Kriger vinnes i det kognitive domenet. Denne hypotesen er utgangspunkt for denne analysen av krigen mot terrorisme og dens tilhørende strategiske narrativer. Artikkelen gir støtte til hypotesen og understreker sammenhengen mellom krigens faktiske utvikling, og dens narrativer. Artikkelen analyserer selve narrativet om en krig mot terrorisme. Hvordan oppstod dette master-narrativet? Hvordan utviklet det seg over tid? Hva ble det erstattet av, og hvilke aktører var sentrale i å utfase frasen «krig mot terrorisme»? To nøkkelaktører i å avslutte både krigen mot terrorisme og narrativet om den er ISIL og president Barack Obama. ISIL overtok rollen som verdens mest fryktede og mektige terrorgruppe, og stilte dermed Al Qaida i skyggen. Mens Obama helt systematisk valgte å ikke benytte frasen «krig mot terror». En krig som aldri nevnes av USAs commander-in-chief er ikke lenger et operasjonelt militært konsept. Med likvideringen av bin Laden i 2011 gav Obama USA en slags «closure» for 9/11-traumet. For krigen mot terror var alltid president George W. Bush sin krig. Han etterlot seg to bakkekriger som man vanskelig kan påstå at USA kunne vinne. Men Bush sin strategi-omlegging i Irak i 2007, «The Surge», skaffet USA nok pusterom til å trekke seg ut. Men med ISILs hurtige fremvekst ble gleden kortvarig, ettersom de opprettet en pseudo-stat i Levanten.
Abstract in English:Narratives from the War on TerrorWars are decided in the cognitive domain. This hypothesis is supported by this article on the war on terrorism and its strategic narrative. The analysis emphasizes how the physical warfighting is inextricably linked to the strategic narratives of the war. Special consideration is given here to the master narrative establishing the war on terror. How was this narrative constructed? How did it develop over time? What replaced it, and what actors were crucial in retiring the phrase 'war on terror'? Two key actors in this respect were ISIL and President Barack Obama. ISIL eclipsed Al Qaida as the world's most feared and infamous terror group. Whereas Obama systematically avoided using the phrase 'war on terror' altogether. A war that is never mentioned by the USA's Commander-in-Chief is no longer an operational military concept. Equipped with the targeted killing of Osama bin Laden in 2011, Obama brought closure to the national trauma of 9/11. Because the war on terrorism was always George W. Bush's war. He left behind two large scale ground wars with little prospect of success in either of them. He did provide a temporary change of fortune in Iraq with 'the Surge' of fresh troops in 2007. But these gains were soon enough erased as ISIL grew and developed into a pseudo-state in northern Iraq and Syria.
Når regjeringen legger fram en ny stortingsmelding om nordområdene høsten 2020, er det nesten et tiår siden forrige melding ble presentert. Veldig mye har endret seg siden da, ikke minst i form av Kinas fremvekst, økt spenning mellom NATO og Russland, og en reaksjonær amerikansk president. Nordområdene og hele det sirkumpolare Arktis har blitt en arena for symbolpolitikk og militær øvelsesaktivitet, samtidig som de arktiske landene fortsetter å samarbeide om en rekke saker. Midt i dette står Norge. Denne introduksjonsartikkelen til fokusnummeret om Norge, nordområdene og utenrikspolitikk trekker de store linjene i utviklingen de seneste årene med hensyn på Norges posisjon og rolle. Den introduserer også de andre bidragene og peker på noen av de mest aktuelle funnene som vi bli diskutert.
Abstract in English:Introduction to Focus Issue: Norway, the High North and Foreign PolicyWhen the Norwegian government presents a new report to the parliament on its High North policy in the autumn of 2020, almost a decade has passed since the previous report was presented. A lot has changed since then, not least in the form of China's emergence, increased tensions between NATO and Russia, and a reactionary US president. The High North and the entire circumpolar Arctic have become an arena for symbol politics and military exercise activity, while the Arctic countries continue to co-operate on a number of issues. In the middle of this is Norway. This introductory article to the focus issue on Norway, the High North and foreign policy examines the broad lines of developments in recent years with regard to Norway's position and role in the north. It also introduces the other contributions and points to some of the most relevant findings that are being discussed.
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.
