Mér var boðið að halda erindi á Groundfish Forum, alþjóðar áðstefnu botnfiskútgerða. Þau báðu mig að tala um alþjóðamál í lok ráðstefnunnar sem þá hafði fjallað ítarlega um veiðar og um efnahags- og markaðsmál. Og það gerði ég undir titlinum Alþjóðakerfið, þróun þess og áhrif á viðskipti. Hér er erindið.

Good afternoon,

I want to thank the organisers for the honour of the invitation to address the forum and its distinguished audience.

Regarding my topic, let me say that I am an optimist on behalf of the star of my presentation – the international system –  but mine is optimism tempered with realism.

The title of my talk brings to mind the saying – “So much to do – so little time”. That in a way describes the task I have taken on today.

Let me warn you, thererfore, that to complete the task in 20-25 minutes calls for making unavoidable short cuts through history  – and for inevitable simplification of the complexities of the World and its affairs. Also, I must more or less leave out domestic politics despite their close link to international relations.

Anyway, here I go  – and bear with me.

First, a quick look at the history and basic premises of the international system. It is old and tested, dates back to the 17th century and the establishment of the modern sovereign state. The core function of the system is to provide a framework that governs how its members, the sovereign states, interact, manage conflict, and pursue self preservation, competition and cooperation.

And they do so without world government since there is no higher authority in the international system than the sovereign state. It possesses a unique status and value in the system as the primary actor for legal order, accountability, and stability. Moreover, the sovereign state meets basic human needs, not least for security, and in return receives loyalty from its citizens.

With no higher authority than the state, the international system is by definition an anarchy.  Ultimately states must look out for themselves. Given these basic characteristic it is to be expected that conflict and war, and other bad things, do happen in world politics.

But – and here is a fundamental point: The international system is an anarchy, since there is no world government or police. So international relations are obviously far from perfect. And yet the system is not chaotic. It has order which is rooted in  structured relationships, and international law, and institutions that manage interactions between states.

In the main order means a generally stable pattern of relations among states which overall follow rules in the absence of higher authority. In short anarchy and order coexist in the international system.  Therefore it is often described as an ”anarchical society”. That is a contradiction in terms but not in the field of international relations where it describes a foundational concept and framework for understanding world affairs.

Order in the international system requires recognition of each state’s sovereignty and authority within its borders and of its territorial integrity. Order manages anarchy and protects shared interests. Order is to a considerable degree upheld by great powers relying on deterrence, balance of power  – and war. Armed conflict can help maintain order when peaceful means prove inadequate. Order requires the prevention of any single power or coalition from dominating the system. The reality of nuclear deterrence and the massive cost of great power war help prevent such dominance.

One basic feature of the international system is its structure which refers to the distribution of power between states – and which has changed fundamentally this century. There is now a number of major powers in the structure and the system is therefore multipolar. A multipolar structure has a degree of inherent instability. The relatively stable, US-led unipolar era which succeeded the bipolar structure of the Cold War, upheld by the US and the Soviet Union, has given way which has led to more rivalry than before in the system.

The multipolar international system includes middle powers which hold substantial diplomatic and economic weight such as India, Russia, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, But limited material capabilities restrict the influence of these middle powers as do the different interests they have.

India has potential to become a superpower in the latter half of the century. Currently, however, there are only two superpowers in the system – China and the United States.The rise of China to superpower status has radically changed the structure of the international system. We have also seen the rise of Asia. The centre of gravity in the international system is now in the Asia Pacific region.

China and the United States are superpowers because they have global reach based on unmatched economic power and advanced technological capabilities, and superior military strength.

China and the United States are in competition in trade and technology. Moreover, they compete for influence in the international system and its institutions, a contest which will become increasingly profound. They do however appear to have a pragmatic approach to their relationship. They are competitors but within a framework of a degree of bilateral stability and cooperation maintained by high-level diplomacy, agreements and state visits.

International relations evolve through continuous processes of change, interaction, conflict, and cooperation. Together these generate what may be called the dynamics of the system. Currently signs are that it is in a period of considerable tension and friction.

The consequences appear tragically in regional wars and conflicts – such as in Ukraine and the Middle East. The war in Ukraine persists and  may well escalate still further, but unlikely to  the level of direct military conflict between NATO and Russia. The war is existential for Ukraine while Russia has a fundamental goal of reestablishing a sphere of influence.

After the war ends – which it will do – a long time may well pass before lasting peace comes to Ukraine, and before relations between Russia and the West are restored to normalcy. There are doubts about western resolve and support for Ukraine which is obviously crucial if the war is to be successfully brought to an end and predictability and stability restored in Europe.

In the Middle East there are still no signs of a pathway emerging towards lasting peace in the region, the establishment of which would be an immense challenge in the best of times after many decades of conflict.

In several places in Africa conflict refuses to subside and go away. In the Asia Pacific superpower war sparked by the Taiwan issue cannot be discounted.

Ladies and gentlemen,

Geopolitical stability and a predictable trade environment are of course as we all know necessary to allow international markets and companies to operate efficiently. The current instability and conflict in the system has led to protectionism and higher tariffs, sanctions, supply chain issues, and a rise in insurance rates for shipping, all of which obviously reduce investments and raise cost and prices.

However, despite instability, friction and war, the international system obviously continues to function overall. Generally states still recognise one another’s sovereignty, conduct diplomacy, make agreements, and abide by rules. Global trade grows in volume and the World Bank and the IMF continue to provide a measure of coordination and stability. And there is global economic growth.

