Publications
Sino-Russia Strategic Alignment and Potential Impact of a Trump Presidency
Rarely has any issue been more polarising than the assessment of Sino-Russia relations in recent years. Analysts and observers are either convinced of another emerging Sino-Russia alliance against the West, or dismissive of any meaningful, sustainable strategic relationship between the two while citing their ‘peril of proximity’, painful historical record and the strategic distrust. Neither description accurately reflects the nature of Sino-Russia relations under the Xi Jinping administration in China. In the past three years, China and Russia have forged new foundations for a third option- a strategic alignment primarily based upon a shared sense of vulnerability and threat perceptions regarding their external environment. This is largely the result of the heightened confrontation both China and Russia have encountered vis-à-vis the United States due to their assertive foreign policy in the Western Pacific and in East Europe, (especially in Ukraine), respectively. Furthermore, the personality and preferences of the Chinese top leader and the general public have also played an important role in constructing the strategic alignment as well.
A Pivot to What? Asia-Pacific Foreign Policy under Trump
Despite the difficulty in making predictions about an incoming American administration even before the inaugural process has been completed, the first two months since the US elections in November 2016 have already generated a great deal of debate and concern, about uncharted new directions in US foreign policy under president elect Donald Trump. Certainly the new president faces a host of international challenges,including Middle East security and chaotic relations with Russia, but arguably the most critical tests for the incoming government will be found in the Asia-Pacific region. As within other areas of foreign policy, Trump as a candidate oscillated,at times wildly, between interventionism and isolationism in his approach to Pacific Rim affairs, and as the year came to a close there was much watching and waiting in policy circles to see which of these would dominate. In addition, Trump assumes the presidency with the dubious distinction of possessing the lowest amount of foreign policy background in the history of American politics, so there is also the question of his administration’s ‘learning’ curve in crucial areas including the Asia-Pacific, with China relations at the forefront.
Legitimering gjennom (selektiv) felles fortid: russisk bruk av historie i Ukraina-konflikten
How has Russia used history to justify its actions in the conflict in Ukraine? Through an analysis of official statements of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, as well as speeches and remarks by Putin, this article argues that history has played an important but varying role in official rhetoric. With Crimea, the emphasis was on the ‘sanctity’ of the territory for Russian Orthodox identity, drawing on history dating back to the baptism of Prince Vladimir in 10th century AC. The shared past of the two states has not been as central in official Russian policy justification regarding Ukraine outside Crimea: the ‘brotherhood’ of the two nations has been noted repeatedly, but usually secondary to arguments pertaining to economic and political interests. The two world wars have been used as a cautionary tale, with Russia effectively seeking to delegitimize the new Ukrainian government by evoking carefully selected elements of its past. Finally, the author looks at the use of international precedence as a form of justification, turning the history of Western – US in particular – actions back on Russia’s critics. The official usage of history is placed within broader strategies of legitimation, as it is not enough to study propaganda and manipulation strategies as part of information warfare to explain how the Kremlin achieves support for its policies. The ‘thick’ historical narratives of Crimea play on elements linked to issues of national identity, making it difficult to dispute using the type of counter-propaganda and rebuttal of disinformation proposed by some. Article in Norwegian only.
Arctic petroleum: Local CSR-perceptions in the Nenets region
he purpose of this paper is to identify and discuss perceptions of petroleum-related corporate social responsibility (CSR) among local and regional authorities, local peoples (indigenous and non-indigenous) and representatives of petroleum companies working or living in the Nenets Autonomous Okrug (NAO) in the Russian Arctic. Although the CSR literature comprises a broad spectrum of approaches, an underrepresentation of perspectives from non-business stakeholders has been suggested. The paper seeks to redress this gap. The data are obtained through 34 in-depth, semi-structured interviews conducted and qualitatively analysed to extrapolate perceptions, views and expectations of petroleum-related CSR in NAO. By exploring needs, wants and expectations, differences are identified between short-term expectations and long-term perspectives. A central feature of the authors’ findings is the wide variation in the responses not only between community groups and sectors but also within them. The complexity identified is an argument in favour of local involvement to understand local contexts and suggests avoiding “one-size fits all” CSR approaches. Challenges and opportunities are identified for the petroleum companies in dealing with different stakeholders and diverging interests. The importance of local context means that caution is advised when considering the transferability or generalisability of lessons, within NAO and elsewhere in and outside the Russian Arctic. Furthermore, fundamental motivations are not always transparent from interviews. Although a rich literature exists on CSR, this is perhaps the first study providing a cross-sectoral analysis of people’s perceptions, including those of non-business stakeholders, in this region.
The Arctic and a Trump Administration Yet to Come
How may the Trump administration affect the Arctic? This is the topic for Elana Wilson Rowe's High North News commentary.
Local perceptions of corporate social responsibility for Arctic petroleum in the Barents region
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is promoted and critiqued by many players involved in or opposed to petroleum exploration and extraction, although a common understanding of CSR’s theoretical and practical meanings rarely exists. This paper uses Arctic petroleum in the Barents region (Norway and Russia) to investigate local perceptions of CSR. We conducted open-ended, semi-structured interviews in four locations: Hammerfest, Murmansk, Komi Republic, and Nenets Autonomous Okrug (NAO). Interviewees included the local population, regional and local authorities, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), and petroleum company representatives. The field research suggests that those who gain directly from the petroleum industry and do not directly experience negative impacts were more inclined to be positive about the industry, although overall, general support for petroleum activity was high. In some cases, positive economic benefits resulted in greater tolerance of environmental risk. Sometimes, the industry and government were criticised by locals for failing to support a more equitable distribution of broader economic benefits. Rather than splitting along for-profit/NGO or indigenous/non-indigenous lines, our analysis suggests that those who are closer to the petroleum industry or its benefits, termed ‘insiders’, tend to be more positive than ‘outsiders’. This study is perhaps the first of its kind in its focus on local perceptions of CSR for Arctic petroleum across the Barents region. The findings of this study not only match with that of the previous literature on Arctic petroleum but also provide further practical and theoretical insights by indicating subtleties and nuances within the localities examined. (Published: November 2016)
’Same same but different’ – tenkning om fred og krig i Skandinavia rundt 1900