Denne artikel foretager en diskursanalyse af en række centrale tekster fra partierne Nye Borgerlige og Dansk Folkeparti med fokus på disses brug af den populistiske figur hjertelandet: Et narrativ om det altid allerede tabte eller truede harmoniske fællesskab, der skal forsvares imod folkets fjender. Det konkluder-es, at idéen om hjertelandet er stærkt til stede i partiernes respektive diskurser, og at det i Nye Borgerliges diskurs i lige høj grad trues af de fremmede og eliten, mens det i Dansk Folkepartis diskurs mest trues af de fremmede, og antagonismen til eliten er nedtonet. ; This paper analyzes a series of central texts from the Danish parties The New Right and the Danish People's Party with emphasis on their use of the populist figure of the heartland: A narrative about the always already lost or threatened harmonic community that needs to be protected against enemies of the people. The paper concludes that the idea of the heartland is strongly present in the discourses of both parties, and that in The New Right's discourse the heartland is equally threated by foreigners and the elite, while in the discourse of the Danish People's Party it is mostly threatened by immigrants whereas the antagonism to the elite is downplayed.
"The Atlas of Power" maps organized power in Denmark to show how organizations, companies, associations, state councils, committees, and the whole community are bound together by networks.
Forside; Titelside; Kolofon; Indhold; Forord; Indledning; Kapitel 1 Fort Grønland; Kapitel 2 Begrebet atomer i Grønland; Kapitel 3 Byen under isen; Camp Century i billeder; Kapitel 4 Nyheder fra Grønland; Kapitel 5 Søren Spejder i Camp Century; Kapitel 6 Amerikansk militærforskning på indlandsisen; Kapitel 7 Kold krig og klimaforskning; Kapitel 8 Et foreløbigt farvel til Camp Century; Kapitel 9 Arven efter Camp Century; Noter; Benyttede arkiver; Anvendt litteratur; Billedkilder; Indeks.
Verfügbarkeit an Ihrem Standort wird überprüft
Dieses Buch ist auch in Ihrer Bibliothek verfügbar:
USA hadde ingen doktriner for opprørsbekjempelse (COIN) da operasjonene i Afghanistan og Irak startet. Mens krigene pågikk ble det, til tross for stor uenighet, innført en slik doktrine i 2007. Krigene førte også til både endringer i organisering og utrustning av amerikanske styrker, og til store endringer av planlagte investeringer av militært ustyr. Begge krigene endte i nederlag, og i tiden etter har USA på ny fokusert på stormaktsrivalisering. Men utgiftene til krigføringen i Afghanistan og Irak, og endringene i investeringsmønster, har svekket USAs evne til å konkurrere militært med Kina og Russland. Abstract in EnglishAfghanistan, Iraq and the Development of US Military PowerThe United States had no doctrine for Counterinsurgency Operations (COIN) when the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq started in 2001 and 2003, respectively. In 2001 the US armed forces were designed for Great Power competition and conflict. During the course of the wars, substantial changes were made in the organization and equipment of the forces, and a COIN doctrine was introduced in 2007. In turn, large scale modernization of, and investments in, equipment suited for Great Power conflict were reduced in scale or cancelled. The cost of the wars and the changes in operational focus have blunted the US's ability to compete militarily with China and Russia.
Norsk klima-utenrikspolitikk har ligget ganske fast frem til i dag. På 2020-tallet, i det avgjørende tiåret for klimapolitikken, blir imidlertid den norske linjen utfordret. Det skyldes at en nasjonal forutsetning som hittil har vært Norges fremste styrke, nemlig det fornybare kraftsystemet, ikke lenger opplagt kan ivareta den samme funksjonen i norsk klima-utenrikspolitikk. Det fornybare kraftsystemet og en aktiv utenrikspolitikk for fleksible ordninger i internasjonalt klimasamarbeid har ivaretatt den norske legitimiteten. Fremover vil derimot kravene til hva klimapolitikken skal levere skjerpes kraftig, når elektrifisering og industriell omstilling skal bidra til å nå klimamålene. En energiomstilling som svarer til ambisjonsnivået i klimapolitikken, vil bety at klima-utenrikspolitikken må balansere flere hensyn enn tidligere. Ingenting ved klimapolitikken er lenger kun innenrikspolitikk.
Nordsjøen står overfor en storstilt havvindutbygging. Uavhengig av hva Norge gjør vil europeisk havvindsutbygging dreie Europa i retning av økt gjensidig avhengighet, både fysisk i form av grenseoverskridende infrastruktur, og regulatorisk, gjennom felles regler for salg av kraft over landegrenser. Jo mer omfattende det grønne skiftet blir, jo tydeligere blir det at norsk og europeisk energiomstilling henger sammen, og at denne gjensidig avhengige energiomstillingen er av de aller viktigste komponentene i Norge og andre staters klimapolitikk. Denne omstillingen trigger imidlertid sterke suverenitetsimpulser i mange norske politiske partier. En storstilt norsk havvindutbygging reiser kontroversielle spørsmål om finansiering, ilandføring og kabelforbindelser, som alle med betydelig sannsynlighet åpner for vanskelige politiske dragkamper. Energiomstilling er nå en helt nødvendig del av en videreutviklet norsk klima-utenrikspolitikk. Det innebærer en utenrikspolitikk som utfordrer norsk suverenitet i langt større grad enn tidligere. Det beveger norsk klima-utenrikspolitikk potensielt fra kontinuitet og konsensus til uenighet og strid.