Artiklen ser nærmere på de forhold, som er blevet beskrevet i analyser af interventionen i Afghanistan, der kan forklare den udvikling, som den amerikanske præsiden, Joe Biden, forsikrede ikke ville finde sted i 2021. Tre forhold står frem i tidligere analyser af årene, der gik, i Afghanistan. For det første, at der var løbende udfordringer med kapacitetsopbygningen. Udfordringer, der ligeledes løbende var blevet påpeget internationalt af analytikere, forskere og i krigens mange evalueringsrapporter og erfaringsopsamlinger. For det andet, at formålet med krigen fra de allieredes side skiftede karakter, som tiden gik. Fra at det fælles formål var lettere at få øje på i starten af krigen, så blev interventionsindsatserne til et formålstæt delta, hvor de involverede lande med skiftende regeringer balancerede hensyn til alliancer, en hjemlig vælgerskare, nationale sikkerhedsinteresser og værdipolitiske rettighedsdagsordner. For det tredje, at Taleban gradvist – og ikke fra den ene dag til den anden – havde opbygget styrke og kontrol, og samtidig havde været involveret i en politisk proces via deres repræsentationskontor i Doha, der var med til at bane vejen for deres overtagelse. Abstract in English20 Years in Afghanistan: What Do We Know About What We Learned?This article takes a closer look at various analyses of the international intervention in Afghanistan, which point at different reasons for the developments that took take place in August 2021. Developments that the American president Biden shortly before the Taliban takeover assured the world would not take place. Three factors stand out in previous analyses of the years that passed by in Afghanistan. First, that there were ongoing challenges with capacity-building. Challenges that had been pointed out by analysts, researchers and in the many evaluation and lessons-learned reports from the war. Secondly, that the purpose of the war on the part of the allied forces changed character as time went on. The common purpose was easier to see in the beginning of the war, but the intervention efforts turned into a purpose-dense delta, where the countries involved and their successive governments balanced considerations to alliances, domestic support, national security interests and value political agendas. Third, that the Taliban seemingly had gradually – and not overnight – built up strength and control, and at the same time been involved in a political process through their exile office in Doha that helped pave the way for their takeover.
Rusland er en vigtig aktør for de nordiske lande ikke bare i Østersø-området, men også i Barents-regionen og i Arktis. For at opnå et fuldgyldigt billede af de involverede dynamikker bør de enkelte nordiske landes Ruslands-relationer studeres samlet. De dansk-russiske, norsk-russiske, svensk-russiske og finsk-russiske relationer har udviklet sig ret forskelligt siden år 2000. Der eksisterer to barrierer for nordisk sikkerhedspolitisk samarbejde: (1) landenes forskellige geografiske beliggenhed og (2) bestemte indbyrdes idiosynkrasier, der ofte bunder i forskellige opfattelser af deres fælles historie. Derfor har det traditionelt været muligt for stormagter at praktisere 'del og hersk' i forhold til de nordiske lande, og det synes også at være lykkedes for Rusland siden år 2000. Men i kølvandet på Ukraine-konflikten og valget af Donald Trump til USA's præsident er der sket en konvergens mellem trusselsopfattelserne og dermed de geopolitiske interesser i de nordiske hovedstæder. I fravær af idiosynkrasier vil det nordiske sikkerheds- og forsvarspolitiske samarbejde derfor blive styrket, om end en fælles Ruslands-politik er urealistisk. Alle fire lande, ikke mindst Sverige, står over for vanskelige dilemmaer.
Abstract in English
The Nordic countries interact with Russia not only in the Baltic Sea region, but also in the Barents region and in the Polar Arctic. In order to get a full picture of the underlying dynamics, individual Nordic Russia-relations should be studied in a comprehensive framework. Swedish-Russian, Danish-Russian, Norwegian-Russian, and Fenno-Russian relations have developed differently since about 2000. There are two barriers to Nordic security policy cooperation: (1) the countries' different geographical locations, and (2) various idiosyncrasies between pairs of Nordic countries, typically rooted in different interpretations of their common history. Thus, the Nordic soil has traditionally been fertile for great powers seeking to 'divide and rule', and Russia has apparently succeeded in this since about 2000. However, in the wake of Russia's involvement in the Ukraine conflict and the election of Donald Trump as US president, geopolitical interests seem to be converging with fairly even threat perceptions being found in Nordic capitals. In the absence of idiosyncrasies, this will strengthen security and defence cooperation, although a common Nordic Russia-policy will not materialize. All four countries, in particular Sweden, face difficult dilemmas in this new situation.
