Instead of taking money from development aid to pay for refugee reception, Sweden should increase support for farmers in poor parts of the world, in order to counter a global food crisis. This is what Anna Tibblin, Secretary General of We Effect, and Anna-Karin Hatt, CEO of the Swedish Farmers' Association (LRF), write in a debate article in SvD. Pictured: Mauritania, which in 2012 was hit by a serious food crisis. Photo: Oxfam International. Source: Flickr.

Current debate

Week 18: Debaters warn of cuts in aid

Last week warned debaters for the consequences of reducing Swedish aid when the UN flags that billions of people in the world could be starved due to the war in Ukraine, while the question about nuclear weapons was a part of the continued NATO debate. 

Reducing Sweden's aid when the UN warns of a global food crisis has catastrophic consequences, debates Anna Tibblin, Secretary General of We Effect, and Anna-Karin Hatt, CEO of the Swedish Farmers' Association in Svenska Dagbladet.

The government wants to cut the aid budget by 9,2 billion and invest the money in the refugee reception. This is happening at the expense of poor people who are supported by organizations like We Effect for their survival. As food prices break new records, Swedish aid to local food production in poor countries should increase, the debaters argue.

Nuclear weapons an important issue in the NATO debate

The question of a Swedish membership in NATO was shared by the debaters in last week's debate. Beatrice Finn, head of Ican, the international campaign against nuclear weapons, debates in SvD against a NATO membership with reference to nuclear weapons.

"Unfortunately, most people who advocate that Sweden should join NATO draw the completely wrong conclusion and argue that we must be involved and threaten with nuclear weapons to solve the nuclear threat," writes Beatrice Fihn.

Russia's nuclear weapons have an explosive effect of 10 and 100 kilotons. The atomic bomb that destroyed Hiroshima had an explosive charge of 15 kilotons. Several NATO members have nuclear weapons similar to these. Beatrice Finn argues that Sweden should not join an alliance that threatens nuclear weapons in response to Russia's nuclear threat.

Unlike Beatrice Fihn, Expressen's Anna Dahlberg debates in an editorial for a NATO membership with regard to nuclear weapons.

- As long as dangerous dictatorships have access to nuclear weapons, it is a matter of fate that even the world's most powerful democracy has it, writes Anna Dahlberg.

The debater writes that Beatrice Fihn incorrectly claims that NATO threatens with nuclear weapons. She also believes that we should be grateful that several NATO members have nuclear weapons as it can act as a deterrent.

Swedish development assistance

"Catastrophic to reduce aid now"

Anna Tibblin and Anna-Karin Hatt, Svenska Dagbladet

Nuclear weapons and NATO

"Sweden should not support nuclear threats"

Beatrice Fihn, Svenska Dagbladet

The negative side is out cycling about nuclear weapons

Anna Dahlberg, Expressen

Magdalena Andersson should say yes to NATO now 

Anders Lindberg, Aftonbladet

Baudin's telling silence.

Moa Berglöf, Sydsvenskan

The Swedish atomic bomb exposes NATO hypocrisy

Patrik Kronqvist, Expressen

"Welcome free vote on NATO in the Riksdag"

Sven Britton, Svenska Dagbladet

Is there a worse time to join NATO than now?

Birger Schlaug (formerly MP spokesman), Expressen

"Sweden must curb Putin's willingness to take risks"

Einar Lyth, Svenska Dagbladet

Is there something in the text that is incorrect? Contact us at opinion@fuf.se

Share this: