Suchergebnisse

Abstract: Security and Vulnerability After Armenia's Velvet Revolution: Elite Perceptions on Gender Equality, Human Rights and Conflict ResolutionThe Velvet Revolution in spring 2018 and the snap elections that followed in December 2018 shook Armenia. This article examines the country's new political elite and other central social elites, and their affective and evaluative beliefs with respect to human security, drawing on an elite survey conducted in 2017 and 2019, complemented by in-depth interviews. The aim is to shed light on whether Armenia's elite-level political culture is headed for progressive change concerning the rights of disadvantaged groups, primarily women and sexual minorities – an expectation among the young and educated in Yerevan. This study finds that, as regards reducing vulnerability and increasing the security and freedom of choice for those traditionally disadvantaged in Armenian society, the values and judgments of the new elites have remained basically traditional.

Länderna i Sydkaukasien – Armenien, Azerbajdzjan och Georgien – går sedan länge en svår säkerhetspolitisk balansgång. Respektive land måste utöver sin komplicerade relation till varandra navigera mellan konkurrerande grannar som Ryssland och EU. Den förra ser på regionen som sitt »nära utland» och den senare ser på den som sitt »östliga partnerskap». Situationen väcker ett antal angelägna frågor. Kommer Ryssland att kunna behålla kontrollen över sitt »nära utland»? Kan EU lära sig att hantera den geopolitiska tvekamp som unionen dragits in i? Och hur navigerar den politiska eliten i Sydkaukasien mellan sina grannar? Dessa frågor angrips inom ramen för detta temanummer som inkluderar originella bidrag från Jakob Hedenskog (FOI Totalförsvarets forskningsinstitut), Michel Anderlini (Malmö universitet), Per Ekman (Uppsala universitet) och Li Bennich-Björkman (Uppsala universitet).

The article analyses representations of history in today's Russia as part of the ideology for expressing central political concepts underlying the Putinist regime. Mainstream interpretations of history build on a populist vision of Russia as a community with a stable, unchangeable core of identity. In this ideological context, history serves as the canvas on which the 'authentic' Russian identity manifests itself. The present research article examines representations of history by focusing on the concepts of 'historical sovereignty', 'unity of history', and the role of elites in history. It finds that regime ideology in today's Russia relies on a sizable infrastructure that involves producing historical knowledge for the purpose of securitizing history and making it an instrumental element in the populist (conservative-communitarian) ideology. Sources for this study come from the network exhibition 'Russia – My History', contextualized through content analysis of the key producers of ideology in Putin's Russia.

Abstract: Trauma and Collective Memories in Georgia's Foreign PolicyGeorgia's foreign policy since the mid-1990s would appear to be a regional anomaly. While Georgia's neighbors have either accommodated to Russia's geopolitical interests or sought to navigate between Russia and the West, Georgian governments have pursued a comparatively stable pro-Western foreign policy orientation. Thus, structural arguments like geographic proximity, or Russia's assertive foreign policy, cannot account for the variation in foreign-policy orientation among post-Soviet states. Moreover, although alternative explanations, like Georgia's European identity and commitment to democracy, or explanations related to qualities of the Mikheil Saakashvili government, are not without merits, they cannot fully account for the continuity in Georgia's pro-Western foreign policy over time. This article argues that the collective memory of the traumatic years 1989–1994 is a key factor for understanding Georgia's foreign policy continuity. The collective memory and trauma related to loss of territory, together with a weak state and Russia's negative involvement, have shaped the strategic thinking of Georgia's foreign policy elites. This trauma explains Georgia's shift to a pro-Western foreign policy in the mid-1990s and the continuity of this policy up until today. This argument is supported by the author's interviews with key Georgian decision-makers responsible for foreign policy decisions.