Corruption. It should no longer come as any surprise that Norwegian state-owned companies engage in corruption.
We again proved this on Tuesday 25. February, when it became known that Økokrim has prosecuted the Kongsberg Group for corruption in connection with deliveries of equipment to Romania throughout the period 1999-2008. The value of the total agreements with Romania is close to 1,5 billion. This happened on the same day that the weapons report was processed at the Storting.
(THIS ARTICLE IS MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)
It is not more than a couple of weeks ago that another central government company admitted corruption, namely Yara. This is the case for the Kongsberg Group, which supplies high-tech equipment to the oil and gas industry, the merchant fleet, defense and aerospace. In 2013, the Group had a turnover of 16,3 billion, has operations in 25 countries and has more than 7500 employees.
Kongsberg Defense Systems, which entered into the agreements in Romania for which the company is now charged, had a turnover of 2012 billion in 4,6. The company is charged with three provisions on corruption in the Criminal Code, namely section 276 a and b, as well as section 48 a, informs Aftenposten.
The state is the largest shareholder in the Kongsberg group, with 50 percent, while the state Folketrygdfondet is the third largest owner with 6,4 percent. This means that, in practice, Monica Mæland (H), the Minister of Trade, is the company's general meeting. The new corruption charges thus affect not only the Kongsberg group, but also the government and the Norwegian state. The credibility of the Norwegian state is significantly weakened when you see again and again such corruption cases, which have now affected both Statoil, Yara and the Kongsberg group.
It is no coincidence that these cases are coming now. It has been the pressure of the last decade to increase resource extraction abroad, and thus to cooperate with more or less corrupt regimes, which have provided the basis for the corruption mentality.
A more fundamental question is whether the Norwegian state should be involved in arms production and arms sales. And an obvious answer here should be no. At least if you have an ethical goal with the democratic state you have after all here in the country.
There are also ethical disadvantages of privatizing the state arms factories. But private arms exports can be regulated by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which the companies must report to when exporting. The corruption cases can be a new opportunity for the Norwegian state to get rid of some of the most deadly and immoral about our social system.
As it is today, Norwegian citizens' tax money goes to billion investments in brutal weapons systems, such as the Penguin missiles. And again, Norwegians also receive child benefit and pension, financed by the huge proceeds from arms sales to the United States and other warring countries.
It's time to start the difficult debate. How long should we stick with state arms manufacturers that help kill children in war zones?
DH