The New York Times has an interesting profile of Norway's Minister of Defense Kristin Krohn Devold, (Conservative Party), and her ideas of the advantages small countries with specialized forces can provide to NATO/US operations. It also describes a lot of changes and views I haven't seen reported in the Norwegian press:

Devold, one of only two female defense ministers among the 19 NATO nations (Michele Alliot-Marie of France is the other), has been determined to do just that, [transforming NATO into an alliance that can project power], initiating a shake-up of the Norwegian military establishment shortly after taking over the armed services in late 2001. The timing was right. Sept 11. had woken many Europeans from their post-cold war torpor, oil prices were high and Norway, one of the world's major exporters of crude, was flush. Her first major battle was to sell officers and politicians on the ideas that the best defense is a good offense, that military spending must be stepped up and that Europe needs to embrace the notion that security is no longer just about territorial defense. [..]

To pay for [the new Rena base], and to free up money for investment in the new areas of specialization, Devold has closed a third of Norway's bases and cut military personnel by a fifth. ''We don't need blanket coverage of the country any longer,'' she says. ''It just eats up money.'' Most countries, including the United States, have also ramped down since the cold war. But precious few outside of the United States have balanced the cutbacks with injections of fresh capital. Norway's military budget is up 8 percent, which combined with the cuts in fixed costs will enable Devold to increase investment by 30 percent.

Norway is now second only to the United States in NATO in per capita spending on defense. But even with the military, there is resistance. Officers have lost commands, and others have resigned, complaining that they didn't sign up for the new proactive role Devold has envisioned for Norway. ''Many of my colleagues say they joined the military to defend Norway,'' explains Gen. Sverre Diesen, commander of Norwegian land forces, ''and not to embark on foreign adventures. We're trying to explain to people that security problems are becoming globalized. Osama bin Laden doesn't just hate America. He wants to destroy the entire Western way of life. So we, too, have interests in places like Afghanistan. I don't need to wait for someone to blow up the train station in Oslo to see that.'' [..]

[Norway] refused to be part of President Bush's so-called coalition of the willing because, as a small nation, it strongly supports of the sanctity of the United Nations. But Norway also did not align with the Franco-German opposition camp, which sparked a near-mutiny in NATO by initially turning down Turkey's request under Article 4 of the alliance charter for assistance in the event that the Iraqi conflict spilled over its border. ''That was just plain stupid,'' says Devold of the refusal. ''Article 4 is the bedrock of NATO. It's our Bible. You don't flaunt it.''

Ok, first the praise: This is great. Obviously, we have a defense leadership with a clear eye for the important issues, a good understanding of what our role in those issues may be, and the ability to carry out necessary changes. Their efforts would have been better utilized by a government with fewer illusions about the UN - our foreign policy can be described as that of maintaining a good relationship with the UN, NATO and the US, in that order - but they have been made, and they have been utilized, first in Afghanistan, and now in Iraq.

And now the criticism: Why hasn't this been covered by the Norwegian press? Why haven't these questions been asked of Devold by a Norwegian newspaper? Why hasn't Sverre Diesen, who was appointed in March, been interviewed? If not unreported, almost everything in the Times article has at the very least been underreported. With Devold as Minister of Defense, Norway has been at war with another country, our two most important allies has alienated many of our other allies by starting a second war, and we and everyone else in the West are being threatened by megalomanic terrorists on a regular basis. This is a time of war. What better time to investigate our own war machinery and the people who run it?

When you pay too much attention to unimportant issues, you lose sight of the important ones. Aftenposten runs a summary of the NY Times story today, taking the usual "Wow, Norway's been mentioned by the NY Times" angle. It should rather be ashamed that it has been royally scooped by an American newspaper. I never trusted the Norwegian press to cover the Norwegian military fairly - obviously I can no longer trust it to cover it at all.

The Times article allows me to imagine a world in which America had genuine friends in Europe. Devold may be one. I did notice that the two special areas on which the article says Norway is focusing -- mine clearing and mountain reconnaissance -- are niches that might be more acceptable to a Norwegian public that doesn't like to see its military actually shoot at people. Doesn't matter, these skills are needed and would be appreciated if a friendlier (or more courageous) Norwegian government were more willing to loan them out when a good cause presents itself. I get the feeling that some in the Norwegian military may be somewhat at odds with the Norwegian body politic and more likely to share American perceptions of the world. The article quotes a General Sverre Diesen, who says, "Many of my colleagues say they joined the military to defend Norway and not to embark on foreign adventures. We're trying to explain to people that security problems are becoming globalized ,,, So we, too, have interests in places like Afghanistan." Another general, unidentified, says that "NATO shouldn't be about defence of territory any longer. It should be about the defence of values." Yes, I am almost able to imagine a world in which Europe and the U.S. really share the same values and are all willing to fight for them.

