THE INFORMATION IN THIS ARTICLE WAS TAKEN FROM THE ARBEJDEREN PUBLICATION, SEE THE ACTIVE LINK: https://arbejderen.dk/blog/efter-berlin-hvor-er-lederne-der-toer-tale-om-fred/
A few days ago, I had the honor of participating as an invited speaker at an international peace conference in Berlin organized by the Schiller Institute. The conference brought together former diplomats, academics, military experts, journalists and peace activists from all over the world to discuss a question that should be at the top of the international agenda:
How do we avoid another major war in Europe and the world?
I was invited to give a presentation on the devastating consequences of colonialism and imperialism for my country of origin, India. But throughout the conference, it became clear that the imperial mindset of the past still shapes today’s international relations.
At the same time, peace activists in Denmark marked the first anniversary of the defense cooperation agreement with the United States. The agreement gives the United States access to military facilities on Danish soil in Karup, Skrydstrup and Aalborg. The protesters demanded that the agreement be repealed before it becomes a permanent part of Denmark’s security policy.
I share their concern.
The most remarkable thing about the current political debate in Denmark and large parts of Europe is that almost no established parties are talking about real détente with Russia. Regardless of political color, the discussion is primarily about armaments, military capacity and preparation for future conflicts.
There seems to be a remarkable consensus among political leaders that more armaments are the solution to Europe’s security challenges. This approach also dominates among many of Europe’s most prominent female leaders. I had hoped that more would represent an alternative vision based on diplomacy and dialogue. But gender does not necessarily change strategic thinking once the logic of military strength and deterrence has taken over.
We do not see much resistance to this development from our Nordic neighbors either. On the contrary, the Nordic region has become increasingly integrated into NATO’s military planning and strategic priorities.
But is it really in our interest?
For us in the Nordic region, the Arctic should be an area characterized by cooperation, research, trade and peaceful coexistence. The Arctic is one of the world’s most strategically sensitive areas. The goal should therefore be to reduce tensions and strengthen cooperation – not to contribute to further militarization.
We must talk about peace again
A question that is rarely asked in public debate was raised several times at the Berlin conference:
How long can the current escalation of tensions continue without Russia at some point reacting?
Asking this question is not the same as accepting aggression or disregarding international law. But any sustainable security architecture must be based on the recognition that all states have legitimate security interests – including Russia.
This perspective was echoed by many participants from Africa, Asia and Latin America. The global South often sees the world situation through a different lens than the one that dominates Western capitals. Here, there is less talk of geopolitical blocs and more of economic development, diplomacy and mutual respect.
One of the most inspiring moments of the conference for me was seeing representatives from China and India sitting side by side and talking about peace, cooperation and common development. Two great civilizations with different historical experiences demonstrated that dialogue is possible, even when there are significant differences.
We must begin to dismantle the power structures that constantly produce new conflicts, new arms races and increased insecurity.
In the West, the American Harvard professor Samuel P. Huntington has had a great influence with his theory of a “clash of civilizations”. But in Berlin I heard a different message again and again from speakers from the global South: not a clash of civilizations, but a dialogue of civilizations.
This is perhaps the most important insight I took home with me.
The world does not consist of good and bad civilizations. There are valuable experiences and cultural contributions in all great civilizations and societies. China, India, Russia, Africa, Europe and the Islamic world each contain perspectives from which humanity can learn.
Therefore, we should move away from a world order based on military blocs, confrontation and dominance. We must begin to dismantle the power structures that constantly produce new conflicts, new arms races and increased insecurity.
This also means that we dare to discuss the extensive American military presence around the world – including in the Middle East and now also in Denmark. A small country like Denmark does not necessarily become safer by automatically being drawn deeper into great power conflicts.
Security is ultimately created through diplomacy, trust, economic development and cooperation between nations.
The world has rarely needed more leaders who can imagine a more peaceful future. Leaders who dare to talk about reconciliation rather than confrontation. Leaders who can look beyond the next military budget or the next
Unfortunately, it is difficult to see such leadership in Denmark today. This is true even though we have more female ministers than men. Representation is important, but peace politics is ultimately not about gender. It is about vision, courage and the ability to imagine a different future.
After the days in Berlin, one thing is clear to me:
If we want a more peaceful world, we must start talking about peace again.
Not as a naive dream.
But as a political necessity.
© 2026, DetectivPress. Toate drepturile rezervate.
