Norway – Sustainable Politics

About NATO and the US military bases in Norway, and Haakonsvern in particular
Om NATO og USAs krigsbaser i Norge, og Haakonsvern spesielt
Published: 29 April 2024
In: Steigan
By: Terje Alnes

Presentation at the Anti-Imperialist Conference, Bergen Assembly, 27 April 2024

«On behalf of the Anti-War Initiative[Antikrigs-Initiativet, AKI], I thank you for the invitation to make a presentation. AKI was founded in 2019 and our vision is to become “a broad and popular movement for peace, against war and against a policy that increases the danger of war, in Norway and internationally.” The basis for our work is formulated in a platform that you can find at antikrigsinitiativet.no, and anyone who can get behind it can become a member. The term imperialism is not used in the platform, but when you read it, you realize that it is fundamentally anti-imperialist.»

Video presentation: Om NATO og USAs krigsbaser i Norge

«At this anti-imperialist conference, I want to start with some good news: We are now seeing very clear signs that 500 years of Western imperialism is coming to an end! Western colonization and control of the world is winding down, and America’s status as the world’s undisputed superpower and oppressor, as it has been for the past decades, has come to an end. The world will become multipolar. There will be several centers of power, not one that can plunder and oppress all over the globe.

This dramatic shift in history has not only global, but also regional and local implications, and we also see concrete results of these upheavals in this small town – Bergen. I have been asked to speak about NATO and the US military bases in Norway, and Haakonsvern [Royal Norwegian Navy] in particular. But in order to understand why all this is happening here and now, we must keep the great geopolitical upheaval in mind.

Unfortunately, Norway is on the wrong side of history, as an ally of the American Empire. The United States empire is not a geographical entity like previous empires in history, but is just as much an empire because it has controlled the world through a series of vassal states, client states and protectorates. Norway is such a vassal state.

Zbigniew Brzeziński, Jimmy Carter’s security policy adviser and professor of foreign policy, was liberatingly outspoken when it came to the mention of allied states. In the book “The Grand Chessboard” (1997), a major work on American geopolitics, we learn a lot about how the Americans view countries like Norway. Brzeziński refers to the Western European countries as America’s vassals.

A vassal state (such as Norway) is so dependent on another state (in this case the USA) that the national independence becomes of a more formal nature. When it comes to foreign policy, we have clear limitations, as a result of the fact that we are subject to the domination of the United States. In practice, this means that we are allowed internal autonomy (unless we vote “wrong” and the US has to intervene), while in foreign policy we are subject to the US and are expected to follow the dictates from Washington.

This also explains why it is almost indifferent whether we have a bourgeois government, or a Labor Party-dominated government, the foreign policy is fixed anyway.

About NATO

NATO was created immediately after World War II, and the driving force was anti-communism. The Soviet Union was perceived as a threat to Western capitalism, not only for purely ideological reasons, but also because the Soviet Union enjoyed a high reputation among broad sections of the people in the West, after the war. Norway joined NATO from the start in 1949, as one of the 12 original member states, and the vanguard of anti-communism in the Labor Party was the driving force behind this.

As NATO’s first Secretary General, former British General Hasting Lionel Ismay was exemplary when he stated that the purpose (of NATO) was to “keep the Russians out, the Americans in and the Germans down.”

Already here we find an interesting point; namely that NATO was a tool to ensure an American grip on Europe. Ismay was an advocate of NATO expansion from the start, saying that NATO “must grow until the whole free world comes under one umbrella.” The statement illustrates the typical NATO rhetoric, where the alliance is allegedly fighting for “a free world”.

This has little credibility all the time Portugal, one of NATO’s original member states, was a fascist dictatorship until 1974. This dictatorship was no problem for NATO, which never did anything to promote democracy in Portugal.

Greece became a NATO member in 1952. Here, NATO actively contributed to the abolition of democracy through a fascist coup in April 1967, just before an election the left was likely to win. Turkey also became a NATO member in 1952. Nevertheless, Turkish democracy has regularly been sidelined by the military. In 1960, 1971 and 1980, democracy was suspended and replaced with governments appointed by the generals.

It is then only logical that today’s NATO has a partnership agreement with the apartheid state of Israel, and that NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg stated on 12 October last year that “Israel does not stand alone“. At the same time, a number of NATO countries stated that they would give practical support to Israel’s war in Gaza.

NATO’s founding document – the Atlantic Pact – is very similar to the UN Pact, and is defensive in nature. But when the previous Cold War ended, with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, NATO faced an existential problem. What would the alliance do now that its very basis for existence no longer existed?

The truth is that NATO depends on enemies to legitimize its existence. That is the explanation why Russia has been told twice since the dissolution of the Soviet Union that membership in NATO is out of the question. Both Boris Yeltsin in 1991 and Vladimir Putin in 2000 were met with a cold shoulder when they aired the possibility. This means that NATO is in reality an obstacle to an all-European security solution, and that Europe, as long as the alliance exists, will be an area of military tension.

