Activities in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) during 2024

Aron Emilsson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I would first like to refer to the Committee on Foreign Affairs' report on the activities of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Nato, during 2024, which we are now debating, and I move for approval of the committee's proposal. The committee proposes that the Riksdag place the report in the records.

Against the dark background of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in the spring of 2022, it is nevertheless gratifying that Sweden can now participate fully in Nato without reservations. It is a decisive step for our increased security and our international credibility, as we clearly contribute unique and in-demand capabilities to the defense alliance's collective deterrence and defense. We already have troops on the ground in Latvia and air defense operations in Poland – clear and in-demand contributions that show that Sweden is ready to take responsibility.

Mr. Speaker! The Sweden Democrats stood behind a Swedish Nato option in 2020 and have since 2022 stood behind Swedish membership in Nato. We have never advocated for any exceptions or reservations. We want Sweden to be a clear and reliable actor within the defense alliance both politically and militarily. That is why we are pushing for an active Swedish Nato policy that is about more than just presence and management. It is about shaping the alliance's priorities, strengthening strategic deterrence, deepening regional cooperation in our part of Europe, and preserving Nato's core mission: collective defense.

In this deterrence, the nuclear dimension plays a central role. In a world where authoritarian states are rearming and threatening with nuclear weapons, Nato must clearly maintain its nuclear umbrella as an ultimate security guarantee. It is positive that Nato is developing its nuclear policy through initiatives such as the Nuclear Planning Group and increased consultation, as these efforts build credibility. Even though Sweden is not a nuclear-weapon state, we should actively participate in the dialogue on how the deterrence is kept robust and adapted to the security policy situation, especially as increased European capability is required.

Mr. Speaker! In this context, and when we speak of international foreign and security policy alliances, it is also important to clearly distinguish between Nato and the European Union. Nato is and remains an intergovernmental defense alliance where each member state owns its own decisions and its own military capacity. This differs from the EU, which is a treaty-based cooperation with extensive supranational elements.

For the Sweden Democrats, it is crucial that Sweden can also continue to pursue an independent foreign and security policy where Sweden's own interests, security, and analysis guide the decisions. That possibility is good within Nato but not always within the EU, which may additionally be able to complement but not duplicate or replace Nato.

We are currently seeing how several countries in Nato are ramping up their defense investments. The discussion about moving beyond the two percent goal towards 3.5 or even 5 percent is important. Sweden must be at the forefront, not sit in the back seat. We Sverigedemokrater have long been pushing for a stronger Swedish defense, and we welcome that the issue is now being raised to the level of strategic priority even at Nato's summits.

A special strategic focus should also be placed on Nordic-Baltic defense cooperation. Together with the Nordics, the Baltics, Poland, and Germany, all the conditions exist to build a regional defense axis within Nato, a common defense line for northern Europe. This strengthens the eastern flank, facilitates a rapid response in crisis and war, and ensures that our defenses can plan and act together. This is not only an opportunity but also a responsibility.

Mr. Speaker! We must also see the whole picture. The immediate threat to Europe comes from Russia, a country that is waging an open, bestial, and imperialist war against Ukraine. But we must not turn a blind eye to the great dimensioning threat, namely China.

China is not only a regional problem but also a global threat. It is a country that is building up enormous military capacity, investing heavily in technology, dominating economic systems, and simultaneously conducting influence operations against Western societies like ours. The Chinese regime's ambitions are long-term and expansive, and they have strategic implications even for Nato.

We Sweden Democrats therefore believe that Nato must have the ability to handle both the acute and the long-term: Russia as the immediate military threat and China as the system-threatening great power project.

Mr. Speaker! The Sweden Democrats safeguard NATO's clear core task: collective defense. It is evident that there are dimensions of climate change that have security policy implications, but we see risks of duplication and inefficiency if the alliance's resources are spread and dispersed across a number of different focus areas, such as environmental and climate issues or other non-military issues that do not have clear relevance to the military mission. Furthermore, there are countless international arenas where the work on these issues can be conducted more effectively.

