Suchergebnisse

Abstract not available. 22 References.

A historical discussion on the foreign policy relationship between Norway and the United States and its future perspectives. The Norwegian Institute of International Affairs (NUPI), founded in 1959, can legitimately be called a child of the Cold War. During the 1950's Norway's main focus was to stand between the two super powers of the United States and the Soviet Union. Already in the 1960's this role began to diminish due to improvements in weapon technology and became even smaller in the 1970's when Norwegian left leaning parties started to openly oppose the United States. In the 1980's Norway tried its best to become visible for Washington, a project that somewhat failed due to Ronald Regan's focus on the internal economy and rolling back communism abroad. Overall the relationship to the United States has almost exclusively been based on foreign policy even if cultural ties have made Norway the most Americanized country in Europe. Adapted from the source document.

A large contrast between European Union and the United States still exists when it comes to how the countries influence the world. Whereas the United States is still obsessed with military might, Europe's focus is on economic, cultural and legitimate influence. In the early 20th century it would have been almost impossible to imagine millions of peaceful Europeans demonstrate against a foreign war, but in the early 21st century it is commonplace. Many authors have argued that this change was caused by developments in weapon technology, democratization of the continent, and realization that war is primitive. A theory developed by James Sheehan argues that wars ended due to developmental historic conditions. For example, democracy allows both the war mobilization of the whole population, but it also gives them the opportunity to vote for peace. L. Pitkaniemi

It is well known that the US-Russian dialogue was 'reset' in 2009 under US President Obama and his Russian counterpart Medvedev although it is doubtful whether this symbolic commitment really created conditions for better, or closer, intergovernmental relations. In the following, I analyse how signs of renewed cooperation emitted by the respective political leaderships reflected on multilateral fora in which both the United States and Russia are represented, with a particular emphasis on the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and the UN Security Council. The overall impression is that US-Russian diplomatic collaboration in 2009-2011 remained limited and focused on fewer issues, but that both sides deliberately avoided 'disturbing' each other's priority interests. A specific observation from the OSCE is that Russia's diplomatic initiatives were better prepared than previously and in the future may carry greater weight, at least on the European mainland. Unlike the United States, which acts through the Security Council when it believes that it can forge a coalition to pursue a particular objective, in 2009-2011 Russia's UN diplomacy still remained defensive. Adapted from the source document.

The Iraq War in 2003 represented a conflict of interest for the Norwegian government, as the situation called for them to choose between the relationship with the United States & international law. Being a small nation, it was in Norway's interest to protect both these interests. In the end, the government decided not to support the American-led invasion, with reference to international law. This decision has by some been interpreted as a shift away from Norway's traditional Atlanticist policy. This article illustrates how the second Bondevik Government succeeded in balancing different national interests in the decision-making process. On the one hand, it supported the UN & met the demands of the Norwegian public opinion. On the other hand, it managed to uphold its relationship with the United States. This balancing act illustrates that small states have limited room for manoeuvre in international politics, & will most likely continue to have so in the future. References. Adapted from the source document.