Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
07OSLO382
2007-04-18 05:21:00
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Embassy Oslo
Cable title:  

NORWAY'S MISSILE DEFENSE DEBATE BROADENS, WITH

Tags:  MARR PREL NO 
pdf how-to read a cable
VZCZCXYZ0004
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHNY #0382/01 1080521
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 180521Z APR 07
FM AMEMBASSY OSLO
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 5517
INFO RUEHMO/AMEMBASSY MOSCOW IMMEDIATE 3952
RUEHPG/AMEMBASSY PRAGUE IMMEDIATE 0527
RUEHWR/AMEMBASSY WARSAW IMMEDIATE 1350
RHEHAAA/NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
RUEHNO/USMISSION USNATO IMMEDIATE 1505
RHMFIUU/JOINT STAFF WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
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

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