Welcome John Elias on to the podcast Sanity Check. Most people know who you are already, but if you by some coincidence missed it, you're former foreign minister of Sweden and also Deputy Secretary of United Nations, among other things. Thank you very much. Good to be with you. We met during summer and I thought we might start on that topic because there we talked about the role of democracy and also the voice of the people.
And it's getting more and more urgent to look at the voice of people because we see in so many places right now that the interests, the people are getting sidelined in the bigger interest of things. There's a lot of conflicts right now going on in the world. And I also see in my research that a lot of people don't see that democracy actually is giving them any benefits because you expect so much from
democracy. And it's not that democracy can give you anything, but at the same time you want your voice to be heard. There's a lot of things that driving in the wrong direction. And I think one of the key issues here is also that it's hard to see how the world actually looks right now. We have AUS election where it's hard to understand what is true and what is blatant lies, for instance. What's your thought about this?
Well, I think I would like to mention as a starting point to the lack of trust which exists very clearly in today's world, both between nations, as you see between the big actors, US, Russia, China in particular, and by that the the immobilisation and weakness of the UN Security Council.
So conflicts rage, there is a sense of helplessness in on International Security, but the mistrust is also permeating our societies inside nations as you touch upon yourself, where people ask what does the government deliver and what are the authorities doing for me? And this is strengthened by clear deficiencies in terms of equality and income distribution and how people are treated, how minorities are treated, and even in democracies, how interests of certain groups are disregarded.
And this is a sense of of mistrust which goes rather deeply. And it's also, which you may want to deepen the discussion on, is also strengthened by the radicalisation of media, the social media, which sort of everything's black and white and the sense of nuances and, and, and the desire for deeper discussion and dialogue is rather weak. You know, you identify those who are on the other side as enemies and those who are hanging on the Cliff as very suspect individuals.
And that leads to a division inside countries, which I feel is an international phenomenon, right? You see it practically everywhere. Yeah, there's a lot to take about that I'm just looking at because I think as I said on media, there's there is a challenge to understand who is the actual minority because looking in in the Western world, Trump is the biggest example, but the people who voted for him felt like they were a minority,
white men in rural areas. And we see the similar trend in Sweden as well and most of the European countries that these persons feel that they're sidelined, but they're actually quite a big group. But they start to tend to feel like they're smaller than the minorities we have because they get under represented in the in the public space.
And as you said, regulation of media because it's more interesting to focus on the scandalous issues and expect it to be even worse in the future because guessing about the future creates clicks and shares. But the same time, the challenge there is for the politicians that were and diplomats for that sense to actually be able to handle the real situation when there's something else going on in the public space that's scaring people but also being the center of the debate. Yeah.
Well, diplomacy is not very much Alamod these days, you know, dialogue and this and diplomacy is not searched for. I myself have mediated in six and I, I must say we in that category at the UN were in demand. I had to accept to decline offers, to go into conflicts and mediate. But it's very quiet these days here with my colleagues. They get no requests. There's this pursuit of military victories and fight to the end and use weapons to to reach their goals.
So for me as a diplomat, I I feel rather sad losing the value of the word and the compromise and the go between roles that you need to have. But that is also is growingly considered very suspicious because it's a sign of weakness. So then there is a the. The other thing that comes to mind to me is that it has been a scary, the loss of territory between truth and and lies. I was in the US when Trump started his campaign back in 2015. I was deputy secretary general of the UN in New York.
And of course you couldn't avoid the the that campaign. It's the whole political life. 2015 and 16. And I was astounded by the fact that it it didn't hurt anyone to lie it, it didn't hurt him. Rather, he started already at that time to become a cult leader, not a leader of the political party that he later dominated. The cult leader. You have a question. And if you question it, you pay a price for it.
And when the line disappears to me between lies and truths and when facts are denied and the spokesperson of the White House, Kellyanne Conway, was sort of faced with a charge of a very blatant lie by Trump. And then she asked it, well, you have to learn that this president, president-elect, he might have been at that time. He, he has, he, he sees some facts, but he also sees alternative facts as though you
create your own reality. And that's when I started to really worry about what this does to democracy. It must have an eroding effect that if this ground on which you stand, and I grew up in a in a working, working class home where honesty and truth was sacred, then to me that firm ground becomes very loose ground and then you don't know where you end up. So these are my observations. Diplomacy is certainly not used. Dialogue isn't Alamont.
