|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
104051
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2011.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Most NATO countries reformed their defence systems during the 1990s in response to the end of the Cold War. Although Norway adjusted to new external framework conditions and participated in the new international operations, territorial defence dominated the defence discourse and military practices at home into the next millennium. This article argues that the continuity in the discourse and the pace with which defence reform has been implemented during the period 1990-2005 is a result of social factors and relations at the national level. First, the nation-building role of the Norwegian defence system has shaped central national concepts, values and military practices, rendering it resistant to change. Second, reform has been counteracted by the weight of the military institution - in terms of size, geographical extent and deep-rooted practices related to training and education. Third, Norwegian defence policy is deeply intertwined with other domestic policy areas, so when changes in the defence establishment have negative consequences, especially for district policy, opposition is provoked. In contrast, the Norwegian defence discourse and practices seem to have rapidly co-opted the changes invoked by the emerging multi-polar system. This underscores the claim made here, that the Norwegian defence discourse is largely about national, territorial defence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
061772
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
Apr 2005.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article addresses the post-Cold War security and defence discourse in Norway, focusing on the impact of the transformation of NATO, an increasingly ambitious EU within security matters and the transatlantic tensions in the War on Terror. The article argues that changes or continuity in policy result from the discursive battle between various power constellations, which are forcing conflicting understandings of reality on each other. In this battle, the dominant representation frames NATO's transformation as a precondition for national defence with reference to alliance solidarity, loyalty and interoperability. The alternative representation, on the other hand, has framed NATO's transformation as negative for national defence, claiming that forces trained for global, warlike missions are neither capable nor available for national defence tasks such as containment of Russia's strategic interests in the Barents Sea. The EU has been brought into the security and defence discourse only when new integration steps, such as the European security and defence policy and EU Battle Groups, put the question of how far Norway may participate, to a test. However, developments like the slow withering away of NATO and unilateralist US foreign policy on Iraq are contributing to pushing the Norwegian discourse, and hence policy, closer to Europe.
1 This article draws on research I have done with financial support from the Norwegian Ministry of Defence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
066192
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|