The State, the People and the Armed Forces – a Genealogical Outline of the Legitimacy of the Armed Forces in Norway
The Norwegian armed forces in the early 21st century is in a phase of rapid change and transition. International missions are about to become its main task, whereas traditional domestic territorial defence is becoming less and less relevant. Is this transition purely a technical adjustment to a new security environment, or does it also entail more fundamental changes in the relationship between the armed forces, the state and the population? Could the military risk to lose its popular legitimacy? To grasp the current changes, it is important to understand the foundations of the relationship between the military, the state and the people. As well as how these relations have evolved over time. This is certainly not the first time in history the armed forces are facing fundamental changes. This article seeks to shed light on some of these developments in Norway over the last centuries. The evolvement of the conscript system will be used to illustrate some of these developments. I will argue that the Norwegian authorities to date have been reluctant in addressing the changes, applying what can be described as ‘yesterday’s explanations’ when legitimising military operations of today. If this trend of ignorance continues, the danger of a popular back-lash increases.
Stalin i postsovjetisk nasjonalbolsjevisme
Ikke bare ortodokse marxist-leninister så med sorg på Sovjetunionens oppløsning. I hele sovjetperioden fantes det også patrioter og nasjonalister som støttet aktiv opp om det kommunistiske regimet. Denne uensartede gruppen av «medløpere» kalles gjerne for nasjonalbolsjeviker. De betraktet Sovjetunionen som en fortsettelse av det russiske imperiet og Stalin som en arvtaker etter de største tsarene. Det paradoksale er at det i dag, mer enn et tiår etter Sovjetunionens oppløsning, fortsatt finnes representanter for denne tradisjonen. Etter at kommunismens maktmonopol ble brutt, står de nå fritt til å uttrykke sine tanker og søke inspirasjon hvor de måtte finne den. Aleksandr Dugin, Gennadij Zjuganov og Aleksandr Prochanov er alle aktive publisister og fremtredende representanter for postsovjetisk nasjonalbolsjevisme. I dette notatet brukes en idéhistorisk undersøkelse av deres syn på Stalin som verktøy til å finne ut hvordan nasjonalbolsjevismen har utviklet seg etter kommunismens fall. Studien viser at nasjonalbolsjevismen ideologisk sett har opplevd en blomstring i tiden etter Sovjetunionens sammenbrudd. Den har utviklet seg i flere retninger, men et hovedtrekk er at retorikken er blitt mer intolerant og hatefull. «Medløperideologien» er nå blitt revisjonistisk. Sovjetperiodens nasjonalbolsjeviker ønsket å bevare staten og systemet. Dugin, Zjuganov og Prochanov går inn for å gjenopprette Sovjetunionen, gjerne i form av et enda større eurasiatisk imperium med en ny Stalin på tronen. Dessuten rettferdiggjør de Stalins utrenskninger i større grad enn sine åndsbrødre fra sovjettiden. I tråd med sin bipolære verdensanskuelse deler Dugin, Zjuganov og Prochanov mennesker inn i venner og fiender av den russiske nasjon. De mener Stalins utrenskninger kun var rettet mot dem som ville Russland vondt og ønsker seg et nytt, brutalt oppgjør med dagens fiender.
Definitions of strategic political communication
Political communication comes in various forms. The first part of this paper presents some variants of political communication, and provides a set of definitions of such communication. A centre of gravity is along the borderline and overlap between rhetoric and propaganda. It is argued here that rhetoric unlike propaganda has a potential for deliberation. Propaganda is inherently hostile towards debate and discussion. This reluctance towards debate and discussion has at times been evident as regards the Bush administration’s war on terrorism. The second part of the article deals with propaganda from the Bush administration aimed at quelling debate. All the principals from the first George W. Bush administration (2001-2005) took part in this strategy. Most of the material presented here is explained in more detail in Anders G. Romarheim (2005). “Crossfire of Fear: Propaganda in the US War on Terrorism” Hovedoppgave i Statsvitenskap, ISV, UIO.
UN Reform and Collective Security : An Overview of Post-Cold War Initiatives and Proposals
«Challenges to Collective Security» Working Papers from NUPI’s UN Programme
Transition Management
«Challenges to Collective Security» Working Papers from NUPI’s UN Programme: The emerging consensus on the need to establish more effective United Nations mechanisms for managing the transition from conflict to peace, and on the importance of addressing the nexus between development and security, is not sufficiently reflected in the organisational structure or logic of UN operations. This report argues that tailored policy responses should be introduced or strengthened at the institutional, intergovernmental and regional levels, to deal effectively with the challenges of peacekeeping, peace-building and transition management. The debate about the need for more improved transition management and better coordination mirrors the larger debate about the role of the organisation and UN system integration.
International Policing and the Rule of Law in Transitions from War to Peace
«Challenges to Collective Security» Working Papers from NUPI’s UN Programme: In transitions from war to peace there are few challenges more in need of urgent attention and careful planning than the issues of policing and establishment of rule of law.1 Development efforts are futile in situations marred by violence and recurrent conflict. The nature of the institutions of law and order is central to the relationship between state and society. In order to achieve a sustainable political settlement after conflict, these institutions need to be trustworthy, effective and legitimate. Neither is sufficient on its own: a technically effective police force may be used in a way seen as illegitimate by much of the population. Likewise, a high human rights standard may not in itself ensure that the police, the judiciary and the penal system manage to reduce crime and violence to levels compatible with societal and economic progress. It is thus equally important to have institutions established that are both effective and legitimate. However, this can be a very difficult and challenging endeavour since the deliberate misuse of, or the absence of, institutions of law and order often may have contributed to the fostering of conflict in the first place. Both institutional and cultural transformation is needed to achieve lasting peace. The international community has over the last decade become increasingly aware of the need for a more integrated approach to security-sector reform. That being said, there is still a long way to go in terms of developing functional holistic approaches to such reform processes. Attempts at shortcutting the need for local ownership through «executive missions» have not proven particularly successful. Any system of law and order not rooted in society itself runs the risk of being superficial (allowing informal systems to function underneath) or temporary (as it is dependent on the continued presence of scarce foreign personnel). While situations may arise that require full-fledged international executive responsibility, the best approach lies in a careful integration of security-sector reform efforts aimed at achieving a sustainable, locally rooted rule of law. There is no alternative to a sector-wide approach in this field, and the inherently political nature of any undertaking of this sort should be recognised from the outset.
Power, Principles and Procedures : Reinterpreting French foreign policy towards the USA (2001-2003)
French foreign policy towards the US is often understood as particularly confrontational and based on traditional power politics, or a wish to re-establish “la grandeur de la France”. This article aims at investigating the validity of this widely held view. It further seeks to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the French positions by studying the arguments used by the French political leadership and the implications of the Iraq conflict for bilateral cooperation at lower levels. This study questions the common assumption of IR theory that national identities and/or interests are fixed and independent of structural factors such as international norms and values. It also questions the value of focusing exclusively on diplomatic or “top-level” bilateral relations, without looking at “low-level” or practical bilateral cooperation and/or conflicts.