And as I said, truth isn't as sacred as we should see it as. Yeah, I actually had a guest on my podcast a couple of weeks ago, Colin Irvin. So his polls were actually the the foundation for the peace treaty. And he wanted to do the same in Israel now when the conflict was accelerating there. And US stood behind him until Netanyahu said he did not want peace. So then he could not get a sponsor for it.
And that that's not a word you're touching on right now, because the leaders need to be able to lose something to have peace. You have to compromise. But then you would be a loser. And to be honest, I don't think either Hamas or Netanyahu really wants peace. They keep themselves busy, but on the cost of the people. And I think the regular citizens are being sacrificed in this fight, these guys who just want to look strong.
That, that is the mistrust. Again, you know, when you, when you see that societies are run by people who don't seem to care about the not, are not putting the human being in the centre. I, I always carry the UN Charter in my pocket when I was at the UN and it was a very, very effective weapon because I had to remind people when they only thought in geopolitical terms and looked at nations as chess, as, as pawns on the chess game,
chess board. I put, put out my chapter, my charter and said, look, you know the first 3 words of the charter, Look here, what is it? We the peoples. This organization isn't we the government, it's we the peoples. If we forget what this means that war means for people, or underdevelopment poverty means for people, or human rights violations mean, then we have misunderstood the subject, as we said in school. Yeah, people cannot be sacrificed them at the thing that nothing is true and
everything is possible. It's close to the Putin doctrine that everything is possible. But the research I've done, and even in Sweden, half of the Swedes think that the news media are trying to protect their own agenda or push out their own agenda. And this has happened the last 10 years. I think in the US, it's been like this for a much longer time.
But Fox News is the, it's the most visible example of of how you have a political biased newsroom, but in a world where you know or expect or think or believe that news media are biased, then it means that everyone is lying. And from that perspective, just start to distrusting the public
information. And I think that's our challenge right now because news media are not seen as neutral parties anymore and not working for the people against the power or looking out for our interest against the. Power I I was there at a time when I there was sort of a discussion about what really was the meaning of the campaign and what was the games, the campaign. And it was incredible the difference of the interpretations from the different television channels.
You would think you were in another country switching from CNN to Fox News, and that's very dangerous. Where I went to school Once Upon a time in the Midwest, in Indiana, it was always Fox News, the East Coast, it was CNN or CNBC, whatever. So that that was, that is now strengthened even more. Today. You know more about that than I do. But the fact that you now even have to worry when you see a text or even see a photograph, whether you have to ask yourself, is this manipulated you?
You don't even even a photograph or a text, which was, you know, we were supposed to at least take it in as a contribution to truth. But if you the starting point is, is this manipulated? Is this either really a manipulation, real manipulation, or is it something that is used as misinformation by sources far outside your own country or inside our country, trolls or whatever? They to to even have that process in your brain. Yeah, before you go on and take decisions, that is really a new
phenomenon. Yeah, it is. And it goes back to what we said in the beginning that we need to have trust in certain institutions because news media will continue to produce news, but we need to be able to trust them to be neutral and also not to have been lied to them. There are examples where Reuters fake Reuters news got into national broadcasts in, in Europe. And so, so there's so many layers of this.
But if you cannot even trust the news organization to be neutral, then it's basically you have destroyed the entire foundation for trust. And if you know that they are biased, then there's no basically no point in it's locking you in having to choose sides. You have to be either team Trump or Dream Harris to continue the US example because you know, everyone has shows him aside. So it's it's like a false. You have to make false choices
of everything. The political arena becomes a place where you really have no, no discourse, no exchange, no real dialogue, where you listen and compromise and come to a solution to something. If you don't have a Fiorina is all the place where it's either or, then where do we have the real deep debates and discussions?
How will we pursue them? And that's where you come back to something which is becoming a problem in Sweden, where you have the the civil society being such a lively part of our culture. And I grew up with society and my father was a labour Union Leader. My mother was involved in church and whatever. And we were, they were writing protocols or meetings and I was counting the receipt from the cooperative store.
And, you know, it was just a big movement, you know, which was part of, you know, how the Swedish democracy grew in the 30s, forties and 50s. And now when you don't have, they are even undermined in terms of budgetary support. And I get phone calls from friends and society, particularly those that deal with international affairs who
are desperate. You know, half the staff of several organizations I know who are doing a great job both in Sweden and internationally are, you know, saying goodbye. We go go bankrupt and this has a deeper significance because it also leaves that arena rather than you know, where you're supposed to have dialogue and discussion and come out with
solutions. The old, the labour movement had this together with the employers, the Sal Shabbat and sort of the spirit of yes, it is in our interests, a well functioning industry and it says we have to have people satisfied workers, you know, who have no reason to complain too much. So that is a tradition which I felt was one of the reasons why Sweden had still has still, I would say, a rather steady and
strong democracy. But my God, we are on the strain and I don't think we quite realise that we are on the strain. Some comes to power in in the US and if if some of these extreme movements in Europe also become stronger and stronger as we see very many sides of and I don't know where we end up. Yeah. And I think what's happening right now is that the voter or the citizen has been sidelined away from democracy. Politicians only see them as a possible vote.
