China is playing a vital and growing role in the contemporary world politics. At the same time Chinese people are quite reluctant to act as the world leader nation. The situation was the opposite earlier and we’ve had at least a fair share of different wannabee-leaders of the world lately, including both individuals and nations. However, we have to ask ourselves today: Is the direction of the tide changing now? With this phenomenon I mean the situation where the US at least as regarded from the point of view of its Administration seems to speak for isolationist/nationalist/protectionist politics and China seems to talk more for example for global trade. Where would such a change of priorities leave the EU, and what about the relationship with Russia?
I will answer the following three questions shortly and as I see the situation:
1. Is the direction of the tide of world politics changing? Yes, definitely, the system change of world politics is taking place just now, but as a small country, we have to be alert and prepared for more changes of the direction and even regarding the contents and the future values of the global system. Let us keep our eyes wide open and see first where the tide is running from and where to.
2. What will Russia’s role be in this change? In my opinion Russia is acting pretty realistically and naturally it would like to have its say in the future direction of world politics. However, as always, an important part will be taken by those who are in control of investments worldwide. Thus, the politicians may not be sole leaders of the global system and neither can investors be. The new system may only be controlled by a common cooperation between the world leaders, including setting up a new value base together.
3. And what will China’s new role be? The very alarming matter is the rapid growth of the debt of China. At the same time we are well aware about the fact that the US is indebted huge sums towards China. The world is therefore very much dependent on how these to subjects may cooperate.
Last but not least let me say few words also about the future path of the EU. We in the EU are now at the crossroads due to many different matters – the brexit, the new direction of Trump administration, continued sanction politics and so on. At the moment I would argue that the EU will become a stronger part of the global development than it has ever been. But such a path will require that the EU must learn to take care more of its own values and priorities and for example we must be able to defend ourselves and our values de facto, too.
Unfortunately, it looks like many people today prefer the governing by Local Heroes instead of Local Political Actors. We simply do not need these people who think that by local actions the world will be saved and they will control the change. The fact is that they have no ablity to succeed, and this is due to the development. We may not go backwards, the only direction we are able to take is forward. We hav lived in the time of globalization and now we are looking for the system change in the running of international relations, and this system change will be based upon the historical facts, not dreaming of that the history didn’t take place.
Let us believe in, that we may develop even from the so-called localists global thinkers. I hope this will take place also in the US, Canada, the EU, Russia, China, Japan and elsewhere. We still have opportunity to do this. And we do not need to solve problems by force but by using together the common knowledge.
In an independent world, meaning today’s world where nations, entities, peoples and states depend upon each others’ acts, it may be right to state that the sovereignty of the subjects of international law is more or less covered by the relativity of the processes of these actors. However, these processes must as well be dynamic enough in order to cope with the current constant changes and developments of the international system. In other words: are we capable of changing our behaviour rapidly enough and in the correct direction in order to be able to run the world?
We should bear in mind three elementary basic facts:
1. We are plenty cleverer together than trying to act alone;
2. The international problems we are facing today can be solved solely together; and
3. The system problems of international co-existence and co-operation are becoming extremely difficult to solve with only national capabilities in use.
We may have a plenty of future LOCAL heroes, but global problems need thinkers and doers which base their action on the well-being of everyone on the Earth
We all can feel that there is a fundamental change taking now place in the system of international relations. However, most of us don’t still, at least officially, acknowledge where this immediate change will take us. Thus, we will have several incoming elections where the voters must elect their candidates in a way without knowing about how these newly elected representatives will act in the near future. Is this correct towards those who will be voting and those who will be elected?
I have only three points to discuss this matter shortly here:
1. Let me remind you about history: it has occurred many times that representatives of a State have had to make ad-hoc decisions without consulting with the electorate in advance about a possible outcome of the negotiations. This is anyways acceptable as the representatives have been given the power to make decisions they find most suitable and favourable in the said situation by the electorate.
2. We have the populist side and the liberal (globalist), free democracy side, of which I belong to the latter one. Let us still approve that even globalism has its negative sides, as well as so-called free market economy. If we will choose free market economy, as an endgame solution, we will end in a global situation where the power is in very few hands and the liberalism as well as the freedom to choose and the freedom of change will be gone.
3. Altogether, at the moment it looks like all the systems adopted solely will lead to an unacceptable result and therefore I still would prefer that the world allowed different systems and different ideas to learn from each other.
And, my answer to my own question is: It is correct by the representatives that have been voted to make decisions, to do as they find best, if this is the meaning of the electorate. It is as well correct by the electorate to let the elected representatives to take necessary decisions in case the electorate has not reserved to itself a sole voting right in certain matters or in certain intervals regarding specific issues (for example the right to choose a president in Finland every six years) or in case this right has been given to the electorate by the elected representatives or by the national law.Finally, there are still plenty of matters to be reserved to decisions by those who really have the capacity for that.
