Suchergebnisse

The Nordic countries have long been renowned for their contribution to international peace and security. This contribution – occasionally viewed by both Nordic and non-Nordic policy-makers and academics as a particular model for facilitating peace and development in international affairs – is based on a combination of active contributions to peaceful conflict resolution, a high level of development aid and a continuous commitment to strengthening international society. However, recently Scandinavians have been making headlines for reasons that seem to contrast with their well-established brand as humane internationalist peacemakers. This article identifies the characteristics of the Nordic model for international peace and security and discusses how and why it has changed.

Abstract in English:From Cold War to Hot Peace: An American Ambassador in Putin's RussiaGeir Flikke reviews the book "From Cold War to Hot Peace: An American Ambassador in Putin's Russia" by Michael McFaul.

Vi har omfattende forskningslitteraturer om hvordan norsk utenrikspolitikk på begynnelsen av 1900-årene kretset om fred, og om fremveksten og institusjonaliseringen av norsk freds- og forsoningsdiplomati fra midten av 1980-årene og til i dag. Vår kunnskap om den mellomliggende perioden og røttene til fredsdiplomatiet er mer mangelfull. Artikkelen sammenfatter det vi vet, og den presenterer en tidligere ukjent case fra 1966–1968, det såkalte Nobel-initiativet, der en gruppe norske borgere gikk sammen om å mobilisere nobelprisvinnere med sikte på å etablere en bakkanal for fredssamtaler mellom USA og Nord-Vietnam. Samfunnsinitiativet fikk helhjertet oppslutning fra den norske stat. Nobel-initiativet er dermed en forløper for det samarbeidet mellom stat og samfunn som skulle prege norsk freds- og forsoningsdiplomati. Gitt at vi også finner løse forelegg for freds- og forsoningsdiplomati i 1920-årene, gjør kunnskapen om Nobel-initiativet det mulig å påstå at vi gjennom det siste hundreåret konsistent finner norsk freds- og foroningsdiplomati i den utstrekning og den form som de internasjonale forholdene tillater.
Abstract in English:The Nobel Initiative from 1966 and the Long Lines in Norwegian Peace and Reconciliation DiplomacyNorway was the first state to institutionalise peace and reconciliation work as part of its overall diplomacy. As it emerged from the mid-1980s onwards, peace and reconciliation diplomacy has had two characteristics: it has been carried out by state and society groups in tandem, and it has targeted reconciling a regime and an internal opposition to that regime. The bulk of the article presents a 1966 initiative by a group of concerned Norwegian citizens to launch a back channel for American and North Vietnamese peace talks by mobilising winners of the Nobel Peace Prize, and demonstrates that this initiative received political, administrative and economic help from the Norwegian state. This makes it a precursor of today's peace and reconciliation initiative. Given the fledgling examples of Norwegian peace and reconciliation work that we find in the margins of the League of Nations during the 1920s, knowledge about the Nobel Initiative of 1966 warrants the claim that, for the past hundred years, Norway has consistently attempted peace and reconciliation work to the extent and in the form allowed by international conditions.

Iver Neumann has been an inter-disciplinary entrepreneur for political science in Norway. For Neumann, interdisciplinarity has been coupled with an understanding of politics as the search for meaning and identity. These features are well-developed in European political science, particularly within the field of international relations, but they are more rarely encountered in Norway. This brief article provides a sketch of political science as it evolved and matured in its Norwegian incarnation. In situating Iver Neumann within the discipline, I emphasise his international and eclectic orientation. The personal, national and international meet in Neumann's works, as do popular culture and politics.

On April 25, 2013, UN's Security Council established a 12,600-strong peacekeeping force for Mali. The United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission (MINUSMA) is to take over and continue the security and stabilization task that the French-led military operation in cooperation with UN's African-led International Support Mission to Mali, AFISMA, initiated in January 2013. The aim of this report is to present a number of long- and short-term perspectives for the recently initiated peace- and state-building process in Mali by focusing on the historical, structural and political causes of the crisis in Mali. Understanding these causes and handling their derived conflict potentials provide a minimum of prerequisites for establishing long-term peace. The report is structured according to four intertwined conflict potentials: Mali's fragile state, the status and background of the Tuareg rebellion, the organized crime and the regional cooperation. .

EU har gjort en stor feil ved ikke å drive gjennom EU-medlemskap for Bosnia-Hercegovina. De stadige utsettelsene skyldes flere ting, blant annet nasjonale hensyn i EUs medlemsland og en fastlåst politisk situasjon i Bosnia-Hercegovina, som gjør nødvendige reformer vanskelig. Dette har skapt håpløshet i befolkningen og bidrar til fortsatt politisk ustabilitet. Rask integrering i EU og Nato er den eneste sikre veien til fred og utvikling i Bosnia-Hercegovina – og på Vest-Balkan generelt.
Abstract in English: Europe's Betrayal of Bosnia and Herzegovina
The EU has made a major mistake by not driving through EU membership for Bosnia and Herzegovina. The constant delays are due to several things, including national considerations in EU member states and a deadlocked political situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, making necessary reforms difficult. This has created hopelessness in the population and contributes to continued political instability. Rapid integration in the EU and Nato is the only safe path to peace and development in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and in the Western Balkans in general.The EU has made a major mistake by not driving through EU membership for Bosnia and Herzegovina. The constant delays are due to several things, including national considerations in EU member states and a deadlocked political situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, making necessary reforms difficult. This has created hopelessness in the population and contributes to continued political instability. Rapid integration in the EU and Nato is the only safe path to peace and development in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and in the Western Balkans in general.