The high-brow weekly paper Morgenbladet published a 40-page special edition on Iraq this week. Regular blog readers wouldn't find much here that they haven't read before. It's a bloggish collection of articles and speeches, by pundits and politicians from across the spectrum: Americans, Europeans, Arabs; pro-war and anti-war.

It's skewed against the war, and could certainly have been done better, but that's not the point. The point is that this is the first serious attempt I know of to raise the Iraq debate in Norway to a level bloggers and blog readers have taken for granted for a year and a half. There are articles here that actually explain why the US is going to war against Iraq, as well as the overall direction of it's post-9/11 foreign policy - in the words of supporters of that policy.

You may not realize how rare something like this is in Norway. Bush and Powell's statements are widely quoted, of course, but only superficially, and their views are filtered through reporters and editors who tend to strongly disagree with them. There is no pro-war presence in the Norwegian media. Individual US-sympathetic writers like Per Egil Hegge in Aftenposten and Helge Øgrim in Dagbladet have made attempts to clear up some basic misunderstandings. (In October 2001, Øgrim could inform Dagbladet's readers that no, George W. Bush is not an idiot.) But these are hardly Bush supporters, just seasoned correspondents who know better than to fall for petty anti-Americanism.

In other words, much of the underlying American reasoning behind this war has not actually been presented to the Norwegian people, and when it is, only by those who oppose it. Many remain ignorant about the nature of the fundamental change of perspective that September 11 inflicted on American opinion, believing that the Americans are simply angry and vengeful, that they are gut-level patriots in need of an enemy image. That there might actually be some amount of intellectual activity going on behind the scenes of the Bush administration, activity that is motivated by any higher principles than winning the next election and gaining control of Iraq's oil, would be an utter surprise to many Norwegians - for the simple reason that we haven't been told that any such intellectual activity exists.

Every possible reason for being against this war has, on the other hand, been explored thoroughly and with eagerness. The result has been a debate without meaning, between an articulate anti-war movement and flagwaving strawmen. The peace movement has lost on this, intellectually, as has the war movement. It's an axiom of political debate that there are always intelligent, well-informed people who disagree with you. It's another axiom that the intellectual level of a debate sinks to the level of its dumbest participant, and there are few things dumber than opponents made out of straw.

It's in this light that Morgenbladet deserves credit for making one of the first, and one of very few, intelligent contributions to the Norwegian Iraq debate. Too bad it was all published in a newspaper almost nobody reads, and only at the very end of the debate.

Bjørn,

I don't know a lot about the Skandinavian reaction to the Iraq debate apart from what you write here, but I think the symptoms you describe are, maybe to a lesser extent also apparent in Germany, with only some quality publishing exceptions.

That said, I would like to add: don't be too harsh. Don't forget that, while many people, Europeans as well as Americans, oppose this war on principle, and without detailed analysis, the same is true for a lot of supporters. I watched CNN newsnight at some point last week and was stunned that the neoconservative agenda of Perle/Wolfowitz etc regarding Iraq that was apparent already during the Clinton years was presented to their viewers as some kind of news.

Moreover, quite honestly, a lot of people in the US, on tv, in blogosphere as well as in real life simply are angry, vengeful, and unfair towards any kind of criticism - just think of those with "liberate Iraq" buttons who want to bomb Paris. Hardly a balanced position, even if you discount a certain degree of the - now all to often invoked - American emotionality. To rename French Fries or call German exchange students in the US Nazis because of the German government's stand on Iraq is not an expression of the acceptance of disagreement. But it seems to be happening.

As far as the intellectual activity of the Bush administration is concerned, I do not doubt it for a second. But they do an immensely good job at hiding it from the public, certainly from the European public - by using a simplistic and warmongering rethoric suitable for FoxNews soundbites. I can't repeat it often enough - one of the central problems in this whole debate was that everybody was talking to their own consituency without realising that global communications have reduced the importance of diplomatic filters. If you put that into a feedback equation the media-created rift does not seem to surprising to me.

If you compare Robin Cook's resignation speech in the House of Commons with Bush's you can quite literally feel what kind of communication problem we are facing. However much I would have preferred a debate in which countries on both sides of the pond would not have behaved like spoiled chidren, Europeans are not the only ones who are constructing straw-men.

Just wanted to get that on the record.
And thanks for the link :-).

If I may throw in a belated comment on US-Norway relations:

My impression is that Norwegians are overreacting. It is certainly true that there's a tremendous hostility building up in the US towards France and, to a lesser extent, Germany. (For some reason, other countries feel entitled to rage at the US and at Americans but it never seems to occur to them that the feeling might be reciprocated.) But there's a sharp difference perceived between countries like Canada and Norway, that are quietly unsupportive of the war, and countries that are being actively hostile to the US and trying to undermine its interests.

Add to that the fact that Norway has very few recognizable consumer products sold in the US and there's little likelihood of any significant backlash. As long as there aren't any more Norwegian supermarkets boycotting Israeli products...

I wholeheartedly disagree with Tobias. As a Norwegian living in both the US and Norway, I find the debate in Europe to be amazingly onesided and much more dumbed down than in the US.

