Theater of Cruelty

Is SV running out of its responsibility in the embassy case?





(THIS ARTICLE IS MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)

City Council Member for SV, Vedis Vik, pretends (New Time 14.10) to answer my challenge (7.10). But she deftly circumvents to do just that. Is she ribbed for good arguments? The challenge is that her and other SV representatives' position in practice means that the party puts the protection of a free area above the protection of human life. She skips over the fact that the city council is actually facing a choice of values, and that it is its heavy responsibility to prioritize important values ​​over less important values. As the case stands, it is not possible to get both in a bag and a sack.

The city council has no alternative proposals to plots than Husebytomta, despite the individual trying to get the public to believe. Vik acknowledges this; She writes that if the city council says no to the Huseby alternative "the work to find alternative locations will have to continue". And yet Vik and other politicians seem to believe in opportunities that do not exist. They try to convince the public to believe the same. But the truth is concrete, as Hegel said. The truth is that there are only two options left after more than 30 site options have been explored since the process of finding a new site started 7 years ago. All the politicians of course say that the embassy must be moved from Drammensveien, but some of them at the same time underline the consequences of a no to Huseby. The criteria for site selection were set by law by the US Congress 20 years ago. The criteria must be met before Congress appropriates money for a new embassy building. If the Huseby alternative is blocked, the embassy loses its funding, and the embassy remains in Drammensveien. The city council can only do one of two:

1) to allow the embassy to be built on a plot of land purchased at Huseby, which in total obviously provides greater security for the Oslo population as a whole, or

2) to leave the embassy in Drammensveien for the foreseeable future, in practice for many years, which in total gives Oslo's population as a whole, much worse security, cf. statements from competent expert teams and from the police security service. The threat assessment on Huseby and Drammensveien is not at all comparable, so does SV.

In other words, there will be no in the city council now with the help of SV representatives, the time is extended with the terror threat hanging over many people. Even more people than today will be exposed to the terror threat that is constantly hanging over the location in Drammensveien. A no now will mean less security for many more people for years. If representatives of the SV (and other parties) are willing to expose the population to this high risk, it is a hair-raising cynical ostrich policy.

A no for Huseby will mean that the population of Oslo will be left with black money. The disclaimer will put the lives and health of thousands of residents, schoolchildren and road users at risk. To reduce the case solely to a question of regulation of a free area (10% of this), or to criticism of the alleged lack of willingness to compromise on the part of the United States, is dangerously naive. The references to The Hague and Bern, is a derailment, something APS faction leader in Rina Brunsell Harsvik has understood: "We believe that it is difficult to compare the area situation in The Hague and Oslo, and that the transfer value is not so great", she told Aftenposten Aften 29.10 as a reason why she did not go on a study trip to The Hague.

The US has not made any special demands on the Norwegian authorities; the congressional security criteria apply to all embassies in all countries. While the criteria are the same everywhere, the area situation and the threat assessment differ from country to country. The comparison with The Hague and Bern is not fruitful. I think SV basically understands that.

If the city council in November refuses to move to Huseby, it means we all lose. If the city council says yes, we lose something (10% of a free area) and win the most important thing, the safety of thousands of people. At the same time, the people's elected citizens gain confidence. Elected people who do not enjoy voter confidence do not have the power to make a difference. Surely this is also a consideration SV must take?

Parents, students, residents and other locals in the area around Drammensveien, will be hosting October 25 at. 18.30 pm a large meeting at Oslo Trade Gym. We invite all parties in the city council of Oslo to answer our questions. Akhtar Chaudry, Vedis Vik and other SV city councilors are most welcome!

Jan Borgen, on behalf of parents of students at Ruseløkka school

You may also like