Identifier | Created | Classification | Origin |
---|---|---|---|
06OSLO1486 | 2006-12-08 14:18:00 | UNCLASSIFIED | Embassy Oslo |
VZCZCXRO0314 PP RUEHAG RUEHAST RUEHDA RUEHDBU RUEHDF RUEHFL RUEHIK RUEHKW RUEHLA RUEHLN RUEHLZ RUEHROV RUEHSR RUEHVK RUEHYG DE RUEHNY #1486/01 3421418 ZNR UUUUU ZZH P 081418Z DEC 06 FM AMEMBASSY OSLO TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 4981 INFO RUEHZL/EUROPEAN POLITICAL COLLECTIVE PRIORITY |
UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 OSLO 001486 |
1. (U) SUMMARY: On 6 December, the Ambassador hosted a dinner which brought together leading government officials, parliamentarians, and immigrant community leaders to debate Norway's integration practices and to discuss the American experience and what role the embassy can play in the Norwegian situation. Participants debated the root causes of integration failure in Norway and the issues facing this country. The general perception of the American experience was positive, and was used as model, especially by the immigrant community leaders. The only Muslim parliamentarian in Norway, Saera T. Khan, lauded the event at the end of dinner, saying that it was the 'first time that any ambassador had invited her to actually discuss politics', a troubling reflection of the approach to these issues and to minority leaders. The dinner also underscored the lack of public debate on this issue. END SUMMARY. THE BEST AND THE BRIGHTEST...AND INTERESTED -------------------------- 2. (U) The guest list included two parliamentarians from the governing coalition, community leaders from a wide variety of backgrounds including Iranian, Pakistani, Moroccan, Indian and Vietnamese, several University of Oslo experts including former Harvard professor Unni Wikan as well as participants from the public sector. These latter included the Gender and Equality Ombudsman Beate Gangaas, the Director of the Organization Against Public Discrimination Akheraton de Leon, the General Director of the Department of Integration and Diversity at the Ministry of Labor Barbro Bakken, and Lisa Cooper, an American immigrant who now heads the Directorate of Integration and Diversity. THE UNDERLYING PROBLEMS -------------------------- 3. (SBU) Norway's "non-Norwegian"/immigrant population is large; constituting 25 percent of Oslo's population and 8 percent of the nation. See Reftel A for further details. Although there are success stories, including several of our guests at dinner, they are drowned out by statistics showing higher unemployment, lower education levels, and greater criminality among the immigrant population. When posed the question of "what concerns you about Norway?", three main areas were noted. - First, immigrants do not have access to the job market. Certainly at the management level, but also at the entry level for blue-collar workers, getting a job is considered to be especially difficult if one is dark-skinned or has a foreign name. Asylum seekers are also kept outside of the job market while their cases are pending, which leaves them feeling shunned or as though they are non-participants in social questions and the future of the nation. One participant at dinner mentioned immigrants going to three lengthy and consecutive rounds of job training, without ever receiving a job offer. - Second, there are various degrees of commitment to Norway among the immigrant communities. Some guest workers are here for short-term gain. Other asylum seekers are unsure if this country is really where they want to settle. Their impact shapes ethnic Norwegians expectations for all immigrants: they cannot naturally make the connection that 'foreigners' may indeed be their proud fellow Norwegians. - Third, despite constant debate in the media about ancillary issues arising from immigration, there has not been a broad and honest debate about what the desired outcome of integration in twenty years actually is. What do people want in the 'new Norway'? In the meantime, the walls between people of different background in the country continue to grow. COMPARISONS TO THE U.S. -------------------------- 4. (U) The U.S. experience was a point of reference for all of the participants. One unavoidable difference as noted by Bakken is that the U.S. may offer a chance for immigrants to fulfill their dreams, but the risk if one fails is great, whereas in Norway, social mobility is much more limited, but the risk of a fall is minimal because of the strong safety net. With this difference in mind, participants were especially positive about work opportunities available for immigrants to the U.S., even illegal immigrants. They also noted ruefully that having English as the national language OSLO 00001486 002 OF 002 is much more of a motivation for immigrants than trying to encourage new citizens to study and speak Norwegian. Where Norway does approach the U.S. is in having a 'critical mass' of immigrant or non-ethnic Norwegians that, by their very size, force people to take notice and deal with them as a economic and political force. This is a change from twenty years ago, when immigrant groups could be conveniently kept separate and tapped for labor without having to actually be included in daily life. 5. (U) Immigrant community leaders tend to be a bit starry-eyed when mentioning the model of the U.S. for integration. As noted in Reftel B at our initial dinner on this subject, there is a focus on the positive aspects of U.S. society without much reflection on the challenges that we still face. Nevertheless, the participants who had been to the U.S. noted that the reality was still tremendously positive and that the tension that they sometimes feel in Norway is absent in America. WHAT CAN WE DO TO HELP? -------------------------- 6. (U) Surprisingly, it was considered a boon just to have a forum for the Norwegians to share their views and concerns. Although there is much media discussion on these issues, there is little apparent public debate, and the immigrant group leaders do not often have the opportunity to share their thoughts directly with the Norwegian government officials who are supposed to be helping their communities with integration. But beyond that role as a facilitator for discussion, participants expressed hope that the U.S. Embassy would sponsor speakers, debate in public forums such as the university, and facilitate U.S. cultural programming with the immigrant communities in Norway. All of these items are on our engagement program for the coming year, and we anticipate continued success in our efforts to engage a broader audience in our close ally Norway as the country grapples with change. Whitney |