Suchergebnisse

Komparation med sammenlignelige lande negligeres som oftest i studier af dansk militær 'aktivisme'. Dette bidrag vil bøde på det i en analyse af Danmarks interventionsparathed med Norge og Polen som baggrundstæppe. Den konkrete situation, der studeres, er krisen vedr. begrænsede luftangreb mod Syrien i september 2013 i kølvandet på regimets formodede anvendelse af kemiske våben i Ghouta. I modsætning til de fleste allierede lod Danmark sig ikke afskrække af den kontroversielle Irak-intervention 10 år tidligere. Danmarks særlige parathed handlede mindre om lokale omstændigheder end om Danmark selv, forholdet til Washington og landets angivelige historiske 'gæld' til USA. Det er imidlertid svært at måle en sådan gæld, ligesom det er en udfordring for superatlantismen, at Danmarks interesser er mere geografisk begrænsede end stormagten USAs.
Abstract in EnglishAlways ready! Danish intervention enthusiasm in comparative perspectiveComparison with similar countries is much neglected in studies of Danish military 'activism'. This contribution seeks to remedy that in an analysis of Danish forces' 'happiness both to travel and to fight', in which Norway and Poland serve as the comparative backcloth. The specific situation under scrutiny is the crisis over limited air raids over Syria in September 2013 in the wake of the regime's alleged use of chemical weapons in Ghouta. As distinct from most allies, Denmark was not discouraged by the controversial Iraq intervention 10 years earlier. The special Danish readiness was less about perceptions of the local conditions than about Denmark itself, its relationship to Washington and an alleged historical 'debt' to the US. However, not only is such debt difficult to measure; a challenge to superatlanticism is also that Danish interests are geographically more delimited than those of the US great power.

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.

In recent years, the Swedish Armed Forces have produced and distributed highly edited video clips on YouTube that show moving images of military activity. Along- side this development, mobile phone apps have emerged as an important channel through which the user can experience and take an interactive part in the staging of contemporary armed conflict. This article examines the way in which the aes- thetic and affective experience of Swedish defence and security policy is socially and (media-)culturally (co-)constructed and how the official representation of Swedish military intervention (re)produces political and economic effects when these activi- ties are distributed through traditional and social media such as YouTube and digital apps. Based on Isabela and Norman Fairclough's thoughts on political discourse, Michel Foucault's dialectic idea of power/knowledge, and Sara Ahmed's concept of the affective, I discuss how the Swedish digital military aesthetic is part of a broader political and economic practice that has consequences beyond the digital, the semi- otic, and what might at first glance appear to be pure entertainment. ; In recent years, the Swedish Armed Forces have produced and distributed highly edited video clips on YouTube that show moving images of military activity. Alongside this development, mobile phone apps have emerged as an important channel through which the user can experience and take an interactive part in the staging of contemporary armed conflict. This article examines the way in which the aesthetic and affective experience of Swedish defence and security policy is socially and (media-)culturally (co-)constructed and how the official representation of Swedish military intervention (re)produces political and economic effects when these activities are distributed through traditional and social media such as YouTube and digital apps. Based on Isabela and Norman Fairclough's thoughts on political discourse, Michel Foucault's dialectic idea of power/knowledge, and Sara Ahmed's concept of the affective, I discuss how the Swedish digital military aesthetic is part of a broader political and economic practice which has consequences beyond the digital, the semiotic and what might at first glance appear to be pure entertainment.

