GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT

At Agenda Nexus Think Tank (ANTT), global development is understood as a central pillar of long-term international stability, security, and prosperity. Development is not merely a humanitarian or economic objective; it is a strategic imperativethat shapes political resilience, social cohesion, and global power dynamics. Agenda Nexus approaches global development through an integrated framework that connects economic growth, governance, security, energy, climate, and technology.

A Strategic Perspective on Development

Agenda Nexus views global development as a multidimensional process that requires more than short-term aid or isolated interventions. Sustainable development depends on strong institutions, inclusive economic systems, accountable governance, and regional cooperation. ANTT’s analyses examine how underdevelopment, inequality, and fragile state structures contribute to conflict, forced migration, and long-term instability—challenges that increasingly affect global security.

ANTT focuses on the structural drivers of development, including access to education, energy, infrastructure, technology, and financial systems. We analyze how global economic shifts, demographic trends, and geopolitical competition influence development outcomes across regions.

Development, Security, and Stability

Agenda Nexus emphasizes the strong link between development and security. Fragile and conflict-affected regions often suffer from cycles of violence, weak governance, and economic exclusion. ANTT assesses how development strategies can support peacebuilding, conflict prevention, and post-conflict recovery, while avoiding approaches that reinforce dependency or undermine local ownership.

Our work highlights the importance of integrating development policy with security strategies, particularly in regions affected by terrorism, organized crime, and political instability. Sustainable development is essential to building resilience against radicalization, state collapse, and humanitarian crises.

Economic Growth, Inclusion, and Resilience

Agenda Nexus promotes development models that prioritize inclusive economic growth, job creation, and social mobility. We analyze how investment in infrastructure, small and medium-sized enterprises, and regional trade can unlock economic potential while reducing inequality.

ANTT also examines the role of financial systems, debt sustainability, and development finance, including the impact of external lending and foreign investment. We assess the opportunities and risks associated with development financing, with a focus on transparency, accountability, and long-term economic sovereignty.

Climate, Energy, and Sustainable Development

Climate change is a defining challenge for global development. Agenda Nexus integrates climate resilience and energy accessinto its development analysis, recognizing that climate stress disproportionately affects developing regions. We examine how renewable energy, sustainable resource management, and climate adaptation strategies can support development while enhancing energy and environmental security.

ANTT emphasizes that sustainable development must align with the global energy transition, ensuring that developing regions are not left behind but instead become active participants in the transformation toward low-carbon economies.

Technology, Innovation, and Human Capital

Agenda Nexus highlights the role of technology and human capitalin shaping future development pathways. Digitalization, access to technology, and investment in education and skills are essential for competitiveness and social inclusion. ANTT analyzes how digital divides, unequal access to technology, and weak innovation ecosystems limit development potential.

We also examine the governance of technology in developing contexts, including data protection, digital infrastructure, and the ethical use of emerging technologies.

Policy Advice, Strategic Engagement, and Partnerships

Agenda Nexus produces strategic development analyses, policy recommendations, and advisory reportsfor governments, institutions, and international partners. Our work supports evidence-based decision-making and long-term planning.

ANTT also serves as a platform for dialogue and cooperation, organizing seminars, workshops, and international conferences that bring together policymakers, development experts, academics, and private-sector actors. Through partnerships with academic institutions and policy centers, we ensure that our work is both analytically rigorous and practically relevant.

Vision for Global Development

Agenda Nexus envisions a world where development contributes to stability, dignity, and shared prosperity. Our objective is to support development strategies that strengthen institutions, empower communities, and foster cooperation rather than dependency.

By combining strategic analysis with policy innovation, ANTT aims to contribute to a global development agenda that is resilient, inclusive, and aligned with democratic values—supporting a more stable and interconnected international system.

Introduction

Over the past decade, Uzbekistan has emerged as one of the most dynamic reform cases in Central Asia. Following the leadership transition in 2016, the government initiated a broad agenda of economic, social, and administrative reforms under the banner of “New Uzbekistan.” While challenges remain, particularly in political liberalization, the country’s trajectory reflects a significant departure from its previously closed and state-dominated system.

Economic Liberalization and Growth

A cornerstone of Uzbekistan’s transformation has been its economic reform program. Since 2017, the government has implemented sweeping changes aimed at liberalizing markets, attracting foreign investment, and diversifying the economy.

One of the most consequential reforms was the liberalization of the foreign exchange regime, which eliminated the dual exchange rate system and significantly improved the business climate. This step enabled greater transparency and facilitated foreign direct investment (FDI), particularly in energy, manufacturing, and textiles.

Economic growth has been robust. Uzbekistan is now among the fastest-growing economies in Central Asia, with GDP growth reaching approximately 7.7 percent in 2025. GDP per capita has more than doubled since 2017, reflecting rising incomes and gradual improvements in living standards.

Importantly, the economy is becoming more diversified. While cotton and natural gas historically dominated exports, the country has expanded into industrial production, construction, and services. Industrial policy now emphasizes domestic value addition rather than raw material exports.

Infrastructure, Digitalization, and Human Capital

Complementing economic reforms, Uzbekistan has invested heavily in infrastructure and modernization. Large-scale projects in transportation, housing, and industrial zones have improved connectivity and supported regional integration.

Digital transformation has also become a priority. The government has expanded e-government services, streamlined administrative processes, and promoted digital entrepreneurship. These efforts have improved public service delivery and reduced bureaucratic inefficiencies.

In parallel, investments in education and human capital are reshaping the labor market. The expansion of universities, including partnerships with international institutions, reflects a strategic focus on technical skills and innovation. This is essential for sustaining long-term economic growth and reducing reliance on labor migration.

Energy Transition and Environmental Policy

Uzbekistan has made notable progress in transitioning its energy sector. Historically dependent on natural gas, the country is now investing in renewable energy at scale. By the end of 2025, installed solar and wind capacity reached several gigawatts, with ambitious targets to increase the share of renewables to 40–50 percent by 2030.

This shift is not only environmentally driven but also economically strategic. By reducing domestic gas consumption, Uzbekistan can increase exports and improve energy efficiency.

Environmental challenges remain significant, particularly the legacy of the Aral Sea disaster. However, the government has intensified efforts to combat desertification and promote sustainable land use, signaling a growing awareness of ecological risks.

Social Reform and Labor Policy

One of the most widely recognized achievements of Uzbekistan’s reform agenda has been the near-elimination of systemic forced labor in the cotton sector. International organizations have acknowledged substantial progress, marking a critical shift in labor practices.

