ICAN: “En historisk milstope”, sverigesradio.se

Nu står det klart att FN:s konvention om kärnvapenförbud kommer att börja börja gälla den 22 januari.

Beskedet kommer efter att konventionen nu antagits – ratificerats – av 50 länder, det senaste landet att göra det är Honduras.

Konventionen förbjuder bland annat utveckling, förvaring, innehav och användning av kärnvapen. Organisationen ICAN som fick Nobels fredspris 2017 för sitt arbete mot kärnvapen kallar beskedet för en historisk milstolpe. Sverige har inte anslutit sig till konventionen.

Icans generalsekreterare Beatrice Fihn skriver i ett pressmeddelande att ett nytt kapitel nu inleds för nedrustningen och att det är årtionden av aktivism som lett fram till detta besked. Hon hyllar också dom 50 länder som skrivit under FN-konventionen om förbud mot kärnvapen. Läs artikel

Wallenberg och Bolsonaro på plats när Gripen visades upp i Brasilien, di.se

Under fredagen presenterades Saab Gripen E officiellt vid en ceremoni i Brasiliens huvudstad Brasilia.

På gästlistan stod bland annat Brasiliens president Jair Bolsonaro, Saabs ordförande Marcus Wallenberg samt Saabs vd Micael Johansson.

2014 landade den svenska försvarsjätten Saab en stororder på 36 Gripen E/F från det brasilianska flygvapnet, en order värd omkring 40 miljarder kronor. Vid en ceremoni under Aviator’s Day i Brasilia på fredagen presenterades planet officiellt. […]

De första stridsflygplanen kommer att levereras i slutet av 2021, uppger Saab i pressmeddelandet. Under 2021 och framåt kommer monteringen av 15 kompletta flygplan att ske på plats i Brasilien. Men det är inte bara leverans av de totalt 36 flygplanen som står på att göra-listan framöver. Läs artikel

China Is Now the World’s Largest Economy. We Shouldn’t Be Shocked. nationalinterest.org

Graham T. Allison, Douglas Dillon Professor of Government at the Harvard Kennedy School

China has now displaced the U.S. to become the largest economy in the world. Measured by the more refined yardstick that both the IMF and CIA now judge to be the single best metric for comparing national economies, the IMF Report shows that China’s economy is one-sixth larger than America’s ($24.2 trillion versus the U.S.’s $20.8 trillion). Why can’t we admit reality? What does this mean?

This week, the IMF presented its 2020 World Economic Outlook providing an overview of the global economy and the challenges ahead. The most inconvenient fact in the Report is one Americans don’t want to hear—and even when they read it, refuse to accept: China has now displaced the U.S. to become the largest economy in the world. Measured by the more refined yardstick that both the IMF and CIA now judge to be the single best metric for comparing national economies, the IMF Report shows that China’s economy is one-sixth larger than America’s ($24.2 trillion versus the U.S.’s $20.8 trillion). […]

So what? If this were simply a contest for bragging rights, picking a measuring rod that allows Americans to feel better about ourselves has a certain logic. But in the real world, a nation’s GDP is the substructure of its global power. Over the past generation, as China has created the largest economy in the world, it has displaced the U.S. as the largest trading partner of nearly every major nation (just last year adding Germany to that list). It has become the manufacturing workshop of the world, including for face masks and other protective equipment as we are now seeing in the coronavirus crisis. Thanks to double-digit growth in its defense budget, its military forces have steadily shifted the seesaw of power in potential regional conflicts, in particular over Taiwan. And this year, China will surpass the U.S. in R&D spending, leading the U.S. to a “tipping point in R&D” and future competitiveness. Läs artikel

FN-stadgan 75 år idag, den 24 oktober

Utgivarna

En av de främsta folkrättsexperterna sir Ian Brownlie avled för tio år sedan i Kairo. Hans bok International Law and the Use of Force by States från 1963 är något av det bästa som skrivits i ämnet.

