Certain security policy issues

Stefan Olsson (M)

Madam Speaker! We are now debating the Committee on Foreign Affairs' report number 11, which deals with motions from the general motion period and concerns security policy. Let me initially move to approve the committee's proposal in all parts.

Madam Speaker! As the debate here today will show, there is a very broad consensus between the parties in the Riksdag regarding what Sweden's security policy path should be in the near future. We are largely in agreement on the problem picture: that the world after Russia's full-scale attack on Ukraine has become significantly more dangerous, that our primary task in the coming years in every way is to promote a Ukrainian victory in the war, and that Sweden is primarily defended through membership in the defense alliance Nato. In addition, we are in all material respects in agreement that Sweden shall always be an active partner within the UN and the EU and, whatever happens, defend the rules-based world order.

It is a strength for our country that the support behind this line is broad, even though two of the eight parties consistently oppose Swedish NATO membership. I would therefore, on behalf of my party, like to thank you for good cooperation in these matters.

But, Madam Speaker, there are still certain nuances that I thought it could be good to debate. In the reservations in the report, it appears that the Social Democrats, together with the Left Party and the Green Party, do not seem to want to stand behind NATO's policy which states that the ultimate deterrence is based on the use of nuclear weapons. For the Left Party and the Green Party, this is fully understandable and in line with the fact that they oppose Swedish membership. That they pursue a line that weakens the alliance's ability to defend itself is not surprising. Instead, it is the Social Democrats' position that I would like to know more about.

Sweden's position regarding nuclear weapons is, as stated by the government, that Sweden sees no "reasons to have nuclear weapons, or permanent bases, on Swedish territory in peacetime." The wording emerged during the spring of 2022, when an agreement was reached between the then government, the bourgeois parties, and Sverigedemokraterna regarding applying for membership in the alliance.

Since the wording is part of an agreement that my party has entered into, I stand behind it, but it will hardly come as a surprise if I say that it is more important for the Social Democrats than for us. Therefore, I would like the Social Democrats to explain more closely why the wording is important. It seems contradictory to me to stand behind NATO's nuclear deterrence but at the same time not want Sweden to be involved in carrying it out. Is Sweden not dodging its responsibility here?

I am not speaking on behalf of the government now, but merely want to know where the shoe pinches for the sake of clarity. I believe, however, that we in Sweden would benefit from having a more principled stance in our membership. I believe we will be more respected that way.

Madam Speaker! As I have mentioned, the war in Ukraine will be defining for our foreign policy for a long time. Russia's attack is not the end of something but a beginning. The long low-intensity war in Donbass was only a prelude. It is now that Russia is seriously trying to restore the lost empire. Nothing therefore suggests that Russia will stop until some form of victory can be declared, and when that happens we can be sure that further steps will be taken. Further wars will be started.

Unfortunately, there are also no signs that the Putin regime is about to fall or be reformed in any way. What we are living with now, an aggressive Russia, is what we will have to deal with for a long time to come. The war in Ukraine therefore appears as a war directed also against us in Sweden. It is therefore time now to look at ourselves in the mirror and once again ask ourselves: Are we doing enough to support Ukraine? I do not believe we are. Let us therefore ask the question of how we can raise the support to a new level. What would a Ukraine policy 2.0 mean?

Madam Speaker! Of course, I do not have a finished plan for this, but let me nevertheless mention a few things that should be included in an upgrade. First and foremost, it is about clearing out the bug in the system that several countries that donated weapons put in, namely restrictions on how the Ukrainians are allowed to use the weapons. All the time, there has been a fear of escalating the conflict to the level that Russia strikes back with nuclear weapons.

But Ukraine has the right under international law to attack military targets inside Russia, and it will become impossible to defend oneself if one is not allowed to use the full potential of weapons. Ukraine will never conduct a war of aggression against Russia. The risk of nuclear war would only arise if Ukraine were to invade Russia and threaten Moscow with annihilation. It goes without saying that this will not happen.

Furthermore, the EU countries could, just as Russia has done, transition their economies to truly become Ukraine's weapons factory. Until now, the Western countries have donated material that has existed in their own stocks, but in war, one must expect large material losses. The lost materiel must therefore be able to be replaced quickly and in large quantities. Russia will retreat only when it realizes that every lost Ukrainian tank is replaced with two new ones.

But above all, I believe it is about making financial resources available over a very long period. Money is not the same as war materiel, but this shows what we are willing to do and for how long. Yesterday, the government presented the latest support package to Ukraine. It covers 13.3 billion kronor and is the largest so far. Sweden has thus provided military support amounting to 43.5 billion kronor. That is around 1.6 billion per month.

The sum sounds large, but it is not that much money when compared to what we, for example, allocate to aid. The aid budget covers 4.7 billion kronor per month. As long as the aid budget is several times larger than the budget for the defense of Ukraine, there is no reason to even begin to breathe a word about us approaching a ceiling for how large the support can become.

I believe, however, that it is particularly important that the support is long-term. It is about 10, 15 or perhaps 20 years. Russia is trying to win the war by waiting us out. How long one can wait is exclusively a question of resources. Russia's economy is as large as Italy's. Compare it with the entire EU's and add to that the economies of the United Kingdom, North America, Japan, South Korea, Australia and several other countries. In comparison with the collective West, Russia is a dwarf when it comes to economic resources.

Madam Speaker! The world has become more dangerous. Russia's attempts to upset the international rule of law are spilling over into other conflicts in the world. The principles of the UN and international law are being devalued. As recently as the day before yesterday, the Russian dictator directed a direct threat toward us, whom he referred to as small European Nato countries. We should keep in mind that our countries are small and sparsely populated, he argued, implying that we would be easy targets for a large army. The statement is typical of the new era. Dictatorships are trying to force their will through violence.

Will we fall apart? No, of course not. Since March 7th this year, we have been part of the world's strongest military alliance. Thank you to everyone who has worked to give us this protection!

(Applause)

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Madam Speaker! I thank Stefan Olsson for the speech.

The Speaker mentioned nuclear weapons in their speech. Nuclear weapons are indeed the most destructive weapon of mass destruction that humanity has invented. Research has also clearly shown that there is a lack of preparedness to handle the consequences of nuclear weapons - it simply is not possible.

Nuclear weapons are not a protection against international conflicts and war. In reality, nuclear weapons are an enormous threat to both Nordic and global security. If nuclear weapons were to be used, it would mean a humanitarian and climatic catastrophe with consequences that no state has the capacity to face. A single nuclear weapon can kill hundreds of thousands of people and destroy an entire city.

NATO is a nuclear weapons alliance. Sweden is now a member of NATO and has become one without any reservations whatsoever regarding nuclear weapons. Does the member not consider that we should guarantee that no nuclear weapons will ever be stationed on Swedish territory by enacting a clear ban on nuclear weapons on Swedish soil?

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

Stefan Olsson (M)

Madam Speaker! I believe that we should stand behind Nato's policy for nuclear deterrence. It is based on the fact that Nato reserves the right to use nuclear weapons as long as Nato's potential enemies also have nuclear weapons. I want to remind the member of who they are: Russia, China, North Korea and perhaps Iran. It is still reasonable to have a certain deterrence against just these nations when it comes to nuclear weapons. That is how Nato's deterrence philosophy works.

In other respects, I agree with the member that nuclear weapons are something fearsome and that there are no ways to save the planet if nuclear weapons are put into use. Therefore, one must conduct active disarmament work, which Nato also does.

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the answer.

It is simply that nuclear weapons do not function as a deterrent. Nato has said that it wants to remain a nuclear alliance as long as nuclear weapons exist. If the nuclear powers chose to apply the principle of no first use, that is to say that nuclear weapons may never be used unless the enemy has already carried out a nuclear attack, the risk of nuclear weapons use would decrease. Unfortunately, Nato reserves the right to strike first in a conflict involving nuclear weapons. This complicates the global disarmament initiative, as it means that an imminent threat of nuclear weapons will always persist.

We believe that Sweden should push for the principle of no first use within Nato. It would mean greater security. What does the member think about this?

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

Stefan Olsson (M)

Madam Speaker! The discussion about no first use also existed during the Soviet era. Even then, Nato reserved the right to use nuclear weapons in a first stage because one did not have the same military capacity on the conventional side.

That is how one must think from a military perspective. It depends on how the situation looks. It could be that the NATO countries end up in a conventional disadvantage at a certain time and then must threaten with nuclear weapons. We cannot say in advance what different military-tactical situations will look like; it is not possible to say. Therefore, at least I do not support the philosophy that Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet are promoting in their reservation.

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

Aron Emilsson (SD)

Madam Speaker! In this debate, we are addressing the Committee on Foreign Affairs' report UU11 Certain security policy issues. As Chairman, I would like to initially thank the committee for constructive deliberations on these very critical and important issues during the preparation process.

I move for approval of the Sverigedemokraternas reservation 5 under point 2. I also want to mention that we have secondary motions regarding the security policy orientation under decision point 1 as well as in the matter of disarmament under decision point 6, where we support the committee's proposal for a decision in the event that our reservations fall during the chamber's voting.

An armed attack against Sweden cannot be ruled out, which the Defence Preparedness Board has also stated in broad political agreement. This finding underscores the seriousness of the debate we are holding today and places almost existential demands on us in this chamber, who have been elected as representatives for the Swedish people, to work for security policy resilience and thresholds that ensure that Sweden is not subjected to aggression.

It is serious now. We see it primarily in Ukraine, where on the black earth, people fight for their lives, their freedom, their existence and a rules-based security order as we have known it, while simultaneously being subjected to terrorist attacks from the air.

Russia is not only acting against Ukraine but has also declared that Sweden is part of its sphere of interest. We see increasingly aggressive behavior in our immediate vicinity. We have seen moves to change maritime borders against our neighbors Finland and Lithuania, which have subsequently been followed by the removal of border buoys. No reasonable explanation has yet been given by Russian authorities. Russia has disrupted GPS signals and risked aviation safety over the Baltic Sea. The so-called shadow fleet exposes both people and the environment to great risks in the Baltic Sea and feeds the Russian war chest with black gold.

Madam Speaker! The threat from Russia encompasses not only conventional forces and hybrid warfare but also weapons of mass destruction. Russia is the world's largest nuclear power. A large part of these nuclear weapons are located on the Kola Peninsula, which is in close proximity to Sweden. They constitute a threat to our security both in peacetime and in wartime. Russia also has a very large arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons in Europe, and these are intended to be used in Russia's vicinity. The country has a significant advantage over the USA and other allies in Nato regarding precisely tactical nuclear weapons.

During the last few days, we have seen that radar systems that Russia uses to detect nuclear attacks have been attacked. Escalation and Russian responses can therefore not be ruled out.

Madam Speaker! We need to take threats and disturbances seriously. The same applies to the threats against Sweden from other authoritarian states such as China and Iran. Today, Sweden is a member of Nato, which is positive for the country's security. At the same time, we need to continue to strengthen our security in every way we can. This includes, of course, a reinforcement of our own total defense. We also need to strengthen Nato's non-conventional deterrence. This is a factor that, moving forward, needs to be addressed in a realistic rather than an idealistic way.

Madam Speaker! Unfortunately, not all parties can handle this. That the Left Party and the Green Party cannot manage to make this analysis and draw adequate conclusions is hardly surprising, as these parties have always been against increased military capability and have always been opponents of NATO.

The Social Democrats' policy and writings in the report in this area are, however, more surprising, as previously mentioned. They do not realize the realities that have emerged following Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine. The Social Democrats' Morgan Johansson has, for example, spoken about Sweden having the same entrenched policy that Norway and Denmark established in the 1950s regarding nuclear weapons. This policy was formed in a time when NATO members were superior to the Soviet Union in terms of nuclear arsenal. It is actually not realistic in the current situation.

The Social Democrats' statements have also previously consistently pointed out that they are unable to realistically relate to the deterrence that is necessary. In 2021, then Foreign Minister Ann Linde questioned the United Kingdom's buildup of the country's nuclear arsenal, which risked undermining collective security. The then Social Democratic government also allowed Sweden to enter the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) as an observer, which also undermined Sweden's support for NATO's deterrence. Then they had to eat humble pie and declare that Sweden could not sign the agreement because it would damage Sweden's relationship with NATO and the country's own freedom of action and credibility moving forward.

