Separatism in Norway

The Norwegian professor Frank Aarebrot warns about separatism in Norway in an interview with the Norwegian daily Dagsavisen.

According to him, there are signals in the western parts of Norway that people are pissed off with the centralised governent, and the fact that they don't see enough of the wealth that this part of the country is creating. Approximately 70 percent of the national wealth is created in this region, but only 28 percent is given back.

This might not happen tomorrow, but the spark to light something nasty will not necessarily be big, Aarebrot says. If someone turns up with the idea to create a regional protest party with separatist goals, "all hell could break loose."

The article can be read in Norwegian here.

Conventional wisdom: American stupidity..

America-bashing seems to be a favourite sport, not only in Norway, but also among large parts of the European population. We never get tired of pointing out how stupid, un-enlightened and devoid of knowledge the Americans are. We flock up to watch movies like Fahrenheit 9/11, Sicko, Supersize Me, and other movies pointing out every thinkable aspect of USA to be critizised. Links to clips on YouTube like "Stupid American" are mailed around to make sure we all see the evidence of the American stupidity and ignorance.

To be sure, there are quite a few things about the United States worthy of criticism. Quite a few of the White House's moves might rightfully be critizised, and George Bush Jr. might not strike us as the smartest world leader around. Still, the anti-americanism is wonderfully one-sided and un-nuanced.

It is possible to find American people who to a large extent lack common knowledge, as the before-mentioned YouTube-clip shows. And it is possible to find people who are plain out dumb in the United States. It might not even be hard. Still, that is true everywhere. You can find dumb people wherever you go. Even in Europe. And - I know many might be surprised to hear this - it is possible to meet intelligent Americans. I have actually met quite a few personally.

As for general knowledge, if you ask the next European guy on the street some basic questions about the United States, I'm not sure he will be able to answer that. Try asking who the governor of Kentucky is, who was the President of the United States before Jimmy Carter, what is the state capital of Alaska, which other states Utah borders to, or who is the speaker of the House. Even if you ask the simple question what the official language of the United States is, you would get mostly the wrong answer - the United States does not have an official national language.

The United States is roughly the size of Europe (9.8 million square meters), and consists of fifty states and one district (Europe consists of forty-eight countries). And contrary to what most Europeans thinks, it is very, very diverse in a lot of ways. So, to compare the United States with Europe would be fair. Different states in USA differs much in the same ways that countries in Europe differs from one another. And despite the steady stream of cultural input we get from over the pond, I would hold that we generally don't know a whole lot more about the United States than the Americans know about us.

To me, there is something not very enlightened about this one-sided anti-americanism and America-bashing that is going on. I would appreciate it a lot to hear some more nuanced viewpoints about the United States or how it conducts is business worldwide, or generally even just about Americans. To denounce 300 million people as retards, as a lot of Europeans seem to be doing, is dragging ourselves down to the same level of ignorance that we imagine the Americans to be on.

Some random thoughts on the Afghanistan war

Flash from the news #1; US Democratic frontrunner Barack Obama recently told the German weekly "der Spiegel" that the Europeans have to provide more support in the form of troops in the war in Afghanistan.

Flash from the news #2; The former Norwegian Foreign Minister Torbjørn Jagland expressed his views that NATO needs more troops in Afghanistan, and that Norway should shoulder more of its responsibility and provide more troops than what is currently the case.

There is no doubt that the support for the US-led invasion in Afghanistan among the poulation of the Western World is waning. A few weeks ago the US Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, addressed this in a speech. The European political leaders have not succeeded in explaining the reasons for the invasion in Afghanistan and the reasons why the war is still going on. And also, he said, the war in Afghanistan is commonly mixed up with the war in Iraq.

The invasion in Iraq was, it could be reasonably argued (and I agree with that), based on false evidence, and it was also a case of the Bush administration taking advantage of a broad support for their War on Terror. Still, the war in Afghanistan is not the war in Iraq. When the US and the UK invaded Afghanistan in 2001, there was huge international support for the invasion. With the close links between Taliban, which were in control of Afghanistan, and Al-Qaeda which were also hiding out in Afghanistan, this invasion was legitimate, and the West was right in supporting the US-led invasion of Afghanistan. To oust the Taliban from power in Afghanistan was legitimate and backed by virtually the entire Western World. And even though the US messed up with also invading Iraq, the war in Afghanistan is still a legitimate war.

So, to bail out from this now is simply wrong. We agreed to this invasion in the first place, and we have an obligation to stand by until the situation is stabilized, or we are "victorious". The public support for the Afghanistan war might be waning, but politics are not done with plebiscistes for every single decision, and politicians are not supposed to go solely after the public opinion. It might be that our politicians did not educate us enough, but it is anyways their responsibility to stand by and not withdraw the support we gave at the outset. We went in there, and we need to stay in there until have achieved our objectives, which among others were to oust the Taliban regime from power and make sure they stay out of power. To pull out of Afghanistan now will be to leave the country in a state of disarray, where the Taliban can easily come back.

According to common sense, it is necessary to have enough troops to win any conflict. And according to the Powell doctrine, when you enter a conflict, you better make sure you go in with overwhelming force, so that you are certain you will be victorious. If you go in without the necessary level of force, you will be bound to enter a quagmire, much like the US did in Vietnam.