Or if you're not thinking the way the politicians think, you shouldn't vote because better to get them not to vote for the other side than getting them to trust you. So there's a destructive function in the political campaigning that's been in the Western world and that that is also being used in this geopolitical sense from Russia and Iran just to to undermine the trust in democracy and undermine the feeling that the voter has and is saying it. And then what happens to the people?
Because most people in the world are actually good human beings. They don't want to fight. They don't want to lie. They did. They want to have their life and live their lives. But if they feel like they're alone and surrounded by this madness from media and from politician, then you start getting scared and scared once become populists. And both for the strong guy and the other people, the big majority just leave this public space and say, OK, I'll just take care of myself because I
can't. I don't want to be part of this. This is a crazy world. I'm glad I'm not there yet. And and this discourse, I think, is what's driving so much of the juris skepticism right now. And also the Trump voter base is like, the world is going crazy. I don't want to be part of this, this. I'll vote for the guy who's not actively part of this. Yeah, just as a protest to say, OK, if if they're right, then we need someone to just pull the handbrake. If they're wrong, at least they
got a wake up call. That's right, looking. Looking inward is sort of a way of, of identifying security. That's where you find your secure place. Looking inward. And for me as an internationalist, you know, working with the international cooperation and exchange and understanding foreign cultures and you know, the multiplicity of cultures as a positive.
I forget it when I went out on on X or earlier Twitter, I was sort of condemned as a sort of inveterate and hopeless globalist was sort of one of the worst things you can be called. And then of course, you had these groups got a very important tool in their hands, which is really quite a challenge and that is the migration and refugee issues, which has become such a catalyst for division and and even
further polarization and hatred. Both visa these groups is to some degree, but also those who favour another approach to migration, refugees. And this is of course also fed by the crime waves that you see as many countries, including not least our own country and where you easily place blame on these groups. And then you see the political
spectrum. And this you know better than I again, where the political parties that are see the shifts, shifts of opinion and feel the winds and adapt to the new conditions. And to me, to me, this has gone a bit too far, that political leadership to me is more of, for me nowadays, more of standing up for principles and values and having the courage of the capacity and talent to bring out the as you said in the beginning, we will want to live
together and be in peace. So we don't lie and we don't. So we, we otherwise we are brought down to another level of quality of life and quality of, of your soul. Yeah. So this is what's happening now without really us noticing it in time.
And things can go very fast. Yeah, it is the slippery slope and I think this game between news media who just focus on fear as being the biggest driver to get tension in the news media and politicians who have to, if they don't base their politics against the view of the world that media presents, the media cannot accept their policies. And and even if it's not really true anymore, look at migration for instance. And look for instance, in Sweden, I will research this.
I don't have results yet, but I would suspect that people think there's about 2,000,000 Muslims in Sweden when in fact there's 200,000. And most of those, according to research that the scientists have seen, is they're more liberal than the countries they've come from, but they're being projected as being Islamists, basically. 2 million potential terrorists in Sweden. OK, this is going in the wrong way. That is not true.
But that's the backdrop where the politicians are are acting because no one is challenging the actual facts because you can't do that when facts has the same value as opinions. It would be a debate. How many refugees do we have in Sweden? Let's have a debate tonight at 9, which is really sad. They had the same thing in in the environmental issues, but they stopped that because they realized, OK, we cannot debate climate change, but suddenly you can debate how many migrants there are.
Although we have facts. And those who are prone to be afraid will be very afraid if they think that what's going to get you as a terrorist. And sadly, do you believe it's 2 million potential terrorists in a country of 10 million people? It's a frightening view. It's not true, but it's a really effective scare tactics. Yeah. And the images that you see on television of the papers and all that strength and that all the time, and the fear factor
becomes stronger and stronger. And the fear is such a horribly numbing feeling. You know, then you reduce your intelligence by being scared all the time. I'm sort of a bit of a dreamer in terms of what could be done to me. I am really uncomfortable about this negative situation that we just see things going down and I don't see why we won't have any say mobilization of good forces because we want to sort of shift course.