Samtidigt fyller FN-stadgan 75 år idag. Brownlie lyfter i en annnan bok fram denna stadgas betydelse:

“The design of the United Nations constitutes a comprehensive public order system. In spite of the weakness involved in multilateral decision-making, the assumption is that the Organization has a monopoly on the use of force, and a primary responsibility for enforcement action to deal with breaches of the peace, threats to the peace or acts of aggression. Individual Member States have the exceptional right of individual or collective self-defence. In the case of regional organizations the power of enforcement action is in certain conditions delegated by the Security Council to the organizations concerned. Enforcement action may involve the use of force on behalf of the community against a State. However, the practice has evolved of authorizing peacekeeping operations which are contingent upon the consent of the State whose territory is the site of the operations. In recent history the roles of peacekeeping and enforcement action have on occasion become confused, with unfortunate results.” Ian Brownlie, Principles of Public lnternational Law (Oxford University Press 2003), s. 706.

Efter Brownlies bortgång har professor Olivier Corten fyllt hans tomrum genom bland annat boken The Law Against War. The Prohibition on the Use of Force in Contemporary International Law (Hart Publishing 2012). Även i boken Lagen mot krig  lyfts FN-stadgan fram som mycket betydelsefull.

Så det finns anledning att fira denna stadga idag, som sedan 1945 har hindrat krig mellan stormakterna.

Läs även artiklar om FN-stadgan av Rolf Andersson: Om FN-stadgan och FN och FN har brett och starkt stöd!

Vänskap!

Anders Björnsson

Den svenska statsledningen, enkannerligen den alltmer problematiske försvarsminister Peter Hultqvist, har utnämnt Ryssland till vårt lands primära antagonist. (Kina på andra sidan jordklotet kommer inte långt därefter.) Detta är minst sagt obetänksamt. Vårt land har inga akuta och naturliga fiender, eftersom inga andra länder hyser några fientliga avsikter mot oss. (Intressemotsättningar är en annan sak.)

Vilket egentligen är ett utmärkt läge för småstaten, som i ovist nit började nedrusta när landets ekonomi höll på att komma på fötter. Vi blir, realistiskt betraktat, inte angripna av någon främmande makt, om vi inte deltar – eller planerar att delta – i ett angrepp på denna makt. Historiska hostiliteter har lagts på hyllan, men den som rör Ryssland har tagits fram ur skåpet igen. Det är närmast ofattbart.

Läs merVänskap!

”Överge inte FN – trots alla misslyckanden”, dn.se

Lars Drake och Anders Romelsjö i nätverket Folk och Fred.

FN, som på lördag firar 75 år, har genomgått flera kriser och flera gånger misslyckats med att hindra konflikter och krig. Dessa misslyckanden får inte leda till att vi överger FN. Det finns ingen annan internationell organisation med samma kapacitet för dialog mellan världens länder. […]

En viktig del av FN-stadgan är att den förbjuder länder att använda våld eller hot om våld mot andra länder. De undantag som ges är självförsvar och efter beslut i FN:s säkerhetsråd. Vi bör se allvarligt på brott mot denna lag.

Under perioden efter andra världskriget är det främst USA som brutit mot denna regel om våldsförbud mellan länder som krigen i Vietnam, Laos, Kambodja, Afghanistan, Irakkriget, Libyen och Syrien. USA är inte ensam förövare, men det landet är i en klass för sig.

Sanktioner används numera mer än tidigare för att tvinga länder till underkastelse. Sanktioner som inte beslutats av FN är en form av aggressiv handling från ett land till ett annat som saknar juridisk grund i FN-stadgan. USA och EU har beslutat om sanktioner mot ett flertal länder utan stöd i FN. Läs artikel

Till minne: Carl Björeman, dn.se

Carl G Nilsson, fd riksdagsledamot

Generalen i armén Carl Björeman, Danderyd, har avlidit. Han blev 96 år och efterlämnar tre döttrar med familjer.

