With its 2,650 kilometer coastline along the North Sea, the Atlantic Ocean, and the Barents Sea, Norway is strategically vital for NATO, as well as Northern Europe and the United States. To the north, Norway shares a direct border with Russia, while all maritime traffic from the Baltic Sea must pass through the Skagerrak, the narrow strait between Denmark and Norway, to reach the Atlantic Ocean or head south toward the English Channel.
Before World War II, Norway was neutral, but on April 9, 1940, Norway was invaded by Nazi Germany. The Norwegian fleet and ports demonstrated the country’s importance for controlling the North Atlantic. After the war, choosing NATO and the transatlantic defense cooperation was natural. Now, Norway’s geography and strategic importance remain unchanged—but the alliance across the Atlantic has evolved and is quickly deteriorating.
Norway is a member of NATO but not the EU. Norwegian international relationships, particularly with Europe, have not been easy. Norway has never been proactive in her relationship with Europe. One important reason may be that Norwegians have been the underdog in two unions, first with Denmark and then with Sweden.
Supranational organization is often met with scepticism. Denmark and Sweden both chose to join the European Union, while Norwegians have voted “no” in two referendums. The strong resistance to joining, both in 1972 and in 1994 with the newly rebranded EU, is due to fear of loss of self-rule and self-government. In addition, on 25 October 2019, the fiftieth anniversary of Phillips Petroleum’s discovery of the Ekofisk oilfield, the Norwegian Oil Fund passed one trillion dollars. This is more than seven times the size of the state budget, and almost three times the size of mainland GDP. In short, until now Norwegians have been comfortably rich and safe.
This is changing rapidly. There are increasingly regular meetings between EU leaders regarding Europe’s security, relations with Russia and the United States, and the situation in Ukraine, as well as serious customs and trade issues. These meetings are of great importance to Norway—but as a non-EU country, Norway is not guaranteed a place at the table.
International organizations and regulations are crucial for small countries like Norway, and any U.S. retreat from multilateral international cooperation could threaten Norway’s security. Therefore, we must ask:
* Is it in Norway’s interest to remain outside the political cooperation of NATO and the EU while our Nordic neighbours fully participate?
* If Trump’s presidency affects the U.S.’ relationship with NATO, would it be in Norway’s interest to apply for EU membership and for the EU to strengthen its defense capabilities?
* Could the United States lose European and Norwegian friends, influence, and alliances in the long run?
Already, we’ve seen President Trump and Vice President Vance blame Ukraine for starting the war, call the Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy a dictator and publicly shame him in the Oval Office, support the AfD in Germany, threaten Denmark with acquiring Greenland, and urge Europe to take care of itself or “clean up its mess.”
AmericanPurposeMag on
The author of this article is Mathilde Fasting from the Norwegian liberal think tank, Civita and host of the podcast [Liberal Halvtime](https://civita.no/podcasts/).
Mathilde is also the author of The Norwegian Exception and [After The End of History](https://www.amazon.com/After-End-History-Conversations-Fukuyama/dp/1647120861?sr=8-1) which is series of conversations Mathilde had with Francis Fukuyama. Out of all of the works in the Fukuyama anthology, this book is by far the best introduction to Fukuyama’s works, even more so than The End of History. Additionally, this is one of the very few books where I would recommend the audiobook version over the text version.
2 Comments
With its 2,650 kilometer coastline along the North Sea, the Atlantic Ocean, and the Barents Sea, Norway is strategically vital for NATO, as well as Northern Europe and the United States. To the north, Norway shares a direct border with Russia, while all maritime traffic from the Baltic Sea must pass through the Skagerrak, the narrow strait between Denmark and Norway, to reach the Atlantic Ocean or head south toward the English Channel.
Before World War II, Norway was neutral, but on April 9, 1940, Norway was invaded by Nazi Germany. The Norwegian fleet and ports demonstrated the country’s importance for controlling the North Atlantic. After the war, choosing NATO and the transatlantic defense cooperation was natural. Now, Norway’s geography and strategic importance remain unchanged—but the alliance across the Atlantic has evolved and is quickly deteriorating.
Norway is a member of NATO but not the EU. Norwegian international relationships, particularly with Europe, have not been easy. Norway has never been proactive in her relationship with Europe. One important reason may be that Norwegians have been the underdog in two unions, first with Denmark and then with Sweden.
Supranational organization is often met with scepticism. Denmark and Sweden both chose to join the European Union, while Norwegians have voted “no” in two referendums. The strong resistance to joining, both in 1972 and in 1994 with the newly rebranded EU, is due to fear of loss of self-rule and self-government. In addition, on 25 October 2019, the fiftieth anniversary of Phillips Petroleum’s discovery of the Ekofisk oilfield, the Norwegian Oil Fund passed one trillion dollars. This is more than seven times the size of the state budget, and almost three times the size of mainland GDP. In short, until now Norwegians have been comfortably rich and safe.
This is changing rapidly. There are increasingly regular meetings between EU leaders regarding Europe’s security, relations with Russia and the United States, and the situation in Ukraine, as well as serious customs and trade issues. These meetings are of great importance to Norway—but as a non-EU country, Norway is not guaranteed a place at the table.
International organizations and regulations are crucial for small countries like Norway, and any U.S. retreat from multilateral international cooperation could threaten Norway’s security. Therefore, we must ask:
* Is it in Norway’s interest to remain outside the political cooperation of NATO and the EU while our Nordic neighbours fully participate?
* If Trump’s presidency affects the U.S.’ relationship with NATO, would it be in Norway’s interest to apply for EU membership and for the EU to strengthen its defense capabilities?
* Could the United States lose European and Norwegian friends, influence, and alliances in the long run?
Already, we’ve seen President Trump and Vice President Vance blame Ukraine for starting the war, call the Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy a dictator and publicly shame him in the Oval Office, support the AfD in Germany, threaten Denmark with acquiring Greenland, and urge Europe to take care of itself or “clean up its mess.”
The author of this article is Mathilde Fasting from the Norwegian liberal think tank, Civita and host of the podcast [Liberal Halvtime](https://civita.no/podcasts/).
Mathilde is also the author of The Norwegian Exception and [After The End of History](https://www.amazon.com/After-End-History-Conversations-Fukuyama/dp/1647120861?sr=8-1) which is series of conversations Mathilde had with Francis Fukuyama. Out of all of the works in the Fukuyama anthology, this book is by far the best introduction to Fukuyama’s works, even more so than The End of History. Additionally, this is one of the very few books where I would recommend the audiobook version over the text version.
Lastly, you can now find [Francis Fukuyama](https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:bh72k5pqi63p32uc2mxlxwzw) and [American Purpose](https://bsky.app/profile/americanpurpose.bsky.social) on Bluesky!
-Ringo