Publikasjoner
Visions of an Illiberal World Order? The National Right in Europe, Russia and the US
The rise of a national Right in both Europe and the US is disrupting the security agendas of Western foreign– and defense ministries. Long accustomed to directing the gaze and measures of Western security only outwards – towards Africa, the Middle East, China – these centers of policy formulation now find themselves forced to confront a more introspective line of questioning: Is the identity of ‘the liberal West’ and its agenda of a rule-based, institutionalized world order under threat from within? In this brief we unpack the visions of world order espoused by the new Western Right, its ideological overlap with conservative ideas in Putin’s Russia, as well as the built-in tensions and uncertainties of that emerging alliance. Our focus is on potential implications of these political developments for i) international institutionalism, and ii) interventionism. In short, we argue that anti-globalism must not be mistaken for anti-internationalism. The most basic political agenda of the national Right – from the Trumpian US to Putin’s Russia – is one of battling globalism and its liberal vision of a trans-national or cosmopolitan world order, by defending older Western concepts of sovereignty-centred, inter-national co-existence. In contrast to the extreme Right, the current European-US-Russian alliance of national Right politicians largely want to fight this battle from the inside and through, not outside, established institutions such as the UN and the EU.
Skjerpet lobbykamp
Etter brexit vil Storbritannia måtte påvirke EU fra utsiden. Norge får konkurranse. Storbritannia vil mest sannsynlig gå ut av EU mars 2019. De mister da også stemmerett og mange muligheter for innflytelse. Hvordan vil livet bli som lobbyist? skriver Ulf Sverdrup i denne kronikken, opprinnelig publisert i Dagens Næringsliv.
Geopolitikk og oljefondet
Oljefondet har hatt sin «oppvekst» innenfor en trygg og stabil global orden. Det første innskuddet kom i 1996, i god tid etter Berlin-murens fall. Fondet har vært en stor suksess, men det har også gjort at Norge er mer eksponert for globale endringer enn før. Den internasjonale orden er nå i en brytningstid. Demokratiske systemer er under press, globalisering og åpne marked møter motstand. USAs rolle, som leder og systemgarantist, er også i forandring. USA er mer negativ til viktige elementer i internasjonalt samarbeid, som WTO og FN. Spenningene øker også i forholdet mellom USA og Kina, verdens viktigste økonomiske og politiske relasjon. I den nye amerikanske sikkerhetsstrategi er Kina beskrevet som strategisk rival. Mange ser på handelskrigen mellom som USAs forsøk på å demme opp for, eller redusere, Kinas geopolitiske innflytelse. Endringene i det globale politiske og økonomiske system endrer også rammene for Oljefondet. Jeg mener derfor tiden er overmoden for å utrede forholdet mellom fondet og geopolitiske risikofaktorer. Vi bør kartlegge dagens risikoeksponering, analysere hvordan globale skifter endrer risikobildet, og vi må vurdere om dagens retningslinjer er egnet.
Peacekeeping: Resilience of an idea
This chapter examines the evolution of the idea of UN peacekeeping, asking how an instrument developed in the late 1940s managed to not only survive but also respond to the changing geopolitical and conflict landscape over the last seventy years. Through an overview of major doctrinal developments and institutional adaptations, the chapter analyses how the peacekeeping tool was adapted from a bipolar world, via a unipolar one to today’s multipolar world. Peter argues that peacekeeping started as a conflict management instrument, which was adapted to a conflict resolution mechanism after the end of the Cold War, but has now come full circle and is again increasingly used to manage and contain, not resolve conflicts.
Introduction. UN peace operations: Adapting to a new global order?
The introduction identifies four transformations in the global order, whose implications on the UN peace operations are studied in the remainder of the volume. These four transformations are: (1) the rebalancing of relations between states of the global North and the global South; (2) the rise of regional organisations as providers of peace; (3) the rise of violent extremism and fundamentalist non-state actors; and (4) increasing demands from non-state actors for greater emphasis on human security. With the entry of new actors from the global South as important players in the peace arena, we are entering a more pragmatic era of UN peace operations. At the same time, the UN is facing a classic struggle between the promotion of liberal international norms and realist security concerns.