You know, I'm a Navy officers. I know if you're off go to the cliffs, you should better change course. And I have two issues which I think would be absolutely wonderful to see as a as a project, you know, a big project that we had in Sweden when we grew from what we were in 30s to we, we became in the let's say late 50s. We could really gather all good forces around this issue of
environment. Why should we have such a partisan divide with such deep feelings on those on the green side that exists today when the word conservative as you know it means preserve but don't feel that you should preserve nature. Why is this becoming a left right issue?
Please explain that to me when we in fact need complete globalization around forgetting parties because it's about looking around where you are, this fantastic nature that we are destroying and of course climate change related to that. If you look, the clock is ticking.
The thing that should lead to mobilization in my view is a real serious approach to integration, you know, housing, jobs, language, everything and have a mobilization strategy and also bringing in not only the political parties but bringing in civil society and the private sector and the research world,
you know, around the issue. You put the problem in the centre and then you gather those who can affect the problem and then you have a discussion and come out with the division of labour and then you report to each other again and come back. We have to find models otherwise we we will feel a even more of a frustration that nothing happens. We start with that the deep frustration about not getting
things done. You should have political leadership that defines those projects with big P the let's say the the our environment man as a part of nature. Let's make peace with nature. Did you? Get good at what you're being measured on and from political perspective, you're being measured on being on TV and debating. And there you have the conflict
is the driving factor. And since facts is not interesting anymore because everything is live broadcasted, it's for the reader or the viewer to to do the fact checking because the TV don't have time. Then you can start just telling lies because it gets more you actually get awarded by lying more because then you get more our time basically, and which is actually I had and 11 on this podcast, but that was in Swedish.
But she actually said that if you say something really surprising on the debate, then you you will be quoted for a week. But if you're just debating, then it's just those minutes and they are being measured on the reach and name recognition. And both the politicians and news media have stopped trusting the people because the people is just someone who's being used here. It's a number going back to the UN actually.
It's not about the people. The people are just numbers, their ratings and their voters staying in power. Because look at the climate. There's only 2% in Sweden who think there is no climate change. So this is a non issue. Everyone keeps in it, but the same time we cannot move over to solution. But everyone wants solution. But the Swedes realize that it's not the national issue, it's an international issue.
Actually the biggest support is for UN to actually step in and solve this, have a global tribunal to take care of the worst climate offenders in the world, basically China, US and Russia. Because in Sweden we are educated as people, we know we cannot solve this climate crisis no matter how many times we take our bike to work. That's not it might be good for local environment, but it's not
helping the climate. But the politicians honestly don't care about the global issues because that that's not their constituents. But there is one aspect which I thought about and that is we are at Sweden, 1011 million people, yes, rather small size, still in the UNI can tell you we have quite a bit of influence, I must say. We are a member of the European Union, a loyal member and now a long time member and we are a member of NATO.
And I think also that we should realise that we can enlarge and enhance and widen our identity. The word identity is by the way, much better in plural both Swedes and Nordics and Europeans and world citizens. You know everything. If we realize now, for instance, that we are all five of us in the Nordic countries in the same security alliance, then the conclusion should be a number of things.
But one of them should be that why won't we are voice be heard much clearer if we have 5 inside that organization with quite a good reputation and good negotiators and so forth. We we could do a lot of you bring in the international. Aspects. Arctic issues, we have geographic proximity and legitimacy to bring these issues. So this Nordic voice, you know, can be stronger and that could perhaps to be a effect.
Also the sense of helplessness that if you, Oh my God, we are the five Nordic countries, we could even add sometimes the three Baltic 5 + 3 in European Union soon. Hopefully it's a different constellation. Anyway, my point is this and then also I hope this is a big challenge is if Trump wins the election and if he betrays Ukraine and if he sort of pleases truth his policies, what a huge loss of confidence between our transatlantic and what type of pressure will we feel as Europeans?
Will we just fall in line and be the guys who don't do anything or will we try to not compensate fully but at least try our best to support Ukraine? Will we be more of a global voice? So I would say that one way for us to sort of strengthen our confidence and self-confidence is to realize that the word together is perhaps the most important word in the world today.