Carl föddes på gården Kinäs i Östra Ryds socken, Söderköpings kommun. Han hade två bröder och var äldst i vår gemensamma kusinskara på 22 stycken som alla härstammar från Höstbäck gård i Åvidaberg.

Han arbetade hemma på gården i unga år med jord och skog, men sökte redan som 17-åring att bli volontär vid livgrenadjärregementet (I 4) i Linköping. Detta blev början på en i särklass lång tjänst i vårt militära försvar. Han gick den verkligt långa vägen från volontär på I4 till generallöjtnant och chef för militärområde syd. På vägen passerades Försvarets läroverk i Uppsala, officerskurs på Karlberg, Krigshögskolan med mera.  1969 invaldes Carl som ledamot av Kungliga Krigsvetenskapsakademin. Det blev sammanlagt 47 års tjänst i vårt lands militära försvar. Läs minnesrunan

European Contributions to NATO’s Future Combat Airpower, rand.org

[…] First, Russian political and military leadership remains concerned about NATO’s relative advantage in the air domain—a dynamic that will likely intensify over the next five years as large numbers of fifth-generation fighters enter NATO inventories. Russia enjoys a relative advantage in rapidly deployable ground forces in regions close to Russian borders, notably the Baltic states and Poland.

However, Russian strategy documents, statements, and actions indicate particular concern about the depth and speed provided by NATO’s advanced platforms and munitions, which could serve to blunt Russia’s ground advantage. Furthermore, observations of Western targeting practices over the past two decades have raised Russian concerns about the vulnerability of Russian ground forces, military bases, and critical infrastructure, as well as political leadership, to NATO’s combat air capabilities. Although the perceived extent of NATO’s relative airpower advantage is unclear, Russian defense analysts evaluating the combat potential of Western military aircraft have historically considered qualities such as firepower, mobility, survivability, and command and control, as well as a platform type’s contributions to units and larger formations.

These are all areas where the increase in capability resulting from NATO’s modernization efforts will become more pronounced in the next five years. Extensive Russian investment in integrated air defense systems (IADS) underscores the significance with which Russia views the air domain a central dimension of its military planning. Läs rapporten

Why do Libyan politicians refrain from criticising NATO’s war on their country, despite civilian deaths? middleeastmonitor.com

Dr Mustafa Fetouri, libyan academic, freelance journalist and recipient of the EU’s Freedom of the Press prize.

Between 2011 and today, many Western leaders who supported the military intervention in Libya nine years earlier have expressed some kind of regret about the war. But not a single Libyan politician went on the record to criticise NATO’s killing of civilians and the destruction of Libya.

Former US President Barack Obama, whose administration participated and actively supported “humanitarian intervention”, regretted his decision. In an interview with The Atlantic magazine published in 2014, he described the intervention as “the worst mistake” of his administration. Behind closed doors, he told The Atlantic reporter that it was a “shit show”. The warmonger within his administration, Hillary Clinton, never regretted the disaster, despite the death of a US ambassador to Libya in 2012. Clinton, along with two other administration staff, drove Obama into the mess in Libya without any idea as to what to do once the government of Muammar Gaddafi was gone. […]

I once asked Hashim Bisher, a former top militia commander in Tripoli, why he does not distance his group from the rest by recognising the civilian victims of NATO? He explained that this would mean that we are “against” what NATO did, meaning, “we are not grateful to NATO or the revolution.” This kind of bizarre thinking made the majority of Libyans hate the militias who are supposed to have “liberated” them from Gaddafi’s rule, only to rule them with an iron fist ever since Gaddafi was toppled and murdered nine years ago. Läs artikel

Sahel: Smail Chergui and Antonio Guterres Open to Idea of Supporting Dialogue with Jihadists, sahelblog.wordpress.com

