[ad_1]
Red leader Bjørnar Moxnes questions the ability of Foreign Minister Ine Eriksen Søreide to defend Norwegian interests in the powerful Security Council.
This summer, Norway was elected as a renewable member of the UN Security Council for the next two years. This means that, starting in the New Year, Norway will be able to sit at the table with the powerful permanent member states of the USA, Russia, China, France and the UK. Norway has been a member of the Security Council a total of four times before, the last time in 2001-2002.
Also read: Norwegian delegates stayed at a hotel in New York for 7,000 crowns a night
On Tuesday morning, Foreign Minister Ine Eriksen Søreide (H) gave a statement to the Storting on what the government’s priorities will be when Norway takes over the Security Council after Christmas. Eriksen Søreide highlights climate as one of the priority issues.
– In security policy, climate change is already recognized today as a “threat multiplier”. We want to help ensure that fact-based information on how climate change is relevant to conflict in an individual country becomes part of the basis of the Council’s decisions, says Eriksen Søreide in the report.
Also read: How the world’s most powerful “council” works
Bull for the classic Christmas movie
However, Rødt’s leader and parliamentary representative, Bjørnar Moxnes, is skeptical of Norway’s powerful new role as a renewable member of the Security Council. Moxnes expresses concern that the government cannot safeguard Norwegian interests in the Security Council and rather choose a line loyal to the great power of the United States.
He also expresses dissatisfaction with the so-called voice exchange agreements that were signed in the campaign to secure Norway a mobile seat on the Security Council.
– Can we expect a different policy than what we saw then? Moxnes says during the statement to the Foreign Minister, referring to the last time Norway had a seat on the Security Council in the period 2001-2002.
– In what has become something of a Christmas time movie tradition for many, Hugh Grant’s prime minister character says this: “We may be a small country, but we are also a big one.” Is there hope that Søreide, when necessary, will stand up to the United States for Norwegian interests in the Security Council? Moxnes says.
Moxnes refers to a movie scene from the Christmas classic “Love Actually,” where the British Prime Minister (played by Hugh Grant) takes a royal stand against the arrogant President of the United States (played by Billy Bob Thornton).
– Instead of following the United States, Norway can defend an independent line that strengthens the interests of small states and emphasizes international law and international agreements. That’s what Rødt is for. We also expect the government to choose such a line instead of the last, when, in one and all, we sadly did what the great Western power wanted us to do, says Moxnes.
– Capital of security policy for Norway
Chancellor Søreide believes that the post on the Security Council will not be weakened, but rather will strengthen Norwegian interests.
– I mean the opposite. What we are doing, including peace and reconciliation, is also a security policy capital for Norway, which means that we are increasing the room for maneuver of our foreign policy in other areas, and in this way safeguarding our interests. We are not doing this for the sake of my excellent government. We do this to safeguard Norwegian interests. It’s important to emphasize this, says Søreide in his summary in the report.
– What we do, for example, about peace and reconciliation, is something in which we have strong support from countries that otherwise do not agree on many things. When it comes to Israel and Palestine, we serve as chairman of AHLC (group of donor countries for Palestine editor’s note) with strong support from the United States. On the question of Afghanistan, the same is true. Russia and China are also involved, says the foreign minister.
Norwegian voice exchange agreements
Moxnes also criticizes the process of voting for agreements in the campaign to be elected to the Security Council.
– To get this place on the Security Council, Norway has entered into a large number of voice exchange agreements with other countries. Which countries, we do not know. Only several of them are not prominent democracies, so to speak. And what the agreement forces Norway to do, we don’t know either, because it is customary among diplomats to keep such agreements secret, Moxnes says.
– How can we be sure that they work for Norwegian interests and how can we verify that? We can’t have any guarantees on that, Moxnes says.
Also read: – Surprising if Norway loses, but Norway is not the most suitable for the job
Eriksen Søreide does not directly answer the question about voice exchange agreements, but refers to an earlier answer to the Storting.
– I want to refer to the answer that I have given to the Storting on both methods of work, that the Storting is completely free to decide for itself, and what is the background of how we act in the same way as previous governments when it comes to vote exchange agreements, says Eriksen Søreide.
The background to the answer that Eriksen Søreide refers to is a written question asked by Moxnes in October. Among other things, Moxnes wanted answers about the countries with which Norway has exchanged votes and what Norway has promised these countries in exchange for promising to give Norway its vote in the vote for seats in the Security Council.
Eriksen Søreide writes in the letter that voice exchange agreements are a well-established tool used by all UN member states standing for elections in a UN body, and that Norway also used this type of agreement when we We ran for election to the UN Security Council in the early summer of years and in 2000.
Secret
However, it will not say with which countries Norway entered into this type of vote-sharing agreement.
“In general, our policy is to use voting rights and swap agreements to promote nominations that are in line with our foreign policy priorities, but each individual swap agreement is evaluated individually. Voting relative to nominations in the UN context is not public, according to the rule of procedure on secret ballots, “writes Eriksen Søreide in response.
“From common practice it follows that states do not make public with which countries they support the UN Security Council. We also base this on the Norwegian side, and it is a policy that has been followed by Norwegian changes of government. This is a policy Norway is important, and important for the credibility of Norway in the context of the UN and for our relationship with other countries, “is the answer.
– Why did Norway fail?
The last time Norway sat on the Security Council in 2001-2002, there was criticism from some quarters that Norway received very little political credit for its efforts on the Security Council.
Moxnes is among those who believe that Norway failed politically the last time we sat at the powerful UN table. He substantiates the claim with an analysis written by peace researcher Svein Tønnessen at PRIO.
In the analysis “Why did Norway fail politically in the Security Council?” Since 2003, Tønnesson writes that then-Foreign Ministers Thorbjørn Jagland (Labor Party) and Jan Pettersen (H) failed to obtain political gains from Norway’s efforts. Tønnesson wrote that Norway received little attention in the international media and that the Norwegian public claimed that Norway lacked a clear profile.
“The most important explanation for the fact that two governments did not derive greater political benefits from the Norwegian membership of the Security Council is, in my opinion, that the principle of consensus was pushed too far,” writes Tønnesson, referring to the US wish. to go to war against Iraq.
“When the most powerful member of the Security Council showed less and less respect for multilateral agreements and asserted his right to militarily attack other member states, even without a clear UN mandate, situations had to arise where the only right thing to do to say was clear and unequivocal. Much of the Norwegian public wanted a clear speech, but received little response from the small number of foreign politicians in Norway. The Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs had adhered to the “mast of consensus,” he writes .
Tønnesson suggests that Norway did not distance itself enough from the US desire to go to war with Iraq in the wake of the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington in 2001. It is true that Norway was no longer a rolling member when the United States finally launched a military attack on Iraq without a UN mandate. in 2003.
Advertising
Highest electricity price in 11 months: this deal is still super cheap
