Suchergebnisse

Denne artikkelens hovedargument er at norsk forsvarspolitikk i stor grad er formet av norsk identitet og av norske verdier. Denne sterke koblingen ble særlig tydelig på 1990-tallet, da den bidro til kontinuitet i Forsvarets oppgaver og innretting til tross for store endringer i Norges sikkerhetspolitiske omgivelser. Som et resultat av fremveksten av en ny norsk forsvarspolitisk diskurs inntraff et forsvarspolitisk paradigmeskifte rundt årtusenskiftet. Resultatet ble overgangen fra invasjonsforsvar til «innsatsforsvar». For å styrke legitimiteten til det nye paradigmet ble likevel mange av særtrekkene med det gamle paradigmet forsøkt innskrevet i det nye. Imidlertid svingte Forsvaret seg meget raskt om da primærfokuset igjen ble kollektivt forsvar etter 2014. Endringen rundt år 2000 var dermed egentlig ikke så dyp. Det dominerende narrativet om Forsvarets rolle forble primært nasjonalt og territorielt forankret.
Abstract in English:Back to the Future: National Identity and the Norwegian Defence PolicyThe article argues that Norwegian defence policy to a large extent is shaped by Norwegian identity and Norwegian values. This strong link was particularly visible in the 1990's, when we witnessed a large degree of continuation of the Norwegian defence posture, despite the radical changes in the security environment. Territorial defence remained a key priority. When a new paradigm eventually emerged around the tun of the century – with primary focus on international operations – much of the old elements were nonetheless retained. Hence, when NATO returned to a focus on collective defence after 2014, Norway was more than ready for this change. In short, the defence concept that emerged around the millennium was short-lived and never really challenged the foundations the Norwegian Armed Forces rests on.

Hvordan Norge håndterer sin militæraktivisme og fredsaktivisme ble aktualisert i kampanjen for et sete i sikkerhetsrådet. Aktivisme forstås her som nasjonens villighet til å ta initiativ på tross av kostnader. I denne replikken svarer vi på Friis sin kommentar som trekker verdien av vårt bidrag i tvil, da han omtaler vår analyse av Norges unnlatelse av å fremme sin militæraktivisme til fordel for «mykere verdier», som «gammelt nytt.» I kampanjen fremmet Norge både militæraktivisme og fredsaktivisme, men i ulikt materiale og forum. Vi hevder dermed at dette som et minimum er gammelt nytt i nye klær. Ved bruk av nasjonsbranding-rammeverket finner vi at Norge ønsket å fremstille seg som en aktør som er villig til å bidra, samtidig med å understreke Norge som en ikke utpreget militæraktør.
Abstract in English"Old News" on Military Activism and Peace Activism in New ClothesHow Norway communicates its military activism and peace activism was actualized in the campaign for a seat on the Security Council. Activism is here understood as the nation's willingness to take initiatives despite the costs. In Friis' comment on our article, he questions the value of our contribution, as he categorises our analysis of Norway's public relations focus on "softer values" over its military activism, as "old news". However, Norway in the campaign emphasized both military activism and peace activism, but in different ways and and different forums. We thus claim that this – as a minimum – is interesting old news in new clothes. By using the nation branding framework in the context of a tightly contested political contest, we find that Norway sought to present itself as an actor that was willing to make significant contributions to security, whilst stressing simultaneously that Norway was a non-military actor.

