ISBN 978-91-7566-956-4 May 2013 SUMMARY: Norway has important interests, especi- than many NATO member states, which This paper discusses Norway’s security ally in the north, that are not necessarily have optimised their force structures policy and military posture as it has shared by its allies or partners. This means for international operations. Moreover, developed in the past two decades, with that Norway needs a military capability to because crises related to disputes at sea a particular emphasis on the relationship handle crises on its own. Accordingly, the are seen as far more likely than an invasion between national interests and military Norwegian Armed Forces have maintained of the mainland, the air force and the navy posture and strategy, Swedish-Norwegian a broader range of military capabilities have suffered far fewer cuts than the army. relations and Nordic-Baltic security. Balancing act – Norwegian security policy, strategy and military posture BY: STÅLE ULRIKSEN In February 2013, General Sverker both Sweden and Norway during the Norway lives off the Sea. Its economy Göranson, the Swedish Chief of De- Cold War, both generals were un- and welfare depend heavily on oil, fence, stated that if Sweden was ever doubtedly right. Even so, both state- gas and fish, and on the advanced invaded, the country would be able to ments caused huge controversy. From maritime industries that support and defend itself for one week. Thereafter, my perspective, the public reaction to supply these fields both at home and according to Aftonbladet, the general the generals’ frustrated outbursts was abroad. Norway controls areas of sea hoped for help from Norway.1 In Janu- far more interesting than the state- seven times the size of its land territo- ary 2008, General Robert Mood, at ments themselves. ry. The successful management of fish- the time chief of the Norwegian Army, This paper discusses Norway’s eries in Norwegian waters stands in held that the army was only capable of security policy and military posture sharp contrast to the tragic depletion defending a single district of Oslo, or a as it has developed in the past two of fish stocks elsewhere. The enforce- line 5 kilometres in length.2 Assuming decades, with a particular emphasis ment of Norwegian sovereignty and an opposition with capabilities even on the relationship between national law in these areas, as well as respon- slightly similar to the threats faced by interests and military posture and sibility for environmental protection strategy, Swedish-Norwegian relations and search and rescue, are important 1 “ÖB: ’Sverige kan försvara sig en vecka’”, and Nordic-Baltic security. day-to-day tasks of the Norwegian Aftonbladet 13.01.2013, Downloaded Armed Forces. While Norway’s most April 2013 from http://www.aftonbladet. Norwegian interests and important maritime interests are se/nyheter/article16013259.ab security policy coastal and local, the country also has 2 “Hæren kan bare forsvare én Oslo-bydel”, Seven simple propositions go a long strong global maritime interests. Nor- Verdens Gang 28.01.2008. Downloaded way towards explaining Norwegian wegian shipowners control the sixth April 2013 from http://www.vg.no/nyhe- ter/innenriks/artikkel.php?artid=503300 security and defence policy: largest merchant fleet in the world. Frivärld · May 2013 1 May 2013 Norwegian companies are increasingly The Norwegian military Norway. Instead it states that Rus- involved in the production of and posture in the high north is sia is likely to prioritise international providing support services to offshore not based on fear. It is better cooperation and avoid militarisation oil and gas all over the world. explained as an acceptance in the high north. Norway and Russia After decades of dispute and ne- of the truth of the statement have developed a cooperative, if not gotiations, an agreement setting the that ‘good fences make good always friendly, modus of coexist- maritime border between Russia and neighbours’. ence in their high-north neighbour- Norway took effect on 7 June 2011. It hood. To a certain extent Norway and settled one of Norway’s two remaining Norway is an Arctic country with Russia have common interests in the important geopolitical challenges. The strong interests in the high north. In a region, especially in the management second challenge, the as yet unresolved geopolitical sense Norway stands with of fisheries. However, there is a broad dispute between Norway and many one foot in a thoroughly regulated consensus in Norway that the country other states over the status of the wa- European park which to a large extent must be able to back up its policies ters around the Svalbard archipelago, may be defined as a security commu- with force if necessary. The Norwegian is probably the single most important nity and an area where war between military posture in the