The American ambassador to Norway did something completely unprecedented yesterday. I've described before the main camps on the Iraq war here in Norway: the anti-Americans (primarily the Socialist Left), who support Chirac and Shcröder's line, the pro-Americans (primarily the Progress Party), who support Bush and Blair's views, and the cautious traditionalists in the government coalition, who are attempting to maintain friendship with the US, preserve a unified Nato and UN, preserve world peace, disarm Saddam, and land on their feet politically, all at the same time. (If you know half a thing about the Iraq crisis and the mood in Norway, you'll understand why that's impossible, and why they're so afraid of taking a clear stand.) So far, the debate has taken place in a sheltered environment, so to speak. Norway is no longer a member of the UN Security Council. The outside world hardly bothers to follow our views on Iraq, and few countries respond when a Norwegian politician make a statement. In other words, we have had a debate practically without foreign input.

So when the US yesterday, through ambassador John Doyle Ong, actually responded to the anti-American sentiments in Norway, there seemed almost a momentary stunned silence - "Oh, right, we're not alone" - quickly followed by reactions ranging from hurt to angry. What Doyle Ong pointed out, and what should have been pointed out long ago, was that Norway's hesitancy to support our most important ally may damage the relationship between our countries.

"When Norway's security has been threatened, the US has been there... not just three times out of four, but every time," Ong said. He likened the situation to two old friends, with one of them asking for help and, "for one reason or another," not getting it from the other. When that happens, Ong said, "the relationship changes."

I heard more of the speech on the news, and it sounded balanced and reasonable to me, (so it's clearly evil propaganda). Ong is a Republican and a backer of the Bush candidacy - I'm sure he could have been more direct. This level of criticism is rare from an ambassador, though, and it's being interpreted as a threat: If Norway doesn't support the US in Iraq, we can't count on the US to support us, if we ever need it again. (He made the again-point very clearly.)

The Socialist Left has reacted by calling this blackmail. There's something to that, if you twist his words, but it assumes that what the US threatens to take away (military support), is something we would like to keep. It's news to me that the Socialist Left has ever been in any way grateful for the American military support of Norway.

Foreign Minister Jan Petersen responded by denying any ill-will towards the US. He pointed out that Norway helped the US in Afghanistan, it supported Turkey in Nato recently, and it supports the UN pressure on Iraq. That's true, but misses the point. Norway is certainly acting within the letter of our treaties with the US, but what the US now requires in the lonely post-11/9 world is a show of friendship, not lip service to pro-forma alliances. Petersen and PM Bondevik are playing by the wrong rules: post-communist, pre-11/9 rules.

And again, Carl I. Hagen comes out as the only true friend of the US in Norway.

When the government is unclear on whether Norway prefers the US/UK/Denmark line or the France/Germany line on the Iraq question, and [Labor leader] Stoltenberg has chosen to turn his back on the US/UK/Denmark, it is timely that the American ambassador points out that the relationship between the US and Norway is influenced by our choices. In fact it's a clear break with the Norwegian foreign and security policy when Labor decides to support Germany and France, instead of the US, Great Britain, and Denmark.

The statements from the American ambassador are in my view neither threats nor pressure, but only a timely reminder that a close friendship will dissolve and weaken over time when one party decides to support someone else than its friend. I therefore hope that foreign minister and Conservative leader Jan Petersen now will make clear that Norway won't gamble away our country's solid anchorment and friendship with our most important allies.

Hagen is always accused of shifting with the wind, and to some extent that is true, but why would a pure populist take a view this controversial? This is not vote-gathering, it's ideology. Now will somebody please give this man a government?

What strikes me in this post is the fact that Denmark is supporting the U.S. position. We don't hear much about any country that is actually supporting us in the U.S. media (for obvious reasons)...

We of course hear about Briton, but only usually in the context of Blair being on the 'brink of hanging from a meat hook'...

Bjørn, a fascinating and informative post.
Times of stress show the strength or weakness of ties between nations. Afghanistan was an easy call for the allies, so was the NATO Turkey vote for the majority of Europeans that weren't trying to score political points against the U.S.
Bully for John Doyle Ong. If American sons and daughters are going to fight and die for a country under Article 5, it shouldn't be for a "friend" that's one when it's convenient.
Count the votes, let everybody show their cards. Let's see where everybody stands -- for the record. And have long memories afterwards.