Broader social policies have also focused on poverty reduction and employment creation. While poverty rates have declined, structural challenges persist, including a continued reliance on remittances from migrant workers abroad. Nonetheless, job creation within the domestic economy is gradually reducing this dependence.

Tourism has emerged as another growth sector. Visa liberalization and improved infrastructure have contributed to a steady increase in international visitors, reinforcing the country’s image as an emerging destination.

Managing Religious Extremism, Peace and Social Stability

Uzbekistan’s approach to religious policy has evolved significantly in recent years. The state has moved away from the highly repressive measures of the past toward a more nuanced strategy focused on preventing violent extremism through education, rehabilitation, and social reintegration.

Thousands of individuals have been removed from security watchlists, and repatriation programs have facilitated the return and reintegration of citizens from conflict zones. The government promotes a concept often described as “enlightened Islam,” emphasizing moderation and theological education.

Religious coexistence is visible, with mosques, churches, and synagogues operating within the country. At the same time, religious activity remains subject to state regulation, reflecting an ongoing balance between security concerns and gradual expansion of religious space.

Regional Diplomacy and Geopolitical Role

Uzbekistan has also redefined its foreign policy, adopting a more proactive and cooperative stance in Central Asia. Improved relations with neighboring countries have led to the resolution of longstanding border issues and increased collaboration on water and energy management.

The country is positioning itself as a regional connector, engaging with major powers including China, Russia, the European Union, and the United States. Its participation in trade and infrastructure initiatives underscores its growing geopolitical relevance.

The granting of GSP+ status by the European Union further reflects international recognition of Uzbekistan’s reform efforts, particularly in areas related to governance, labor, and environmental standards.

Global Engagement and Cultural Dialogue

Uzbekistan is also increasingly active globally in promoting cultural exchange and dialogue, organizing seminars and conferences on both local and global challenges. A notable example is when The Embassy of the Republic of Uzbekistan in Sweden, in cooperation with the Sweden–Central Asia Friendship Group in the Swedish Parliament, organized a seminar on March 24, 2026, bringing together researchers, policymakers, think tanks, institutes, and members of the Swedish Parliament to exchange perspectives on countering extremism and strengthening interfaith dialogue. Speakers from Uzbekistan, demonstrated strong engagement during the seminar, emphasizing that lasting peace is built on respect, tolerance, cooperation, and public education, while highlighting dialogue and mutual understanding as essential foundations for a more stable and peaceful world.

Political Reform: Progress and Constraints

Alongside significant economic and social progress, political reforms in Uzbekistan have made meaningful progress and reflect positive developments. Today, there is greater openness compared to the pre-2016 period, and some challenges in the field of media, civil society, and public discourse have undergone substantial positive developments.

The state has increasingly sought to expand the role of citizens in governance while pursuing deeper structural reforms aimed at strengthening institutions and the rule of law. One of the most notable achievements has been the near-elimination of forced and child labor in the cotton sector, a development confirmed by international organizations.

At the same time, the media and civil society now operate with somewhat greater space than before 2016, reflecting a cautious but ongoing process of political opening.

Conclusion

Uzbekistan’s transformation since 2017 represents a significant shift toward economic openness, social reform, and regional engagement. The country has demonstrated that gradual, state-led reform can yield tangible results in growth, stability, and international integration.

However, the long-term success of this trajectory will depend on the ability to deepen political reforms, strengthen institutions, and maintain a careful balance between security and freedom. As it stands, Uzbekistan offers a compelling—if still incomplete—model of transition in the contemporary Muslim world.

The escalating conflict involving the United States, Israel, and Iran has rapidly evolved into an issue extending far beyond regional security concerns. As tensions rise around strategic locations such as Kharg Island and the Strait of Hormuz, several key sectors of the global economy are experiencing potential ripple effects. Energy markets, international trade, financial systems, and global transportation networks are among the areas most likely to be affected.

One of the most immediate and visible impacts of the conflict appears in global energy markets. The Middle East remains one of the world’s most significant regions for oil and natural gas production and export. Iran itself is a major oil producer, and Kharg Island plays a critical role in the country’s oil export infrastructure. If exports from the island are disrupted—whether through military strikes, logistical challenges, or security threats—the global supply of oil could be affected. A reduction in supply often leads to rising oil prices, which can influence energy costs worldwide.

Changes in energy prices tend to have broader economic implications. Transportation systems, manufacturing industries, and agricultural production rely heavily on fuel and energy. When oil prices rise, transportation costs for goods and raw materials also increase. These higher costs may eventually translate into higher prices for consumers, affecting everything from food to industrial products. As a result, a military conflict in an energy-producing region can create economic effects that extend far beyond the immediate geographic area.

Another critical area affected by the conflict is global trade. The Strait of Hormuz represents one of the most strategically important maritime passages in the world. A significant share of the world’s oil exports moves through this narrow waterway each day. If security conditions deteriorate in the area, shipping companies may need to reroute vessels or delay shipments to avoid potential risks. Such disruptions can lead to delays in supply chains and increased transportation costs. For a global economy already sensitive to logistical disruptions, these developments can have substantial consequences.

The maritime industry and insurance markets are also influenced by geopolitical instability. When a region is designated as a high-risk or war-risk zone, the cost of insuring ships and cargo increases significantly. Shipping companies may face higher insurance premiums or be required to adopt additional security measures. These added expenses often pass through the supply chain, eventually affecting the cost of goods in international markets.

Financial markets tend to react quickly to geopolitical developments as well. Armed conflicts introduce uncertainty, and investors often respond by adjusting their portfolios. Equity markets may experience increased volatility when major geopolitical events occur. At the same time, some assets—such as gold or energy-related stocks—may rise in value because investors view them as relatively safer investments during periods of instability.

Currency markets can also be affected by rising geopolitical tensions. Countries that rely heavily on imported energy may see pressure on their currencies if oil prices rise sharply, as their import bills increase. Conversely, energy-exporting countries may benefit economically from higher prices and stronger demand for their resources.

Inflation represents another potential economic effect of the conflict. When energy prices rise, the cost of producing and transporting goods tends to increase. These higher costs may contribute to broader inflationary pressures in national economies. In response, central banks may need to adjust monetary policy—such as raising interest rates—to maintain economic stability.

The conflict may also influence long-term investment decisions and economic planning. Periods of geopolitical uncertainty often make companies more cautious about large investments, particularly in regions close to the conflict. However, certain industries—such as defense and energy—may experience increased demand for their products and services during times of heightened security concerns.

Finally, the crisis may encourage countries to reconsider their energy strategies and international partnerships. Governments may seek alternative energy sources, diversify supply chains, or strengthen energy security policies in order to reduce dependence on politically unstable regions. Over time, such adjustments could reshape global energy markets and trade routes.

