Search results

Etter å ha gått seirende ut av «klimavalget 2021», står den rødgrønne regjeringen overfor oppgaven med å sikre Norges grønne omstilling. I den offentlige debatten står gjerne argumenter om global solidaritet og miljøhensyn fremst i begrunnelsene for nødvendigheten av en grønn omstilling, mens motstandere av et raskt skifte fokuserer på de negative økonomiske konsekvensene de mener et raskt skifte vil få for Norge. Denne artikkelen søker å nyansere dette bildet, og argumenterer for et bredere kost-nytte-perspektiv som også tar høyde for diplomatiske kostnader ved å fortsette med oljeleting, samt de økonomiske konsekvensene av en treg omstilling. Selv om man holder konsekvensene av klimaendringene helt utenfor vurderingen, argumenterer vi for at usikkerheten rundt fremtidig oljepris og omdømmerisikoen Norge løper ved å fortsette å basere økonomien på ikke-fornybare energikilder, burde være gode argumenter for å revurdere Norges oljepolitikk.
Abstract in English:Norway's Oil Dilemma After Glasgow: An Immoral Argument for a Rapid Green TransitionAfter winning the "2021 climate election", Norway's new government faces the task of ensuring Norway's green transition. In the public debate, global solidarity and environmental considerations are often at the forefront of arguments for the necessity of a rapid green transition, while opponents of a rapid transition tend to focus on the negative financial consequences they believe such a change will have for Norway. This article seeks to nuance this debate, and argues for a broader cost-benefit perspective that also takes into account diplomatic costs of continuing with oil exploration, as well as the economic consequences of a slow transition. We argue that, even if not considering other consequences of climate change, the uncertainty surrounding future oil prices and the reputational risk Norway runs by continuing basing the economy on non-renewable energy sources should be good enough arguments to reconsider Norway's oil policy.

The regional powerhouse, South Africa, has since the introduction of the nonracial democratic dispensation in 1994, played a central and important role in the formation of both the regional and continental security architecture. With the establishment of the Southern African Development Community (SADC) in 1992, one of the central areas of collaboration for the community was envisioned to be security, understood within a broadened human security framework. Security was therefore from the outset one of the cornerstones of integration in the SADC. It was believed that the formation of a security community would help dismantle the enmities that had plagued regional relations during the apartheid era. For some parties, institutionalisation of relations pointed to a means of stabilising and disseminating a particular order. Such institutions depict the power relations prevailing at the time of their establishment, which, however, can change over time (Cox 1981:136). The integration ambition surrounding security correlated with the ambitions of South Africa, the new democratic government in the regional powerhouse. South Africa and its overall foreign policy ambitions desired the pursuit of peace, democracy and stability for economic growth and development in the region and within South Africa itself. Since South Africa's acceptance into the SADC in 1994, the organisation has attempted to set up the required institutional framework to enable co-operation on security, both in terms of narrow military co-operation and regarding designated 2 softer security issues, such as migration and cross-border crime. The military cooperation moved forward in the early years after 1994 with the 1996 decision of creating an Organ for Politics, Defence and Security Co-operation (OPDSC)1 and later the signing of the Mutual Defence Pact (MDP) in 2003, and eventually the creation of the Strategic Indicative Plan for the Organ (SIPO) in 2004, which operationalised the OPDSC (SADC 2004). However, the actual military cooperation, e.g. military exercises, came close to a standstill. Several developments obstructed military co-operation of which the evolving crisis in Zimbabwe and the subsequent withdrawal of donor support to, for instance, the Regional Peacekeeping Training Centre (RPTC) in Harare are but two examples. The RPTC constituted the backbone of the co-operation, but political differences between member states illustrated during the Zimbabwean crisis and following the mandate of the interventions in especially the DR Congo and partly Lesotho in 1998 all contributed to regional tensions.2 Despite the crisis, SADC members, and in particular South Africa, declared that the organisation would be able to form a regional stand-by brigade for the use of the African Union (AU) as part of its wider security architecture. On 17 August 2007, the SADC declared its stand-by-force operational at a large parade in Lusaka, Zambia and at the same occasion signed a memorandum of understanding on the SADCBRIG (SADC 2007). According to the timeline provided by the AU, the brigade should be fully operational by June 2010. Former South African deputy foreign minister Aziz Pahad stated after the launch that this was an important step, but that now there was much to be done securing joint levels and types of training, interoperability, etc. (Pahad 2007). The question that continues to linger is to what extent this brigade is operational and for what purpose. Is this new regional military formation in its present form just a paper tiger, or is it "real progress" and an example of "successful" regional cooperation and integration? This article scrutinises the security co-operation and integration in SADC and asks whether an apparent lack of common values between SADC member states are blocking the security integration process, the creation of a security community, and thereby the establishment of an effective stand-by brigade, the so-called SADCBRIG. The article furthermore attempts to scrutinise the role played by South Africa in establishing the SADCBRIG.