Embassy of the United States

Speeches

Norway, the United States, and Leadership – Tending to the Yggdrasil

Mid-term speech delivered at Nobel Institute by United States Ambassador to Norway Benson K. Whitney, October 17, 2007

As I have come to know and love Norway, I deeply appreciate the wealth of ancient Norse mythology that enriches this culture. Its most compelling image for me is The Great Guardian Tree, Yggdrasil: the central axis of all the levels and personalities of history, action and change. I see the Yggdrasil as a powerful symbol for a more modern-day structure, our community of free nations.

Just as this great tree held the ancient universe together, so our community of nations must hold together the complex forces of the modern world. The strong roots of our community lie in the rich soil of eternal values like justice, compassion, peace and, above all, freedom. Its strong trunk is provided by the mutual security and economic prosperity that support a flourishing system of languages, religions and cultures.

But, many serious global challenges test us today—terrorism, climate change, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, HIV/AIDS and poverty. These are the fires and storms that threaten our 21st century Yggdrasil.

The scale of these issues, together with the relentless pace of change today, creates a special need for leadership in our community of nations. Real hope for the future comes from the nations and peoples willing to provide it.

Because Norway and the U.S. have always been uniquely strong branches of our Guardian Tree of Nations, I believe we together should shoulder this obligation of leadership, in fact embrace it as an opportunity. Our capacity to do so is founded not only on the deeply shared values we hold, but also because we see those values as an agenda for action in the world. And, we share the material means and human resources to provide leadership. This combination of values, vision and ability makes us special partners.

My central question today is: How do the United States and Norway have to relate, communicate and change as leading stewards of the Guardian Tree of Nations?

We must admit that it will take effort and adjustment by both nations to meet this challenge--and to do so together. I have argued in this very hall that in the 21st century, Norway and the U.S. no longer can assume their historic special relationship. The forces of history, like the fading memories of the Cold War and the Marshall Plan, means that we will have to choose and then nurture our partnership in the future.

All relationships have history and they all experience change. The quality of the relationship depends on the ability to adapt and grow in changing circumstances-- and to communicate honestly.

In Minnesota we joke about the Norwegian man who loved his wife so much, he almost told her so. I’m here to tell you: the United States deeply values its relationship with Norway and cares enough to communicate honestly about how we can maintain and grow it.

No one takes offense when a true friend makes constructive suggestions. It’s a sign of respect, affection and estimation that the relationship can bear the weight of accountability. My comments today will be given and, I hope, received in that spirit. My goal is to initiate a new level of conversation among friends.

Changing Nations in a Changing World

My first point is that the United States and Norway are both changing in a changing world. This world presents new global threats – like climate change, terrorism, trafficking and disease – that no longer come from neighbors but instead from continents away. These global threats demand global responses. Therefore, nations must adjust their engagement to meet transnational challenges. The emergence of new economic powers in the developing world represents another key change in this 21st century landscape.

The U.S is adapting its approach to the 21st century. While the pace may not be quick enough from a European perspective, the United States has changed how it engages in the world. Recently, for example, under Secretary Rice’s program of transformational diplomacy, we have taken dramatic steps to change our foreign policy structure so we can more directly reach out to peoples in new centers of influence in Asia and elsewhere. We have shifted real resources to attack the transnational threats to world stability. One good example is the President’s historic commitment to fight HIV/AIDS in Africa.

We are reaching out to our allies in a wide variety of ways on a wide range of global issues. These include fighting proliferation of weapons in Iran and North Korea and building peace in the Middle East. We have worked to strengthen our ties with European friends, understanding that we can achieve so much more working together.

Norway too, I believe, is fundamentally changing. Its new-found resources propel 21st century Norway more centrally into a complex world. Norway today has far greater sovereign interests that create new pressures to promote a national economic and political agenda. Limited interests of the past, such as whaling, extend now to major, global interests such as oil and gas in the Arctic seas. Largely public-owned Norwegian enterprises operate around the world, including tough places like Venezuela, Iran, and Russia. The intersection of national interest and foreign policy is now more pointed in Norway than ever before. This is reflected in such current issues as Norway’s oil interests in Iran or where the Pension Fund should invest.

Norway’s offshore resources logically call for careful protection. This naturally increases Norway’s domestic national security demands. As the displays in the Resistance Museum painfully remind us, the world has been an uncertain place. Unless the laws of history are repealed, it will remain so.

In the 21st century, however, national financial security also frequently is affected directly by global stability. With the $350 billion Pension Fund investing in 40 countries, Norway has a significant and unavoidable exposure to global financial markets. Its national security therefore is interlinked with the world in new and powerful ways, giving it a greater stake in global security.

As I have stated, as we both change in this changing world, the United States wants to partner with 21st century Norway to provide much needed global leadership. To do this, however, both the US and Norway must accept the challenge of that leadership and work carefully to strengthen our relations as partners.