Abstract in English:Power Shortage on the Horizon: Norwegian Climate Foreign Policy from Consensus to Conflict?Until recently, Norwegian climate foreign policy has been relatively consensual. In the 2020s – the decisive decade for climate politics – the Norwegian stance is however being challenged. This is because a national precondition that until now has been Norway's foremost strength, i.e., the renewable power system, can no longer uphold the same function in Norwegian climate foreign policy. The renewable power system and an active foreign policy emphasizing flexible mechanisms in international climate cooperation have preserved the legitimacy of Norwegian climate policies. However, in the future, climate policies will face dramatically sharpened demands, as reaching the climate goals will now also depend on electrification and industrial change. An energy transition that corresponds to the upgraded climate policy ambitions implies a climate foreign policy that needs to balance more concerns than in the past. There is now no element of climate policy that is domestic politics only.
The North Sea is facing a major offshore wind power expansion. Irrespective of what Norway decides, a European offshore expansion will move Europe towards greater mutual interdependence, both physically in terms of border-crossing infrastructure, and regulatory, through common rules and regulations for the sale of power across national borders. The more extensive the green energy transition becomes, the more obvious it is that Norwegian and European energy transitions are connected, and that this mutually interdependent energy transition constitutes one of the most important components of the climate policies of Norway and other states. This transition, however, triggers strong sovereignty impulses in many Norwegian political parties. A major Norwegian offshore wind power expansion raises controversial questions about financing, how and where to connect the wind parks to the grid, and subsea cable connections. There is a considerable likelihood that Norwegian offshore wind policy will be characterized by major political tugs-of-war. Energy transition is now a completely necessary part of the development of Norwegian climate foreign policy. This implies a foreign policy that challenges Norwegian sovereignty to a far greater extent than before, which potentially moves Norwegian climate foreign policy from continuity and consensus to disagreement and strife.
Vestens umiddelbare reaksjon på Talibans maktovertakelse i Afghanistan i august 2021 har stort sett vært den samme som da Taliban kom til makten første gang i 1996. Vestlige stater og FN valgte den gang å isolere regimet, nekte diplomatisk anerkjennelse og etter hvert innføre strenge sanksjoner. Humanitær bistand var tillatt, men ikke samarbeid med Talibans statlige organer og ikke kanalisering av bistand via staten. Det er derfor grunn til å vurdere Vestens nåværende respons i lys av historien. Sanksjons- og isoleringspolitikken på 1990-tallet ga ikke forventede resultater og virket for det meste mot sin hensikt. Er det grunn til å tro at en lignende politikk i dag vil være mer effektiv? Hvis ikke, hva er konturene av et bredere og strategisk mer balansert engasjement? Abstract in EnglishThe Road Ahead – Confrontation or Creative Compromises?The immediate reaction of Western states to the Taliban's seizure of power in Afghanistan in August 2021 was broadly speaking the same as when the Taliban first came to power in 1996. Western states and the UN chose at that time to isolate the regime, deny it diplomatic recognition and gradually impose strong sanctions. Humanitarian assistance was allowed, but not program cooperation with Taliban authorities and state institutions, and no assistance was to be channelled via the Taliban-controlled state. The results are highly relevant today. In the 1990s, the sanctions-and-isolation policy did not bring about the desired results, and in important respects were counter-productive. Are there reasons to believe that similar policies today will be more effective? This article outlines the contours of a broader and strategic more balanced engagement.
Nordområdene har vært på den norske utenrikspolitiske agendaen i 15 år. Mye har endret seg i denne perioden. Det som preger debatten i 2020, er forestillinger om stormaktpolitikk og rivalisering i nord. Samtidig hevdes det fra de arktiske hovedstedene at regionen er preget av samarbeid, og at de arktiske statene har fellesinteresser som gjør konflikt lite sannsynlig. Hvordan kan to så ulike oppfatninger om Arktis opptre samtidig? I dette bidraget foretar vi en lagdeling mellom tre ulike nivåer av sikkerhetspolitikk i og om nordområdene og Arktis. Dette tydeliggjør hvordan regionen kan være preget av både samarbeid og rivalisering på samme tid. Samarbeid og rivalsering vektes ulikt avhengig av tid og sted, men de er ikke gjensidig utelukkende.
