A Peace Nation Takes up Arms a Peace Nation Takes up Arms
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Independent • International • Interdisciplinary PRIO PAPER 7 gate Hausmanns Address: Visiting NO Grønland, 9229 PO Box (PRIO) Oslo Institute Research Peace A Peace Nation Takes Up Arms A Peace Nation Takes Up Arms The Norwegian Engagement in Afghanistan - 0134 Oslo, Norway Oslo, 0134 The Norwegian Engagement in Afghanistan Visiting Address: Address: Visiting NO Grønland, 9229 PO Box (PRIO) Oslo Institute Research Peace War (CSCW) Civil of Study the for Centre The Norwegian government Minister of Foreign Affairs in This paper is part of a series was fully behind the Opera- the new government gave his that examines the strategies of tion Enduring Freedom first presentation on the Nor- four NATO members in Af- (OEF), the US-led war against wegian contribution to the ghanistan: The US, the UK, 7 gate Hausmanns the Taliban regime and Al parliament. The main justifi- Germany and Norway. Each - Qaeda initiated in October cation for the Norwegian case study first contextualizes Norway Oslo, 0134 2001. By late November the commitment was the same as their Afghanistan engagement government had offered Nor- that which had informed the in light of the broader foreign wegian military resources, in- country’s security policy since policy concerns of the country cluding Special Forces, F-16 the late 1940s: that full sup- concerned, and then focuses on the development and ad- jet fighters and one Hercules port to the United States and ISBN: 7 www.studio Studio Design: justment of military strategy C-130 transport aircraft with to NATO was essential for a 978 in relation to other compo- - personnel. There was no prec- reciprocal security guarantee. 82 - nents of the engagement. In 7288 edent for deploying Norwe- The official justification for - this respect, special attention 389 gian military forces beyond the operation has gone - is given to the importance of 7 Europe other than in peace- through significant changes realities on the ground in Af- sju.no keeping operations. The ra- over the decade that Norway ghanistan, organizational tionale was made clear when has been engaged, however. (NATO) interests, and domes- Jan Petersen, the Conservative tic factors. NATO Photos. NATO Kabul. in HQ ISAF at flags multinational of Shot Photo: Photo: Kristian Berg Harpviken Kristian Berg Harpviken Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO) Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO) A Peace Nation Takes up Arms The Norwegian Engagement in Afghanistan Kristian Berg Harpviken Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO) 2 | A Peace Nation Takes up Arms Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO) Hausmanns gate 7 PO Box 9229 Oslo NO-0134 Oslo, Norway Tel. +47 22 54 77 00 www.prio.no PRIO encourages its researchers and research affiliates to publish their work in peer- reviewed journals and book series, as well as in PRIO’s own Report, Paper and Policy Brief series. In editing these series, we undertake a basic quality control, but PRIO does not as such have any view on political issues. We encourage our researchers actively to take part in public debates and give them full freedom of opinion. The responsibility and honour for the hypotheses, theories, findings and views expressed in our publications thus rests with the authors themselves. © Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO), 2011 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced. Stored in a retrieval system or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without permission in writing from the copyright holder(s). ISBN 978-82-7288-389-7 Cover design: www.studiosju.no Cover Photo: NATO Photos A Peace Nation Takes up Arms | 3 Intra-alliance Analysis: Policies and Approaches of NATO Allies in Afghanistan A CMI-PRIO study of the US, the UK, Germany and Norway The growing difficulties facing the NATO mission in Afghanistan had by mid-decade led to increases in commitment and innovations in policy. Pressure on allies to make more robust military commitments mounted, coupled with policy innovations designed to meet the growing insurgency with more appropriate strategies and better use of resources. The 2006 Riga summit endorsement of a strategy that stressed the integration of military and civilian policy elements was an important step in this development. While the terminology and its implications differed (American policy-makers were already talking of ‘counter-insurgency’, while their European counterparts preferred ‘comprehensive’, ‘integrated’ or ‘whole of government’ approach), the Riga meeting signified a broadening as well as a deepening commitment of the alliance. In the years that followed, each NATO member and other allies struggled to adjust their policy to deal with often conflicting contexts and demands – a