Now I introduce a fundamental factor for international stability: The level of economic interdependence in the world today is historically high, driven by decades of globalisation, international trade liberalisation, digitalisation and financial integration. The World is deeply interconnected and that creates and reinforces mutual vulnerability of states – and that in turn raises the cost of conflict. Although the United States and China are in competition globally they maintain massive economic and other links which create and strengthen shared interests and cooperation between them.

Despite a high level of interconnectedness in the world core national security goals may override the positive effects of interdependence. Trade and financial interactions do not necessarily foster peace and cooperation. Countries may and do use interdependence for purposes of coercion by using supply chains, applying targeted export controls, and by imposing economic sanctions to exert pressure.

And more countries than before are turning inward, prioritising protectionism, border security, and putting greater emphasis on nationalist rhetoric over cooperation. Moreover, there is no denying that the system has indeed shifted from a more rules-based order which can be traced back to end of world war two – and towards a more fragmented and transactional reality then before. But let’s keep in mind that the period in question included the Cold War and was not fully stable, peaceful or fully rules based.

Ladies and gentlemen,

Now I want to open two issues which present a big challenge to the international state system and World politics. One is the issue of climate change and climate policy, that is the international effort to reduce emissions into the atmosphere from the use of fossil fuels. It is a phenomenally expensive method to deal with climate change and is likely to remain well short of achieving global goals to reduce warming.

Due to the immense cost involved the international state system is unable to establish credible and enforceable global targets for emission cuts  – or agree on burden sharing between states and groups of states. To solve this – to break the impasse – a revolution in World energy is required, that is to move energy system away from its overwhelming reliance on fossil fuels.

A revolution in energy – through nuclear fusion – may well happen in the coming decades. Meanwhile climate policy is already a source of friction due to measures such as the European Union’s carbon border adjustment.

That constitutes a tariff on carbon-intensive imports from countries which are considered to have lax environmental standards. This issue is essentially about levelling the playing field between domestic producers and producers in countries with lower costs from environmental regulations and taxes. The purpose of the tariff is to prevent domestic companies from moving manufacturing to countries with more accommodating rules.

The EU tax may well be a harbinger of more of the same as trade policy and climate policy become increasingly fused.

Another issue on the agenda and of growing concern internationally is the potential artificial intelligence has to harm international cooperation by triggering a geopolitical ai race between great powers – including in particular China and the US.  Also of concern is the risk that wealthy countries investing heavily in ai will enjoy the economic benefits from greatly increased productivity while low and middle-income countries remain well behind.

Moreover, ai is becoming a direct security issue due to concern that it may develop beyond human control.

More positively, however, ai and quantum computing are shortening the timelines needed to solve critical problems including those regarding World energy and medical science to name a couple.

There is a growing opinion that to put ai under some kind of international control is becoming urgent. Considered in fact by some to be an issue more urgent than success in climate policy due to the leaps and bounds at which ai is progressing, while climate change unfolds relatively slowly.

Ladies and gentlemen,

Serious global issues pose a challenge – absolutely.

But here are some fundamental facts I have yet to introduce and which are very relevant to international stability.  Namely that long-term trends across the globe are generally improving for humanity. Global life expectancy and child survival rates have risen magnificently over the last hundred years or so. The percentage of the world’s population living in extreme poverty has fallen significantly and hunger has been radically reduced. Global literacy has climbed rapidly backed by expanding access to schooling and digital platforms.

While the dynamics of the system are currently characterised by flux and friction, its core structure seems more or less settled after the fundamental change represented by the rise of China and the Asia Pacific. We basically know, in other words, what the world looks like in geopolitical terms. Moreover, the two superpowers, are engaged with each other and middle powers do not generally pose a global threat.

While it is reasonable to be concerned about evident fractures in World politics and trade, it is also important to recognise that the international system has survived severe crises in its history.  And the system has resilience due to the the order facilitated by the sovereign states – and due to the growing degree of interconnectedness and interdependence between states, including the superpowers.

While 21st century crises and conflicts have led to warnings of a “New World Disorder” a better way to describe the international system is – it seems to me – to say that it is undergoing change and transition.

By their nature both change and transition can be complex and disorderly but all signs are, as already explained, that the international system basically works overall. It continues to possess order and stability – and to be conducive to business and trade, although less smoothly than before.

The system functions – in contrast to what the daily news cycles may suggest with their understandable focus on immediate developments and drama, and less emphasis on long-term trends.

Ladies and gentlemen,

My conclusion is based mainly on the long history of the international system and the resilience of the anarchical society – on the history of order in World politics. I have stressed the enduring role and value of the sovereign states, their basic need for predictability, their unique qualifications and their strength and means to facilitate order and balance of power when needed.

The prediction is – therefore – that the sovereign states will overall continue to work for predictability and stability in the World provided by reliable relationships and agreements. Competition will continue to coexist with cooperation. Interdependence will continue to make the world deeply connected, encourage business and trade – and raise the costs of conflict.

The international system remains an anarchy, of course, and will be imperfect. Violence will occur between states. However, the fact is that order can be sustained despite serious disputes and differences, including ideological differences.

In short, the coexistence of anarchy and order in the international system will continue to support cooperation, stability and prosperity, including through change and transition in World politics.

Thank you for your attention.