What does the left side want with the United States?

The Norwegian left side loves to criticize US foreign policy. It is not a demanding exercise. However, the left should rather discuss what it wants with Norway's relationship with the United States. Does it want something? Other than an opposition that does not lead anywhere without close allies in Europe? Is the left side ready for a more cynical relationship with the United States, where we can be responsive to the US if the US is useful for Norwegian national interests? Norway needs one own new line to the United States. That is one of my points in an article in the latest issue of Contemporary.

This is an important question for a party like SV. SV aims to be able to shoulder government power, and has in recent years developed a power strategy in national politics. I'm sure the United States is important to Norway – but under what conditions? Today, it seems that Norwegian foreign policy aims in itself to have a good relationship with the United States. That's not enough. A good relationship with the United States is a means, not an end in itself.

“Norway should become more skilled at defining what the country's national interests are, and talk louder about it. "National interests are a language that is understood in Washington DC," a US State Department official told me in Washington DC. The understanding and protection of Norwegian national interests is weak in Norway. That is the message of the Contemporary.

Two questions

Two questions are central to Norway: What world order does the United States create, and how useful is the United States for safeguarding Norwegian national interests? The US contribution to the world order is likely to constantly make the United States an unfaithful institutionalist and selective multilateralist. The United States does not shy away from unilateral pre-emptive strikes if it is important to national interests. Such a world order is problematic for Norway, but there is not much a small country can do about it. For Norway, therefore, the question is how helpful, troublesome or uninteresting we should be if the United States dares to ask for political support and military assistance.

Bondevik's breach

It was a violation of Norway's traditional assistance to the United States when the Bondevik government chose not to support the United States war on Iraq. It was a historic weakening of Norwegian Atlanticism. Norway's position and the tone of the situation vis-à-vis the United States lay somewhere between Germany and the United Kingdom. The result of this balancing act was that Norway agreed to a strategy that limited the US's legitimacy to remove Saddam Hussein. During the Iraq war, Norwegian foreign policy was turned around. The Progress Party became the foreign political opposition, while the SV, which tends to feel comfortable with the opposition role, became the foreign policy guide dog.

Four possibilities

After Iraq, Norway can choose four quite different lines to the United States. Slavic compliance with a doctrine of being in opposition to the United States or distinct helpfulness will – and should in itself – never dictate Norwegian foreign policy. Norwegian foreign policy must aim to solve problems, and not mark a distinct line vis-à-vis the United States. Nevertheless, there will be clear trends in Norwegian foreign policy towards the United States. The extremes are one helpline or opposition line.

• Savior Norway: opposition line: Norway can turn into one opposition line along with powers such as Germany, France and Russia. The popular support for such a line unites a combination of pacifist currents, anti-colonialism, development aid, international solidarity and a strong belief in the UN and international law as an alternative to the ravages of great powers. Here is a lot of thinking with broad appeal in Norwegian collective small-state consciousness.

If an opposition line is to have anything to do with practical foreign policy, proponents of such a line must formulate a coherent answer to why, how and in which institutions Norway can find together with other countries that also want to balance US influence. It is crucial if an opposition line is to be foreign policy – and not just a kind of exceptional Norwegian mentality ethics.

An active Norwegian opposition line against the US will obviously hurt Norway's relationship with the US. Goodwill achieved through Norwegian understanding of the role of the United States in the world may disappear as a fog for the sun.

• Disciple Norway: the helpline: Help Power Line is based on the United States wanting something with Norway, and that Norway largely wants the same as the United States. The aid line is that "the United States calls, we bring". Norway can choose a line that aims at goodwill and support even if the United States were to continue an unwise unilateralist foreign policy. The political argument for an active aid line is that the United States is the guarantor of democracy and the market economy in a world where disorder and chaos threaten. Norway bears fruit from the fact that the United States maintains order in the world. We should not only selfishly surf on the benefits the United States is creating, but show gratitude and helpfulness.

With marked helpfulness, activists for such a line can hope for special American attention to Norwegian national interests. This will easily make Norway's relations with France and Germany worse – countries that are important for Norwegian economic interests, whether it is fish, gas or oil.

• Hand hanger Norway: lie-low-line: Deck-low line is today's Norwegian policy towards the United States on war and peace issues. Norway adjusts the map as the United States changes the landscape and presents it as Norway's independent standpoint afterwards. It is natural for a small country with minimal influence that cannot shape the landscape. There is little reason to stick your head out if it only causes it to be cut off in Washington DC. It is smarter for Norway to present itself as useless than impossible and difficult for the United States. A major problem with recumbent bottom line is that it creates a consistently poor understanding of what Norwegian national self-interests are and how they are safeguarded vis-à-vis the United States.
• Entrepreneur Norway: self-utilization line: Last, but not least, Norway can tap into a distinct one own new line where the gain of helpfulness to the United States is measured against the United States' ability and willingness to help Norway take care of our national interests. A self-interest line must – as recumbent bottom line – balance the UN, Atlantic and continental traditions in Norwegian foreign policy. However, the self-interest line raises a new question: How can Norway benefit more from having a close relationship with the United States? It is necessary to identify special self-interests that Norway can safeguard best using a good relationship with the United States.

En opposition line against the United States does not win because the forces that shape Norwegian politics will not the same as much of the public opinion against the Iraq war. An active Using power line will not "fly" politically. One recumbent bottom line can, but should not, rely on old autopilot. One own new line The United States has no clear fighters today. Such a line will certainly meet resistance from parts of the left. For the left, a good relationship with the United States must never get in the way of opposition. A clear and new self-efficacy line requires marked political leadership. Only strong personalities from the pragmatic foreign policy elite in the A and the Right can seize the challenge. The left-wing or right-wing US friends have neither political motives nor sufficient experience to create a own new line. Governors SWers who are tired of arguing internally about NATO can be motivated, but not until they might even get experience in sitting in government become champions of a own new line. The foreign policy elite must clarify the conditions under which Norway should have a good relationship with the United States

The logic

The Contemporary article shows that the logic behind Norway's relationship with the United States is clear: If the United States is useful and helpful to Norwegian national self-interests Norwegian foreign policy should in principle be supportive of the United States – or be low if the United States' foreign policy is unwise. If, on the other hand, the USA does not provide assistance to Norwegian interests, the USA is not very useful to Norway. Then there should be no automaticity in supporting or lying low to the United States.