, we are simultaneously seeing a very serious development. Sweden, together with over 20 other OSCE countries, has activated the so-called Moscow Mechanism, a tool that makes it possible to investigate serious violations of human rights. It is a clear signal of how serious the situation is there. The Georgian regime imprisons opposition politicians, attacks civil society, and restricts freedom of the press. Democracy is under attack. We Social Democrats are also pushing that the Moscow Mechanism should generally be able to be used when serious crimes against hbtqi persons occur.

In Syria, Kurds, Druze, Alawites, Assyrians and several other minorities live in continued insecurity after years of war. Sweden and the EU must contribute to a peaceful and democratic development in Syria where the rights of minorities are guaranteed and where all people can live in safety and dignity.

Mr. Speaker! After the long and terrible war in the Middle East, we now see a very fragile ceasefire. Hundreds of Palestinians are still being killed, even after what we call the ceasefire has come into effect. On the West Bank, the violence is escalating. Israel's far-right government approves new settlements, demolishes Palestinian homes, and seizes land in defiance of international law.

Occupation and settlements kill the two-state solution and thus also peace. Yet, the Swedish government now says once again that the trade agreement between the EU and Israel can continue to apply and that the arms exports can continue without consequences for the brutal occupying power Israel.

Sweden should immediately resume support for UNRWA, work for sanctions against responsible decision-makers, and stand up for the work of international courts. In these days, we must also remind ourselves that humanitarian aid is not a political pawn. It is a moral obligation.

Mr. Speaker! In my work in the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, I see how important international cooperation is. Earlier this year, I traveled to Copenhagen and met with the Danish Speaker for talks on both the Arctic and Greenland's future. Now in March, I will travel to Greenland together with Nordic-Baltic colleagues and represent Sweden there. Already tomorrow, we Nordic-Baltic delegates will meet the American OSCE delegation in Vienna to mark there that our states' sovereignty and borders are not negotiable. The transatlantic cooperation for security must be built on shared values regarding democracy and international law.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker: Sweden shall be a voice for peace, a voice for diplomacy and a voice for human rights. This shall apply in Ukraine, it shall apply in Gaza, it shall apply in Western Sahara, it shall apply in Georgia and it shall apply in Syria.

When Olof Palme was once asked what politics is really about, he answered: ”We should try to make life as decent as possible.” That is still our task as politicians, I believe. When it comes to foreign policy, it is about standing up for peace, standing up for solidarity, and standing up for all people's equal value.

(Applause)

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

Azra Muranovic (S)

Mr. Speaker! Several members from all parties have observed that the world is becoming more and more dangerous. We have war, we have authoritarian forces, and we have violations of international law. The international order is constantly being challenged, and it is that which Sweden's security also rests upon.

For millions of people, war and unrest have once again become everyday life, not least in our own immediate vicinity. The great powers' struggle for influence and resources is intensifying. That development directly affects the security of Europe but also of the Nordic region.

In such a situation, we in Sweden and Swedish foreign policy need to be crystal clear about what is non-negotiable. It is international law, it is children's rights, and it is people's right to live in peace, freedom, and security. This must apply to all countries and all peoples, and it must apply consistently.

Mr. Speaker! Russia's invasion of Ukraine is part of an attempt to change Europe's security order by force. We see how Russia influences and destabilizes countries even in Eastern Europe, in the Western Balkans, and even within the EU through disinformation and support for authoritarian forces. Therefore, the support for Ukraine is also about Europe's stability.

Russia's full-scale war is not only directed at military targets in Ukraine. Residential areas, schools, and hospitals are also being attacked. Civilians are being deported, and children are being taken away from their families. Energy systems are being attacked, and large-scale destruction of nature and ecosystems is ongoing to strike at the civilian population. This is a violation of international law and must lead to accountability.

Particularly serious is the removal of the Ukrainian children, who must be returned to their families and their homeland. They must never become a bargaining chip in future peace negotiations. Children have a right to their identity, their language, and their family, and that right cannot be compromised away in political settlements.

The support for Ukraine must be stable. It must not depend on shifts in public opinion. It must be persistent. It must be military, economic and humanitarian. The EU must stand united, and here Sweden has a major role to play.