I agree with Bjørn that the European media gives a completely unfair (and very often) blatantly false impression of American foreign policy and its motives. Bush is portrayed as someone he is not, same with most in his administration.

Pro-War Europeans like myself have to find objective information on the web or in American media.
Thank god for the internet.

It was interesting to read how the Iraq crisis is being presented in Norway. I do not believe the way is being rushed into nor that 330,000 alled troops and over $100 billion being risked for political gain, oil, or for ego. I served two years in Baghdad, and I learned a great deal about the people. Most of them are no better or worse than people in the US. Their desires are the same, a better life for their children, enough food, a roof over their heads, the same mundane issues we all deal with. But the government there was described to me and I can confirm it as being like Moscow with palmtrees but without the culture or restraint (this was 1989). The government was corrupt beyond description and the suffering of the people incredible. The Baath Party ruled by fear and exercised control through its agent of fear.

The vast majority of Americans support the war. Ten years of misrule by a President who was more interested in killing camels with cruise missiles then dealing with a growing terrorist threat became clear in the aftermath of 9-11. The gutting and misuse of the FBI, INS, and CIA by a president more concerned with political gain than protecting American citizens also became evident. More recently the role of the UN has been clearly revealed as the League of Nations was during the Italian invasion of Eithopia. I wonder if Europeans can grasp the depth of revulsion towards the French manipulations in the UN are?

War is only hours away. I pray for our soldiers and the innocent of Iraq. But the end is also near and the perfidity of the French and Germans will soon be revealed and I wonder what Norwegens and Europeans response will be to the sale of embargoed items byy these two nations?

Finally, for evil to triumph it is necessary for enough good men to stand aside and do nothing. This to me defines the role of the UN, spectators to evil. One final thing, there exist within the US many who hate the principles and foundations of this country. They hate the concept of individual freedom, responsibility, that no man stands above another in the eyes of the law, nor that a class or group can dictate to the majority. Each nation has such people, in America they are far more vocal than in other nations and you see them in Hollywood and the press. Real Americans are putting their lives on the line to defend these principles today in the Middle East. Judge America from the way our troops conduct themselves and how the Iraqi people are treated by Americans in the future. Does anyone believe there will be a flood of refugees from Iraq after the war?

Tobias: Here's a translation of a bit of Cook's speech from a brit:

So, the world according to Robin: The UK is weak and impotent, but nevertheless we need powerful superpower allies, preferably not the US. The anti-terror coalition has boiled down to a few genuinely comitted states because the US has actually followed through on its stated objectives whereas other allies considered lip service after 9/11 to be quite sufficient, thank you very much. Thank God Tony pulled him out of the Foreign Office in 2001.

Well, isn't THIS special:

Controversial Norwegian humorist Otto Jespersen may have topped his already incendiary career exploits when his closing monologue on a popular comedy discussion show Torsdagsklubben (The Thursday Club) ended with the US flag in flames. [In the skit,] Jespersen The Norwegian Tom Green has not yet noticed that his candle for a war in Iraq has ignited the US flag.

via rantburg.

Great Post, Bjørn:

I more or less agree with you. In general I feel there is a much fuller debate in the US press over most issues. This is probably because there is less cultural agreement here on many subjects. Consequently, more points of view force themselves into the public space. However, I've noticed that the left-wing Americans are always saying that we haven't had a real debate over the war. So perhaps our biases inform our sense of whether or not a real debate has occurred.

Regards,
TLJ

We, the Unsanitarians, are now amongst you. Far more of us than you think. We will make ourselves known once it's known in your world which one is Mabus---sudaM, Usama B, Wbush, M Abbas...

The Google Search: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=might-be-mabus&btnG=Search appears to suggest that the search for the real Mabus is narrowing down.

"I watched CNN newsnight at some point last week and was stunned that the neoconservative agenda of Perle/Wolfowitz etc regarding Iraq that was apparent already during the Clinton years was presented to their viewers as some kind of news."

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

No their politics never been so secret as some would claim, especially right now Greg Palast.

I started out being against the war, suspicious like hell about those neo conservatives.

But the more I read the more their politics struck me as brilliant and visionary as well as pragmatic in a way more in accord with reality right now, than the usual airy fairy stuff :) or plain politics as a long suite of budget and reform decisions.

Trackback URL: /cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/91

Signifying Nothing (Chris Lawrence's weblog): The transatlantic disconnect, March 19, 2003 12:51 AM

Bjørn Stærk today traces overwhelming opposition to war in Norway back to the lack of genuine debate: [M]uch of the...

The Poor Man: Scandanavian Media, March 20, 2003 02:54 AM

Norseman Bjørn Stærk writes: The high-brow weekly paper Morgenbladet published a 40-page special edition on Iraq this week. Regular blog

Stumbling Tongue: False Colors, March 20, 2003 11:58 AM

Try living in Milan and being pro-war -- even hesistantly, unhappily, anxiously pro-war...

M: Krigen..et faktum, March 20, 2003 06:54 PM

Jeg hørte på radioen idag morges at usa hadde skutt et par raketter mot Irak,men at de fremdeles ikke sa