What happened after the first cold war was over was that in 1999 NATO redefined its mandate to include so-called “pre-emptive strikes” – i.e. “preventive attacks” (!), and formulated its “out-of-area” strategy , which in practice gives NATO permission to intervene militarily across the globe, if they themselves believe it is necessary.

We first saw this put into practice when NATO launched a military attack against Yugoslavia, without a mandate from the UN Security Council, which as of definition is an illegal war. The justification was “humanitarian”, to stop alleged abuses committed by Serbian forces against Albanian civilians. For the first time since World War II, Norwegian forces took part in direct hostilities, when we fielded 6 F-16 aircraft.

This shift in NATO strategy also meant that the entire structure of the Norwegian Armed Forces was rearranged. From approx. in 2000, the Norwegian Armed Forces went from being an invasion defence, with large standing forces that were supposed to resist a territorial attack on Norway, to becoming a small, specialized response defence, which puts advanced combat forces at our disposal when NATO/USA asks us to.

Today’s NATO is therefore not a defensive defense alliance, as the Norwegian media and NATO supporters claim. Today’s NATO represents boundless militarism and war, and threats of war, to achieve political goals that benefit the alliance’s patron – the United States. With its superior military power (almost 60% of the world’s total military expenditure), insane rearmament plans and nuclear weapons strategy, insatiable expansion and illegitimate power ambitions across the globe, the US-led military bloc is a constant threat to world peace.

NATO is no protection against war. It is on the contrary. The NATO strategy is a recipe for war. For Norway, membership means that we have to stand up in wars against states that have never attacked us, because Norwegian politicians are repeatedly pressured to show themselves as “a good ally”. NATO membership makes Norway a nation of war, in stark contrast to the national self-image of Norway as a nation of peace.

Therefore, several times since 1999, Norwegian forces have participated in illegal wars started on the basis of lies, with disastrous consequences for the countries that have been attacked and occupied by NATO.

AKI says in our platform:

– NATO is a destructive and aggressive war alliance and must be disbanded.

About the base agreement

For political strategists who are concerned with securing the USA’s global dominance, Norway is a piece to be used in the best possible way in a larger, geopolitical game. Thus, the base agreement on “defense cooperation” is an agreement that only a vassal state can sign. It is important to stress that the base agreement has nothing to do with NATO. This is a bilateral agreement between the USA and Norway, and it applies regardless of whether the wonderful thing should happen; that Norway withdraws from NATO.

The agreement was signed by the Solberg government in 2021, and adopted in the Storting in 2022. Initially, 4 Norwegian military installations were defined as so-called »omforente områder/ areas» – Rygge, Sola, and Evenes air stations, and Ramsund military station. “Omforente områder” is an Orwellian euphemism, designed to de-dramatize and hide what it’s really about; namely American military bases on Norwegian soil.

This year, the Støre government has approved 8 new such areas, including the Haakonsvern military station here in Bergen. We are now talking about 12 American military bases, located on existing Norwegian military facilities.

This has come about on the initiative of the United States. It is the United States that has pushed for access to these military bases, and it is the Norwegian government that has given in. We know that the US originally asked for 20 such bases. But it doesn’t have to stop here, the agreement opens the door to expanding the number later. The agreement approved by the Storting is valid for 10 years in the first instance.

Before the inquiry to Norway, which came in 2018, the US had already entered into similar agreements with Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Bulgaria and Romania. After Norway agreed to the USA’s wishes, the governments of Denmark, Sweden and Finland have signed the same type of agreements. In total, we will now have 47 American military bases in the Nordic region. The nearest is only 50 kilometers from the Russian border in Finland.

In practice, this means that the Nordic bloc as a bloc renounces national control over defense policy and places its fate in the hands of the United States. The alleged cooperation that is embedded in the agreement takes place on the United States’ terms. The agreement contains unacceptable elements for an independent nation.

By separate agreement, parts of the areas can be placed at exclusive American disposal, including the deployment and deployment of forces and materiel. What the US brings into these bases has nothing to do with the Norwegian authorities. US forces are given permission to control access to those parts of “umforente områder” where exclusive US right of use has been agreed. The Norwegian authorities thus give up responsibility for what the Americans bring into the bases.

As stated in the agreement’s article XI point 3:

“No boarding or control of aircraft, vessels and vehicles used by or exclusively for US forces shall be carried out, without the consent of the US.” Naturally, the Americans will never give such “consent”.

Haakonsvern military station

This is the main base for the Norwegian Navy. It is Northern Europe’s largest naval base and Norway’s largest military camp, with 3,500 military and civilian employees. It is also one of two ports in Norway where American nuclear submarines can dock (the other is Grøtsund in Tromsø).

