Are the Norwegian forces near Basra part of the occupation force or the stabilization force? Does anyone care? NTB thinks so:

While Norway's government continues to describe their ongoing commitment to supplying troops in Iraq as a humanitarian mission - a definition military officers dispute - American authorities have no doubts. Norway is a part of the occupation forces.

"Norway is a part of the coalition force," Pentagon press spokesman Joe Yoswa told Norwegian news bureau NTB.

The US view contradicts the official Norwegian position that their troops are on a humanitarian mission, and Prime Minister Kjell Magne Bondevik has repeatedly stressed that the Norwegian soldiers are not part of the occupation force.

The US stance clearly indicates that they consider Norway's status to be part of the occupation force, but allowed that Norwegian authorities must decide if that meant they were at war.

A careful reading of the Pentagon quote will reveal that they do not see us as part of an occupation force at all, but a coalition force. You'd think an article about which words Pentagon use to describe the Norwegian forces would be about the words Pentagon use to describe the Norwegian forces, and "occupation force" is not one of them. But it's close enough for NTB, who are trying very hard to create a media storm. They've been huffing and puffing out followup statemenets for hours now. First out, a denial from Foreign Minister Jan Petersen:

Foreign Minister Jan Petersen rejects entirely that Norway is part of the occupation force. - And this is very clear to the US, he says. [..] Also state secretary Kim Traavik in the Foreign Ministry makes clear that Norway is not part of the occupation force, but of the stabilization force in Iraq, which is there according to resolutions in the UN Security Council.

.. and a denial from Defense Minister Kristin Krohn Devold:

Defense Minister Kristin Krohn Devold rejects categorically that the Norwegian soldiers in Iraq are part of the occupation force, as spokesmen for the American defense ministry Pentagon claims.

- This is wrong. The Norwegian force is part of the stabilization force. It doesn't matter what the American government claims. I'm only concerned with the facts, not what others might believe.

I wish I could create news the way NTB does - get some Pentagon spokesman who is unaware of the intricacies of Norwegian war-making to use a wrong word in a statement, force every single member of the Norwegian government to deny his statement, and get it all published on 10 major news sites, all within a couple of hours. If I had that kind of power, I'd call up the NTB reporter who wrote this. I'd ask him why, next to a quote which clearly uses the word "coalition force", he wrote that the US see us as part of the "occupation force".

Minor point? Perhaps, but if we're to be pedantic, let's do it properly. (That's sort of the point.) Without that correction of the spokesman's words, NTB has no story here. Everything they write would be true, but it wouldn't be news. The difference between being in the "coalition force" and being in the "stabilization force" is bureaucratic. It's a difference over which UNSC resolution one claims to uphold. But what matters (or should matter) to the Norwegian people is what our forces are doing in Iraq, not what name they go by. The term "occupation force" delivers a what that "coalition force" does not: an imperial motivation. It implies that we're there to occupy Iraq.

And we're not. The US and UK came to Iraq to remove Saddam, but they stayed to set up a functioning, peaceful, independent democracy. And Norway is there to help them. Whether this is a humanitarian or military mission is less important. Our mission is primarily non-military, but it doesn't suddenly stop being humanitarian if we come under fire and shoot back, which may very well happen. And our focus on non-military aid doesn't mean that what we do is somehow unrelated to those two houndred thousand heavily armed Americans and Brits who happen to be in the area. We're working towards the same goal. That places us in, if not the coalition, at least a coalition with the US and UK.

Someone else who's confused about what we're all doing in Iraq is Jonas Gahr Støre, leader of the Norwegian Red Cross. In Aftenposten today he explains why the Red Cross left Baghdad and Basra:

The decision by the International Red Cross Commitee to temporarily close the offices in Baghdad and Basra are among the hardest a humanitarian organization can make. The Red Cross has been in Iraq since 1980. Red Cross workers place their pride in staying on the side of the victim for as long as necessary. To reduce the presence when the needs are great is painful. [..]

What's new in the situation in Iraq is that the organization itself became the direct target of a military attack. Therefore the challenge is changed from dealing with risk to dealing with direct threats. It was never an option to ask for armed, military protection. To accept such a protection would fundamentally violate the Red Cross principle of neutrality and independence. [..]

Also in the Norwegian debate, there's confusion when the government give the Norwegian forces in Iraq a humanitarian mandate, and when Norwegian military forces in Iraq are financed partly through the foreign aid budget. This is problematic in many ways. [..] It creates confusion when civilians see a soldier carry water one day, and a humanitarian worker carrying water the next. The confusion is easily made, and the activities of humanitarian organizations becomes more exposed; primarily in relation to the groups who oppose a military and political presence in the area.

