Suchergebnisse

Throughout the course of the last decade, international events have pushed the development of the Danish foreign affairs department in previously unseen ways. As a result, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has undertaken an extensive re-structuring & revitalization of the department. While these changes were first influenced by external conditions, demand to have full control over its operations has led the department to carry on this evolution internally. Encouraging a merit-driven culture within the department reflects Denmark's growing focus on expanding its reach as a global actor. With emphasis on new developments in information management, transparency, globalization, & commerce, this article reviews some of the adaptive measures taken by the department & the relative degrees of success that have resulted. References. C. Brunski

The role of think tanks in American politics has been increasingly subjected to systematic analysis over the last 10-15 years. In this article I review some of this literature, focusing mainly on the questions of what think tanks are, why this phenomenon is so strongly associated with the US, & what influence think tanks have on US policy-making. Think tanks comprise a wide range of organizations, from pure research institutions to the ideologically-based "advocacy think tanks" characterized by their combination of a strong political agenda & aggressive marketing techniques. The American political system has several features that allow think tanks access to the decision-making process, such as a fragmented structure with a weak party system, a central role for the mass media, & an issue-dominated political agenda. There is no good measure of the general influence of think tanks in US politics, but case studies indicate that the central role of the ideologically-based advocacy think tanks may serve to undermine the role of experts in American politics in the long term. References. Adapted from the source document.

The ramifications for Norwegian foreign policy, as a non-member of the European Union, are radically changed since the Cold War. The world has changed from a bipolar order with the US as a conserving superpower, to a unipolar world with the US as a radical superpower. 11 September 2001, & the following war on terrorism, has been a catalyst in this respect. As a result the US is today relating to international institutions as far as they are instrumental in the enhancement of American values & interests. The alliance between the US & Norway today lacks a common denominator. The threat from the east is gone. Still, Norwegian foreign policy & alliance orientation is very much the same as before. Why? Is it because reorientation for foreign policy comes harder in Norway than elsewhere? Historically, foreign policy in Norway has been more a question of administration than one of policy making. Furthermore, broad political consensus on foreign policy is a main political objective in itself. This has left little room for public & political discourse on foreign policy. The benefit is stability. The cost is reduced ability to adapt to radical international changes. A third factor is the ever-lasting question of Norwegian EU membership, which has made interest-based foreign policy more difficult. Norway outside the power blocs of international politics must balance on the interests of other states. Therefore, a clear understanding of Norwegian interests in 2005 -- outside the EU & dc-linked from the reflexes of the Cold War -- is needed. 10 References. Adapted from the source document.

The article addresses the problem of welfare gaps in Europe in the context of the planned enlargement of the EU & NATO. In the beginning of 1990s one of the greatest challenges facing the West was the possibility of uncontrolled mass migration from the former Soviet bloc. The Western institutions, the EU & NATO, could meet this challenge by introducing restrictions on the movement of people, but they decided to embark on what could be termed a policy of "institutional migration." They both decided to go east & at the same time formulated clear entry criteria for those who wanted to join them. After a decade of difficult negotiations, Europe will take the next step on 1 May 2004 when 10 new countries will join the European integration project as new members. However, there are some signs that this enlargement can result in the creation of not a united but a more divided Europe, where the principle of solidarity may become a victim of short-sighted political games. The introduction of restrictions on the access to the common labor market to the citizens of the new member states is an unfortunate symbolic signal sent by the old members of the EU & may herald the creation of a Europe of two speeds, a development that may have far-reaching consequences for the future of the whole European integration project that for more than 50 years has secured peace on the continent. 2 Tables, 10 References. Adapted from the source document.