May cost more than it tastes

Recommend these queer films and the series, Christian Tybring-gjedde Show more

the Campaign to bring Norway into the united nations security council determined now. Large resources have been put in to convince at least 128, or two-thirds, of the Un's 193 member states that Norway should have a seat in the "world's government" in the next two years.

VALGKAMPMEDARBEIDER: crown Prince Haakon driver campaigning for Norway in the united nations, here flanked by foreign minister Ine Eriksen Søreide and prime minister Erna Solberg on the way to a meeting of the united nations in the fall of 2018. Photo: Pontus Höök / NTB Scanpix Show more

Norway competes against Ireland and Canada. Three western democratic countries are vying for two seats, and need also the voices of the dysfunctional, corrupt and dictatorial regimes. Over 30 million Norwegian kroner has your campaign cost so far.

Juging in the Norwegian prestisjeprosjekt

But the political and diplomatic costs will potentially be far higher. The question is whether it is worth it. I don't believe it. To sit in a one world government for a small country can quickly cost more than it tastes, especially when the major countries ypper to battle.

the Costs related to the election campaign is one of the conditions, far more serious is what it will cost to fulfill campaign promises. It is confirmed that Norway operates with stemmebytte. It means that a country can promise to vote in the Uk against that voice forth on another occasion. It is uncomfortable to think that Norway could potentially be guilty towards undemocratic authoritarian regimes.

Internationally, Norway is known to have an exceptionally large and open purse, and there are many countries that want Norwegian development cooperation funds. The unanswered question is; how much of this money is distributed or promised away with the thought of our sikkerhetsrådskandidatur? It is impossible to estimate.

Turn On the LydErrorAllerede plus customer? Log into herError TRUMP: prime Minister Erna Solberg believes the Us president, Donald Trump, harassing the Swedish klimaktivisten Greta Thunberg (16). Video/reporter: Vegard Kvaale / Dagbladet Show more

There is hardly any disadvantage for Norway's candidature that the ministry of Foreign affairs also benefits Norwegian development assistance to small island developing states, including through initiatives on projects within the climate, renewable energy and health. Such a proliferation of the assistance is otherwise not in line with the government's stated objective of concentrating assistance on fewer countries. But on the other hand – there are many of them, and they all have one vote each in the UN.

If Norway takes seat in the Security council is waiting for us greater challenges than to fulfill campaign promises. Then we shall take part in the game between the great powers. But it is unclear what we should make of it.

It can be argued that there is an intrinsic value to be a global player, and that Norway should play a greater role than our size dictates. It can also be argued that Norway will have the opportunity to put the issue on the agenda that are important to us. It will not at least provide an exciting and educational arbeidshverdag for our diplomats, top politicians, and related experts. New departments and positions will be created, and new jobs in the sikkerhetsrådsbyråkratiets service is created.

We can get to get the two turbulent years. Norway has been a member of the Security council four times previously. All the times we have had to take into account the tensions between the great powers. But since the last time we sat there, from 2000 to 2001, the world has become far more complicated.

Page 2. world war ii the united STATES has been the guarantor of a liberal world order and the international institutions. Under Trump, the united STATES has gradually retreated and increasingly based its foreign policy on national interests, or America First.

Since recently, Russia has become more self-assertive, both in the immediate vicinity as Ukraine and the baltic countries, but also in new areas such as Syria, where the country has large military forces.

The biggest challenge is , however, China is sailing up as a new global superpower. The country has made major investments in its own military and technological capabilities. At the same time, the country has financed major international infrastructure projects and invested in companies in all over the world – including in the airline Norwegian. China is also becoming more authoritarian internally. China also engages in international organisations, including the united nations.

Turn On the LydErrorAllerede plus customer? Log into herError

China, however, have no aspirations to adopt western liberal values and concepts such as pluralism, human rights and freedom of expression, is completely foreign. Tensions between the united STATES and China will be able to characterize the work of the Security council in the next two years, and it will be able to put Norway on a hard try.

Norway must however deal with powers. But there is a difference between to deal with this bilaterally and that a private UN-member, than as a member of the Security council.

What will for example happen if the Uk is experiencing pressure from the united STATES to vote with them in the one case we even see as controversial? Should Norway optionally provide for to ensure that the Us remains the guarantor of our security? And in a situation where the United states has clearly expressed its impatience with the alliansepartneres lack of willingness to prioritize your own safety?

One can also imagine a situation where Norway will have to choose between voting with the united STATES and risking China's wrath, or to vote with China, and risking that our relationship to the united STATES is put on a try.

Can come in conflict with the united STATES Comment

In the 1950s abstained Norge from voting when the Ussr demanded that China should be represented by the communist regime in Beijing led by Mao, instead of the styrtede nasjonalistregjeringen who ruled from Taiwan. With respect to the united STATES abstained Norway from to vote for, and was scourged by the communists in Beijing by the opening of a Norwegian embassy in the city was trenert in six years.

In 2010, the chinese dissidenten Liu Xiaobo awarded the nobel peace prize. It resulted in six new year in the chinese freezer. And when we know that Norway in these days is in negotiations with China about a trade agreement, then it is both unwise and unnecessary to set us in a situation where will have to bare the Norwegian position in any major political issue.

Some have argued that the Uk should sit on the Security council because it is too important to let be. But how important is it, really? It is limited the influence the Uk will have. The great powers can veto. The major can also determine which matters not to be discussed in the Security council.

It is the store that decides. Small countries have very little to say in areas where the major already has interests. We can therefore expect two years with little influence, but with a lot of diplomatic maneuvering and smertelige dilemmas.

Norway's diplomatic prestisjeprosjekt will be able to frame Norwegian companies abroad and at home, it can affect our security and potentially increase the tension in the north. There is no solidarity in such a project.

Stemmefiske that provides stain on the flag the Leader You can submit your article and opinion piece in Dagbladet here

Want to discuss?

Visit Dagbladet debate!