- Gill

Great post, Bjørn! I have taken the liberty of making reference to it at Airstrip One [ http://airstripone.blogspot.com/ ], an occasionally interesting but often stuffy nest of English isolationists.

Btw, the Norwegian Defence Minister looks ever so much better in a flight suit than the American president, George W.

There are several reasons why the change has been underreported in norwegian media, some of them good reasons and some of them bad. But it has been reported in the media, but in small parts and then typically outside the tabloids. For people who are genuinely interested in defence politics and foreign policy it has been there all along. The norwegian media coverage has focused on budget issues rather than ideology and strategic concerns, mainly because that's what the (tabloids') readers (in the eyes of the editors) can relate to and understand. The dominant zeitgeist is money and budget in Norway these days, not terrorism or defence. Norway is not the US.

Criticism of the "new" ideology has also been scattered, and mainly been restricted to the old pro-defence Senterpartiet (a party focused on rural Norway) who've been ardent supporters of "Folkeforsvaret" (people's (popular) defence). This criticism has been discredited by the govt as "nostalgic" and "outdated", and the media has gone along on that interpretation. Some scattered criticism from the left has also been easily discredited, mainly because nobody takes defence-criticism from SV or left-wing labour seriously. So if a journalist has wanted to push this angle, they would be out on a shaky limb before they could pronounce the defence minister's name. Looking like an idiot by promoting nostalgic farmers and anti-defence leftists is no way to get promoted.

Another thing is media culture on defence issues, which varies slightly, but all in all is fairly positive to the military. Apart from rabid left-wingers there is never NATO-criticism and near consensus on foreign policy related to defence. Even norwgian foreign policy is dominated by consensus, and the media will not viciously attack norwegian policy. When there is disagreement with norwegian policy the newspaper articles will usually criticise americans for the same things that the norwegian govt is supporting. It's a slightly misunderstood loyalty, but the result is a perception of norwegian media as slightly anti-american and pro-norwegian, even if there is 100% agreement between Norway and the US.

Another important reason why it's been fairly quiet is that the defence minister is right in her analysis, and she's done a good job. The parliament hates that and she's been regularly summoned to the parliament for ridiculous mini-issues where they could criticise her.

A new change however which has come with Devold, it seems, is the willingness to actually show the military to national and foreign media. Devold is actually doing an active job promoting it, while many earlier defence ministers have almost tried to hide its existence.

Stig: Interesting. I'm partly angry with myself here, for not paying attention. Like most bloggers, I'm probably more concerned with _how_ the news are presented, than with _what_ the media considers news.

I would have expected this to be controversial even outside the anti-NATO left, though. Neopacifism is fairly popular also on the moderate right and left, and Devold's changes are obviously and openly aimed at adapting our forces to operations like the two recent wars. Pacifism is rare in Norway, the belief that all military spending is wrong, but there are quite a few who squirm at actually putting it to use, which Devold has now made more likely. Though not perhaps anti-NATO, newspapers like Dagbladet and Dagsavisen are highly critical of NATO (or NATO members) taking an offensive role, and I would have expected them to pick up on Norway's adaptation to such a role.

I've more or less been doing nothing worth mentioning, but eh. My life's been really bland today. I don't care. I've just been letting everything happen without me these days. That's how it is.

Trackback URL: http://bearstrong.net/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/397

Blog: Who's Afraid of Norway?, August 24, 2003 06:41 PM

Bjørn Stærk comments on the extensive article in the New York Times about the Norwegian Army and wonders why it takes an American newspaper to cover those things....

FredrikNorman.com: Kristin Krohn Devold in the NYT, August 24, 2003 08:35 PM

Great coverage in today's New York Times for Norwegian Defense Minister Kristin Krohn Devold, including some newsflashes for those who...

Low Earth Orbit: Not everything's rotten in Europe, August 26, 2003 04:37 AM

[source] I couldn’t resist another picture of Kristin Krohn Devold, the Norwegian Defense Minister, looking good in her flight...