Is he implying that the Red Cross was attacked by terrorists because Norwegian soldiers carry water in Basra? I can see it before me - a young man from Syria comes to Basra for a week of sightseeing and relaxation. There he sees a Norwegian soldier carrying water for the locals, and is so outraged by the sight that he goes off up to Baghdad to join al-Qaeda and blow up the Red Cross headquarters. Can you see it too? I bet you can, if you stand on your head, squint your eyes a bit, and ask a friend to kick you in the stomach. I bet you'll see a lot of things. But what caught my attention here was the part about military protection. Red Cross president Jakob Kellenberger said the same thing last month:

We will not operate from buildings secured by military personnel and we will not use military escorts. Either measure would be incompatible with independent humanitarian work as we understand it.

If the Red Cross had left because they didn't believe the Americans could protect them, I would have understood. I won't condemn NGO workers for refusing to take risks I don't take myself. But the way I read this, the Red Cross left because it didn't want to be protected by American forces, because that would somehow corrupt their peaceful mission. I understand that they want to be seen as independent, but military protection will not change that. Military protection won't make any enemies the Red Cross didn't have before, and I don't see how it could confuse or offend Iraqi civilians who support the Americans. So what's to lose? And even without military protection the Red Cross is doing the same thing the American forces do - rebuilding a better Iraq. We're all on the same team here - the US, the Red Cross, and Norway. The people of Iraq knows it. The guerillas know it. The terrorists know it. But the Red Cross and the Norwegian media live in denial.

If the Red Cross didn't have principles, they wouldn't do what they do. But the principle of no military protection ever does no good to anyone. And if the Red Cross is worried about black stains on their reputation, they should be more concerned about their flirting with neopacifism than about some soldiers hanging around their headquarters. When a history of today's Western delusions is written, it won't be kind to the NGO's, who did more than anyone else to make the movement to keep Saddam in power respectable.

"When a history of today's Western delusions is written, it won't be kind to the NGO's, who did more than anyone else to make the movement to keep Saddam in power respectable."

How true. Yet another of my illusions destroyed after 9-11 (actually, after the Sept. 2000 Intifada began). In the past few years, it has become increasingly obvious that most NGOs, like the UN, are self-serving organizations that have been captured by non-humanitarians interested in pursuing their own agendas at the expense of suffering people.

In fact, this is when I started taking a look at Norway, home of Toerge Larson (sp??), disgusting defender of Palestinian terrorists and liar about Jenin. How many people and groups that I used to admire have now become tainted: the Red Cross, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the EU, UNESCO, the Nobel Peace Prize, the Ford Foundation, George Soros. I could go on, but won't. Is NGO corruption a new phenomena, or am I just now becoming aware of an on-going problem?

"Is NGO corruption a new phenomena, or am I just now becoming aware of an on-going problem?"

The are part of the new ruling class of those who support transnational "progressivism," same as the EU bureaucrats, most of Western academia, most of the Western media. Elitist, power-hungry, know-it-all, highly paid (with money earned by someone else.)

They (the NGOs) specialize in making problems worse rather than better, to justify more funds and grants, and to ensure that they always have a job and a means of exercising power. Plus, they get to feed their messiah complexes at the same time.

ngowatch.org

Susan: "They are part of the new ruling class.." Oh come on. Why the big words? Why the conspiratorial undertone? Do you know what a "ruling class" is? "Political elite" is a good term for groups with such close proximity to power, and "intellectual elite" for the people who dominate the public debate, but a "power-hungry" "ruling class" this isn't. There are countries that really do have a ruling class. Explain to them why NGO's like the Red Cross are part of a power-hungry Western ruling class, and they'll roll their eyes.

"Plus, they get to feed their messiah complexes at the same time." There are few people who have earned the right to jeer at people who risk their lives to help others. I'm not one of them, perhaps you are. I'm still curious why people cannot simply be _mistaken_, but must also be motivated by something twisted.

Although I think its disgraceful that the Red Cross should leave Iraq at such a time, its easy to see their reasons why. THe red cross is an indepenadent aid organisation, that needs to be seen to be neutral in any conflict.

Basically this NGO if provided military assistance by anyone would appear to be or really
would be under the influence of the US, removing their neutrality and making it seem a US puppet to ordinary Iraqis, which is not something palatable to the Red Cross.

