Activities in the European Union during 2022

Stefan Olsson (M)

Madam Speaker! The report we are debating today concerns the government's annual communication to the Riksdag regarding activities in the European Union, and I would like to begin by moving for approval of the committee's proposal.

During 2022, we had a change of government in Sweden, and the responsibility for the past year's EU policy is therefore shared. The Riksdag's praise and criticism fall roughly equally on the majority and the opposition.

So what happened during 2022? Yes, what overshadowed everything else is, of course, the war in Ukraine. The year had barely begun before Russia threw everything that decency stands for overboard and started the largest war of aggression on European soil since World War II.

The EU was going to be put to the test. Would the union hold together? It cannot be ruled out that Russia's president Vladimir Putin intended for the EU to splinter when he launched the invasion. Several EU countries, including the largest, Germany, were major importers of natural gas. And Russia had already attacked Ukraine in 2014 without the EU actually having done anything. True, sanctions against Russia existed, but they were not worse than they were livable.

But what was the outcome? It was the opposite. The invasion did not cause division but became the bucket of ice water over the head that the EU countries needed to wake up, see the realities, and unite. It took some weeks of daze before the EU countries fully understood what was at stake and before the world could also see with what force Ukraine defended itself.

Russia miscalculated, and today the EU stands more united than ever. The support from the Union and the individual member states for Ukraine has been overwhelming. When it became clear that many Ukrainians needed to seek safety, the Union activated the mass flight directive without any complications. Four million Ukrainians have in this way managed to escape the war.

The EU and its members have additionally supported Ukraine militarily, financially and humanitarily with a sum that, at the time of the submission of the government's communication, amounted to 19.7 billion euro. The member states have additionally provided Ukraine with war materiel, ammunition and helped with training and educating Ukrainian soldiers. But truly worth mentioning from a purely EU perspective is the collective decision to phase out the union's dependence on Russian gas imports. The decision to adopt the REPowerEU plans can be said to be a milestone in the union's history - perhaps not the union's proudest moment but its most sober. REPowerEU, which was adopted during the spring of 2022, aims to once and for all break with the sickly dependence on Russian gas. The gas import was a strategic failure and should have been phased out long ago, but now it finally looks like it will be done.

Madam Speaker! Sweden joined the EU in 1994, and we now have nearly three decades to look back on. Are the Swedes satisfied with the membership?

We know that the EU still appears as a mysterious bureaucratic colossus far away from our own country. We live with GDPR and other regulations whose purpose we don't actually understand. And we have difficulty understanding why issues concerning Swedish forests and Swedish wilderness life should be regulated by people who hardly seem to have seen a real spruce even in a picture. Yet, the popular support for EU membership is the highest that has been measured since Sweden joined.

The SOM Institute presented figures earlier this year on what the public thinks about the union. To the question of whether Sweden should always be a member, 68 percent answered yes and only 11 percent no. Furthermore, the SOM Institute also asked what the public thought about a possible "svexit", that is, what they think about Sweden withdrawing from the union. Only 12 percent thought that it was a good idea. 66 percent answered that it was a bad proposal. The figures cannot be interpreted in any other way than that the EU is now a natural part of the Swedish people's lives.

But there is still room for improvement. Sweden has a reputation for being more meticulous than other countries when it comes to implementing EU rules. The term over-implementation is often used. It is therefore pleasing that the government has announced that an implementation council shall be established, which shall work to ensure that EU rules can be incorporated into Swedish legislation in a smoother way than today.

Madam Speaker! We all would have wished that the war in Ukraine had never broken out, but now that it is a fact, we can observe how significant the EU is in world politics. The war is no longer just about Ukraine's survival but also about which legal order the world at large shall live by. In this struggle, it has shown itself that the EU is a significantly more important global power player than the union itself has previously understood. The EU is not a country and can therefore never act with the same immediate force on the world stage as the USA can, but when the EU's member states act jointly, it is of great significance.

Russia's first attack on Ukraine in 2014 came, as is well known, as a consequence of Ukraine wanting to sign the association agreement with the EU. The agreement's most important purpose was to improve trade relations between Ukraine and the EU, but it was seen by the Kremlin as a threat to the survival of the Russian sphere of influence.

The EU is no longer just a cooperation organization for free trade and economy but is also a global power player. As such, it is reasonable that we in the EU acquire a common understanding of what the union's global role should be. This is still somewhat unclear. This is not the place to resolve that matter completely, but as an example, it can be mentioned that it will be of the utmost importance in the future that the EU shows its support for the democracies in the Pacific, all of which fear a potentially aggressive communist China in the future. The EU has a very large trade exchange with China, and it is therefore important that we already now clarify that the union will not allow itself to be blackmailed if a larger military crisis occurs in the Pacific. The EU would have needed to explain this more clearly vis-à-vis Russia. We do not need to make the same mistake again.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Madam Speaker! Member Stefan Olsson speaks well about the war in Ukraine and what Russia's full-scale invasion has meant for the EU and the rest of the world. One thing this has meant is that many countries have been forced to take a stand. To a large extent, they have taken Ukraine's side, a few countries have taken Russia's side, and a good number of countries have struggled to find a middle position.

One of the committee majority's most shocking sentences is that "establish a common line with the USA and consider whether the EU should introduce sanctions against Cuba".

It stands in sharp contrast to the Moderates' previous position to support political dialogue with Cuba at the EU level, which the Riksdag voted on in the autumn of 2019. At that time, M, V, S and MP agreed that "Cuba is a one-party state without free and democratic elections and the civil and political rights are still curtailed." That is what we wrote together then.

In a specific statement, which was only the Moderaternas', you wrote: "Political dialogue and trade provide more effective opportunities for influence than isolation and boycotts." That is something that is easy to agree with. And it continues like this – you point out the importance of an active dialogue to promote human rights and democracy in Cuba.

But now you have pivoted, and I wonder what has happened. The risk with the policy that the committee majority now signals they want to pursue from Sweden's side is that one drives Cuba straight into the hands of Russia and China and thereby forces the country to be isolated from the rest of the world even more, just as it has been forced to be for a long time due to the American sanctions.

Then I think we can lose important voices, not only in Cuba but in other Latin American countries, which we need in the support for Ukraine and for the people of Ukraine.

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

Stefan Olsson (M)

Madam Speaker! When it comes to trying to achieve some form of change of the regime in Cuba, the policy pursued so far has proven to be completely meaningless, regardless of what has been tried. Sweden has for many decades tried to have relations of exchange, but nothing happens when it comes to Cuba. We could very well try a harder line going forward.

When it comes to Cuba falling into the clutches of evil dictatorships, it is a fact that Cuba was already from the beginning in the hands of the evil dictatorship of the Soviet Union.

Cuba is not a major threat to world peace in itself. I cannot say what we should do with Cuba, but the policy that the Left Party now wants us to continue with – that is to conduct dialogue, to be nice and to believe that they will change – has also not worked. I do not really know what the member wants instead.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Madam Speaker! As Member Olsson notes, it has been a meaningless policy that has been pursued. This applies primarily from the side of the USA. They introduced sanctions against Cuba as early as 1962 in one of the most extensive trade blockades. It has not led to any form of democracy or human rights in Cuba.

The USA is the closest neighboring country to Cuba - not the European Union. The only time we have seen any kind of change in American policy - something we do not see right now - was during Obama's time. Then, one opened up for dialogue and trade, and then the reforms also began to occur slowly in Cuba. Then Trump turned the ship around and brought back the harsh sanctions.

It is this line that the Swedish governing parties now say you want to join. It is a harsh boycott that for over 60 years has collectively punished the Cuban people. I do not understand why you want this meaningless policy.

For me, it is obvious that sanctions can be useful in some cases. We should absolutely not think that Cuba is a democracy where we should develop everything and only provide aid and conduct a lot of trade. We shall set demands on the Cubans. But that also requires that one has a political dialogue. I think I see signs in the committee text that the government underestimates this need.

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

Stefan Olsson (M)

Madam Speaker! The text in the committee report is therefore not the government's, but the committee majority's. There are four parties in the committee majority - not in the government. I just want to clarify this for those who are listening.

But if I learn anything from this exchange of remarks, it is that Member Svenneling's perception is that no policy towards Cuba has worked, regardless of whether it has been hard or soft. Then, the line that the committee majority advocates cannot be said to be such that we know it would be worse than that which has been pursued previously. We do, however, know that several decades of attempts with dialogue have not changed the regime's attitude one bit.

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

Kerstin Lundgren (C)

Madam Speaker! As a matter of fact, the debate in this exchange will continue to be about Cuba.

I heard Stefan Olsson say earlier that he could not say what we should do with Cuba. I have a tip, Madam Speaker: It is possible to vote on reservation 21 under point 14. It is a concrete example of what can be done.

When the Moderates, together with the Left Party and the Social Democrats, voted for us to ratify the agreement on political dialogue and cooperation with Cuba, the Moderates were clear in the debate - and this was also the committee's position - that if the development did not move in the right direction, it would be reassessed within five years at the latest. This was in 2019.

One can read the agreement, which in practice has been in effect since 2016. More than five years of practical testing have passed. I read the committee's majority text, which is clear that the development has not gone in the right direction. That is why proposals are being put forward that one should begin with sanctions policy.

One move that Sweden has the possibility to take is for the government itself to reconsider the ratification of the agreement. In that case, there would be several member states that did not stand behind it. This is something the government has the discretion over. Is Stefan Olsson prepared to go that way and reconsider the ratification from 2019?

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

Stefan Olsson (M)

Madam Speaker! I do not represent the government, but I represent one of the parties in the committee majority and can therefore not answer what the government should do.

But when it comes to the agreement, I want to remember that the Center Party has meant that one should be able to evaluate the effects of it to see whether we should continue working with the agreement or not. I would therefore initially like to pose a counter-question to the member: Has the agreement had any effect as it was intended? Does that mean anything? Is it a tool that is truly effective?

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

Kerstin Lundgren (C)

Madam Speaker! Stefan Olsson says that he does not represent the government. But the Moderaterna are part of the government base and must reasonably, as part of the committee majority, also stand up for what is being stated, namely that the development is going in the wrong direction.

The agreement has not led to increased freedom for the Cuban population. It has not increased democracy and not improved the rule of law, and it has not created the conditions for the political development that lay behind the cooperation agreements and that which the political dialogue was to lead to.

The committee seems to have already carried out an evaluation in that part in some way. If one has chosen to carry out this evaluation from the side of the committee majority, one should also be able to draw the conclusion that one should push the government to ensure that the ratification ceases.

The EU path can, of course, be taken and initiated – we will return to that debate. But Sweden disposes of the ratification itself. If we conclude that this was the wrong direction, we could reasonably also withdraw our ratification. In that case, it is a signal to others to follow suit and influence the EU in that way as well.

Madam Speaker! The question remains whether Stefan Olsson, as a Member of Parliament and as part of the government base, who has drawn the conclusion in the committee majority's text that the agreement is not working, is prepared to go the distance to revoke the ratification from the Swedish side.

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

Stefan Olsson (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, the member, for the clarification regarding what role I play and whom I represent here in parliament! I would like to point out what role I have in order to facilitate the public's understanding that there is a difference between the Riksdag and the government and that the parliamentary majority is not always necessarily the government.

I have listened to Member Lundgren's proposal that the revocation of a ratification could be an alternative. I have not personally reflected on this proposal before, but it is naturally something I will take with me now. It could be a way as good as any other. But a sanctions policy could also work. I am open to proposals, because even in a previous exchange of remarks with another member, we have noted that almost no Cuba policy works.

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

Linnéa Wickman (S)

Madam Speaker! The communication from the government and the report on the European Union's activities in 2022 which we are to debate today are extensive and, by their nature, retrospective. They touch upon a large number of motions and cover a large number of areas, both regarding the EU's work within the union and regarding the common foreign policy. It is, of course, impossible due to time constraints to touch upon all parts of this. I will focus on EU policy in general and a number of current issues in particular. My party colleague Morgan Johansson will, in turn, focus on Israel and Palestine in his upcoming contribution.

We Social Democrats, of course, stand behind all our reservations, but I want to move for approval only to reservation 19 for the sake of time.

Madam Speaker! February 24, 2022, will forever be a very dark day in Europe's history. Early in the morning, Russia began its illegal, unprovoked, and unjust invasion of Ukraine - an invasion with the aim of subjugating a peaceful neighboring country and by force compelling it to submit.