Great post, Bjorn!

Good to see the US diplomatic corps at work shaking things up a bit.

It's been interesting to read how flustered the governments of Cameroon, Angola, Chile, Mexico, et. al., are in their roles in the Security Council. They've cried for decades about how great powers dictate over the smaller ones, but now, when they finally have a position of immense responsibility, they essentially want to duck the issue.

Exercising power that will change the course of world history turns out to be not that easy, after all.

I think Norway would probably have been more prepared, even with the internal tensions you've described. Of course, I would prefer that someone like Carl I Hagen would be in charge of government first!

Scott in Tallinn: I agree with you about long memories. I think Americans will remember this experience more than any other in recent history involving Europe - more than Bosnia, for example.

Does Norway fear it will need to be defended by America anytime soon?

From whom?

Just curious.

Bjorn,
I just wanted to challenge one assumption: that no one is listening to Norway or Norwegians. I listened carefully to Ambassador Kolby speak to the UN on the 11th and during the last open debate. It's telecast on C-Span and sometimes on the cable news channels. Most of my friends and family watched (or listened to) and discussed the UN hearings. It seemed to me (to put it politely) that Ambassador Kolby is sitting on the fence. I hope that this will not be another case of endless discussion with a horrific outcome, as was the case in Rwanda.
I visit and enjoy your blog regularly, as well as other blogs of Norway. I also visit venneravamerika.no (which is a pro-American site with links to the Norwegian government) and the site of the Norwegian Embassy to the USA.
I think many Americans are quietly monitoring the views of Europeans. Most often, we get our feelings hurt or our hearts broken as we surf the Euro-web. Some of my fellow citizens lash out and say things that are imprudent in response to the hate. I apologize for them.
But assuming that we aren't paying attention just agrees with some stereotypes of Americans as inferior to Euros. If we are indeed so unintelligent, how in the world did we invent/achieve so much the past century? By the way, Bush is nothing like the monster portrayed in the Europress.
It seems most Europeans are hoping we'll get wiped off the face of the earth. They may get their wish.
As for me, I believe I agree with Oriana Fallaci, who said in today's Wall Street Journal, "As a proud defender of the West's civilization, without reservations I should join Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair in the new Alamo. Without reluctance I should fight and die with them. And this is the only thing about which I have no doubts at all." I don't agree with all she wrote, but I do agree with that.
Of course Norway is important, whether or not it has a seat on the security council. And the most important voices in Norway are those (few?) who stand up against the mob (the collectivist/nihilist/moral relativist/statist mob) to speak out for individual rights and individual freedoms, as you do. As we Yanks say, pal, we're in the same foxhole.
Keep your head down and keep up the good fight.

ct: Denmark signed the letter of support recently, and they've also publicly supported the second resolution. Not sure what they'll do if that resolution doesn't pass, though. Sweden, on the other hand, has come out in support of France and Germany.

"Cicero": Russia, perhaps? There aren't any concrete fears - we feel extremely safe in this corner of the world. That's why it's so easy for us to embrace neo-pacifism, and to laugh at those who keep bringing up the memories of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.

I remember when the Rainbow warrior was bombed by the French. I remember during the investigation, and later the court trial, the French put pressure on New Zealand, and swore to destroy our trade to Europe. I also, and many in New Zealand do, who it was who gave the French a hard time, even though it cost them diplomaticly. Here are three cheers to America!! Even with it's faults they will stand by their friends.

Kestrel: I remember when Norway decided not to join the EU in the early nineties, Chirac vowed Norway would not have another chance even if they would come crawling on their knees.

Although I always thought Norway did the right thing for itself by not joining (they have the oil wealth - Norway enjoys the highest per capita income in Europe), I've been cautiously optimistic in the past about the EU.

Now I'm wavering. Recent events have brought to the fore the true face of the Franco-German hegemon; it is really incredible how far they will go to flaunt the opinions of other states in the EU.

