(THIS ARTICLE IS MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)
- I am bottled up to go against the flow, says Finn Gustavsen, former parliamentary representative for eight years, journalist, editor of Orientering and New Time, author of a number of political books, and 75th anniversary yesterday.
A bypass operation last year and a long-term pulmonary emphysema mean that health is not the best. Nevertheless, Finn Gustavsen tries to participate as much as he can politically. On Thursday a week ago, he was at the nomination meeting in Oslo SV – voted for Oddrun Remvik, but is happy with the election of Heikki Holmås – and since the SV national meeting two years ago, he has attended several of the meetings in the SV network against right-wing turn .
- I am not one of the most stubborn on the left wing of SV when it comes to a political collaboration with the Labor Party. But I am afraid of the constant fuss about winning positions – and that one believes that positions are synonymous with gaining influence, says Finn Gustavsen.
- Shock
What really got the 75 jubilee responding, which led to his involvement in the network, occurred almost two and a half years ago. One evening in October 1998, the majority of the SV's parliamentary group decided to open for NATO bombing of Serbia and Montenegro.
- I was shocked when the majority in SV's parliamentary group joined the war, says Finn.
- You say you were shocked, but were you surprised?
- Yes, I was probably aware of where I had Erik Solheim, but that he got the majority with him – it was the shock. SV should take a summary in light of what has happened since, and look critically at the case.
- What do you think is the reason why the majority said yes to bombing?
- I can not explain it. I'm dumb. But SV has for many years neglected foreign policy, security policy and the third world. The party's policy in these areas has not been followed wholeheartedly. One thinks it is a little too important to get in position in Norwegian politics.
3. way
- The vile not cooperation on the left – at least not with an SV that stands for what SV should stand for. I'm afraid we're just left behind as despised freers, and unable to exert any influence on anything. And Thorbjørn Jagland does not tolerate input from the left. He rather describes his friendship with Blair and Schrøder, and their talk of a “3. road". They have stolen SV's basic principle of a third alternative, and made it an alternative between raw vulgar capitalism and perspectiveless social democracy, says Finn.
For most of the years Finn Gustavsen has been politically active, it was the struggle between the two superpowers that dominated the world. Between this icy Cold War balance, Finn was one of those who kept an open mind. First, with Orientering, later with SF and SV. Today, one superpower is gone. There remains a superpower alone, unchallenged.
Historian Hans Fredrik Dahl writes in Norwegian History of Ideas, Volume V that “seen over time, it was striking how the US criticism in [Orientering] as a whole dominated ”, and thus means to establish that Orienteringthe circuit was more anti-American than an 3. point of view should indicate. Now, it should be mentioned that the same Dahl writes something different How free a country? Censorship and compulsion in Norway in the 20. century which came out a few months earlier. It pays homage to the critical perspective that both "broke (…) with the superpowers the United States and the Soviet Union" and with "the DNA policy of the DNA government".
Anti-Americanism
- Now the pace and direction is stronger than ever. – I still admit my anti-Americanism.
- I think it's sad that the world should be dominated by such politicians – the US has got another president who does not… – Finn draws on it, because what should one really say about a man George W. Bush, who has supposedly been outside the US borders twice in his life, once on vacation. Who is the American champion in executions and who starts the presidency by bombing a country he apparently has no idea where he is going, but which he has experienced that presidents must bomb on a regular basis in order not to appear weak… – The United States has got a president who does not seem very greedy, to put it nicely, says Finn, and adds:
- When we also see the incredible way he was chosen. It stinks. In other words, the United States has not come to democratization anymore. A turnout of 40 percent, it's like a developing country. And at the same time, the United States' economic system is gripping: Poor countries are dictated to a specific economic policy that makes the poor poorer. Tanzania is now introducing tuition fees. It is far from the ideals that Julius Nyerere stood for.
In NATO's errand
- He was hesitant in his quest to show loyalty to the US and the EU. But the worst thing about Knut Vollebæk was that he was to lead the OSCE, but instead NATO's errand went. He handed over Kosovo responsibility to William Walker, a foreign policy bandit, says Finn.
William Walker was the OSCE observers' leader in Kosovo. It was he who quickly concluded that the bodies found in Racak in January 1999 were victims of a Serbian massacre, a prelude to the bombing war. Since then, Finnish forensics have raised doubts about whether a massacre had taken place.
- The OSCE's task was to facilitate NATO's program; A military intervention, says Finn Gustavsen.
Suggested Fritz
What prompted a majority of the SV's parliamentary group to end the bombing, as he said, does not know what to say. But moving in dangerous terrain if you place decisive emphasis on what politicians from other parties want to say about one's views is clear.
- That attitude can be read in Erik Solheim's latest book, that it is important to be something in the leading circles. I am one of those who want to replace Erik in the Storting, says Finn, and says that a new foreign policy representation has been the most important thing for him in connection with the SV network. – Then it was doubly sad that Fritz Nilsen died. Yes, it was I who suggested him as a replacement for Erik, Finn Gustavsen confides in us.
He resigned after two terms in the Storting (1961-1969) – and based the rotation principle on it.
- Should have been set in '69
- Yes, I had my ideas about rotation and replacement. But those ideas turned out to be too good for this world, because all politicians are working to get as many terms in the Storting as possible, even if they receive a full Storting pension after 12 years. But that is one of the few things I regret – I should not have withdrawn in '69, nor in 1977, says Finn.
The Storting election in 1969 ended up as known as SF falling completely out of the Storting, after Finn and recently deceased Asbjørn Holm had driven eight years of left opposition, partly in the tilting position. The parliamentary election 1977 was also a downturn, as SV's parliamentary group was reduced from 16 to two mandates. Stein Ørnhøi from Oslo and, after finding an envelope with ballot papers in a drawer, Hanna Kvanmo from Nordland.
- My view was that one should leave politics for a few years, and then rather come back.