Russia's attack is more than an attack on Ukraine. It is a ruthless attack against the principle that every country should be allowed to determine its own future and its own path. Every day and night since the war started - and precisely at this moment - Ukraine is defending with all its might and at a very high price its territory, our common democratic values, and international law. It is obvious that Ukraine also belongs in the EU one day, as a member.

Madam Speaker! Since the outbreak of the war, support for Ukraine has been at the top of the EU's agenda. EU cooperation has been tested, and we have largely seen the importance of cooperation for Ukraine to win peace. This is a strength built by common unity and which has resulted in strong economic, humanitarian and political support for Ukraine and, based on national decisions, a large military support. Ten sanction packages have been introduced, and an eleventh package is being negotiated right now. Up to 1,500 Russian persons and entities with links to the country's leadership and war apparatus have had their assets frozen and are subject to travel restrictions.

We see how Putin's war is not only being fought on the battlefield but also through an energy war against Europe, which pressures companies and households.

The work must now continue with undiminished strength to knock the legs out from under Putin and all the tools of the Russian regime, both in Ukraine and in other parts of the world - not least on the African continent. One such tool is the Wagner Group, this paramilitary force of murderers that operates where Russian military units cannot act but which to the highest degree works for the Russian state and its interests. Wherever the Wagner Group advances, we see almost indescribable abuses and use of violence as well as the extraction of natural resources. We also see how democracy and human rights are undermined in cooperation with corrupt and non-democratic regimes. We see colonialism in a new guise.

Madam Speaker! A unanimous Committee on Foreign Affairs now stands behind issuing a motion to the government that it shall actively gather support in the EU for a terror listing of the Wagner Group. This is something we Social Democrats have pushed for. It is completely obvious that the current sanctions against the Wagner Group are not sufficient. There is also reason to initiate work to review how the EU's sanctions regime regarding terror listing can be updated and strengthened, as it is clear that today it is an all too difficult task for the international community to act in a precise manner against actors with state connections who engage in terrorist crimes.

When the Committee on Foreign Affairs had a consultation with the government on this issue last week, we Social Democrats also proposed that the government should, within six months, return with a legal analysis of the situation and how a proposal for an update of the EU's sanctions regime could look in order to drive this in the next step and gather support in the EU. We regret that the government opposed this proposal.

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard, IRGC, is another example of such an organization, with a direct connection to the authoritarian regime in Iran. On May 10, the Riksdag finally issued a notification to the government that Sweden shall actively work for a terror listing of IRGC in the EU. Even in this area, the government must shift into a higher gear to terror-list IRGC in the EU, now during the few days remaining of the Swedish presidency but also, of course, when the Spanish EU presidency takes over.

The international pressure on Iran must be maintained through the development of sanctions, especially now when the protests are no longer at the top of our news feeds but thousands of political prisoners remain imprisoned under direct threats of execution. The Iranian regime's crimes against human rights - mass arrests, violence, torture and a never-ending repression to keep its own population in an iron grip - can never be accepted. We must continue to meet this forcefully.

Madam Speaker! A weapon of mass destruction against the environment – so described Ukraine's President Zelenskyy the Russian blowing up of the Kachovka power plant dam on June 6. The explosion is a catastrophe that affects people and nature on a magnitude that is difficult to imagine. The war itself causes enormous human suffering, but the consequences of the dam explosion also show what brutal effects the war has on the environment – effects so large that the consequences are irreversible and Ukraine's reconstruction is hindered. Prevention of ecocide and widespread environmental crimes are included as part of Ukraine's peace plan, and the explosion once again highlights the question of whether ecocide should be considered for addition as an international crime in the Rome Statute.

The international impunity we are now seeing regarding large-scale environmental destruction must be prevented, and we Social Democrats believe that this is an area where we need to work harder internationally to find a way forward. As recently as March this year, the EU Parliament voted to include ecocide in the EU's environmental crime directive, and as we now take steps forward in EU legislation, it is important to shape a way forward for the criminalization of these crimes even outside the EU.

Madam Speaker! It is clear that Russia's war has highlighted the issue of EU expansion and the importance of upholding the requirements in the membership process regarding democratic and economic reforms in both former and new candidate countries so that they can take steps towards EU membership. But it also highlights the importance of maintaining respect for the principles of the rule of law and fundamental rights even in the EU's existing member states. We shall place equally strict requirements on the countries that wish to become members of the EU as on the countries that are already members to share and uphold the union's fundamental values.

Since the Article 7 proceedings against Hungary and Poland began, the situation for human rights, democracy, minorities, and the rule of law has worsened. This is a deeply worrying development. It was also why the Social Democrats, during the planning for the Swedish EU Presidency, chose the principles of the rule of law as a clear priority, which we have also constantly reminded the government of before and during the Swedish presidency. It can be stated that the principles of the rule of law have been included, but in a perfunctory manner.

We will continue to raise the issue of the EU's fundamental values in EU policy. Using the conditionality mechanism, for example, is fundamentally about guarding the union's basic values and the trust in it - the very foundation for a strong EU cooperation also in the future in light of all the common and cross-border challenges that we as a country cannot solve alone.

(Applause)

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

Markus Wiechel (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Linnéa Wickman for an interesting speech and for also saying very much good.

I often note that the Social Democrats end up on the wrong side in the struggle between dictatorship and democracy. We can historically see how they have fawned over the Iranian villain regime, even if they have changed slightly on that issue more recently. We have seen how they have had a submissive stance, if I may say so, towards the Cuban oppressive regime while we Sverigedemokrater have stood on the side of the democratic Cuban exiles. We have seen how they have supported the undemocratic Palestine instead of the democratic Israel. And we have seen how they have sided with the Chinese dictatorship instead of strongly standing up for the democratic Taiwan.

Madam Speaker! I could continue, but it never seems to hit the mark. In many of these issues, we stand on completely different sides – the Sweden Democrats and the Social Democrats.

My question to the member is: How is it that the Social Democrats always stand on the side of dictatorship against the Sweden Democrats?

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

Linnéa Wickman (S)

Madam Speaker! I must thank the member for this rather disparate question. I do not, of course, share the picture that the member is spreading here, on the contrary. I would say that the Sweden Democrats are happy to spread disinformation about the Social Democrats' actions in various issues.

I think it is particularly unfortunate given that the Social Democrats in recent months have been one of the parties that has constantly pushed the government forward, for example in the matter of moving forward regarding the terror listing of IRGC and now also regarding the issue of the Wagner Group. I actually think that the Sweden Democrats should reflect a bit on their priorities and perhaps put a bit more effort into influencing the government that one supports oneself – one lays the foundation for it to be able to govern this country at all.

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

Markus Wiechel (SD)

Madam Speaker! Again: I could continue. I could go into the Social Democrats' party links in Zimbabwe. I could go into how one acted in connection with Azerbaijan attacking Armenia and so on. One acted sluggishly.

But we can return to parts that Linnéa Wickman raised, for example IRGC. When it comes to the Iran issue, the Sweden Democrats have perhaps been the clearest party in this chamber in support of the Iranian people against the Iranian dictatorship. The Social Democrats sat in government for eight years and did almost nothing for the Iranian people. On the contrary, one invited Iran's Foreign Minister Javad Zarif and the like. One coddled the Iranian oppressive regime. It is a fact. It cannot be avoided.

When it comes to the Wagner group, it is also an issue that the Sverigedemokraterna have clearly pushed. I am pleased that the Socialdemokraterna chose to stand on the same side in that issue. The question is whether one would have done so in a government position. I am not sure about that.

Once again, I would like to pose the question to Linnéa Wickman: How is it that the Social Democrats, in the examples I have raised regarding China, Palestine, Cuba and Iran, have such a poor track record?

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

Linnéa Wickman (S)

Madam Speaker! I note that the Sweden Democrats and the member continue to spread strong disinformation regarding the Social Democrats' foreign policy.

I think this becomes particularly serious, not least linked to the question of Israel and Palestine. As recently as yesterday, Israel's Prime Minister came out and said that they would actually proceed with a judicial reform that will restrict the judiciary in Israel.

The question is rather about why the Sweden Democrats somewhat choose when you think international law should apply and when you think it should not apply, when democracy is important and when democracy is not important. I guess we will continue this debate moving forward.

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

Yusuf Aydin (KD)

Madam Speaker! Since 24 February 2022, the European community has been tested. The European Union's raison d'être and fundamental purpose have never been as significant as they are today. The EU's member states have taken a collective stand and provided economic, military, and humanitarian support to Ukraine for their defense against the Russian invasion.

The consequences of the invasion have affected every European country. Energy prices and food prices have soared. But without trade and cooperation between the EU countries, the crisis would have hit all of us Europeans much harder. Trade, which is what European peace should be based on, has provided a common resilience to defy aggressive and authoritarian powers such as Russia. It is pleasing to see how the EU since the start of the war has begun to move away from dependence on Russian gas and increased the focus on defense and self-sufficiency.

What binds the European countries together beyond trade and peace is our belief in democracy, freedom, and human rights. During the past year, Ukraine and Moldova were granted candidate country status. It is important that they focus on the requirements that are set for one to become a full member state of the EU. Significant progress is required in both countries regarding the fight against corruption and achieving the goals that exist. But all Europeans should see the development and how the countries move closer to the fundamental European principles as something positive.

Madam Speaker! The EU's collective strength is clearest in the common foreign and security policy. It is only together that the member states can pressure the states that oppress their populations. Due to the EU's single market, EU sanctions are effective, and they make a difference against countries ruled by regimes that violate human rights.

The EU should continue to put pressure on the regime in Iran for their serious violations of human rights and for the excessive violence they have used against peaceful protesters. In another matter, the Committee on Foreign Affairs has issued a notification to the government regarding precisely the terror listing of the mercenary group Wagner. Wagner has committed despicable crimes in Ukraine that clearly violate international human rights laws. It is not only in Ukraine that the group has acted. The group has also acted in several African countries, such as Mali, Sudan, and the Central African Republic. It is good that the government is working towards a common European terror classification of the Wagner group.

Furthermore, the union has made significant efforts regarding the green transition. The EU and especially Sweden have been at the forefront of the green transition. On the other hand, across the Atlantic, measures have now been introduced to attract green industry through President Biden's Inflation Reduction Act. Competition is always good for driving innovation. We Christian Democrats therefore hope that this competition creates incentives for the member states to create a good business climate for those parts of the business sector that contribute to the green transition.

Madam Speaker! I will also say something about the Swedish presidency. On January 1, we took over the presidency of the Council of the European Union, and several important and heavy negotiations have taken place during this half-year.

Among these is the proposal for a common migration and asylum pact in the EU. The Swedish presidency has worked hard to unite the EU's member states around important parts, and after years of negotiations, the EU's member states have agreed on large and central parts of the migration and asylum pact. This means that the EU is now well on its way towards a more sustainable migration system.

Negotiations in the energy area have also moved forward with agreements on the semiconductor regulation, the renewable energy directive, and the energy efficiency directive. On Friday, the government, through Minister for Energy and Business Ebba Busch, could announce that the EU countries have reached an agreement on the historic climate package Fit for 55.

Fit for 55 was presented by the EU Commission two years ago, and two previous presidencies have worked on this climate package. When Sweden took over the presidency, only six of the eleven proposals were ready. Now the entire package is fully negotiated. Nuclear power will be classified as sustainable to a greater extent, and that classification will be rewarded in the climate package. These successes show that the Swedish presidency has delivered for both Sweden and the EU.

The EU's development during 2022 has been positive and has bound the member states closer together. I hope that this development continues in a way that respects the member states' sovereignty and independence, primarily to safeguard the EU's fundamental purpose: peace through economic cooperation. The federalist power ambitions therefore threaten the foundation of the European community. The EU needs to be moderate, not in its will or power to meet crises, but in the ambition regarding which issues the union can and should engage in.

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

Markus Wiechel (SD)

Madam Speaker! The activities in the European Union during 2022 is a comprehensive consideration that undoubtedly contains a long series of important international issues. Just as for other areas that have been on the Foreign Affairs Committee's table, we see how the good cooperation between the Sweden Democrats and the government parties has resulted in the parliamentary majority step by step choosing a clearly positive direction in the view of our global environment and how we shall tackle this global environment.

