“Our closest ally” has no friends, only interests

The fundamental narrative that the US is our friend and a guarantor of a rules-based world order is shaken to its foundations with the return of Donald Trump.

Our political elites have never failed to emphasize the United States as an invaluable and vital alliance partner for Norway. The political friendship with the United States is a protection against the aggressive and expansionist Russia's evil plans to invade us. In short, this is the fundamental idea that guides the course of Norwegian defense and foreign policy.

To no end, Norwegian politicians and commentators in the NATO-loyal media refer to “our closest ally” as a guarantor of “a rules-based world order”, where international law and justice must be defended. These phrases are repeated on autopilot, even though a whole catalog of empirical evidence contradicts the claim. Only someone who is politically blind in one eye can believe such a narrative.

This is why political Norway is in a state of panic as Donald Trump moves back into the White House. Trump's unpredictability and honest speech means that those who have stuck us politically and militarily as close as possible to the US are experiencing an existential crisis. When Trump repeats his ambition for the US to take over Greenland and the Panama Canal, and calls both crucial to US national security, even the most tongue-in-cheek Norwegian politicians must ask themselves which friend we have in the US.

Asked if he would rule out using military or economic force to take over the autonomous Danish territory or the canal, he replied “No, I can't assure you of either of those two”. American security interests take precedence. The statement should be a wake-up call for Norwegian politicians who live in an idealistic fantasy world.

As Henry Kissinger stated: “America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests.”

A secret agreement gave the US the right to use Greenland as a nuclear weapons base

It's one thing what politicians tell us, it's another what they do behind our backs.

In 1997, Danish journalist Poul Brink revealed, after ten years of investigative journalism, that Denmark had a top-secret nuclear weapons policy. In the 1950s, Prime Minister Hans Christian Hansen (Social Democratic Party) had entered into agreements with the USA to allow the Americans to store nuclear weapons at Thule Air Base, which was established in 1951-52. At the same time, he undertook to lie about this to the Danish people.

The revelation came when Poul Brink was commissioned in 1986 to write about an occupational injury suffered by a worker at the Thule base. This man was able to tell us that an American bomber with four nuclear bombs on board had crashed at Thule in 1968. The worker had fallen ill after being assigned to remove plutonium-contaminated snow.

The case revealed that there were nuclear weapons on Danish territory, even though several Danish prime ministers had claimed the opposite. In a leaked memo from 1957, Minister of State and Foreign Affairs H.C. Hansen replied that Denmark did not want to hear more about US activities at Thule Air Base, after the US asked if the Danish government wanted to be informed if the US stationed nuclear weapons in Greenland.

In other words, the political leadership in Denmark turned away and did not want to see or hear anything about what the US was doing on its own territory!

What is behind the base agreement with the US?

The Danish case showed that Danish politicians were more loyal to the US than to their own people. So what should we think of leading Norwegian politicians?

During Trump's previous presidency, Erna Solberg gave permission for the US to establish four military bases on Norwegian soil. The result was the “Supplementary defence cooperation agreement” of 16 April 2021. Negotiations on so-called “Agreed Facilities and Areas” began in 2018, i.e. during Trump's first presidential term, and at the initiative of the US. In other words, Norwegian politicians did not want permanent US bases in Norway as protection against Russia, as has subsequently been portrayed. The background was a pronounced American need for equal framework conditions for US military forces in allied countries.

In other words, it was the US that put the pressure on, and the Norwegian government that has gradually given in to American wishes. According to TV2, the US originally asked for access to 20 bases on Norwegian territory. They were initially granted four, but in February 2024, Defense Minister Bjørn Arild Gram signed an extension to the agreement, giving the US eight new military bases on Norwegian soil, making 12 in total. It doesn't have to stop there, as the agreement allows for further expansions.

The truth about the base agreement is that Norway was pressured by the US to relinquish national sovereignty, and to hand over territories on Norwegian soil to US forces. Inside these bases, the Americans can store whatever weapons they want, without the Norwegian authorities being able to control what they store. In practice, the areas are American territory. Even the conservative newspaper Aftenposten had to conclude that “American soldiers are allowed to behave in Norway as if they were in the USA”.