Mr. Speaker! One day this war will end. When that happens, the reconstruction of Ukraine will be incredibly important. However, that reconstruction must absolutely not become a race where wages are pressured and workers are exploited to keep costs down. Ukraine's workers and trade union organizations must be given the opportunity to be strengthened, and labor law reforms must be part of Ukraine's path into the EU.

A country that is rebuilt through exploitation risks creating new social tensions. A country that is built up with strong rights and a functioning labor market will instead lay the foundation for long-term stability and democracy.

The security policy focus is constantly shifting further and further north. The Arctic and the North Atlantic have become central areas in the great powers' strategic planning. As the ice melts, new transport routes open up, competition for natural resources increases, and the great powers' military presence in the region grows.

We know that Russia has upgraded and reopened military bases in the Arctic. Naturally, Nato is also strengthening its presence in the North Atlantic and northern Europe. At the same time, we have a president in the USA who has openly, aggressively, and persistently shown interest in Greenland. This means that we can no longer in any way consider the Arctic to be a remote periphery. This is an area of great strategic importance. This means that the Nordic countries are also now situated in a new geopolitical reality.

For our part, security will be about more than just military strength. In the Nordic region, we must build a deepened cooperation where we know that the electricity works, that the transports work, and that our societies can continue to function even under pressure. We need to strengthen cooperation regarding defense. We need to strengthen cooperation regarding energy security, cybersecurity, infrastructure, and civil preparedness. We must stand firm when the world around us shakes.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that in today's conflicts, it is civilians, above all children, who are hit hardest. We see systematic destruction of schools, hospitals, and residential areas. We see how children are driven into flight and how children's rights are systematically violated. When children are killed, injured, or deprived of their future, it is not only a crime against international law and international humanitarian law, which in itself is serious enough, but it is also a humanitarian tragedy.

We must never meet these crimes with silence. Accountability must be demanded. Abuse against children can never be accepted as part of war or stand in the shadow of political negotiations. Therefore, children's right to safety, development, and education is not just a social issue. It is a matter of long-term peace and security planning. The children's rights perspective must be included in Sweden's work for peace, reconstruction, and stability in conflict areas.

In the end, foreign policy is not just about states and borders, but also about people's opportunity to live in safety and about every child's right to a future.

(Applause)

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

Gustaf Göthberg (M)

Mr. Speaker! We live in a very serious time for Sweden and for the world. From west to east, clouds of concern are gathering. It has become very clear, if not otherwise during the hours that this foreign policy debate has been ongoing, that we share a common view on this. The clouds of concern are gathering towards us, towards our security, towards the rules-based world order, and towards our way of life. Now our collective ability is being tested.

We are in the fifth year of war following Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Every day, the Ukrainian people's courage, will to defend, and right to exist are being tested.

We stand behind Ukraine for as long as it takes. This is our country's most important foreign policy task. The government takes it very seriously. As the Foreign Minister stated in the foreign policy declaration: We are among the largest supporters of Ukraine. We shall continue to be. They are fighting for us. We shall stand side by side, shoulder to shoulder with them.

Mr. Speaker! In Belarus, the regime continues its brutal oppression of the people. Sweden continues to work for sanctions against the regime and for support for the democratic forces in exile under the leadership of Svjatlana Tsichanouskaja, who leads the work for freedom and democracy from Poland and Lithuania.

There are also very good reasons, Mr. Speaker, to be deeply concerned about the developments in Georgia. Every evening for about a year now, I receive a text message from my Georgian friend Nino with a picture of hundreds, sometimes thousands, of Georgians on Rustaveli Avenue in Tbilisi. Along with the picture comes a text that always reads the same: We are still here – vi är fortfarande här.

448 days of peaceful protests continue, despite extensive brutality from security services and police. The demand from the demonstrators is to be treated as free Europeans. Here, the EU needs to mark its position more clearly and initiate direct sanctions against the Kremlin-inspired regime led by the oligarch Ivanishvili.

Mr. Speaker! Leadership also plays a role. The Moderates have demonstrated leadership in foreign and security policy during the mandate period. Our defense investments are unparalleled. During our EU presidency, the government showed that it is possible to combine investments in European competitiveness, offensive work on environment and climate, and support for Ukraine.