In summary, the conflict involving the United States, Israel, and Iran has implications that extend well beyond the battlefield. Energy markets, global trade, financial systems, transportation networks, and inflation are all areas that may experience significant effects. As developments continue around key locations such as Kharg Island and the Strait of Hormuz, the global economy will remain closely linked to the trajectory of the conflict.

Executive Summary

The current confrontation between Iran and the United States/Israel has entered a critical escalation phase, moving beyond airstrikes toward credible discussions of limited ground operations. At the center of this dynamic is Kharg Island, a strategic energy hub that represents the backbone of Iran’s oil export capacity.

Three developments define the present moment:

1. Military escalation– The United States is positioning elite and rapid-deployment forces in the region, signaling readiness for targeted operations.
2. Strategic signaling by Iran– Tehran is emphasizing its ability to disrupt global maritime chokepoints, particularly the Strait of Hormuz.
3. Diplomatic deadlock– Both sides remain entrenched, with little indication of short-term compromise.

While a full-scale invasion remains unlikely, the probability of limited, high-impact military action is increasing.

1. Strategic Importance of Kharg Island

Kharg Island is not just a military objective—it is Iran’s economic lifelineand a central node in global energy flows.

Key factors:

• It handles the overwhelming majority of Iran’s crude oil exports.
• Its proximity to the Strait of Hormuz gives it outsized geopolitical importance.
• It is vulnerable to both naval and airborne operations due to its geographic exposure.

Strategic implications:

• Economic leverage: Control of Kharg Island would severely constrain Iran’s revenue stream and weaken its ability to sustain prolonged conflict.
• Operational foothold: It could serve as a staging ground for maritime monitoring and enforcement operations.
• Negotiation pressure: Its capture would give the US significant bargaining power in any future settlement.

Assessment:
Kharg Island is the most likely target for a limited US ground operation.

2. Military Dynamics and Escalation Ladder

The conflict is currently positioned between high-intensity air warfareand the threshold of ground engagement.

Current phase:

• Sustained air and missile strikes
• Proxy engagements across the region
• Increased naval activity

Emerging signals:

• Deployment of rapid-response US forces
• Iranian defensive preparations, including layered deterrence strategies

Escalation ladder:

1. Special operations raids(covert or short-duration)
2. Limited territorial seizure (e.g., Kharg Island)
3. Expanded multi-domain operations
4. Full-scale invasion (least likely due to cost and complexity)

Assessment:
The US appears to favor a limited objective strategy, aiming for strategic impact without long-term occupation.

3. Iran’s Strategic Doctrine

Iran’s posture reflects a doctrine centered on resilience, deterrence, and asymmetric retaliation.

Core elements:

• Refusal to concede under external pressure
• Reliance on indirect and non-conventional warfare
• Emphasis on regional escalation as a counterbalance

Likely responses:

• Targeting shipping lanes and energy infrastructure
• Expanding proxy operations across Iraq, Yemen, and the Gulf
• Leveraging political and ideological networks inside neighboring states

Key insight:
Even under significant military pressure, Iran is unlikely to capitulate quickly and will instead seek to raise the cost of conflict for all actors involved.

4. Regional Actors Analysis

Gulf States

These states are highly vulnerable to escalation. While they may quietly support US actions, they are primarily focused on avoiding direct conflict spillover, especially attacks on infrastructure.

Turkey

Turkey is currently positioning itself as a diplomatic actor. However, its stance is fluid and could shift rapidly depending on developments involving ethnic or regional dynamics, particularly in northern Iran.

Turkey remains a strategic swing actor.

Azerbaijan

Azerbaijan is closely monitoring the situation, particularly regarding ethnic Azerbaijanis in Iran.

• Direct military involvement remains unlikely unless specific red lines are crossed.
• Any escalation involving northern Iran could significantly alter Baku’s posture.

Current likelihood of intervention: low, but conditional.

Non-State Actors

Groups such as Kurdish factions and the MEK may exploit instability.

• They can create localized pressure and internal disruptions.
• However, they lack the capacity to decisively influence the overall conflict.

Role: supporting, not decisive.

5. Scenario AnalysisScenario

1: Limited War (Most Likely)

• US captures or neutralizes Kharg Island
• Iran responds asymmetrically
• Conflict remains contained geographically

Outcome:

• Severe economic pressure on Iran
• Continued instability without regime collapse

Scenario 2: Regional War

• Disruption or closure of the Strait of Hormuz
• Expanded attacks across Gulf states
• Maritime conflict intensifies

Outcome:

• Global energy shock
• Major economic and security consequences

Scenario 3: Multi-Front Conflict

• Northern front becomes active
• Internal unrest increases
• External actors become more directly involved

Outcome:

• Risk of internal fragmentation rises
• Conflict becomes significantly harder to contain

Scenario 4: Diplomatic Settlement

• Iran accepts partial concessions
• Limited de-escalation achieved

 Current likelihood:
Low, given entrenched positions and mutual distrust.

6. Strategic Decision Point for Iran

Iran faces a fundamental strategic dilemma:

Option A: Accept US Conditions

• Preserves territorial integrity
• Reduces immediate military risk
• May trigger internal political backlash

Option B: Continue Resistance

• Maintains ideological and political positioning
• Risks economic collapse and territorial losses
• Increases probability of broader war

Assessment:
Iran is likely to continue resisting in the near term, prioritizing strategic endurance over short-term compromise.

7. Policy Implications

For decision-makers:

1. Kharg Island is the critical tipping point

Control over it could reshape the trajectory of the conflict.

2. Avoid large-scale invasion scenarios
The costs and unpredictability far outweigh potential gains.

3. Mitigate risks to global energy flows
Any disruption in Hormuz would have immediate worldwide impact.

4. Contain regional escalation
Preventing spillover into the Caucasus or broader Middle East is essential.

Final Assessment

• A full-scale ground war remains unlikely but is becoming increasingly plausible.
• A limited US operation targeting strategic infrastructureis the most realistic near-term development.
• The greatest risk is not invasion itself, but regional escalation and economic disruption.

Executive Overview

The continuation of Russia’s war against Ukraine has accelerated a profound transformation of the global geopolitical order. What initially appeared as a regional conflict has evolved into a systemic challenge affecting security architecture, energy markets, economic stability, and political alignment across continents. For the European Union, the war represents a defining strategic test: whether Europe can transition from a primarily economic union into a coherent geopolitical actor capable of shaping outcomes in a contested world.

This policy analysis examines the implications of Russia’s continued aggression, the erosion of established global norms, and the strategic choices facing the EU in a multipolar and increasingly unstable international system.