When US President Lyndon B. Johnson decided to go into Vietnam, he did not go in with the necessary firepower to win the conflict in a reasonably short amount of time. And when he and his administration witnessed the conflict prolong, they sent in more troops only little by little, but still not enough to win. Mired in a conflict that could not be resolved within a short time, and without the necessary force to do that, the administration lost their support among the US population.

Similarly, without the necessary international support (both diplomatically and militarily), the US and NATO will have a very hard time winning the war in Afghanistan. And as Torbjørn Jagland said in the beforementioned interview, if NATO does not win this war, its relevance in following scenarios will be diminished. So in addition to a stable Afghanistan, the future of NATO could also be at stake in this conflict. For a country as dependant on NATO for its security as Norway, the choice should be clear.

Subs..

There was a time, not very long ago, when you would say about the best Norwegian films that "it's good for a Norwegian one", implying that is was sub-standard compared with movies from other countries. That time is past. Norway and the other Scandinavian countries have a lot to be proud of when it comes to movies.

I don't know exactly when it all started to get really good, but a little before 2000, Norwegian film was in world class. Take movies like "Mongoland" (2000), "Elling" (2001), Jonny Vang (2003), "Buddy" (2003), "Uno" (2004), "The art of negative thinking" (2006), "Let Jimmy free" (2006), and many others. They are all great movies, and will put Norway in the back seat of no other country when it comes to movies. Also, think of American movies like "Head above water" and "Insomnia" - they were both reproductions of Norwegian movies.

One thing that annoys me a little, though, is that it is sometimes very hard to find these great movies with English subtitles. For me personally that would be a good thing. My girlfriend is not Norwegian, and I would like to watch some of these movies with her. But without subtitles, that would not be very enjoyable for her.

For an international and outward-looking country like Norway, it's ironic that not every Norwegian movie on DVD is subtitled in English. Having so many good movies, it is a shame that we can't share them with non-Norwegian speakers. We should be very, very proud of them, and make them accessible for other people than Norwegians.

New year's resolutions? Not really..

As we pass into a new year, it is, I guess, the time for making all sorts of promises and new year's resolutions. For this blog, maybe it would be a good thing to make a new year's resolution that I will write more. That I won't do, because I'm not sure how long it will hold out. But I will at least try to be more active and write more. But no promise...

To make it easier to do that, I have renamed my blog. It's new name is simpy "Random thoughts of a Random Norwegian." Although it will probably be concerned to a large extent with Norway-related subjects, I will not anymore limit myself to that subject. So from now on: random thoughts on any subject.

Happy new year!

Any basis for cooperation on the right + Democracy vs opportunism..

The debate about the possibility of a cooperation on the Right of Norwegian politics is going on. FrP (The Progress Party), of course wants to be let into the warmth with the other parties on the Right, having long been seen as the pariah party. The Right party, as the only one, seems to have moved a long way towards accepting a cooperation with FrP. The other Right parties, such as KrF (the Christian People`s Party) and Venstre, are declining any form of at least formal cooperation, even if that means giving up being in government after the next election. Without FrP a Right government will a hard born child.

While I`ve been, and still am, extremely sceptical to FrP getting into government, I am at the same time not sure it is good to rule out anything in principle. FrP is in my opinion, and in the opinion of many people, a very opportunistic one, and one that do not seem to be very responsible in its policies. Thus, I would definitely prefer the current government to one where FrP is a main part - and if it were a part of the government coalition it would be, because it is one of Norway`s two largest parties, and definitely the largest one on the Right side.

Still, one might argue that there is a slight possibility that FrP will start waking up, and become more aware that all it`s many promises will have consequences, if it gets a chance to govern.

One thing I read recently made me think. FrP argued that it is neutral to the question about Norwegian membership to the EU because the Norwegian public is divided on the question. This argument is representative of a lot of FrP policies. It might be argued that political parties should take into account the public opinion. But it seems to me that this argument of FrP is turned upside down. If the party policies on a given area is not clear, how are people supposed to be able to make up their minds if this is the party to vote for? Should a political party adjust it`s policies as soon as the wind of public opinion turns? Should not people vote based on how political parties make their stand on different issues - not parties changing their stand according to public opinion? It seems to me that FrP did not really catch the difference between democracy and opportunism.

The future of the Norwegian school..

After the resignation of the former Minister of Knowledge, Øystein Djupedal, his fellow party member, Bård Vegard Solhjell, has become the new wise man of education and knowledge in Norway. New minister, new policies - one of mr. Solhjell`s policies is to make the Norwegian primary and secondary school less theoretical.

The criticism from the Right is that SV (the Socialist Left Pary) and the rest of the Left is hysterically afraid of differences in the school. They want to make everything the same for everybody, not offering the more theory-hungry pupils what they want.

I agree in the criticism of the Right Party, but at the same time I realise that it is immensely hard for a lot of schools to offer adapted programs for all students. From my own experience as a teacher, I know that students are very different. And I know that it is really hard, to make the classes suit everybody`s learning style. And it is certainly true, as SV claims (and it is something that a lot of pupils, teachers, parents, politicians, and other realise, too), that a lot of students find a lot of theory boring.

At the same time, there are some students that find theory interesting and stimulating. These pupils should have the possibility of delving into theoretic subjects. In my opinion, these students should be viewed and appreciated as an asset for Norway. Of course we need the children that will go on to become construction workers, truck drivers, hairdressers, bakers, and plumbers. But we also need the more theoretically gifted pupils, and should nurture their talents. To do otherwise would be a grave mistake.