Mr. Speaker! When it comes to Ukraine, we were among the first to propose both military and civilian support, including heavy weapons. Shortly after the full-scale invasion, the Riksdag agreed on the Swedish support for Ukraine and has an unusually large popular mandate behind it. We do, however, sense a certain fatigue in parts of Europe and a direct reluctance on other continents. We believe that the support must also be institutionalized within the framework of Nato. A free Ukraine is an investment in morality and ethics but also a prerequisite for Sweden's and Europe's security.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden now stands as a full member of Nato, and our role in the alliance is not passive – on the contrary. We want to see a Sweden that contributes, influences, and can continue to make its own decisions. In the report, the committee emphasizes how important it is that the Riksdag has insight into and influence over the government's actions in Nato matters. The committee also highlights the Swedish delegation in Nato's parliamentary assembly and its importance for the Riksdag to gain insight into Nato's activities. Since the end of the Second World War, it has never been more important to stand up for defense, realism, and a security policy that best serves Sweden today, tomorrow, and in the long term.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating the annual report on the activities in Nato for the first time. This is because large parts of last year were the first year that Sweden was a member of Nato, as we joined on 7 March 2024. The report covers both the government's work and the Riksdag's delegation to Nato's parliamentary assembly – a delegation and assembly where I am one of the Swedish members.

We in the Left Party have repeatedly been very clear in the debate regarding Sweden's NATO membership. We considered that Sweden would be safer outside of NATO. It is a position that we have received support for, especially during this year given that Donald Trump was elected president in the USA. We remain opposed to Swedish NATO membership, but now that we are a member, we are pushing for Sweden to conduct a policy in NATO that is as wise as possible. The focus is primarily on two parts: democracy and nuclear weapons.

Now, however, Swedish NATO membership is a reality, and much of the Swedish Defence's activities will have a connection to NATO. Vänsterpartiet believes that even in the future, it must be Sweden's own defense capability that stands at the center of Swedish defense planning, but also that Sweden shall be an active partner in cooperation with our Nordic and Baltic neighboring countries. We shall take a joint responsibility for the defense of the Baltic Sea, the North Sea, the North Sea, and the Arctic, together with our neighboring countries. It is this focus on our immediate vicinity, not operations far away, that shall be the Swedish priority.

Mr. Speaker! With Donald Trump, we have received an authoritarian president who does not care about international law. In a short time, he has directed military and political threats toward several countries, such as Panama, Greenland, and Canada, as well as allied himself with Putin and Russia to force a war's end in Ukraine. The developments in the USA in the coming years will contain great uncertainty with Donald Trump as president, and we, like many other countries in Europe, do not want our security to be conditioned by the USA.

The USA has a special status as a country and in practice a veto when it comes to NATO's actions, while the country throughout history has waged wars of invasion, supported military coups against democratically elected governments and armed paramilitary groups, and the USA still exports weapons to warring countries, such as Israel and Saudi Arabia. The political situation in the USA is furthermore unstable and strongly polarized. This is seen, not least, in the riots taking place in Los Angeles right now.

Vänsterpartiet was and is opposed to the so-called DCA agreement on defense cooperation with the USA. The agreement opens for American soldiers to be stationed in Sweden, furthermore with immunity if they commit crimes, and it does not mean a clear no to nuclear weapons on Swedish territory. Vänsterpartiet therefore says a clear no to foreign military bases in Sweden, both permanent as well as rotating, regardless of which country they come from.

Nuclear weapons are a fundamental part of Nato, and it cannot be ignored that a Swedish membership also implies participation in Nato's structures for the use of nuclear weapons. One could have been clear from the beginning that nuclear weapons will not be permitted on Swedish territory. Instead, the choice was made to be very clear that Sweden stands for everything, including Nato's nuclear deterrence.

Vänsterpartiet has repeatedly proposed that Sweden should establish reservations regarding nuclear weapons, something that both the Social Democratic-led government and the Moderate-led government with the support of Sverigedemokraterna have rejected. Our neighboring countries Denmark and Norway made statements about nuclear weapons, partly in connection with the countries joining Nato, and partly in connection with their respective DCA agreements. Vänsterpartiet regrets that the government did not make any such markings in connection with the accession process.

Nuclear weapons are a security risk for Sweden, and Sweden shall not participate in or promote the use of nuclear weapons. Proponents of nuclear weapons argue that nuclear weapons are a deterrent. It is a very short-sighted perspective. That countries compete with each other in the nuclear arms race increases uncertainty and is hardly a way to build peace and security.