More free trade agreements have been concluded than in a long time thanks to our free trade agenda. Johan Floderus was brought home. The government is striving so that Dawit Isaak and Gui Minhai will also be able to come home. We have supported Ukraine more than many other countries, and we do this with pride, while we assist Moldova in the country's EU integration. We also took Sweden into Nato.

But there are contrasts. According to our constitution, it is the government that governs the state's foreign policy. If there is a change of government in the autumn, it is uncertain whether we will get any line at all. It will become a left-wing patchwork.

Vänsterpartiet, for example, wants to leave the DCA agreement, as we heard as recently as this morning – which Peter Hultqvist from Socialdemokraterna believes ”is about building maximum security in our part of Europe”. He said that from this rostrum when the issue was being discussed in the chamber.

When the Chamber debated Sweden's contribution to NATO's deterrence and defense during this year in December last year, the Social Democrats were in favor and the Left Party were against. The Left Party even submitted a reservation in the report. A government with both of these parties could therefore not at all have submitted a bill on the question of what Sweden should do with its membership in NATO during the current year.

The Green Party says no to important free trade agreements, something that the Centre Party, on the other hand, pushes for. The Green Party, for example, explicitly said no to the free trade agreement with Canada, despite it being in the nation's security policy interest. This agreement was, in and of itself, supported by the leading Social Democrats. The Left Party, on the other hand, says no to most things related to free trade. The Centre Party is pro-free trade for the most part.

In the European Parliament, Vänstern and Miljöpartiet sit together with the most Europe-critical voices. C sits with the federalists.

We also remember how it sounded in February 2022. Vänsterpartiet voted no to weapons for Ukraine. They changed their minds, it should reasonably be said. The support for Ukraine is compact. But if the spinal reflex when a democratic country in Europe is attacked is that we should not help with everything we can, it says a lot about the country's foreign policy.

Miljöpartiet wants to leave Nato. The Social Democrats want to stay. Now they want to do something together.

Mr. Speaker! It will not work. We cannot have four parallel tracks in our foreign policy. It is not possible. It is not about nuances; it is about diametrically different views on what issues Sweden should advocate for in the world and how we view the world's significance for us. This is serious. This will not work – and cannot work.

Against this stands an alternative that has nevertheless managed to demonstrate what I raised, namely a strong voice in our immediate area for what is important for Sweden. It is a matter of focusing on building security together with others when it blows cold and providing support to Ukraine as far as possible until they win the war. Few things are more important than that.

(Applause)

In this speech, Ann-Sofie Alm and Stefan Olsson (both M) agreed.

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

Magdalena Thuresson (M)

Mr. Speaker! There is very much to address in a foreign policy debate in February 2026. In my short speech, I will focus on Swedish aid policy. For far too long, the aid debate has been about how much money we should spend and very little about what we want to do with our aid. A perspective that has been totally absent from the debate is the discussion on how the aid can be phased out and concluded.

Aid should be help for self-help. And if one has aid that leads to results, then the result will also be that the aid as we know it today will no longer be needed. But that is a perspective that has previously been completely foreign and even provoking in the aid debate. Everyone understands that a world without a need for aid is far off, but everyone should agree that if aid leads to results, the result will also be that it can be phased out. The goal must be to move from aid to trade. Therefore, it is telling that when we have a Moderate-led government, we have no Minister for Development Cooperation, but rather we have a Minister for Development Cooperation and Foreign Trade.

Aid is sometimes a necessity, but it is trade and growth that create lasting development and prosperity. The need to prioritize has also been absent in the aid debate. Minister Dousa has said that Swedish aid has for a long time been like a sprinkler, a little everywhere, and he is now trying to shift to clear water jets instead.

Mr. Speaker! To speak more about what we want to do with our aid and not just get stuck in the discussion about how much money should be paid out, let me mention some areas that I see as particularly important to prioritize moving forward.

Supporting Ukraine in its defense against Russia is morally right and correct, but it is also important for our own security. Ukraine is today the largest recipient of Swedish aid and will need to be for a long time to come. Criticism is sometimes raised regarding the fact that Ukraine now occupies such a large part of the Swedish aid. To those who raise that criticism, I want to answer: When a full-scale war of invasion is taking place in our absolute vicinity, it has consequences. Of course, this also applies to Swedish aid. We must prioritize. It is not fun or easy, but it is a necessity.

