(THIS ARTICLE IS MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)
This month, an important contribution was made to the Norwegian security policy debate. In the book Security Policy Choices – Fate Partnership with the US and NATO? Aslak Storaker and Progressivt Forlag have gathered a number of critical views on the Norwegian consensus. Of the fourteen contributors in the book, seven are well-known voices from the peace movement. In addition, the book contains contributions from the professional military, academia and the trade union movement. All the writers support sub-communicated views on decisive road choices in Norwegian security policy. The contributions are free-thinking, and the analyzes are alternative to those debated in the Storting. The release is thus seen as a fresh and necessary breath into the eternal consensus-seeking security policy shift.
The capstone. As the book's subtitle points out, it is the Norwegian road choices against the US and NATO that are at the center. It should also just be missing. One does not escape NATO in Norwegian security policy discourse. Both the government and a unanimous parliament emphasize this regularly. For example, this year's defense budget states that "NATO remains the cornerstone of Norwegian security policy". Unfortunately, many years have passed since someone in the Storting made comments against this particular wording.
As staying with the United States becomes a major goal in security policy, the flattering of our closest military allies also becomes an indicator of whether our war policy is successful. The Godal Committee's NOU 2016: 8, which was launched last week, highlights this. The desire to be militarily relevant to our big brother in the west was Norway's main driving force into the Afghan war. When the Godal Committee now summarizes what was successful with the Norwegian war effort, Norwegian alliance policy is also highlighted. After all, most of it had to do with other things than to appease the United States and NATO, we failed in this war. Similarly, Norwegian war policy in Libya, Iraq and Syria cannot be explained independently of our relationship with the United States and NATO.
We must talk about the EU. The decisions that determine Norwegian war policy are rarely made only in Oslo. As Johan Galtung points out, one often has to go to Washington and Brussels to spot the actual Norwegian security policy. Here is also a challenge for this anthology: Norwegian security policy choices are not only defined from Washington. The analysis of Norwegian security policy should also address Norwegian security policy within the framework of the EU. Norway cooperates closely with the EU in terms of military policy, and even though the EU is on the defensive during the day, the union is developing a new offensive military policy at breakneck speed. Over the past decade, Norway has contributed militarily to the EU battle groups, militarily and politically to the EU Defense Agency, and is very closely linked to the EU's arms export policy. Unfortunately, this reality is not described in Security policy choices. It's a shame. Although Jacob Børresen is right in his remark that the EU cannot offer Norway the same degree of military support as an alliance with the United States, Norwegian military policy cooperation within the EU framework also deserves its place in the security policy analysis.
At the same time as the EU is developing militarily, the union also has a significant civilian commitment to crisis management. During the EU summit 28-29. June, a new defense strategy for the EU is presented, with a global focus. Here, too, the development of civilian capabilities in security policy is relevant to Norway. When the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Federica Mogherini recently visited Oslo, our own Foreign Minister emphasized that the EU is "the most unique peace project of our time". Unfortunately, this is a highly debatable claim, which few Norwegians seem to be debating right now.
Norwegian security policy choices are not only defined from Washington.
The EU has already launched a large number of military operations with Norwegian participation since 2010. The following year, the EU established its own foreign service and a separate operations center to coordinate the EU's foreign operations. Today, 17 international operations are underway under the auspices of the EU, of which seven are military. Through the European Defense Agency (EDA), the EU works to consolidate and harmonize the demand for munitions. Norway's co-operation agreement with EDA gives Norway access to participate in the agency's programs, projects and other initiatives. Through steadily increasing participation in the agency's projects, Norway has become an important partner for EDA. Norway is an active participant in the agency's work to strengthen the European defense industry and open up the European market for munitions. Norway is also involved in initiatives to develop, strengthen and streamline European capabilities in maritime surveillance, air transport and air refueling. Norway is also one of the largest contributors to research and technology programs in the EDA. All this is also part of Norwegian security policy.
The spark on Maidan Square. At a more general level, the EU's security policy is addressed by a couple of the fourteen contributors in Security policy choices. Although Norwegian military policy EU cooperation in armaments, military interventions and arms exports is not affected, Mette Kongshem in particular provides a very good analysis of the EU's security policy line towards Russia. It is important to listen to Kongshem's explanation of the Ukraine crisis based on the EU's Eastern Partnership program from 2008 and Russian counter-reactions. The point is that the EU's Eastern Partnership became a tool for forcing countries to choose between Moscow and Brussels. Had they given time for dialogue, a solution could have been found for the Eastern European countries where they could establish relations both to the east and to the west. It was also the question of signing the EU-Ukraine association agreement that sparked the protests in Maidan Square. As a result, the legally elected president had to flee, which in turn laid the groundwork for the annexation of Crimea and the uprising in eastern Ukraine.
Sequel? The trade union movement's contribution to the anthology, by Roy Pedersen and Ivar Gammelmo, also points to the importance of the EU's enlargement to the east of the Ukraine crisis. Helge Lurås also discusses the EU's security policy in his contribution to the anthology, but then only related to the migration crisis and its significance for Norwegian security policy.
The ongoing militarization within the EU and the union's simultaneous work for civil conflict management is also governing Norwegian security policy. Nevertheless, this usually remains a non-topic in the Norwegian security policy debate. Let us therefore hope for a sequel to Security policy choices, where the EU side of the Norwegian security policy dispositions is also debated.
Harang is a commentator in Ny Tid. He is chairman of the board of the Norwegian Peace League, board member of the Norwegian Peace Council and board member of the International Peace Bureau. alexanderharang@me.com