Russia’s War and the End of Strategic Illusions

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine marked the collapse of long-standing assumptions about European security. The belief that economic interdependence would prevent large-scale war on the continent has proven misguided. Instead, Moscow has demonstrated a willingness to absorb economic costs in pursuit of geopolitical objectives.

The war has revealed that the leadership in Russiaviews confrontation with the West not as a temporary crisis, but as a structural condition. This reality suggests that even a ceasefire would not restore the pre-war status quo. The conflict has entered a prolonged phase characterized by military attrition, hybrid warfare, and strategic signaling.

For Europe, the implication is clear: security threats are no longer episodic but persistent.

Ukraine as a Strategic Frontline

Ukrainehas become the frontline of a broader struggle over sovereignty, international law, and the right of states to choose their own alliances. The outcome of the war will shape not only Ukraine’s future, but the credibility of Western deterrence globally.

A weakened or coerced Ukraine would signal to authoritarian powers that military force remains an effective tool for revising borders. Conversely, sustained support for Ukraine strengthens the principle that aggression carries long-term costs.

From a strategic perspective, European support for Ukraine is not charity—it is an investment in continental stability and global norms.

The EU’s Strategic Dilemma

The European Union faces a dual challenge: responding decisively to immediate security threats while adapting to a long-term geopolitical shift. Three structural weaknesses have become evident:

1. Fragmented decision-making, particularly in foreign and security policy

2. Asymmetric defense capabilities among member states

3. Residual strategic dependencies, especially in energy and critical technologies

Despite progress in defense cooperation and sanctions coordination, Europe remains heavily reliant on transatlantic security guarantees. While the partnership with the United States remains indispensable, strategic autonomy is no longer a theoretical debate—it is a practical necessity.

A Changing Global Order

The war in Ukraine is unfolding within a broader transformation of global power. The international system is increasingly shaped by:

• Multipolar competition

• Strategic alignment over universal norms

• Weaponization of trade, energy, and technology

Many states in the Global South are adopting pragmatic, interest-based positions rather than aligning fully with Western or Russian narratives. This limits the effectiveness of moral appeals and highlights the need for credible strategic engagement.

Europe must therefore compete not only militarily, but diplomatically and economically.

Strategic Priorities for the European Union

To remain relevant and resilient in the emerging order, the EU must adopt a more assertive and integrated strategic posture.

1. Consolidate Defense and Deterrence

Europe must accelerate defense integration, expand joint procurement, and ensure long-term military support for Ukraine. Deterrence requires credibility, consistency, and political unity.

2. Secure Energy and Economic Resilience

Reducing dependency on authoritarian suppliers remains essential. Energy diversification, green transition, and secure supply chains are core components of strategic security—not secondary policy goals.

3. Strengthen Political Unity

Internal fragmentation weakens external influence. Strategic communication, institutional reform, and coordinated foreign policy positions are necessary to prevent external actors from exploiting internal divisions.

4. Engage Globally with Strategic Realism

The EU must engage emerging powers through trade, development, and diplomacy while defending its interests and values. Strategic partnerships should be built on mutual benefit, not dependency.

Risks of Strategic Drift

Failure to adapt carries significant risks:

• A prolonged gray-zone conflict on Europe’s eastern flank

• Erosion of international norms against territorial aggression

• Reduced European influence in global decision-making

• Increased vulnerability to economic and hybrid coercion

Strategic ambiguity may offer short-term flexibility, but in the long run it undermines deterrence and credibility.

Conclusion: From Economic Union to Geopolitical Actor

The continuation of Russia’s war against Ukraine has ended the era in which Europe could rely on stability as a default condition. The EU now faces a strategic choice: remain primarily a regulatory and economic power, or evolve into a geopolitical actor capable of defending its interests in a contested world.

For Agenda Nexus Think Tank, the path forward is clear. Europe’s security, prosperity, and democratic resilience depend on strategic clarity, political courage, and sustained investment in collective strength. The choices made in response to this war will define Europe’s role in global geopolitics for decades to come.

Climate Catastrophe or Global Unity

From Climate Crisis to Global Consensus: Sweden’s Path Forward

When world leaders gathered in Baku for COP29, one thing became clear: the climate crisis demands global unity now — or we risk a future defined by catastrophe. In a world marred by war, division, and economic turmoil, the climate stands as the shared challenge. Sweden has the opportunity — and the responsibility — to lead the way toward sustainable solutions. It is time to act together before it’s too late.

Introduction:

Climate change is no longer a future scenario or a distant threat — it is here and now. Wildfires in Canada, floods in Pakistan, heatwaves in Southern Europe, drought in the Horn of Africa, and the drying of Lake Urmia — once the world’s second-largest saltwater lake — all starkly demonstrate that the climate crisis is already impacting the entire globe. Each year, the severity and scale of the consequences grow, and humanity faces one of its greatest tests ever.

COP29 in Baku became a global hub where world leaders convened to do more than make promises — where concrete decisions and intense discussions about climate justice, financing, and technological innovation took center stage. Despite the fractured world we live in and concurrent crises, there is a growing consensus: the transition must be swift, forceful, and collective.

This demands that we break old deadlocks and build bridges — between politics and business, research and practice, local initiatives and global goals. Sweden, with its knowledge, technological innovation capacity, and historical responsibility, holds a unique chance to lead the way. But this requires harnessing the full potential of society.

Now is when we shape the future. We must do it together — to choose global unity and a sustainable world or risk climate catastrophe.

COP29 in Baku: When the World Meets in Hope for Solutions

The COP29 climate summit in Baku hosted intense negotiations amid a world wounded by war, conflict, and economic crises. Despite the difficult context, the meeting marked an important step forward. A key outcome was the adoption of common rules for international trading of carbon credits. Although some criticisms regarding transparency were voiced, this is viewed as a potential tool to stimulate cross-border climate investments.

Environment Minister’s Message in Baku: United for Solutions

At the climate meeting in Baku, Sweden’s Environment Minister Romina Pourmokhtari stressed the importance of unity and international leadership. In a speech well-received by many participants, she reminded the world that the climate fight cannot be reduced to domestic politics.

“We are here in Baku to remind the world that the climate crisis cannot be solved unilaterally. We must stick together. Sweden stands ready to contribute — with technology, innovation, and fair solutions. Together, we can show that a sustainable future is possible.”

This message echoed COP29’s focus: common frameworks for carbon markets, increased transparency, and for countries capable — like Sweden — to lead by example.