Bilateralt diplomati er ikke en skandinavisk spidskompetence, men det har fået stigende betydning i dagens verden. Et antal cases analyseres her, i hvilke de skandinaviske lande er blevet bilateralt 'disciplineret' af stormagter som Rusland, Kina, Indien eller USA. Sammenlignet med de første ca. 15 år efter Den Kolde Krig med amerikansk hegemoni og EU's normative magt har de nordiske lande måttet erfare en indsnævring af deres handlefrihed. Det er ikke længere muligt, uden betydelige omkostninger, at kritisere stormagter baseret på universelle værdier. Generelt er det selvsagt vigtigt for beslutningstagere at respektere statens eksterne handlefrihed. Men på den anden side må de ikke være overforsigtige og undlade at prøve grænser af, bl.a. af hensyn til den hjemlige arena. 'Bastioner' må etableres og forsvares med troværdighed. Handlefrihedens grænser er svære at identificere, men prøveballoner, paralleladfærd med beslægtede lande eller måske brug af 'historiens lære' kan være gangbare metoder.
Abstract in English:Limits to Action Space: Scandinavians in Bbilateral DiplomacyBilateral diplomacy is not a Scandinavian favourite sport, but it has become increasingly important in today's world. A number of cases are analysed, in which Scandinavian countries have been "disciplined" bilaterally by great powers (Russia, China, India and the US). Compared to the first 15 years, roughly, after the Cold War, with American unipolarity and EU normative power, the Scandinavians have seen a narrowing of their freedom of manoeuvre (action space). It is no longer possible, without significant costs, to criticise great powers based on universal values. In general, it is crucial for decision-makers not to overstep their state's freedom of manoeuvre. But on the other hand, they should not be docile and desist from occasionally challenging its limits, also considering their domestic arena. "Bastions" should be credibly construed and defended. The limits of action space are difficult to discern, but trial balloons, parallel action with related countries, or "lessons of the past" could be helpful.

De nære relationer mellem USA og Europa har i årtier været et centralt element i international politik. Men hvor kommer det transatlantiske forholds holdbarhed og modstandskraft fra? Dette spørgsmål optager mange forskere og aktualiseres nu af de igangværende forskydninger i verdenspolitikken. Bogessayet diskuterer derfor, hvordan de to bøger Special Relationships in World Politics (Haugevik, 2018) og Enduring Alliance (Sayle, 2019) fremmer vores viden om de bånd, der knytter staterne i det nordatlantiske område. Haugevik undersøger bilaterale amerikansk-britiske og britisk-norske 'specielle forhold', mens Sayle ser nærmere på det multilaterale samarbejde i NATO. De tilbyder begge interessante teoretiske argumenter om samspillet mellem diplomatisk praksis og nationale politiske dynamikker samt imponerende empiriske analyser, som underbygger deres pointer. De to bøger rejser samtidig også nye vigtige spørgsmål, herunder om de indbyggede spændinger i liberale normer og værdier samt om betydningen af tillid for det transatlantiske forholds holdbarhed.
Abstract in English: Something Special? The Transatlantic Ties and Their EnduranceFor several decades, the close relationship between the United States and Europe has been a key aspect of international politics. But what are the sources of the endurance and resilience of transatlantic ties? This question preoccupies researchers, and its salience is growing in light of current shifts in world politics. Accordingly, the book essay discusses how the two books Special Relationships in World Politics (Haugevik, 2018) and Enduring Alliance (Sayle, 2019) contribute to our knowledge about the international ties of the North Atlantic area. Haugevik examines bilateral American-British and British-Norwegian 'special relationships', while Sayles studies multilateral cooperation in NATO. They both offer interesting theoretical arguments about the interplay between diplomatic practice and national political dynamics. Moreover, they provide impressive empirical analyses to support their claims. At the same time, the two books raise new important questions, e.g. about the built-in tensions in liberal norms and values as well as about the significance of trust for enduring transatlantic ties.

Artikkelen diskuterer forholdet mellom den europeiske integrasjonsprosessen og det atlantiske samarbeidet under USAs ledelse. Problemstillingen artikkelen besvarer er hvilke tilnærminger Trump-administrasjonen har hatt til EUs sikkerhets- og forsvarspolitikk, og hvordan vi kan forklare denne tilnærmingen. I særlig grad dreier dette seg om balansegangen mellom europeisk strategisk autonomi på den ene siden, og amerikansk lederskap i Nato på den andre. Dette forholdet må forstås i lys av spørsmålet om lederskap i euroatlantisk sikkerhetspolitikk, noe som har vært et gjennomgangstema i europeisk integrasjon siden starten på 1950-tallet. Med en organisasjonsteoretisk tilnærming søker artikkelen å forklare hvorfor USA inntar et mer instrumentelt perspektiv overfor EU. Et slikt perspektiv innebærer at USA prioriterer ressurser til de områdene i verden der USA står overfor de største sikkerhetspolitiske utfordringene. For å forklare denne utviklingen diskuterer artikkelen USAs holdninger til EUs nyere forsvarsinitiativer og supermaktens ambivalens i forhold til disse. I møte med den nye Biden-administrasjonen blir det derfor viktig å avklare grunnlaget for det transatlantiske sikkerhetsfellesskapet. Et slikt fellesskap dreier seg ikke bare om felles interesser, men også om delte normer og verdier om hvordan en skal håndtere felles sikkerhetsutfordringer.
Abstract in English:Why So Ambivalent? US Policies Towards the EU's Defence AmbitionsThe article discusses the relationship between the European integration process and Atlantic cooperation under US leadership. The research question the article answers is what kind of approaches the Trump Administration has had towards the EU's security and defence policies and how we can explain these approaches. More precisely, the article discusses the balances between European strategic autonomy on the one hand and American leadership in NATO on the other. This has all to do with the question of leadership in Euro-Atlantic security politics, which has been an enduring question ever since the European integrations process was initiated during the 1950's. By utilising an organisation theoretical approach, the article seeks to explain why the US approaches the EU from an instrumental point of view. Such a perspective implies that the US priorities resources to those areas in the world where the US faces its greatest challenges. To explain this development the article discusses the US' attitudes towards the EU's defence package and the superpower's ambivalence towards it. When assessing the new Biden Administration, it therefore becomes important to explain the foundation for the transatlantic security community. Such a community is not about common interests only, but also about shared norms and values on how to handle common security challenges.