Mr. Speaker! Another part of the aid that I consider completely necessary to prioritize more clearly is humanitarian aid. For those who do not know the difference, I can say that there are two different types of aid.

Development aid is, briefly described, about improving the living conditions for people in poverty and oppression in the long term. It is for this type of aid that it is absolutely crucial that there is also a thought of being able to phase out the aid. It shall be help for self-help.

Humanitarian aid, on the other hand, is more acute disaster relief aimed at preventing death and alleviating distress. It is about food, clean water, blankets and tents, as well as medicine for people in absolute need. I believe that when people think of aid, it is primarily this type of disaster relief they think of. Over time, however, that type of aid has been a relatively small part of the very large aid budget that Sweden has had. Around 10 percent of our aid has gone to humanitarian aid, which, therefore, is about saving lives. Here, I believe we need to prioritize further and let humanitarian aid as a proportion of Swedish aid increase.

Mr. Speaker! It is important that aid can be followed up. Here I want to highlight aid within the health sector, for example vaccinations. It is measurable: x kronor becomes x vaccinations. It saves lives. I note that the Foreign Minister highlighted Sweden's commitment to global health in the foreign policy declaration, not least with a focus on women and girls.

Mr. Speaker! Aid is an important foreign policy tool. Yes! Aid is also a part of security policy. But we must prioritize. And the goal for the aid, even if it is a long way off, must be to be able to move from aid to trade.

(Applause)

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

Jamal El-Haj (-)

Mr. Speaker! We live in a time of change. Old orders are shaking, and truths that once carried weight are losing their power. But in the midst of this change, there is something that shines by its absence: leadership. When the world most needs guidance, the honest leaders are forced back, and in their place, demagogues step in. When the truth should be spoken aloud, the room is filled with lies, and the truth is left alone – weak, questioned, and almost whispering. We see it in politics. We see it in the economy. We see it in how human dignity is negotiated away.

In Sweden, the 46 richest own more than what 8 million Swedes own combined. In Sweden, an industrial worker must work for 170 years to earn what a director earns in a single year. This is not a law of nature. This is a choice.

The world's twelve richest people together own more than the poorest half of humanity. At the same time, every fourth person on earth goes hungry – a hunger that has increased by 41 percent since 2015. And in this situation, when the world is burning, when children are starving, governments in the world choose to cut aid and withdraw support to, among other things, UNRWA. It is also a choice.

Capitalism marches on – cold, disciplined, efficient. It measures value in return, not in lives. The worker is pushed aside. Solidarity erodes. And in the vacuum, hatred, fear, and division grow. And it is in this global state of inequality, silence, and lack of accountability that we must acknowledge the truth about Gaza and the West Bank.

Mr. Speaker! Gaza is a name that no longer just denotes a place but is an open wound on the map of humanity. It is a wound that bleeds before our eyes while the world watches and turns away. In Gaza, brutality has become a system and humiliation a method. The siege is no longer about borders or security but about breaking down the human being bit by bit. Life is reduced to a single question: Will we survive today?

This is not just a military siege. It is a weapon. It is a weapon that kills slowly. Starvation is not an unfortunate consequence of war; it is a deliberate tool for submission.

Food is stopped, medicines are blocked, hospitals are bombed and infrastructure is crushed. An entire people is left to die slowly under the cold gaze of the cameras and in the deafening silence of the civilized world.

Look at the queues! Look at the empty water taps! Look at the darkness when the electricity goes out! This is not chaos. This is design. It is a deliberate order to humiliate, to break the will, and to make man forget his dignity.

Even the air in Gaza is changed. It is filled not only with smoke and dust but also with the smell of blood and the betrayal of a world that once said "Never again" but which means "not now, not here, not in Gaza."

In the midst of this reality, there was a child, Hind Rajab, who was six years old. She should have been thinking about games, about school bags, and about the future, and not about how to survive a shooting. She and her family tried to flee. The car was hit. They died, one by one. Hind survived – alone, injured, and trapped in the car among her dead relatives. For hours, she was in contact with the emergency services. Her voice remained. She was a child who begged for help, who said she was afraid and heard tanks approaching. An ambulance was sent. It never arrived. The ambulance personnel were killed.