The EU will have its next leaders’ summit on Friday, 3rd of February 2017 on the island of Malta. So far so good. However, since the political global situation is very tight at the moment, it is more than advisable that the EU leaders will also make good decisions in this summit and such decisions that will also be carried out swiftly.
The possibilities of the EU to become a greater power in the global system are imminent and so are the threats to become a midget in the same theatre. Therefore, there exists a clear need of the Member States of the EU to form a strong and trustworthy Cooperative Body of the EU to be able to act both in peace time and at war and in crises.
In fact the EU needs its own common military power strenghtened clearly. We might no longer be dependent solely on the powers of the Nato and/or peacetime cooperation. The EU countries should together unite their powers, in order to be in fact a reasonable and trustworthy power by itself in Europe.
In case the EU cannot by itself form a trustworthy world power it may be either divided or recognized only as a regional semi-power.
We must also recognize the multipolarity of the world today. There are several great powers in the word today both economically and militarily: regarding economics only the great powers are at least: The EU, the USA, China and Japan; and regarding the military powers the great ones are at least: The USA, the Nato, Russia, China and the UK. Even the EU could be a great military power in case its forces were common and would work jointly under a common leadership, both civilian and military.
At the moment the USA has to recognize that it has already lost a great deal of its military global power de facto and that it may gain some of it back only by adjusting its behaviour towards its neighbours and rivals. Thus it could be advisable to understand the real politics of the world and accept the power of Russia regarding Crimea, as well as making a non-enlargement treaty of Nato together with other Members of the Nato with Russia and at the same time reduce the amount of nuclear weapons worldwide. There could be more steps towards more nuclearfree world inclusive e.g. nuclearfree area of the South China Sea and of the Baltic Sea area and so on.
Let us for a second claim that we have at least more or less solved the following threats against mankind: wars, famines, dehydrations and diseases. What is then the largest remaining threat to ourselves? Its just we ourselves or in fact the reality that we are far too many to give our world to the next generation as a little better place to live than during our time. We have made the sustainable development extremely difficult to establish in the new circumstances.
Let me now get back to the beginning of my text. Actually, I do not believe that we would yet have solved the following threats towards us, at least not wholly: wars, famines, dehydrations, overmigrations and diseases. However, we have made good progress. Nevertheless even the threats have changed form, for example, we didn’t bother earlier much about cyberattacks and new kinds of viruses or about the need to stop traffic in certain areas due to heavy air pollution.
Fortunately, I believe we have a very simple way to solve the problem of overpopulation of the globe, which is to sign a global treaty between all the peoples of our globe to allow for a period of certain time only one child per family, globally. Due to the automatization and robotisation we human beings must reconsider the global rules and we may prosper in the future only together not alone and not solely basing our wellbeing on national ideas. We need global rules more than ever. And most of all we need to carry out our treaties and obey our common rules to the full.
Avseende det möjliga försvarssamarbetet mellan Sverige och Finland i en kris-/krigssituation är det ytterst viktigt at inse i vilka slags områden kan man ha snabb taktisk nytta av ett sådant samarbete. Därmed utesluter jag från denna text samarbete som innebär träning, logistik osv. och går direkt till ett möjligt samarbete för att avgöra faktiska krissituationer. Det första valkriteriet till ett samarbete är att Sverige ligger betydligt mer söderut än Finland medan Finland ligger betydligt mer norrut än Sverige. Naturligast är då att Finland bör försöka hjälpa Sverige med resultat i dess mer södra distrikter medan Sverige bör försöka hjälpa Finland med resultat mer i Finlands norra delar. Bägge länderna får därmed bära mest ansvar för sina mellersta kärndelar.
Det vore klokt av Finland kanske att föreslå kristidssamarbete med svenskar avseende försvaret av Östersjöområdet samt om försvaret av norra delar av området.
Detta kunde innebära att den finska marinen och flygstyrkorna skulle deltaga i försvaret av sydligare delar av Östersjön tillsammans med de svenska styrkorna och att de svenska norra flygstyrkor samt artilleristyrkor skulle deltaga i försvaret av de nordliga delarna av både Finland och Sverige.
Det ovansagda kunde innebära att de svenska Archer-haubitzerna belägna i Boden kunde användas för att försvara De nordliga delarna av Finland samt att de svenska JAS/Gripen-planen kunde samarbeta med de finska Hornet-planen i norr samt att de kommande finska korvetterna samt andra finska militärfartyg kunde samarbeta med den svenska marinen också i försvar av de sydligare delarna av Östersjön innebärande även hjälp av det finska och svenska flyget.
Härmed kunde man inte längre påstå att samarbetet skulle på något sätt gynna endast Finland, eftersom Sverige skulle dras in mer österut att inblanda sig i en möjlig krissituation, utan Finland skulle hjälpa Sverige mer söderut i södra delar av Östersjön och Sverige skulle hjälpa Finland mer österut i norra delar av området.
Samarbetet kunde ytterligare förstärkas om minst Danmark skulle deltaga i det i söder och Norge i norr.