NORWAY'S NEW DEFENSE PLAN:ILLUSIONARY INCREASES

C O N F I D E N T I A L OSLO 000183

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 04/02/2018
TAGS: MARR MCAP PGOV PINS PREL NO
SUBJECT: NORWAY'S NEW DEFENSE PLAN:ILLUSIONARY INCREASES

REF: 2007 OSLO 1161

Classified By: Deputy Chief of Mission Kevin M. Johnson
for reasons 1.4 b and d


1. (C) Summary: Norway,s recently announced new long-term
defense plan was touted as strengthening the armed forces but
in reality politically motivated and costly elements leave
little room for any real strengthening of Norway,s Armed
Forces. The plan will continue to stress High North and
territorial (and maritime) defenses leaving Norway,s ability
to participate in international operations limited to current
commitments or less. The study does not comment upon or
impact the ongoing fighter aircraft competition and only
briefly mentions Nordic Defense Cooperation. End Summary.

New Four Year Plan Announced
--------------

2. (C) On March 28, Defense Minister Strom Erichsen presented
the GON,s long-term defense plan. The release of the plan
is the final step in a year-long process involving two
Defense Studies and much internal and public debate about the
shape of Norway,s Defense (see reftel for details). The new
four year plan includes a 160 million dollar increase in the
Ministry of Defense,s budget, an increase in overall
personnel of one thousand, the closure of the current
national HQ at Jatta, near Stavanger (with MOD claiming no
impact on NATO,s Joint Warfare Center),and consolidation of
the national headquarters in Bodo, closure of several bases
throughout Norway and the transfer of responsibility of the
defense of Norway to the Home Guard. The GON plan rejected
several Ministry of Defense and CHOD suggestions, including
compulsory military service for women, termination of the
motor torpedo boat (MTB) program, creation of an additional
professional battalion, closure of additional bases and
reductions in the Home Guard. The plan includes statements
of general support for strengthening the UN, maintaining NATO
as the cornerstone of Norway,s security, greater involvement
in European defense and security programs, and closer Nordic
Defense Cooperation, but it is difficult to see how these
goals will be achieved with the Armed Forces structure that
the plan details.

The Illusion of Progress
--------------

3. (C) General Diesen, the Norwegian CHOD, supported by the
experts who conducted the two Defense Policy Studies, has
long argued that with its current budget and force structure
Norway cannot continue its level of international operations
and is incapable of defending Norwegian territory. The
commander of Norway,s Army, General Mood went even farther
publicly claiming that the Norwegian "micro army" is only
capable of defending an Oslo suburb. The need for additional
budgetary support was recognized by the GON (against the
wishes of the Socialist Left Party, one of the coalition
members) but the impact of the budgetary increase will be
minimal given the reluctance of the GON to take politically
painful decisions. The costs of maintaining the six MTBs,
maintaining the bases the CHOD wished closed and maintaining
the Home Guard at it present size will eat up all if not more
than the authorized budget increase.

Small Improvements
--------------

4. (C) In her presentation of the plan, the Defense Minister
stated that it would bring about an ultra-modern Navy and a
stronger Air Force. In reality the new frigates and the new
transport aircraft which make up these upgrades are based on
previous governmental decisions and no new investments in the
Navy or Air Force are discussed. The crucial question of
which fighter aircraft the GON will select (JSF or Saab
Gripen) was left unanswered by the plan. The Army will
increase by approximately 300 jobs but it is not clear if the
new positions will be soldiers. The decision not to create
another professional battalion leaves the Norwegian Army in
the same position as today, severely limited and primarily
reliant on
conscripts who volunteer for one-time deployments in
international operations.

Politically Consistent Downplaying of Defense Needs
--------------

5. (C) All these decisions are consistent with the preferred
GON approach to defense issues which places a stress on
territorial defense, particularly in the High North,
maintains local bases and the Home Guard which secure local
jobs and whose troops cannot be sent off to international
adventures, and keeps a costly MTB program which had strong
support in the districts. The GON,s rhetorical support for
UN international operations and for Nordic Defense
Cooperation are mentioned in the plan but no concrete details
show how they will pursue these goals.

Can,t Say They Weren,t Warned
--------------

6. (C) By approving this plan the GON has ignored Ambassador
Whitney,s, General Diesen,s, and others repeated calls for
Norway to show leadership and dedicate enough of its
bountiful resources to fund a capable defense. The Socialist
Left,s anti-military opinions as well as the Norwegian
public,s general absence of threat perception have
influenced the GON to provide only the most minimal support
to Norway,s armed forces. As General Diesen has repeatedly
warned, this will have an impact on Norway,s ability to
respond to any crises in its territory and will severely
curtail Norway,s ability to project all but the most minimal
forces internationally.
WHITNEY