Freedom House Security D omestic and foreign threats to Sweden’s national security are the remit of the Swedish Security Service (Säkerhetspolisen, or SÄPO). In addition to traditional threats such as espionage, terrorism, violent extremism, and cyberattacks, the Swedish government has explicitly identified the threat posed by foreign states to individuals in Sweden— both citizens and foreign nationals—as a national security concern. Though the Swedish government demonstrates a uniquely high level of awareness of transnational repression among its democratic peers, there are gaps in its ability and willingness to hold state perpetrators accountable on a systematic basis. Government awareness SÄPO has identified the purpose of transnational repression, finding that autocrats target dissidents and critics abroad to preserve their hold on power at home and ensure their political survival. The service’s 2020 Yearbook notes: “One reason that authoritarian regimes monitor, threaten, or even go so far as attempting to assassinate individuals who are exercising their democratic rights in Sweden is a need for regime stability. The perceived threat to the stability of a totalitarian regime knows no boundaries.” 6 Spurred by this recognition of what drives the use of extraterritorial violence, the Swedish government has adopted a broad definition of transnational repression: “Refugee espionage [is] … political persecution, not only affecting individuals who have been given refuge in Sweden but also targeting journalists and representatives of human rights organizations.” 7 This definition goes further than those adopted by most other entities working on the issue of transnational repression—including Freedom House—by considering all people working to promote democratic values as potential victims, whether they are native Swedes or foreignborn, rather than limiting the scope to individuals who originate in the perpetrator state. Importantly, Swedish authorities have moved beyond a narrow focus on the experience of exiled dissidents to frame transnational repression as a threat to the exercise of fundamental freedoms, and therefore as a threat to Swedish democracy: “Intelligence activities and political persecution aimed at political exiles … leads to the undermining of the democratic process. People who have received asylum in Sweden do not dare to exercise their constitutionally protected freedoms and rights.” 8 The explicit link between transnational repression and the inability to exercise basic rights in a democracy highlights the true effects of this authoritarian tool. Espionage against individuals Given the Swedish authorities’ recognition of the motivations, potential targets, and effects of extraterritorial attacks, it is not surprising that Swedish law prohibits not only activities typically thought of as crimes, such as assault or intimidation, but also other, more common tactics of transnational repression, including surveillance. The gathering of information on targeted individuals is often a precursor to violence against them or their families. Sweden’s prohibition on intelligence gathering, or espionage, against individuals is significant because it departs from traditional definitions of espionage, which tend to focus on the collection of secret government or military information on behalf of a foreign state. Sweden’s criminal code prohibits obtaining information secretly, fraudulently, or via “improper means” about a person for the benefit of a foreign power.9 This has come to be colloquially known as “refugee espionage” (flyktingspionage), though the victims are not always refugees. To be considered a criminal act, the collection of information need not be followed by a transfer of that information to a foreign power. The intent to hand it over is enough. In addition, collecting information through “improper” and “fraudulent” means encompasses acts that simply mislead the individual, in addition to more coercive or intimidating methods. Conviction can lead to a prison sentence of between six months and four years. Swedish authorities have moved beyond a narrow focus on the experience of exiled dissidents to frame transnational repression as a threat to the exercise of fundamental freedoms, and therefore as a threat to Swedish democracy. freedomhouse.org 3