Today it is clear that the majority in the Committee on Foreign Affairs stands behind those who are at the forefront of the fight for democracy and human rights rather than yielding to authoritarian oppressive regimes. Those who have the greatest reason to be sad that the Social Democrats and the other left-wing parties have lost the majority in the Committee on Foreign Affairs are the dictators' henchmen.

Madam Speaker! I intended to provide examples of some positive aspects regarding today's committee report that are particularly important for us Sweden Democrats and where we have also had an influence.

The Committee on Foreign Affairs now finds that there are strong reasons to work towards the EU introducing stricter sanctions against Russia.

The Committee on Foreign Affairs also notes that there are very strong reasons to work towards the EU introducing tougher sanctions against Belarus.

The committee views positively that sanctions are used as a tool against those who are responsible for the abuses against vulnerable minorities and dissidents in China.

The Committee welcomes a review of the events policy and an examination of the conditions for establishing a common line with the USA within the EU and considering whether the EU should introduce sanctions against Cuba.

The committee finally breaks with the deeply concerning anti-Israel stance that has characterized Swedish foreign policy for far too long.

Every point, as said, is in line with what the Sweden Democrats have desired and intend to continue to work for. What we are perhaps most proud of today, however, is our contribution to ensuring that a united Committee on Foreign Affairs stands behind a terror listing of the ruthless and indescribably brutal Wagner Group, an issue that we have also championed and will continue to champion internationally. We do this in solidarity with all the victims in countries such as Ukraine, Mali, Syria, Sudan, Libya, and the Central African Republic.

Madam Speaker! I now intended to return to the Swedish Cuba policy, which can now hopefully receive a substantial upgrade. I remember it as if it were yesterday when I stood here in 2019 and, in despair, gave a speech on why it was wrong to ratify the EU-Cuba agreement, which was already deeply criticized even then.

Even before the ratification, there were no requirements for change, and human rights defenders, journalists, or dissidents that one claimed to protect were excluded. Furthermore, the agreement meant, and still means, that the Cuban communist regime is legitimized and thus also its recurring oppression.

Today we can be glad that Lithuania, exemplary as it is, still has not ratified the agreement. It should come as no surprise that the oppression in the dictatorship has continued and in some cases even increased, and it should therefore not be particularly difficult to scrap this agreement once and for all. The committee majority's stance to review this as well as to seek consensus with the USA can thus be seen as a big step in the right direction.

Madam Speaker! There are, of course, some questions in this report where we do not entirely agree with the majority and some where we choose to reserve ourselves, even though we have a hope of being able to meet with the government on these questions in the future.

First and foremost, it is about the direction of development policy. The goal of aid policy should be to create conditions for people in poverty and oppression to improve their living conditions and their environment based on their basic needs.

It is with confidence that we can state that the government is taking large steps to achieve a results-based aid policy, where one chooses to invest in quality over quantity and directs efforts toward a few projects that can succeed rather than scattering tax money over a multitude of projects with weak or non-existent results.

It is simply fundamental that all aid is effective.

Sweden is, however, only one aid country among several in the EU, which is why it is of the utmost importance to achieve a systematic synchronization and division of roles between Sweden, the EU, and other member states. In this way, the European donors, based on their respective expertise, can more clearly distribute the cooperation with the recipient countries among themselves in order to better match the recipient countries' needs.

Madam Speaker! Last but certainly not least, we have the question of Iran. It is in the interest of the entire free world to agree as much as possible on powerful measures against the Islamist oppressive regime in Iran. I believe that most people today also know that the Sweden Democrats are probably the party that stands for exactly this more than any other.

We therefore consider that the government should work towards the EU and USA introducing common sanctions against Iran, Iranian authorities and their relatives. If it is not possible to establish common sanctions, the government should establish sharp national sanctions that give Sweden the role of a leading country and an example for other countries in the support for the Iranian people in its struggle against the Iranian regime's systematic oppression.

Furthermore, we firmly maintain that sanctions aimed at individuals are not enough. We see, in fact, how the Iranian regime has also, in various ways, dug its claws into our society.

Al-Mustafa International University is funded and controlled by the Iranian rogue regime. The university trains shia priests, researchers, missionaries, and others who are then sent abroad to spread and build support for the Iranian regime's ideology and promote the regime's foreign policy through, among other things, espionage and influence operations. It is a deeply harmful activity that must be stopped.

Sanctions should be imposed against Al-Mustafa International University in its entirety, which includes the university's branches and collaborations in Sweden. This also includes the Imam Ali Mosque in Järfälla - that which is called the Iranian regime's de facto embassy for the entire Nordic region.

Madam Speaker! I move for approval of reservation 20 on Iran.

I also want to express my appreciation for the Center Party, which in this report highlights an important issue, namely Azerbaijan and the need to direct sanctions against those responsible for the aggression against Armenia. It is undeniably an issue that I believe is worth following, and I am happy to continue working on it. Azerbaijan's horrific crimes are unforgivable, and the least we in the free, democratic world can do is stand by Armenia's side and do our utmost to ensure that those responsible for these atrocities are punished.

In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I would like to thank all colleagues and the committee secretariat for the past parliamentary year. I would especially like to thank all the wonderful members in the Tidö parties for a very good cooperation. Even though we will see each other in different ways during the time until the next parliamentary session opens, I would like to wish the entire committee and the secretariat a pleasant summer.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Madam Speaker and Member Markus Wiechel! It is clear that the Sweden Democrats advocate for a very nationalist foreign policy. That one simultaneously thanks, time and again, for the good cooperation with the government parties shows that the Sweden Democrats now have a clear influence over Swedish politics, not only when it comes to what is stated in the Tidö Agreement but also generally when it comes to Swedish foreign policy. Not least, one holds the role of chairperson of the Committee on Foreign Affairs in the Riksdag.

Markus Wiechel tries to paint a picture of that he is against dictatorships and the dictators' henchmen - I believe he even used that expression - and that others in some way would be for these dictatorships. I think that Markus Wiechel misses a very clear difference: There is agreement when it comes to, for example, Russia and Belarus, and there is agreement in the view on China - but there is no agreement on other countries.

This is due to the fact that Markus Wiechel's policy does not involve a blow against dictatorships and authoritarian regimes, but is rather a way to pressure countries in a direction that actually causes them to land in the arms of China and Russia. When it comes to country by country, one pursues a policy that forces them in that direction.

From the Sverigedemokraterna side, they are indeed cutting significantly in aid. They have pressured the government parties to cut aid, and as a consequence of this, Sweden will have reduced influence in international bodies such as the UN. This means that countries like Russia, China, and other dictatorships will take the place that Sweden previously held in these contexts.

The policy that one is proud of and drives forcefully - as is written into the committee's position - thus has the opposite consequence instead: One forces poor countries to accept investments from Russia and China. One increases their dependence and reduces their opportunities to succeed on the path of democracy. That, Madam Speaker, worries me.

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

Markus Wiechel (SD)

Madam Speaker! I just want to clarify that I have not asserted that any party in Sweden's Riksdag would in any way stand behind dictatorships. However, I can state that when it comes to the struggle between democratic societies and dictatorships, we usually stand on the side where democracy exists. In the exchange with the Social Democrats' representative, I raised examples of a number of different countries where we have seen that is the case. I am aware that Håkan Svenneling has also seen this.

Not least when it comes to Cuba, the member and I stand on different sides of the issue. There, I have constantly – even in 2019, when the debate on the EU-Cuba agreement took place in the Swedish Riksdag – warned against what all Cuban exiles, human rights organizations, and so on warned against, namely that those who were to be protected in Cuba, i.e., the Cuban people in the form of democracy activists, journalists, and human rights defenders, were excluded from the agreement. It is not okay. Against that background, it was futile to sign an agreement, as it hardly benefited those who needed our support.

When it comes to aid, as the member highlighted, we have had a clear direction that we should have effective aid that truly helps. We are not to scatter a lot of money to the right and left without having any control over them or spend them on projects that actually do not result in anything positive. Personally, I think international aid is very important, not least for helping the vulnerable and not least for promoting trade cooperation in various ways and so on. But then one must also have control over where the money goes, and I mean that Sweden has not had that.

When it comes to trade, it is also a positive part of the government's aid policy that one combines trade policy and aid policy. I mean that it is significantly better than what the previous government introduced.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Madam Speaker! The Sweden Democrats are pushing for Sweden to cut a quarter of its aid. This would mean a quarter reduction in influence in international bodies such as the UN. Now, a quarter was not pushed through, but a reduction of approximately 18 percentage points was pushed through. This essentially means an increased space for authoritarian states – such as Russia and China, but also others – to instead advance their policies.

When it comes to Cuba, one wants to pursue a policy that involves an alignment with the failed American sanctions policy that we have seen pursued for over 60 years and which only entails a collective punishment of the Cuban people, instead of seeing that political dialogue at least allows one to put pressure on the Cuban regime. I am not a supporter of that policy, and I think it is important to fight for democracy every day. But I am convinced that the line that Sverigedemokraterna want Sweden to pursue will not work.

We also see that the Sweden Democrats' positions regarding other countries are not actually positions for democracy. Markus Wiechel mentions Israel and holds Israel in high regard, but the problem with the right-wing extremist government that Israel currently has is that it restricts the principles of the rule of law. It has caused hundreds of thousands of Israelis to take to the streets in protest for precisely democracy – not for politically appointed judges, as has been seen in other countries with a clearly authoritarian and nationalist development.

In conclusion, I have time to throw in one more country into the mix of different countries we have in this Foreign Affairs Committee debate, and that is Somaliland. The Sweden Democrats have many times highlighted their support for Somaliland. There we can see that the country's government - which has a certain democratic basis - has since a number of months ago chosen to initiate a military conflict. The Sweden Democrats claim to stand up for democracy and human rights, but here they actually back some who instead actively conduct military warfare to increase their own territorial space and their power.

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

Markus Wiechel (SD)

Madam Speaker! Once again: What has the so-called dialogue that one says has been conducted with Cuba led to? You did not, therefore, include the democracy activists and the oppositionists who you should have. You completely ignored the human rights defenders and ignored the warnings that came. It has not led to anything, and against that background, it is quite obvious that this is the wrong policy. I actually see no reason to prioritize repressive states that have not the slightest interest in improving the situation for their people, which the Cuban regime has clearly shown that it does not care about.

When it comes to Somaliland, it is a very complex situation. In fact, this is an issue we have pushed for very many years; I believe it is in nine or possibly ten years that we have tried to highlight Somaliland as a practical example from a democratic perspective on the Horn of Africa. The country beats all countries in the region by a landslide in terms of democracy index. Then it is the case that even democracies make mistakes, and in this case, it is a terrible situation we see in the area, which the member referred to. But it actually has nothing to do with the democracy discussion.

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Madam Speaker! I understood from Markus Wiechel's exchange with Linnéa Wickman that he is seeking some kind of ideological conflict with the Social Democrats, and that is something we will not back down from.

What the Sweden Democrats are engaged in right now is historical falsification and disinformation, and we know where Markus Wiechel has learned it. He has learned it straight from Trump. That is how the right in the USA acts: with historical falsification and disinformation.

Everyone who has read their history knows that it was social democracy - together with the liberals, I should say - that broke the ground for democracy in Sweden 100 years ago. Everyone knows that it was social democracy that took the fight against Nazism in the 30s and that led Sweden through World War II. That is where I have my roots, Markus Wiechel - with Hjalmar Branting, Per Albin Hansson, Tage Erlander and Olof Palme.

Then the question is: Where does Markus Wiechel have his roots? We know that. The Sweden Democrats were formed by Gustaf Ekström, who was one of those who had worked for Hitler and the Waffen-SS during World War II. He fled with his tail between his legs back home to Sweden, and a few decades later he was involved in forming the Sweden Democrats together with skinheads and the white power movement of that time.

I was there myself and saw your meetings in Lund in the 90s, where you stood and hailed. I know exactly where your roots are.

I am proud of my party and of its roots and history. Is Markus Wiechel proud of his party and its history?