Globale helsespørsmål har mange berøringspunkter med internasjonal fred og sikkerhet, men har blitt viet relativt lite oppmerksomhet i diskusjoner i FNs sikkerhetsråd. Denne artikkelen gir en oversikt over kunnskapsgrunnlaget for sammenhengen mellom helse og internasjonal fred og sikkerhet, og belyser fire hovedgrupper av årsakssammenhenger. For det første kan uhelse føre til væpnet konflikt. For det andre kan helsekriser bidra til å svekke beredskapen mot konflikt. For det tredje kan helseintervensjoner bidra til å stabilisere sårbare samfunn i kjølvannet av konflikt. For det fjerde gjør konflikt det vanskelig å løse helsekriser. Alle disse berører også direkte eller indirekte Norges fire hovedprioriteter som valgt medlem i FNs sikkerhetsråd for perioden 2021–2022. Gjennomgangen av disse fire årsakssammenhengene demonstrerer at globale helsespørsmål på flere områder er klart relevante for global sikkerhet.
Abstract in English:Global Health and Security – an Overview of Academic KnowledgeGlobal health issues are relevant to international peace and security in numerous ways but have so far received little attention in the United Nations Security Council. This article provides an overview of the status of academic knowledge about the ways that global health and international peace and security are connected, and it highlights four main causal relationships. First, societies with poor overall health conditions or with great health inequalities between different groups, are more prone to armed conflict. Second, health crises can weaken societies' resilience and capacity to deal with conflict. Third, health interventions may contribute to stabilize vulnerable post-conflict societies in the wake of conflict. And fourth, armed conflict makes it more difficult to solve health crises. All four aspects of the health and security nexus directly or indirectly touch on Norway's four main priorities as an elected member of the UN Security Council in 2021–2022. The presentation of the various causal relations demonstrates that global health issues are clearly relevant for global security.

Nesten to tiår etter den USA-ledete intervensjonen i Afghanistan, på tross av massiv innsats for å bygge en afghansk stat, så kollapset den afghanske regjeringsstrukturen i august 2021, og Taliban gjeninntok hovedstaden Kabul. Hvorfor mislyktes det internasjonale statsbyggingsprosjektet? Kunne ekstern statsbygging ha lykkes om tilnærmingen var en annen? Denne artikkelen tar utgangspunkt i nyere litteratur (David Lake, Melissa Lee, Roland Paris, Timothy Sisk) og gjør en analyse av hvordan dilemmaer i ekstern statsbygging manifesterte seg i Afghanistan henholdsvis på det politiske, militære og økonomiske området. Historisk har stabilitet i Afghanistan hvilt på en balanse mellom en svak sentralmakt og et betydelig rom for tradisjonelle samfunnsstrukturer. USA, som ekstern statsbygger, var opptatt av lojalitet fra en sterk sentralmakt, og underminerte derfor en maktfordeling som kunne gitt større grad av legitimitet. Resultatet ble en stat som var helt avhengig av ekstern støtte, og idet USA inngikk en avtale direkte med den væpnede opposisjonen, Taliban, så går den afghanske staten i oppløsning.
Abstract in EnglishDoomed to Fail? The US and the Afghan State-building Project, 2001–2021Nearly two decades after the US-led intervention in Afghanistan, following a massive effort to build an Afghan state, the country's government structure collapsed in August 2021, and the Taliban took control of the capitol Kabul. Why did international state-building fail? Could external state-building have been successful if the approach had been a different one? This article takes recent contributions to the literature on the dilemmas of external state-building as its point of departure (David Lake, Melissa Lee, Roland Paris, Timothy Sisk), and presents an analysis if how these dilemmas came to the fore in the political, military, and economic domains. Historically, Afghan stability have rested on a balance between a weak central authority, with considerable influence resting with traditional societal actors. The US, as an external state-builder, was concerned with loyalty from a strong central power, and thereby undermined the division of power that could otherwise have gained a higher degree of legitimacy. The result is a state which was fully dependent on external support, and as the US entered a treaty with the armed opposition, the Taliban, the Afghan state apparatus collapses.

La oss være optimister og tenke oss frem til en verden i 2040 der klimamålene er nådd. Her må vi som Hornburg og Sending peker på i sin artikkel i forrige nummer av Internasjonal politikk tenke internasjonalt, også om perspektivet er Norge. Hva slags scenarier kan ligge til grunn for en slik utvikling? Artikkelen trekker opp tre slike. Det ene er at USA og Kina slår seg sammen i et klimanøytralt energikartell. Gjennom bruk av både handelsmakt og militær makt presser de frem et belte av kjernekraftverk og fornybare kraftkilder støttet opp av amerikansk teknologi og kinesisk industri. Det andre er at tingene går sin skjeve gang og at klimaets «vippepunkt» passeres. Ekstremvær, tørke og havstigning skaper større ødeleggelser enn finansmarkedet kan bære, produksjon og handel stopper opp og utslippene synker. Det tredje er en utvikling hvor marked og stater går sammen om forskning, utvikling og gjennomføring av nødvendige tiltak. Dette krever internasjonalt samarbeid om offentlige regulering og innovative bedrifter som sammen med statene kan satse på teknologisk og sosial utvikling. Bare i det siste scenariet vil vi kunne redde både klodens klima og demokratiet som styringsform.
Abstract in English:
Inspired by Hornburg and Sending in the previous issue, this comment draws up three different scenarios where the climate goals have been reached by 2040. Two are dystopian, one is optimistic but the only way to save both democracy and earth's present climate. Solutions must involve the big emission countries like the US, China and India. What would the world look like if USA and China decide to form a Cartel backed by economic and military power to monopolise the energy sector based on nuclear power and other fossil free sources" Another alternative is "business as usual" leading to the "tipping point" of global warming, with devastating effects on the global economy. Industry and trade cease in most parts of the world, and emissions are thereby reduced. The third scenario is where business and governments cooperate in research and development. This entails innovative market leaders, but also the use of strict regulation and interventions in the markets by government. Global firms can cooperate with progressive governments to circumvent governments in countries that refuse to act.