Abstract in English:Great Power Politics and Increased Tension? The Art of Differentiating Analyses in the ArcticThe High North has been on the Norwegian foreign policy agenda for 15 years. Much has changed over this period. What characterizes the debate in 2020 are notions of great power politics and rivalry in the north. At the same time, Arctic states claim that the region is defined by cooperation and that the Arctic states have common interests that make conflict unlikely. How can two such different perceptions of the Arctic exist simultaneously? In this contribution, we separate between three different levels of security policy in and around the High North and the Arctic. This helps clarify how the region can be characterized by both cooperation and rivalry at the same time. Cooperation and rivalry differ depending on time and place, but they are not mutually exclusive.
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.
Russia's strategy in the Arctic is dominated by two overriding discourses – and foreign policy directions – which at first glance may look like opposites. On the one hand, an IR realism/geopolitical discourse that often has a clear patriotic character, dealing with "capturing", "winning" or "conquering" the Arctic and putting power, including military power, behind the national interests in the area – which is why we, in recent years, have seen an increasing military build-up, also in the Russian Arctic. Opposed to this is an IR liberalism, international law-inspired and modernization-focused discourse, which is characterized by words such as "negotiation", "cooperation" and "joint ventures" and which has as an axiom that the companies and countries operating in the Arctic all benefit the most if they collaborate in peace and friendliness. So far, the IR liberalism discourse has set the trend of the Russian policy carried out in relation to the Arctic. Thus, it has primarily been the Russian Foreign Ministry and, above all, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov that have drawn the overall lines of the Arctic policy, well aided by the Transport Ministry and the Energy Ministry. On the other side are the Russian national Security Council led by Nikolai Patrushev and the Russian Defence Ministry headed by Sergey Shoygu, which both have embedded their visions of Russia and the Arctic in the IR realism/geopolitical discourse. Russia's president, Vladimir Putin, does the same. Nevertheless, he has primarily chosen to let the Foreign Ministry set the line for the Arctic policy carried out, presumably out of a pragmatic acknowledgement of the means that have, so far, served the Russian interests best. Moreover, it is worth noting that both wings, even though they can disagree about the means, in fact are more or less in agreement about the goal of Russia's Arctic policy: namely, to utilize the expected wealth of oil and natural gas resources in the underground to ensure the continuation of the restoration of Russia's position as a Great Power when the capacity of the energy fields in Siberia slowly diminishes – which the Russian Energy Ministry expects to happen sometime between 2015 and 2030. In addition to that, Russia sees – as the polar ice slowly melts – great potential for opening an ice-free northern sea route between Europe and Asia across the Russian Arctic, with the hope that the international shipping industry can see the common sense of saving up to nearly 4,000 nautical miles on a voyage from Ulsan, Korea, to Rotterdam, Holland, so Russia can earn money by servicing the ships and issuing permissions for passage through what Russia regards as Russian territorial water. The question is whether Russia will be able to realize its ambitious goals. First, the Russian state energy companies Gazprom and Rosneft lack the technology, know-how and experience to extract oil and gas under the exceedingly difficult environment in the Arctic, where the most significant deposits are believed to be in very deep water in areas that are very difficult to access due to bad weather conditions. The Western sanctions mean that the Russian energy companies cannot, as planned, obtain this technology and know-how via the already entered-into partnerships with Western energy companies. The sanctions limit loan opportunities in Western banks, which hit the profitability of the most cost-heavy projects in the Arctic. However, what hits hardest are the low oil prices – at present 50 dollars per barrel (Brent). According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), the fields in the Arctic are not profitable as long as the oil price is under 120 dollars per barrel. Whether Russia chooses to suspend the projects until the energy prices rise again – and until it has again entered into partnerships that can deliver the desired technology and know-how – or whether the Russian state will continuously pump money into the projects is uncertain. The hard-pressed Russian economy, with the prospects of recession, increasing inflation, increasing flight of capital, rising interest rates and a continuously low oil price, provides a market economic incentive for suspending the projects until further notice. Whether the Kremlin will think in a market economic way or a long-term strategic way is uncertain – but, historically, there has been a penchant for the latter. One of the Kremlin's hopes is that Chinese-Russian cooperation can take over where the Western-Russian cooperation has shut down. Russia has long wanted to diversify its energy markets to reduce its dependence on sales to Europe. At the same time, those in the Kremlin have had a deeply-rooted fear of ending up as a "resource appendix" to the onrushing Chinese economy, which so far has been a strong contributing reason for keeping the Russian-Chinese overtures in check. The question now is whether the Western sanctions can be the catalyst that can make Russia overcome this fear and thus, in the long term, support the efforts to enter into a real, strategic partnership with China. ; Russia's strategy in the Arctic is dominated by two overriding discourses – and foreign policy directions – which at first glance may look like opposites. On the one hand, Russia have an IR realism/geopolitical discourse that often has a clear patriotic character, dealing with "exploring", "winning" or "conquering" the Arctic and putting power, including military power, behind the national interests in the area – which is why we, in recent years, have seen an increasing military build-up, also in the Russian Arctic. Opposed to this is an IR liberalism, international law-inspired and modernization- focused discourse, which is characterized by words such as "negotiation", "cooperation" and "joint ventures" and which has as an axiom that the companies and countries operating in the Arctic all benefit the most if they cooperate peacefully.
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.