Vänsterpartiet wants Sweden to remain a nuclear-weapon-free state. Sweden should therefore adopt national legislation that prohibits the import, storage, and transit of nuclear weapons on Swedish territory in both peacetime and wartime. NATO countries such as Finland, Lithuania, and Spain have national legislation against nuclear weapons. Therefore, we in Sweden should also be able to have a law that prohibits this.

The Left Party's position is that Sweden should never be involved in planning, preparing for or practicing the use of nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, this is not the case right now.

Within Nato, the principle of so-called no first use is missing. This means that Nato does not exclude that, in a conflict, one is the party that first uses nuclear weapons. This makes the threat of nuclear weapons always imminent. We believe that Sweden would benefit from pushing for a rule of no first use of nuclear weapons within Nato.

Agreements on nuclear-weapon-free zones are one of the most effective tools against nuclear weapons and nuclear proliferation. If countries can be assured that other states do not possess nuclear weapons, it dampens the desire to acquire their own. A nuclear-weapon-free zone in both the Nordic and Arctic regions as well as the EU would not only be a correct security policy decision but also an important signal for peace and nuclear disarmament towards the international community.

Mr. Speaker! Since Sweden became a member of Nato, the Swedish Riksdag has more members in Nato's Parliamentary Assembly, which is an organization where the parliaments meet and discuss Nato issues. In Sweden, a model has been chosen by consensus where all parties have been given the opportunity to sit in the Riksdag's Nato Delegation. It is a wise decision, I think.

For the assembly, there are a number of associated delegations from countries that Nato cooperates with. In some of these countries, there is a democratic deficit, and the democratic space is shrinking. One such country is Georgia, where the ruling party Georgian Dream is now rapidly shrinking the democratic space for the opposition and opponents after an election in October 2024 that was criticized by international observers. Immediately following this debate, a seminar will be held here in the Swedish Riksdag.

NATO and NATO's Parliamentary Assembly must be clear in their democratic message to states both inside and outside NATO when the democratic space shrinks. Therefore, NATO's Centre for Democratic Resilience also needs to be established. Hungary has been blocking a proposal for several years now, and this is a clear example of how the image of NATO as an alliance between democratic states does not hold up. Together with a democratic regression in Turkey, and most recently in the USA, this shows that NATO faces several future challenges linked to democracy issues. Sweden should therefore push for the establishment of the Centre for Democratic Resilience.

Mr. Speaker! It is of great democratic importance that it is precisely the Riksdag that makes the decision to send Swedish military troops abroad in peacetime, which is regulated in Chapter 15, Section 16, first paragraph of the Instrument of Government. Vänsterpartiet considers that this should apply and be protected even now when Sweden is a member of Nato.

The Riksdag has on several occasions in recent years shown evidence of rapid action and decision-making. Right now, however, the government is preparing a bill that goes in the opposite direction. We greatly appreciate that the government has kept the Riksdag's parties informed during the process but feel a clear concern about what the outcome will be. We will have to see what emerges during the referral process that is currently underway and in future bill proposals from the government, perhaps during the next parliamentary session.

With this, Mr. Speaker, I move for approval of reservation 3 on a center for democratic resilience.

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Mr. Speaker! We are here dealing with the very first communication from the government regarding the activities in Nato. It is in a sense a historical proceeding because it is the first time we are doing this, but it is also an expression that the Riksdag has insight and influence over Nato's work. This is a way for us to look at what was done during the previous year. Other expressions are the submissions we have before Nato's summits, but also the work that is carried out within the framework of Nato's parliamentary assembly, where Sweden has a delegation where all parties are represented.

I will not delve so much into last year's activities, but I intended to take the opportunity to look a bit forward. Before I do that, I thought I would say a few words about our principled stance, and then I also get a reason to look a bit backward.

Sweden's entry into Nato was, in many ways, a historic step. It had been preceded by 200 years of non-alignment, which had also meant 200 years of peace.

I mean that the policy during these years was very successful. When it began once in the early 1800s, it was a break from previous centuries' great power ambitions, when warlike absolute monarchs time and again drew Sweden into fearsome wars that brought enormous misfortune over the country. In the 1600s, for example, every third Swedish man died in war.

That was broken in the beginning of the 1800s. Then Sweden decided on a different line. We decided that we would not engage in great power wars on the continent. Instead, we would focus on our own country, on building our own prosperity and on maintaining peaceful conditions and relations with our neighboring countries to the greatest extent possible. Instead of looking enviously at other countries and trying to steal their prosperity, we would create our own. That was a very successful policy. It laid the foundation for the very powerful economic development that Sweden then saw during the 1800s and the beginning of the 1900s.