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

Markus Wiechel (SD)

Madam Speaker! It is an obviously embarrassed former minister who stands in the speaker's chair, and I understand that. He says he is proud of the Social Democrats' history, but if one actually looks at much of what has happened historically when the Social Democrats have been in power, one sees that it is not so very beautiful. I can, for example, bring up how the Social Democrats acted during the war years and where Hitler got his ideas about stamping "J" in Jews' passports and so on, not to mention the forced sterilizations.

There are many things in the Social Democrats' history that one should not be proud of. However, I am not standing here to talk about history, I am standing here to talk about the present. I can state that the Sweden Democrats and the Social Democrats stand on different sides on a number of different issues. We can clearly see that the Social Democrats have stood closer to the dictatorships, while the Sweden Democrats stand closer to the democracies.

Furthermore, given that Morgan Johansson spoke about roots, I can say that my political roots come from the Democratic Party in the USA. I began my career in the Democrats, against the Republicans. So no – I have not learned anything from Trump, and I have never liked the Republicans as a party. I stand very firmly in the values that I have and have always had, which means that I always stand for democracy and human rights.

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Madam Speaker! It does not matter where Markus Wiechel began his political career, for we all know where it has ended. It is with the Sweden Democrats he stands now, regardless of whether he started working for the Democratic Party. He has learned from Trump, for this is exactly how Trump and the Republicans do it systematically. It is about historical falsification and disinformation.

Now the wandering myths about the Second World War and the coalition government's actions then are coming up again. I do not intend to enter into that discussion, but I know that all historians who have examined the claims that the Sverigedemokraterna have made condemn them completely. This is pure and utter historical forgery.

Let us talk about the present! What are you in the Sweden Democrats doing right now? You are pushing the government, among other things, when it comes to undermining academic freedom; we have recently received examples of that. You are pushing the government when it comes to going after individual civil servants and heads of agencies. In doing so, you are undermining an administrative tradition that we have always had, which is about separating politics and administration.

Internationally, you are very keen on backing authoritarian governments, and sometimes governments that are heading in that direction. Poland and Hungary are two countries that the Sweden Democrats constantly hold up as some kind of example in the European discussion, but we know that it has gone completely wrong in these countries when it comes to the democratic direction.

Markus Wiechels contribution here and his attempt to move forward in this exchange was an example of that the Sweden Democrats are not ashamed in the slightest to make completely false and untruthful claims. We may have to live with this, but it must not go unchallenged.

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

Markus Wiechel (SD)

Madam Speaker! I can state that Morgan Johansson has not provided a single example of any false statement. He simply asserts a lot of things and claims that things are false, but they are not. Since there was talk of historical falsification or trumpeting, I would like to say that Morgan Johansson is a clear example of someone who constantly engages in these types of activities.

I really do not want to go back to what happened during the election campaign, but it was not a pleasant election campaign in the autumn. I think it was quite dirty. The Social Democrats even called a press conference to warn against the Sweden Democrats as a threat to democracy. They warned that one of Sweden's largest political parties - a democratic party - would be a threat to democracy. That is what I would call alarming.

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

ANDRE VICE TALMANNEN

I would like to take the opportunity to remind the committee that the subject of the debate is the Committee on Foreign Affairs' report regarding the activities in the European Union during 2022.

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

Kerstin Lundgren (C)

Madam Speaker! In this type of debate, I usually ask the Sverigedemokraternas representative – not always Markus Wiechel – about the view on the EU. However, we will have reason to discuss this question quite often during the coming year, so I do not intend to go into the view on the EU and the possibilities to strengthen the capacity of the EU right now. Instead, I intend to bring up other issues.

It is naturally about the possibilities for the EU to blacklist the Wagner Group and the IRGC, which Markus Wiechel touched upon. The majority of the committee has chosen to say that there is likely a need to upgrade the EU's basis for blacklisting of this type of actors with state connections and that it is an issue that the committee will follow.

Madam Speaker! I have read some of the government's underlying documents. I also had, with the help of the Riksdag's own investigation service, an investigation conducted on terror classification according to the UN and the EU. It is quite obvious that the autonomous sanctions regime that the EU builds on is based on the fact that there are decisions in some legal body in some member state or in a third country - however not in the USA, as that is not considered sufficient.

There must therefore be an authority in a member state that has acted. This means that the EU's possibilities are very small. A terror listing of the Wagner Group is required, but that first requires an upgrade of the legal basis. Why are the Sweden Democrats not prepared to support the reservation with this purpose that exists in this part?

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

Markus Wiechel (SD)

Madam Speaker! I believe that Kerstin Lundgren knows that I share her view on this issue and that I also think it is necessary to ensure that a new legal basis is obtained or in some way review the current approach in this matter. I also have a written question on this very subject which has been submitted to the government previously.

The reason we do not support the reservation is that I believe it opens the doors wide. When I read the committee majority's text, I perceive it as that one actually opens up to review current approaches. I think that is enough. Then we will see if it leads to something such – if not, I am absolutely prepared to proceed further in this matter.

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

Kerstin Lundgren (C)

Madam Speaker! It is obvious that the Sverigedemokraterna's likely view in the committee is not the same as Markus Wiechel's own opinion. There is a clear difference when it comes to how he sees what is required in relation to what the committee says and what he will vote for tomorrow. There is an opportunity to be clear and issue a motion that the government shall work to ensure that the legal basis is upgraded - otherwise, we lose time, Madam Speaker.

I have another question that would be interesting to get an answer to, not least given what was just said about Cuba in the speaker's chair. Member Stefan Olsson did not really know what measures should be taken regarding Cuba and what should be done to achieve results. But one thing that Sweden's Riksdag has power over is the ratification. We heard that Markus Wiechel almost cried because he thought it was so bad when the Riksdag was to approve the agreement. But here is now a proposal to revoke Sweden's ratification of the agreement. Why do the Sverigedemokrater choose to speak about Cuba but not vote to revoke the ratification?

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

Markus Wiechel (SD)

Madam Speaker! Kerstin Lundgren is aware of what the committee majority has decided, and there we have received parts that we are satisfied with, such as that the agreement shall be reviewed and, as I interpret it, shall be gradually abandoned. For our part, it is more important that we achieve a real change than to merely reserve ourselves in an individual matter. That is my short answer to the question.

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

Joar Forssell (L)

Madam Speaker! Before the definitive outbreak of the Second World War, Hitler had begun to take territories from others, and there were those in the West who were critical of intervening and said: "We must wait. We must bide our time. We must not be too aggressive. We must not provoke Adolf Hitler." There were those who, when the war was a fact, continued to say: "Are we not being too aggressive? Can we not negotiate peace with Hitler? If we send weapons, we risk prolonging the war. Hitler has not attacked us, so why should we involve ourselves in this?"

Madam Speaker! Such voices have also been heard in conflicts in our time. It is, however, obvious that those who were right then were those who said: "No, we must stop this immediately. If we give a finger, Hitler takes the whole hand, the whole arm, and finally the whole torso." It is obvious that those who then said that they would send weapons and soldiers, intervene and do everything they could were right.

Madam Speaker! That is exactly the situation here and now. We were all wrong, we countries that did not intervene properly when Russia invaded Crimea. We were all wrong, we countries that did not react more strongly when China took a harder grip on Hong Kong. We have been wrong when we have not acted more strongly against China's persecution of and genocide against Uyghurs in Xinjiang.

Madam Speaker! It is obvious that if we do not strengthen the ties to the countries that are ideologically close to us and that believe in freedom and democracy and act together with them, we risk looking back on this time with the same shame that I hope many look back on the time before and during World War II. Back then, the Axis powers consisted of countries such as Italy, Japan, and Germany. Now they are some of our absolute closest allies. If one is clear, takes decisive action and acts, it is possible to change the course of history.

Madam Speaker! Now in the 2000s, the axis powers are approaching each other: China, Russia, Belarus, Iran, Cuba, Eritrea and the Palestinian leadership. There are many examples of this. China produces parts for drones that are sent to Iran, which manufactures the drones and gives them to Russia, which uses them to kill those who fight for freedom in Ukraine. It is about Belarus's contribution to the war. It is about Palestine, which the other day entered into an agreement with China and declared that it is not critical of China's genocide of Uyghurs in Xinjiang. It is about Cuba, whose soldiers are already on site on the Russian side in Ukraine and fight against us, our freedom and our democracy through their participation. It is about Eritrea, which was one of five countries last year that in the UN voted against condemning Russia's war of aggression and full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

When the superpowers of the 2000s forge close ties and become stronger together, we who believe in democracy and a future in freedom where people get to decide for themselves and where countries' borders are respected must do the same. We must lean on each other. This applies to the USA, EU, Japan, South Korea, Australia, and Canada. We are and shall be united against Vladolf Putler, as Putin is called on the internet. He and the others I listed constitute our common enemies.

That is why it is important that Sweden is critical and clear when leaders break the common line, for example when Macron broke the EU's line regarding China and Taiwan. That is also why it is important to do things together, even though there are those in the Committee on Foreign Affairs who are critical of acting collectively. I believe that we need to have tougher sanctions against Russia. It is very strange that it still occurs that the West conducts business there, which contributes to Putin's war chest. It is about terror-labeling the Wagner Group and continuing to ramp up the support to Ukraine.

Even though Ukraine is closest to us geographically, it is also about standing up for other parts of the world with our allies. It is about standing on the side of the USA and Taiwan in the view of China. It is about expressing support and guarantees so that China does not think that because we did nothing about Crimea, Hong Kong, and Xinjiang, we will also not do anything about Taiwan. It is therefore about us allies being very clear when it comes to Taiwan.

When it comes to the Cuba Agreement, we must be clear towards Cuba. We need to have a common line with the USA and other friends. The Liberals were against the Cuba Agreement from the beginning and continue to be, and we think it should be scrapped. It is strange that support from us ends up in the hands of the dictatorship.

It is about standing up behind the Middle East's only democracy, Israel, and demanding a democratic development in Palestine. Now, the Palestinian leadership is approaching China because they share the non-democratic; this despite the fact that China is committing genocide against Muslims. It is not about religion, but about being opposed to freedom and democracy.

It is about taking tougher measures against Iran. We obviously stand behind a terror designation of the IRGC; it should be a matter of course.

Madam Speaker! These are difficult times, and in such times one must stick together with one's friends. Therefore, I hope that we continue to draw closer to those who already stand close to us and continue to make the politics against our enemies tougher so that we do not commit the same mistakes in the future as we have committed historically.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Madam Speaker! Israel has recently received the most far-right government in Israel's history. The corruption-suspected Benjamin Netanyahu has once again taken power, this time with more extreme parties than ever before. In order for him to be able to form his government, extreme parties in the settler right have gained power over important areas such as interior, defense, housing, and land issues. The settler right shall now be able to expand the settlements on occupied land in the West Bank and further increase the harassment against Palestinians. Israel's new security minister Itamar Ben-Gvir has urged Israel to annex the entire West Bank, and housing minister Yitzhak Goldknopf argues that the solution to Israel's housing shortage lies in the West Bank. Finance minister Bezalel Smotrich, leader of the ultranationalist Religious Zionism, is said to have planned a terrorist attack in Tel Aviv in 2005, according to the Israeli security police.

This time, the Israeli people are not silent. Thousands of people have gathered to protest against the government's proposals to politicize the judiciary, restrict LGBTQ+ rights, discriminate against the Palestinian group in Israel, and continue the oppression of Palestinians in occupied territories.

One might spontaneously think that it would be a liberal stance to support the demonstrators who want to uphold democracy and the principles of the rule of law in Israel. Instead, we see in the committee's texts and partly in Joar Forssell's speech the tired argumentation that Israel is the Middle East's only democracy, without a trace of criticism against Netanyahu and his government's policy.

The Liberals are now making the same U-turn in their Israel policy that has previously been made in Sweden through support and cooperation with far-right forces without an ounce of liberal ideals. I wonder quietly what old liberals like Barbro Westerholm would have said about this. My question to Joar Forssell is quite simply: Why such a focus on criticizing Palestine when nothing is said about the negative developments in Israel in the speech?

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

Joar Forssell (L)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the question from Håkan Svenneling. I have no problem criticizing Israel, and Håkan Svenneling knows that well. I was myself down in Israel and participated in one of the now many demonstrations against this policy, so I understand very well what the question is about.

We are actually pushing for freer courts even in Sweden. We think there should be free courts in Sweden, Israel, and the USA for that matter, and preferably in Russia. It is a bit further away to get that policy through there, but we have no problem criticizing Israel's government for this.