Bjørn — I think you wrote this piece before Bush telephoned Bondevik yesterday. Aftenpostens reporters actually, momentarily, wondered whether Bush was calling to apologize for Ong's remarks. (What hubris on Aftenposten's part.) No, Bondevik told them, the phone conversation had been planned for weeks. It's funny that Aftenposten, though vehemently anti-Bush (and anti-American, it seems to me), appears quite concerned about the health of Norwegian-American relations. After Ong's statements, Bondevik and Petersen told Norway's media that Ong had simply "tatt feil" — been mistaken. Relations between our two countries would not suffer, said B/P, despite what Ong had said about that possibility. Aftenposten then published an article that described earlier spats between the two countries — all of which, Aftenposten pointed out, the relationship had survived. In 1971, for example, Norway recognized North Vietnam — a gesture that the Nixon administration did not appreciate. There were two other examples of American displeasure that did NOT result in American reprisals. So, Aftenposten concludes, Norway can go tell the Americans, once again, to stick it, without fear of really damaging relations between our two countries. All the examples the Aftenposten cites, however, predate the Cold War's end. I wonder if the relationship will recover so soon this time.

So a co-worker of mine here in New York just stepped into my office and said,

"Do you want to see something funny? Go to google.com, type in 'french military victories', and hit the 'I'm Feeling Lucky' button."

Office fun for Friday afternoons (while waiting for the UN to make up its mind...)!

I forgot to mention above that Bondevik did pledge to send humanitarian aid to Iraq following an American-led invasion. That humanitarian assistance would be very much appreciated, and I give Bondevik credit for making that offer. The EU recently threatened to contribute NOTHING in terms of such assistance in the event of an American invasion of Iraq.

Bjørn,

I'm a peacetime vet, I fortunately never had to saddle up against anyone. But I put in my 3 1/2 years army time.

My letter to the heroic "Law" (LOL) Professor Reynolds at the University of Tennessee (who is not a military veteran but is surely a military cheerleader) below:

Prof Reynolds,

You introduce us to yet another non-military jew who is all in favor of "let's attack third world Iraq on behalf of israel" -- the INSTALAWYER WEINSTEIN

Stunning !!! I can hardly believe it !!! Where did you find that kindred soul??? Another jew who is in favor of using the US military to assault Iraq ! That's rare, huh?

Here's one fer ya Prof, but we both know you won't post this

* jews 0.3% of United States Army

"Historically, Jews make up a very small minority in the DoD [Department of Defense], so the visibility works both ways," she [jewess "Colonel" Michelle Ross] said. In fact, according to the Army Chief of Chaplains Office, 0.3 percent or 1,488 soldiers self identify themselves as being Jewish on their dog tags.

http://www.dcmilitary.com/army/standard/7_23/local_news/20210-1.html

Wow, a whole 1488 jews in the army. Barely one battalion.

How many infantry and how many armor, I wonder. Twenty maybe . . .

Onward Christian Soldiers, as usual, at the behest of the jews. A war that the jews want, but hymie finds all kinds of reasons not to participate in himself. Another war that the jew-hated White man fights for that race of cowardly trouble making nation wreckers . . . .

1488 jews TOTAL in the US army -- barely ONE BATTALION -- one would think that if Saddam Hussein and the Arabs were such a threat the yids would be tripping over each other to get in on the fight. Of course the clear thinking among us understand that this is a White man's fight instigated by and in the interest of jews.

Any US soldier can bail out now and take an article 15 and some jail time. If you go along with the jew scam few of us have any sympathy whatsoever regarding what happens to you. If you get it in the neck, tough shit. The yids will be home watching TV and eating popcorn while you fight and die. Smarten up or understand that whatever happens is your problem, and we that have been trying to change your mind and we ain't gonna spend much time boo-hooing over your dead ass.

Mark Konrad
VNN
http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/default.asp

Konrad, you disgust me.

Jim -- I suspect you're gonna disgust me, hero.

Konrad

Cool! Another Jew hater! Excellent!

And if I'm not Jewish -- and I'm not -- and I favor the war, what then?

If the non-Jewish soldiers I know who are proud to serve are in favor of the war, what then?

Must be the Jews brainwashed 'em!

By the way, is it automatically the case that if you disagree with Mr. Konrad, you're not a real law professor? Just curious.

Dean,

The US army accepts recruits up to the age of 33 (maybe it's 34 . . .)

Head on down to the local recruiter and join the airborne infantry -- that way you can get in on serious business up close and personal (if you can hang with airborne training that is) rather than stay home and jerk off watching other guys do it, champ. The jews can't do it, they need some more shabbos goys to go fight their wars just like they have since WWI. You be the man slick, get on down there and sign up. Shlomo has flat feet or an anal cyst, but he's right behind you. You get whacked, him and his friends will joke about it . . .