high north is issue of Norwegian foreign policy. The states is more or less unthinkable. The not based on fear. It is better explained special status of Svalbard is regu- other foot is placed in the cold wilder- as an acceptance of the truth of the lated by a treaty of 1920, which gives ness of the high north. The high north statement that ‘good fences make good Norway sovereignty over the islands is not unregulated, but it is not a secu- neighbours’. but any signatory to that treaty equal rity community. In the European park Norway is highly dependent on the ex- rights to conduct business there. The states do not reinforce policy towards isting world order. Norwegian foreign treaty also defines Svalbard as a demil- each other with displays of military policy is geared towards the promotion itarised zone. Some signatories to the power. In the high north they do. of a rules-based international order. treaty hold that it should be extended This does not mean that Norwe- This is not just words or values-based to an exclusive economic zone (EEZ) gians fear a Russian invasion. Such rhetoric. Norwegian control of its of 200 nautical miles (nm) around scenarios have not been part of EEZs and continental shelf is based the Islands. Norway’s position is that Norwegian defence planning since on the UNCLOS, which in turn is the area in question, beyond the 12 2002. In 2013 the Norwegian Intelli- based on the UN and international nm that defines the territorial waters gence Service expressed some concern society at large. Norway is therefore of Svalbard, is part of the Norwegian regarding political developments in a very strong supporter of the UN, continental shelf and thus, according Russia and recognised Russia’s grow- and it was the fourth largest financial to the United Nations Convention of ing military capabilities.3 However, the contributor, in absolute terms and by the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), under report does not see Russia as a threat far the largest per capita, to the UN Norwegian jurisdiction. The area is or as having hostile intentions towards system in 2010.4 currently defined by Norway as a fish stock protection zone, which is one 3 “Fokus 2013” , Etteretningstjenestens step removed from a regular EEZ. vurdering. Available at http://forsvaret.no/ 4 After the USA, Japan and the UK. Norway om-forsvaret/organisasjon/felles/etjenes- and Sweden together would have ranked ten/Documents/FOKUS-2013.pdf second Frivärld · May 2013 2 May 2013 Norwegian security policy depends on the question of whether the NATO In spite of this fact, Norway is strongly the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation security guarantee is still credible in integrated into EU structures through (NATO). In 1940 both the Norwe- practical military terms. the European Economic Area and the gian Armed Forces and the country’s The USA is Norway’s most important Schengen agreements. Norway con- traditional politics of neutrality were ally. The military relationship between tributes large sums to the EU every crushed as German troops invaded Norway and the USA goes far beyond year and has implemented more EU and occupied Norway. During the the fact that both are members of directives than many of its member Second World War new forces were NATO. Norway deployed forces to states. Europe is obviously important built in the United Kingdom, the Afghanistan and Iraq to honour that to Norway: some 85% of Norwegian United States and Canada, and strong relationship and to be seen as a good exports went to EU member states in political and military ties were built ally in Washington. A NATO without March 2013.5 with the Western powers. Some traits the USA might not be totally impo- Norway is strongly Scandinavian of neutrality remained, however, and tent, but it will certainly be a far less and Nordic, but Norway is not a Baltic NATO forces were not permanently credible military force. While Norway power. The Nordic states, and Sweden stationed in Norway during the Cold would prefer NATO to focus on the in particular, are important to Norway War. At that time it was very impor- defence of its member states, it cannot economically, culturally and in terms tant to be able to secure and train ignore US repositioning towards Asia. of shared values and common perspec- reinforcements for Norway at times of Norwegians have not yet debated tives on the main issues in internation- crisis or war. NATO is still of fun- what this means for NATO and for al politics. In terms of Nordic- Baltic damental importance to Norwegian Norway’s security. If the USA were to security, however, it is important to security policy and defence planning. make a request for Norwegian forces note that for Norway the Barents Sea to participate in a future conflict in is far more important than the Baltic Asia, for instance, what would the Sea.