Restructuring state power in Sudan
Developing post-conflict economic policies in Sudan remains a significant challenge for the Sudanese transitional government and the international community. This article argues that understanding the conflict, its costs and the progress made during the current peace agreement are essential for advancing policy reforms in Sudan. The Sudanese transitional government has attempted to implement reforms, but little progress has been made because the civilian elements operate outside of the existing state power. The previous regimes policies sustained conflict(s) through both passive and active enablement of the Sudanese security forces, which means that the restructuring of state power is essential to place Sudan on the right course towards sustained democracy. This article posits that addressing structural reforms in Sudan means establishing control over the economy, defense, and security sectors.
Globale Storbritannia? Britisk utenrikspolitikk etter brexit
Lecture about Brexit and the implications for British, European and Norwegian foreign policy.
Gabriella Kristine Kattil Bolstad
Gabriella Kristine Bolstad was a Junior Research Fellow in NUPI’s Research Group on Security and Defence. Additionally, Bolstad worked in the Cons...
The Pandemic as a Litmus Test for (Dis)Engagement of External Powers in Central Asia
This study provides an empirical overview of pandemic-related external assistance to the Central Asian countries of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan by partner countries and international organisations between March and September 2020. This state-of-the-art review of Central Asia official development assistance extends to pledged funds beyond this period. The systemic comparison of donors suggests that there is no single actor that stands out as a champion of economic recovery; these are mostly small, token contributions. By contrast, targeted medical assistance has been far more significant, albeit focused on short-term crisis management of the pandemic. There has been only a handful of assistance projects that reflect a long-term stake in Central Asia's economic recovery and the pandemic showed little evidence of the Great Game competition for regional geopolitical influence. Thus, the relations between big powers and Central Asia need to be reconsidered and given a new meaning that would better reflect the interests and interaction between the two parties. The pandemic showed that these relations were mainly pragmatic during the global health crisis with no external partner showing interest in projecting and expanding strategic influence on the region. The region needs to build its internal resilience against new crises and avoid excessive reliance on external assistance in the long term.
How has the EU responded to the Covid-19 crisis?
Covid-19 came on top of a number of other crises facing the European Union in recent years, and has put EU under unprecedented stress. In this webinar, we will take a closer look at EU’s response to crises, focusing on its response to the Covid-19 pandemic.
Hvem er gått ut på dato
Will the EU-US trade agreement lead to losses rather than economic gains? The basis for such claims is weak.
Discovering Opportunities in the Pandemic? Four Economic Response Scenarios for Central Asia
The COVID-19 crisis represents not only an unprecedented economic disruption but also an opportunity for Central Asia. A specific economic policy response may trigger either game-changing reforms that can facilitate the development of full-fledged market institutions or lead to a protracted crisis that would jeopardize almost 30-year long market economy transition progress. As it is rather unclear where the recovery pendulum will make its final swing, the current situation provides fruitful soil for various assumptions. This paper proposes and examines four scenarios of economic response strategies for the region as a whole, and for Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan in particular, that result in unique development trajectories. The paper employs the foresight methodology to build four scenarios related to the situation after the lockdown is fully lifted. The scenarios serve the purpose of helping decision makers to embark on informed decisions while shaping anti-crisis measures and better understand causality mechanisms behind their policy choices.
Emerging Lessons from Implementing Climate-Related Peace and Security Mandates
Six of the ten largest United Nations-led peace operations in 2020 were located in countries that are the most exposed to climate change. Both UN peacekeeping operations and special political missions are increasingly mandated by the UN Security Council to consider and respond to climate-related security risks. In response, UN peace operations have tried to more effectively respond to climate-related peace and security challenges by adapting existing approaches and exploring innovative new ways in which to operationalize these tasks. Efforts to translate these climate and environmental-related mandates into policies and practices are a work in progress, and can benefit from ongoing learning, monitoring, and adaptation. In this regard, lessons and good practices for integrating climate-related security risks into policies, analysis, activities, and reporting are beginning to emerge.
Swiss-EU Relations With a Focus on the Current Situation
Michael Ambühl has negotiated several Swiss-EU agreements and presents here (with co-author Lara Lenz) an overview of recent developments in the relationship, that has been under pressure because the EU has demanded a more EEA-like arrangement. See also discussion at NUPI webinar (scroll down to find link). In 1992, Swiss voters rejected an accession to the European Economic Area (EEA). Among different reasons for this were institutional and sovereignty questions, such as the dynamic adoption of new EU legislation, and the Swiss Government announcement of the EEA being a training camp for a future EU membership. Instead of the multilateral EEA approach, Switzerland chose a bilateral approach with Bilateral Agreements I and II, which were signed in 1999 and 2004, respectively. The two packages regulate aspects of the economic, political, and cultural landscapes and benefit both parties with legal certainty and market access in selected policy sectors. About ten years ago, the EU expressed its desire for an Institutional Framework Agreement (IFA) with Switzerland to protect the homogeneity of the internal market, to remove legal barriers, and to introduce a more efficient dispute settlement procedure. The draft of the negotiation result (not initialed) presented in 2018 raised three concerns about which the Swiss Government sought clarification from the EU: wage protection, state aid, and the Citizens Rights Directive. These three issues continue to be central concerns for many Swiss voters because these rules could potentially create social or economic problems. Without acceptable clarification on these points from the EU, there is a considerable risk that the Swiss people could reject the IFA in a future referendum, which would put Switzerland and (to a lesser extent, of course) the EU in a difficult situation. To avoid such a consequence, Switzerland must exercise caution. If a satisfactory solution cannot be reached, Switzerland must consider alternatives to a premature submission of the IFA to avoid legal uncertainty during an interim period. Regardless of the upcoming bilateral developments, Switzerland, at the heart of Europe, traditionally has a positive relationship with the EU. These friendly relations are all the more important when considering today’s challenges, in which Switzerland can show solidarity with Brussels and support the larger-scale European goals of promoting peace, democracy, and human rights in the world.