By Kjell Cordtsen
ORIENTERING Nr. 15/16 1972
Minister of Defense Alv Jacob Fostervoll has stated that this happened without the knowledge of the responsible political authorities and he promised to get to the bottom of the matter.
It may have sounded reassuring.
But in the same interview with Dagsrevyen, Fostervoll stated that plans with a view to calming down internal unrest do not exist in Norway.
It suddenly did not sound full so Calming.
How can the Minister of Defense know this before he may have needed to get to the bottom of the matter?
There is in fact quite detailed evidence that such plans exist – and it then becomes a philological question whether they exist in Norway, or whether they are in a given situation can be used in Norway.
It is now almost three and a half years ago Orientering, as the first Norwegian newspaper, brought photostat copies of such plans, designed at the US headquarters in Europe and signed by General JP McConnell and Major General BE Spivy.
The plans were branded "top secret" and contained guidelines for regular intervention in NATO member countries. Norway was at the top of the list of countries where it should intervene in cases of internal unrest – and as internal unrest is obviously considered political strikes and demonstrations.
In the point of the document e) It further stated that the material collected by the intelligence service in the NATO country in question shall be made available to the US forces. This will happen "to the extent required by the US Commander-in-Chief".
The serious and deeply tragic thing is that the Minister of Defense himself and the party he belongs to have
betrayed all its original idea base.
From what has now happened, it is clear that such material will be made available to the United States and NATO even in more normal times. It is not unknown in this country to assign compatriots to a foreign power, but it has never before been regarded as a particularly nationally beneficial activity.
Today, the surveillance police map legal political opposition to the existing foreign and military policy; and we know that the Heads of Monitoring in all NATO countries regularly attend meetings at NATO Headquarters.
From the uproar surrounding the appointment of a new Danish Minister of Defense, we also know that it is part of certain special courses for NATO officers at the Special Warfare School to write a report on political conditions and organizations in the home country.
In Denmark, it was SF that was stated; in norway, there were workers at specially mentioned companies, SUF and FNL groups. But there could just as easily have been other workplaces or groups on the left wing – from the workshop club on Uusimaa to SF, AUF and Unge Venstre. There are tens of thousands of us in the surveillance police archives – and inside an American colonel's hat, we probably all pretend to be communists.
The serious thing is therefore not that certain groupings were named in a specific NATO exercise. The serious and deeply tragic thing is that the Minister of Defense himself and the party he belongs to have betrayed their entire original idea base; – that they hold on to an alliance that is increasingly directed against the socialist and foreign policy opposition in the member states, and whose power apparatus has gradually become a threat to the political sovereignty of these countries.