worsening situation on the ground, demands for alliance solidarity and awareness that NATO’s prestige was on the line in Afghanistan, an increasingly critical public at home as casualties were rising, and growing concern over the economic costs of the war. The papers in this series examine the strategies of four NATO members in this regard. Each case study first contextualizes their Afghanistan engagement in light of the broader foreign policy concerns of the country concerned, and then focuses on the development and adjustment of military strategy in relation to other components of the engagement. In this respect, special attention is given to the importance of realities on the ground in Afghanistan, organizational (NATO) interests, and domestic factors. The story is taken up to the NATO Lisbon summit meeting in November 2010, which marked the counter-point to Riga by announcing that security responsibility would be transferred to Afghan forces by the end of 2014. What are the implications of this analysis for NATO’s role in out-of-area, unconventional engagements? This question is addressed in a separate series of Policy Briefs presented as part of the project. The papers were commissioned by the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Additional financial support was received from The Norwegian Peacebuilding Resource Centre (NOREF) and the German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMF). Bergen and Oslo 25 October 2011 Astri Suhrke, CMI, and Kristian Berg Harpviken, PRIO. 4 | A Peace Nation Takes up Arms Contents 1. Introduction _________________________________________________________ 5 2. The military commitment ____________________________________________ 5 3. The civilian efforts __________________________________________________ 10 4. A ‘Norwegian model’ PRT? __________________________________________ 12 5. Shaping Norway’s approach __________________________________________ 16 5.1. Threat to Norway ________________________________________________ 16 5.2. Alliance dependence ______________________________________________ 18 5.3. Afghan ground realities ____________________________________________ 19 5.4. The ‘peace nation’ ________________________________________________ 19 A Peace Nation Takes up Arms | 5 1. Introduction1 What have been the main drivers of Norway’s approach to the post-9/11 international engagement in Afghanistan? This paper considers two main types of driver. First, it examines the importance of threat to domestic security, including plans for, or actual, acts of terror as well as the perception of threat. Second, the paper assesses the importance of alliance dependence – the extent to which the country’s basic security is seen to hinge on its role in the NATO alliance – and, in addition, domestic political cleavages and issues of self-identification; in the current context the emphasis will be on Norway’s identity as a ‘peace nation’. Furthermore, the specific operational environment in which Norway is engaged matters for policy change. Overall, for Norway, alliance considerations are the key impetus to the engagement. The post-9/11 engagement in Afghanistan has proved to be extremely challenging. Deep differences of opinion have threatened the consensus-based foreign policy tradition. Inherent tensions between a policy driven by Norway’s perceived security needs and the country’s profile as an impartial contributor to peaceful settlement of conflict worldwide have been brought to the fore. In this paper, I shall first examine Norway’s military engagement, before turning the lens to the civilian contributions – in both cases with a view to the mutual integration of efforts. I will then zoom in on the Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) in Faryab, led by Norway since 2005. Next, I will discuss the key factors shaping Norway’s policy over time.2 2. The military commitment The terror attacks in the United States took place one day prior to Norway’s parliamentary elections in 2001. Time did not allow 9/11 to become a factor in the elections, but the fact that the question of Norway’s contribution to the war on terror sparked no controversy in the transition from one government to the next speaks volumes for the broad Norwegian consensus on security policy matters. The outgoing government was a minority government of the social democrat Labour party, led by Jens Stoltenberg. It was replaced by a coalition minority government led by Kjell Magne Bondevik, of centre right composition (consisting of the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party and the Prime Minister’s Christian Democratic Party). The Norwegian government was fully behind Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF), the US-led war against the Taliban regime and Al Qaeda. By late November it had offered Norwegian military resources, including Special Forces, F-16 jet fighters