Social Democratic Optimism: Sweden Will Lead the Way

Isak From (S), one of Sweden’s most experienced climate politicians and a full member of the Environment and Agriculture Committee in Parliament, highlights Sweden’s strengths as a frontrunner nation. In discussions about just transitions at COP29, particular emphasis was placed on how industrialized countries can lead without dominating.

“We have the opportunity and the obligation to transform — and we can show the way for others.”

This aligns with the decisions discussed in Baku — about technology transfer, climate financing, and long-term goals that include both industry and justice.

Global Responsibility in Focus: Climate Policy for All

Joakim Järrebring (S), member of the Environment and Agriculture Committee, emphasized after COP29 that Sweden must not shy away from its historic responsibility. This was a central question in Baku: How will the world handle that rich countries have caused the bulk of emissions — and how can we support developing countries on the path to green transformation?

“Sweden bears great responsibility, both nationally and globally, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and push for a just climate transition.”

This is fully in line with COP29’s promises to strengthen climate funds and ensure climate justice is not merely a slogan — but practice.

Technology at the Core: Sweden Democrats’ View on Climate Work

Technological solutions were broadly discussed in Baku. Sweden was highlighted by several delegates as a potential testbed for climate innovation. Jessica Stegrud (SD) sees this role as Sweden’s strength:

“Through our wealth of innovation and ability to continually develop and improve, Sweden can particularly contribute with technological advances.”

This reflects COP29’s reasoning that technology must be made globally accessible and used to reduce emissions without hampering development.

Market and Environment — A Necessary Combination

Many country delegations in Baku were clear: climate goals must not hinder economic growth — but rather become part of it. Helena Storckenfeldt (M), member of Parliament and the Environment and Agriculture Committee, articulated this view well in the aftermath of COP29:

“High climate ambitions must go hand in hand with competitiveness and growth, because this is the only way for Sweden to achieve the greatest possible global climate benefit — by being a role model and showing that emission reductions can coexist with increased prosperity.”

This echoed through several debates at COP29, where the synergy between environmental policy and business was emphasized as the path forward.

Green Future Through Investment and Education

At a climate meeting where investments were high on the agenda, Isak From (S) reiterated the need for political courage and long-term commitments to new technology, green education, and societal transformation.

“We need policies that equip Sweden; we want to drive new technologies, companies, and jobs... so that we can counter the growing climate threat and contribute to a just and credible transition.”

This directly connects to COP29 discussions on climate investment frameworks and support for innovation.

Circular Transition and Sustainable Consumption

Consumption and resource management were broadly debated in Baku. How can we reduce pressure on the planet’s limits without lowering people’s quality of life? Stina Larsson (C), member of Parliament and the Environment and Agriculture Committee, emphasizes clearly:

“Sweden must prioritize two areas: reduce emissions from transport and transition our consumption to become more sustainable and circular. When the government neglects climate issues, we should be glad the EU pushes forward. Internationally, Sweden should be at the forefront, a role model showing the way in the green transition.”

Her view aligns with COP29 priorities on circular economy and sustainable supply chains.

Historical Responsibility and Moral Obligation

COP29 became a forum where several countries questioned the responsibility of wealthy nations. Katarina Luhr (MP), member of Parliament and climate policy spokesperson, expresses this clearly regarding Sweden’s role:

“The Green Party wants Sweden to take greater responsibility for global warming. We have already emitted far more than our fair share of the climate crisis. Moreover, we are one of the world’s richest and highest per capita emitters — we have both the power and resources to do more... The most effective climate policy creates international legitimacy and shows that the climate transition is possible.”

Baku called for exactly such leadership — where credibility and action go hand in hand.

A Different View: Technology Over Panic

At the same time, COP29 sparked discussions about prioritizing climate work relative to other societal issues. Josef Fransson (SD) expresses a more cautious view:

“The climate issue is not urgent. The best Sweden can do is protect our business climate as well as research and development.”

This perspective was also present in Baku — where some delegations emphasized innovation rather than rapid political measures as the path to success.

Climate and the Present Day: Priorities in Turbulent Times

World leaders at COP29 agreed: The climate must have space and priority even when the world is burning in other ways!

In a time when the world faces multiple simultaneous crises — war, migration, energy shortages, and economic uncertainty — it is clear that the climate issue requires ongoing focus and prioritization. Despite these challenges dominating public discourse, COP29 participants stressed that climate cannot be sidelined. The climate crisis is an overarching challenge that impacts all aspects of our present and must be integrated into the debate, even when other urgent issues demand attention.

In Sweden, however, climate issues seem to be receiving less space in political debate, especially overshadowed by topics like crime, the war in Ukraine, law and order, and the economic situation. There is therefore a risk of marginalizing the climate issue.

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD), member of Parliament and deputy chairman of the Environment and Agriculture Committee, does not share the view that climate issues are losing ground in political debate:

“I would argue that climate remains a major part of the general debate, but of course we live in the present and other current issues must also have space in public discourse. It is therefore entirely understandable that the topics you list also take space — it would be strange otherwise, as they affect people’s everyday lives very directly.”

Conclusion: COP29 Showed the Way — Now It’s Up to Us

The climate meeting in Baku reminded the world of both the seriousness and the possibility. Through negotiations, agreements, and increased pressure on responsibility-sharing, the world took some steps in the right direction. But real work begins only when decisions are put into action — at home and globally.

We can no longer wait. The climate crisis is not just an environmental issue — it is a justice issue, a security issue, and a future issue. Sweden has all the conditions to lead. And COP29 showed there is hope — if we dare to cooperate, demonstrate leadership, and act together.

Världen i gungning – vilken roll kan Sverige spela?

Vi befinner oss i en tid där den globala ordningen utmanas på flera fronter. Rysslands fullskaliga invasion av Ukraina, ett spänt säkerhetsläge i Östersjöregionen, fortsatt konflikt i Mellanöstern och accelererande klimatförändringar – allt detta påverkar både vår säkerhet och vår förmåga att samarbeta internationellt. I detta nya landskap väcks frågan: vilken roll kan – och bör – ett land som Sverige spela?

– Vilket ansvar tycker du att Sverige har i arbetet för global fred och säkerhet, särskilt nu när den geopolitiska osäkerheten växer? Och när det gäller det internationella samarbetet, som Sverige traditionellt varit engagerat i – vilka konkreta initiativ bör vi prioritera för att stärka detta samarbete och bidra till en fungerande global ordning?

Erik Ullenhag: Vi lever i en tid där nästan allt är i rörelse. Rysslands invasion av Ukraina blev en geopolitisk vändpunkt. För Sverige innebar det en drastisk förändring – plötsligt fanns det en majoritet för ett Nato-medlemskap. För 20 år sedan hade det nog känts otänkbart, men idag är vi där – tillsammans med Finland.