Be a kike tool dummy, as long as schmuel has got guys like you, or your cousin, why do they need to fight? You saps will do it for them

Check out VNN when you grow up a little bit dummy

Mark

VNN
http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com

Mark: I'm not sure why you think there are any converts to find here. To me, you're a historical curiosity. When I read about the countless waves of anti-semitism in European history I sometimes ask myself: Could people really do that? Could masses of ordinary people _actually believe_ that Jews poisoned wells, sacrificed babies, and pulled the strings of kings and politicians? Then I think of you, and realize that yes, they could.

Mark K. — take a look at this N.Y. Times article and see what you think. It appeared in this morning's paper.

http://nytimes.com/2003/03/15/national/15JEWS.html

I already looked into it. I'm too old.

I wish I weren't. But people I respect who are young enough have gone, because they believe.

If we left the decision as to whether or not to go to war with Saddam purely to the enlisted men, we'd have gone to Bagdad already, and Riyadh too. Which I suspect you know perfectly well, Mr. Konrad.

My experience with neo-nazis is they had horrible childhood experiences. In many cases beaten up by their fathers and etc. Mark's use of words such as 'champ' and 'slick' is suggestive of the way these kinds of fathers who treat their sons horribly talk to them.

The question of Jews, from a Biblical perspective, is more complicated than the mainstream Church (and Churches) admit to themselves. Jesus Himself says there are some who call themselves 'jews' but are lying and are of the synogogue of Satan. He also says to leave them alone. It is not difficult to see in history (recent as well) these forces at work in the world. Bolshevism, for instance. Only the most ignorant or politically-correct deny that the bolsheviks were a 'jew' movement ('jew' in small caps, though).

Socially, one - if not blinded by ignorance or strictures of political-correctness - can see these same forces at work busily doing anything in their power to defile any and all institutions they can possibly defile. (They can be describes as like that 'negative force' of God's plan that has to exist, yet, as Jesus Himself says, woe to those who choose to play that part...)

Muslims generally are programmed to hate Christians and Jews (real Jews). It's in their book, it's in their tradition, it's probably in their blood if that could be determined. When they get any kind of power that is. Otherwise the majority of muslims seek comfort and distractions like any other humans. The spirit of antichrist in general, though, hates Christians and Jews. The protesters today direct their hate towards Britain, the U.S. and Israel. These are the three main representative countries of God on the planet.

Let the protesters do their thing, but Christians very much have their own self-interest in defending themselves against hostile muslim states if that is needed. I believe in the current case it is needed.

Regarding this difficult subject of Jews and 'jews' a little knowledge is very much a dangerous thing. Neo-nazis have a 'little' knowledge, yet their own lack of understanding of the Bible and lack of faith in the Living God of the Bible makes their understanding very partial and makes them rancidly stupid.

As to the notion that Norway is in a safe corner of the world and its unrealistic to think it might ever need American military support--

Perhaps this is true. However, it might very well be the case that Norway will one day need the economic support of the US in terms such as trade agreements and the like. As I see it from across the Atlantic the EU seems to be transforming itself into a disturbing political entity that is ever more obtrusive. What might happen if the EU decided that Norway could no longer trade with the EU unless they adopted laws mirroring their own in political matters, such as the (to me) infamous and vague prohibition against "xenophobia?" If Norway was perceived by the US as being an old friend that was being victimized by the EU then I think we would not hesitate to help Norway. I doubt that such a response would be forthcoming if Norway was seen as having taken the EU's side against the US and then having the EU turn upon them. Most Americans would view this as Norway having gotten what it deserved.

Norway might need help in the future to defend it from internal enemies. For muslims birthrate is a weapon.

TL: I didn't say it was unrealistic to expect that we'll ever need military aid again. We did, twice in the last century, against the Germans and Russians. But it's easy for us to _think_ that we don't need any help.

And would Americans really be offended enough by the Norwegian position to oppose even trade agreements with us afterwards? Now that would be a petty-minded foreign policy. I agree that we may need to improve trade relations with countries outside the EU, though, countries like the US and Russia, if we manage to keep out of it ourselves. It would be obviously beneficial at least not to join Germany and France on this issue - but there's no danger of that with the current government.

ct: American military help in a Norwegian civil war between atheists and Muslims? Sorry, I don't see that coming at all. You speak as if Islam is an eternal enemy of democracy, that it is beyond rescue. I suppose you don't have any hopes for a democratization of Iraq, then.