Large sums will now be spent on equipping Haakonsvern, and on a new fleet of warships that will have Haakonsvern as their permanent base. “The investment makes Bergen a NATO capital“, according to Storting representative Hans Inge Myrvold (Sp, Senter partiet, Center party).

An infrastructure project worth NOK 740 million has already been approved. Five new frigates are to be acquired, with an option for a further one. The frigate project is the single most expensive investment in the long-term plan for the Norwegian Armed Forces. Norway has already ordered four new submarines from Germany. Now the project is being expanded with a submarine and with an option for a further one. The four submarines alone have a cost frame of just over NOK 48 billion. There will be major investments at Haakonsvern in connection with the new submarines. A project with a cost frame of NOK 4 billion has already been approved. Towards 2026, a further NOK 6 billion will be invested, not least to be able to handle another new submarine and at the same time maintain the existing submarine fleet. This work is to be completed in 2027.

Today, Haakonsvern is the only place in southern Norway with military maritime workshop capacity, including a mountain hall with a dry dock. What we do know about the USA’s plans for Haakonsvern is that they want to improve the capability for logistics support. This may include expanded capacity for storage of ammunition and fuel, improvement of facilities for maintenance, and storage of spare parts for naval vessels.

But what happens if Norway wants to terminate the agreement?

Then we should know that Iraq’s parliament has several times decided that US forces should leave the country, without the US complying with the demand. Norway participates here as part of the occupation forces, with approx. 30 guard soldiers at the huge American airbase there. When Niger wants to dismantle the USA’s drone base in the country, the USA also refuses to comply with the demand, even though there have been different signals in recent days. Chad has now also asked the US military to leave the country, so we’ll see if they do.

We cannot therefore count on the USA to automatically give up these bases on Norwegian soil, even if the Storting were to adopt it. The American military bases on Norwegian soil are simply a serious threat to Norwegian sovereignty and means that we have put ourselves in a state similar to occupation.

For the US and NATO, the Nordic region is the northern flank in the fight against Russia, but also indirectly against China, which they see as Russia’s ally.

Norway is a major power when it comes to military intelligence, and one of the most important cooperation partners for the United States. Journalist and author Bård Wormdal has, through his investigative journalism, asked the question whether the Norwegian military intelligence service serves Norwegian or American interests. The fact is that for decades the USA has financed large parts of the budget for the National Intelligence Service. Wormdal has also shown that the service is far beyond democratic control.

The Anti-War Initiative has been fighting the US bases since this issue came up. We have campaigned many times in the center of Bergen, and three times outside at Haakonsvern.

It is really obvious: A small state like Norway has completely different security policy interests than a superpower with global power ambitions. The base agreement draws us even more into the US’s geopolitical power struggle and, in the worst case scenario, could make us a target of attack in a potential military conflict.

(Norwegian text translated via Google)

Introduction

On February 14, 2024, Professor Glenn Diesen[1][2][3][4] published several posts[1][2][3][4] on X in which he reports on the cancel and censorship culture, as practiced by the Norwegian Aage Borchgrevink[1]. Although Borchgrevink is listed on various websites and Wikipedia pages as a human rights activist, works at the Norwegian Helsinki Committee, and is chairman of the Norwegian NFFO, the Norwegian Non-Fiction Writers and Translators Association, he is not who he pretends to be.
What Glenn Diesen describes in the following articles, posted on X, corresponds with the experiences so many others and also I had with Aage Borchgrevink on X: there is zero willingness to be informed about the scientific facts regarding political issues. He distorts facts, creates misinformation, and is a USA propaganda activist, not a human rights activist. The same applies to the Helsinki Committee, and the NFFO.

1. The Norwegian Non-Fiction Writers and Translators Association (NFFO)

…….. announced that they cancelled their participation as a co-organiser for a public debate about the conflict in the Middle East because I am one of the speakers. I wear this as a badge of honour. One of Norway’s leading propagandists who has been writing hit-pieces about me for years in the media just happens to be a chairman of NFFO who announced the cancellation. So, the person behind the organisation that cancelled their participation, because I am allegedly controversial, is the same person who has been working tirelessly to depict me as controversial to have me fired as a professor from the university. These are two cheeks of the same arse, but this is conveniently omitted by those reporting on this story.

I do not use the term “propagandist” lightly. This propagandist works for the Helsinki Committee, a “human rights organisation” financed by the CIA-cutout National Endowment for Democracy (NED). When Reagan established NED as an extension of the CIA in 1983, it was to manipulate civil society in other countries (see tweet below). NED and its proxies only focus on human rights in adversarial states and thus sell all great power conflicts as a fight between democracy and authoritarianism (good vs evil), while claiming the source credibility of a “human rights organisation” that enables them to dismiss critics as enemies of freedom. When this Norwegian “human rights activist” does not slander me in the media and shames my university for permitting academic freedom, he is campaigning against Julian Assange and other critics of the US.