What then do we need to do? I believe the strength of our partnership and our leadership will turn on good communication with our citizens and each other, by having and using the resources required of leadership, and investing in the relationship. Let’s examine each of these areas.

Communication with our Citizens

To prepare our own citizens for leadership, we must clearly tell them what we are doing and why. I believe both governments could do a better job explaining the nature of the world today, the threats we face, and the alliances we need.

We must explain how problems far, far away can very quickly and directly impact the personal welfare of our citizens. Global public health threats like bird flu offer one example.

Another is international terrorism. We must explain how terrorism poses deep and direct dangers to all the free people of the world. No country, not even Norway, is exempt. I am concerned that despite actual terrorist action inside Norway, repeated threats from senior terror leaders, and arrests in advance plots only a ferry ride away, many Norwegians believe terror cannot happen here. Popular reluctance by peace-loving people to admit threats is natural, but it is up to leaders in government and in society to overcome it. In the long run, if the public lacks appreciation for the reality of the terrorist threat, support will erode for the essential efforts to combat terrorism like good international law enforcement and NATO’s critical operations in Afghanistan.

In the process of explaining the threats of the modern world, we also must carefully choose our words. I think that we risk diminishing concepts like democracy, freedom and human rights if we fail to speak out loudly and consistently to those who oppose them – be they in Burma, Belarus, or nearer.

At times, I hear voices in Norway and the U.S. suggesting a kind of false equality between these core principles and the actions of those nations and groups that are totally opposing our own. For example, news articles and commentaries on civilian deaths in Afghanistan frequently say “Both sides kill civilians.” This creates a false moral equivalence between very regrettable deaths from ISAF military action and the deliberate civilian killing by suicide bombers. This is not honest. One should not gloss over the difference between accidents and murders.

If we allow terrorists to get away with suggesting their barbaric actions are legitimate steps forward in the cause of democracy, freedom and human rights, we empty those vital concepts of all meaning and power.

I also believe that our leaders need to carefully explain to the average citizen the importance of allies. The U.S. in particular must show patience in developing our important partnerships to reap the greatest value possible from them. Relationships are hard work and we must be willing to carry the effort. With our closest allies especially, the U.S. must more clearly recognize the very natural concern that other nations have about the exercise of U.S. power. Frequent and sustained dialogue is an essential way to address such concerns of our friends.

The U.S. must stay fully engaged in the international community and say no to the voices of isolationism we hear rising up within our political debates. We should not retreat behind our shores in the false belief it will keep us out of the world’s problems. This approach failed in the 20th century and is all the more unrealistic and unproductive in the globalized world of the 21st.

Communicating with Each Other

One of the great political leaders of my State of Minnesota was a Norwegian American by the name of Al Quie. He is a man whose name has become synonymous with leadership, compassion and most of all integrity in my State.

I will never forget his definition of integrity. He said it has three parts. The first is to listen. The second is to make a firm decision. And the third is to thoroughly explain your decision to all those it affects. America could do a better job on all those points, especially that third point.

My experience as ambassador has shown me that as a nation, the U.S. has suffered from not clearly engaging in a comprehensive explanation to our friends about why we have taken a position. I wish I had a chance early on to talk with Norwegians about the difficult subjects of why terrorists are at Guantanamo or why the US did not sign the Kyoto Protocol. It is not that I believe that such an explanation would necessarily change minds, but it would, I think, display to our Norwegian friends that our position has a rational basis even if one disagrees with it.

This approach also suggests the best model of how to conduct a relationship between close allies like Norway and the U.S. Constant dialogue will help us understand each other’s positions and priorities. When we disagree, we need to take special care to narrow the differences through even more consultation. And where we cannot close the difference, we must disagree with care and respect, not seeking define our own positions in how they differ with each other.

As nations and peoples, I would also urge us all to consider what we say about each other and how. In a world of sound-bites and quick headlines, I realize having nuanced discussions is not always easy. It is always easy to criticize, and criticism among friends is indeed welcome where it is aimed at improvement and deeper understanding. But criticism that is based on caricatures, that is simplistic, or that fails to take into account the range of the relationship can be destructive. And we cannot afford that. Instead, I would hope we can each take a balanced view of the other.

I hope we take care to never lose sight of how much we have in common and accomplish together, however strongly we may debate our differences. My experience is that there is far too little public knowledge of the many areas of cooperation around the world that we already share. For example, the US and Norway are already leaders in child and maternal health initiatives and in combating the modern slavery of trafficking in persons. We work closely on reconstruction in Afghanistan, peace efforts in Darfur, reform at the U.N., and development aid in Africa. These are important efforts and we need to ensure a broader understanding of all that we already do together. This will help maintain a fair and balanced perspective on the relationship and keep its value clear to our people.

Will and Resources

Our nations also must have the will to provide leadership. I see Norway’s days as “et lite land” of Europe have ended. Norway’s changed circumstances now offer it a critical leadership role. Playing that role does, however, include shouldering the inevitable controversy and criticism that come with taking tough positions and advocating them to others.

