(THIS ARTICLE IS MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)
ORIENTERING 1970: Is it true that Norway has said no to nuclear weapons? Take this statement up in a round of questioning with people around, and you will get a massive yes answer. For many long years, the NATO press and NATO members of parliament have painstakingly printed this notion that Norway has gone against nuclear weapons on Norwegian soil.
Only through the Campaign against the work of the Nuclear Weapons and the efforts that a number of individuals have made in articles, lectures and books has it been possible to uncover the myth of Norway's nuclear policy.
For what would ordinary people believe when the country's prime minister, Einar Gerhardsen, from the Storting's rostrum could say: "The government's position is clear. It opposes nuclear weapons in the Norwegian defense. The position taken by the Labor Party's parliamentary group on the issue is also clear. It goes unanimously against nuclear weapons. The position at the Labor Party's national meeting is just as clear. The National Assembly was unanimous against nuclear weapons. "
The truth about the great wording is revealed to anyone who wants to look. In wordy parliamentary speeches and newspaper articles, one can dig out what Norway's "permanent special scheme" in this field is really about. Kari Enholm, who has previously published the book Norway – a NATO base, has recently written a small book on PAX entitled Never again Hiroshima? – The game about Norwegian nuclear policy. In quotes from Storting debates and clips from leaders and newspaper articles, she has put together "a game in which the actors of the political arena perform their roles in a way that must awaken anyone and everyone to an understanding of the fateful course that Norwegian nuclear policy sets".
What is e.g. more deadly for Einar Gerhardsen's deliberate distortion than the statements from the Military Committee's – yes, that was the name at the time – chairman, Henrik Svensen (H):
"It is the Government's position – and I think it is important to maintain that – that if we were to be attacked, nuclear weapons could be used in the defense of our country, both by Allied forces coming to our aid, and by own departments.
… Another position would then also not be compatible with our membership in NATO.
… The question is not whether we should use nuclear weapons in the defense of our country. The only question is whether we should already today store nuclear explosive charges on Norwegian territory, which we expect to be able to use if we were to be exposed to attacks. "
Even clearer is perhaps Oddmund Hoel (V), a member of the Military Committee:
"This is not to be misunderstood. It is assumed, says the Government, that Norwegian units, in Norwegian territory, may use nuclear weapons in war – with the Government's consent. It is important to note this. " And it is important to state that the Government has not said no "to nuclear weapons on Norwegian soil in wartime, on the contrary".
In other words, there is a big gap between the fact that Norway should have said no to nuclear weapons and Norway's reservation that nuclear weapons must not be stationed in our country in peacetime. However, this completely insignificant admission has been used in all years to throw people's eyes in the eye.
But as Kari Enholm asks in her preface: «The attitude of the nuclear age to nuclear weapons is not just a question of location or storage, is it? Far more significant is the question of fitting in. – ie the ability, willingness, possibility and obligation to use these weapons if necessary. "
Through military installations, through training and exercises in the use of nuclear weapons and through decisions in NATO bodies and the Storting on the guidelines for the Armed Forces, the foundation has been laid for our country to be involved in and exposed to nuclear war.
Kari Enholm has previously documented this with convincing weight – both in Norway – a NATO base and in articles here in Orientering. This time, she has managed to bring a new impetus to the presentation, and the reader is filled with a deep distrust of NATO politicians and NATO newspapers. Their complete distortions, veils and complete and half-untruths are undressed.
Kari Enholm has a clear understanding that the opposing forces are strong, and that it must be stated time and time again what is deception and bluff and what is actual and right. For as she writes: "If the people are to be able to take a stand on an issue of such significant importance – politically, militarily and above all: morally – then a correspondence must be required between program formulations, interpretations and the policy that is actually pursued. In addition, the duty to provide information must indicate that the people receive truthful information in a way that can be understood and at the time they are needed.
These are elementary democratic rights, but how are they practiced in today's Norway? "
The campaign Against Nuclear Weapons in its time made three demands. These are still not met.
1) Nuclear weapons must never be stationed on Norwegian territory, and must be based on the plans for the defense of Norway.
2) The Norwegian government must actively contribute to nuclear disarmament and advocate a ban on all forms of production, testing, storage, proliferation and use of nuclear weapons.
3) The population must at all times receive truthful and detailed information about what a nuclear war will entail and about the dangers of test explosions and continued nuclear armaments.
Karl Enholm: Never again Hiroshima? The game about Norwegian nuclear policy. PAX 1970, 70 BC. 10.