On October 14, the African Union’s Peace and Security Commissioner Smail Chergui, an Algerian diplomat, published an op-ed in Le Temps. He argued that strategies for the Sahel – he and others put the current count at more than 17 – need to be revisited and harmonized. As part of that argument, Chergui includes a section on “dialogue with extremists.” Chergui does not mention any specific groups, but he writes that “any innovative idea is welcome” when it comes to making peace, and that the February 2020 accord with the Taliban “can inspire our member states to explore dialogue with extremists and encourage them to lay down arms, particularly those who were recruited by force. […]

On October 19, Le Monde published an interview with United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres in which he, too, expresses openness to the idea of dialogue with certain jihadists. He ruled out dialogue with the Islamic State’s affiliates, which would seem to leave JNIM. Guterres’ suggestion that certain jihadists “have an interest in engaging in this dialogue in order to become political actors in the future” is a really interesting one: this, of course, brings us back to the perennial question of what JNIM, and especially ag Ghali, might actually want in a political sense. Guterres’ comments were covered in the international Anglophone media as well as in Malian and Mauritanian outlets. People in the Sahel are definitely paying attention to what these major regional and international actors are saying on this topic.

My general take, as regular readers likely know, is that talking with jihadists is well worth doing, especially if negotiations can produce what I call “stabilizing settlements.” Läs artikel

Hva gir sikkerhet i nord? nordnorskdebatt.no

Vidar Eng , historiker

Visepresidenten i Norges Forsvarforening, Lars Echroll, har skrevet innlegg i Nordlys 13. og 20. oktober. Vi kan være enige i at Norge har redusert forsvaret i våre egne nordområder altfor mye de siste 20 årene. Hovedgrunnen til det har vært en satsing på militære innsats i kriger i andre land, som Afghanistan, Irak, Libya, Jordan. Begrunnelsen har vært å hjelpe til i kriger der USA er engasjert for å bygge opp en politisk kapital i USA, slik at USA vil støtte Norge i krise og krig. Jeg tror dette har vært en feilslått tankegang, det er ikke sånn stormakter fungerer.

De mest aktive pådriverne for denne utviklingen har vært Høyres og Arbeiderpartiets forsvars- og utenriksministere i denne perioden, men jeg har ikke registrert mye motstand fra Norges Forsvarsforening heller. Nå øker den sikkerhetspolitiske spenningen i nord, og Norge ruster forsiktig opp igjen. Det er fornuftig, og et sterkere norsk forsvar i nord må vi ha mot vårt naboland stormakten Russland.

Det vil derimot øke spenningen dersom Norge tilrettelegger for alliert hjelp i mye sterkere grad enn for 30-40 år siden, slik Lars Echroll skriver og går inn for. I stedet burde Norge gjeninnføre de selvpålagte restriksjonene fra den kalde krigens dager med basepolitikken og restriksjoner på alliert militær aktivitet i Finnmark. Läs artikel

 

Disciplinary power: Text and body in the Swedish NATO debate, journals.sagepub.com

Linus Hagström, professor i statsvetenskap

This article draws on identity construction, emotions and a notion of productive power to address the question of why Swedish policymakers and public opinion are becoming increasingly supportive of NATO membership. It contributes theoretically by arguing that such textual phenomena intertwine with ‘disciplinary power’, which operates on the bodies of the subjects of power, exposing them to verbal and physical sanctions, a host of complex feelings and enhanced levels of self-disciplining.

The article analyses 354 editorials and op-eds related to Sweden and NATO, published in the four biggest Swedish newspapers in 2014–2018; 1408 tweets, with a focus on 14 selected NATO campaigners and their advocacy; and semi-structured interviews with 12 such influencers. It concludes that Swedish NATO campaigners produce and negotiate emotional discourses in a way that targets other influencers and potential influencers by exposing them to ridicule and allegations of treason. While tendencies are similar on both sides of the debate, the article demonstrates that productive power currently intertwines with disciplinary power in a way that makes anti-NATO advocacy seem more fraught with personal risk than pro-NATO campaigning, and joining NATO appear to be the most normal, realistic and responsible policy option. Läs artikel