The freedom of alliance during these 200 years was, however, severely tested at some occasions. During the First World War, the right-wing government of that time pursued a policy that was very pro-German. This led to Sweden being placed under blockade, and we suffered famine in Sweden because of it. But we were not drawn into the war. During the Second World War, there were also forces, primarily on the right, who wanted us to join the war on Nazi Germany's side against the Soviet Union when Nazi Germany attacked the Soviet Union in 1941. The Commander-in-Chief was one of those forces. This was, of course, stopped by the Swedish government. But that being said, it has not been an undramatic time during all the years we have had freedom of alliance. From time to time, this has been tested.

After the war, when Nato was formed and Norway and Denmark joined Nato, Sweden decided to continue with the non-aligned policy. This was, among other things, with regard to Finland, which otherwise would have been squeezed between Nato on one side and Stalin's very aggressive Soviet Union on the other. The stance that we then established, and which we subsequently had for almost 75 years, contributed, in my opinion, to detente in our part of the world.

In 2022, everything changed. This was, of course, due to Russia's attack on Ukraine but also to a large extent to Finland's decision to join Nato. Sweden ended up in a completely new security policy situation. That Sweden should be the only Nordic country standing outside Nato in that situation, in that serious situation, was simply no longer an option. Therefore, the social democratic government applied for Swedish Nato membership in the spring of 2022, and here we are now. I mean that it was the only wise thing to do. Sweden in Nato makes Nato stronger and Sweden safer.

To look forward now that we are in Nato, one can ask the question: What shall we do now with the organization that we are now a part of? Yes, we shall do as Sweden has always done in all international organizations that we have joined – be it the UN, the Council of Europe or the EU, and now it is Nato: We shall with all our heart and soul contribute everything that we can contribute, in a constructive spirit, in order to together with others make the organization stronger.

What lies immediately before us is to contribute, together with the other Nordic countries, with the Baltic states, and with Poland and Germany, to an ever deeper defense cooperation around the Baltic Sea so that this defense cooperation becomes as seamless as possible – a common defense so strong and so united that no one will even think of daring to attack us. It is what is now proceeding at full speed, not only in Sweden but also in the other countries around the Baltic Sea. It naturally requires rearmament.

The upgrade began already during our government's period, ten years ago, from 2015 onwards. Since 2015, defense expenditures have almost doubled.

For example, we reintroduced conscription, which the bourgeois government unfortunately abolished in 2010. Now it is running again, and we see how thousands of boys and girls are once again receiving conscription training in the Swedish Defence and a war placement. It is good, but we will need to do more there. We now have 8,000 conscripts. It shall reach up to 10,000 conscripts in 2030 and 12,000 conscripts in 2032. We Social Democrats are setting the target that we shall reach up to 20,000 conscripts.

At the same time, new large-scale equipment purchases are planned. We have nothing to be ashamed of – on the contrary, we produce very good war materiel in Sweden. We have world-class submarines. We have world-class combat aircraft. We have world-class main battle tanks. We have much other equipment ourselves. We therefore have much to contribute when we now join the defense alliance.

All of this will, of course, cost money. That cannot be ignored. One must have a realistic view of how this is to be financed. One must also take responsibility for the long-term financing.

We cannot do as they do in the USA, where they borrow up everything. The American national debt is now 100 percent of GDP. They have a skyrocketing budget deficit, and with the new large tax cuts that Trump has proposed, the deficit explodes even more. In practice, this means that the USA borrows money from, among others, China to finance public expenditures and thereby makes itself more dependent on China – this country which is otherwise regarded as a competitor. It is not a long-term policy. It is due to the fact that American politicians simply do not have the strength to collect the tax that needs to be collected to be able to finance public expenditures.

So we cannot do that in Sweden. We will also, of course, need to borrow money. But we Social Democrats have proposed a special total defense fund to finance necessary investments in total defense, i.e., not just the military defense but also such things as healthcare and infrastructure – things that must function if we end up in a very serious situation. We cannot, for example, have a situation where healthcare hardly functions in peacetime. How will it then function during high alert or in wartime? Broad investments are therefore needed to strengthen the welfare. If you strengthen the welfare, yes, then you strengthen the total defense. And as said: Some money must be borrowed. But not all. We cannot just send the bill to future generations. We who live and work now must also be prepared for sacrifices, and then you cannot escape the tax issue. You cannot escape high taxes.

