(THIS ARTICLE IS MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)
"Norway still has the benefit of winning a war we are participating in," said Lieutenant Colonel and researcher Tormod Heier to Vårt Land on 25 May. With that, he described a disturbing feature of modern Norwegian military history. We participate in international coalitions in foreign territory, often without clear objectives other than assisting allies. Despite growing recognition of this problem, the Solberg government recently announced that Norway is joining the US-led coalition fighting ISIS in Syria. Norway already has a presence in Iraq. We will now send about 60 Norwegian soldiers to train Syrian rebel forces. The force initially has training in Jordan as its main mission, but on 22 June also received the green light from the Storting's expanded defense and security committee to operate on Syrian territory.
The question we should have asked ourselves is how Norway can best contribute to external conflicts. To do this, we must learn from our mistakes before embarking on new military adventures. On the initiative of the Left, the Storting in 2013 approved a review of Norway's efforts in Afghanistan. The Afghanistan Report is the first of its kind, and definitely a step in the right direction: It is a golden opportunity to get clean of what we did wrong and what measures actually worked. But even before the report is on the table, we are now entering foreign territory again, choosing sides in yet another civil war.
Conflict. The civil war in Syria is a patchwork of different goals and motivations, with dozens of groups with both religious and secular platforms fighting against the Assad regime. At the same time, the alliances between the rebel groups are changing. It is an uncontrollable war in which power relations change and dominance is established and undermined. ISIS has become an important player in this very complex situation. They have taken advantage of the chaos the civil war has created, and are now controlling areas that extend from Iraq and into Syria.
Norway is expanding its contribution under the leadership of the Americans in what they call "Operation Inherent Resolve". It will largely be the Americans who point out which groups of Norwegian soldiers should provide training and operational support. Given that Syrian forces previously trained and equipped by Americans have switched to ISIS, and that Kurdish forces that Norway has trained in northern Iraq have performed ethnic cleansing of Arab communities, it is not without reason that many are skeptical of an increased Norwegian military presence in the region.
Syria is not just a bloody battleground between the regime, dozens of rebel groups and ISIS. At the same time, the country is an arena for the geopolitical deputy war of local and global powers. Iran and Russia have directly supported Assad's regime, and are partly fighting ISIS. In the fight against Assad's regime, we find countries like Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey. France and the United States in particular are fighting ISIS by supporting various groups on the ground, by using special soldiers and by air strikes. These countries do not support Assad, but focus their efforts fully on destroying ISIS. But the war is not just about fighting ISIS or Assad. We are now seeing a potential reconstruction of both the national borders and the power dynamics of the region. All parties have strong self-interests in influencing the future of the Middle East.
Past experiences. In recent decades, Norway has gained a great deal of experience with the presence of conflicts outside the borders. In fact, we have shared second place in world war intervention. From 1990 – 2015 we participated in eight conflicts. Only France and Britain were involved in more wars than us during this period. We share the dubious honor of holding second place with Denmark, the USA and the Netherlands.
Norway has made considerable efforts in Afghanistan over several years, with attempts at civil society and direct warfare. We also participated as one of the most dedicated countries in the Gaddafi bombing campaign at the end of the Libyan civil war.
But the results of Norwegian and Western warfare are waiting. Despite what may at best be interpreted as good intentions, our presence has failed to build a better Afghanistan. Norwegian forces were based in Meymaneh, Faryab province, an area that was among the most peaceful in Afghanistan. Now the situation has changed drastically, with a constantly deteriorating security situation. What the good Norwegian forces may have done there is not easy to spot. We see the same thing in Libya, which is increasingly a row-broken and divided country, where three governments are fighting for power and thousands of ISIS soldiers reside in Gaddafi's birthplace of Sirtre.
We're going to make the situation worse.
Have confronted the defense minister. The parliamentary politicians who voted for Norway to send troops to Jordan may think it is better to do something than nothing. But is there really a good enough argument for participating in a conflict that is so complicated, and so full of changing alliances and big political ambitions? There is reason to point out that the burden of proof lies with those who want to enter into a conflict – not with us who fear the consequences of yet another war. The Norwegian Peace Council has sent a letter to Defense Minister Ine Marie Eriksen Søreide. There, among other things, we asked who we should train, and how the Norwegian authorities should ensure that the rebels who are trained do not commit international law violations. We have asked what the content of the training should be, and we have asked how the increased Norwegian military contribution will affect the humanitarian efforts we will make in the area – an effort founded on humanitarian principles of impartiality and neutrality. So far the answers are missing.
When our goals are vague and it is unclear who Norway will cooperate with, the chances are that we will exacerbate the situation rather than contribute to lasting stability. The only objective that is clearly articulated is that we want to fight ISIS – but what will our role be when this is done? How should we prevent other extremist Islamist groups, such as the Al Qaeda branch of the Nusra Front, from filling the vacuum after ISIS? Should we remain in an ongoing civil war for several years?
Norway is not a peace nation as of today. Norway is a war nation. We should reorient ourselves in terms of how we want to act in the world. Civilian efforts and support for peace initiatives through the UN should be the first priority. We must facilitate Norwegian aid organizations so that they can do their job best. Norway should withdraw its overbearing, clenched fist, and rather open its hands and provide massive civilian assistance and humanitarian support. It will probably benefit both us and the world!
Langemyr is the leader of the Norwegian Peace Council and Bjerke is information adviser in the Norwegian Peace Council. hedda@norgesfredsrad.no and aksel@norgesfredsrad.no