Russia's strategy in the Arctic is dominated by two overriding discourses – and foreign policy directions – which at first glance may look like opposites. On the one hand, an IR realism/geopolitical discourse that often has a clear patriotic character, dealing with "capturing", "winning" or "conquering" the Arctic and putting power, including military power, behind the national interests in the area – which is why we, in recent years, have seen an increasing military build-up, also in the Russian Arctic. Opposed to this is an IR liberalism, international law-inspired and modernization-focused discourse, which is characterized by words such as "negotiation", "cooperation" and "joint ventures" and which has as an axiom that the companies and countries operating in the Arctic all benefit the most if they collaborate in peace and friendliness. So far, the IR liberalism discourse has set the trend of the Russian policy carried out in relation to the Arctic. Thus, it has primarily been the Russian Foreign Ministry and, above all, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov that have drawn the overall lines of the Arctic policy, well aided by the Transport Ministry and the Energy Ministry. On the other side are the Russian national Security Council led by Nikolai Patrushev and the Russian Defence Ministry headed by Sergey Shoygu, which both have embedded their visions of Russia and the Arctic in the IR realism/geopolitical discourse. Russia's president, Vladimir Putin, does the same. Nevertheless, he has primarily chosen to let the Foreign Ministry set the line for the Arctic policy carried out, presumably out of a pragmatic acknowledgement of the means that have, so far, served the Russian interests best. Moreover, it is worth noting that both wings, even though they can disagree about the means, in fact are more or less in agreement about the goal of Russia's Arctic policy: namely, to utilize the expected wealth of oil and natural gas resources in the underground to ensure the continuation of the restoration of Russia's position as a Great Power when the capacity of the energy fields in Siberia slowly diminishes – which the Russian Energy Ministry expects to happen sometime between 2015 and 2030. In addition to that, Russia sees – as the polar ice slowly melts – great potential for opening an ice-free northern sea route between Europe and Asia across the Russian Arctic, with the hope that the international shipping industry can see the common sense of saving up to nearly 4,000 nautical miles on a voyage from Ulsan, Korea, to Rotterdam, Holland, so Russia can earn money by servicing the ships and issuing permissions for passage through what Russia regards as Russian territorial water. The question is whether Russia will be able to realize its ambitious goals. First, the Russian state energy companies Gazprom and Rosneft lack the technology, know-how and experience to extract oil and gas under the exceedingly difficult environment in the Arctic, where the most significant deposits are believed to be in very deep water in areas that are very difficult to access due to bad weather conditions. The Western sanctions mean that the Russian energy companies cannot, as planned, obtain this technology and know-how via the already entered-into partnerships with Western energy companies. The sanctions limit loan opportunities in Western banks, which hit the profitability of the most cost-heavy projects in the Arctic. However, what hits hardest are the low oil prices – at present 50 dollars per barrel (Brent). According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), the fields in the Arctic are not profitable as long as the oil price is under 120 dollars per barrel. Whether Russia chooses to suspend the projects until the energy prices rise again – and until it has again entered into partnerships that can deliver the desired technology and know-how – or whether the Russian state will continuously pump money into the projects is uncertain. The hard-pressed Russian economy, with the prospects of recession, increasing inflation, increasing flight of capital, rising interest rates and a continuously low oil price, provides a market economic incentive for suspending the projects until further notice. Whether the Kremlin will think in a market economic way or a long-term strategic way is uncertain – but, historically, there has been a penchant for the latter. One of the Kremlin's hopes is that Chinese-Russian cooperation can take over where the Western-Russian cooperation has shut down. Russia has long wanted to diversify its energy markets to reduce its dependence on sales to Europe. At the same time, those in the Kremlin have had a deeply-rooted fear of ending up as a "resource appendix" to the onrushing Chinese economy, which so far has been a strong contributing reason for keeping the Russian-Chinese overtures in check. The question now is whether the Western sanctions can be the catalyst that can make Russia overcome this fear and thus, in the long term, support the efforts to enter into a real, strategic partnership with China. ; Russia's strategy in the Arctic is dominated by two overriding discourses – and foreign policy directions – which at first glance may look like opposites. On the one hand, Russia have an IR realism/geopolitical discourse that often has a clear patriotic character, dealing with "exploring", "winning" or "conquering" the Arctic and putting power, including military power, behind the national interests in the area – which is why we, in recent years, have seen an increasing military build-up, also in the Russian Arctic. Opposed to this is an IR liberalism, international law-inspired and modernization- focused discourse, which is characterized by words such as "negotiation", "cooperation" and "joint ventures" and which has as an axiom that the companies and countries operating in the Arctic all benefit the most if they cooperate peacefully.