Because together with the Nordics, together with the Europeans, could we affect realities more and by that reduce the feeling of helplessness. I never thought, I never thought about it before, but I just thought it now in an interesting way of again, this I'm looking for sort of positive. And I think these, I would add this to my positive project. You, you need not be so damn
helpless. Yeah. And. That is a perfect example, and I think what most politicians and news media failed to realize is that what the voter or the citizens actually want is a positive vision. People are fed up with death and destruction. It's not the actual death and destruction, it's the helplessness that makes you fed up. Because if there's a negative issue that you understand that can be solved, people will
mobilize. But if we're all going to die and it's just doom and gloom and everything, then you will be demobilized and you'll stay at home. You buy a bigger lock for your door and whatever. Actually 20% of the males, since we don't think we should be allowed to have guns to, to defend ourselves against criminals. This is, this has happened in the last couple of years. And I, I actually, I'm, I'm, I'm glad that you also reminded me because we have to have think
about some positive things. And there is actually one really interesting positive thing. First, during the pandemic, the people in Sweden really behaved positive. They were the most positive example, I think in the world because we did not need laws. We, we followed common sense. We, we did everything to minimize the spread of the infection. Although there were no laws, I think we were one of few countries in the world that did
not have laws for this. But also one word in the US because I'm, I'm, I'm getting more and more positive about the outcome of US election actually. And, and there's, there's been a tonality shift actually, when Harris and and Walls became the Democrats presidential candidate, it's because they have a positive. It's not Biden. It was 2 old guys who wanted to fight who was the toughest guy.
And yeah, the threat democracy. Now it's just in a, in a small sideline, OK by Trump. We're not going back. We want to move forward to something better. The civil society there has really moved up. I heard the other day that the Harris campaign, I've had 100,000 events since this candidate started, 100,000 events. So people are really moving there. No, I think you're right, people waiting for that positive news. I I, I, I sometimes mass to lecture on the state of the world.
I always consider myself rather, you know, optimist. But now I'm slowly becoming a worried or a pessimist who has not yet given up. These are where I am I, I, I, I go between these two categories right now. But when I last came out, there was a woman standing up in the end said y'all, yes. And we, we, we get very worried If you are so worried and you got to give us hope very seriously. So I said yes, you're right.
I and then that's where I actually brought out this thinking about Europe and the Nordic countries that even we could face with a Trump victory, sort of an interesting way of strengthening our self-confidence in Europe, Nordic area. But then I said to her, I've written a book, by the way, it's called old and handling a Life in the World of Diplomacy. And there I've, I've developed this thesis that, yes, you got to have a very down to earth, realistic, sober, sombre analysis of the world.
You have to accept the world as it is. You must never forget that. You must strive for the world as it should be. And the whole meaning of not life but meaning of my professional life, please, is to reduce the gap between the world as it is and the world as it should be. That's what's all about. And maybe one millimetre, a centimetre, whatever.
And then I said there are hopes. There are reasons for hope for me, and you must have studied this, the biggest hope globally is of course, the coming full liberation of women hasn't yet taken place globally. It will have to take place. You have huge obstacles in Afghanistan and Iran and so forth, but my God, it's coming. I've seen this. That's the biggest reason for long term structural optimism.
The second reason is young people, if we do it right with them, understand that we must bring them in and work not only for them. We should do more for them, but we should do more with. I go to school sometimes I have 9 grandchildren, 6 and three in the US and I'll go to their schools and my God, they are so good on environment, on war and peace, on truth, everything moral compass perfect.
So if we sort of see that as a sort of huge challenge, another project by the way, young people and the the third reason for which also affect is in your in your area that is research and science and knowledge innovation, technology. I negotiate, as you may know, the 17 sustainable development goals. We won't be able to to to reach them without the enormous, you know, developments in in science research and so forth, on cities, on energy, on transport
and so forth. And then the fourth reason, I was about to say the last reason, but the fourth reason rope is of course international corporation, which is not the amount. To. Come back in use because we can't just continue to look inward and burn our future. Yeah, that is true. And that that looking inward is, is like you said, effect of fear, because you want to have your circle trust as small as
possible. And I always hear and not you're not one of them, but I always hear this worry about the young generation that that's been in every generation. It's always been the young who has been lost it. No, it's us who's who are old and don't really understand them because the young people are smart. They probably know more about the world than we did when we were at that age. They're more knowledgeable. It's just that they're not talking in our language.
And the the biggest fear is that maybe we will spread the fear into them as well, that there are no future. Good point. Very good, very good. That we must avoid. Thank you. I think we're running out of time, but this was really. Interesting. I I feel we just started. Quite a flow. Yeah, we. Did sometimes it's good not to sort of be sort of in detail prepared that you allow your pain to to work independently and just let go?