Suchergebnisse

Den norske debatten om kinesiske investeringer og sikkerhet har gjennomgått et betydelig taktskifte på få år. Fra en situasjon hvor det i liten grad var en debatt, og hvor kritiske røster i hovedsak angikk bekymringer om arbeidsmiljøutfordringer, har kinesisk næringsvirksomhet i Norge nå også blitt en del av den sikkerhetspolitiske debattsfæren. To særtrekk gjør det norske eksempelet til en spesielt interessant studie av de fellesnordiske spørsmålsstillingene diskutert i denne Fokusspalten. Norsk økonomi har tjent særegent godt på det kinesiske veksteventyret, men Norge har også stått i en særegent vanskelig politisk stilling overfor Kina gjennom det siste tiåret. Kontrasten mellom disse to faktorene har stått sentralt i norsk Kina-debatt. Ikke desto mindre har den norske offentlige debatten rundt kinesiske investeringer vært relativt positiv. Dette har blant annet vært drevet frem av gode erfaringer blant norske selskaper som har blitt kjøpt opp av kinesiske partnere. Den offentlige samtalen har dog i nyere tid begynt å relatere til spørsmålet gjennom en politisk og sikkerhetsmessig vinkling. Dette er et taktskifte som ikke skyldes hendelser knyttet til eksisterende kinesisk aktivitet i Norge, men heller en norsk gjenspeiling av bredere globale og regionale trender. Huaweis rolle i den kommende utbyggingen av 5G-nettverket har vært et spesielt viktig bindeledd til denne internasjonale opinionsdreiningen.
Abstract in English:Norway's Debate about Chinese Investments: From Benevolence to CautionThe debate in Norway regarding security concerns related to Chinese investments has seen a notable change in character over a short period of time. From a situation where there was little discernible debate at all, and where negative coverage of Chinese investment flows were mainly concerned with working environment issues, Chinese capital flows to Norway have now also become part of the debate on national security. Two particularities make the case of Norway especially interesting with regards to the broader Nordic debates over the issues discussed in this Fokus section. The Norwegian economy has been particularly well placed to benefit from the extraordinary Chinese economic growth, but Norway has also been in a particularly problematic political position towards China over the last decade. The contrast between these two factors has been a structuring trait of the Norwegian China debate. Nevertheless, the Norwegian public debate on China has been relatively positive over a long period of time. This has been given impetus by the positive experiences reported from the Norwegian enterprises that have been the target of Chinese acquisitions. However, lately, the public debate has increasingly come to regard the issue also through a political and security-related lens. This changing character is not due to specific events concerning Chinese activities in Norway, as much as being a reflection of broader regional and global trends. The question of Huawei's role in the coming construction of the 5G network has been a particularly important driver in this regard, as well as conductive link to the international change in opinion.

Som svar på Karsten Friis' kritik af Fokkusspalten, "Når krig blir hverdag", formulerer denne replik en kort begrebslig, empirisk og normativ afklaring af spaltens anvendelse af begrebet militæraktivisme. Begrebsligt påpeger replikken, at militæraktivisme allerede er hyppigt anvendt i litteraturen om skandinaviske landes øgede engagement i internationale militære operationer efter Den Kolde Krig. Empirisk set, er det korrekt, at udviklingen ikke har været lineær, og man kan argumentere for, at Danmark og Norges militæraktivisme var (endnu) større, da Afghanistankrigen var på sit højeste. Dog er begge lande fortsat engageret særligt i NATO-regi, og det er væsentligt at bemærke, at de direkte kampe på landjorden i internationale militære operationer i stigende grad udliciteres til mindre privilegerede lokale og internationale kombattanter. Replikken påpeger, at Friis' påstand om, at militæraktivisme som begreb udgør en slet skjult kritik af Danmark og Norges militære engagement, beror på en misforståelse. Tværtimod stammer aktivisme fra den danske udenrigspolitiske debat, hvor begrebet anvendes politisk med en række positive konnotationer forbundet med at være aktiv (Pedersen & Ringsmose, 2017). I lyset af afpolitiseringen af Danmarks og Norges krigsdeltagelse velkommer vi fremadrettet yderligere forskningsmæssig og politisk diskussion af militæraktivismen.
Abstract in EnglishReply: Military Activism RevisitedIn response to Karsten Friis' critique of the special issue When War Becomes Daily Life, this reply outlines a brief conceptual, empirical and normative clarification of the special issue's use of the concept, military activism. Conceptually, the reply points out that military activism is already a frequently used concept in the academic literature on Scandinavian countries increased engagement in international military operations after the Cold War. Empirically, it is correct that this development has not been linear, and arguably, Denmark and Norway's military activism was (even more) pronounced, when the war in Afghanistan was at its zenith. However, both countries continue to be engaged particularly in NATO, and significantly, direct battles on the ground are increasingly outsourced to local actors to less privileged local and international combatants. The reply points out, that Friis's claim that military activism is a concealed critique of Denmark and Norway's military engagement, is based on a misunderstanding. On the contrary, activism as a concept derives from the Danish foreign policy debate, where the term is used to connote a series of positive attributes associated with being active (Pedersen & Ringsmose, 2017). Considering the depoliticisation of Denmark and Norway's military activism we welcome further academic and policy discussions about this important issue.

Under 2017 och 2018 ökade Kinas direktinvesteringar i Sverige avsevärt till följd av ett antal stora förvärv, mestadels i fordonsindustrin. Samtidigt har den svenska offentliga debatten kring kinesiska investeringar blivit mer kritisk sedan 2017, då investeringarna överlag talades om i positiva ordalag. Under 2018 och 2019 har en rad aktörer inom statliga myndigheter, politiska partier, media och civilsamhället beskrivit Kinas investeringar som ett potentiellt säkerhetshot. Näringslivsrepresentanter är mindre synliga i debatten men även här finns det en tydlig trend av ökad uppmärksamhet på potentiella säkerhetsrisker kopplade till kinesiska investeringar. Den svenska synen på Kina tycks konvergera allt mer med vad EU har kallat för sin nya "mer realistiska" hållning gentemot Peking. Ett antal policyprocesser har inletts, vilket sannolikt kommer leda till att svensk lagstiftning stärks på flera områden för att öka kontrollen av Kinas investeringar och engagemang i Sverige, särskilt i kritisk infrastruktur såsom telekommunikationsnät men även vad gäller företag vars verksamhet anses som säkerhetskänslig i mer generell bemärkelse.
Abstract in EnglishChinese Investments in Sweden: From Fame to Fear?China's direct investment in Sweden surged in 2017 and 2018 due to a number of large acquisitions, mostly in the automotive industry. At the same time, the public debate on Chinese investments has become more critical since 2017, when they were typically seen in a positive light. Throughout 2018 and 2019, a number of actors in government authorities, political parties, the media and civil society have described China's investments as a potential security threat. Although less prominent in the public debate, business representatives have also become increasingly vocal about potential security risks associated with Chinese investment. The Swedish view of China seems to be aligning with what the EU has called its new "more realistic" approach to Beijing. Meanwhile, a number of policy processes have been launched which are likely to lead to the strengthening of existing legal frameworks to scrutinise Chinese investment and activity in Sweden, especially concerning critical infrastructure such as telecommunications networks, but also more generally concerning companies whose activities are regarded as sensitive from a security perspective.