NORWAY'S MISSILE DEFENSE DEBATE BROADENS, WITH

UNCLAS OSLO 000382 SIPDIS SENSITIVE SIPDIS E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: MARR PREL NO SUBJECT: NORWAY'S MISSILE DEFENSE DEBATE BROADENS, WITH ACCUSATION U.S. IS DIVIDING THE ALLIANCE REF: A. STATE 21640 ¶B. OSLO 177 ¶C. OSLO 184 1.(U) Summary. Aftenposten, Norway,s newspaper of record, editorialized April 15 arguing that the US is trying to divide NATO allies over missile defense, as it did on Iraq, and that Norway stands to lose in the process. In a conference the following day discussing NATO, the Charge rebutted the editorial,s claims, explaining why the proposal for new missile defense in Poland and Czech Republic does not threaten the alliance or Russia. In an interview with Aftenposten published on April 17, the Charge amplified these themes to further set the record straight. In conversations with MFA officials, journalists and Parliamentary advisors, Charge and Embassy made the point that the GON's failure to respond to the initial Russian disinformation (see reftels) left the field open for such misinformation. End Summary. Editorial Heats Up the Debate -------------- 2.(U) In its April 15 editorial, Aftenposten wrote that the US has &created deep unrest in NATO and the EU8 by not cooperating with them over missile defense. The editorial alleged that the US wants &to divide and conquer8 and reviewed old complaints over the Iraq invasion. It also went on to argue that Russia is &provoked8 by the US over both the missile defense and US desires for NATO enlargement. Norway, the editorial wrote, is in danger of being left on its own*-as it doesn,t even have the EU to fall back on. Conference on NATO Directions -------------- 3.(U) The following day, the Norway Atlantic Committee and Norway,s Peace Council co-sponsored a conference to review NATO,s future in preparation for the upcoming NATO Ministerial. The Charge spoke on a panel which addressed NATO,s strategic concept. Speaking after the Ministry of Defense representative gave a positive spin on NATO, the Charge argued forcefully for the value of NATO for Norway and the world. He also discussed the missile defense editorial, clearly rebutting the allegations that the US was trying to divide NATO and wanted to threaten Russia. Other speakers on the panel included a representative from the government,s left wing coalition party, SV, who described NATO as having become an &attack8 organization and argued for Norway,s and NATO,s immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan. (SV,s platform is very anti-NATO but its government ministers have bowed to the coalition,s overall decision to support NATO). Many of the questions that followed focused on missile defense and the skepticism towards this initiative in Norway and in Europe. Setting the Record Straight -------------- 4.(U) Aftenposten then asked to interview the Charge and reported his remarks the following day. The resulting article highlighted that: --the US has extensively consulted with our allies and Russia over missile defense; --the proposed missiles are not a threat to Russia and are purely defensive; and --the US is not trying to push the Ukraine and Georgia into NATO*these are an issue for those countries and the NATO alliance to decide. Response to Outreach -------------- ¶5. (SBU) Charge and other emboffs spoke to the GON over the course of the two days to discuss the editorial. Senior MFA officials expressed surprise at the broad and negative sweep of the editorial. Emboffs pointed out that Aftenposten may have gone as far as it did because earlier smaller negative stories about missile defense (largely reporting Russian themes) went unchallenged by the GON although the Embassy answered them immediately. We also spoke with a journalist from a competing paper and a key Parliamentary advisor to the Labor Party, stressing the same points made by the Charge in his article. Both said that they understood the issue and were sympathetic to the need to have better public understanding but that Norway,s position would not change and that the government would not criticize Russia. The Parliamentary advisor said that the U.S. needs to understand that as a small country Norway cannot be as free as the U.S. in its criticism about Russia. Comment -------------- ¶6. (SBU) Despite the strong effort to set our points out clearly, there is little doubt that Norwegians have a great resistance to the idea of any missile weapon system, even a defensive one. The government is also extremely reluctant to disagree with Russia over any issue, and reluctant to discuss missile defense in detail since that could divide the governing coalition. The GON has undoubtedly not desired to respond to this issue in particular because the document that forms the basis for the coalition government, the Soria Moria declaration, clearly states opposition to missile defense systems, without distinguishing between large 'Star Wars' type systems and those under discussion now. We have been pressing the GON on the need to be clearer about distinguishing between the two and the importance of rebutting inaccurate Russian claims. We hope this debate has helped them to realize the growing danger of letting false narratives continue unchallenged. End Comment. JOHNSON