When Hind was finally found, she was dead – still in the car, still waiting. There were nearly 350 shots around the car. Hind did not just become a name. She became a voice. The world heard and chose to ignore anyway.

It is now over 20,000 children, 20,000 lives, that will never grow up, 20,000 futures that never got to begin. Behind every figure there is a name, a voice, a child.

Despite all this, the Palestinians have not given up their land, their identity, their hope. They know something that history has taught them: that the darkest moment always comes just before dawn. The question is not whether the light will come. The question is where we stand when it does. The question is where you stand when it does.

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

Alexandra Anstrell (M)

Mr. Speaker! As chairman of the Riksdag's Arctic delegation, I intend to dwell on the Arctic. It is appropriate today, when the weather truly shows that Sweden is an Arctic country. The Arctic is not a remote fringe zone on the map. It is our immediate vicinity. It is our strategic depth, our security policy responsibility, and a part of our national interest.

The security policy situation in our immediate vicinity is serious. Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine has fundamentally changed Europe's security order. The buildup in the Arctic continues. Must points out Murmansk as a so-called hotspot where Russia remains strong and which is important to them. China is also seeking increased influence there. Great power politics also seems to be back in the north.

In such a situation, readiness, decisiveness, and cooperation are required. As a member of Nato, Sweden is part of the collective deterrence in the Euro-Atlantic region. It strengthens stability in the Arctic, but it also entails a greater responsibility. We must build a strong total defense with a special capability to operate in Arctic conditions. We already have that today. We are strong in the Arctic and skilled in sub-Arctic environments. But we can always get better, not least regarding readiness.

The defense of northern Sweden is not a regional issue. It is a national and allied matter. But preparedness is about more than military strength. It is also about robust societies, functioning infrastructure, energy supply, and crisis preparedness. And it is about deepened Nordic and transatlantic cooperation in a time of uncertainty.

Mr. Speaker! The Arctic is also a frontline when it comes to climate change. Melting ice affects sea levels, weather patterns, and ecosystems globally. What happens in the Arctic affects us all, in the entire world. And what happens in the world affects the Arctic. Therefore, we must also speak about environmental responsibility.

We Arctic states must do better. It is not reasonable that there are Arctic states that still bury quite a lot of waste. It is also not reasonable that there are Arctic states that still use so much plastic. All Arctic countries have a responsibility to reduce their waste, increase recycling, and protect our sensitive ecosystem.

However, the responsibility does not stop at the Arctic coastline. A large part of the plastic and debris that reaches the Arctic Ocean comes from other parts of the world. Ocean currents carry waste from countries located far from the Arctic Circle. Did you know that 80 percent of the waste floating in at the west coast comes from countries other than Sweden?

We must become clearer in the dialogue with non-Arctic states. They too must take their responsibility. Better waste management globally is a prerequisite for protecting the Arctic. I think one could also include that in what Magdalena spoke about earlier: aid. We can do it better. We here in Sweden are good at it.

It is not a regional environmental issue. It is a global matter. When the ice melts and sea levels rise, the whole world is affected, everything from coastal cities to food supply and economic stability.

Mr. Speaker! The Moderates' line is clear here: We shall have a strong defense and a high state of readiness in the north, deepened cooperation with our allies, a firm anchoring in international law, and a clear environmental responsibility both at home and globally. The Arctic is our near area, but its future concerns the entire world.

(Applause)

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

Annika Strandhäll (S)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden's voice in the world has long been built on a few simple but powerful principles: solidarity, democracy, and respect for human rights. It is a voice that has given us as a nation influence far beyond our size. But today we see how the Swedish government is step by step dismantling that role.

In Latin America, Sweden's presence is decreasing while democracy is being pushed back, violence against human rights defenders is increasing, and inequality is growing. In several countries, trade union representatives and journalists are subjected to threats and violence. Women's rights are being challenged, and the democratic space is shrinking.

When civil societies need support, when free trade unions are threatened, and when equality retreats, the government chooses to cut back on development cooperation and scale back long-standing and long-term partnerships. It is not realism. It is retreat.

The Social Democrats argue that Sweden should be a partner for democracy, for equality, and for social justice. Without a clear strategy, for example for Latin America, Sweden risks losing influence in regions where other actors are rapidly strengthening their economic, political, and security policy presence.

