Opinions: The activists spread misinformation

After the terrorist attack carried out by Hamas on 7 October, and the subsequent Israeli warfare, large parts of the world are horrified by the situation in Gaza. Nammo shares the strong concern for the situation of the civilian population.

But we have no co-responsibility for what happens. There is no export of weapons or ammunition from Norway to Israel. It is not allowed. Nammo has never been involved in anything like this.

Nor have we sold American-made weapons to Israel in the last nine years. We have not moved Norwegian production to the USA. We have not sent Norwegian weapons to Israel via the USA.

The Palestine Committee nevertheless believes that we are “war profiteers” who have “blood on our hands”, and use slogans such as “Nammo arms genocide”. These are very strong descriptions, based on a false narrative.

The question is whether we as a society have realized that the actions, the rhetoric and the demands have consequences for Norway’s security.

Blocking national meetings of political parties, or the entrance to Norges Bank, is one thing. The right to express oneself is central to a democracy, and the ceiling height should be high.

But when it goes as far as burglary and sabotage, should we just accept that it happens?

What do you do when confidence in the defense industry is undermined? What if employees who make weapons for Ukraine are prevented from coming to work? Or what about unrealistic demands for political action – such as introducing Norwegian law in the USA?

Now, in our view, it is time to talk about what can happen if the activists gain traction for their views and their demands.

We believe it will harm Norway’s interests, without helping the Palestinians in any way.

1. An attempt to force the US to follow Norwegian laws will not be accepted and will damage relations with our most important allies.

The Palestine Committee said it on 18 December last year: Norwegian export rules must be applied to “Norwegian-owned” (sic) factories abroad. LO and SV have come up with similar proposals. But the American authorities say no to such interference from abroad. The US has anti-boycott legislation that explicitly prohibits it.

Attempting something like this could lead to severe prison sentences for our employees. It would violate Norwegian foreign policy, and could damage relations with the United States.

The practical effect would presumably also be zero for Israel/Palestine: products developed and manufactured in the USA would still be subject to the American export rules – determined by the elected officials there.

2. If the owners decide, and not the states, it violates International Law.

Each country has its sovereignty. Each country determines its foreign policy. Norway does not export weapons to Israel, while the United States has a different view on the matter. This is today’s model, according to a rules-based international order.

An alternative model is to let those who own the defense industry decide where to export, as several have suggested.

In such a situation, Norwegian/Finnish Nammo would in reality decide on parts of US foreign policy. And if it were to be implemented as a principle: Then it would also apply to American-owned industry in Norway.

The proposal appears to violate the states’ right to self-determination, and would paradoxically be able to open arms exports from Norway to Israel. This is not feasible. We hardly think that is the intention of the activists either.

Also read: Refusing to leave the protest camp – banned from the university

3. The activists’ demands weaken the NATO alliance
NATO is part of the foundation of Norwegian security policy. The alliance is also built on extensive defense industrial cooperation. The USA and other countries depend on Norwegian rocket engines for their air defences.

Norway and many others are completely dependent on American aircraft. Or German submarines, or Swedish armored vehicles.

The mutual dependence is also very relevant at subcontractor level – it can apply to everything from metals to electronics to gunpowder. Industry in the NATO countries is closely intertwined.

Today’s principle is that the country where the production of the final product takes place decides where it can be exported.

This is the practical arrangement in NATO, it is decided by elected officials in the countries, and it is a prerequisite for cooperation on defense material to work.

It’s hard to see alternatives that might work. A manufacturer of screws in the Netherlands should not be able to stop US sales of the F-35, for example.

The activists’ demand that individual countries or actors should be given a right of veto over other countries’ foreign policy seems unrealistic, and will also weaken NATO cooperation enormously.

The criticism against Nammo is characterized by strong emotions. But we operate within a system created by our elected officials, and have little opportunity to make our own choices across it.

Our factories produce, among other things, anti-tank weapons and anti-aircraft parts which are very important for both NATO and Ukraine.

We are proud of. But what is produced in the USA is decided by the USA.

In order to prevent US exports, Nammo had to initiate a private boycott of the US, with major foreign policy consequences. The air defense in Norway, NATO and Ukraine would have been greatly weakened. This is unthinkable.

We find it strange that critics and activists almost completely ignore what is practically possible, or security policy considerations.

They shout “no!”, but have no solutions of their own in a debate that is really about how to weigh Norway’s security policy needs against other needs, and what system to have to manage this weighting.

Nammo is not a party to the Gaza war, but secures Norway, NATO and Ukraine. We take responsibility and are proud of our social mission.

And we shall not be a political actor.