Of Robin Kirkhus.
On 13 March, the undersigned sent a statement to the Ministry of Defense (FD) in a public hearing regarding agreements between Norway and the United States which now involve the establishment of twelve American military bases in Norway; the so-called SDCA agreement. From the original four, there are now twelve.
Read: The base agreement with the USA violates the Constitution
As justification for this new overall framework, the FD points to a particularly increased need for more defense and security in relation to Russia’s launching a “full-scale invasion of Ukraine” on 24 February 2022. The FD claims that Russia’s aggressiveness also represents a real threat to Norway. A definite impression is conveyed that Norway risks being invaded by Russia in the wake of Ukraine. Ukrainian politicians and officials have been warning for a long time now that European countries will be attacked if Russia wins in Ukraine. No European country can therefore ignore this imminent Russian threat, and a base agreement with the USA is considered a necessary strategic move to contain this threat.
As a trained lawyer and philosopher, it has been disturbing to follow how the conflict in Ukraine is almost without exception discussed in line with the Western perception. There is a consensus where the media completely ignores their role as impartial mediators. For Western politicians, there is correspondingly only one version that is considered actually true. All other versions and perspectives have been consistently dismissed as “Russian propaganda.” This means that those who try to also bring the Russians’ version have been labeled as “Russian agents,” etc.
As for Russia’s Special Military Operation (SOM) initiated on 24 February 2022, the Russians themselves claim that it took place in line with Article 51 of the UN Convention. This as a preventive measure to stop abuses and war crimes committed since 2014 against the civilian population, particularly in the Donbass region in eastern Ukraine. Many of these Russian speakers have held dual citizenship, giving Russia the legitimacy to protect its own citizens.
The second justification has been to try to stop NATO’s expansion eastwards, which Russia has seen since the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 as a growing national security threat. The then Soviet leader Mikael Gorbachev received a verbal assurance from the then US President Clinton that NATO would not expand further eastward if the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact were dissolved. This promise broke the West almost immediately after the dissolution was a fact.
In the UN Security Council, the US spoke only on 25 February 2022 to say that Russia had attacked a sovereign nation according to Article 4 of the UN Convention. That is, that Russia had started a war. This became a collective view of the West, which is reflected in FD’s mention of a Russian “full-scale invasion.” Before Russia had been able to present its case, the conclusion was reached.
After the Second World War, Norway, as a member of NATO, stood on the West’s side throughout the Cold War. Everyone is therefore convinced that the Russians represent the “enemy”, regardless of whether they organize themselves as the Soviet Union or as Russia. All Norwegians who have served in the defense are similarly familiar with the fact that the enemy they always imagined would be able to attack us was the Russians. Only in Finnmark has the population been able to have a friendly and peaceful relationship with the Russians, but this is now almost completely destroyed.
The consequences of this are that Norway, through NATO, has perhaps followed the USA more loyally than others, all in all. Not without reason does the FD refer to the USA as “our foremost ally.” This without reflecting in more detail on what the United States has actually stood for after the Second World War.
When the US expressed its desire for military bases in Norway, the government responded positively to the request. The fact that the government has continued to work on the matter on the basis that a single country should get such access and transfer of state authority instead of taking the matter up in NATO is startling. It is not the USA but NATO that guarantees our security as an alliance member, even though the USA has its roles as coordinator and leading nation in NATO.
FD is of the opinion that section 26 of the Constitution alone gives the government and Storting legal authority for the base agreement. However, this provision is a clarification of competence in relation to who can enter into bilateral agreements (treaties). When it is said “the king”, this is in line with parliamentary practice the government. If the matter is of “particularly great importance”, the matter must be submitted to the Storting.
The FD only discusses the SDCA agreement in light of § 26 of the constitution, and claims that the matter is “insignificant” for the population, while at the same time it is of such importance that it must be submitted to the Storting. FD seems to downplay the possible consequences of the agreement instead of looking more closely at the conclusion of the agreement as such.
Section 115 of the Constitution is not mentioned in the entire consultation document. This applies in more detail to the conditions for entering into such agreements on defense and security cooperation. Here it says, among other things, that Norway can enter into such agreements with “an international association to which Norway is affiliated.» According to the constitution, the USA is thus excluded as a party to the agreement, while NATO will be able to be. The same applies to Norway’s membership of the UN and the UN treaties to which Norway accedes.
The situation in the peace prize country Norway is now that all parties in the Storting have agreed on the slogan “war is the way to peace.” They have in reality established a full consensus in foreign policy, which means that there is no debate on important topics. No parties have stood on a peace line through negotiations. In the media, there is no debate either, but rather so-called “experts” queuing up to tell more about this line of consensus where Russia, among other things, appears as a security threat to Norway.
In reality, the entire body of agreements surrounding the SDCA is a blatant violation of Section 115 of the Constitution. We have now got a situation where two of our state powers are breaking the Constitution to get their way. Correspondingly, the government has for a long time transferred state authority to the EU and its bodies in violation of the same provision; Norway is not an EU member. Professor Eriksen points this out in his article in Aftenposten on 27 September 2020.
The agreement on defense and security cooperation that Prime Minister Støre informed the Norwegian people that had been concluded between Norway and Sweden before Sweden became a NATO member is correspondingly unconstitutional. The Prime Minister has also referred to a similar agreement between Norway and Ukraine.
Perhaps this idea of breaking the constitution in order to get her way through with the then Prime Minister Brundtland during the referendum on EU membership in 1994. Here she took it for granted that the people’s vote would be yes, and wanted to use this as a means of pressure to get the Center Party to vote against their will. This was to ensure the necessary 2/3 majority that the then constitutional provision set as a requirement for membership. Here it must be remembered that this provision at the time applied to a federation of several states, and not to an EU union in line with the Maastricht Agreement. The latter represented a constitutional dispute.
The undersigned reported Prime Minister Brundtland to the police for attempted coup d’état, but the Attorney General decided to close the case as “obviously nothing punishable.” But it was a wholehearted one attempt on unlawfully transferring authority, and thus punishable regardless of what the Attorney General decided.
In this current situation, the Institute of Impeachment has been put out of action because all parties in the Storting agree. This does not prevent the entire SDCA agreement being unconstitutional. If the Constitution is to be amended, it must be done in accordance with Art. § 121. This means that there must be a parliamentary election in between where we as voters get to take a position on the proposed constitution. To both act unconstitutionally and deny us voters our democratic right shows a boundless disrespect for our democratic form of government. Storting and government politicians more than anyone else are taking steps in a direction that tears up the rule of law from within and introduces democracy; a fake democracy where there is a huge gap between what the politicians say and what they actually do.
This relationship should interest everyone. And just in case; our current NATO membership gives us the necessary defense and security assurance we may need until someone and everyone discovers the lie that the Russians will invade us immediately after the Ukraine operation is completed.
