(THIS ARTICLE IS MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)
Coauthor: Kari-Anne Ness
The submission to the Defense Budget assumes that "It could be a goal for Russia to have control over sea and land in the Norwegian immediate area in a situation… with increased tension between Russia and NATO in Europe", that "Russia has long to prevent further NATO enlargement, the establishment of bases and the deployment of military capabilities near the Russian border ", and that Russian leaders in particular express a lack of confidence in Western countries' intentions regarding NATO's role in the Baltics, Eastern Europe and the Western Balkans .
When this is the case, how can the government at the same time believe that it is a wise policy to undermine the Norwegian base policy by increasing the permanent presence of American soldiers in Norway up to up to 700 soldiers, expand their base area from Trøndelag to include Troms, and to open to deploy American fighter jets on Rygge? Will this not, rather than ensure Norway's security, contribute to increased tensions between NATO and Russia in Europe, and thus increase the risk that Russia sees it as a goal to gain control of Norwegian sea and land areas? And does this not also apply to the plans to continue Norwegian participation in missile defense, the NATO forces in Lithuania, and the "rotation of deployed countries, navies and air forces" in the eastern NATO countries?
In the same context, the peace team asks the government to explain what Norway's "capacity building" Norway will involve in Georgia, Ukraine, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia, and how this may affect the level of tension in Europe. We also ask that we explain what the plans for "capacity building" in Jordan and the Sahel specifically entail.
weapons Exports
If we move outside Europe, the draft budget rightly states that "The complex conflicts in the Middle East and North Africa have led to political and humanitarian crises, ethnic and religious clashes, power vacuum, extremism and terrorism" particularly critical in Syria, Yemen, Iraq and Libya ». It is also stated that this is connected with geopolitical rivalries and local conflicts of great power. When this is the case, why then does Norway continue to export weapons to Turkey, which is at war in Syria, and Saudi Arabia, the Emirates and Kuwait, which is at war in Yemen? These countries imported Norwegian weapons for around NOK 8, 2, 42 and 68 million, respectively, in 2017, according to Statistics Norway. Does not this give Norway a moral co-responsibility for the suffering inflicted on the people of Syria and Yemen? Why do these countries' warfare not meet with an effective arms blockade?
Finally, we will question the long-term planning of Norway's military operations abroad. The draft defense budget states that Norway plans to continue its contribution to military operations in Afghanistan, Mali and Iraq. Norway has been militarily present in Afghanistan since 2001 without any indication that the military presence has brought us closer to a solution to the conflict. In Mali and Iraq, Norway has been militarily present since 2013 and 2015. The peace team will challenge the government to present an exit strategy for these three operations. How long are we going to be military there, exactly what goals must be achieved before we can retire, and what kind of timetable does the government use for the operations?