Madam Speaker! We Sweden Democrats have always put Sweden's security first, and since our entry into the Riksdag, we have constantly pushed for a strengthened defense capability. We will continue to do so within Nato. Therefore, we believe that the issue of Nato's nuclear deterrence needs to be addressed in a realistic manner. The goal must be to create a credible and long-term deterrence, so that Russia will never attack Sweden or any other Nato member. Russia must also not be able to use threats of nuclear use to pressure Sweden or Nato into concessions. Concession politics is not the answer to Russia's aggressive and violation of international law policy – far too many people know this outcome today.

Madam Speaker! It is also important to point out that a credible deterrent against Russia in no way stands in contrast or opposition to the ambition to be able to push for the goal of disarmament. This should take place within the framework of the non-proliferation agreement, where it is clear that the participating states shall strive towards disarmament.

Disarmament can never occur from a position of weakness but needs to occur in a balanced manner and through negotiations. That was precisely what happened during the 1980s. At that time, Nato rearmed, while simultaneously being prepared for negotiations. During the end of the decade and the period that followed, substantial reductions of nuclear arsenals could be achieved and, furthermore, entire categories of weapons systems could be banned.

We also need today to learn from this development and not be oblivious to the threat that primarily Russia poses in the area. Unilateral disarmament is and remains that which invites aggression.

Madam Speaker! Sweden needs to develop its cooperation with states in our vicinity and within Nato regarding various capabilities to deter Russia. One such area is space, which has proven to be crucial in Ukraine. A very large amount of the intelligence has come from various space-based systems. We see that the threat picture is increasing in the space domain, as Russia develops the capability to act against various satellites.

Sweden has both a space industry and a space base in the form of Esrange, which allows us to contribute capabilities to this area. We should also be able to develop security policy cooperation with other space nations both within Nato and outside the alliance. It is welcome that the current government has taken initiatives in this area, and not so long ago, the Foreign Minister was on-site and visited the space industry in the USA.

Madam Speaker! Finally, I want to emphasize the need for all of us to learn from the mistakes made during what was at least believed to be the era of eternal peace. Sweden's security policy during the 2000s was thoughtless and did not take security policy threats seriously. This applies to both Social Democratic and previous bourgeois governments that have disarmed and not taken the clear signs that have existed regarding an increased threat seriously.

The Social Democrats chose in the 2004 defense decision to significantly downsize in an irreversible way, and the then Alliance government continued the disarmament after 2006 and did not begin to rearm despite the war in Georgia in 2008. The possibility of NATO membership was also not properly investigated while time for this still existed, and the defense industry, which we are now completely dependent on to be able to support Ukraine, was burdened with regulations that have no parallel in large parts of the Western world.

Madam Speaker! All these maneuvers and mistakes that were committed need to be identified, and lessons need to be drawn. Therefore, we Sverigedemokrater have proposed that just as Sweden's security policy was investigated during the later part of the Cold War, it is now—the sooner the better—time to investigate and draw lessons from the period after the Cold War. From that, we can then ensure that we develop a viable security policy and resilience against both external threats and internal political opportunism. In this way, Sweden can stand better equipped in the future that is coming.

Those who do not learn from the mistakes of history are doomed to repeat them, as it is said. It is as true as it is said.

(Applause)

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Madam Speaker! I will return to both Stefan Olsson's and Aron Emilsson's reasoning regarding nuclear weapons in my speech. I had intended to devote this reply to another security issue, namely what has emerged regarding the Sweden Democrats' troll factories, which also contributes to weakening Sweden's security in various ways.

Cold facts revealed that your troll factory engages in creating fake accounts to smear political opponents and to spread incitement and hate. Furthermore, it turns out that Russian propaganda has also been spread from your troll factory. This was only revealed the other day and is yet another example in a long series of examples of connections between Russia and Sverigedemokraterna. Two of your members, Pavel Gamov and Roger Richthoff, have had to leave their assignments due to collusion with Russia and because Russian propaganda has been spread. They were thus forced to leave after they were exposed; before that, they were shielded by Sverigedemokraterna.

It also emerged from this segment that you have faked, false Arabic accounts and are reasoning about how to be able to spread incitement and hate against Muslim groups so that they, as is explicitly stated, shall engage in violent resistance in Sweden. You do this in a situation where the terror threat level has now been raised from a three to a four on the threat scale. We also know from earlier that the Sverigedemokraterna have called for Quran burnings, something that we know has undermined and worsened the security situation in Sweden.

My direct question to Aron Emilsson in this situation is therefore: Do you intend to abolish your troll factory? Do you intend to close your fake accounts?

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

Aron Emilsson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I belong to those who think it is genuinely sad that we have to have a discussion about so-called troll factories and disinformation in the area of domestic policy. Many of us were raised with John Bauer's *Bland tomtar och troll*, among other things – a completely different definition of troll. It is sad that this exists here at all, and it needs to be highlighted and combated where it arises.

Anonymous accounts have been shown to exist within several parties, for example the Socialdemokraterna and the Sverigedemokraterna. They exist in Folkrörelsesverige and also in other places in Sweden and abroad, naturally. There is obviously nothing illegal in having anonymous accounts, but one should be clear about who is the sender of which messages. We distance ourselves from hate and threats, and Russian propaganda needs to be highlighted and combated wherever it arises, regardless of the workplace, regardless of where it exists.

However, it cannot be taken as an argument to criticize the Sweden Democrats for being friendly towards Putin or Putin's Russia. On the contrary, there are now a number of compilations, looking at hard facts and source material, which show that we both here in the chamber of the Riksdag and in the European Parliament have been among the most Russia- and Putin-critical parties and party groups for a long time, not least since the full-scale invasion. On that point, it is perfectly clear.

Morgan Johansson refers to a number of different components in the political debate over the last two years. When it comes to, for example, the Quran burnings, I myself have on a number of occasions commented on it as directly inappropriate, even if it is not illegal. On the other hand, I do not think it is reasonable that we should change the constitution based on what a foreign power considers we should regulate in our own constitution. It is not in Sweden's interest.

Where there are illegalities and problems that risk serving the interests of foreign powers, we naturally need to crack down on it, wherever it arises.

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Madam Speaker! Many words, no line at all. This double game will not do! One cannot stand here in the chamber and in one breath say that one wants to safeguard Sweden's security and in the next breath enter secret rooms and organize mudslinging via fake accounts. It simply doesn't work. One must know which side one stands on in this issue.

Aron Emilsson tries to level the debt by saying that there are indeed more parties and others who have done something similar. No – that is simply not the case! You can certainly find examples where individual party workers in different parties have made mistakes, but what distinguishes the Sverigedemokraterna from all other parties is that other parties have then spoken out forcefully, shut these people down, and said that you are not allowed to behave this way – you shall not go on with your faked, secret, false accounts in this manner!

The Sweden Democrats are the only party that persists and says that you will continue with your false, faked, secret accounts to, for example, try to incite Muslims and other immigrants. In Kalla fakta, it emerged that you want to use secret Arabic accounts to incite violence - in a situation where we already have an elevated terror threat.

Aron Emilsson says in the beginning of his speech that it is "sad" that these troll factories and fake accounts exist. In that case, there is well, for heaven's sake, only one task for Aron Emilsson, and that is to leave the chamber, go straight to the party office, and ensure that your fake, secret, faked accounts are closed and that immediately!

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

Aron Emilsson (SD)

Madam Speaker! We can conclude that a good deal of answers have been given regarding just the Sweden Democrats' communications department in the open debate that has occurred since Kalla's review, so I do not intend to repeat too much of that.

We can only state that there have been anonymous accounts. There were also some during the 2018 election campaign, when what were then called troll factories were uncovered at the Socialdemokraterna. It forced the Socialdemokraterna's communications chief to come forward, apologize, and crack down on it.

If it exists today, it should be highlighted where it arises. That was exactly the message I gave. I will also personally see to it that it is done.

In the case that Morgan Johansson refers to in his reply, the employee mentioned was removed from service as soon as it came to light. That is my view. That is precisely how one should react. There is no room or space for employees who promote that type of propaganda or disinformation to be employed by the Sverigedemokraterna. I hope that is not the case in any party.

One must act when one becomes aware of something. It is difficult to act on information one does not have. I believe that Morgan Johansson also knows this, after all the years as minister and Member of Parliament.

I do, however, have a question and still think that the Social Democrats need to explain one thing. The general error regarding Swedish security has for decades been that one has completely slaughtered the Swedish total defense and the defense capability. We know that today. One has undermined Swedish defense capability and Swedish security, but one does not have an ounce of responsibility when it comes to explaining how one thought or the will to investigate and learn from the mistakes one once made, in order not to repeat these. I think that is something that the Social Democrats need to go back to their chamber and ponder.

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

Emma Berginger (MP)

Madam Speaker! There is much to remark upon in Emilsson's contribution. I may return to some of the themes in my own speech later.

Above all, it was claimed that Miljöpartiet has always been against increased military capability. That is a lie. We have stood behind the recent defense decisions, both in 2015 and 2020, and we stand behind the proposals in the Defense Commission's report, which shall form the basis for the upcoming defense decision.

Madam Speaker! I wonder, then, why the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs is misleading us with falsehoods in the Swedish Parliament.

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

Aron Emilsson (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the question, Emma Berginger!

In my speech, I referred to the broad political consensus that exists and has existed among all parties in the Defence Committee. That includes Miljöpartiet as well.

It is gratifying that one has found the right path in today's situation. That is not how it has always looked. That was what it was about when I mentioned that Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet have definitely not been any advocates for increased defense capability or military buildup in Sweden. But during the years that have passed, it has shown that it had been needed. Therefore, we have a poor readiness today. There is cause and effect, which needs to be addressed.

It is very good that Miljöpartiet has changed its position, changed its stance, and today actually joins the national consensus that needs to exist regarding an upgrade of Sweden's total defense capability. I believe many will be pleased by that.

However, it has been made clear that we do not support the need for deterrence that the debate has also dealt with so far. This applies, for example, to the fact that we are now part of NATO's nuclear planning and how important that non-conventional deterrence capability against Russia is, also for our total defense and Swedish security. If one questions it and wants to obstruct it in different ways, for example if we try to opt out of the joint nuclear planning with various reservations, it will naturally reduce our own room for maneuver and our credibility moving forward.

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

Emma Berginger (MP)

Madam Speaker! It is not that Miljöpartiet has recently changed its stance on these issues. We have followed the security policy situation. And we have been a constructive and active part of the Defence Preparation Board for a long time, perhaps even before Aron Emilsson's own party even entered the Riksdag.

Here, the Sweden Democrats show once again that they cannot be trusted, not even when they have the floor in the chamber of the Swedish Riksdag. They behave in a way that is not becoming of a chairperson of a committee.

There is much that we would need to discuss regarding the serious security policy situation. It would be better if we could devote ourselves to that rather than some people spreading falsehoods. One cannot say on the one hand that we have a broad consensus and on the other hand that a party does not stand behind that we should have a military capability. That is to spread falsehoods, it is a lie, and it is not good for the political climate of conversation.

It is also not good for the political climate of discourse that the Sweden Democrats have operated those types of anonymous troll accounts, which have contributed to disinformation. It is unfortunate for the political climate of discourse and for trust in society. It is truly something that also does not contribute to us being able to have a sane and broad political trust in security policy issues.

My question to Aron Emilsson is therefore: How do the Sweden Democrats intend to behave in a decent manner in politics going forward?

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

Aron Emilsson (SD)

Madam Speaker! We do that daily. I also just referred to the broad political consensus that exists today in the Defence Preparation Board. That includes, as far as I know, both Miljöpartiet and Sverigedemokraterna, among all the other parties.

The Green Party did, however, write in the security policy analysis that Sweden shall reserve the right not to support NATO's statements on nuclear weapons. It is actually very unclear what is intended there. Furthermore, the Green Party has not condemned Russia but instead NATO's nuclear weapon statements, despite the fact that they are defensive and emphasize that nuclear weapons should not be used.

