Sweden’s foreign policy, as articulated by Foreign Minister Maria Malmer Stenergard, is firmly grounded in international law. This principle was demonstrably upheld when Sweden voted in the UN General Assembly to request an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) regarding Israel’s responsibility for the UN’s presence and operations, particularly concerning the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA). This action stemmed from Israel’s passing of legislation effectively barring UNRWA from operating in occupied territories. This legislation, slated to take effect in late January, sparked international concern. The General Assembly resolution emphasized the responsibility of all states to ensure UNRWA’s unimpeded operation, highlighting its crucial role as the backbone of humanitarian efforts in Gaza. The resolution underscored Israel’s obligation under the UN Charter to protect UN institutions and personnel.
The international community, including the Nordic countries and the European Union, expressed grave concerns about the potential humanitarian crisis and the violation of international law if UNRWA’s operations were curtailed. Joint statements from Nordic foreign ministers and EU representatives condemned Israel’s actions and stressed the devastating consequences for hundreds of thousands of civilians dependent on UNRWA’s services. They urged Israel to reconsider the legislation and guarantee unimpeded humanitarian access for UNRWA. Sweden, alongside Jordan, co-chaired a meeting on UNRWA, emphasizing the agency’s critical role in meeting the urgent needs of Palestinian refugees and contributing to regional stability. Sweden’s position unequivocally supported UNRWA’s mandate and called on all member states, including Israel, to uphold their obligations.
However, in a starkly contradictory move, the Swedish government announced the termination of its funding to UNRWA on the same day it voted in the UN to support the organization. This abrupt reversal was justified by Aid Minister Benjamin Dousa, citing UNRWA’s alleged ”crisis of confidence” and the risk of Swedish funds being ”stuck in a bank account” due to Israel’s actions. Dousa suggested that other organizations could effectively replace UNRWA, facilitating aid delivery. Israel welcomed Sweden’s decision to withdraw funding.
The justifications presented for the funding cut are misleading and raise serious concerns about the government’s true motivations. UNRWA operates beyond the occupied territories, providing services to Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan, negating the claim that funds would be frozen. Furthermore, the organizations touted as potential replacements for UNRWA have explicitly stated their inability to fill the gap. This information was reportedly communicated to Dousa during his meeting with these organizations in Jerusalem.
The assertion of a ”crisis of confidence” surrounding UNRWA is also unsubstantiated. An independent investigation, involving the Raoul Wallenberg Institute, found UNRWA to have robust mechanisms ensuring its neutrality. Allegations of terrorism among UNRWA staff and antisemitic content in its schoolbooks have been repeatedly refuted by independent inquiries and lack credible evidence from Israel. These inconsistencies expose a deep contradiction in Swedish foreign policy: demanding Israel adhere to international law while simultaneously facilitating actions that violate those very principles. This double standard undermines Sweden’s credibility on the international stage.
The influence of the Sweden Democrats (SD) in this decision is highly suspected. The SD, positioning itself as Israel’s staunch ally in Swedish politics, strives for normalization of relations with Israel, despite Israel’s reluctance to engage with parties with neo-Nazi roots. By adopting misleading arguments to justify the funding cut, the government appears to be conceding to SD’s agenda on a highly sensitive foreign policy issue. This raises critical questions about the government’s integrity and its susceptibility to external influence.
The decision to cease funding UNRWA is a betrayal of Sweden’s commitment to international law and humanitarian principles. The contradictory actions of the Swedish government, while seemingly appeasement to both international legal norms and the political agenda of the SD party, severely undermine Sweden’s international credibility. By vocally supporting UNRWA in the UN while simultaneously withdrawing crucial funding, Sweden sends a confusing and contradictory message to the international community. The government’s justifications for this decision lack substance and are demonstrably inaccurate. This abrupt policy shift warrants a thorough reassessment, prioritizing humanitarian obligations and upholding the principles of international law. A failure to reconsider this decision risks further damaging Sweden’s reputation as a principled actor on the global stage.