Besides if they really were provided with American military support than they probably would lose a good deal of operational freedom.

Of course now that the RC is being attacked, and is leaving Iraq, you could say that they have nothing to lose, as the Iraqi resistence and terrorist leaders obviously do not distinguish between one western invader and another.

The Red Cross does not want to be protected by coalition forces for fear of being mistaken for troops? Silly. Troops wear uniforms: even when digging out a sewer, they have uniform pants and boots (and the women some sort of top).

The Red Cross does not want to be protected by coalition forces for fear of being thought to support the troops? Funny, I thought that impartial support of ALL troops was a major force behind the Red Cross.

The Red Cross does not want to be protected by coalition forces for fear of - what? I do not remember the Red Cross objecting to being protected by German troops during World War Two, or by British troops during World War One, or... name a conflict involving uniformed soldiers since the Red Cross was founded.

But this is a new bunch, brought up to believe that they are not only not supposed to pick sides but that their humanitarian mission does not include soldiers or those who may want to help soldiers - of any stripe. If there is a war on, or an occupation, or even just a military presence giving aid and support, these new model humanitarians must leave. Treating weapon wounds is so messy, after all, not like treating holes in people caused by tree limbs striking them during a storm.

Hm, just lost a post. Try again, shorter.

I do not recall that the Red Cross refused protection from German troops during World War Two, or British troops during World War One, or Turkish troops during the Korean "police action." Nor do I recall the Red Cross refusing to stay in Poland when it was occupied, or France when it was liberated.

Oops, now BOTH posts show. Sorry, folks.

You know as well as I do, that Iraqis are unable to differentiate between the uniforms of different coalition partners, just look at the wide variety of foreign troops that are present there alongside the US. Spanish, Italian, Australian. So the Iraqis are accustomed to seeing foreign military units accompanying US forces, of course being without necessarily identifying the nationality of these soldiers beyond that of being US allies (and therefore Iraqi resistance enemies), let alone conclude that a grp of people accompanying US soldiers, dressed marginally different (something the iraqis are used to seeing) are somehow not allies and supporters of the US war in Iraq.

Therefore they can not accept such support, without seemingly (both there and abroad) condoning the US attack on Iraq.

Obviously that’s not a political stance that the Red Cross is willing to make.

The situation in Iraq is different politically to the situation in Europe RE: WW2. For example to leave Iraq under these circumstances would not incurr the wrath of the Red Crosses supporters and financers, whereas WW2 is a different kettle of fish altogther.

David Elson.

Haven't checked back for a while...

David, come now. The Red Cross was escorted through some concentration camps by Gestapo and SS uniformed personnel, did anyone think that meant the Red Cross was supporting the NSDAP? Don't think Iraqis are any dumber than Poles or French - they aren't, they just haven't had much access to outside information for a while.

No, these refusals of help were political and are not the first such. Especially for the International Red Cross, which associates itself with Red Crescent but will not talk with Red Star (of David).

ciba versaflex contact lenses Proclear compatibles Proclear contacts Biomedics toric contacts fx contact lenses Soflens contact lens buy contact lenses Acuvue 2 lenses ciba contact lenses 1 day Acuvue contact lenses Soflens one day Soflens 66 discount contact lenses on the web Bausch Lomb contact lenses Acuvue 2 color contact lenses contact lenses discount coupon Biomedics toric contact lenses Biomedics 55 toric america's best contact lenses Soflens toric buy contact lenses on the web Acuvue 2 colours contact lenses Acuvue oneday contact lenses Acuvue 2 coupon Acuvue 2 color enhancer contact lenses Surevue lenses contact lenses order Hydrogenics Acuvue 1-day Biomedics coloured contact lenses cheap Acuvue contact disposable Acuvue

Yes that is correct. I liked your comment. I too belong to the same profile and this was of great help.
Adam Butler
http://www.acuvuevision.com

Trackback URL: http://bearstrong.net/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/561

Scandinavia's Cross: Military vs. humanitarian mission, December 5, 2003 10:23 PM

Which is Norway participating in in Iraq? Bj&oslah;rn Stærk discusses the matter and gives both the International Red Cross and the Norwegian government a good fisking. Money quote: When a history of today's Western delusions is written, it won't...

Low Earth Orbit: Some things are just not acceptable, December 8, 2003 11:23 PM

[source, source] Red Cross president Jakob Kellenberger said the same thing last month: We will not operate from buildings secured...