China’s Belt and Road Initiative through the lens of Central Asia
Has the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), launched by China in 2013, changed the perception of China among local actors in Central Asia? There are numerous internal problems and contradictions among the Central Asian countries and the region remains one of the least integrated in the world. This poses serious challenges to BRI but also offers opportunities for enhancing regional connectivity and integration. Although there has been some research and even more media coverage of BRI, little is known about how Central Asians perceive BRI. This chapter fills some of these gaps and analyzes the present state of relations between the Central Asian countries and China and collects and systematizes perceptions of Beijing and BRI among Central Asian stakeholders. The analysis focuses on economic cooperation, infrastructure and educational initiatives, as they as they are among BRI's main pillars. The main conclusion is that current attitudes towards China have been formed within the framework of bilateral relations that started in 1991, and there has so far been no major shift in the perception of China in Central Asia since BRI was launched. Whereas the broader public expects more economic opportunities from BRI and there has been more discussion of China's role in Central Asia after 2013, local communities remain uninformed and weakly connected to the high-level interaction between the Chinese and Central Asian governments.
Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Norway’s Options
What would the late political economist and intellectual Albert O. Hirschmann have said if asked to assess the developments in Europe – and its future – at a time when decision makers and voters feel that the quality of their community is decreasing, or fail to see the benefits of its achievements? Drawing on Hirschmann’s works, NUPI Director Ulf Sverdrup offers three intertwined strategies for European states’ approach to Europe in the time to come: “Exit”, “voice” and “loyalty”. Sverdrup reminds us that most would agree that being European is something more than being a EU citizen. According to him, there are good reasons to believe that non-members, like Norway, can contribute to developing Europe in the future. However, a common challenge for both outsiders and insiders is to recognize the multifaceted nature of Europe, and to encourage non-members not to disengage from Europe while, at the same time, encouraging the EU to relate to its European partners outside the EU.
Science diplomacy and security in the Arctic
At this year's Arctic Frontiers, we will take a closer look at diplomacy and security in the Arctic.
Introduction: The EU and the Changing (Geo)Politics of Energy in Europe
This introductory chapter has three purposes. First, it presents the background for this volume originating in a research project on European integration funded by the Research Council of Norway (RCN). Second, it explains why EU energy policy in this context deserves closer scrutiny looking at energy relationships between the EU and external suppliers of energy and the EU and member states. Finally, this chapter gives an overview of the content of this book and explains rationales for the choice of cases presenting how the EU projects its power, how external suppliers Norway, Russia, Algeria and LNG providers have responded and how the member states Germany, Poland and the three Baltic countries interact with the EU when implementing their energy policies.
Inside Russia’s Imperial Relations: The Social Constitution of Putin-Kadyrov Patronage
This article analyses how Moscow has extended its rule over Chechnia since the beginning of this century. Within the larger understanding of this rule as imperial in form, the current distinct contractual relation between the Russian center and Chechnia is substantiated as one based on kinship. I argue that the Putin-Kadyrov relationship is a generic case of patronage but highlight the local imprint that such relations acquire by tracing how Chechen kinship practices inform this case.
Norway and Russia in the Arctic: New Cold War Contamination?
The standoff between Russia and the West over Ukraine has already obstructed cooperation across a range of issues. Could it also affect state interaction between Norway and Russia in the Arctic—an area and a relationship long characterized by a culture of compromise and/or cooperation? Here we start from the theoretical premise that states are not pre-constituted political entities, but are constantly in the making. How Russia views its own role and how it views other actors in the Arctic changes over time, calling for differing approaches. That holds true for Norway as well. To clarify the premises for interaction between Russia and Norway in the Arctic, we scrutinize changes in official discourse on Self and Other in the Arctic on both sides in the period 2012 to 2016, to establish what kind of policy mode—“realist,” “institutionalist,” or “diplomatic management”—has underlain the two countries’ official discourse in that period. Has Norway continued to pursue “balancing” policies undertaken in the realist mode with those in the diplomatic management mode? Which modes have characterized Russia’s approach toward Norway? Finding that realist-mode policies increasingly dominate on both sides, in the conclusion we discuss how the changing mode of the one state affects that of the other, and why a New Cold War is now spreading to the Arctic.
Europe through the Russian TV lens
What images of Europe does Russian TV convey to its viewers? What are the dominant Russian media narratives on Europe?
ANALYSIS: Resolving Brexit
Brexit is in crisis. The options are limited, and they have not changed much since 2016. Now, time is running out. Exiting the EU without an agreement, widely recognized as the worst option, is the default. Moreover, this is no longer simply a question about how to deal with the EU. Brexit is a test of whether a democratic political system can resolve difficult and divisive issues in a credible and robust way. The stakes are therefore high.
Strategic Assistance: China and International Nuclear Weapons Proliferation
A major power with access to nuclear technology, China has a significant impact on international nuclear weapons proliferation, but its attitude towards the spread of the bomb has been inconsistent. China’s mixed record raises a broader question: why, when and how do states support potential nuclear proliferators? This book develops a framework for analyzing such questions, by putting forth three factors that are likely to determine a state’s policy: (1) the risk of changes in the nuclear status or military doctrines of competitors; (2) the recipient’s status and strategic value; and (3) the extent of pressure from third parties to halt nuclear assistance. It then demonstrates how these factors help explain China’s policies towards Pakistan, Iran, and North Korea. Overall, the book finds that China has been a selective and strategic supporter of nuclear proliferators. While nuclear proliferation is a security challenge to China in some settings, in others, it wants to help its friends build the bomb.
China and the nuclear crises in Iran and North Korea
The nuclear deal with Iran is in crisis, and talks on the North Korean nuclear program has made little progress. At the same time, China is well on its way to become one of the world’s most powerful states. How important is it for China to prevent any further proliferation of nuclear weapons?