Speaking of decency, I mean that in the broader picture of security issues that we are now discussing, one must touch upon and address unconventional deterrence, because today we are part of Nato's joint planning. Nato is a part of the Swedish total defense, and the Swedish total defense is a part of Nato. There, there are still question marks.

I think I clarified in my reasoning that one needs to describe, among other things, the history, how it has looked. It is important. Then the voters can carry out their accountability in the elections, if one thinks that Miljöpartiet has had credibility in defense and security policy issues previously or not and whether they have it today.

I just emphasized that it is pleasing that one has changed in recent years. But it has not always been that way. That was what it was about.

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

Kerstin Lundgren (C)

Madam Speaker! Clarifying history is always important. The 90s, after the fall of the Berlin Wall, was undoubtedly a major, redefining period when Sweden and most other Western countries scaled down their defense. We see that in Sweden today, and we see that in Europe today. We all have something to learn from that. It is not just one party, but many parties and many countries that share that journey.

For my part, I think it is interesting to listen to Aron Emilsson when discussing the history. It surprises me that the Sweden Democrats did not discover what the situation was earlier. You were together with the Social Democrats among the last to see that we needed a NATO membership.

The Centre Party saw it with regard to Georgia and Ukraine in 2014 and drew conclusions. You chose not to accept it until Russia's attack was a fact. I think that is a mistake that must be highlighted if one wants to be serious in the discussion about different parties' mistakes and actions.

I can only state that we in Centerpartiet in various defense preparations have been those who, together with others from the alliance parties, have pushed for increased appropriations. It has been successful, but it has not been enough. Now it is also we who see 3 percent as the reasonable goal. We are, unfortunately, alone in that.

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

Aron Emilsson (SD)

Madam Speaker! That is quite right. We in the Sweden Democrats reconsidered our position on a Swedish NATO membership after the full-scale invasion of Ukraine from the Russian side.

However, we differ from the Social Democrats in that, for example, we already voted for a Swedish NATO option here in the chamber in 2020, which the Social Democrats were not prepared to do at that time. We wanted readiness and to have a larger discussion with greater foresight when we saw that the security policy situation was deteriorating progressively.

There has, therefore, been an opening from our side previously, even though we changed our stance definitively in the spring of 2022 after a process within our party. I think it is important, right, and reasonable, and I am glad we did it. Since we initiated that process, I have said that it is what is required today to strengthen Sweden's security and build security together with other like-minded partners. We also have very broad support for this within our party organization and among our voters.

Making realpolitik assessments and evaluations when reality changes, that is, adapting the map to reality and not the other way around, is important, just as Kerstin Lundgren says. I also hear that the Centerpartiet has done so when it comes to how, in previous years, it was nevertheless one of the parties in the work for disarmament and by establishing regulatory frameworks for the defense industry that have actually hindered and risked development, which today could have looked different. It could have been easier to support, for example, Ukraine, and there could have been better prepared conditions for the Swedish defense industry if we, for example, had had a national defense industry strategy and other things that other, like-minded countries have. We do not have that today, but the Sverigedemokraterna have proposed it.

It is therefore clear that there is much to do for both of our parties, partly hand in hand, and partly through opposition and majority. I hope that we can continue to work on this track. National unity is required to build a clearer and stronger security in Sweden.

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

Kerstin Lundgren (C)

Madam Speaker! Reality changed, but the shift from the eternal peace to the realization of where Russia was headed came earlier than February 24, 2022. But it took time. I welcomed that you chose to vote for the NATO option that we from the Center Party pushed for. It was nothing that you started by thinking was good, but in the end, you accepted it. You were clear that it should not be interpreted as you advocating for NATO membership. It was a very clear marking from the Sweden Democrats when you voted for the NATO option. You still stood together with the Left Party, the Green Party, and the Social Democrats and said no to NATO membership. It would have been wise if you had acted differently earlier. It is one of several mistakes that everyone has reason to analyze.

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

Aron Emilsson (SD)

Madam Speaker! It is very true that reality has changed. It also changed in this case when it comes to Russia's warfare against Ukraine already in 2014, naturally in and with the annexation of Crimea. It was actually then that the war started, not during the spring of 2022, as is sometimes claimed in the debate – not just here, but as we sometimes encounter.

It is clear that we have seen the long-term development. But it was also like that already in 2008, when we saw the Russian invasion of Georgia. Then, the Sverigedemokraterna advocated for and supported an increased military buildup on Sweden's part and that the Swedish total defense should be strengthened. Ever since our entry into the Riksdag, we have presented sharp proposals and state budget proposals that involve significant reinforcements of Sweden's total defense capability when others have not listened to that. It is clear that we all need to look at what has been done and what needs to be done today and moving forward.

I also hope, in connection with the analysis that Kerstin Lundgren mentioned, that the Center Party will also be prepared to support the Sweden Democrats' proposal in the future and conduct a proper analysis and evaluation of Sweden's security policy, as we describe in the report. I believe it is good for research and for our own ability to learn from previous Swedish mistakes that have been made, regardless of government. I hope that the Center Party can also join in moving forward.

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

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Today's committee report is titled Certain Security Policy Issues and addresses some of these challenges: the direction of security policy, space issues, cybersecurity, international missions, disarmament, nuclear weapons, autonomous weapons systems, and weapons of mass destruction. I intend to comment on some of them. However, I will ruin all the suspense by announcing from the very beginning that we Kristdemokrater stand behind the entire report.

Madam Speaker! We live in a dark time where the rules-based world order is facing challenges from authoritarian countries. Russia has set the world on fire through its unjust attack against Ukraine. China's actions in the Taiwan Strait as well as Iran's crimes against its own population, its involvement in all crisis hotspots in the Middle East and its actions against Swedish citizens are further examples of this. It has led to accumulated and almost permanent crises.

Security aspects must now be linked to many more political areas than before, such as energy, food, and critical infrastructure. The list can be long.

The EU is Sweden's primary foreign policy platform. A strong and united EU can give Swedish positions on global issues weight in a way that would otherwise not be possible. The goals of the EU's common foreign and security policy include promoting democracy, the rule of law and human rights, as well as working for conflict prevention and international security.

Sweden has an ambition that the EU should strengthen its role as a foreign, security, and defense policy actor, which is also seen in the implementation of the strategic compass, the development of military capabilities, and the promotion of the European defense industry. For Ukraine's sake, a united and long-term European support is required.

Madam Speaker! Sweden has been a member of Nato for just over two months, which is a groundbreaking event for our country and implies a profound and direct change in Sweden's foreign and security policy. Sweden strengthens its security through cooperation with others and as a solidary member of Nato and the EU. The goal is to improve security and stability both in our immediate vicinity and in the entire Euro-Atlantic area.

Sweden's security policy is based on an active, comprehensive and responsible international engagement. Challenges and threats to our security shall, as far as possible, be managed in cooperation with other countries and organizations. Sweden's foreign and security policy rests on the cohesion of the EU and NATO as well as on cooperation in the Nordic and Baltic regions as well as within the UN and OSCE. Sweden shall therefore continue to defend the rules-based world order, the European security order, democracy, freedom, human rights and equality. Sweden shall also work to ensure that international law is upheld.

A decisive starting point for the security policy is the assessment that Russia will, for the foreseeable future, pose a serious threat to the security of Sweden and Europe. Sweden shall therefore consistently pursue a clear-sighted, realistic and long-term Russia policy that limits Russia's opportunities for aggression, destabilization and power expansion. Our security against Russia must be defended from a position of strength - politically, economically and militarily. We must also not overlook China's role.

Madam Speaker! Sweden's participation in international military operations aims to contribute to peace and security, prevent conflicts and create conditions for sustainable peace and security, as well as to strengthen the Swedish Defence's competence. Sweden shall continue to participate in international civil and military crisis management and peace-promoting operations. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the 100,000 Swedes who have participated in such operations. There was a very fine and dignified commemoration of this yesterday, on Veterans Day. I am glad to have had the opportunity to thank them.

International engagement should be seen as an integrated part of Sweden's foreign, security, and defense policy. The main line for Swedish participation in peace-promoting missions shall be based on a mandate from the UN Security Council, especially when it concerns peace-enforcement missions.

Madam Speaker! The primary defense against a possible future major war against Russia is to prepare for it. Against an aggressive dictatorship that equates diplomacy with firepower and respect with fear, military deterrence is the only thing that works. Military defense cooperation takes place primarily within the framework of Nato, but much also needs to be done at the EU level. We Christian Democrats want to see that a defense commissioner is appointed, with the task of coordinating the EU countries' efforts to strengthen Nato's European pillar and deepen the union's defense cooperation, as well as that a common European cyber defense is established to meet the digital attacks that Russia is currently directing against Europe. Furthermore, reforms are needed to strengthen European defense material and ammunition production.

Even though Sweden's fundamental interest in global disarmament and non-proliferation remains, the time factor has been pushed forward. My contribution could therefore be summarized in two words: borders and freedom.

(Applause)

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Madam Speaker! I will begin by saying that we Social Democrats naturally stand behind all our reservations, but for the sake of time, I move for approval only of our reservation number 13. It concerns the subject I have intended to speak about today, namely nuclear weapons and nuclear disarmament. I believe that Stefan Olsson may therefore be able to get answers to some of the questions he asked in his introductory remarks.

When I became politically active in the mid-80s, in 1985, it was in a time when the threat of a full-scale nuclear war felt terrifyingly concrete and imminent. During the Cold War, the superpowers, the Soviet Union and the USA, had engaged in a, one might say, insane arms race with conventional weapons but also with nuclear weapons. At most, there were 75,000 nuclear warheads in the world, more than enough to be able to wipe out the conditions for human life on earth several times over.

But thanks to strong public opinion, an ever-strengthening peace movement and courageous politicians, including Olof Palme in Sweden, it succeeded from the 60s onwards to create a process for mutual disarmament through a series of agreements. At the base was, of course, the non-proliferation treaty, the NPT agreement, from 1968, which limited the number of nuclear powers to the five original: USA, Soviet Union, China, Great Britain and France. That agreement was then built upon with a number of bilateral agreements between USA and the Soviet Union, including Salt 1 and Salt 2, ABM, INF, Start 1 and Start 2. This had an effect. From the 70s onwards, the number of nuclear warheads has decreased sharply, from 75,000 to just over 12,000 - a reduction of over 80 percent.

This is, of course, an enormous success, especially if one considers that during this period, war was actually taking place which both superpowers were involved in, for example the Vietnam War and the Afghan War - not to mention all the proxy wars, coups d'état and influence operations that the USA and the Soviet Union were engaged in, officially and unofficially, in the Middle East, Africa and Latin America, precisely during the time when they were simultaneously sitting and negotiating nuclear disarmament. This shows that it is actually possible to achieve something even if the conditions may appear difficult.

For many years, the nuclear threat thus receded into the background. Other global threats, above all the climate crisis, moved into the foreground - with all the right, naturally.

But in recent years, the number of nuclear weapons has actually started to increase again, at least the operational ones, that is, those that are ready for use. In 2023, there were 12,500 warheads, of which 9,576 were operational. That was 86 more than in 2022. Russia has the most warheads, almost 4,500, followed by the USA with 3,700. But the country that is increasing the most on the operational side is China, albeit from a lower level: from 350 to 410.

These modern nuclear weapons are extreme. They are much more powerful than those that were dropped over Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The bomb over Hiroshima corresponded to 15 kilotons of TNT and immediately killed over 75,000 people; it is unclear how many have subsequently died from the aftermath. The largest of the modern nuclear weapons are more than 50 times as powerful. They can correspond to over 800 kilotons. Some speak of the fact that there may be weapons with an explosive power of up to 1,000 kilotons in a single nuclear warhead.

Even though the number of warheads has, as stated, decreased by 80 percent, the total explosive power is still so great that a nuclear war would have devastating consequences for all of humanity.

Stefan Olsson from Moderaterna asked me why we Social Democrats are so strongly opposed to nuclear weapons, and I shall explain that to him. Nuclear weapons are not just any weapons. They are weapons that are largely aimed at killing civilians. They are weapons that kill not only at the time of use but also far into the future through the radiation they carry with them. They are, therefore, weapons whose use can pull away the foundations for the survival of all humanity. Therefore, Stefan Olsson, we are opposed to nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are a type of weapon that should never have been invented.

