! ! ! ! Should Norway Intervene?! a discourse analytical approach to Norway's "policy" on military interventions 1999-2011 Nora Knoph Berg-Eriksen Master Thesis in InternationalRelations, 30 credits 2013 Master Departmentof International Environment andDevelopment Studies, Noragric ! The Department of International Environment and Development Studies, Noragric, is the international gateway for the Norwegian University of Life Sciences (UMB). Eight departments, associated research institutions and the Norwegian College of Veterinary Medicine in Oslo. Established in 1986, Noragric’s contribution to international development lies in the interface between research, education (Bachelor, Master and PhD programmes) and assignments. The Noragric Master thesis are the final theses submitted by students in order to fulfil the requirements under the Noragric Master programme “International Environmental Studies”, “Development Studies” and “International Relations”. The findings in this thesis do not necessarily reflect the views of Noragric. Extracts from this publication may only be reproduced after prior consultation with the author and on condition that the source is indicated. For rights of reproduction or translation contact Noragric. © Nora Knoph Berg-Eriksen, July 2013 [email protected] Noragric Department of International Environment and Development Studies P.O. Box 5003 N-1432 Ås Norway Tel.: +47 64 96 52 00 Fax: +47 64 96 52 01 Internet: http://www.umb.no/noragric I Declaration I, Nora Knoph Berg-Eriksen, declare that this thesis is a result of my research investigations and findings. Sources of information other than my own have been acknowledged and a reference list has been appended. This work has not been previously submitted to any other university for award of any type of academic degree. Signature…………………………………………………………... Date…………………………………………………………………. II Acknowledgements First and foremost I would like to thank my supervisor Halvard Leira for his advice and comments on throughout the process. His guidance helped me in the right direction and has kept me on the right track. Further I would like to thank Nina Græger and NUPI for giving me the chance to work on this thesis in an inspiring environment. The Security and Defense group, and especially Karsten Friis, deserves thanks for commenting on an early draft on chapter four. I am also grateful to Susan Høivik for proofreading the thesis on a short notice. My fellow interns at NUPI deserve thanks for providing a good social environment during the work on this thesis. As do my class mates from the master program in International Relations at Umb and especially Sigrun Holter for good discussions and encouraging comments. Further I am grateful for the support and encouragement of my family and friends. And, last, but not least, Lars Petter deserves my thanks for his patience and support through these last months. However, all mistakes and inconsistencies are solely my own. Nora K. Berg-Eriksen Oslo, July 2013 III Abstract Since 1999 Norway has participated in three military interventions and refused to participate in a fourth. This thesis explores how Norway’s participation in military intervention has been made possible and whether there is a Norwegian policy on military interventions. It adopts a discourse analytical approach as a theoretical basis and as a method. By examining a broad range of texts on the debates on Norway’s participation in interventions it seeks to identify a dominant representation of the circumstances under which Norway will participate. Contrary to what one might expect this thesis finds that it is not possible to identify one coherent discourse on military intervention in Norway or a dominant representation of circumstances under which Norway will participate. Therefore it is not possible to identify a Norwegian policy on military intervention, which makes it difficult to predict Norway’s position in future questions of participation in military interventions. However, the intervention discourse does not appear “out of the blue” whenever a new intervention is debated. Throughout the various interventions we find three main recurrent elements: NATO membership, promotion of the UN and promotion of universal human rights. Through the use of a layered framework these can be understood as fairly permanent construction of principles on which Norwegian foreign policy is based (the strategic level) that are more deeply rooted in constructions on national security and Norwegian self-images (idea level). Although we cannot predict future decisions based on the analysis of the intervention discourse, the layered framework indicates that some representations are more fundamental than others. Thus, actors will have to argue within the frames set on levels one and two: they must provide proper constructions of NATO, the UN and humanitarianism. Consequently Norwegian participation in any future intervention will have to provide proper representations of promotion of international law and the UN, Norway’s obligations to NATO and the allies and offer a proper representation of humanitarian concerns. Otherwise, we can expect a shift in the discourse with, changes in the more fundamental construction of Norwegian foreign policy and/or serious political consequences for any actor that seeks to promote a policy which cannot be argued within the frames of continuity. IV V Table of content 1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Research question ............................................................................................... 2 1.2 Outline of the thesis............................................................................................ 4 2 DISCOURSE ANALYSIS AS THEORY AND METHOD .......................................................... 6 2.1 Discourse analysis as a theoretical framework................................................... 6 2.1.1 The importance of language ................................................................................ 7 2.1.2 Defining discourse and representations .............................................................. 8 2.1.3 Discursive change: a layered framework ............................................................ 9 2.2 Employing discourse analysis as method ......................................................... 11 2.2.1 Method applied ................................................................................................. 11 2.2.2 The nature of the study: how is data collected and analyzed ............................ 12 2.2.4 Analytical framework......................................................................................... 15 3 EXISTING LITERATURE ON NORWEGIAN FOREIGN POLICY DISCOURSE..................... 16 3.1 Norwegian foreign policy practice ................................................................... 17 3.1.1 Consensus on Norwegian foreign policy ........................................................... 18 3.2 Norwegian self-images: Norway is a humanitarian great power...................... 19 3.2.1 Norway is a peace nation................................................................................... 19 3.2.2 Aid ...................................................................................................................... 21 3.2.3 Norway is for a world order based on the rule of law....................................... 21 3.3 Norwegian security and defense....................................................................... 23 3.3.1. Representations of Norwegian security and defense ......................................... 23 3.3.2 Discourse on military interventions................................................................... 26 3.4 Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 28 4 MAPPING OUT THE INTERVENTION DISCOURSE .......................................................... 29 4.1 Kosovo.............................................................................................................. 30 4.1.1 Humanitarian considerations ............................................................................ 32 4.1.2 The alliance........................................................................................................ 33 4.1.3 International law................................................................................................ 35 4.1.4 Summary............................................................................................................. 37 4.2 Afghanistan....................................................................................................... 37 4.2.1 The alliance........................................................................................................ 38 4.2.2 International law................................................................................................ 41 VI 4.2.3 Humanitarian concerns...................................................................................... 42 4.2.4 Summary............................................................................................................. 42 4.3 Iraq.................................................................................................................... 43 4.3.1 International law................................................................................................ 44 4.3.2 The alliance.......................................................................................................