Madam Speaker! I completely agree that there is a lot of politics from the sitting government in Israel that one should criticize, and that is what we do as well. As mentioned, I have been there myself and participated in the demonstrations.

At the same time, it is a fact that we have a situation in the world where the modern great powers are aligning and binding themselves together, coming closer to each other and helping each other. When Palestine, as a Muslim country, now supports the policy that China pursues against the Uyghurs in Xinjiang, they give legitimacy to this. I think one should be very critical of that. It would be a great strength internationally if Muslim countries around the world, together with the West, joined in criticizing China.

We have not heard Håkan Svenneling's speech yet, but I expect that there will be criticism of Palestine and the Palestinian leadership in the speech, because it is needed. We who are democrats need to be united.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Madam Speaker! Joar Forssell will receive some criticism regarding Palestine and its government in just a moment, but I will start with Israel.

I think it is very good that Joar Forssell is now expressing criticism of Israel's current government. I am very concerned about where Israel will take the occupation that they have conducted against Palestine for over 75 years, if one counts from the very first foundation. The problem is that in what is seen in the committee's position and in other contexts, the government is far too unclear in relation to the extreme developments right now in Israel. They do not support those who fight for democracy but instead approach and legitimize the settler right's policy.

Israel has been unclear about its support for Ukraine. They have chosen a very clear middle position between Ukraine and Russia, where they have strong interests in maintaining ties with Russia. Joar Forssell should push Israel if he now has such good relations with them.

When it comes to Palestine and China, I absolutely think Joar Forssell is right. I have personally visited the Palestinian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which is one of the few beautiful buildings in Ramallah, which is because it is paid for by China. It is an example of how dependent a government like the Palestinian becomes after 75 years of occupation. Then you become dependent on states like China and Russia and others because you have too few friends. Therefore, Sweden must continue to finance, for example, UNRWA, which is the UN's refugee agency for Palestinian refugees - such things as Joar Forssell and his government and other parties that he cooperates with criticize.

What worries me about the very black-and-white worldview in foreign policy is that when you decide which countries we should support and ally ourselves with and which we should be against, you drive countries like Palestine and Cuba straight into the arms of China and Russia. I am very concerned about such a development.

(Applause)

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

Joar Forssell (L)

Madam Speaker! It is very strange when Member Svenneling argues in the way he does and yet does not see what the Left Party's foreign policy does to the relationship with Israel and with Israel.

Vänsterpartiet is a party that, just like Sweden, stands up for us having a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict, for example. But Vänsterpartiet is also a party that does not think Israel should be allowed to get weapons to defend itself with. That just doesn't add up. If you don't have weapons to defend your people and your country with when you have enemies around you – terror sects and entire countries – who want to wipe you out, then it is not possible to have a two-state solution, because there will no longer be two countries left; Israel will no longer exist. If you have the policy that you should not be able to send weapons to Israel, the effect will be that they become dependent on others instead of having a good relationship with, for example, Sweden.

I believe it is good to develop relations with Israel in order to be able to support the part that wants to see an even more democratic and liberal development than what we already have in that country.

I also believe, Madam Speaker, that it is important to emphasize that a two-state solution cannot be achieved if there are not two democratic parties. Sweden has recognized Palestine as a state, which is actually a bit strange, because one has not been able to say which territory, which people, or which government is intended. The main problem is that there is not even a functioning state in Palestine. I asked the government about this, and they could not answer. I also asked the Riksdag's investigation service, which also could not answer. It becomes strange. Somewhere one must start by putting pressure on Palestine so that they develop into a democratic state.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the EU and the activities that Sweden conducted in the EU during the past year. We are doing this at an important time. Right now, Sweden holds the rotating presidency in the EU. The presidency is not as heavy and important as it has been previously, but the government has, during the last half-year, led thousands of meetings within the EU.

But at the same time, one can observe that the chairmanship in general has been less successful. What most Swedes will remember from the chairmanship, if they remember it at all, is probably a yellow down jacket in a zero-degree Kiruna. Perhaps it is a symbol for a government that does not keep pace with the times.

Another question that is often asked in the debate is whether the Sweden Democrats have influence over Swedish foreign policy, and also within the EU. After the first year of the Tidö Agreement, the simple answer is yes. Even though foreign policy lies outside the Tidö Agreement, it is obvious that the government has adapted to the Sweden Democrats on several points, which I will return to.

At the EU level, however, there is clear friction. The government base's different attitudes towards the EU have clearly come through during the past half-year.

We in Vänsterpartiet have, as we usually do, written a long follow-up motion regarding what we believe about the EU and what Sweden should do. I will therefore now present parts of our EU policy.

Changes are needed at the systemic level. Europe is in a political crisis with declining trust in governments, institutions, and media.

Which decisions are made should be determined by how people vote in elections, not by EU bureaucrats and lobbyists from large corporations. The EU must be democratized by giving more power to the national parliaments, such as the Riksdag, and less power to the EU's bureaucrats and commissioners. The government should therefore work to ensure that lobbying in the EU is restricted in favor of increased influence for the national parliaments.

At the same time as the lobbyists' presence is restricted, transparency in the EU's institutions must increase. The role of the elected representatives in democracy is central, and it is important that citizens can trust their elected representatives. Qatargate and the scandal surrounding MEP Eva Kaili show that the EU institutions have not addressed the problems with corruption. It must be cleared up, and increased publicity is required.

We are now entering a period where EU enlargement will once again be in focus. During 2022, Georgia, Moldova and, above all, Ukraine applied for EU membership. At the same time, there are many countries in the Western Balkans that are in the process.

Vänsterpartiet has an open and positive attitude towards this. If countries so wish, they shall be granted membership in the EU. European cooperation must be broad and inclusive.

Several of the countries that have applied for membership in the EU, however, have a history of extensive discrimination and persecution of, among others, hbtqi persons. Experiences from the EU's previous expansions show that it is not enough for the applicant countries to fulfill the formal requirements for membership. They also need to demonstrate a genuine commitment to the work against discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, and sex characteristics.

This must be clarified in the EU's requirements for applicant countries. The government should therefore work to tighten the Copenhagen criteria so that it explicitly appears that a country that discriminates against hbtqi persons and violates their rights cannot become a member of the EU.

A country that has been particularly in focus for the EU's expansion is Turkey. It is the country that has been furthest into the EU process without becoming a member.

Unlike Foreign Minister Billström, I see that it is obvious that Turkey today does not meet the requirements for democracy and human rights. The situation in Turkey is now so serious that the government should act so that the EU shall for the time being freeze the membership negotiations with Turkey. A freezing of the membership negotiations must mean that the political and economic benefits provided to Turkey through the EU's pre-accession program are immediately withdrawn.

The EU and the Swedish government must become clearer in their communication with Turkey. We must take measures so that the Turkish authorities cease the violence and repression against the opposition and release all those who are imprisoned on political grounds, which now number in the thousands. Day by day, we see how the situation is deteriorating. As an example, the Istanbul Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence can be mentioned, which it is alarming that Turkey has now left.

The creeping [pressure] for Turkey that we have seen during the past year must stop. The rest of the world must not lie flat for Erdogan but instead actively support all those who are fighting for democracy for real in Turkey.

Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine is a violation of international law and a humanitarian catastrophe. The support from the EU to Ukraine needs to be comprehensive and long-term. However, the large loans that are now being granted to Ukraine risk creating an unmanageable debt in the future.

As part of the work to support Ukraine, the government should work for the EU to appoint a special representative for Ukraine with the mandate to take an active role in consolidating efforts for peace, stability, and the principles of the rule of law. The EU needs to prepare now for the day when peace negotiations gain serious momentum.

Russia's war means that the security policy situation in Europe has changed and worsened, which requires international cooperation. I do not, however, consider the EU's common foreign and security policy to be an answer to this need. The EU's foreign policy is inconsistent and puts economic and political relations ahead of respect for human rights and international law. This is seen, for example, in how different countries handle different occupying powers.

The requirement for consensus also leads to the EU often being prevented from taking progressive positions in important issues and often acting slowly and weakly. We saw that when Cyprus blocked sanctions against Belarus, and we see it every time Hungary carries out Russia's errands by blocking important EU measures.

Introducing majority decisions is not the solution to this. It would only increase the risk of foreign policy being hijacked by reactionary and racist forces in Europe. The solution instead is to make foreign policy a strictly national competence and to stop the militarization of the EU. The priority should be to give the EU and Europe a role as trust-builders and peace-builders in the world.

During the full-scale attempt to invade Ukraine, Russia has committed extensive destruction of nature and biodiversity, so-called ecocide crimes. This has occurred continuously but especially through the destruction of the Nova Kakhovka Dam on June 6. As a consequence of Russia's actions, it will take a long time until nature and biodiversity recover, if it ever happens. Therefore, ecocide must be added as a crime in the Rome Statute and Russia must be prosecuted for ecocide crimes.

In this report, the Riksdag proposes a notification to the Government to list the Wagner Group under the EU's sanctions regime against terrorism.

The Wagner Group is a company of mercenaries that conducts Russian state-supported military activities in order to make it appear as if Russia were not responsible. The Wagner Group has committed extensive violations of international law and crimes against humanity in a number of African countries, where the group has become a means for authoritarian regimes to obtain military support and for Russia to strengthen its sphere of influence. In Ukraine, the Wagner Group is a crucial part of Russia's military operations.

The sanctions against the Wagner Group must therefore become more extensive than they are today. Therefore, a decision at the EU level is an important stance against the Wagner Group and against Russia.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine and the Russian energy warfare have affected the entire European energy market and contributed to skyrocketing electricity prices for consumers and industry. It has affected countries on the continent that have mismanaged their energy transition and still have a large dependence on fossil energy. But because Sweden is the EU's largest net exporter of energy, the high continental prices are affecting Swedish energy prices, which have therefore been high, especially during the winter.

Therefore, Swedish electricity prices should be introduced and electricity exports separated from the electricity areas, and therefore it is urgent to reform the entire EU electricity market.

Madam Speaker! This year marks 75 years since the displacement of Palestinians began. The so-called Nakba has affected generations of Palestinians. Nakba was rooted in imperialist politics decided over the heads of the Palestinian people.

Even today, the world has not been able to create peace and reconciliation in the area, even though that was likely the initial ambition. The main reason for this is the Israeli occupation and Israeli politicians who draw their lifeblood from hatred towards another people.

The main protagonist in this is Benjamin Netanyahu, a politician who has survived more political crises than anyone else in over 30 years and today leads the most far-right government that Israel has ever had – a government that hates not only the Palestinian people but also human rights and the principles of the rule of law.

The problem is that the Swedish right, in its eagerness to be right-wing, is now following Netanyahu's lead. Instead of seeing reality and criticizing his and his government's policy and the occupation and working to ensure that Sweden becomes a positive force in the region, the right dreams of, like Trump, moving Israel's capital to Jerusalem without peace negotiations. They no longer want to call the hermetic encapsulation of Gaza an occupation and no longer see the damage Israeli settlements in the West Bank do to counter a long-term sustainable peace.

A lasting peace between Israel and Palestine presupposes that Israel ends the illegal occupation of Palestinian territories and begins to respect the basic human rights of Palestinians. The EU needs to demonstrate in action that it is serious about the criticism of the occupation and the settlement policy, as well as the calls to Israel to refrain from all actions that undermine the two-state solution.

The EU should suspend the current association agreement with Israel and put pressure on Israel to engage in the peace process and cease the apartheid-like treatment of Palestinians that occurs through forced displacements, confiscation of land, and extrajudicial executions. This should be an incentive for the EU to impose sanctions on Israel, sanctions that should include an arms embargo. It would be a policy for international law and, in the long run, for peace.

Another occupation that violates international law is Morocco's occupation of Western Sahara. Morocco has succeeded in delaying the process for the referendum on Western Sahara's independence that the parties agreed to carry out over 30 years ago. The situation in the occupied Western Sahara is very difficult, and the Western Saharawis are subjected daily to threats, violence, and deprivation of liberty by the occupying power, which has total control over the area and prevents foreign journalists, observers, and civil society organizations from operating there. The international community now needs to act with force to protect the Western Saharawi people. The Swedish government should therefore work to ensure that the EU demands that the promised referendum on Western Sahara's independence is carried out.