It also means building capacity to provide leadership.
Norway’s success has clearly expanded its reach in global affairs. With over 100 embassies worldwide, an extensive foreign aid budget and heavy funding of international NGOs, Norway has more global engagements, a stronger voice, and more clout in international affairs than ever before. Like the U.S., Norway is the midst of considering how to best deploy its diplomatic assets as reflected in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ “Reflex” project. Both nations must continue investing in their diplomatic capacities and engineer them for the new century.

As Norway considers how to use its new capacity, it may want to ask more frequently what tools of international engagement it is willing to use in which circumstances. These tools run the spectrum from dialogue to incentives to sanctions and indeed, sometimes, force. I certainly respect that the tradition and motive of Norway’s response to international conflict is dialogue. But I wonder whether Norway considers, from a broader position of leadership, that dialogue is only one tool of many to achieve desired ends.

Continued dialogue can, in certain circumstances, actually have negative consequences. Real dialogue by definition involves good faith discussion between parties’ genuinely seeking compromise and progress. Acting in bad faith, an ill-intended nation or group can misuse dialogue to gain undeserved legitimacy, delay meaningful action, or undermine legitimate opposition. It is not only whether you talk to a regime, but when and how, and what you say. Are we keeping the focus on key issues, or allowing regimes to evade key questions? Iran represents an urgent example.

Sometimes – most times – discussion and negotiation are the best routes. Still, Norway, with its expanding economic and diplomatic power, has other important tools such as financial incentives, sanctions, and diplomatic isolation.

The U.S. constantly struggles to draw the right lines in its diplomatic engagements. These calls are tough. Take Burma. We all want the same thing – a free Burmese people. But what will change the military junta’s repression there -- condemnation, economic sanctions, incentives, negotiation? A leader must carefully judge which tool to use when.

Of course, these tools of engagement must be viable. In the area of military capabilities, I wonder whether Norway’s investment matches its aspirations and potential for leadership. A credible military capacity is important not just to wage war. History shows us many cases that it can preserve peace or even deter conflict. This recognition lies behind Norway’s plan to send troops to Darfur.

Also, without a credible threat of force, diplomacy and negotiation can sometimes be undermined. Given its increasing national interests, Norway might ask whether such capacity, is needed both to defend interests at home and also to meet peace building needs far away. Leadership in this area means not only being just “good enough,” as some in Norway call for, but investing to meet the true broad security interests of the nation.

Investing in the Relationship

At a very basic level, if we want to strengthen our relationship, we must invest both effort and resources.

We must take the time and energy to seek out new ways and new places to cooperate, not merely react to crisis. The U.S. and Norway should look over the horizon for the inevitable challenges of the future and begin now to strategize about how we can respond together. This could be trying to ensure that post-Castro Cuba gives true freedom to its citizens or by preparing to manage the complexity of the Arctic.

We should also seek to maximize our ties, be they cultural, economic or military, which have formed the basic connections between our nations. This means encouraging tourism and heritage programs. It means maintaining the viability of security ties through joint training and interoperability of equipment.

It is absolutely critical to make sure we understand each other clearly and learn from each other. There is no better way to do this than by increasing the direct contact Americans and Norwegians have. Norwegians will never really know the U.S. from watching American soap operas. Americans will never know Norway from just watching the winter Olympics.

For this reason, I have focused on increasing educational exchanges at all levels between the US and Norway. Educational ties will promote the kind of personal ties that will cement our relationship over the next generation. With the Norwegian government, universities, and other agencies, we are working to address barriers to these exchanges. This means providing more information to students about opportunities, building more institutional relationships between U.S and Norwegian schools, and dealing with some very real financial obstacles. Norwegian students have clearly identified the lack of Lanekasse funding of the freshman year as the primary obstacle to studying in the U.S. If we want to change the facts, we must listen to what the students are telling us.

Another related endeavor would be to increase funding for joint research projects so the best of our scientists can more readily work closely together to combat global challenges. As the recent Nobel Peace Prize highlighted, climate change is a global challenge that threatens us all. I am happy to report that the University at Aas has an important strategic partnership with the University of Minnesota on a range of innovative clean energy technologies. These technologies hopefully will promote rising standards of living and a cleaner environment. I hope this can be a model for deeper cooperation in other critical areas of such research, like carbon sequestration—where both nations have expertise and which represents an essential tool in the battle against climate change.

Conclusion

Let me conclude - Norway and the United States can and should work together to provide global leadership at a time when it is desperately needed. We need to forge new modern bonds for our own good and the good of the community of nations. We can do this if we communicate well, have the will, maximize our resources, and invest in the relationship.

Part of the value of friendship is the ability to candidly and forthrightly sort out the good and the bad together.

Abraham Lincoln, perhaps better than any American president, understood both the demands of change and the importance of asserting and defending cherished ideals, not only to people, but to nations, and the community of nations of which I have been speaking. As he said:

“The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew and act anew.”