Sudan´s Power Struggle
Sudans statsminister Abdalla Hamdok har gått av. Dr Andrew Yaw Tchie fra NUPI diskuterer komponentene som har hindret landet i bevege seg framover.
Development Assistance and Root Causes of Migration: A Risky Road to Unsustainable Solutions
In the aftermath of the 2015 migration-management crisis, both the European Union and several European states declared that they would be using development aid more strategically to address root causes of migration. The final report from the MiDeShare project, a joint two-year research project managed and implemented by the Polish Institute of International Affairs (PISM) and the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs (NUPI), addresses two key issues that such a declaration brings to the fore: First, can development assistance really tackle root causes of migration, and second, have the EU and European countries such as Norway and Poland changed the direction of their aid since 2015? By reviewing the research already published by our joint project, we will sum up both what we know and in what areas new research-based knowledge is needed.
European defence beyond institutional boundaries: Improved European defence through flexibility, differentiation and coordination
As a response to the changing geopolitical situation, initiatives aimed to strengthen European defence have been taken in NATO, in the EU, but also bi- and multilaterally between EU member states and associated non-members, such as Norway. This policy brief argues that all these processes must be taken into account when we want to measure the full security and defence capacity of Europe. Rather than a sign of fragmentation, they are preparing the ground for a new European defence architecture, characterised by a high degree of flexibility, which in the end may be better adapted to the current security context. To maximalise the effect of this differentiated defence architecture, however, a certain coordination between the different initiatives is needed. There is now a window of opportunity for such coordination, as two key processes are now running in parallel: the development of a new “strategic concept” for NATO and the development of a “Strategic Compass” in the EU. If this succeeds, we can hope for the development of a more flexible and capable European defence.
AUKUS and its implications for Asia, US-European relations and non-proliferation
The political, strategic and technological aspects of the AUKUS deal may be more important than the provision of nuclear-powered submarines. The deal is a clear sign of the US tilt towards Asia and will have important implications for both USFrench, US-EU and US-NATO relations. AUKUS does not imply any nuclear weapons proliferation risk. However, it paths the way for a proliferation of nuclear-powered submarines, which will open for legitimate and illegitimate claims for producing Highly Enriched Uranium. It remains to be seen whether the strategic benefits of AUKUS in the Indo-pacific will outweigh its political costs for transatlantic relations and the image of the United States as a trusted security partner.
Nordic Airpower Cooperation and Finland’s F-35 decision: Towards a New Era?
The Nordic states air forces have cooperated closely, especially after Russia reinvigorated its military posture in the region from 2007-2008. With regional security policy and military strategy becoming more closely integrated after 2014, this tactical activity has become a key part of an emerging strategic-level pattern of cooperation. Closer political and military integration has enabled regional security cooperation to proliferate across unit types and activities. With the introduction of new generation fighter aircraft in the short term, and future air combat systems in the longer term, cooperation is set to change, but given its dual imperative is bound to continue and expand as new avenues emerge. Especially, the continuation of CBT in the short and long term has both a tactical and strategic rationale. Finland’s decision to procure the F-35 Lightning II will enable even closer airpower cooperation in the Nordics and in a broader European and trans-Atlantic framework, both in peace, crisis, and armed conflict. System similarity with Norway extends to the JSM, which opens the possibility for joint development of this weapon system and its operational use. As such, the procurement sets the stage for closer collaboration at both the tactical, operational and military-industrial levels.
Trade, Trust, and De Facto State Conflicts: Abkhazia’s International Economic Engagement
Does trade really foster trust? In the case of conflict-torn regions, developing trade links is often believed to contribute to transforming conflict or even facilitate peacebuilding. However, when it comes to de facto states—states with no or limited international recognition—the relationship between the two may not be quite as straightforward. A closer look at Abkhazia, a de facto state in the contested neighborhood between Russia and the EU, shows that trade can thrive even in a post-conflict situation where mutual distrust is high. However, as long as trade occurs informally and in the shadows, it does not help in building trust at the state level.
The Role of External Powers in EU–Asia Security Relations
This chapter maps out the changing roles played by the United States, Russia and India as security actors in East Asia, and their influence on EU foreign and security policies in the region. Detailing the waxing and waning of the US’ ‘unipolar moment’, Russia’s military resurgence, and the increasingly assertive balancing acts of India, the chapter reviews the main policy developments implemented by these three actors since 1990 and how their policies converge or diverge with the EU’s approaches across a range of traditional and non-traditional security issues. The chapter concludes that the challenge for the EU is to advance its interests, and augment the effects, of its policies and instruments in Asia considering the potential for collaboration and contestation with the United States, Russia and India, three very different actors that diverge considerably in both strategic intentions and capabilities.