Den islamske republikken Iran har bygd et transnasjonalt nettverk av sjiamilitser siden 1979, ofte referert til som dens asymmetriske krigføringsstyrke og 'strategiske dybde'. Mens det er velkjent at Iran har mobilisert disse aktørene for å styrke sin regionale posisjon, har hvordan den har gjort det blitt viet lite vitenskapelig oppmerksomhet. Denne artikkelen forsøker derfor å forklare dette fenomenet ved å undersøke hvordan Iran har mobilisert irakiske sjiamilitser siden 1979. De utvalgte analyseenhetene representerer de mest innflytelsesrike sjiamilitsene med tilknytning til Iran i Irak i dag: Badr Organisation, Asa'ib Ahl al-Haq og Kata'ib Hizbullah. Selv om variasjon eksisterer mellom dem, er alle del av et transnasjonalt nettverk som har hjulpet Iran med å delta i skjult og/eller indirekte konfliktintervensjon i Midtøsten i flere tiår. Den komparative casestudien har blitt benyttet som forskningsdesign, med prosessporing og semi-strukturerte intervjuer som metode for datainnsamling. Den empiriske analysen har blitt rettledet av et teoretisk rammeverk som har forsøkt å bygge en bro mellom contentious politics og eksisterende litteratur om dynamikken mellom stater og væpnede opprørere. De empiriske funnene antyder at Iran har opptrådt som en sekterisk entreprenør som på pragmatisk vis har kombinert sine materielle og ikke-materielle ressurser for å mobilisere likesinnede militser til å delta i kollektiv vold og fremme felles krav.
Abstract in English:
The Islamic Republic of Iran has been building a transnational network of Shi'a militias since 1979, commonly referred to as its asymmetric warfare capability and 'strategic depth'. While it is a known fact that Iran has mobilised Shi'a militias in other countries to strengthen its regional position, how they have done it has not received much scholarly attention. The objective of this paper is to explain this phenomenon by examining how Iran has mobilised Iraqi Shi'a militias since 1979. The selected cases are the mobilisation processes of three most prominent Shi'a militias in Iraq today: Badr Organisation, Asa'ib Ahl al-Haq, and Kata'ib Hizbullah. Although variation exists between them, they are all cases of Iran's network of armed resistance groups, which have allowed it to engage in covert or indirect conflict intervention in the Middle East. To logically connect the empirical data with the study's research question, I have used a case study research design, with process tracing and the semi-structured interview as methods for data collection. Furthermore, the empirical analysis has been guided by a theoretical framework that has attempted to build a bridge between the existing literatures on state-militia dynamics and contentious politics.