That is actually quite natural. When we rearmed during the First World War, we had a special defense tax that financed it, partially. When we rearmed during the Second World War, we also had a special defense tax that financed it, partially. Therefore, we Social Democrats have proposed that we should also have a special tax this time, a preparedness tax, to co-finance the defense investments. We believe it should be levied on the highest labor and capital incomes. We think that to a large extent it is a moral question how one distributes the burdens that lie ahead of us.

We think that if one can demand that Sweden's youth set aside up to a year of their lives to perform military service, sleep in tents in the forest, dig trenches, eat from tin cans and everything else they do – I remember it very well – then one can reasonably also demand that those who have the highest incomes contribute a few hundred kronor or some thousand kronor in tax. Is that not reasonable?

For me, this is a question of solidarity, or perhaps I should say patriotism in this context. We must simply all be prepared to help. The defense expenditures we are now facing must be financed sustainably and fairly, and they must not crowd out welfare.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I move for approval of the proposal in the report.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Since Sweden became a member of Nato a little over a year ago, Europe's security policy situation has deteriorated radically. There is a risk that the American commitment to Europe's security will decrease in the future. Russia poses a real threat to Sweden and other countries in Europe. It is therefore of the utmost importance that Europe stands firm in its support for Ukraine and that we strengthen our Swedish and European defense capability. Putin's war crimes must never pay off.

Now that Sweden is a member of Nato, it is important that Sweden pursues an independent foreign policy and stands up for important values such as democracy and human rights, both within and outside Nato. We also see a need to increase transparency regarding Nato's activities. We want Sweden to work for a democracy requirement within Nato and that Nato shall not have permanent troops or bases on Swedish territory.

We want Nato to focus on its core task: defense of the allies, not out of area expeditions. Miljöpartiet wants Sweden to drive the principle of no first use within Nato. At present, Nato applies the principle of first use, which allows the alliance to be the first actor to introduce nuclear weapons in a conflict. The principle hinders global disarmament initiatives because it means an imminent threat of nuclear weapons always remains.

It is also high time for Sweden to sign and ratify the UN convention on the prohibition of nuclear weapons. Miljöpartiet stands firm that nuclear weapons must never be allowed on Swedish territory, whether in times of peace or war. We would like to see legislation that prohibits the importation of nuclear weapons onto Swedish territory.

Madam Speaker! Sweden has a proud tradition of transparency and the principle of public access. Sweden shall therefore be proactive in improving oversight in Nato and proactive in ensuring that the national parliaments in the member countries sharpen their scrutiny of Nato's affairs so that accountability can be achieved. Increased transparency is important to ensure trust in the operations.

Furthermore, the Swedish government should, before all NATO defense and foreign ministers' meetings as well as the annual heads of state meetings, have consultations with appropriate parliamentary committees or boards regarding what is to be discussed at these meetings, in order to ensure democratic anchoring in Sweden.

In addition to an increased security threat in Europe, we also face increased uncertainty as a consequence of climate change. Sweden had, until the current government took office, a powerful climate policy. However, there have always been problems regarding defense when it comes to transparency regarding climate emissions and the defense's other environmental impacts.

The Swedish Defence has come some way regarding climate impact and the reporting of the same, but this can hardly be said of Nato's collective forces. It is therefore required that Nato makes public its method for calculating greenhouse gas emissions. It is also required that the alliance's and its member states' military emissions be limited in accordance with the Paris Agreement's 1.5-degree goal.

Madam Speaker! I would finally like to say that we wish that Sweden, now that the country is a new Nato member and also contributes to the increased buildup in Europe, would become even better at not only defending itself against potential armed conflicts but, above all, allocating significantly more resources to conflict prevention. This applies to both Sweden as an independent state and within Nato.

As I just mentioned, it is of course about powerful efforts to minimize and curb global warming. It is also about peace-building measures, democracy building, supporting free speech and free media around the world, poverty reduction, healthcare etcetera – that is to say, everything we normally use aid for.

As important as strengthened aid is a strengthening of diplomacy and dialogue. It will require more foreign agencies, and it requires a reinforcement of the UN system. It also requires an increased trust in the rules-based world order, and with that, also an avoidance of the double standards we currently see being used.