Samtidigt står vi inför klimatförändringar som, även om de inte alltid dominerar dagordningen just nu, kommer att skapa enorma utmaningar framöver. Det handlar inte bara om miljö och väder, utan om framtida konflikter – kring resurser, migration och säkerhet.

Och så har vi Mellanöstern, där mänskligt lidande pågår dagligen. Det handlar inte bara om väpnade konflikter, utan om djupgående humanitära kriser som kräver långsiktiga, samordnade insatser.

Vad kan då Sverige göra? Jag tror starkt på internationellt samarbete – inte minst inom EU. EU är ett fredsprojekt byggt på demokrati, mänskliga rättigheter och samarbete. Det är där Sverige hör hemma, och det är där vi har störst möjlighet att påverka.

Under min tid som ambassadör i Jordanien och Israel såg jag hur viktigt det är med strategiskt och systematiskt arbete, tillsammans med andra länder och aktörer. Sverige bör vara en röst för långsiktighet, för dialog och för konkreta insatser – både i närområdet och globalt.

 

Europas nya säkerhetsläge – hur möter vi hoten?

Rysslands fullskaliga invasion av Ukraina i februari 2022 har ritat om den europeiska säkerhetskartan. Ett krig på vår egen kontinent, med enorma mänskliga lidanden och långtgående geopolitiska konsekvenser, har blivit en brutal påminnelse om att freden aldrig kan tas för given. EU har svarat med omfattande stöd, sanktioner och en historiskt samlad front – men frågan är hur långsiktigheten ska säkras, både för Ukrainas skull och för Europas egen trygghet.

– Vad tycker du att Sverige och EU bör göra för att både långsiktigt stödja Ukraina och samtidigt bevara stabiliteten i Europa, i ett säkerhetsläge som förändrats i grunden?

Erik Ullenhag: Europa måste vara långsiktigt engagerat i stödet till Ukraina – både militärt och civilt. Tyvärr är det så att om Ryssland och Putinregimen skulle lyckas, så undergrävs säkerheten i hela Europa. Det skulle sända signalen att aggression lönar sig. Därför handlar stödet till Ukraina inte bara om solidaritet – det är också i vårt eget intresse.

Samtidigt vill jag lyfta något positivt: jag är uppriktigt imponerad av hur EU har agerat gemensamt. Ofta hör man att 27 medlemsländer har så olika uppfattningar att det är svårt att enas. Men efter invasionen av Ukraina har vi visat att vi faktiskt kan fatta avgörande beslut tillsammans. Det långsiktiga stödet vi har byggt upp – det är det bästa vi kan göra.

Vi hoppas förstås alla på fred. Men det måste vara en fred på Ukrainas villkor – inte på Rysslands. Det handlar om respekt för självständighet, gränser och internationell rätt.

Ukrainarna har visat en otrolig styrka. De är de verkliga hjältarna – de försvarade sitt land med en beslutsamhet som Putin aldrig räknade med. Deras motståndskraft överraskade, och kanske också skrämde, Kreml.

Men parallellt med Ukrainas kamp har EU visat en ny förmåga till enighet och ansvarstagande. Det är något vi måste hålla fast vid – inte bara för Ukrainas skull, utan för hela Europas säkerhet. Och för Sveriges. När vi står upp för Ukraina, står vi också upp för vår egen framtid.

Baltikum och hotet från öst – finns risken för nästa konflikt?

Sedan invasionen av Ukraina har omvärldens blickar riktats alltmer mot de baltiska staterna. Estland, Lettland och Litauen – med sina ryska minoriteter och sitt geografiska läge – utgör i dag frontlinjen mellan EU/Nato och ett aggressivt Ryssland. Samtidigt uttrycker den ryska regimen alltmer öppet sina imperialistiska ambitioner. Frågan som växer i styrka: hur stor är risken att Baltikum blir nästa mål?

– Hur bedömer du risken för att Ryssland i framtiden kan göra anspråk på delar av de baltiska länderna?

Erik Ullenhag: Det finns en tydlig risk – särskilt om vi låter våld och aggression gå oemotsagda. Om västvärlden inte hade stått upp för Ukraina efter invasionen, utan i stället backat undan, då hade vi skickat signalen att militär aggression kan löna sig. Det hade ökat risken inte bara för Ukraina, utan för andra länder – särskilt de baltiska staterna och Moldavien.

Putinregimen har varit ganska öppen med sina avsikter. När man lyssnar på det ryska ledarskapet, ska man ta deras uttalanden på allvar – för de menar vad de säger. Vi ser tydliga tecken på en vilja att återupprätta en form av inflytelsesfär, kanske till och med i praktiken återupprätta delar av det gamla imperiet.

Och om våld möts med eftergivenhet ökar risken att fler länder drabbas. Det är ett allvarligt säkerhetspolitiskt faktum, som även Sverige måste förhålla sig till. Det är en av anledningarna till att vi i dag har en bred politisk enighet om att stärka det svenska försvaret.

Men det allra viktigaste för svensk – och europeisk – säkerhet, både på kort och lång sikt, är att Ukraina lyckas försvara sitt territorium. Deras kamp är inte bara deras. Den handlar också om vår gemensamma framtid i ett fritt och fredligt Europa.

Energisäkerhet i skuggan av geopolitiken – en ny väg via Kaukasus?

Europa har under decennier byggt upp ett energiberoende som visat sig sårbart i tider av kris. Det gäller inte minst beroendet av rysk gas, som Ryssland använt som politiskt verktyg. Lägg därtill Irans återkommande hot om att stänga Hormuzsundet – en flaskhals för närmare en femtedel av världens oljetransporter. Den globala energitillgången står därmed på skakig grund.

I detta sammanhang väcker Zangezorkorridoren – en planerad transportlänk mellan Azerbajdzjan och Europa via södra Armenien – växande intresse. Korridoren skulle inte bara underlätta handel, utan också kunna bli en ny strategisk kanal för energi, bort från ryskt inflytande. Samtidigt utmanar den maktbalansen i en region där Ryssland traditionellt utövat stark kontroll.

– Hur bedömer du Zangezorkorridorens strategiska betydelse för Europas energisäkerhet? Kan den spela en nyckelroll i att minska beroendet av rysk energi, och kan ett närmare samarbete med länder som Azerbajdzjan bidra till en mer självständig europeisk energipolitik?

Erik Ullenhag: När det gäller Zangezorkorridoren kan man generellt säga att allt som minskar Europas beroende av rysk gas och olja är klokt. Trots oljekriserna på 1970-talet har vi i Europa ofta underskattat hur strategisk energifrågan är – både ur säkerhetspolitisk och ekonomisk synvinkel.

