Suchergebnisse

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.

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.

Forholdet mellom Kina og Island er blitt stadig viktigere på 2000-tallet, og det er inngått betydningsfulle avtaler knyttet til frihandel og valutautveksling, i tillegg til arktisk og geotermisk samarbeid. Island ble i 2005 det første vesteuropeiske landet som anerkjente Kina som en utviklet markedsøkonomi, og var i 2013 det første europeiske landet som undertegnet en frihandelsavtale med Kina. Samtidig som bilateral handel og strømmen av kinesiske turister til Island har økt kraftig, forblir kapitalstrømmen meget liten. Kinesiske investeringer på Island forblir minimal, og det er p.t. bare én aktiv utenlandsk direkteinvestering fra Kina på Island. Dette står i sterk kontrast til den betydelige offentlige debatten om kinesisk påvirkningskraft knyttet til store investeringer på Island, med hovedfokus på potensielle sikkerhetstrusler i forbindelse med Arktis' geostrategiske betydning. Den formodentlig største potensielle investeringen fra Kina kom i 2011, da Zhongkun Group kom med et bud om å investere i land for å utvikle et turistkompleks nordøst på Island, noe som førte diskusjonen inn på kontroversielle temaer som eiendomsrett og til en viss grad nasjonal sikkerhet. Selv om artikkelen ikke finner tegn til sikkerhetstrusler som en følge av utenlandske direkteinvesteringer på Island, kan det likevel være på sin plass med en gjennomgang av lovverket knyttet til investeringer på Island fra land utenfor EØS, for å øke forutsigbarheten. En slik analyse kunne utføres i lys av relevante prosesser i andre nordiske land, inkludert for å få på plass standardisert investeringsscreening.
Abstract in English:China, Investments, and National Security: Nordic Policies and Perspectives – IcelandRelations between Iceland and China have increased significantly during the 21st century, with landmark agreements reached regarding free trade and currency swap, as well as Arctic and geothermal cooperation. Iceland became the first western European country to acknowledge China as a developed market economy in 2005 and was the first European country to sign an FTA with China in 2013. While bilateral trade and the inflow of Chinese tourists to Iceland have seen steep growth figures, the flow of capital remains very low. Chinese investments in Iceland remain minimal, with only one currently active FDI from China in Iceland. This contradicts the widely discussed influence of large-scale Chinese investments in Iceland, largely focused on potential security aspects regarding the geostrategic importance of the Arctic region. Arguably, the highest profiled proposed investment case from China came in 2011 with a bid from Zhongkun Group to invest in land for the development of a tourism resort in northeast Iceland, stirring up contentious issues on ownership of land and to some extent national security. While the article does not find detectable security threats from FDI in Iceland, it might however be timely to review the legal process of investments from outside of the EEA into Iceland to increase predictability. Such an analysis could be carried out with regards to compatible cases in the other Nordic countries, including standardized investment screening processes in place.

I akademia skrives det ofte at stater deltar i institusjoner så lenge dette sammenfaller med deres interesser på ethvert tidspunkt. Implikasjonen av dette er at stater som Kina kanskje vil avvise internasjonale institusjoner så fort de føler at institusjonene ikke er nyttige. Jeg vil hevde at Kina lar sine interesser formes av institusjonene ut over hva ytre rammevilkår vil tilsi. For å belyse dette argumentet tar artikkelen for seg en casestudie med utviklingen av Shanghai-samarbeidsorganisasjonen (SCO) og Kinas holdninger i denne prosessen. Spesifikt vil artikkelen trekke linjer fra forhandlingene mellom Kina og Sovjetunionen over grensespørsmål på 1980-tallet frem til grunnleggingen av SCO på 2000-tallet. Ved å sammenligne en rasjonell tilnærming med en historisk vil artikkelen hevde at den historiske er mer relevant for å forstå Kinas holdninger. Artikkelen argumenterer at en historisk tilnærming har potensial som et nyttig verktøy, og at den bør undersøkes mer innen IR-faget.
Abstract in EnglishEfficient tools or historical frameworks? China's attitude to international institutionsIn academia, it is common to assume that states participate in institutions insofar as this serves their interests at any given time. The implication is that states like China may reject international institutions as soon as they no longer consider them useful. The author argues that China lets its interests be shaped by the institutions beyond what structural factors imply. To shed light on this argument, this article conducts a case study of the development of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and China's attitudes to this process. Specifically, the article will draw connections from negotiations between the China and the Soviet Union over border disputes in the 1980s to the foundation of the SCO in the 2000s. By comparing a rational approach with a historical one, the article argues that the historical approach is more relevant to understand China's attitudes. It further argues that a historical approach has potential as a useful tool and should be examined further in IR.

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.