Madam Speaker! War is expensive, and military defense is expensive. But armed conflicts can be avoided. What is required for that is much cheaper and also leads to less death and suffering.

With that said, I would like to move for approval of reservation 2.

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

Karin Enström (M)

Madam Speaker! As those who have already listened for a while know, today's debate is about two accounts, or stories. One is the government's report on the activities in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization – better known as Nato – during the year 2024. The other is the account of the Swedish delegation to Nato's parliamentary assembly's activities during the same year. I am the chairman of the delegation.

The communication that the government has submitted to the Riksdag deals, as mentioned, with Sweden's first year as a Nato member. It is easy to become a bit tunnel-visioned. It is no small matter – which several speakers have underlined. It is a historical event that Sweden, after many years with other solutions regarding security policy, has now become a full member of Nato.

We can observe that Sweden has taken on this new role in a very ambitious way. Our goal – to be a credible, reliable and solidary ally within the alliance – has been proven already during this first year as a member. Now that all countries around the Baltic Sea, except Russia, are members of Nato, there are better conditions than ever before for a deeper dialogue, a deeper cooperation and a common planning. Sweden stands stronger with its allies in Nato.

Madam Speaker! During this first year as a Nato member, Sweden has worked intensively on many areas and at many levels to make the changes that are required. This is clearest within the Armed Forces, but we must remember that it is not only the Armed Forces that has joined Nato – it is all of Sweden.

The Armed Forces began an intensive work during 2024 for Sweden's participation in NATO's multinational brigade in Latvia. The purpose of this is deterrence as well as defense of the eastern flank. On January 18 this year, the first Swedish soldiers from the Södra skånska regementet landed, and they will remain for some weeks outside the city of Ādaži in Latvia. This will be rotated. Denmark takes over for half a year, and after that, Sweden and the Swedish soldiers will return.

Not enough with this. The recurring sabotage against critical underwater infrastructure in the Baltic Sea led NATO to establish operation Baltic Sentry with the aim of strengthening maritime surveillance. Sweden participated with corvettes, support ships, and radar reconnaissance aircraft. Sweden and Finland announced in September that it will be Sweden that shall lead NATO's upcoming forward presence in Finland.

Sweden also participated in the exercise Steadfast Defender – the largest exercise since the Cold War. All NATO member countries participated. It was 90,000 soldiers and sailors who participated. This gave a clear signal about NATO's strength and unity.

Until very recently, Swedish combat aircraft were based in Poland. There, they participated in NATO's enhanced readiness for incident response to secure the free airspace. In this case, it was a parliamentary decision that enabled the government to make various Swedish armed forces available.

Sweden has, to a large extent and in various ways, naturally also staffed offices and working groups with diplomats, experts and officers in order to fully obtain the insight and the possibilities for influence that membership in the alliance entails.

Madam Speaker! Sweden joined Nato on March 7, 2024. This accession also meant that we received full membership in Nato's parliamentary assembly. It is the organization where the parliaments of the 32 member countries meet regularly.

Before that, the Riksdag was an associate member of the parliamentary assembly for just over 20 years. Today, however, it is the first time that a chamber debate is being held regarding the activities of this parliamentary assembly.

A new delegation to the parliamentary assembly was appointed in April 2024. It has members from all parties in the Riksdag. As Sweden became a full member, the delegation has also been expanded from five ordinary members and five substitutes to seven ordinary members and seven substitutes. Membership in the delegation entails voting rights in the assembly and the opportunity to run for various positions, for example, rapporteurs or other functions in the assembly's committees.

In the assembly, the work is conducted in five committees and a plenary assembly with 281 members. One might wonder what the activities aim for. Well, they aim to be able to discuss and influence decisions on common security, create understanding for the security policy challenges that the transatlantic cooperation faces, and support the national parliaments' oversight in matters of defense and security.

The cooperation between Nato and the parliamentary assembly is strengthened, among other things, by the fact that Nato's Secretary General participates in the assembly's sessions, reports on the alliance's activities, and answers questions from the parliamentarians.

NATO celebrated 75 years as an organization last year. This was particularly noted during NATO's summit in Washington, USA, in July last year and has also been noted here in the Riksdag. During last year, NATO's parliamentary assembly naturally continued to prepare for the summits, and that has also been done this year.