Sweden has for decades been a strong voice for nuclear disarmament, and we must continue to be that as a NATO member. Together with many other countries, Sweden launched the so-called Stockholm Initiative under the red-green government to once again get a process for continued mutual nuclear disarmament started. I believe that work must continue, even if it currently, it is understood, looks bleak against the background of the war in Ukraine.

Nuclear armament must, as we have always said, be precisely mutual. It must be based on agreements between the states that have nuclear weapons. It is this that has functioned throughout history and which will function also in the future.

We also consider that Sweden, even though we have not signed the so-called ban convention, must nevertheless contribute to and monitor the work with it. It is wrong, we believe, that Sweden does not even send observers to the conference of the parties that are organized. This is a deliberate step by the Swedish government, and we consider it to be wrong. Norway sends observers, and we can also do so. I consider that Sweden, by this decision, instead sits in the stands, which weakens our position.

Finally, Madam Speaker, Sweden will of course not have any nuclear weapons on Swedish soil - neither as a consequence of the NATO membership nor as a consequence of the cooperation agreement with the USA, the so-called DCA agreement. This shall be completely clear to everyone, and I have understood that it is the line we have all agreed upon across party lines. I hope that we still, even after the contributions from Stefan Olsson and Aron Emilsson here, are in agreement that we shall not have any nuclear weapons on Swedish soil.

Our line from the Social Democrats' side is, in any case, crystal clear and distinct. The increase in readiness that we are now carrying out throughout the entire Nordic region shall not result in increased proliferation of nuclear weapons. If you wish to deviate from the agreement we have, it will become a struggle over that. But I hope that in this debate we can get clarity that this was not the intention of your contributions.

(Applause)

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

Stefan Olsson (M)

Madam Speaker! My question to the Social Democrats and Morgan Johansson was not why the Social Democrats are against nuclear weapons. The Social Democrats' opposition to nuclear weapons in itself has been well known for many decades and is fully understandable, and I share this view.

My question was why Sweden should not contribute to NATO's collective deterrence, which ultimately relies on nuclear weapons, by saying that we should not be able to place nuclear weapons in Sweden. I would like to know the reasons why the Social Democrats think that Sweden should have a different role than other NATO countries. It seems to me, however, as if it is meant that we should not bear the same burdens as other NATO countries. Do the Social Democrats mean that we are, so to speak, going to dodge it? I assume the Social Democrats do not reason that way. The member could perhaps explain in more detail why just Sweden should have this exception?

Then I just want to clarify: My party stands behind the agreement with the Social Democrats as long as we have it. But for the sake of transparency and for the sake of the public, I want to try to explain more in detail what it is that lies behind this.

My main reason for standing by the agreement is that it is very important that the Social Democrats, the Moderates, and other NATO-friendly parties are in agreement on their common NATO policy. It is my most important reason, namely that we should be in agreement. On the other hand, I wonder why the Social Democrats believe that just the exception is so important when it actually contradicts the very idea of community in the defense alliance.

(Applause)

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Madam Speaker! It is a very strange position, one might say. In one breath, Stefan Olsson says that he stands by the agreement, and in the next breath, he asks me why we should have this agreement. My God, if he now stands by the agreement, does he not reasonably know his own arguments for it?

If he does not do so, I can mention them briefly. The first is that Sweden and other Nordic countries shall not contribute to increased nuclear weapons proliferation. That is an important and fundamental starting point. We would do that if we were to station nuclear weapons in our countries. The second is that we have actually signed an agreement, a non-proliferation agreement. It is not only we who have signed it, but the Americans have also done so. We shall not spread nuclear weapons more. It is simply that. Otherwise, one violates the non-proliferation agreement. We would violate the non-proliferation agreement if we were to accept nuclear weapons on Swedish soil.

The post from Stefan Olsson is not good, because it actually clouds what line the Moderaterna actually have. From the Socialdemokraterna's side, we must be able to trust that when we reach an agreement with you, it also applies in the long term.

When we entered the Natoprocess, we received confirmation from Ulf Kristersson that this was the common position. We received that in the spring of 2022. I think it is now up to the Moderaterna to honor that agreement and not try to dilute it or send signals in any other direction.

I would therefore once again like to hear from Stefan Olsson and the Moderaterna: Do you stand by the agreement that we shall not have nuclear weapons on Swedish soil? I think that Stefan Olsson can answer that with a simple yes or no.

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

Stefan Olsson (M)

Madam Speaker! Then I shall answer simply, so that it will be easy for everyone to understand: Yes, we stand behind the agreement. But it is naturally not strange that I ask what the Social Democratic reasons are for it being so important. I notice from Member Johansson that he thinks it is a very important principle.

I do not think I received an answer to the question of why Sweden should not bear the same burdens as other alliance members. I do not believe it would be a violation of the non-proliferation agreement if the nuclear weapons that are currently stored in Germany for military-tactical reasons were moved to Sweden if there were a need for it. Now, Nato has not said that there is any such need, and the countries that own these nuclear weapons have also not said so, so it is more of a theoretical question.

At the core, I find it difficult to understand the social democratic idea of solidarity here. Solidarity is, after all, a buzzword within social democracy. Should not Sweden be prepared to bear the same burdens as other NATO countries when it comes to precisely the difficult parts: How are we to handle nuclear weapons? It feels as if you are trying to find reasons for us to evade.

Well, let me clarify, so that there are no misunderstandings whatsoever: The agreement applies as long as the Social Democrats want it to apply. But the Social Democrats can, in fact, also reconsider.

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Madam Speaker! One does not become much wiser from this. In one breath, Stefan says that the Moderaterna stand behind the agreement, but in the next breath, he says that it is actually unsolidary not to station nuclear weapons in the Norden. I must say that I become very worried when I hear the representative for the largest government party reason in that way. I am quite certain that this stance is not shared by the Moderaterna in the Government Offices. It may be Stefan Olsson who alone stands for this.

This is not a question that one plays with. When it comes to formulations and how one problematizes things, there must be a clear and distinct line and a clear signal.

Stefan Olsson speaks about bearing the same burdens. Does he mean then that Denmark, Norway and Finland do not bear the same burdens? Does he mean that all countries in Nato that do not have nuclear weapons deployed are unsolidary and do not bear the same burdens – is that how we are to interpret the Moderates' position? It is an unreasonable position, I believe.

We have and shall have the same line regarding Norway, Denmark and Finland. It would have much more difficult consequences if we began to waver in that position. We shall not do that.

Speaking of the other posts, I also want to say that it is a misconception to believe that a nuclear-armed state cannot be in favor of nuclear disarmament. Of course it can be. It is even the case that a nuclear-armed state can be in favor of nuclear disarmament. History shows this. We can look at how the USA and the Soviet Union signed the many bilateral agreements in the 1970s and 1980s. At that time, they cut down on nuclear weapons precisely for the reason that they understood it was not sustainable in the long term. One could not have 70,000 warheads and just continue the insane arms race.

Even as a nuclear-weapon state, one can therefore be in favor of nuclear disarmament, but then it must be with the reservation that it must be based on agreements between the countries that have nuclear weapons, so that they do it simultaneously. I believe that everyone—most people, at least—understands that one cannot engage in unilateral disarmament, because then there is the risk of becoming an easy target for the counterparty. But one can actually be both a nuclear-weapon state and a NATO member and still be in favor of nuclear disarmament.

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

Joar Forssell (L)

Madam Speaker! I intended to continue the concise debate with Member Johansson. The other day, the UN's atomic energy organization IAEA came out and warned that Iran had enriched 30 times more uranium than they are allowed to do according to the nuclear energy agreement that has been in effect since 2015, JCPAO.

We in the Liberals have already said previously that we want to terminate the negotiations once and for all because we believe that it is not possible to trust Iran or similar countries. One cannot enter into agreements with Iran and believe that these agreements will be followed. In that case, it is only the other party, that is, the democracies, that follow the agreement. Then the democracies are weakened in the balance against Iran.

The news from the UN shows that the Liberals have been right in their position: It is naive to trust Iran. One cannot enter into agreements in that way with Iran.

I know that the Social Democrats have previously considered that one should continue the negotiations with Iran. Therefore, my first question is whether the Social Democrats now want to join the Liberals' line that one should break off the negotiations once and for all because Iran cannot be trusted. And if the answer to that question is no, I also have a second question, which is whether the Social Democrats consider that one can trust Iran and similar countries in international agreements.

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Madam Speaker! To begin with, I believe we share the opinion that an Iran with nuclear weapons would be a complete nightmare in the region. We shall do everything we can to try to ensure that they do not reach that goal.

That was also the purpose of this agreement. I believe that the negotiations were initiated by the Americans under Barack Obama's leadership precisely to try to establish some form of process where one could talk with Iran and make such agreements, so that one could scale down, so to speak, that production and avoid this. It is only to be noted that the development in Iran since then has gone in the completely wrong direction. I can also state that the conditions now to work with Iran as was done previously do not exist in the same way at all. I do not believe that this work will be able to bear fruit in the near future. But if we see a change in the Iranian stance, we must try to take the chance to revive that process. We are not there, however. I believe that Joar Forssell and I actually have the same starting points here.

The fundamental problem is that when one is dealing with such dictatorships - North Korea is another example - the Western world is in a difficult position. We know that very much is at stake. We want to try to change the conditions, but it can be very difficult to work with such regimes.

But in response to Joar Forssell's question: I believe that the conditions for making progress right now are very, very difficult with the leadership that Iran has.

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

Joar Forssell (L)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for that answer. I want to continue to emphasize that the Liberals believe we should terminate these negotiations once and for all, because we do not believe that it is possible to cooperate with Iran. In a future where the Iranian popular resistance has been heard, where the regime has been overthrown and where the democracy- and freedom-longing Iranian people have taken over, it is clear that all agreements, so to speak, are on the table. But here and now, this is unfortunately unrealistic.

There are many examples of this. Iran and the nuclear deal is a clear example of when this type of countries break international agreements in a very flagrant way, which makes us appear naive. China and the handling of Hong Kong is also a good example of how this type of aggressive dictatorships do not follow international agreements. Russia is an obvious example of a country that one cannot trust when it comes to international agreements.

These countries - China, Russia and Iran - are actually cooperating against us. They have in common that they are against the liberal democratic world order. One country, Russia, is fascist. One country, China, is communist. One country, Iran, is Islamist. But they have in common that they hate the democratic liberal world order.

I wonder if the Social Democrats draw any further conclusions from the fact that it is not possible to rely on this type of countries when it comes to international agreements. Have we in the West, in the democratic world, been naive regarding this? Should we end our policy of concessions in order to instead handle them in a way that they perhaps actually understand a bit better?

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I do not consider this agreement to be any kind of appeasement policy. At the time, it was an attempt to find a process forward to increase security in the region and do so with a very difficult counterparty. It is still that which is important, that is to say, to try to find ways to increase security.

I said in my previous post that I do not see any conditions now for, with the leadership that currently exists, to move forward. But I also think that one should be very careful before formulating it as if this is to apply once and for all. In that case, one has in practice said that there are no conditions at all for the foreseeable future. It is simply not a good stance.

The Western democracies - there we are naturally in agreement, Joar Forssell - are in a very difficult position. We know what kind of opponents we are facing. We know what type of countries we are talking about. But one must always try to work towards increasing common security in the world.

If one does not want to care about it and turns one's back on all such processes, there is a great risk that one suddenly finds oneself in a situation where one has acquired nuclear weapons and where one, so to speak, exposes other countries in the region to fearsome dangers.

No, there is no possibility of making progress with this agreement now. I hope that we will be able to achieve a different situation in the future.

Then I think one should remember that one can sometimes negotiate even with countries that are dictatorships and which differ greatly from us. I mentioned the bilateral disarmament agreements between the Soviet Union and the USA during the 70s and 80s. One could actually negotiate with the Soviet Union, and one could actually achieve a reduced number of nuclear warheads. Those examples also exist.

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

Aron Emilsson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Morgan Johansson addressed the undersigned, in addition to Stefan Olsson, in his speech, so I thought I would take the opportunity to give our statement and answer the questions that were asked.

