Today there was a debate article on written by Bo Ekman from the Tällberg Foundation, promoting some kind of New World Order in Dagens Nyheter and Svenska Dagbladet, the two most influential newspapers in Sweden.

The headline of the article was: En ny världsordning ett måste efter debaclet i Köpenhamn = A new world order is a must after the debacle in Copenhagen. Here a quote from the article which summarizes its message:

Men om nu 192 nationer ändå skulle ha kommit överrens om det ”perfekta avtalet”, så saknas i upplägget den tillsynsmyndighet som med ekonomisk, polisiär och militär makt skulle ha kunnat korrigera de nationer som av olika skäl inte skulle möta åtaganden och mål.

But if 192 nations would have agreed on the “perfect deal” (in Copenhagen), the idea/plan were missing the control instance, which with economic and military power as well as a police force could correct the nations which of different reasons would not meet their commitments and goals.

One of my comments on this debate-article:

First of all, this article has very little to do with the climate crisis, and very much to do with global power.

I am a citizen of the world, and would love to live in a more democratic society on a global and a local scale, in cooperation, understanding, exchange, justice – peace and love! But I want to avoid a world government with a world army which has too much power and is ruled by some obscure elite – which is almost reality already.

Unfortunately there are well founded worries that Mr Ekman (Tällberg Foundation) and his friends are supporting an small part of society – the “elite” – some of them even without thinking about it. And of those who know what they are doing, many believe they are doing it for a good cause. Others are thinking that they are just behaving pragmatically.

Many things that Ekman wrote in his article are true: he talked about the urgency in solving the environmental crisis and UN:s apperent incapacity in doing so. The problem is that he is presenting irrational solutions on real problems. There are guaranteed many better and more constructive ways to solve humanities problems than the one which he suggests.