>You speak as if Islam is an eternal enemy of >democracy

What planet are you living on.

'Democracy' in Iraq... Just think in terms of degree rather than absolutes, Bjorn. For now some old fashioned divide and conquer, strengthening all sides, will be enough. Don't take American statements on the subject at face value. The Americans know the ways of the Arabic/muslim world.

Conversely, in Iran I could see some real democracy take hold if they can just be liberated from their current theocracy.

Algeria, though, is probably the most expected result when a muslim population is given a free vote.

Yet, who knows. Let things take shape and if it starts to coagulate badly then cut it up some more, using various means, and let it take another shape.

Anyway, on this planet freedom is not without effort and vigilance. It's only seemed that way in recent history. All the elemental forces on this planet are in favor of various forms and degrees of tyranny. Let's not scoff at forces that are at least attemtping to bring some real freedom to a part of the world where it currently doesn't reside. That's too easy. I'm sure Bjorn understands that, though...

Blackmail?

What makes these people think that it's their right to be defended by the people of the United States. The Constitution of the United States of America says that one of the tenets of our government is to provide for the common defense. I take that to mean the defense of the United States not Norway. While I find it right that we should help in the defense of our friends and Norway has been a staunch friend, I would expect a modicum of reciprication.

And unlike Marcus Cicero I do not believe Europe to be that stable or safe. Already some states have large muslim populations. Even in Norway you can't get rape convictions because of cultural concerns. I think Norway has become so open-minded that its friggin' brains have fallen out.

You want us to keep defending you?

Sorry, I think it's too late. We have this habit of remembering who are friends are, and you haven't done much to put yourselves in that category.

Still, you ain't France or Germany. We remember our enemies REALLY well.

Just to provide a little bit of counterpoint from an American perspective:

I do believe the USA has the right to pick its friends, and to be more hesitant about defending those who oppose us, and so on. However, I also think that the people here have thicker skins than we sometimes get credit for. I certainly wouldn't interpret Norway's lack of support as a stab in the back.

Furthermore, we have this long tradition of respecting honest dissent.

I think that most of our beef with the French and Germans involves not just their dissent, but a sense of dishonesty about them; they seem to be exploiting the situation for political gain regardless of the merits. I give France major demerits as well because of their veiled threats against potential EU members who supported us.

Oh, and Karl sure doesn't represent me. For one, I don't believe that one must "earn" one's right to one's opinion, whether through military service or some other means.

Oops. Make that Mark, not Karl. Don't know what I was thinking...

Jeff,

Good point. And in the grand scheme of things, Norway's lack of support is way down the list of American grievances toward Europeans.

Jimmy

UPDATED AND CORRECTED:

First off, please allow me to acknowledge that

I do appreciate, for the moment, Mr Bjørn Stærk,

I disagree with him on practically everything politically, but he is man enough to allow differing points of view to be posted at his website. I congratulate and thank him for that.

Second, America has not the slightest reason to Blitz Iraq with our enormous military machine, why the hell are we doing it?

FUCK YOU neocons (jews, kikes) we in the States will not forget this. Israel first, right? You have turned our once wonderful nation into a microcosm of ancient Rome. PLEASE explain why in fucking hell are we attacking this third world nation Iraq that has done nothing to us but for some reason does not suit the United States administration?

You useless fuck republicans, you troublemakers will pay, and I look forward to it. I'm gonna help you pay, and I'm gonna assist you getting your rewards when that time comes. You people sicken me, and your screaming for the blood of Iraqis only makes me ill, you "true blue" americans. I loathe you kike friendly sonsobitches, you mental dorks bore and disgust me. But thanks for the web space Stærk, although you disgust me as well. America ist kaput.

We have become "that shitty little cuntry."

FUCK YOU REPUBLICANS, and thanks for destroying what used to be the USA, you gd wimps and kikes.

Mark Konrad
VNN

http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/default.asp
-
http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/readerMail/default.asp

Before anyone replies to Mark, please read this:

/warblog/000098.html#000219

Trackback URL: /cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/75

Dean's World: Norway and Us, March 15, 2003 06:00 PM

Bjorn has some interesting news about a flap between the American ambassador and Norway's politicians. You have to wonder if this sort of thing is...