Suchergebnisse

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.

Artikkelen diskuterer forholdet mellom den europeiske integrasjonsprosessen og det atlantiske samarbeidet under USAs ledelse. Problemstillingen artikkelen besvarer er hvilke tilnærminger Trump-administrasjonen har hatt til EUs sikkerhets- og forsvarspolitikk, og hvordan vi kan forklare denne tilnærmingen. I særlig grad dreier dette seg om balansegangen mellom europeisk strategisk autonomi på den ene siden, og amerikansk lederskap i Nato på den andre. Dette forholdet må forstås i lys av spørsmålet om lederskap i euroatlantisk sikkerhetspolitikk, noe som har vært et gjennomgangstema i europeisk integrasjon siden starten på 1950-tallet. Med en organisasjonsteoretisk tilnærming søker artikkelen å forklare hvorfor USA inntar et mer instrumentelt perspektiv overfor EU. Et slikt perspektiv innebærer at USA prioriterer ressurser til de områdene i verden der USA står overfor de største sikkerhetspolitiske utfordringene. For å forklare denne utviklingen diskuterer artikkelen USAs holdninger til EUs nyere forsvarsinitiativer og supermaktens ambivalens i forhold til disse. I møte med den nye Biden-administrasjonen blir det derfor viktig å avklare grunnlaget for det transatlantiske sikkerhetsfellesskapet. Et slikt fellesskap dreier seg ikke bare om felles interesser, men også om delte normer og verdier om hvordan en skal håndtere felles sikkerhetsutfordringer.
Abstract in English:Why So Ambivalent? US Policies Towards the EU's Defence AmbitionsThe article discusses the relationship between the European integration process and Atlantic cooperation under US leadership. The research question the article answers is what kind of approaches the Trump Administration has had towards the EU's security and defence policies and how we can explain these approaches. More precisely, the article discusses the balances between European strategic autonomy on the one hand and American leadership in NATO on the other. This has all to do with the question of leadership in Euro-Atlantic security politics, which has been an enduring question ever since the European integrations process was initiated during the 1950's. By utilising an organisation theoretical approach, the article seeks to explain why the US approaches the EU from an instrumental point of view. Such a perspective implies that the US priorities resources to those areas in the world where the US faces its greatest challenges. To explain this development the article discusses the US' attitudes towards the EU's defence package and the superpower's ambivalence towards it. When assessing the new Biden Administration, it therefore becomes important to explain the foundation for the transatlantic security community. Such a community is not about common interests only, but also about shared norms and values on how to handle common security challenges.

Selv om Svalbard er en del av Norge, byr øygruppen på spesielle utenrikspolitiske utfordringer. Nedbyggingen av den norske kulldriften kom brått på og har store konsekvenser for Svalbard-samfunnet og forutsetningene for norsk politikk på øygruppen, og kanskje også utenrikspolitiske implikasjoner. Russlands grunnleggende interesser på Svalbard er stabile, men det konkrete grunnlaget for det russiske nærværet endrer seg. Det skaper gnisninger i forholdet til norske reguleringer, både innenfor naturvern og helikoptertransport. Rivende utvikling av turisme og forskning har medført at flere land har fått øynene opp for Svalbard. Samtidig har den generelt økende interessen for Arktis gjort at tilstedeværelse på Svalbard tillegges større betydning enn før. Det kan være en utfordring for Norge, men også for Russland, som ønsker å ha en særstilling. I havområdene utenfor territorialfarvannet rundt Svalbard gjelder ikke de spesielle bestemmelsene i Svalbardtraktaten, etter norsk syn. Enkelte andre stater ytrer seg imidlertid av og til annerledes. Dette er ikke nytt. Men snøkrabben som dukket opp på sokkelen rundt øygruppen satte plutselig jurisdiksjonsforholdene på spissen. EU ble bragt inn, noe motvillig, i en disputt med Norge.
Abstract in English:Svalbard and the Surrounding Ocean Spaces – New Foreign Policy Challenges for Norway?Developments over the last decade have created new challenges for execution of Norwegian sovereignty over the islands. The radical downsizing of coal mining has been rapid and has affected the composition of the Norwegian community that has become increasingly dominated by tourism, with a large share of the employees being non-Norwegian. Russia's fundamental interests on Svalbard are stable: keeping a presence, aiming for special treatment, but not undermining the Svalbard treaty regime. Frictions with Norwegian authorities are related to Russia's plans to diversify away from increasingly loss-making coal mining into tourism and research support, where Norwegian environmental legislation and restrictions on helicopters are obstacles. The positions of various states on the status of the maritime zones and the continental shelf around Svalbard have not changed much, but the appearance of the snow crab – a sedentary species – on the shelf provoked a legal dispute where the EU reluctantly became involved.

I marts 2005 var det 20 år, siden Mikhail Gorbatjov kom til magten i Sovjetunionen som generalsekretær for Sovjetunionens Kommunistiske Parti og fremlagde sit program til reform af det sovjetiske system. Nøgleordene i reformen var perestrojka, glasnost og demokratisering. De fik ikke alene betydning indadtil, men også udadtil i forholdet til omverdenen, der hurtigt fattede lid til Gorbatjov og hans nyskabelser. Dette working paper giver et overblik over Gorbatjovs og hans meningsfællers opfattelse af udviklingen siden da og deres vurdering af reformernes skæbne og skildrer Ruslands stilling på verdensscenen i dag. Dette indebærer også en kritisk vurdering af præsident Vladimir Putins indenrigs- og udenrigspolitik. Der tegnes et billede af et svagt Rusland, der ikke har frigjort sig fra den sovjetiske arvs byrde, men tværtimod på mange måder søger tilbage til den autoritære styreform, et Rusland, der ved inertiens kraft stadig nyder en vis respekt, om end ikke anseelse i det internationale samfund. ; In March 2005 it was 20 years since Mikhail Gorbachev came to power in the Soviet Union as Secretary-General of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and presented his programme for reform of the Soviet system. Key words in the reform were perestroika, glasnost and democratization. They became important not only internally but also externally in the relations to the outside world that swiftly put its trust in Gorbachev and his innovations. This working paper gives an overview of the perception that Gorbachev and his like-minded have of the development since then, presents their evaluation of the fate of the reforms and of the position of Russia on the world scene today. This also includes a critical evaluation of the domestic and foreign policies of President Vladimir Putin. The paper outlines a weak Russia that has not released itself from the burden of the Soviet heritage but on the contrary in many ways goes back to the authoritarian form of government, a Russia that by inertia still enjoys a certain respect although not esteem in the international community.