Efter andra världskriget blev många europeiska länder successivt beroende av rysk energi. Sverige valde dock att inte koppla sig till den ryska gasen – och med facit i hand var det ett mycket klokt beslut. Tyvärr gjorde flera andra länder annorlunda val, och vi ser nu hur sårbart det blivit.

Zangezorkorridoren kan spela en roll i att öka Europas energioberoende. Genom att skapa nya rutter för transport och energiöverföring, bort från rysk kontroll, bygger vi också politisk handlingsfrihet. Det är avgörande – särskilt i ett Europa som vill stå starkt för demokrati och stabilitet.

Dessutom: om länder i regionen som Azerbajdzjan och Armenien närmar sig EU genom ökad handel, infrastruktur och energisamarbete, så kan det få positiva följder även politiskt. Ekonomiskt samarbete skapar ofta incitament för reformer, institutionell stabilitet och närmande till demokratiska värderingar.

Det är alltså inte bara en fråga om energi – det är också en fråga om fred, säkerhet och långsiktig geopolitisk balans.

 

Fred mellan Armenien och Azerbajdzjan – ett steg mot stabilitet i Kaukasus?

Efter årtionden av konflikt, krig och ömsesidig misstro finns i dag ett historiskt fönster för fred mellan Azerbajdzjan och Armenien. Ett fredsavtal skulle inte bara avsluta en blodig konflikt – det kan också skapa nya förutsättningar för ekonomisk utveckling och regional integration. För Armenien, som länge varit ekonomiskt isolerat och djupt beroende av Ryssland, öppnar det dörren till en ny riktning – mot Europa.

– Vilka ser du som de viktigaste stegen för att uppnå en varaktig fred mellan Azerbajdzjan och Armenien? Och kan Sverige spela en diplomatisk roll i den här processen?

Erik Ullenhag: Tillsammans med EU kan Sverige spela en roll i att säkerställa att det faktiskt gör skillnad att stå upp för demokratiska värderingar, fred och samarbete. Det handlar i grunden om en princip – att EU aldrig får vända ryggen åt dem som strävar efter demokrati, fredliga lösningar och som vill bygga upp starka, självständiga institutioner.

EU har historiskt varit en fantastisk demokratisk kraft. Många länder som tidigare levde under kommunistisk diktatur fick, tack vare ett EU-medlemskap, både stöd och verktyg för att bygga upp sina samhällen. Den rollen EU spelade då – att fungera som en vägledande kraft för demokrati och stabilitet – är minst lika viktig idag.

För att uppnå en varaktig fred krävs politiskt mod från båda sidor, men också internationellt stöd. Sverige kan genom sin erfarenhet av diplomati och sitt starka engagemang i fredsprocesser vara en konstruktiv aktör – både som enskild stat och som en del av EU:s gemensamma utrikespolitik.

– Om fred verkligen återställs i regionen – hur ser du då på möjligheterna för Armenien att ekonomiskt återhämta sig, och för Kaukasien som helhet att utvecklas mot integration och samarbete?

Erik Ullenhag: Grunden handlar om att omvärlden – och särskilt EU – är med och bidrar till fred, stabilitet och utveckling. Men också till att demokratin får möjlighet att slå rot och växa. Armenien har stora behov av ekonomiskt stöd, handel och investeringar. Om fred uppnås öppnas möjligheten för landet att minska sitt beroende av Ryssland och i stället stärka banden till EU och andra internationella aktörer.

Ett fungerande regionalt samarbete kan leda till integration, stabilitet och långsiktig tillväxt – något som gynnar hela regionen. Freden är alltså inte bara ett mål i sig – den är också nyckeln till framtidens möjligheter.

 

 

Iran och Israel – en konflikt med global påverkan

Den långvariga konflikten mellan Iran och Israel utgör en komplex och allvarlig säkerhetsutmaning, inte bara för Iran utan för hela västvärlden. Den iranska regimens förtryck av sitt eget folk, dess kärnvapenambitioner och dess stöd till proxygrupper i regionen har skapat en instabil situation som kräver både kort- och långsiktiga strategier. Samtidigt är risken stor att våld och isolering snarare stärker regimen och försvårar fredliga lösningar.

– Hur ser du på EU:s och Sveriges roll i denna konflikt? Vilka insatser bör prioriteras för att främja fred och stabilitet i regionen, samtidigt som man hanterar de säkerhetshot som Iran utgör?

Erik Ullenhag: Iran och mullaregimen är utan tvekan ett allvarligt säkerhetshot mot västvärlden. Regimen slår brutalt ner på sin egen befolkning och har systematiskt undertryckt demokratirörelser som den gröna revolutionen. Att vi dessutom har svenskar fängslade i Iran visar hur långt regimens repressiva metoder sträcker sig – även mot omvärlden.

Trots detta saknar regimen troligtvis brett stöd bland det iranska folket, som längtar efter frihet och demokratiska reformer. Men vi måste också vara realistiska: våld och yttre påtryckningar riskerar ofta att stärka regimens grepp internt. Därför bör omvärldens fokus vara långsiktigt – att stötta demokratisk utveckling i Iran och hela regionen, för att på så sätt främja fred och stabilitet.

På kort sikt är det avgörande att vapenvilan mellan Iran och Israel upprätthålls. Internationella inspektörer måste åter få tillgång till känsliga kärntekniska anläggningar, och det krävs ett nytt avtal för att stoppa Irans kärnvapenprogram. Ett kärnvapenbeväpnat Iran skulle vara ett direkt hot mot global fred och säkerhet.

I grunden är vi i Europa och USA överens om att det vore en farlig idé att låta Iran utveckla kärnvapen. Sverige har länge stött det internationella kärnteknikavtalet, JCPOA, som syftade till att förhindra detta.

Det är dock paradoxalt att USA, efter en ny attack, snabbt uppmanade till fred och vapenvila – ett budskap som kan uppfattas som motsägelsefullt och förvirrande för omvärlden.

Jag hoppas att pressen på Iran nu ökar så att vi får tillbaka vapeninspektörerna och kan säkerställa att vapenvilan håller. Men vi måste också inse att många av Mellanösterns konflikter hänger ihop. Stabilitet i regionen kräver att vi också tar itu med situationen i Gaza. Israel måste lämna Gaza så att återuppbyggnaden kan börja – det är en grundförutsättning för varaktig fred.

Det som kan ses som något positivt i denna svåra situation är att Irans militära kapacitet har försvagats, liksom flera av deras proxygrupper i regionen. Det ger ett visst utrymme för diplomati.