It is clear that there is a broad consensus and agreement that nuclear weapons are not an option on Swedish territory. Morgan Johansson possibly missed the detail that one should add: in peacetime. For it is also the case that we at this moment are part of Nato. We are fully part of Nato. We are part of Nato's nuclear planning and programs. That means we cannot put a bridle on how potentially completely unforeseen situations in a future, where we might find ourselves in a state of war, look. That is why the addition is very important.

But suddenly it happens. It can happen that the Social Democrats and the Sweden Democrats are in agreement. I noticed that we were, in the exchange of remarks that Morgan Johansson had with Stefan Olsson. It concerned that a NATO country can be for nuclear disarmament or a nuclear-armed country can be for nuclear disarmament, as Morgan Johansson mentioned. That was exactly what I also mentioned in my opening statement earlier. To participate in NATO's nuclear planning and programs does not need to stand in opposition and contrast to continuing to maintain strong Swedish initiatives for disarmament. There is, for example, a broad support in the Riksdag, also from our side, behind the non-proliferation agreement and the Stockholm Initiative. It is well a strength for Sweden's part that there is a national unity around it.

But my question to Morgan Johansson at this stage is: What is, ultimately, the Social Democrats' realpolitik alternative in the worst of worlds when non-conventional deterrence with precisely nuclear weapons for NATO's part against authoritarian states such as Russia and China may need to be a fact? What else could we have as non-conventional deterrence to counter these authoritarian regimes?

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I was a bit surprised by both Stefan Olsson's and Aron Emilsson's contributions. The Moderates stand by the agreement. But then Stefan Olsson asked me why, which was strange.

Aron Emilsson says in his post that the stance that Norway and Denmark have had is from the 50s and that it is so old that we probably cannot adhere to it. It is a completely different signal than what I have heard previously. We have previously agreed that it is Norway's and Denmark's model that we shall adhere to, that is to say we shall not have nuclear weapons or permanent bases on Swedish, Norwegian and Danish soil in peacetime - that is what the addition is. That is also how we have formulated it. Therefore, it was a bit surprising when Aron Emilsson suddenly took this up as something old-fashioned and out of date - now something else was supposed to apply.

Then I must ask Aron Emilsson if he stands by the agreement we now have and by the fact that it is that formulation that applies. We shall not have any nuclear weapons on Swedish soil. We shall also not have any permanent bases. That decision applies in peacetime, and NATO membership shall not have any effects on this. Nor shall the DCA agreement have any effects on it. We will, of course, have to return to that discussion. But it would be good to get a clear statement from Aron Emilsson in that part.

We do not speculate on what we will do in times of war. It is roughly as the Finnish president, who was here this week, said: One should probably not talk so much about exactly what one does in times of war, because then one gives a potential aggressor so much information that that aggressor, that military power, can plan its attack against us. That is what we shall refrain from.

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

Aron Emilsson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I share that view. However, I believe it is very important to address and emphasize that Sweden entered NATO membership without any reservations. It is important to state this. Everyone, even the authoritarian states, knows that there is a nuclear planning and a nuclear program there.

Then, of course, we should not speculate on what different procedures and scenarios could look like in a potential future war situation. That is obvious. But the preparedness needs to be there.

That is why I think it is so important to emphasize that it is about nuclear weapons or permanent bases not being present on Swedish territory in peacetime. In wartime, things as we know can look completely different. Surprises happen.

We have known for some time that American nuclear weapons, for example, have been located in Greenland. It is not black and white; it is not the case that Denmark and Norway, through reservations, have completely abstained from being part of the collective nuclear planning, as one might perhaps try to make it appear.

Again: It is clear that the broad formulations that we have reached a majority on in the matter apply. Then, I do not want to anticipate the detailed formulations in the report regarding the DCA agreement because we have it under preparation, but one can assume that it is these formulations that it rests on.

I still do not hear Morgan Johansson answer the question. It is obvious that the Social Democrats are deeply critical of the fact that there is a nuclear weapons program, a nuclear deterrence, and so on. They think that the best thing would have been if it did not exist. I believe that most, fundamentally, can sign off on this.

But what would be the real-political alternative to nuclear deterrence as non-conventional deterrence against a state like Russia in the Social Democrats' world today? I have not seen anything such on the table. And no one would be happier than Putin if we in the collective West or NATO were to strip ourselves of the most important deterrence.

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Mr. Speaker! We have always been in favor of mutual nuclear disarmament based on agreements between the countries that have nuclear weapons. As I pointed out in my contribution, this has actually been able to be achieved even in political situations that have otherwise been quite difficult. These are situations where both the Soviet Union and the USA were involved in other wars and had other activities in different parts of the world. This was during the Cold War, and they were truly standing directly against each other in a way that we have not seen until now again, with the war in Ukraine. Despite these conditions, agreements were nevertheless managed to be negotiated.

It is clear that I understand that the war in Ukraine makes it almost impossible to be able to recreate such a process in the near term. But we must try to ensure that we can get there, because the issue of nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons continues to be an existential threat to humanity. Even though the number has now been reduced to just over 12,000 nuclear warheads, they are so much larger than they were during the final stages of World War II. They can wipe out the conditions for human life several times over. That is why we, on our side, have always pushed to try to achieve such processes.

We will of course return to the DCA agreement when we are to discuss it in a couple of weeks. I just want to be very clear, and that is why I said what I did from the rostrum. NATO membership shall not open up for any nuclear weapons on Swedish soil. The DCA agreement shall also not open up for any nuclear weapons on Swedish soil. It is very important that we continue to hold fast to that position, which I perceive to be common across party lines.

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Mr. Speaker! The political parties in the Swedish Riksdag agree on much regarding security policy, even though there are also differences. This applies primarily to the view on Russia and Ukraine.

Russia's unlawful war of aggression against Ukraine is a threat to security in our immediate vicinity and in Europe. It is a war that has had devastating consequences for the Ukrainian civilian population with a large number of dead and thousands of people fleeing. Naturally, Sweden and the EU must continue to support the Ukrainian people in all conceivable ways—humanitarian, economic and military—until Ukraine once again has control over its own territory and can begin to build peace in the country.

In Gaza, Israel continues to bomb the civilian population despite the International Court of Justice urging Israel to immediately cease the offensive against Rafah. Recently, a defenseless tent camp with refugees was attacked, and a large number of people were killed, most of whom were women and children. It is difficult to find words for this immense cruelty and tragedy.

The war, which has been ongoing for nearly eight months, goes down in history as the war where the most children, journalists, healthcare workers, and aid workers have been killed since World War II. A permanent ceasefire must be established.

When Israel does not listen to the International Court of Justice's decision, it must have consequences. I am therefore pleased that we, together with the rest of the opposition, have today submitted a committee initiative stating that Sweden must act forcefully to ensure that the International Court of Justice's direct orders are complied with in all points and that Sweden pushes for the EU to pause the association agreement with Israel until the court's decision is followed.

We also want Sweden to actively support international legal institutions such as the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice and their legal processes in order to counter impunity against all actors in the conflict and secure access for commissions and the like.

Now I will proceed to describe our reservations, of which we have several in the report. The first concerns important choices now that Sweden is a member of Nato. Nuclear weapons are the most destructive weapon of mass destruction that humanity has invented. Research has clearly shown that there is a lack of preparedness to handle the consequences of nuclear weapons.

Nuclear weapons are not a protection against international conflicts and war. In reality, nuclear weapons are an enormous threat to Nordic and global security. If nuclear weapons were to be used, it would mean a humanitarian and climatic catastrophe with consequences that no state has the capacity to face. A single nuclear weapon can kill hundreds of thousands of people, destroy an entire city, and have climatic consequences for many years.

NATO is a nuclear weapons alliance, and the American nuclear weapons constitute the so-called nuclear umbrella that the NATO members are covered under. Now that Sweden is a member of NATO, we must behave in a wise manner towards this fact. According to NATO's doctrine, nuclear weapons are a central component in NATO's total capability for deterrence and defense. In the doctrine, it is established that as long as nuclear weapons exist, NATO will remain a nuclear alliance.

If nuclear powers chose to apply the principle of no first use, that is, a principle which means that nuclear weapons may never be used unless the enemy has already carried out a nuclear attack, the risk of nuclear weapons being used would decrease significantly. Unfortunately, Nato reserves the right to strike first in a conflict involving nuclear weapons. This complicates global disarmament initiatives because it means that an imminent threat of nuclear weapons always remains. Sweden must therefore promote the principle of no first use within Nato.

In several countries that are members of Nato, we see how democracy is retreating. There are Nato countries where fundamental human rights are challenged more and more frequently. Oppositionists and journalists are imprisoned, media and universities are controlled, and the principles of the rule of law are questioned. I am thinking particularly of countries such as Turkey and Hungary, where the development has gone completely in the wrong direction during recent years. These countries can no longer be counted as full-fledged democracies.

We see how Hungary does not want to give its full support to Ukraine and how Turkey has clear great power ambitions in the region and attacks neighboring countries in complete defiance of international law. The lack of democratic status in countries within the alliance is a security problem that needs to be taken seriously. Therefore, Sweden should work to ensure that Nato introduces a democracy requirement.

Sweden has a proud tradition of transparency and the principle of public access. Sweden shall therefore be proactive in improving oversight in Nato and in ensuring that the national parliaments in the member countries sharpen their scrutiny of Nato's affairs, so that accountability can occur to ensure democratic anchoring in Sweden. There shall also be no permanent Nato troops on Swedish soil. Permanent bases in themselves could constitute a target and increase the security threat against Sweden. A strong permanent foreign presence can also come to affect Sweden's independence. Permanently stationed foreign military does not also submit to Swedish law, which can come to constitute a problem if crimes are committed.

Vänsterpartiet has an additional reservation concerning nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are, as stated, the most destructive weapon of mass destruction that humanity has invented. The international community has so far neither succeeded in stopping proliferation nor in getting the nuclear-armed states to disarm. Instead, billions are being invested today in the modernization and development of nuclear weapons. Not since the Cold War has the risk that nuclear weapons may be used been as great as it is today, according to the peace research institute Sipri.

In a world where Russia threatens to use weapons of mass destruction, nuclear-free countries like Sweden must take the lead and put pressure on Russia and other nuclear-weapon states to disarm - for all our security. Naturally, it must be a mutual disarmament. It is high time that the peace movement and all positive forces truly take up the fight for a global disarmament of nuclear weapons.

International security shall rest on international law, cooperation, and a strong global regulatory framework under the leadership of the UN. In light of the security policy developments in the world, the UN's agreement on the prohibition of nuclear weapons becomes particularly important. Through Sweden's history of military non-alignment, there is also a unique voice that should be used for global nuclear disarmament.

Sweden's membership in the nuclear alliance Nato makes it particularly important to take a stand against nuclear weapons. Sweden shall not stand behind either the deterrence of or the use of nuclear weapons. This applies regardless of whether Sweden is a member of a military alliance or not; Sweden should ban nuclear weapons on its territory in both peacetime and wartime. Sweden shall immediately sign the UN treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons. There are no winners in a nuclear war - only losers.

We also have a reservation about introducing a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East. We are convinced that such a zone would contribute to de-escalation in the region. It is something that is truly needed in light of the increasing tension and the buildup we see in the area.

Large areas in the world, such as Latin America, Central Asia, Southeast Asia, Oceania, and Africa, are already nuclear-weapon-free zones. Sweden should, as an individual country, which is thus a member of the EU and the UN, act to achieve a zone free from weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East.

We also have a reservation concerning troll factories, which we see as a serious threat to our democracy and security. Troll factories are a propaganda tool aimed at influencing public debate through, for example, disinformation, fake news sites, and social media.

In Sweden, it is primarily the Russian troll factories that have been noticed. We have seen several examples of this during recent years. But now we also have our own troll factories through SD's anonymous accounts, which spread threats, hate, and disinformation online.

The development of troll factories, propaganda, and disinformation must be countered regardless of whether they are domestic or come from a foreign power. When it comes to the use of these methods by foreign powers, they must, of course, be strongly condemned. The Government should, in contact with countries that finance troll factories, such as Russia, Turkey, and China, clearly signal and demand a stop to the state support for the activities.