The regional powerhouse, South Africa, has since the introduction of the nonracial democratic dispensation in 1994, played a central and important role in the formation of both the regional and continental security architecture. With the establishment of the Southern African Development Community (SADC) in 1992, one of the central areas of collaboration for the community was envisioned to be security, understood within a broadened human security framework. Security was therefore from the outset one of the cornerstones of integration in the SADC. It was believed that the formation of a security community would help dismantle the enmities that had plagued regional relations during the apartheid era. For some parties, institutionalisation of relations pointed to a means of stabilising and disseminating a particular order. Such institutions depict the power relations prevailing at the time of their establishment, which, however, can change over time (Cox 1981:136). The integration ambition surrounding security correlated with the ambitions of South Africa, the new democratic government in the regional powerhouse. South Africa and its overall foreign policy ambitions desired the pursuit of peace, democracy and stability for economic growth and development in the region and within South Africa itself. Since South Africa's acceptance into the SADC in 1994, the organisation has attempted to set up the required institutional framework to enable co-operation on security, both in terms of narrow military co-operation and regarding designated 2 softer security issues, such as migration and cross-border crime. The military cooperation moved forward in the early years after 1994 with the 1996 decision of creating an Organ for Politics, Defence and Security Co-operation (OPDSC)1 and later the signing of the Mutual Defence Pact (MDP) in 2003, and eventually the creation of the Strategic Indicative Plan for the Organ (SIPO) in 2004, which operationalised the OPDSC (SADC 2004). However, the actual military cooperation, e.g. military exercises, came close to a standstill. Several developments obstructed military co-operation of which the evolving crisis in Zimbabwe and the subsequent withdrawal of donor support to, for instance, the Regional Peacekeeping Training Centre (RPTC) in Harare are but two examples. The RPTC constituted the backbone of the co-operation, but political differences between member states illustrated during the Zimbabwean crisis and following the mandate of the interventions in especially the DR Congo and partly Lesotho in 1998 all contributed to regional tensions.2 Despite the crisis, SADC members, and in particular South Africa, declared that the organisation would be able to form a regional stand-by brigade for the use of the African Union (AU) as part of its wider security architecture. On 17 August 2007, the SADC declared its stand-by-force operational at a large parade in Lusaka, Zambia and at the same occasion signed a memorandum of understanding on the SADCBRIG (SADC 2007). According to the timeline provided by the AU, the brigade should be fully operational by June 2010. Former South African deputy foreign minister Aziz Pahad stated after the launch that this was an important step, but that now there was much to be done securing joint levels and types of training, interoperability, etc. (Pahad 2007). The question that continues to linger is to what extent this brigade is operational and for what purpose. Is this new regional military formation in its present form just a paper tiger, or is it "real progress" and an example of "successful" regional cooperation and integration? This article scrutinises the security co-operation and integration in SADC and asks whether an apparent lack of common values between SADC member states are blocking the security integration process, the creation of a security community, and thereby the establishment of an effective stand-by brigade, the so-called SADCBRIG. The article furthermore attempts to scrutinise the role played by South Africa in establishing the SADCBRIG.