In today's report, the government parties also shift their view on Cuba, but perhaps not as much in the view they held when they themselves were members of some youth organization. But that this now turns out to be the views of the parties in Sweden's government base is noteworthy.

Democracy does not prevail in Cuba. Human freedoms and rights are severely restricted. But at the same time, the Cuban people have been subjected to collective punishment in the form of extensive sanctions from their American neighbor USA for over 60 years. It is this dehumanized policy designed in Miami that the Swedish right wants to join. Therefore, it now wants to end the EU's commitment to promoting democracy and human rights in Cuba through the current political dialogue and instead send Cuba back into the arms of Russia and China. It is a counterproductive policy that has shown no progress for over 60 years. Sweden should continue to stand behind the EU's common position that the USA's embargo against Cuba must cease.

This debate on activities in the EU, and particularly regarding the common foreign and security policy, of which there are clear supporters in here, shows today's shortcomings in themselves, with the so-called High Representative Josep Borrell, a tired right-wing socialist from Spain. In his work over four years, the shortcomings in the attempts to have a common foreign policy have been shown time and again. Instead of coordinating more, the EU's member states should return to an order with national foreign policy but with coordination in matters where EU unity exists. This would strengthen the EU's voice globally rather than the EU appearing paralyzed and without capacity to act.

Madam Speaker! Vänsterpartiet has 13 reservations in this report. But for the sake of time, I move for approval of only reservation 8.

(Applause)

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

Kerstin Lundgren (C)

Madam Speaker! This debate is not about Sweden's presidency in 2023. We will have reason to return to that. But I am pleased and welcome that the EU Minister is here and participating in the debate.

This debate is about the EU during 2022. It was a year colored by Russia's brutal, unprovoked, and illegal war against Ukraine, a war where Ukraine defends the blue and yellow colors for itself and for us in the EU and our common values. Ukraine and the EU have stood firm and met the attack that changed Europe's security policy architecture and our security for the foreseeable future.

Putin, and many with him, calculated that neither the EU nor Ukraine would stand up against the aggressor Russia. Putin had invested heavily in several EU countries. But Putin failed, and Ukraine and the EU managed to hold together. The EU introduced rapid and powerful sanctions against the attacker, the aggressor. The EU managed to unite in support of Ukraine, both militarily, economically and humanitarily, as well as for Ukrainians fleeing to the EU.

The experiences of the war and its outcome will affect the EU and future generations in Europe. Ukraine must win peace, and Russia must demonstrate in action that they are giving up their imperial dreams and their will to subjugate and colonize other states. The EU must manage to hold together, show the way forward for Ukraine, Moldova, and Georgia, and in that way renew our mission – the EU as a peace project. The EU was formed on the ruins and experiences of World War II, and this mission we can now update for the coming years as a result of Russia's war against Ukraine.

The EU is a dream for many people - a dream of freedom, democracy, human rights and independent judiciaries. It is a dream of respect and opportunities - our union united in diversity. There are threats to our values globally - undoubtedly from Russia, which attacks and wants to undermine them by all means. But there are also those who attack our values from within, even states. We must manage to meet these threats and, together with like-minded people, be the example for the rest of the world that democracy, human rights, independent judiciaries, equality, market economy, free trade and climate-smart growth are success factors.

Centerpartiet has proposals here that we choose not to follow up on, which some may find a bit strange. But in the security policy situation that we and the EU find ourselves in, we shall take advantage of the opportunities in the current treaty to strengthen our ability together but not open up for renegotiation of the treaty. At this point, it would open a new playing field for all who want to split the EU, not least Russia. Here I refer to our specific statement in the report.

Madam Speaker! Sweden was one of the initiators of the Eastern Partnership. It now arrives in a completely new situation with three countries that are either candidate countries or have close candidate status to the EU. The Center Party welcomes Ukraine, Moldova, and Georgia just like other candidate countries based on merit. But here, a renewed analysis is also required based on Russia's ruthless war against Ukraine and actions in our eastern neighborhood. A new approach from the EU is necessary, which includes support for freedom and democracy fighters in the partner countries and for those who have been forced to flee in order to continue their struggle for freedom. The Center Party clearly sees that this must also apply to those who stand up against Lukashenko's path for Belarus. But we have stated that we believe the EU should officially exclude Belarus from the Eastern Partnership as long as the current regime remains in power and not just let Belarus withdraw.

Madam Speaker! The Wagner Group is a terrorist organization under Putin's rule. It has been allowed to ravage African countries, in Syria, in Crimea and in Ukraine in 2014 and today as part of the worst Russian assault force in the war against the Ukrainians and Ukraine. In its footsteps, we have seen crimes against the laws of war and crimes against humanity. The abuses are to be regarded as clear acts of terrorism, and the group must therefore be listed as terrorists and be able to be prosecuted for its terrorist crimes. The problem here is that the UN Security Council is blocked by Russia from putting state-supported groups such as the Wagner Group on its terror list. The EU has autonomous sanction regimes for such situations, but then based on what happened on September 11, 2001. al-Qaida and later Daish have been added and must now be followed by the Wagner Group and IRGC. But unfortunately, the EU's legal basis for this is so narrow that it is unacceptable, and it becomes very difficult to get through. Therefore, the EU must, according to the Center Party and several others, initiate a review of its position 2001/931 to close the loophole that states exploit. It is today necessary that Sweden promptly initiates a review of this position. I therefore move for approval of reservation 14 under point 10.

Madam Speaker! The EU shall be a free trade union, stand up for trade on equal terms and be climate-smart. Trade is an important tool for the EU's soft power and for the world's climate-smart development. It is important that more free trade agreements can be reached and finalized agreements implemented.

The EU must also see the partnership with the African Continental Free Trade Area as vital for the coming years. It is about development for the young people in Africa's 54 recognized countries and promoting that more join the AfCFTA than the 44 countries that have already done so. The EU should promote integration and trade between the African states and initiate negotiations on economic partnership with this free trade area.

Madam Speaker! The Centre Party has a reservation regarding Cuba, which has been stated earlier in the debate. We therefore do not stand behind what the committee states in the Cuba section. We believe that the EU needs to review the agreement on political dialogue and cooperation that was signed in 2016. It has been in effect in practice for nearly eight years, and it is not ratified by all countries, although unfortunately by Sweden. In our opinion, one must conclude from the committee's report that Sweden should revoke its ratification and join Lithuania. By doing so, we would ensure that we do not continue to assert the agreement's legitimacy.

I want, Madam Speaker, to move for approval of reservation 21 under point 14. I therefore move for approval of two of the Center Party's nine reservations in the matter.

In conclusion, I would like to touch upon the reasoning regarding Israel. We share the committee's assessment, but we also have an addition stating that we welcome the High Representative's repeated statements condemning the escalating spiral of violence in Israel and the Palestinian territories over the past months. We do not want to see anything that hinders a return to peace negotiations and a two-state solution.

Madam Speaker! I will unfortunately have to leave the debate due to a meeting with the Speaker of North Macedonia. North Macedonia is one of the countries that during 2022 was given the opportunity, after a long time as a candidate country, to finally open negotiations with the EU. They have made great efforts for that day to come. I hope that everyone, not least the Minister, will excuse me for this. On the other hand, there will be a few fewer remarks as a result.

With that, I wish my colleagues in the committee a happy summer. Thank you for this year! The same applies, of course, to the office.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! In less than a year, EU citizens will vote on issues where the EU has come to play an increasingly significant role, particularly regarding the environment, the climate, and what we are going to talk about today, namely the EU's security and foreign policy.

The EU's common development and foreign policy shall benefit an EU that can be a leading voice for international law and human rights. We shall meet an increasingly polarized world with democratic cooperation and alliance-building to defend a rules-based world order, democratic norms and principles based on human rights. Foreign and security policy shall be equal and inclusive. It shall focus on conflict prevention, peacebuilding, civil defense, aid, poverty reduction, fair trade, mediation and diplomacy.

The European security order is under attack. Russia's invasion of Ukraine has caused the security situation to deteriorate dramatically in our immediate vicinity. Ukraine, a democratic country in Europe, has been invaded by the authoritarian Russia which is attempting to strip Ukrainians of their right to freedom and self-determination.

Madam Speaker! Putin's war of aggression against Ukraine is a horrific crime against international law and human rights. Putin does not shy away from attacks against civilian targets, in complete defiance of the laws of war. Putin's warfare has also already resulted in millions of people being forced to flee, either within Ukraine's borders or to neighboring countries, including Sweden.

We see how geopolitical tensions and fuel and food prices have risen globally as a result. Now more than ever, the world needs to join forces to collectively meet the challenges. The EU is our most important forum for international cooperation.

It is good and necessary that the Western world's reaction to Putin's heinous war of aggression has been powerful, but we must also endure. Putin counts on us becoming tired and that our resistance will be scaled back. We cannot rest on our laurels.

There is more to be done to choke Putin's war chest. Our dependence on oil and gas has consequences. Because while we support Ukraine with weapons and money, we as a country continue to purchase Russian fossil energy. This occurs almost a year after the Riksdag voted to stop the import of Russian oil and gas. The EU must also stop the import of Russian energy as soon as possible.

Russia is a country that must be designated as an international sponsor of terrorism. This situation becomes very clear when the activities of private military companies are scrutinized. The Wagner Group's presence in Mali, Libya, and Syria, as well as in Ukraine, has led to the destruction of cultural heritage linked to religious and cultural objects. There is a clear connection to trafficking, smuggling of military materiel and cultural objects, money laundering, and thus transnational crime.

The conventions violated by the Wagner Group include, among others, the UN Charter, the Declaration of Human Rights, the Declaration of Defense of Human Rights, the Convention against the Financing of and Support to Terrorism, the Convention against Torture and Cruelty, the Convention on Inhuman Treatment and Punishment, respect for the laws of war, and the Geneva Convention on the Treatment of Prisoners of War.

The EU and the international community can do much more to clearly brand this conglomerate of companies and organizations for what they are, namely terrorists. The only reasonable thing is to designate the Wagner Group and other internationally active Russian military company constellations as terrorist organizations.

Madam Speaker! The occupation of Palestine and the discrimination of Palestinians that prevails is the root cause of the violence that feeds the extremists on both sides of the conflict. It is civilians in Palestine and Israel who pay the price with their lives for a cynical power game.

It is embarrassing to see how the EU today handles Israel and its oppression of Palestinians. The EU is almost non-solidary in its silence. We accept that if two twelve-year-old boys - one Palestinian and one Israeli - throw stones at each other in an occupied area, the Palestinian child ends up in a military prison and is brought before a military court without oversight, while the Israeli boy would be tried in a civil Israeli court - if he would even be tried because he is a minor and therefore with all probability released.

We accept that a Palestinian family who has lived in the same village for several generations becomes homeless when their house is demolished to make room for another settlement so that an Israeli family, in violation of international law, can move in.

We accept that Israeli food and other products produced in occupied territory are imported into the EU tax-free, in violation of the EU's own rules, while Palestinian goods are stopped and controlled by Israel and sporadically allowed to be exported. It makes it so unpredictable and expensive for Palestinian companies that many give up the opportunity to export.

We accept increased violence and extrajudicial executions of Palestinians in the West Bank where Israeli military and settlers escape legal scrutiny.

The ultimate responsibility for ending the conflict peacefully rests with Israel as the occupying and militarily superior party. A more active and realistic European strategy could still make a difference. Sweden and the rest of the international community have a responsibility to put pressure on Israel and not turn a blind eye to the Israeli settlement policy which, together with illegal evictions of Palestinian families, violates international humanitarian law, undermines the two-state solution, and contributes to an elevated level of conflict.

Miljöpartiet wants Sweden to press for the EU to act to show that it is serious about the criticism of the occupation and the settlement policy, as well as the calls to Israel to refrain from all actions that undermine a solution.

The association agreement between the EU and Israel gives the EU a powerful tool to pressure Israel to respect international law and human rights. We believe that the government, as the representative of Sweden, should partly oppose the EU deepening its cooperation with Israel in any area, and partly should work for the EU to suspend the current association agreement as long as Israel does not dismantle the settlements and the checkpoints in the occupied territory, lift the blockade of Gaza, and tear down the wall inside the West Bank.