Our final reservation concerns autonomous weapons systems. Fully autonomous weapons systems are weapons capable of acting without human control. Unlike an unmanned drone controlled by a pilot who remotely operates it, fully autonomous weapons systems have pre-programmed algorithms that select their targets themselves. Over the last ten years, the number of countries and companies working with the technology has increased significantly. AI thus has many positive sides and offers opportunities for development and increased efficiency, but there are also less positive sides. This concerns, for example, risks of lack of privacy, more surveillance, gray zone problems, and not least increasingly advanced fully autonomous weapons systems.

AI development raises a number of questions, including ownership, democratic control, and ethical principles. In March 2023, a number of leading AI researchers and experts urged the world to pause the development of AI for six months while we review what risks exist and how they can be countered. There is a need for an open and transparent debate about AI and the regulation that must be implemented. There are areas where the technology can be used for good purposes, for example, mine clearance and cybersecurity. But delegating ethical decisions to algorithms can never be acceptable in a free, democratic, and rule-of-law world.

The question of autonomous weapons systems is controversial to say the least. Today, a clear regulatory framework for such weapons is lacking. A long line of states has called for some type of regulation, and further states want to see a ban. UN Secretary-General António Guterres has called autonomous weapons morally objectionable and politically unacceptable. Fully autonomous weapons systems also call the question of responsibility into question. Who is responsible for crimes against international law committed by a robot? Peace organizations also warn of the risk that autonomous weapons systems lower the thresholds for war.

Civil society organizations all over the world have joined forces to stop the development of autonomous weapons systems in the campaign Stop Killer Robots. Since 2014, discussions on how autonomous weapons systems should be handled have been ongoing at the UN. But Sweden's commitment to the issue has been all too weak, and it must be improved.

Several of the world's largest weapons companies work with technology that can be used in autonomous weapons systems, but without having any clear policy on how to ensure human control. Fully autonomous weapons systems should be prohibited according to international law, and Sweden shall work for a binding international convention against fully autonomous weapons systems.

We stand behind all reservations, but I move for approval of reservation 3.

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

Stefan Olsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! The Left Party is admittedly against Swedish Nato membership. Does the Left Party, given the party's firm opposition to everything related to nuclear weapons, mean that Nato should cease its nuclear deterrence, that is to say that Nato should only use conventional combat forces? This would then lead to the fact that Nato's potential enemies, Russia, China, North Korea, perhaps Iran, have nuclear weapons while Nato tries to balance this without nuclear weapons. Is that the logic that the Left Party means Nato should work according to? It would be interesting to know.

I would also like to know a bit more about how the principle of no first use is actually intended to work in practice; if it is put into use. Does Vänsterpartiet imagine that if Nato declares that it has as a principle to never use nuclear weapons in a first stage, a dictator like Vladimir Putin will listen to, respect, and perceive this as a kind of peace deterrent and therefore refrain from using nuclear weapons, or will he perceive this as a sign of weakness and instead become more inclined to want to use nuclear weapons? It would be interesting to hear more about how the member thinks on that point.

(Applause)

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the questions.

Nuclear weapons are the worst weapons that humanity has invented, and as I said in my speech, there are no winners in a nuclear war. There are only losers. And that one can use nuclear weapons for a deterrent purpose is a chimera. It does not work.

If nuclear weapons are used, a large part of the world's population will die, and the earth will not be able to be cultivated for a very long time. We must do everything in our power to ensure that nuclear weapons never ever come into use. Therefore, we must actively work for nuclear disarmament, and we must do so even if we are part of the nuclear alliance Nato.

To begin with, we must ensure that we never, ever have nuclear weapons on Swedish soil, as that would naturally increase the risk of nuclear weapons being used. We would become a target in a completely different way, so we must guarantee that no nuclear weapons are placed on Swedish soil or on Nordic territory. We pushed once upon a time for Norden to become a nuclear-weapon-free zone. We still do, and I think it is an absolutely excellent idea.

It is clear that it must be a mutual nuclear disarmament. We cannot demand that only one party disarms, it must be a mutual nuclear disarmament. We must make demands on both Russia and Nato regarding nuclear disarmament. It is incredibly important if we are to secure the future.

The idea of no first use is that if we can get the nuclear-armed states to agree to not use nuclear weapons first, to not be the first to use nuclear weapons, we get greater security and a better guarantee that nuclear weapons will not be used. It is a very good idea, this thing with no first use.

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

Stefan Olsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I believe that nuclear weapons function for a deterrent purpose. I believe that it works in such a way that if Vladimir Putin threatens us, that is, Nato, with nuclear weapons, we threaten back and say that "it is no use for you to try to threaten, because we can take out you and your forces just as much as you can take out us." So I believe that the logic itself is with deterrence, and therefore I believe that deterrence actually works.

Does the Leader of the Opposition mean that the logic I am now describing is wrong? Is it the case that this way of reasoning, which Nato actually stands for, is wrong and does not work? In that case, Nato might perhaps need to unilaterally decommission its nuclear weapons.

At the same time, the member says that if a disarmament is to be carried out, it must be mutual. And one actually must have nuclear weapons to be able to dismantle them. I think it seems that the member is contradicting herself when she says that nuclear deterrence does not work but that there should still be a mutual dismantling. That presupposes that one has nuclear weapons.

I still didn't quite get a clear answer to the question of how no first use works. Is it the case that the member imagines that Vladimir Putin respects such a principle and thus becomes more humbly disposed toward those he perceives as his enemies? Or will he interpret this as a sign of weakness and therefore become more inclined to use nuclear weapons?

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Mr. Speaker! Thanks to Stefan Olsson for further questions!

No, I do not believe that nuclear deterrence works, and many agree with me. The entire broad peace movement agrees that nuclear deterrence is something that does not work.

We also have the international convention against nuclear weapons, where there is a clear attempt to establish a ban on the use of nuclear weapons.

We mean that the only way forward is to work for a powerful disarmament of nuclear weapons, and in that case, one must demand that all nuclear-weapon states - Russia and all the countries that are members of Nato plus naturally all the countries that are not members of Nato that have nuclear weapons - must disarm.

To be able to do that, a powerful opposition is required, I argue. We saw in the 80s that we actually managed to get the nuclear powers to disarm. I was myself part of the peace movement at that time. It was largely thanks to a worldwide, powerful opinion against nuclear weapons that we got the nuclear powers to actually agree to disarm. So it is possible. And we must believe that this is the way forward, because more nuclear weapons are not the solution. It only increases the risk that nuclear weapons will be used.

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

Joar Forssell (L)

Mr. Speaker! Member of Parliament Johnsson Fornarve said in his speech that nuclear weapons can lead to hundreds of thousands of people dying and have enormously serious consequences for the climate and, I assume, also the environment. The Member of Parliament nods; I take that as a yes. Therefore, I have a question concerning precisely deterrence linked to Russia's war of aggression in Ukraine.

Russia's war against Ukraine has resulted in hundreds of thousands of people being killed, and it has had enormous consequences for the environment. Precisely the consequences that the member described are the consequences of nuclear weapons that we have received in Ukraine without nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons have not been used there.

It is unfortunately so, Mr. Speaker, that this is often the consequence of this type of war. The environment and the climate are destroyed, and hundreds of thousands of people are killed.

There is no one in this chamber, or as far as I know in Swedish politics in general, who likes nuclear weapons. Everyone condemns nuclear weapons and wants nuclear weapons not to exist. But we live in a reality where nuclear weapons exist, unfortunately, and then I wonder if it cannot be so that we can avoid hundreds of thousands of dead and that the environment is destroyed in war if we can have the deterrent effect of nuclear weapons now that they exist and when there are antagonists like Russia that have access to them.

My first question to Vänsterpartiet is whether we are not going to learn from history, to quote Knutna nävar, and learn from what has happened in Ukraine. Would it not perhaps be the case that if Ukraine had had nuclear weapons, Russia would not have started this war because they would have deterred Russia?

Then I would like to take the opportunity to ask whether it is the case that Vänsterpartiet still wants to leave Nato. I found that to be unclear in the presentation.

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Mr. Speaker! Thanks to Member Forssell for the questions!

I believe I have answered this question already. It is clear that a conventional war has devastating consequences in Ukraine. We have absolutely seen that in the form of a large number of deaths and a degraded climate in many different ways. But nuclear weapons are, by far, much more destructive. They destroy almost everything.

When nuclear weapons have been used, a soot cloud can also be formed, which blocks the sun's rays and causes nothing to be able to grow for several, several years. It could lead to mass famine for a very long time. So it is not just this that you kill masses of people right there and then when the nuclear weapon is used, but it can have effects for an incredibly long time ahead.

That is why nuclear weapons are so incredibly much more fearsome doomsday weapons than conventional weapons. They are of course also fearsome, but they cannot be compared with nuclear weapons on the same day.

Therefore, we must do everything in our power to reduce the number of nuclear weapons in the world, and in doing so, we must make demands on all nuclear-weapon states. We must make demands on Russia, USA, England, France and China - Israel also has nuclear weapons - regarding nuclear disarmament.

The Speaker says that we should learn from history. I definitely think we should do that. Morgan Johansson had a history lesson here earlier and spoke about nuclear disarmament in the 70s and 80s. I was also there at that time. There we can see how we actually succeeded in getting the Soviet Union and the USA to sit down at the negotiating table and reduce the number of nuclear weapons.

That is how we must do it again. We must compel the nuclear-armed states to disarm. We must get rid of the nuclear weapons.

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

Joar Forssell (L)

Mr. Speaker! Yes, the number of nuclear weapons that existed in Ukraine was reduced, among other things. Those are, among other things, the consequences of what we are seeing right now.

My question remains. Does the Left Party mean that if Ukraine had had nuclear weapons - which is a clear example in our vicinity - would the risk of a Russian invasion have been just as high?

I believe that when there are countries that have nuclear weapons, such as Russia and North Korea and perhaps in the future Iran, the risk increases that they will be aggressive towards their neighbors or towards others if the neighbors do not have nuclear weapons. The risk therefore increases if one does not have this to set against and deter with.

My question remains, and it is quite clear; it is actually a yes-or-no question, but we are politicians, and it can be difficult with those: Does the Left Party believe that the risk of an invasion from Russia would have been just as high if Ukraine had had nuclear weapons - yes or no?

The second question that I did not receive an answer to is: Does Vänsterpartiet want to leave Nato now? Vänsterpartiet has wanted that previously – or they have wanted that we should not join. I believe that Vänsterpartiet's voters would like to know if Vänsterpartiet wants to leave Nato and if it is something that Vänsterpartiet will push for. I believe that would be an important message to the voters.

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for further questions.

The first question is a utopian question because there are no nuclear weapons in Ukraine. I am not so sure that Russia would not have intervened even if Ukraine had had nuclear weapons. I rather believe that countries that have nuclear weapons are at greater risk. That is why it is so important that we ensure that the Nordic region remains nuclear-weapon-free, so that we do not become a target in that way. We must not spread nuclear weapons more than necessary. We must reduce the number of nuclear weapons.

Regarding the NATO issue, the Left Party was against Sweden joining NATO for several different reasons, partly because we believe that Sweden is not safer as a member of NATO, partly because NATO is a nuclear weapons alliance, but partly also because NATO has undemocratic member countries, such as Turkey and Hungary.

Vänsterpartiet would rather that we cooperate with countries that are like us - democratic countries. It could be Nordic countries, it could perhaps be countries in the Balkans and so on. In that way, we would have had our independence when it comes to these issues. I believe that would have been better.

Now we are in Nato, and then we must respect that as long as it lasts and place demands on Nato in accordance with what I said from this rostrum, that is, democracy requirements and requirements that we should not have any nuclear weapons on Swedish soil and so on.

We still think, however, that when the time is right, Sweden should leave Nato, but perhaps not exactly right now.

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

Kerstin Lundgren (C)

Mr. Speaker! When listening to this debate, one could believe that this is a committee report concerning whether or not Sweden should have nuclear weapons. But that is not actually the case, Mr. Speaker. This is a committee report that responds to motions from two parliamentary years, and there is a long series of different points in this. Given how the debate has sounded, I must shift the focus of my speech.

