21 organisations: It can hardly be the money that is at stake for the government
This is a debate article. It is the writer who stands for the opinions presented in the text, not Aftonbladet.
Published 2024-02-04 06.00
share-arrowDela
unsaveSpara
expand-left
full screen A 95-year-old government support to Swedish peace organizations is going to the grave. It can hardly be about the money. Unfortunately, it appears that it is precisely the Swedish peace organizations that the government wants to weaken, 21 organizations write. In the picture, Minister for Aid and Foreign Trade Johan Forssell and Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson. Photo: Getty, TT
DEBATE. The government stops support for peace organizations such as IKFF, the Christian Peace Movement and Swedish Peace. It is hardly about the money but about something else.
For close to a hundred years, Sweden has supported the commitment and organization of the Swedish people for peace. It was in a parliamentary motion in 1929 that the first support was granted with the justification; “No citizen should be left untouched by the enlightenment for peace. Just as there has been active work for defense in various countries so far, extensive work for peace should take place.”
But now the Swedish tradition is over and a 95-year government support to Swedish peace organizations is going to the grave.
In total, it is about SEK 20 million annually. A drop in the budget ocean compared to, for example, the defense appropriations, which in a short time have almost doubled to 119 billion.
It can hardly be about the money. It therefore unfortunately appears that it is precisely the Swedish peace organizations that they want to weaken. Or perhaps peace work in general. Even the UN’s fund for peace-building work has its contribution halved by the government.
Representatives of the government and the armed forces assure time and again that the last thing they want is for Sweden to be dragged into war. They want to keep the peace. What could be better than having strong peace organizations on board?
Organizations that have previously pushed Sweden to join the conventions that ban anti-personnel mines and cluster munitions and worked for a democracy criterion to be introduced for arms exports.
Does the government think these were bad decisions?
Few of the world’s post-World War II conflicts have had military solutions. It is negotiation and classic peace-building work that have ended nasty, destructive wars.
“Sweden is damaged by peace” we hear time and time again from those who seem to have forgotten Sweden’s persistent and on several occasions successful efforts in conflicts since the end of the 40s. Then the weapons have been precisely diplomacy, mediation and peace negotiations.
Even the current government has stated an ambition to resolve international disputes peacefully. The reform agenda for a new aid also emphasizes the importance of women’s participation in peace processes.
How does it go together with withdrawn funding for organizations that work with just that?
Strong peace organizations pose no threat in a society with a free and resilient debate on defense issues. If peace work and peace building start to be seen as ugly words, we as a democratic society are in a bad place.
Peace is more than the absence of war, as anyone dealing with the issue knows very well. Peace presupposes a society where all individuals can feel safe. A society without violence and oppression, where speech is free and democracy is viable. It is usually called human security in contrast to states’ ditto.
Peace is also a basic prerequisite for the development of sustainable societies. The global goals in Agenda 2030, which the government has committed to, point out peace as an absolute basic requirement for these to be achieved.
The support for the Swedish peace movement has been embraced by all governments regardless of political color until now. In the light of this, can we hope that today’s government representatives will reconsider and change what appears to be a historic decision?
Depriving the peace organizations of their support endangers the democratic conversation and risks weakening their vetting role.
We demand that the government as soon as possible ensure that the Swedish peace movement gets a stable and long-term financial foundation to stand on. Anything else is not worthy of a free and democratic society like Sweden.
Henrik Fröjmark, policy manager Act Swedish Church
Louise Lindfors, Secretary General Africa Groups
Brian Kelly, general secretary Article 2 (former Emmaus Stockholm)
Anna Stenvinkel, general secretary ForumCiv
Martin Nihlgård, Secretary General IM (Individual Human Assistance)
Rikard Rudolfsson, chairman Friends of the Earth
Alexander Clemenson, general secretary YMCA Sweden
Petra Tötterman Andorff, secretary general Woman to woman
Catalina Rodriguez Näsman, chairman of the Latin American groups
Anna Sundström, Secretary General Olof Palme’s International Center
Anna Wester, federal secretary Palestine groups in Sweden
Paul Carlsson, chairman Practical solidarity
Anette Uddqvist, head of office Operation 1325
Andreas Stefansson, Secretary General Swedish Afghanistan Committee
Kristina Jelmin, director of operations, the Swedish Burma Committee
Annelie Börjesson, chairman of the Swedish UN Federation
Jan Strömdahl, chairman Swedish Western Sahara Committee
Susannah Sjöberg, chairman Sweden’s women’s organizations
Johanna Eliasson, chairman of the Left’s International Forum
Jenny Jansson Pearce, Deputy Director Right Livelihood
Mattias Brunander, General Secretary Diakonia
arrow Join the debate and comment on the article – like Aftonbladet Debatt on Facebook.