In order to put further pressure on Israel to engage in the peace process and cease the apartheid-like treatment of Palestinians through, among other things, forced displacements, confiscation of land and extrajudicial executions, we believe that the government should take the initiative for the EU to introduce sanctions against Israel and that the sanctions should include an arms embargo. Cutting off the supply of weapons is an effective means of pressure, and an arms embargo against Israel would also contribute to equality between the parties in the conflict because there is currently no arms export from the EU to Palestinian representatives.

Mr. Speaker! I recently read in DN that the cost of the environmental destruction caused by Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine is currently estimated at 500 billion kronor. To attack the environment is to attack people. What is happening in Ukraine is ecocide. Today, there is a lack of effective international legislation that provides legal possibilities to hold parties accountable for large-scale environmental destruction that causes serious or long-lasting damage.

To counter the widespread impunity for environmental crimes and the destruction of habitats of international interest, a global tool with broad jurisdiction is needed to be able to investigate, prosecute, and hold accountable for ecocide. We therefore believe that the government should investigate the possibility of establishing international legislation against ecocide, preferably by adding ecocide as a crime in the Rome Statute.

Mr. Speaker! I naturally support all our reservations in the report, but for the sake of time, I move for approval of only reservation 15.

I wish all my colleagues a happy summer.

(Applause)

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

Statsrådet Jessika Roswall (M)

Mr. Speaker! The past year has been characterized and plagued by war and crisis. When the Russian war of aggression reached Kyiv, the geopolitical playing field changed and made European cooperation something more, something greater. The attack on the Kakhovka Dam nearly two weeks ago signified a new level of destruction in the wake of Russia's illegal aggression. Thousands of civilians have lost their homes and their livelihoods. Entire villages and communities have been destroyed, and all too many have lost their lives.

The EU and its member states are now collectively fighting an attack on a neighboring country that has been a candidate country for membership in our union since last year. At the same time, Russia's brutal and illegal aggression has reminded us of the importance of our close cooperation and the significance of our common political endeavor.

Through the EU, we are implementing a powerful green transition to reach our climate goals and become independent of fossil energy sources. Through the EU and the internal market, our companies can grow larger and more competitive. Through the EU, we safeguard our democratic values and the principles of the rule of law, which are the foundation for society's development. Our powerful handling of the crises of recent years confirms that we are stronger together and that we can meet and master the unexpected as a strong and united union.

Mr. Speaker! We took over the EU presidency in a turbulent time. Since then, the government has worked to make the EU safer, greener, and freer. These slogans reflect the great transitions of our time. To succeed, we need to be able to handle immediate challenges while remaining firm on the long-term direction.

Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine has had fatal consequences. The destruction is extensive, both in terms of the physical environment and in human lives. Many have paid the ultimate price for the right to live in peace and freedom.

The war has also had repercussions in the EU. The economic recovery had just begun to pick up after the pandemic when the war completely redrew the playing field. After many years of low inflation, inflation and interest rates suddenly skyrocketed. Europe was hit by a cost crisis.

The American IRA legislation, the Inflation Reduction Act, created an even more shaky situation. While it was welcome that the USA took a major step into the green transition, at the same time a concern arose that European companies would be lured across the Atlantic with massive state subsidies. But as so often happens, the worst fears did not materialize. The IRA neither split the EU nor the transatlantic link. Instead, the government successfully focused on the need to develop and deepen our own market in order to thereby build the EU's competitiveness in the long term.

Instead of a state aid race, the EU and the USA have sat down and negotiated on common interests. The EU has put forward legislative proposals to strengthen the supply of critical raw materials to improve the conditions for the green transition in Europe. The EU Commission has, at a Swedish initiative, adopted a strategy to strengthen the union's long-term competitiveness.

It is rarely a simple task to reach a consensus among 27 member states. Our cooperation is being tested in a crisis. At the same time, it is precisely in crises that the EU shows its strength. The recent years are a clear proof of this. This has also characterized the Swedish presidency.

Mr. Speaker! It is important to take responsibility when it is difficult. Sweden took responsibility in broad parliamentary unity when we presented the four priorities for our Swedish presidency: security and support for Ukraine, green transition and energy transition, democratic values and the rule of law, and the EU's long-term competitiveness. As members of the Riksdag, the Prime Minister reminded us of the priorities presented on December 14 last year here in the chamber.

When the chairmanship soon reaches its end, around 150 meetings will have taken place in Stockholm and around Sweden, as well as a couple of thousand in Brussels and Luxembourg. In this context, I would like to thank and congratulate the Riksdag, which in an exemplary manner has hosted meetings and conferences in Stockholm, including Cosac. Sweden has represented the Council in numerous negotiations and debates with the European Parliament. I myself have spent several days every month at the plenary debates in Strasbourg and Brussels.

Mr. Speaker! From day one, our highest priority has been to maintain the strength and unity that the union has shown over the past year and to provide the greatest possible support to Ukraine - economically, legally, politically, humanitarily and militarily. In February, the EU adopted its tenth sanctions package to continue putting pressure on Russia, and the Swedish presidency is working intensively to negotiate the eleventh. We have decided on extensive ammunition deliveries and have established a working group to clarify how frozen Russian assets can be used to finance the reconstruction of Ukraine.

The work is extensive and continues on a broad front. All this that we do for Ukraine's peace and freedom, we also do ultimately for our own peace and freedom. To support Ukraine and the Ukrainian people in their strive towards European integration is one of our great common tasks. The message from this government, the EU member states, and the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, is clear: Ukraine's future lies in the European Union.

Mr. Speaker! Security also has an internal dimension. Therefore, it is incredibly gratifying that Migration Minister Maria Malmer Stenergard succeeded this week in uniting the member states on the main parts of the migration and asylum pact. Under her leadership, the difficult balance between responsibility and solidarity that the EU countries have long sought was found. Now we will hand over to the Spaniards, who will have to negotiate the final agreement with the European Parliament. In this work, the government will continue to be a proactive, constructive, and pragmatic party. We need a functioning European migration policy.

Mr. Speaker! For the Swedish presidency, the work on the green transition has largely been about the EU's climate package Fit for 55. The new policy implies a significant increase in ambition for our common climate policy. All components of Fit for 55 strive together towards a clear overall goal: to create the conditions to reduce the EU's emissions by 55 percent by 2030.

Under the Swedish presidency, important agreements have been reached to accelerate the electrification of road transport through a substantial expansion of charging infrastructure and a cut-off date for internal combustion engines, reduced emissions in shipping through sustainable fuels, energy efficiency, and much more. The EU is setting the pace in the green transition, and we are keeping pace.

Mr. Speaker! A prerequisite for a safer, greener and freer EU is respect for the rule of law principle and our fundamental values. The work to strengthen these is therefore a particularly important part of Sweden's and - I would argue - every presidency.

In March, I chaired the annual rule of law dialogue in the General Council. We have also held hearings in the General Council with Poland and Hungary within the framework of the so-called Article 7 procedure.

Later today, I will participate here in the Riksdag at the Committee on the Constitution's conference on democracy in Europe. On Wednesday and Thursday this week, the Swedish presidency will host our Stockholm Symposium on Democracy and the Rule of Law, where I will welcome, among others, the President of the Court of Justice of the European Union Koen Lenaerts and EU Commissioners Vera Jourová and Didier Reynders.

Experts will participate from member states and enlargement countries, EU institutions, international organizations, civil society, academia, media, and other stakeholders.

I would like to particularly emphasize the government's pleasure that representatives from the Riksdag will also contribute valuable insights and ideas to the symposium.

All this gives me hope that the Stockholm Symposium will make a clear and lasting contribution to our continued work to strengthen democracy and the rule of law principle in the EU.

Mr. Speaker! For the government, it has been very important to contribute to the EU's political direction in the coming years through the presidency. That is why we chose to prioritize placing the EU's long-term competitiveness high on the agenda.

If the EU is to be an attractive market for investments, innovations and new ideas, a new direction is required. The EU is currently lagging behind the USA, China and other large economies in terms of growth, productivity and investments in research and development. That development has been ongoing for decades and will require many years of work to reverse.

The first step in this direction was taken by Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson at the European Council in December last year when he took the initiative to ask the EU Commission to present a strategy to strengthen the EU's long-term competitiveness and productivity. It was very welcome that the EU Commission delivered a powerful response to this on March 16 this year.

Since then, the Swedish presidency has worked on implementing the strategy, with a focus on core areas such as the internal market, skills development, trade, and research. Furthermore, the work has been carried out with a strong focus on better legislation and reduced regulatory burden.

But the most important work lies ahead of us and does not cease with the Swedish presidency. The issues of competitiveness will therefore remain a priority for the government and run as a common thread through our legislative work.

Competitiveness issues will also be a central part of our contribution to the next strategic agenda, which outlines the direction for the work during the next EU Commission.

Mr. Speaker! During our presidency, the EU has continued to pressure Russia and support Ukraine. We have reached a historic agreement on the migration issue, and we have worked with full force to conclude the negotiations on Fit for 55. At the same time, we have secured EU's long-term competitiveness high up on the political agenda.

Much has been done for a safer, greener and freer EU. We have two weeks left of intensive negotiations, and our list of settled matters is growing longer day by day. After all this, when the presidency is over, it is our task to manage all the lessons we have learned and the relations and goodwill that we have created during this half-year.

Mr. Speaker! The challenges ahead are many. In an uncertain geopolitical situation, we must simultaneously accelerate the green and the digital transition.

We must also prepare the union for the future expansion that has come to develop into a geopolitical necessity due to the Russian attack on Ukraine, including for the countries in the Western Balkans.

It is important that everyone, both in politics and in other parts of society, actively and boldly seeks Swedish answers on how the EU should meet these challenges. The government will return to this and much more when the Prime Minister presents the next EU declaration in the autumn.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to extend a big thank you to the Riksdag for the good cooperation that I and my colleagues have had during the past half-year. It has also laid the foundation for a very successful Swedish presidency.

I have received a lot of praise from colleagues in the Council and from representatives in the European Parliament for how the Swedish presidency has succeeded in negotiating and driving the political agenda forward. I would like to share that praise with the Riksdag here today.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! In twelve days, the Swedish presidency of the EU will come to an end. I believe it is a day that EU Minister Jessika Roswall is looking forward to a little. Even though it has certainly been fun, the spring has likely also taken a bit of a toll on the minister. I would therefore like to wish the minister a lovely holiday with some recovery and rest.

But before we get there, I would like to hear the EU Minister's thoughts on the Swedish presidency in the EU, which in some parts was still quite unsuccessful. Many Swedes have probably hardly noticed that it has been a Swedish presidency. A banner has been hanging outside the Riksdag, but we probably haven't seen much more than that.

For many foreign visitors, the presidency will probably be an old industrial hangar a few kilometers from Arlanda where most of the meetings have been held.

I can think that it is good that Sweden, in line with the frugal four's restrictive economic policy, has cut back on pomp and pageantry at every EU meeting.

For most Swedes, the most noticed thing during the chairmanship is probably a yellow thick down jacket in a zero-degree Kiruna. That will be the lasting memory. In any case, it is what has been talked about most on social media.

A picture is worth a thousand words. It is a well-known expression. That the government has not really been able to dress for the weather can be a clear picture of a government that has also not really taken climate change seriously enough.

I am not a strong supporter of the EU. But when it comes to the climate area, the EU and the EU Commission have clearly been at the forefront and ahead of the Swedish government.

Something that has been lacking during the chairmanship is transparency. As chair, Sweden has participated in negotiations and pursued lines that have not been anchored in the normal order.

The latest example is that Sweden has submitted a proposal for negotiation where subsidies for coal power are facilitated and extended. This is hardly a position that has support in Sweden's Riksdag.

Therefore, I ask the minister: Why has the chairship gone so poorly?

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

Statsrådet Jessika Roswall (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Håkan Svenneling, for the question!

I do not, of course, share the view that it has gone so poorly. I would like to assert that it is the opposite. Now, I am not judging it. We will see in two weeks how it will be judged in summary.

As I said just a moment ago in my speech, I am met with an enormous amount of praise. It comes from all political parties in parliament and from ministers from different countries who have different party designations.

They praise the Swedish presidency because we have succeeded in what we were tasked to do. We have focused on our core tasks and on getting negotiations moving. That is what a Swedish presidency does. It was also what we promised to do, to be effective and professional.