Folkemordet i Srebrenica i juli 1995 opprørte en hel verden. Siden 1992, da krigen brøt ut, hadde Bosnia-Hercegovina vært under internasjonalt oppsyn. Artikkelen drøfter hvordan folkemord og grove krigsforbrytelser kunne foregå i årevis uten å bli stanset. Fokus er på den rolle de internasjonale faktorene spilte – FN, EU, Nato og stormaktene. Hvorfor var det så stor motstand mot bruk av makt? Delvis kan det ha vært på grunn av manglende forståelse av hva som skjedde, en oppfatning av at Balkan var preget av århundregammelt hat. Noen vestlige land hadde sine egne interesser i området. For vestlige politikere var det enkleste ikke å gjøre noe. FN sendte fredsbevarende styrker til et land i krig, noe som var katastrofalt for styrkene selv og for FNs prestisje. De tiltakene som ble satt i verk, som Sikkerhetsrådets resolusjoner, økonomiske sanksjoner, våpenembargo, FN-sikrede områder og flyforbud, førte ikke til at krigshandlingene avtok. Også mange norske politikere var sterkt imot militær inngripen. Den serbiske hæren var for sterk, en militær løsning var ikke mulig. Dette viste seg å være feil. Folkemordet i Srebrenica fikk FN og Nato til å gå inn for maktbruk i september 1995. En begrenset militær aksjon var nok til å få slutt på krigen, og reelle fredsforhandlinger kunne begynne.
Abstract in English: Srebrenica 25 Years After – How Could the Genocide Happen?
The genocide in Srebrenica in July 1995 shocked the world. Since 1992, when the war broke out, Bosnia and Herzegovina had been supervised by the international community. The article discusses why genocide and crimes against humanity could happen without being stopped. Focus is on the role of the relevant international participants, the UN, the EU, NATO and the great powers. Why was there a strong opposition against use of force? It was partly due to weak understanding of what was going on, a concept of the Balkans as a region of inherent centuries-old hatred. Some Western states had their own interests in the region. For Western politicians the easiest way was to do nothing. The UN sent peacekeepers to a country at war, which turned out to be a catastrophe for the peacekeepers and for the prestige of the UN. Measures like Security Council resolutions, economic sanctions, arms embargo, safe havens and no-fly zones did not work. Many Norwegian politicians were strongly opposed to military intervention. The Serbian army was too strong, a military solution was not possible. This turned out to be wrong. The genocide in Srebrenica triggered the use of force by the UN and NATO in September 1995. A limited military action was enough to end the war, after which real peace talks could start.

Norge har samarbeidet tett med EU om utenriks-, sikkerhets- og forsvarspolitikk siden slutten av 1990-tallet. Det er naturlig å se på dette samarbeidet som supplement til – eller spin-off av – EØS-avtalen. Når dette feltet nå er i endring med nye ambisiøse initiativer, samt at EUs forhold til tredjeland generelt vil revurderes som følge av brexit, vil dette få konsekvenser for Norges tilknytning til EU på dette området. Blant annet ser vi antydninger til det vi her kaller en mulig «EØS-ifisering» av dette feltet. Fokusbidraget analyserer tre utviklingstrekk og mulige konsekvenser av disse for Norge. Det første omhandler EUs beslutninger om det som skjer innenfor EU, nemlig PESCO og beslutningen om å styrke det felles europeiske forsvarsmarkedet. Det andre omhandler initiativer utenfor EU, som det franske europeiske intervensjonsinitiativet (EI2), som må ses i sammenheng med det første. Det tredje er brexit, som etter planen skal ta Storbritannia inn i «tredjelandsklubben», der Norge er en sentral aktør i dag. Hvilke konsekvenser får de nye initiativene tatt innenfor og utenfor EU, for Norge, og hva gjør brexit med Norges handlingsrom som utenriks-, sikkerhets- og forsvarspolitisk samarbeidspartner med EU?
Abstract in English:Spin-off of the EEA? Norway and the European Foreign, Security and Defense PolicyNorway has cooperated closely with the EU on foreign, security and defense policy since the late 1990s. It seems fitting to look at this cooperation as a supplement to – or spin-off of – the EEA agreement. As this field is now changing, with new ambitious initiatives, and that the EU's relations with third countries will generally be reassessed as a result of Brexit, this will have consequences for Norway's relations with the EU in this area. Among other things, we see trends towards what we label a possible "EEA-isation" of this field. This focus article analyses three developments and potential consequences for Norway. The first concerns EU decisions on what is happening within the EU, namely PESCO and the decision to strengthen the common European defense market. The second concerns initiatives outside of the EU, such as the French European Intervention Initiative (EI2), which must be seen in relation to the first. The third is Brexit, which is an attempt to take the UK into the "third country club" where Norway so far has been the key player. What are the consequences of the new initiatives taken within and outside the EU for Norway, and what does Brexit do to Norway's agency as a partner to the EU in the area of foreign, security and defense policy?

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.