Men långsiktig fred och säkerhet kräver mer än vapenvila – vi måste hitta en hållbar politisk process som kan leda regionen framåt.

 

 

Rysslands roll i vapenvilan mellan Iran och Israel

I ett komplex säkerhetsläge där Iran och Ryssland närmar sig varandra allt mer blir Rysslands inflytande i regionen allt tydligare. Samtidigt har Araqchis nyliga besök i Moskva väckt frågor om vilken roll Ryssland spelar i den senaste vapenvilan mellan Iran och Israel.

– Hur bedömer du Rysslands roll i att uppnå vapenvilan? Har Iran erbjudits något i utbyte för vapenvilan?

Erik Ullenhag: Vi har sett en tydlig närmandefas mellan Iran och Ryssland, där Iran bland annat levererar drönare som används i konflikten i Ukraina. Det är en oroande utveckling som jag tidigare tagit upp i samtal med bland annat Israel, där vikten av att aktivt stödja Ukraina varit central.

Kopplingen mellan Iran, Ryssland och även Nordkorea – som uppges ha skickat stridande till Ukraina – skapar en oroande maktallians. Denna auktoritära axel utgör ett direkt hot mot demokratiska värderingar och internationell stabilitet.

När det gäller den senaste vapenvilan är det svårt att med säkerhet bedöma vilken roll Ryssland spelat, särskilt i samband med Araqchis besök i Moskva. Det verkar som att Iran sökte ökat stöd från Ryssland – både politiskt och kanske militärt.

Samtidigt tyder det på att varken Iran eller Israel vill trappa upp konflikten ytterligare i nuläget. Irans militära kapacitet har dessutom försvagats, vilket sannolikt bidragit till viljan att nå en vapenvila.

Så om Iran fått något konkret i utbyte är oklart, men det som framstår tydligt är att Ryssland är en viktig aktör i regionen och kan påverka dynamiken i konflikten.

 

USA:s utrikespolitik och Trumps kontroversiella uttalanden – vad innebär det för Europa?

I en tid då internationella relationer präglas av förändring och ibland oväntade utspel, har Donald Trumps kommentarer om Grönland och Kanada väckt reaktioner världen över. Dessa uttalanden kan ses som en spegling av en förändrad amerikansk utrikespolitik, där nationella intressen ibland sätts före internationella normer. Hur bör Europa förhålla sig till denna utveckling?

– Hur ser du på Donald Trumps uttalanden om Grönland och Kanada? Hur speglar de USA:s förändrade utrikespolitik och vad innebär det för Europa?

Erik Ullenhag: Grönland tillhör visserligen Danmark, men är ett autonomt danskt territorium med omfattande självstyre – något vi respekterar fullt ut. På samma sätt har Sverige alltid varit tydligt i sitt stöd för internationell rätt och principen om självbestämmande.

Vi kan inte göra undantag beroende på vilket land eller vilken region det gäller. Det gäller både Panamakanalen och Kanada – rättsprinciper ska gälla överallt och alltid. Därför är det särskilt oroande när en stormakt, som USA under vissa presidenter, agerar i strid med internationell rätt.

Vi kan inte acceptera en värld där det är den starkes rätt som gäller. Därför stöttar Sverige, tillsammans med våra nordiska grannar, Danmark fullt ut i dessa frågor. Det handlar i grunden om att försvara en regelbaserad världsordning där alla länder, stora som små, respekteras på lika villkor.

 

Fred genom makt och hot – fungerar det verkligen?

I dagens värld hör vi ibland argumentet att fred bäst uppnås genom styrka, och att hot kan vara ett effektivt verktyg i utrikespolitiken. Men är detta en hållbar strategi på längre sikt? Riskerar den inte snarare att fördjupa konflikter och skapa instabilitet?

– Donald Trump har sagt att fred bäst uppnås genom makt – ibland även genom hot. Hur bedömer du denna typ av utrikespolitisk strategi? Kan man verkligen skapa fred genom hot, eller riskerar detta att förvärra konflikter och undergräva stabilitet?

Erik Ullenhag: På längre sikt leder en sådan strategi snarare till konflikt och instabilitet. Idén om att fred uppnås genom makt eller hot bygger på en världsordning där den starkes rätt gäller – något vi historiskt gång på gång fått betala ett högt pris för.

När Ryssland annekterade Krim reagerade omvärlden inte tillräckligt starkt, och det blev en farlig signal. Det visade att ett militärt starkt land kunde bryta mot internationell rätt utan omedelbara konsekvenser – och det har bidragit till den fortsatt aggressiva ryska politiken.

Det är fullständigt oacceptabelt att stormakter med militär överlägsenhet ska kunna lägga beslag på territorier från mindre eller medelstora länder.

Världen mår bättre av en regelbaserad världsordning, där internationell rätt, samarbete och respekt för självständiga stater ligger till grund för fred och säkerhet – inte hot och maktspråk.

Irans framtid – på väg mot splittring eller demokrati?

Diskussionerna om Irans framtid har blivit allt mer intensiva. Med cirka 80 miljoner invånare, varav över 35 miljoner är etniska azerier, och flera andra folkgrupper som kurder och balucher som länge utsatts för diskriminering, finns det röster – både inom och utanför regionen – som talar om ett land på väg mot splittring. Inte minst efter att ett antal israeliska riksdagsledamöter öppet uttryckt stöd för Södra Azerbajdzjans självständighet. Många hade hoppats på en demokratisk förändring, men regimen har hållit fast vid makten.

Hur ser du på Irans framtid – står landet inför en möjlig upplösning som liknar gamla Sovjetunionens, eller finns det andra scenarier?

Erik Ullenhag: Jag är optimist och tror inte att sådana regimer kan sitta kvar i längden. Men för att en övergång till ett mer demokratiskt system ska ske – en verklig demokratisk utveckling – måste den också komma inifrån Iran. Det är inte tillräckligt att bara sitta i New York eller Sverige och önska förändring; iranierna själva måste bygga den. Att pressa på utifrån är väldigt svårt.

Samtidigt är det mycket viktigt att vi i omvärlden, särskilt i regionen, stöder demokratiska krafter och tydligt markerar när övergrepp sker – som när en svensk läkare fängslas eller andra människor utsätts för förtryck.

Iran är ett fascinerande land med en stor och värdefull befolkning, en fantastisk akademisk tradition och många minoriteter som förtrycks och diskrimineras. Men det finns en rikedom av kunskap och potential där som inte får slösas bort.

Så i grunden är jag optimistisk om att förändring kommer, förr eller senare.

🌟Vi samtalade kort om svensk politik och Liberalerna – och om hoppet om en vacker dag som kommer!