Putin has used nuclear weapons as a threat. He threatened to use them if he did not get his way in Crimea. We heard that a year later, when he admitted that he was behind and was part of the little green men's plan. It was a clear signal. We now hear how he is training his nuclear capacity, how he has moved forward nuclear capability to Belarus and obviously threatens us all with using nuclear weapons.

The Russian nuclear weapons are what threaten us. In the long run, we do not know how the Chinese nuclear buildup will affect us. Nothing good will come from the expansion of nuclear weapons that China is doing together with Russia.

It is clear that this places demands on nuclear-weapon states, but nuclear-weapon states have also said that one should not contribute to proliferation. It is part of the agreement that nuclear-weapon states have to be able to keep their nuclear weapons under control.

It sounds in the debate as if Nato is a nuclear weapons alliance. But Nato does not have nuclear weapons. Nato does not possess nuclear weapons. It is countries that possess them - the USA first and foremost, but also France and the United Kingdom. This is obvious.

Since then, Nato has had a nuclear deterrence planning, because it is known that above all the American umbrella affects and protects us all against the Russian threats that otherwise could come where we do not have the possibility to respond and deter. It is clear that this affects us all.

The committee writes on page 23 of the report that even though Sweden stands behind NATO's strategic deterrence - as we do - with nuclear weapons, the government means that, in the same way as in the other Nordic countries, there are no reasons to have nuclear weapons on Swedish territory in peacetime, and the committee shares the government's view. On this, we have been in agreement.

When I listen to how this debate has been played out, it does, however, sound like there is one or another who has come up with at least some trick or stunt to try to undermine this agreement and create uncertainty and ambiguity. I think that is serious. It only encourages those who try to spread a long series of views on what our NATO membership entails and create question marks regarding what applies on Swedish territory in peacetime.

We have been clear, just like our Nordic neighbors: no nuclear weapons and no permanent troop presence in peacetime. Let us not spread uncertainty regarding this through our actions here in the chamber now. I think that is a comment that there is reason to make given how the debate has sounded.

From the Center Party's side, it is undoubtedly so that we see it as a matter of course to continue the work for disarmament. Nato also wants a world without nuclear weapons. Nato also stands for disarmament. But as has been stated previously, it is about reciprocity. We must not become a bird sitting on a branch that can easily be shot down by Putin's ambitions.

It is the reality we must face. We must act responsibly and balanced to secure Sweden, our neighbors, and Nato, which we are now, thank goodness, members of.

That responsibility is one we from the Center Party are prepared to take. We are also clear that we stand up for the NPT agreement, the agreement that was reached and which is one of the multilateral structures that has still survived. We will have to see what happens in 2026. The previous meeting, 2022, was not a success. In 2026, we have great challenges in trying to hold together.

If we also break this, it is truly a free-for-all. Furthermore, we risk IAEA, which is an incredibly important, respected and accepted institution that keeps track of the world in this part.

It is extremely important that we assert the NPT. We in Sweden have agreed previously, and there was foreign policy debate and other things, about that we shall proceed with the Stockholm Initiative, which is about trying to increase credibility and in different ways raise the thresholds for use. But we live in a time when trust between states is extremely strained, and even gone in large parts. It is a reality that we must contend with.

Hopefully leadership can be changed for the better, but we are not there for a long time yet. This we and the Defence Preparedness Board have also noted regarding Russia's long-term presence. We have a specific statement on that part. We think it was right that one did not participate in the review conference on the ban convention, because we shall not participate at every occasion and create an impression that we shall join. We do not see that it is relevant. We shall not join the ban convention, and we shall uphold the NPT.

This does not mean that we should not ask ourselves at every occasion: Are there reasons to join now, who else is joining, and can we make efforts to not increase the polarization? This is, of course, something that we have reason to examine. For our part, it is not a permanent stop but something that can be examined at every review conference.

We have many reservations in the report, Mr. Speaker. I naturally stand behind all of them, but I finally want to highlight our reservation 6 under point 2, which concerns the national security strategy. We have a new order with a national security council with several chanceries that have been built up under the Government Offices. There, the Riksdag has no possibility of control, which is extremely important for our security policy.

We think it is reasonable that the Riksdag receives a communication regarding our security policy that we have the opportunity to discuss and take a position on. We think it is reasonable that we receive an account of this work. It is a new order with the National Security Council, and it should also be a new order with the relationship to the Riksdag.

With this, I move for approval of reservation 6.

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

Stefan Olsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! In the wording that we have debated here today, which concerns the deployment of NATO's nuclear weapons, there is another part that is also interesting. In our Swedish wording, which the Center Party otherwise supports, it states that we see no need to have permanent NATO bases in Sweden in peacetime.

I will ask a question similar to the one I asked the Social Democrats and ask the Centre Party to explain what is actually the problem with having permanent NATO bases in Sweden. I am not saying that the Moderates will deviate from the agreement in any way, but it would be interesting to know more about the Centre Party's reasons for supporting specifically the part about permanent NATO bases.

Sweden is a NATO country now, and that means that all Swedish military installations in Sweden are also NATO bases. In some way, we have already passed that stage, which makes the wording feel a bit irrelevant. Could the member explain more about how the Center Party has reasoned regarding specifically permanent NATO bases and why it is a problem for Sweden?

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

Kerstin Lundgren (C)

Mr. Speaker! One can wonder what is the reason for Stefan Olsson's and the Moderates' need to raise these issues right now.

I perceive that we will have a debate when we talk about the DCA agreement, where these issues will be important and interesting. We are for the DCA agreement – that one should get access and opportunities and that we should have storage – but it is crystal clear that there is no preparation to build bases.

It is a challenge to secure NATO's military capability today - we need to build quite substantially. There are also many countries knocking on the door wanting a permanent presence. They would love it, but they do not get it because one has rotating solutions. The Baltic states have the entire border to the east, and all these countries want permanent bases modeled on Germany. We are not there, however.

The question that the Moderaterna must ask themselves is whether, despite what the Defence Preparation Board has said, one perceives and assesses that our situation is so serious that we should join that circle of countries that want to see permanent Nato bases deployed in the country from other countries, primarily the USA and Great Britain. Is that the Moderaterna's intention?

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

Stefan Olsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! That was not my question, but my question to the Centre Party was what reasons the Centre Party has for supporting the wording that we see reasons to have permanent NATO bases in Sweden. How does the Centre Party view that point? What were the reasons why the Centre Party thought it was a good agreement to enter into?

For my part, I believe it is important to have a broad consensus on how we should act in Nato. Therefore, I think the Moderaterna should stand behind the agreement. We can have it together with Centern and together with Socialdemokraterna.

I do not, however, see that it would result in a negative outcome if Nato wants to place a permanent base in Sweden for strategic reasons. I cannot see the negative in this and in us blocking it within Nato. I can see no point in this. I can understand it if Nato says that there is no need. We definitely should not pressure Nato and nag our way into an installation that Nato itself has not said is needed in Sweden.

It would, however, be interesting to know more about how C has reasoned specifically regarding NATO bases in Sweden and whether this is problematic or not.

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

Kerstin Lundgren (C)

Mr. Speaker! If one reads the reservations, one sees that we want a Nato Center of Excellence to be placed in Sweden. We think that would be good and regret that we do not receive support for this from everyone.

When it comes to the wording, it has been a starting point from our side. When we took a position in 2015, it was one of the decisions we made, and this can perhaps be seen as a picture of how we assessed the situation – that it was not relevant. This has been a starting point that we have had.

Since then it has continued, and I perceive that we who stood behind the NATO membership application all landed on the conclusion that it was a formulation that aligned well with our Nordic neighbors' position. There, we thought there were reasons to coordinate with our Nordic neighbors and not deviate from their choice of path.

We therefore chose the Nordic solution and thought that it would facilitate things for other Nordic countries if we also took that path in our argumentation. We have since gladly noted that there has been a broad consensus regarding this position, and I truly hope that this debate does not now create so many question marks that one begins to wonder if the government is about to turn around for some reason.

NATO has no request. NATO troops are difficult to get from many countries right now. I am glad that Sweden will be part of a rotating support for Latvia. They are in greater need of it than Sweden is, at least right now.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden is in a very serious security policy situation following Russia's fearsome and illegal full-scale invasion of Ukraine. The war challenges the European security order. The geopolitical situation in the world around us is becoming increasingly uncertain due to prolonged and often complex conflicts.

The risk of war and serious conflicts increases when mistrust between people and countries is allowed to grow, when human beings' possibilities to satisfy their basic needs, such as food and water, are taken away from them, and when polarization is driven by violent and non-democratic forces.

International law, democracy, and our human rights are challenged by self-willed states, hatred toward the other, and an emerging aggressive nationalism in several countries. Nuclear weapons and the development of new advanced weapons systems increase uncertainty throughout the world.

To meet these challenges, the world must unite. International cooperation and alliance-building in defense of the rules-based world order, democracy, and human rights are needed to meet an increasingly polarized world.

To avoid conflicts arising or worsening through diplomatic and conflict-prevention efforts is central and also the cheapest option for promoting democracy and security. But we also see a need for a faster and more comprehensive buildup of the total defense - both the military and the civil defense.

The rule of law is being eroded in several places in Europe, and party-political interests dictate how courts rule and what the media reports. The democratic regression makes life more uncertain and less free for people all around the European Union.

At the same time, the democratic conversation is being worsened by disinformation that polarizes and undermines trust between people. A few media giants control large parts of the internet, while simultaneously the rapid technological development within artificial intelligence requires political engagement to ensure that people's freedom and well-being are not restricted.

Democracy, freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom of the press and the rule of law are values that we cannot take for granted and that must be defended.

We stand firmly anchored in the view that Sweden should reintroduce a solidary and feminist security policy where we protect Sweden and democracy while Sweden actively contributes to the international community's efforts for global peace and development work.

Mr. Speaker! Miljöpartiet are strong advocates for conflict prevention efforts and peaceful conflict resolution through civilian means. We believe that military means should only be considered when all other alternatives have been exhausted and that they must remain within the framework of international law, not be used as an offensive tool for national self-interests abroad.

Foreign policy is our first line of defense, and there, diplomacy, mediation, and conflict prevention work belong to our most important tools to work for détente and peace.

Human security is linked to our living environment and our impact on it. Many factors affect our lives and our security. Human security is a concept that puts the individual's rights, safety, and personal security at the center.

The current picture is both broad and complex. The climate issue is humanity's great question of destiny. Both military threats as well as non-military threats and hybrid threats exist in parallel.

We need to have a preparedness to meet both military threats and other threats, such as climate change, natural disasters, pandemics and cyber attacks. We therefore need to have a preparedness to withstand both crises and war, in the worst case at the same time.

Mr. Speaker! In order to meet a wide range of threats, society must be built resiliently. Rapid digitalization makes questions about vulnerability in our societies increasingly topical. Many important societal functions are dependent on digital systems, which makes them sensitive to both data breaches and other disruptions.

Influence campaigns and disinformation reach us in several different ways, while espionage and mass surveillance via the internet actualize many issues regarding data security.

The war against Ukraine has caused extensive war propaganda where fake news is mixed with AI-generated clips and misleading images. Sweden has also been subjected to similar types of influence campaigns, where the campaign against the Swedish social services is a clear example.

Disinformation constitutes a threat to our democracy. We demand decisive action to prevent Swedish parties and other states from using troll factories to influence Swedish citizens.

That a Sverigedemokratisk employee who managed anonymous accounts has now resigned after spreading Russian propaganda speaks clearly. We want to see an immediate ban on anonymous accounts managed by political parties.

The development of troll factories, propaganda, and disinformation must be countered. The use of these methods needs to be condemned and highlighted in Sweden's diplomatic contacts with other countries. The government should, in contacts with countries that finance troll factories, such as Russia, Turkey, and China, clearly signal opposition to such methods and demand a stop to the state support for these activities.

Mr. Speaker! Nuclear weapons in a conflict would have unpredictable and devastating consequences. The threat of nuclear war is and remains, therefore, our greatest security policy challenge.

Sweden's membership in the nuclear alliance Nato makes it particularly important to take a stand against nuclear weapons. We want Nato to begin applying the principle of no first use. If nuclear weapons are never allowed to be used unless the enemy has already carried out a nuclear attack, the risk of nuclear weapons being used would decrease.

