Publikasjoner
Security, ethnicity, nationalism
In this article, Neumann asks which aspects of ethnicity and nationalism that may be brought into sharper focus if we read these two phenomena with a view to how they have been shaped by security concerns. The first part of the article clears up some problems inherent in such exercises in diachronic concept analysis, and establishes the temporal area of validity for the analysis. The second part argues that the very emergence of the concept of ethnos (and its Roman translation, gens) was immersed in security thinking. It emerged as a way in which Greeks and Romans imposed order on what was outside that was not there before. Ethnic groups became ethnic by being interpellated by a stronger polity, and the process was driven first and foremost by security concerns. The third part illustrates this with a case study of the emergence of Slavic ethnicity. The fourth part of the article discusses how, with the advent of nationalism, there is an inversion. If ethnicity was imposed on subaltern groups, then European empires attempted to deny nationalism to such groups by insisting that they did not have the history to deserve it. Once again, security concerns played a key role, for as rightly seen by empires, nationhood could be an important anti-colonial resource. The paper ends by noting how nationalism invariably underlines the vitality of the Self, and juxtaposes it with the decrepitude of Others. With reference to present-day Russia, I note how the use of such organic metaphors in and of themselves securitize the relationship between nations, for the implication is that the old should disappear for the new to live, and that highlights security concerns on both sides of the relationship.
Security Sector Reform: A Literature Review
‘Security sector reform’, or SSR, has become a cornerstone of international development, post-conflict peacebuilding and state-building initiatives. The term emerged in the late 1990s in recognition of the changing international security environment and the limitations of peace accords in failing and failed states. Aimed at promoting both effective and legitimate provision of security in countries emerging from conflict or undergoing processes of political transition, SSRrelated activities have growth significantly in scope as well as scale. However, security sector reform remains a contested concept that can have different meanings in different contexts and for different audiences. Various institutions, groups and nations involved in SSR tend to understand the concept on the basis of their own policies, doctrines and practices.1 Experience has also shown that SSR is often conducted in challenging political, socio-economic and security environments. Given the diversity of perceptions and contexts, SSR approaches and implementation vary greatly within the international community. Against that backdrop, this contribution reviews the comprehensive literature on security sector reform. Specifically, it asks: what were the authoritative influences and actors in the development of the SSR concept? What is the current state of theoretical discussion? What challenges and opportunities does adoption of SSR entail? How successfully has the concept been adopted in international peace operations? Are there any particular criticisms of the SSR concept? How might SSR practice be improved?
Preparing Civilian Experts to work in Vulnerable Places: Unveiling Brazil’s Potential
Cyberangrep - hvem har ansvaret?
Digitale angrep er den mest sannsynlige trusselen mot Norge, konkluderte både e-tjenesten og PST med da de med kort tids mellomrom slapp sine trusselvurderinger. Kort tid etter avslørte PST at hackere, høyst sannsynlig med russisk tilknytning, har angrepet Forsvaret, Utenriksdepartementet og Arbeiderpartiet. Angrepene ligner veldig på angrepet mot demokratenes e-postserver i USA i høst, både i måten de ble utført på og hvem som er mistenkt for å stå bak. Frykten for russisk innblanding risikerer nå å skygge over den ubehagelige sannheten, nemlig at cybersikkerhet i altfor liten grad blir tatt på alvor og forstått. Hvem har ansvaret for å beskytte oss mot dette?
NATO-skuta ikke enkel å snu
Alliansen har i snart to tiår fokusert på utenlandsoperasjoner. Nå har kollektivt forsvar kommet øverst på dagsorden, men i et Europa preget av økonomiske problemer er endringer krevende.
Vil USA fortsatt forsvare Europa?
Har det noen effekt når Trump svinger pisken over sine allierte og krever høyere forsvarsbudsjett? Vil det få fortgang i forsvarsinvesteringene i Europa?
Hva skal Forsvaret forsvare?
Forsvaret av Norge opptar folk, men fokuset i forsvarsdebatten har vært mest på budsjett, baser og struktur. Det er imidlertid en tendens til at vi glemmer å diskutere det mest grunnleggende, nemlig hva slags trussel Forsvaret skal forsvare oss mot. Hvordan bør Forsvaret skrus sammen for å forhindre krig, avskrekke Russland, og kunne respondere alene og med allierte?