(THIS ARTICLE IS MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)
Helge Lurås. What is Norway threatening now? Security policy self-deception after the Cold War. The chapel, 2015
Johan Galtung has stated that a characteristic of Norwegian foreign policy thinking is to identify the bad and the good, and then devote all his attention to condemning the bad and supporting the good. This has probably seldom been more noticeable than in the Norwegian discourse that had prevailed vis-à-vis Russia in the last couple of years, and in such a climate of discussion it sometimes appears as a purely intellectual pleasure to read Helge Lurås' cool and analytical approach to Norway's security policy challenges.
Realism vs. Idealism. Lurås uses some space in the book to discuss the differences between a realistic and idealistic approach to security policy. While the "realistic" school of international politics considers that the behavior of all states is primarily about promoting their own security and influence, the "idealists" believe that the western states want and should lead to democratize the rest of the world. The author clearly places himself in the realistic tradition, emphasizing that idealists' attempts at regime change in other countries often lead to state collapse, anarchy and terror, while ignoring serious security policy challenges in their own country due to a naive development optimism.
Lurås discusses the relationship between idealistic convictions and realpolitik interests with regard to the Norwegian debate that led to the bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999. He believes that the humanitarian justifications used "were obviously not a completely sincere expression of the considerations underlying [… ] Nevertheless, the posts and debates are not necessarily false and dishonest. The politicians in the Storting simply simplified the issue / reality and managed in a remarkably effective way to convince themselves that the simplification var reality. " However, Lurås falls down on the fact that idealistic utopias, not strategic interests, have been the decisive motive for US interventions.
The author further believes that idealistic politicians often tend to confuse what is a possible and / or probable future with what is desirable, and to replace descriptive analyzes of countries 'interests with naive assumptions based on countries' relations to parliamentary democracy and liberal human rights. As a universal model, he believes the system entails weaknesses, among other things he points out that the state collapse and civil wars in Yugoslavia and Iraq arose on the basis that an authoritarian, multicultural regime was replaced by a parliamentary system where people voted for parties based on ethnic and religious divides. And in the field of human rights, the West has lost much of its credibility due to US kidnappings, secret prisons, surveillance and torture.
United States and Russia. Some of the most important parts of the book are about the relationship between Norway and Russia. Lurås states that Russia has no strategic interests in attacking Norway. The borders between the countries are clear, there is no significant Russian minority here, we are not part of the post-Soviet space where Russia claims the right to influence, and the Russians already have so much oil and gas resources that they have to concentrate on develop and protect these rather than gaining control over several.
Interestingly, Lurås points to NATO membership as the only plausible reason why Norway can be drawn into a conflict with Russia, in that we are drawn into conflicts elsewhere that create contradictions with our neighbor to the east. This is also stated openly in the Intelligence Service's ungraded threat assessment in 2013. Also Norway's actual role in a possible confrontation between the US and Russia – during a possible US nuclear attack on Russia, Norwegian intelligence is intended to assist the Americans in destroying Russian submarines so they can not shoot nuclear missiles back – and the constant description of Russia as a threat, contributes to creating unnecessary suspicion on the part of Russia. Lurås states emphatically that the enemy image of Russia is "dishonest and false", and is primarily maintained to justify military spending and NATO membership.
Lurås believes that Norway on its own is able to maintain a modern navy and air force that will deter a potentially hostile Russia from attacking. But he also sees advantages in staying in NATO – paradoxically because many of our Western European alliance partners are in potential antagonisms with Norway both regarding access to energy and sea areas, and that it may therefore be in Norway's interest to neutralize these antagonisms through a formal alliance .
The only plausible reason why Norway can be drawn into a conflict with Russia, [is] that we are drawn into conflicts elsewhere that create contradictions with our neighbor to the east.
The author argues credibly that the most important reason to participate in wars on the Norwegian side has been to cultivate relations with the United States based on the idea that the Americans will then feel obliged to help Norway during a possible future conflict with Russia. Norway would never have sent troops to Afghanistan if the United States had not requested it, nor will it be left with troops there after the United States decides to withdraw. Norwegian foreign policy decisions are always made with a view to "what they want to say in Washington". At times, this is directly pathetic, as when Prime Minister Stoltenberg blushed when Obama praised him for his military efforts in Libya.
Lurås is not gracious in his assessment of Norway's politicians and media when it comes to NATO's "humanitarian interventions". About Libya, he writes that the war was surrounded by "lies and half-truths", and that the media "let propaganda go for news". The interventions have largely failed, both from the perspective of the local population and the West. The invasion of Iraq and the support of armed insurgents in Syria were directly contributing to the emergence of the Islamic State.
Immigration and climate. Lurås states soberly that Statistics Norway's estimates estimate that 15,6 per cent of Norway's population were immigrants or children of immigrants in 2015, up from 2,5 per cent in 1975. In Statistics Norway's «intermediate alternative» for future population development, immigrants will make up 30 per cent of the population in 2055. Lurås then makes a calculation based on this which shows that if one assumes that there is no assimilation or marriage between Norwegians and immigrants, the descendants of today's ethnic Norwegian population will amount to slightly less than 50 percent by the middle of this century, while around 31 percent will be non-Western. Although one must expect a large degree of assimilation, and taking into account that immigrants come from widely different countries and cultures, Lurås states that such a demographic change represents a "significant political, social, economic and cultural development". He does not claim a multiethnic society mustn't lead to conflict, but warns that can get to do it. Especially if it coincides with three development features Lurås believes are likely: continued war and state collapse in North Africa and the Middle East will lead to an increased flow of refugees and the emergence of jihadist milieus, and climate change that will exceed the two-degree target, which together with increasing resource scarcity will lead to a prolonged economic stagnation and / or decline. Lurås' lack of resources in particular is a neglected question in the Norwegian debate, which he argues convincingly. He points out that 80 per cent of the world's energy consumption is linked to fossil energy sources, and that the reserves of these are not estimated to last longer than 50 and 100 years for oil and coal, respectively, with current consumption. This will – or mustn't – lead to a steady rise in prices and a reduction in consumption, even to a «social, political and economic revolution».
The undersigned can not quit to all the analyzes in the book. But even though many of the answers may be wrong, Lurås' realistic method makes him appear very credible in asking the right ones. the questions. The book is important and well written, and should be read and discussed by many.
Storaker is a librarian and editor of the journal Socialist Future.
aslakstoraker@yahoo.no
