Norvegijos politikų požiūris į santykius su Rusija po Krymo įvykių: diskurso analizė

• Main Author: Kazlauskaitė, Brigita
• Other Authors: Gudžinskas, Liutauras
• Format: Bachelor Thesis
• Language: Lithuanian; English
• Published: Institutional Repository of Vilnius University 2018
• Subjects: Arctic; Norway
• Online Access: https://repository.vu.lt/VU:ELABAETD35449471&prefLang=en_US

This study examines Norwegian parlamentary debates about further foreign policy and cooperation with Russia after its aggression in Ukraine in 2014. The main focus is put on two main parties - leading party Høyre and oppositional party Arbeiderpartiet. The period of debates is 2015-2017 in order to see internal discussions about further policy implementation and official position towards aggresive neighbour country, not the primary reactions to the violation of international law which were seen in 2014. The main problem of the thesis is two conflicting identities of Norwegian foreign policy. The definition of these identities is borrowed from Andrea Sofie Nilssen research which revealed two parlamentary discourses – Western and Norden or Neighbouring discourse. First one is related to the Western tradition and is described by liberal democracy values, respect for international law and human rights, solidarity and cooperation with allies. Other is related to long and peaceful cooperation with Russia in Arctic and Nordic region which should be cultivated in order to ensure further development, prosperity and security. These two identities are able to coexist in peaceful international environment, but the problem occurs when Russia, as a very important neighbour to Norway, decides to run against the international law and values of liberal democracy. Respectively this dilemma appeared in 2014 during Russia’s invasion to Ukraine. The aim of the thesis is to analyze how these two identities are tried to protect by two different parties and the way to the compromise, also official position of the country. The Bachelor thesis consists of three parts. The first represents Constructivism as the most appropriate theory for identities and dialogue research. The second part analyses discourse analysis as a methodological tool for language investigations. In this part the main theoretical assumptions are discussed and the social constructivism theory for discourse analysis is chosen for empirical research. The third part presents discourse analysis in practice. By analysing parliamentary debates, there were five sections discussed: 1) Relevance; 2) Relations with Russia; 3) Relations with Western countries; 4) National interests; 5) Perception of the world order. These five parts reveals that Arbeiderpartiet tends to protect Norden/ Neighbouring identity and claims relations with Russia as the most important foreign policy subject for its long and peaceful cooperation in the North. Meanwhile Høyre expresses the will to stand with NATO and European countries in every challenge and tries to protect Western identity. Russia for Høyre party is as inevitable neighbourhood, which requires attention and cooperation just because of common boundaries and folk-to-folk cooperation in North. Høyre refuses to be manipulated by longlasting cooperation in Arctic and Nordic region with Russia and considers Norways as a significant part of Western allies, while Arbeiderpartiet sees Norway as an independent actor in international arena which should take responsibility for security and prosperity to its own hands. Linguistic research method gave a chance to see how these two positions are constructed towards compromise. The significant distinctions emerge in considerations about national interests and perception of the world order, the main agreement is found in considerations about security and welfare of people in the North. Here “we” constructions are noticed, nevertheless political parties arguments are reconstructed with respect to opposing opinion. The study shows that two identities still exist despite of international shocks, however the official position of the country and further foreign policy highly depend on leading party position. Though there should not be judgement for any party, as political debates achieve that both positions are kept important, but the difference occurs in prioritization.