At the same time, Sweden's voice in multilateral cooperation is also being weakened. Reductions in aid and reprioritizations away from long-term development cooperation naturally erode our credibility as a partner.

The government also chooses to cut back on core support to the UN's organizations. It is support that makes it possible for the UN to act quickly in humanitarian crises, defend human rights, and support democratic institutions worldwide. When the world is characterized by war, authoritarian trends, climate crisis, and growing inequality, Sweden should strengthen, not weaken, the UN and the rules-based world order.

Multilateral cooperation is not idealism. It is a prerequisite for global stability, for conflict prevention work, and for respect for human rights. When Sweden now reduces its support, our opportunity to influence also decreases.

Mr. Speaker! Investing in women and girls is not a side issue but a prerequisite for peace, economic development, and stability. Defending the UN and the multilateral system is, as said, not idealism but an investment in our common security. In a world that is burning, we need more cooperation, more solidarity, and more long-term responsibility.

When Sweden now withdraws, we leave a vacuum – a vacuum where authoritarian forces strengthen their influence, a vacuum where democratic movements stand without support, a vacuum where girls' and women's rights are weakened, a vacuum where social inequality is allowed to grow. It is a vacuum that Sweden cannot afford to leave behind.

We want something else. Sweden shall not be silent when the world changes. Sweden shall stand up when democracy is tested. Sweden shall make a difference.

(Applause)

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

Ann-Sofie Alm (M)

Mr. Speaker! We live in the most serious security policy situation since the Second World War. The world order that has been built on cooperation, openness, and respect for international law is being challenged from both the East and the West. Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine is the clearest and most brutal example. But the world order is also being challenged in an insolent way from the West, where the USA seems to continue to reduce its commitment to European security. The war in Ukraine is existential for us, but it is not for the USA.

The answer to the threats from both east and west is every time a united and strong Europe. For every centimeter that the front is pushed westward in Ukraine, the front moves one centimeter closer to our own homes. How this war ends will change our continent for generations to come. Let us be clear-sighted: Delay is dangerous. Every hesitation, every delay, and every attempt to normalize the aggression risks giving Russia breathing room to strengthen its arsenals.

The peace negotiations provided a ceasefire against energy sources in Ukraine. When the cold then hit at the same time as the truce ended, Russia completely unleashed missiles and drones against the civilian population. This is inhumane, vile and unacceptable, and for this Russia shall pay. At some point in the future, we will look back and ask ourselves why the Western world tolerated delay and empty threats for so long. That insight must guide us now.

So far, Putin has failed in everything Russia has undertaken. Putin wanted to cold-bloodedly murder President Zelenskyy and his government and take over Ukraine in three days. On Tuesday, the war enters its fifth year – in total, it is twelve. Ukraine still stands proud and strong. It is a great failure for Putin.

Putin wanted to split the West with the war. But Europe has never stood more united. This Riksdag has never been more united in its support for Ukraine. And Ukraine is on its way into the EU. This is a gigantic political mistake for Putin.

Putin also wanted to weaken Nato. But Nato became larger and stronger, with Finland and Sweden as members. Sweden is now safer, and our defense force is larger, stronger and more dangerous. This is a huge political failure for Putin.

Russia's goal is not just territory. The goal is political submission, not only for Ukraine but also for Washington and for Nato. Therefore, the response must be the opposite: more support for Ukraine and increased pressure on Russia. The sanctions must increase, secondary sanctions must be enforced, and the shadow fleet's mobility must be stopped.

Sweden's support for Ukraine now amounts to approximately 114 billion kronor. This is not charity. It is a moral duty and an investment in our own security. Ukraine is today a security producer for Europe. They are not only defending their freedom. We shall help them as long as required, for their security is ours.

Mr. Speaker! We stand strong because we have chosen to stand united. Sweden's membership in Nato makes our country safer together with 31 allies. Our defense force is stronger and more formidable. The government's foreign policy declaration for 2026 is clear: Support for Ukraine is our primary task, and we shall strengthen cooperation within security and trade.

This is a time of trial, Mr. Speaker, but it is also a time for leadership and hopefulness. Russia must be stopped. Ukraine must prevail. Thus – and only thus – do we secure a sustainable peace in Europe.

(Applause)

The foreign policy debate was hereby concluded.

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