Rygge Air Base is now a base for American aircraft equipped with nuclear weapons. There is a high probability that tactical nuclear weapons are stored in a closed, US-controlled area of the air base. Haakonsvern Naval Base is a permanent port of call for American nuclear submarines, and an area inside the naval station is now under American control. What the US Navy does here is none of our business.

Like top Danish politicians in the 1950s, Norwegian politicians close their eyes and turn away. They don't want to know what the US is doing in Norway. In this way, they show that their loyalty to the USA is greater than their loyalty to the Norwegian people.

The battle for natural resources

One reason for Trump's threats to Greenland is the presence of large quantities of minerals under the ice. These include iron ore, lead, zinc, diamonds, gold, rare earth elements, uranium and oil. Trump is violating both international law and the “rules-based world order” when he threatens to steal these resources from Denmark.

A year ago, the Labour Party, the Centre Party, the Conservative Party and the Progress Party joined forces in the Norwegian Parliament to open up mining for minerals on the seabed between Svalbard and Jan Mayen. The decision was made despite major protests from the international environmental movement, marine scientists and political bodies such as the Nordic Council, the EU and the UN.

In an article in Ny Tid, Øyvind Andresen writes that “the US currently imports between 80 and 90 percent of rare metals and earths from China. They are needed in the development of military equipment such as satellites and fighter jets. Several of these metals and earths are likely to be found in concentrated quantities on the Norwegian shelf.” In the title of the article, Andresen asks whether offshore mining is Norway's main contribution to NATO?

Seabed Solutions AS has developed the only excavator in the world that can dig at a depth of 4,000 meters. On its website, the company openly states that “deep sea mining expands the war space.” They make a military-strategic argument for this type of mining: “NATO is our most important guarantor of future freedom. The best way Norway can contribute to strengthening the NATO alliance is by contributing to balance in the mineral supply chain and the development of technologies that enable NATO to strengthen its capacities in the deep sea.”

Today, no minerals are extracted from the deep sea anywhere else in the world. There is reason to ask whether it is the US that is pressuring or threatening Norway to open up for mining on the seabed?

What about Svalbard?

A glance at the map quickly reveals Svalbard's strategic location. The Svalbard Treaty was signed on February 9, 1920 and has been ratified by 44 countries. It ensures “Norway's full and unrestricted” sovereignty over the archipelago. Article 9 of the Svalbard Treaty regulates military activity related to the archipelago. Norway undertakes not to establish or permit the establishment of naval bases or fortifications in the treaty area. Svalbard must also never be used for war purposes.

In July, the US Department of Defense released its Arctic strategy. “The United States is an Arctic nation, and the region is critical to the defense of our homeland, the protection of U.S. national sovereignty, and our defense treaty commitments,” it says.

The question is whether Norway in the current situation, with an increasingly assertive and aggressive US in the Arctic, is able to put its foot down and reject a direct American threat to the archipelago. Already, NATO has adopted new regional defense plans, in which Norway is linked to the UK and Iceland and subordinated to the command in Norfolk, Virginia. All decisions on the defense of Norway will be made in the US. That's where Donald Trump remains on the bridge.

Svalbard could be a test of whether Norwegian politicians serve Norwegian or American interests.

Sources:

Fredrik S. Heffermehl «Medaljens bakside» Svein Sandnes Bokforlag AS, 2020, s. 331-334, «4 viktige hendelser som forklarer forholdet mellom Grønland og USA», forskning.no 11.01.25, «Tilleggsavtale mellom Norge og USA om forsvarssamarbeid», lovdata.no, «Enighet med USA om å opprette flere omforente områder», regjeringen.no 02.02.24, «Stortinget sa ja til omstridt gruvedrift på havbunnen», vg.no 09.01.24, «Er gruvedriften til havs Norges fremste bidrag til NATO?», nytid.no 01.12.24, «2024 Arctic Strategy», U.S. Department of Defence 21.06.24