No, we have not had balloons and pomp and pageantry. That is something I am proud of. I believe that both European citizens and Swedish citizens expect from us that what we do is to negotiate and reach results in important issues.

Many questions were raised towards the end. I want to highlight one of the priorities we had. It is the green transition. We have recently completed the entire Fit for 55 package.

It is something that is good for Sweden and the EU and of course for the climate. It has not been easy. But it is one of the successes that we have had, apart from all the other major discussions and negotiations that we have made progress in. I do not share the opinion that it has been a failure.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! To take a concrete example, the Committee on Foreign Affairs has several times highlighted in the foreign policy area that Iran should be brought up at the meeting of the foreign ministers.

I know that the question partly lies outside the Council of State's area of responsibility. But the result of the chairmanship is that Iran has not come up for discussion even once during the six months.

It is a failure for a country like Sweden, which many times has been a pioneer when it comes to highlighting human rights.

I find it difficult to see how we in the Riksdag could have acted in a more explicit way than that we, at every committee meeting we have had with the government, have raised the issue and said that we want it to be on the agenda.

It is not the case that Sweden alone decides the agenda for the meeting of the foreign ministers. But if one is the chair, one should also be able to have the influence to actually get the point on the agenda.

There are parts of the work that EU Minister Jessika Roswall describes that are good. I listened myself to a lecture about the frozen assets from Russia.

I look forward with great hope to the concrete proposals that the working group, which Sweden will lead a bit further forward, if I have understood the matter correctly, will be able to come up with. I will not say that everything has been bad. There are absolutely good examples.

What causes concern for the future is not the next presidency, Spain, but what will happen next autumn, when Hungary is to receive the presidency. During the past spring, Members of the European Parliament decided that they believe Hungary should not become the presidency of the EU next autumn. I wonder what the Swedish government's opinion and position is regarding this. Can one violate the principles of the rule of law as much as Hungary does and simultaneously become the presidency? At some point, there must be consequences of the actions we have seen from Hungary for a long time.

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

Statsrådet Jessika Roswall (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is true that FAC with Iran and foreign affairs are not on the EU Minister's agenda. It is the High Representative who sets the agenda for those points. But if I have understood the whole thing correctly, Iran has nevertheless been discussed at FAC's meetings during the spring, and it is an issue that I know Foreign Minister Tobias Billström has raised several times. He was also clear in the government's foreign policy declaration a number of months ago regarding what the government's view is on the matter. We stand in the strongest possible opposition to the Iranian government's oppression.

Let me just mention something about this with frozen assets. The Swedish government appointed an ad hoc group. We are very pleased that it has functioned so successfully and that it is now setting the agenda moving forward. It has been very difficult, because there are complicated legal circumstances. It is international law that needs to be developed. But what I look forward to is the continuation of this, and I am proud and happy that we have raised the issue. This we also do together with other partners around the world.

Regarding Hungary, the Swedish government, as I said in my speech, has among other things had a hearing on the developments there. I had a close cooperation with our Members of the European Parliament on this beforehand. Whether one is to be a presiding country or not has nothing to do with what is established in the treaty.

I expect from all chairpersons that they follow our common rules and stand up for our common values, the principles of the rule of law and democracy. I will continue to follow this matter, of course. And thank you for letting me rest a bit now!

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

Linnéa Wickman (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thanks to the Minister for participating in this debate! To undermine the Russian regime and its ambitions and conditions in both Ukraine and in the rest of the world through persistent and long-term support for Ukraine is and will remain one of the EU's and our most important tasks.

One of the Russian regime's most effective tools is the paramilitary Wagner Group. And when the Committee on Foreign Affairs last week, at the request of several parties, had a consultation with the government on the issue of listing the Wagner Group as a terrorist organization in the EU – we convened with the State Council's colleague, Minister for Foreign Affairs Tobias Billström – we proposed to the Social Democrats that the government should, within six months, return with a legal analysis of the situation and how a proposal for an update of the EU's sanctions regime for terrorism could look, so that in the next step the issue of terrorist listing can be pursued and support for this can be gathered in the EU.

This is, of course, about the fact that we know that the legal basis regarding listing procedures today makes it legally difficult to reach these types of terrorist organizations. This has been described in a clear way, not least by Centerpartiet's Kerstin Lundgren.

Tomorrow, the Riksdag will issue a notice to the government to actively gather support for a terror listing of the Wagner Group in the EU. I would therefore like to ask the EU Minister how she views the time aspect in this: When does the Minister judge that a legal analysis can be in place to be able to gather support for a terror listing of the Wagner Group?

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

Statsrådet Jessika Roswall (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Linnéa Wickman, for the question! I am unsure if I will be able to give an exact answer to the rather specific question. But I have taken note of what the committee has written in its report and what has been said here in the chamber.

I still perceive that there is a broad consensus that it is important for Sweden and the EU to work actively to create unity to place the Wagner Group on the terror list. It is a task that, as I perceive it, has occurred quite broadly. Then we can blame each other on who was first or not. The important thing is that we have the common perception.

The government has initiated the work of analyzing the design of the legal basis. But I cannot say any exact point in time. What I want to say is that it is part of the Swedish presidency to work actively with Ukraine and to support Ukraine in all ways we can. It is about ensuring that we get new sanction packages in place, to provide economic and military support, and also to involve Ukraine in our work. We have included various Ukrainian ministers in our meetings to maintain this discussion.

In conclusion: Linnéa Wickman claimed from the rostrum that the Swedish government had not worked actively with the rule of law principle. That is completely incorrect. The rule of law principle is a priority that we have jointly arrived at in all parties in the Riksdag and something that we have also historically worked on together. As a Moderate and as a government minister, I work actively with this at all levels. What Linnéa Wickman said is therefore not correct at all.

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

Linnéa Wickman (S)

Mr. Speaker! Now less than two weeks remain of the Swedish presidency of the EU. If anything, it has become clear through the presidency that we now have a government whose EU policy spans from the position that EU membership is a straitjacket to be evaluated to the view that we should deepen EU cooperation and switch currency to the euro. This is, to say the least, unclear. All these lines cannot possibly apply at the same time. It is simply neither fish nor fowl.

It is precisely this that I am afraid of regarding the issue of the Wagner Group. The government says it supports a terror listing. I genuinely believe that the government does. But it will be unfortunate with this when we also present proposals to get a clear timetable in the work and for the government to actually work out a concrete proposal and find a legal way forward. As I said, it is quite difficult legally.

Here, Sweden can actually take the lead. I really hope that the Minister and the government will be prepared to work and be quick-footed in this. I can also promise that we Social Democrats will continue to push for this.

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

Statsrådet Jessika Roswall (M)

Mr. Speaker! I cannot, as I said, give an exact report on the timeline in this, unfortunately, but it is quite obvious that we agree to act promptly and in consensus and that this is an important issue.

The government is prepared to analyze the legal basis. It is also important to work with sanctions broadly. This is something that we are currently working hard on regarding the eleventh sanctions package, which contains many other parts. In this, it is also important that we remember to work to counteract the circumvention of sanctions, which we have seen is needed in these days.

Let me also say something about this matter of "hackat och malet" [chopped and ground]. I do not share Linnéa Wickman's view. I am glad that it is a bourgeois government that has been in the chair during the past half-year, because we prioritize the EU work. We know that it is important.

In my future – after I have rested, as Håkan Svenneling said – I will try to work so that Sweden enters the processes earlier and work actively and be a partner in the EU work in a trusting manner. I hope, as I said in my speech, that the Swedish presidency has also given us goodwill so that we can succeed together in this.

Thank you very much, and happy summer!

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Mr. Speaker! This is a comprehensive report covering a multitude of different issues in numerous areas, so my party colleague Linnéa Wickman and I chose to share the work. We did this against the background that we consider what is written in the report regarding the Middle East conflict and the relationship between Israel and Palestine to be so remarkable that it deserves its own entry. In practice, we argue, this implies a sharp change of course from the government parties at the worst possible moment. The government parties do not even seem to be able to stand up for the EU line on the issue anymore.

This is a very long-standing conflict, and Sweden has at all times asserted international law principles and human rights in the conflict. This means that pressure must be exerted on both parties. The violence from both sides must cease. On the Palestinian side, one must combat terrorism, such as Hamas. One must combat corruption, which is a poison in society. One must also work to be able to arrange new democratic elections. On the Israeli side, one must leave occupied land, stop the illegal settlements in the West Bank, and ensure that democratic elections in Palestine can be held at all. Both parties must work for a two-state solution.

This has been Sweden's line for decades, also with bourgeois governments. When Carl Bildt was Foreign Minister in the alliance government 2006-2014, he maintained this Swedish line. From all appearances, he does so even today.

But now, the policy has been changed. In the report currently being discussed, one does indeed refer to what others have said, but the committee no longer wants to speak itself about Israel occupying Palestinian land. No criticism is directed at the illegal settlements, and the only pressure one wants to exert on anyone shall, according to the report, be exerted on the Palestinian Authority, not on Israel. In this part, this is a one-sided and unbalanced report.

It was even the case that the EU's High Representative Josep Borrell's statement recently, in which he condemned the escalating violence, was deleted from the report by the majority. Admittedly, Håkan Svenneling earlier in the debate called Josep Borrell a tired right-wing socialist from Spain, which well may stand for Svenneling, but Borrell's statement on this issue was apparently so dangerous that it could not be included in the committee report and was deleted by the government parties.

Why? Well, probably because it was mentioned in the statement that Israel actually occupies Palestinian land, and apparently one can no longer bear to say that from the right-wing parties' side - even though everyone knows it is true.

We cannot interpret it in any other way than that the majority can no longer stand up for the EU line when it comes to the Israel-Palestine issue. Why else would Borrell's statement be removed from the report?

This is also coming at the worst possible moment. The violence is escalating, and Israel has received a government that is more right-wing than ever before.

We are now hearing statements from Israel that are very worrying. Israel's new government does not accept a Palestinian state. Israel's finance minister, who is the leader of an ultra-religious party and who himself is a settler, even recently said at a meeting in Paris: "There are no Palestinians." And if one does not even accept that there is a Palestinian people, then one also does not accept that this people should have any rights whatsoever. He has also previously said that he regrets that not all Arabs were thrown out of Israel in 1948.

The new government in Israel is also proceeding with further expanding the illegal settlements on Palestinian land, with the stated purpose of making a Palestinian state impossible. There are already over 700,000 settlers. Now they plan to double the number of settlers in the West Bank to approximately 1.5 million. That would, of course, be another flagrant violation of international law. An occupying power does not have the right to move its own population into occupied territory in order to in that way make the indigenous population a minority in their own country. It contravenes international law.

At the same time, the destruction of Palestinian property continues. Palestinians are being forcibly displaced, their property is being destroyed, and humanitarian aid is being confiscated. According to the UN, over 1,600 aid-funded buildings have been destroyed since 2009.

Water is systematically used to drive out Palestinian farmers. They are denied water for their crops, while the settler communities have free access to water. Dried-out Palestinian olive groves can be neighbors with settler areas where one can fill their swimming pools and grow oranges.

It is now more important than ever that the international community continues to stand up for international law, human rights, de-escalation, and a two-state solution where Israel and Palestine can exist side by side within secure and recognized borders. I am also completely convinced that most of the Israeli population want exactly this: de-escalation, negotiations, and peace.

To reach that, naturally, the Palestinians must also do their part. Corruption must be fought as the poison it is in society. Hamas must be fought as the terrorist organization it is. Their rocket attacks against Israel must cease. But do not forget that Hamas does not represent the Palestinian people! It is actually the opposite in many respects: Hamas and Fatah are mortal enemies, as we know. The fact that Hamas controls Gaza is also not an argument for Israel to be allowed to double the settlements in the West Bank, in practice seize Palestinian land and make a Palestinian state impossible.

International law is not a buffet where one can pick and choose. Its principles must apply to all states, everywhere. One cannot have different standards. We cannot accept the right of the strongest at the expense of the weak.

That is why the formulations in this report are very noteworthy. Obviously, the government parties can no longer stand by the traditional EU line that has prevailed for so many years regarding the conflict between Israel and Palestine.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I move for approval of the Social Democrats' reservation 16 on Israel and Palestine.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

Activities in the European Union during 2022

(A decision was to be taken on 20 June.)

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