Nina Græger

Norwegian Strategic Culture after World War II From a Local to a Global Perspective

This article details the changes in Norwegian strategic culture, comprising grand strategy and practice, following the end of the Cold War. Throughout the Cold War, Norwegian security and defence policy was characterized by broad, non-politicized consensus. Basic elements of this grand strategic perspective were the smallness of Norway, the people defence and allegiance to the UN. Doctrines focused on survival, with the army as the lead service. Close ties were maintained between the military and societal elites, and the military was seen just as much in societal terms, namely as an employer in scarcely populated areas, as it was in defensive terms. The changes in strategic culture over the past 10–15 years have been uneven, partly driven by internal and external changes in discourse, but over recent years probably as much by changes in practice. The first post-Cold War years witnessed the emergence of an alternative grand strategic representation, focusing on international operations rather than on invasion defence. Mindful of the impact on local communities of a reduced military presence, politicians long resisted any change, but after years of resistance the alternative grand strategy was embraced by the armed forces, leading to the creation of a rapid reaction force and increased emphasis on special task forces. International experience is now considered positive, even necessary, for a military career. Furthermore, whereas general conscription was gradually undermined because of the way in which it is practised, new civil–military ties were forged through the practice of providing military personnel training that was interchangeable with regular education. It now seems that military practice, as well as the specialized military discourse, has outpaced the broader Norwegian discourse on the use of military means. Nevertheless, the tension between global and local concerns remains unresolved.

The EU’s Performance with and within NATO: Assessing Objectives, Outcomes and Organisational Practices

Abstract This article assesses the EU’s performance as a security actor in the context of NATO, both at the institutional level and when acting as a bloc of member states within NATO. Informed by a definition of ‘performance’ as the ability to achieve preset objectives (effectiveness) in an efficient, relevant and viable manner, we observe that the EU’s performance in the context of NATO remains limited. This could be seen as a reflection of underlying political divergences between the two organisations, hampering systematic and formalised intra-institutional cooperation as well as effective cooperation between the EU member states in NATO. More importantly, it has resulted in the emergence of more informal and ad hoc EU practices in the context of NATO as well as parallel EU and NATO practices.

European security as practice: EU–NATO communities of practice in the making?

ABSTRACT European security is at a critical juncture and many have called for a more coherent and efficient response, involving both the EU and NATO. However, the primary tool for EU–NATO cooperation, “Berlin Plus”, has been stuck in a political quagmire since the mid-2000s, making a lot of scholars to conclude that this cooperation is obsolete and outdated. This article is challenging this view by analysing a range of informal but regular interaction patterns that have emerged. Using practice theory, it sheds new light on and explores how EU and NATO staff at all levels engage in informal practices on various sites in headquarters in Brussels and in field operations. A study of EU–NATO cooperation as practice focuses on the everyday, patterned production of security as well as what makes action possible, such as (tacit) practical knowledge and shared “background” knowledge (education, training, and experience). The article also discusses the extent to which shared repertoires of practice may evolve into loose communities of practice that cut across organisational and professional boundaries.

Grasping the everyday and extraordinary in EU–NATO relations: the added value of practice approaches

ABSTRACT Much scholarly work seeking to explain the EU–NATO relationship emphasises conflicting national or institutional interests, strategic individuals, and operational inefficiencies and overlaps. This article offers an alternative account of how both the everyday and the extraordinary in EU–NATO security cooperation can be identified and analysed by applying practice theory. Despite the “Cyprus issue”, which has left EU–NATO cooperation under Berlin Plus in political stalemate, regular interaction involving civilian and military EU and NATO staff at all levels and various sites has increased over the past decade. The article shows how a practice take is well suited to uncover the practical logic at work in these, predominantly informal EU–NATO encounters; how practices are established, enacted, and also abrupted. Furthermore, it discusses how shared “background conditions” – skills and experience – facilitate practices, learning, and community-building but also competition and rivalry.

‘Home and away’? Internationalism and territory in the post-1990 Norwegian defence discourse

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.

Need to have or nice to have? Nordic cooperation, NATO and the EU in Norwegian foreign, security and defence policy

ABSTRACT Nordic-ness and Nordic values clearly are embedded in Norways conception of its foreign policy role. Nordic cooperation is also important for seeking information about EU policies for non-EU country Norway. While supporting and participating in Nordic Defence Cooperation, Norways NATO-membership has trumped its relations with the Nordic countries as well as with the EUs Common Security and Defence Policy. A stronger policy of self-interest facilitated by its petroleum economy has also moved Norway further away from traditional Nordic peacekeeping and towards status seeking vis-à-vis key European allies. To what extent may recent global and regional political and strategic developments forge a Nordic «turn» in Norwegian foreign and security policy? What has Nordic cooperation to offer in terms of security and international status for Norway? The Norwegian case suggests that in the field of security and defence, Nordic cooperation is «nice to have» and more important than earlier but not necessary.

The Duty of Care for Citizens Abroad: Security and Responsibility in the In Amenas and Fukushima Crises

This article analyses the state’s duty of care (DoC) for citizens who fall victim to unforeseen catastrophic or violent events abroad. The DoC highlights the challenges, dynamics and relations involved in diplomatic practice that is aimed at protecting citizens outside of state borders and where traditional security concepts have little relevance. How has a globalized, more insecure world — with shifting relations and responsibilities among states, their subordinates and other carers — affected the provision of DoC? How do governments and private actors act on the DoC during and after crises? To illustrate, the article draws on the terrorist attack at a gas facility in Algeria in 2013 and the nuclear disaster in Japan in 2011, focusing particularly on the Norwegian framework and approach to protecting citizens abroad. In both crises, implementing the DoC required practical skills and measures beyond traditional diplomacy and institutionalized crisis mechanisms.

The Challenges and Dynamics of Alliance Policies: Norway, NATO and the High North

1 The term ‘High North’ (nordområdene) often appears in Norwegian Government documents and is used interchangeably with ‘Arctic’. It does not refer solely to Norwegian territory, but is rather a broad concept that attempts to capture developments in the wider circumpolar area. See Jonas Gahr Støre, ‘The High North and the Arctic: The Norwegian Perspective’, Arctic Herald, Moskva, no. 2, Jun. 2012, www.regjeringen.no/no/aktuelt/nord_arktis/id685072/. 2 Christine Ingebritsen, ‘Norm Entrepreneurs: Scandinavia’s Role in World Politics’, in Christine Ingebritsen, Iver Neumann & Sieglinde Gstohl (eds), Small States in International Relations, Reykjavik: University of Iceland Press, 2006, pp. 273–85; Anders Wivel, Clive Archer & Alyson JK Bailes, ‘Setting the Scene: Small States in International Security’, in Clive Archer, Alyson JK Bailes & Anders Wivel (eds), Small States and International Security: Europe and Beyond, London: Routledge, 2014, pp. 3–25. The Challenges and Dynamics of Alliance Policies: Norway, NATO and the High North