(THIS ARTICLE IS MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)
The "Norway out of NATO" campaign recently released a statement stating that NATO membership gives grounds for military refusal. This is justified by both our participation in the military alliance's nuclear weapons strategy and the "ever stronger cooperation with fascist and authoritarian states, which with NATO support fights liberation movements and expands their oppression and exploitation of other peoples. As a NATO member, we are co-responsible in this criminal activity.
The worksheet reproduces most of the opinion, but deftly removes a small section where it is shown how Norway prepares for the use of nuclear weapons. "Our base and nuclear policy is firm," the Arbeiderbladet always states, and information that combat group commanders and other operative key personnel are trained and trained in (simulated) use of nuclear weapons is therefore not suitable for publication. There should be calm about these questions, and what else should a NATO editorial staff use?
The newspaper has removed approx. 2 / 3 of the statement, and therefore does not bring a single word on the nuclear weapons issue. The Left has reaffirmed the program that nuclear weapons should not be stationed on Norwegian soil, and a discussion of the whole base concept does not fit here in the picture either.
Aftenposten has selected 4 out of 50 lines and uses an entire editorial to attack the statement. The campaign management has expressed a desire for a more complete rendition, but the beautiful words about the press's responsibilities and obligations have never been intended as anything other than anniversary swearing.
The main part of our press states that political refusers cannot have any "serious conviction" as it is situational. Serious beliefs then resemble a moral experience that exists independently of the environment and politics. Those sitting in newspaper editorials and courtrooms only see the world from the white upper class, and cannot understand that young people's beliefs are created by horrific facts about oppression and by knowledge of our allies' fight against liberation movements in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Our NATO politicians who give laws, administer in the ministries and judges have a completely different worldview. The judiciary is a service body for the Minister of Justice, and proceedings and questions in the litigation are a consequence of the Cold War's indoctrination. The obedient servants of the judiciary do not understand that Vietnam, Mozambique and Guatemala have anything to do with the good Norway. They never read any trade statistics, or bulletins from the liberation movements. They do not know NATO's nuclear weapons strategy, and do not understand that the alliance is fighting all the ideals that radical and socialist youth stand for today. They have only read the Aftenposten, and when they do not know how serious the situation is, they also cannot understand that military refusal must be situational. It is their own political poverty and their idyllic upper-class world that the old men in the judiciary pass their judgment on these days.
It has become commonplace to talk about extra-parliamentary work, and military denial – whether it is called moral or political – is today the most important area of struggle. Political standpoints are not something we can adorn in electoral discussions, but must permeate our entire way of relating to society. It is often difficult to decide where to draw the boundary, but the NATO defense represents a sector of society that can only meet with total opposition.
The bourgeois newspapers, criminals and rectors speak of the hysteria of violence among young radicals. Political denial is a civil disobedience campaign, a non-violent campaign. Those who practice violence are the ones who enter as pieces in the most brutal system of world history. All discussion of morality and violence must be based on Norway actively participating in an alliance where our partners wage war for the sake of economic gain. It is not political deniers who despise "democratic ideals and the judicial community", but those who spread democratic ideals with napalm bombs and throw military deniers into prison in the name of the judicial community. Political denial is therefore a proper confrontation with our political and legal authorities. This means that SF must use the election campaign to support this campaign. In this way, it is demonstrated that parliamentary and extra-parliamentary methods can complement each other