Unfortunately, Nato reserves the right to be the first party in a conflict to use nuclear weapons. This hinders global disarmament initiatives because it means that an imminent threat of nuclear weapons always remains.

The use of nuclear weapons is devastating for both people and the environment. Sweden should therefore ban nuclear weapons on its territory in both peacetime and wartime. Sweden shall also immediately sign the UN convention on the prohibition of nuclear weapons.

Mr. Speaker! The Defence Committee notes in its report *Allvarstid* that the rules-based world order, which has the UN Charter as its foundation, is being challenged by authoritarian states that seek an order based on the right of the strongest.

It is fundamentally about a conflict between democratic states that want to maintain the rules-based order and authoritarian and revisionist states that consider themselves entitled to their own spheres of influence where they are to have a decisive influence over neighboring states.

Even in several countries that are members of Nato, we see how the democratic status is deteriorating. There are Nato countries where fundamental human rights are challenged more and more often, journalists are imprisoned, media and universities are controlled, and the principles of the rule of law are questioned.

These are worrying trends that must be broken. We mean that the lack of democratic status in countries within the alliance is a security problem that needs to be taken seriously. Therefore, Sweden should work to ensure that Nato introduces a democracy requirement.

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.

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.

Mr. Speaker! European and Swedish security policy has entered a new phase that is sharper than it has been in a very long time. The West has responded with historically extensive sanctions against Russia, rapid and substantial defense reinforcements, political alignment, and deepened international defense cooperation.

The reallocation also signifies an opening towards seriously transforming energy policy for increased energy independence with a reduced import of energy resources such as gas, oil, and uranium from Russia and other dictatorships. Instead, we shall invest in energy efficiency and domestically produced renewable energy.

The global green transition with more local energy supply and protection for all the ecosystem services that humans are dependent on for food, water and fresh air as well as for knowledge, green technology, sustainable agriculture and sustainable industrial production is crucial for how well a society manages future pressures and withstands wars and conflicts. It should be a self-evident part of Sweden's security policy analysis.

Mr. Speaker! With that, I move for the approval of reservation 17.

In this speech, Emma Berginger (MP) concurred.

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

Joar Forssell (L)

Mr. Speaker! The fascist dictatorship in Russia, the communist dictatorship in China and the Islamist dictatorship in Iran constitute the core of the collection of dictatorships and authoritarian states that are already waging a cold war against us democracies.

During the previous Cold War, it took a long time for the democratic world to wake up and understand what the Soviet Union and its allies were doing against us. Already now, the new Cold War is taking on warm expressions: Russia's war of invasion of Ukraine, Islamist Iran's proxy groups that create war and murder civilians in the Middle East, as well as China's increased aggressions against Taiwan.

China and Iran jointly supply Russia with weapons so that they can wage war against us by waging war against Ukraine. This is, in fact, about nothing other than revanchism and bizarre imperial dreams, Mr. Speaker. One is not united in being an Islamist, not in being a communist, and not in being a fascist – those are differences – but one is united in their hatred of democracy and the liberal and democratic world order.

Mr. Speaker! We have previously in history faced aggressions from dictators with appeasement policies, and it has turned out to be naive. It has turned out not to work. It showed when Chamberlain used appeasement policy against Nazi Germany, but it also showed when we from the democratic world did not react strongly enough at Russia's invasion of Georgia and Russia's occupation of Crimea. It showed when China did what it did to Hong Kong, which previously was a very well-functioning society.

It also shows itself again, Mr. Speaker, when we do not press hard against hard in a sufficient way and do not give enough support to Ukraine so that Ukraine wins the war and Russia loses the war. And these are interconnected conflicts, Mr. Speaker. One must see this development as something interconnected; it is not possible to talk about each conflict individually, but we must understand that it is about challenging the entire liberal democratic world order – about ensuring that we in the West are occupied with defending the democratic world order in several places at once so that we lose that ability. That is what the plan is.

Mr. Speaker! I shall please my colleagues from Vänsterpartiet by quoting Lenin, who said that the capitalist sells the rope by which he will later be hanged. That is somewhat the case, in fact, when it comes to how we have, for example, handled China. We conduct activities in China and with China, which means that they receive technology from us that they will then use against us.

Mr. Speaker! It is time that we understand that a cold war against us is already underway. The antagonistic actors have already begun. It is time to dump China and time to do everything to support the popular resistance in Iran. It is time to give Ukraine all the support they need to win the war, and it is time to establish our absolute support for the democracy Taiwan.

Furthermore, the Liberals believe that we should have permanent NATO bases in Sweden, which a part of the debate has been about.

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

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Mr. Speaker! There were many words from Joar Forssell about how he wants to go head-to-head with China, Russia, North Korea and others that Joar Forssell usually enumerates. Then one wonders which others he wants to go head-to-head with.

The Sweden Democrats have been revealed to have a troll factory that spreads fake - false - news and engages in mudslinging, incitement, hate, and threats. They even have fake Arabic accounts where they try to incite Muslims and other immigrants to commit violent crimes. They said straight out: How can we ensure that they carry out more violent resistance against Sweden? The latest is that the Sweden Democrats have also been shown to spread Russian propaganda through their troll factory.

When the Liberals heard about this a couple of weeks ago, you came out like the Hulk against it, Joar Forssell. You said that the Sweden Democrats must close their troll factory and apologize. Then you said that you certainly did not intend to have any more press conferences with the Sweden Democrats. You came out like the Hulk, but now you have crawled in like a little mouse. We are reading in the newspaper today that you do indeed intend to have press conferences with the Sweden Democrats again – without them having closed their troll factories and without them having closed their accounts.

The Sweden Democrats continue to spread these fake news, the agitation, and the hatred. We still do not know if these troll accounts are perhaps currently continuing to spread Russian propaganda. We do not know that. My question to Joar Forssell when he talks about meeting force with force is therefore: When does he intend to meet force with force against the Sweden Democrats?

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

Joar Forssell (L)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for a very important question. I want to begin by condemning the matters that have emerged regarding what has been called troll factories. I would do so regardless of which party it concerned. I also want to state that it is the Liberals who have been clearest in demanding legislation.

This must be divided, Mr. Speaker, because it concerns somewhat different things. On one hand, there is trolling, which is a type of activity, and on the other hand, there is disinformation and misinformation. Then there is also what is usually called astroturfing, that is to say, pretending to be something one is not. These different parts are different things. I think they should all be illegal for political parties to engage in, and the Liberals also think so.

Regarding the press conference that took place yesterday, I do not think the member should read it as a general rule for press conferences in general. It is instead about the fact that the Liberals have been persistent and pushed through very powerful support for Ukraine, which was now presented by the government and the coalition partner Sverigedemokraterna. It is clear that it is difficult for us in the Liberals to refrain from being part of the presentation when it is we who have pushed it through. I believe that member Johansson understands that. Of many important issues, after all, the one that Ukraine shall win - and Russia lose - the war is the most important of all in our time.

I am, however, only happy if the Social Democrats and all parties in the Swedish Riksdag stand behind the legislative proposals that the Liberals have presented, as well as those legislative proposals that we believe should apply in the EU and which concern generally tackling trolls, astroturfing, disinformation, and misinformation – regardless of which party it comes from.

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

Morgan Johansson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Now I have learned a new word - astroturfing. I actually didn't know what it was, but if I understand correctly, it is about pretending to be someone else online.

There is also another word for it, namely fake. It is false, and that is exactly what the Sverigedemokraterna have been exposed with. When you demand that SD cease this activity, Joar Forssell, you will, so to speak, be met with a cold shoulder. They do not care about it at all. Then you end up in the same situation as Chamberlain, I was about to say.

So, demands are made, but then no one cares about them. Then it was just empty threats that were issued from the Liberals' side one and a half weeks ago. You said that you were against joint press conferences, Joar Forssell, and that lasted for one and a half weeks. Now you say that you are still against joint press conferences but that you can make exceptions. Is that the line the Liberals have now?

I just want to warn that the other side learns something if you do it this way - if you come out like the Hulk and say that you intend to do certain things if things don't turn out in a certain way and then back down. The other side learns that it doesn't matter what you say. They will continue to behave in this way. They will continue with their smear tactics, with their agitation and with their hatred, and they will do it from fake accounts.

None of us, neither Joar Forssell nor I, can know what kind of propaganda they are spreading. Perhaps even at this very moment, Russian propaganda is being spread from those troll accounts. Obviously, nothing that Joar Forssell has said will make the Sverigedemokraterna cease that activity.

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

Joar Forssell (L)

Mr. Speaker! I will begin by apologizing for using English in the speaker's chair in the Swedish Riksdag, but I actually do not believe there is a Swedish term for astroturfing. Astro Turf is a type of artificial grass, so it is about faking grassroots activity. It is quite common within the complex that encompasses disinformation and misinformation.

Mr. Speaker! It is our firm position that it should be illegal to engage in this. We have seen this type of activity from several parties in Europe. That is why legislation needs to occur both here at home and in Europe. Despite everything, the internet is as cross-border as it can be.

We are aware of the campaigns with, for example, Russian disinformation that Member Johansson mentions, but also misinformation, disinformation, and influence campaigns from Iran and China. They simply come from somewhere outside of Sweden. Therefore, legislation was needed so that parties and others do not allow themselves to be influenced and do not influence further.

Mr. Speaker! The Liberals maintain that what has emerged in the journalistic report in the documentary is unacceptable. We will continue to press on regarding sanctions and consequences and will follow through on what we have said.

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

Emma Berginger (MP)

Mr. Speaker! We find ourselves in a serious security policy situation following Russia's horrific and illegal full-scale invasion of Ukraine in the spring of 2022. The serious security policy situation calls for unity, seriousness, and for us to try to find broad agreements in the way we have worked in the Defence Preparation Committee.

It is good to have a broad consensus when it comes to such important issues as security policy. Judge my surprise, Mr. Speaker, when I enter the chamber to listen to some of the security policy debate and the first thing I hear is that the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs stands and says that Miljöpartiet basically does not want any defense and does not want to see any increased defense capability.

On the contrary, Miljöpartiet has stood behind the latest defense decisions. We are also part of the agreement that exists in the Defense Preparation Board regarding that we shall increase the total defense capability in Sweden. Miljöpartiet has also chosen to respect the decision that a broad majority of Sweden's Riksdag has made regarding NATO membership, and we do not push the issue of a withdrawal. We try to act constructively for security in this difficult situation.

Mr. Speaker! But there is a question where we do not agree on Sweden's security policy, and that is the question of nuclear weapons. If nuclear weapons were used, it would have terrible and unmanageable consequences and lead to unimaginable humanitarian suffering. The goal must be a world without nuclear weapons, even if it feels like we are very far from that right now.

Even though it is a long way off right now, we must nevertheless continue to work constructively for mutual nuclear disarmament in order to reduce the risk of nuclear weapons being used. In that case, countries are needed that can lead, act in a leading and mediating role, and take initiative, similar to the Stockholm Initiative that Sweden took during the time the Miljöpartiet sat in the government. It is needed to get through in the very tangled arena where we together shall try to reach countries that obviously have a capability but who also need to reduce this capability.

We in Miljöpartiet are concerned that Sweden, with the government we have now, is losing its independent voice in foreign policy issues. We want to push for a Swedish ban on nuclear weapons on Swedish territory, and we want Sweden to push the issue of no first use when it comes to nuclear weapons so that we reduce the risk of nuclear weapons beginning to be used.

It is dangerous with the normalization of nuclear weapons that I see during the debate here today. We must really dare to stand up for the fact that it is a terrible weapon that would have terrible consequences if it were used.

Mr. Speaker! The government needs to contribute to building relations with other countries in Africa, South America, and Asia and not give a walkover to Russia's and China's neo-colonial actions around the world. Sweden must continue to contribute to the UN's activities to build, preserve, and sometimes also enforce peace.

We must be able to contribute when the UN is to stand up for and uphold international law and justice and to protect civilians. But what we see from the government, with the narrow perspective on the immediate neighborhood that it has chosen to adopt for its foreign policy, is that we are losing that opportunity.

We are losing the opportunity to build relations and to contribute to international efforts. It is something that disadvantages our security here in Sweden and in the Nordic region.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 6.)

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