The most important issues, to summarize, are that the Assembly continues to strongly condemn Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine and confirm its strong support for Ukraine through declarations and resolutions. The Assembly has also continued to emphasize the importance of the democratic values that form the basis of the defense alliance being guiding during NATO's transformation and has repeated the call to establish a center for democratic resilience at NATO headquarters.

The Assembly holds two sessions per year, one in the spring and one in the autumn. We have already managed to have a spring session this year, which we will get to talk about next year, when the next report comes. But just to say something about what has been at the top of the agenda, it is, as said, continued strong support for Ukraine and the importance of member countries spending at least 2 percent of GDP on their defense. We also know that that figure will most likely be raised at the upcoming summit. It is a question that is being discussed heatedly. It is about taking responsibility for security and that all member countries must take that responsibility.

There are also discussions and resolutions regarding the concern over the growing China, concerning both technological development and the fact that China opposes the rules-based world order. There is also a great focus on continuing to develop partnerships with countries outside the membership circle. It is about developing cooperation, not least in NATO's neighborhood, such as in the Western Balkans, and with countries south of the Mediterranean.

Madam Speaker! Finally, regarding the delegation, I want to say that we will continue to be an active party in the parliamentary assembly. The activities in the assembly are an important part of what the committee also emphasizes in the report – as the Defense Committee also does in its statement – namely the need for the Riksdag to have insight into and influence over Nato matters.

Madam Speaker! With this, I move for approval of the committee's proposal in the report.

(Applause)

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

Kerstin Lundgren (C)

Madam Speaker! Much has already been said since this is a communication from both the government and the parliamentary assembly concerning the first membership year in Nato. It was a year when we, of course, rejoiced that in March we finally became full members and have since been able to act fully in Nato's parliamentary assembly as voting delegates. It has been extremely important.

Some have spoken about it being a new era now in relation to when we became members. Yes, that is so; the security policy situation has become even more serious than it was when we became members. Part of this is due to the unpredictable world around us that we face from more sides than we had accounted for when we became members. It is clear that what develops in the relationship between the USA and Russia has a formative effect on our security policy situation.

We have received clear signals that Russia within three to five years – there are different reports – could be ready to attack another Natoland, for example one of our neighbors. It is clear that it is almost impossible to imagine, but we must think the thought and prepare ourselves for the fact that we risk such a development if we do not collectively succeed in building a clear and credible deterrence and defense capability.

It is naturally a completely decisive difference that we are now members of Nato compared to if Sweden and Finland had stood alone – or even Sweden alone without Finland – in the world around us that we now live in. It is a completely decisive difference that we are now a member of Nato and have the opportunity to co-plan and act jointly fully. It builds increased credibility, it builds increased security, and it builds increased defense capability, which is important not least for us here up north.

I agree with those who have previously emphasized the importance of seeing the northern dimension in Nato and also working with those conditions. By that, I do not mean specifically the Baltic Sea area, even though there is much focus there given everything that is happening, but it is also important to see the Arctic and the North Atlantic. It is, after all, a reality that we must handle. If not otherwise, what is happening around Greenland, Iceland, or Svalbard has also signaled that we cannot look only at the immediate environment but must also look out over the North Atlantic.

We are facing a new summit, the second as members. It is clear that it will be an important summit in The Hague this summer. For those of us who were present at the spring session with the parliamentary assembly, it was clear that 3.5 and up to 5 percent is what is to be expected as a new target for Nato. The question of timing is, of course, something to always discuss, but the perspective of three to five years we must take with us.

In this context, the following is also important: What many have focused on has been Article 5, one for all and all for one, but fundamentally we must also look at Article 3, which concerns our own responsibility. That is because it is the first protection. The first security is our own capability, and Article 3 shall secure just that capability. It is something for which there is, naturally, reason to discuss. I know that conversations are ongoing, and the conversations will continue. But there are, so to speak, reasons to strengthen the Article 3 part.

The year 2024 was a year in which Ukraine was in focus. Nato did not prepare to enter, as one is not active in Ukraine, but rather to facilitate some of the work that needs to be done so that Ukraine can act with full force. It has been clear – and it appeared from Karin Enström's previous posts – that Ukraine has been the main focus for the parliamentary assembly. At none of the gatherings that have taken place, regardless of the area, has one avoided discussing and focusing on Ukraine. The resolutions that have been adopted have had a strong focus on precisely Ukraine and on how we together can ensure that Ukraine wins peace.