Det klamme toprosent-målet
USAs pågående press på europeiske NATO-land om å bruke minst to prosent av BNP på Forsvaret har som kjent økt i intensistet etter at Trump ble president. Det man ble enige om på Wales-toppmøtet i 2014 var å "arbeide mot å oppnå to prosent innen 2024". Mange land, inkludert Tyskland og Norge, la særlig vekt på "arbeide mot"-delen av setningen. Den forpliktet med andre ord ikke at de to prosentene skulle være nådd innen 2024.
Parabasis: Cyber-diplomacy in Stalemate
Governments and industry around the world are working together to bring the next billion users online,1 but their synergies fade when it comes to how to keep online populations safe and secure. Further, the third and fourth billion of Internet users will enter a terrain very different from that available to their predecessors. Vulnerabilities in ICTs as well as de facto exploitation of these vulnerabilities by state and non-state actors has been acknowledged and problematized. Evidence of malicious and hostile operations involving ICTs and the Internet abounds. Uncertain about the true potential of ICTs, governments and users have focused on rules and responsibilities for protecting against cyberattacks, espionage and data manipulation. But where is there an understanding of how to remedy and improve the situation? The first part of this report analyzes and contextualizes the UN First Committee process. The second part offers the authors’ extensions to the theme, analyzing the relative successes and failures of the leading cyberpowers in promoting the world order of their liking. In particular, we analyze how Russia, as the initiator of the First Committee process, has created momentum and gathered support for its calls for specific international regulation and institutionalization of the process on the one hand, and stronger governmental control of the development and use of ICTs and the flow of information on the other. In conclusion, we offer some recommendations for governments wishing to pursue the goal of free and open cyberspace—indeed a rule-based world order. The full text can be read here: http://hdl.handle.net/11250/2569401
Derfor dominerer Abe japansk politikk
Shinzō Abe har nok en gang vunnet det interne presidentvalget i sitt parti. Hvordan ble Abe den mest dominerende statsministeren i Japans historie?
Implementation in practice: The use of force to protect civilians in United Nations peacekeeping
Since the failures of the United Nations of the early 1990s, the protection of civilians has evolved as a new norm for United Nations peacekeeping operations. However, a 2014 United Nations report found that while peacekeeping mandates often include the use of force to protect civilians, this has routinely been avoided by member states. What can account for this gap between the apparently solid normative foundations of the protection of civilians and the wide variation in implementation? This article approaches the question by highlighting normative ambiguity as a fundamental feature of international norms. Thereby, we consider implementation as a political, dynamic process where the diverging understandings that member states hold with regard to the protection of civilians norm manifest and emerge. We visualize this process in combining a critical-constructivist approach to norms with practice theories. Focusing on the practices of member states’ military advisers at the United Nations headquarters in New York, and their positions on how the protection of civilians should be implemented on the ground, we draw attention to their agency in norm implementation at an international site. Military advisers provide links between national ministries and contingents in the field, while also competing for being recognized as competent performers of appropriate implementation practices. Drawing on an interpretivist analysis of data generated through an online survey, a half-day workshop and interviews with selected delegations, the article adds to the understanding of norms in international relations while also providing empirical insights into peacekeeping effectiveness.
Norway: NATO in the North?
When the NATO allies agreed to deploy troops to the Baltic states and Poland in 2014 to deter against potential Russian aggression, Norway did not ask for a similar arrangement. Despite bordering the heavily militarised Kola peninsula, Norway is now the only NATO country neighbouring Russia without a permanent allied presence. Why is this so? The chapter discusses the background for this policy, which often is summarised in the claim ‘Norway is NATO in the North’, and question if Norway really is NATO in the North in terms of deterrence. The chapter then discuss current Norwegian threat perceptions and various security policy orientations that may contradict each other. For instance, Norway seeks to signal peacetime control and situational awareness of the High North to the rest of NATO, but also to attract allies to training and exercises. Furthermore, Norway seeks to signal both deterrence and restraint, as well as reassurance, to Russia. These different security policies, the chapter argues, may not always be easily combined into a coherent policy.