This is not simply an issue to a silly propagandist discrediting NFFO. Censorship, cancellations and the corruption of institutions have detrimental effects on society. After a decade of war in Ukraine, Norwegians are still not exposed to any arguments and evidence that deviate from NATO’s narrative. Norway will give the US sovereign control over 15 military bases on its soil to confront Russia in the Arctic and Norway has become one of the most eager weapon suppliers in the Ukrainian proxy war – with almost no public debate about the impact on our security as only one argument is permitted and dissent comes with great social cost. Anyone attempting to explain the arguments of the opposing side can be denounced for “legitimising” the opponent and thus smeared as a “Putinist”.

Our discourse subsequently consists of clichés and slogans without substance, simplified and dumbed down to a narrative of goodies versus baddies in which ever-more weapons are the path to peace, diplomacy and negotiations are dangerous, and censorship is vital to protect our democracy.

All is not well with freedom of speech and academic freedom in this country. I have published 11 academic books, which have been translated into several languages. Yet, an organisation devoted to academic writing cancelled their participation as a co-organiser because a ridiculous NED-financed “human rights activist” has accused me of working for Russia. Also, the debate they withdrew support from is not even about Russia, but the Middle East…

2. The Norwegian Helsinki Committee

…….. should be designated as a propaganda organisation due to its funding from the National Endowment for Democracy (NED): – Washington Post writes that NED has been the “sugar daddy of overt operations” and “what used to be called ‘propaganda’ and can now simply be called ‘information'”. – NED was inaugurated by President Reagan to conceal influence operations by US intelligence as work on democracy and human rights. – Documents released by the Reagan presidential library reveal that NED cooperated closely with CIA propaganda initiatives. – Allen Weinstein, a cofounder of NED, acknowledged: “a lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA”. – Philip Agee, a CIA whistle-blower, explained that NED was established as a “propaganda and inducement program” to subvert foreign nations and style it as a democracy promotion initiatives.

The Norwegian Helsinki Committee wrote a 7-page long article about me (plus front page), in which they pressured the university to terminate my employment as I allegedly violate international law by supporting Russian war propaganda. – This is a strange allegation as I have been very openly opposed to the war from day one, but my crime as a professor of Russian politics has been to engage with Russian media. And this is allegedly in breach of international law. – The article makes no sense and was published in a newspaper where the author’s wife is an editor, but it is nonetheless cited in numerous efforts to censor and cancel. – It is beyond absurd that government-funded “non-governmental organisations” masquerading as “human rights organisations” can routinely attack academic freedoms and manipulate civil society in our country to ensure there is only one acceptable narrativ

3. Tweets by Aage Borchgrevink

Notice how in all these tweets (and all his articles), he attempts to shame the university into cancelling dissent. Is this normal for a state-financed “human rights activist” and a chairman of an organisation for authors? Click picture to enlarge:

4. Borchgrevink’s cancellation

He is very proud to censor and cancel. Unworthy of an open society. Click picture to enlarge.

5. Professor Glenn Diesen about the Tucker Carlsen interview with Vladimir Putin

The subjects “propaganda“, “freedom of speech“, and “censorship” start at 16:34 in the video ”Is America in decline: The US could lose the war against Russia – CBC Weekly Talk (Azerbaijan)”

Anastasia Lavrina: I don’t know if you watched the last interview of Vladimir Putin to American journalist Tucker Carlson and immediately after the West started to criticize the journalist for this interview. Why do you think the West turned against the American journalist in this particular interview is there any specific issues on the agenda?

Glenn Diesen: Well, they denounced the interview as propaganda before had even been released so I think it’s quite obvious that this doesn’t look good in terms of our principle of free speech because a lot of the attacks you know calling him a Putin puppet and you know this kind of name calling it’s not just childish but it’s also completely devoid of any substance. There’s no real criticism of you know the questions he asked or the direction he took it, so I think it demonstrates I think an unwillingness to present the opposite side of the argument and this is a huge problem.
I always make the point that at least during the Cold War we knew what Moscow’s arguments were. We didn’t feel the need to censor it but these days there’s a huge amount of censorship going on now here in the west, not only censoring Russian media but also journalist academics within the West who dare to explain what the Russians are thinking, what they’re doing, are accused of legitimizing what the Russians are doing, and one sees the call for censorship and cancellation immediately arises, so I think that a lot of the war narrative which we have been building over the past two years is based on their flawed assumption.

I don’t think many people anymore in the west really know much about very basic facts which can be proven, so I think there’s a huge concern that the whole narrative for war is disappearing and so the the need for narrative control. I think this is the greatest concern, and why there was such a fierce opposition to the Tucker Carlson interview of President Putin.