We see systemic threats. Russia is undoubtedly one of them. We must not ignore that Russia has a different systemic structure and is a systemic threat. They have a long-term interest. Putin is not just here and now, but Putin and the Russian narrative have long-term goals, in the same way as China. Together, they are naturally forces that strengthen the authoritarian trend in the world, and it is something that we must resist.

We also see the democratic center for resilience as an important part. The assembly has spoken out there, and we are active. I can reveal that the recently deceased Gerry Connolly was one of those who clearly drove this from the US side and one of those who was a pioneer in this part. Why not create a Gerry Connolly center in Brussels to focus on and highlight democracy and resilience against those who seek to destroy democracy, which is a prerequisite for and a part of the National Outlines?

Madam Speaker! I will not prolong the debate in this situation, but I think it is important to emphasize the cooperation that must come, and which has also developed during the year, between the EU and Nato. It is extremely important for our continent and also for Nato.

I vote in favor of the proposal in the report and against the reservations.

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

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Today we are dealing with a report that is actually historic. It is the first time that the Riksdag is debating an account of Sweden's activities in Nato when Sweden is a full-fledged member.

For the Christian Democrats, this is not only a new chapter in Swedish security policy but also a fundamental shift in how we take responsibility for our own and our allies' security. The road here has been long. For decades, Sweden was a close partner to Nato, but always at arm's length. On March 7 last year, that changed. Then Sweden became a member of a defense alliance that is built on something more than just common interests. It is built on a community of values regarding democracy, the principles of the rule of law, and every human being's inviolable worth.

The government's communication shows that we have taken our role very seriously from the very beginning. We have moved from being an observer to being a participant – from guest to responsible member. This is clarified, not least through our involvement in the planning of NATO's defense, with the logic of collective deterrence and everything it entails, even in the sensitive issue of nuclear deterrence.

It is not something one does lightly. It requires insight, preparedness, and a deeply anchored security policy responsibility. We are now involved in shaping the decisions that ultimately determine whether Europe will continue to be a peaceful continent or not.

Madam Speaker! Sweden has not only joined Nato to be protected. We have joined to contribute, and we do. We contribute with troops and personnel, with aircraft and ships, and with expertise in civil defense, civil preparedness, cybersecurity, and resilience. It is a concrete expression of solidarity, but it is also a signal that we take our share of the responsibility for common security in an uncertain time.

The war in Ukraine continues. We must continue to stand up for Ukraine's independence and right to freedom. That the government so clearly prioritizes the support for Ukraine as part of NATO's activities is not only right but also necessary.

Security, however, is not only about military strength but also about how robust our societies are. The Christian Democrats have long advocated for a broad concept of security where the protection of democracy, civil society, and people's everyday safety is part of the whole. In that light, it is pleasing that Nato is taking larger steps in issues concerning human security, climate-related threats, and the work for women's rights in conflict-affected regions. It is also positive that the alliance is working to strengthen democratic resilience through initiatives such as the proposed center for democratic resilience. Here, from Sweden's side, with our experience of openness, democracy, and strong institutions, we have a natural role to play.

Madam Speaker! This document – the first of its kind – thus marks not only a new stage for Sweden but also a real sense of responsibility. We are no longer a country that passively relies on the protection of others, but we are an ally that shoulders responsibility together with others. It is not about giving up our independence. On the contrary, it is through this membership that we can seriously safeguard our freedom, our independence, and our security in an increasingly unpredictable global situation.

Sweden's defense capability is now being strengthened through collaborations based on mutual commitments. Our credibility as a member also rests, however, on our ability to combine military strength with a values-based foreign policy. The Christian Democrats therefore want to continue working to ensure that Sweden within Nato is a clear voice for democracy, the rule of law, and human rights. That is what distinguishes an alliance between free nations from the cold calculations of great power politics. That is what gives our role in Nato moral weight and which thereby allows us to participate and influence with credibility.

Madam Speaker! We face a new reality. It demands leadership, long-term thinking, and cooperation. The Christian Democrats will continue to work to ensure that Sweden is a reliable, values-driven, and responsible ally. It is our conviction that security is not built in isolation but in a community where we hold each other accountable and where we stand up for each other's freedom. This is what the core of membership is about. It is also why this document, despite its technical nature, is so fundamental and important.

I vote in favor of the proposal in the report in its entirety.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 12.)

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