Season 1 – Cross Currents: Navigating U.S.-Norway Relations After 9/11
Episode 0: Why Norway? An Introduction to U.S.-Norway Relations During the George W. Bush Presidency
Release Date: May 26th, 2022
Hosts:
Dr. LaYee Leong
Fellow, SMU Center for Presidential History; Senior Fellow, John G. Tower Center for Political Studies
Polina DeClue
Student Research Assistant, SMU Center for Presidential History
Editorial Note and Disclaimer:
This transcription has been prepared according to the strictest practices of the academic and transcription communities and offers our best good-faith effort at reproducing in text our subject's spoken words. In all cases, however, the audio of this interview represents the definitive version of the words spoken by interviewees.
Citation:
Leong, LaiYee, host. “Norway’s Balancing Act.” Firsthand History, Season 1, Cross Currents: Navigating U.S.-Norway Relations After 9/11 (podcast). SMU Center for Presidential History. 9 June 2022. Accessed [date, month, year]. https://www.smu.edu/Dedman/Research/Institutes-and-Centers/Center-for-Presidential-History/Podcasts/Firsthand-History/Season-1---Cross-Currents---Navigating-US-Norway-Relations-After-9-11
[Begin Transcription]
Brian Franklin: Welcome to “Firsthand History” a podcast production of Southern Methodist University’s Center for Presidential History. I’m Brian Franklin, Associate Director [00:00:30] of the Center for Presidential History. And I am so excited to introduce this new podcast series to you! This is Season 1: “Cross Currents: Navigating U.S.-Norway Relations After 9/11.”
You may have come to us after enjoying a season (or three) of “The Past, the Promise, the Presidency.” In that series, we dive into the fascinating history of the presidency by talking to expert historians about everything from race, to national crises, to [00:01:00] bully-pulpit rhetoric.
In this new series, we want to bring history to you in a new way: firsthand. That’s right – first hand. Not just from the mouths of historians or political scientists, but stories directly from the people who were there. People who were in the room. People who were on the ground. Under the leadership of CPH fellow Dr. LaiYee Leong, we’re going to bring you a 4-episode season all about the relationship between the United States and its longtime [00:01:30] ally Norway, during the presidency of George W. Bush. And each episode will be built on—and feature—firsthand interviews with U.S. and Norwegian officials, including ambassadors, cabinet members, and more—all the way up to the Prime Minister of Norway.
But that’s enough from me. I’ll turn it over to the rest of our team as we present Season 1 of “Firsthand History” – “Cross Currents.”
Polina Declue: Hello. Welcome [00:02:00] to SMU’s Center for Presidential History’s podcast, “Cross Currents…” We will be examining how 9/11 shook up diplomatic relations between the US and our European allies as seen through the lens of the US-Norway alliance during the Bush presidency. My name is Polina DeClue and with me is Dr. LaiYee Leong, a Fellow at the Center. Dr. Leong is the lead scholar of the oral history project that provides the original interview clips for this podcast series. [00:02:30] Hi Dr. Leong.
LayYee Leong: Hi Polina.
DeClue: Between 2017 and 2019, Dr. Leong interviewed many policy makers, security experts, and diplomats in the US and Norway. The conversations focused on how American foreign policy after 9/11 shaped relations between the two countries. These interviews form part of a larger, unique collection of oral histories at SMU called the Collective Memory Project. You can read more about it on the Center’s website, where you’ll also find videos and transcripts of the interviews. [00:03:00] In this podcast series, we’ll draw on those interviews to hear first-hand accounts from American and Norwegian leaders whose words and deeds gave tangible shape to ties between the two states. Maybe you’re wondering, why Norway? In this short introductory episode, we explain why spotlighting Norway offers an unusual but revealing perspective on international diplomacy during the George W. Bush presidency.
George W. Bush: [00:03:30] “Good evening. Today, our fellow citizens, our way of life, our very freedom came under attack in a serious of deliberate and deadly terrorist acts.”
DeClue: Dr. Leong, set the stage for us. Why did the CPH decide to study US-Norway relations post-9/11?
Leong: Polina, many of us remember that 9/11 shook not just the US but the world. In America of course, we knew immediately that it would [00:04:00] mean profound change in our policy priorities. Most of our allies realized too that there would be far-reaching implications for them as well. NATO - that’s the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the security alliance that provides the framework for America’s military force posture in Europe – NATO, for instance, quickly invoked Article 5, which is the clause for collective defense. And that was the first time ever that the clause was invoked. [00:04:30] But few, I think, could have predicted that when the US launched its Global War on Terror, it would lead to arguably the WORST schism in our relations with NATO and other European governments up to that time. That made life quite challenging for smaller countries like Norway that were also staunch US allies.
DeClue: How did US allies react after the attacks? Were there shows of sympathy and solidarity?
Leong: Oh yes, absolutely. On Sept 12, [00:05:00] the day after the attacks, a now-iconic front page headline appeared in Europe that read “We are all Americans.” That was Le Monde, a leading French paper. And that was just one example. Just about every government expressed strong support and sympathy for the US. The outpouring was simply immense. Many of our listeners no doubt remember it.
DeClue: So what happened? Many of our listeners may also remember a shift from that initial support, but what brought about the change?
Leong: [00:05:30] When the US planned to attack the Taliban in Afghanistan for harboring Al Qaeda, the military coalition that the US put together included NATO allies. But President Bush chose not to work within the NATO framework. This decision concerned our NATO friends. Remember, when he was running for president, George W. Bush projected the image of a leader who didn’t really care about multilateralism on the world stage. He had made quite clear, [00:06:00] for instance, that he would pull the US out of the Kyoto Treaty on climate change. So US allies already had reservations about President Bush – many perceived him as a leader who was more than prepared to charge ahead on his own. Add to this, the geopolitical context – the US remained the sole superpower after the Cold War. Even our allies viewed that with some trepidation – would the US throw its weight around? [00:06:30] Would it ignore the interests and advice of friends and allies? So when President Bush didn’t work through NATO despite it invoking Article 5, the collective defense clause, it caused worry and even consternation among more than a few European governments. Still, at least at first, they were willing to show accommodation. Many recognized that the US wanted to move fast against Afghanistan – the invasion took place just [00:07:00] weeks after 9/11 – and our allies accepted that NATO bureaucracy might have proved cumbersome given the need for a rapid and overwhelming response.
DeClue: Can you connect Norway and NATO? Is Norway a member of NATO?
Leong: Yes, Norway is a founding member of NATO from 1949, one of the original 12, which of course also included the US. If you look at a map, you see Norway appears on the periphery of Europe. In strategic terms, however, [00:07:30] it is extremely important. Norwegian territory reaches far into the Arctic and in the north, it shares a short land border with Russia. There’s also a longer maritime border. It means that during the Cold War, Norway pressed up right against the Soviet Union – in fact, the only NATO member that did so. So it has always been a key ally despite being quite small in terms of population – about 5 million people– [00:08:00] and as a result, not always in the foreground when we think about NATO or relations across the Atlantic.
DeClue: So, this brings me back to our opening question. Why Norway? Why not explore bigger or more well-known countries like France or Germany?
Leong: Norway is not France or Germany, which for many compelling reasons tend to figure most prominently in NATO and in almost all aspects of transatlantic diplomacy. But that’s precisely why I think Norway [00:08:30] is worth studying. In talking to Norwegian leaders, I got a different perspective of how US foreign policy in the 2000s played out in Europe. We’ve already mentioned the war in Afghanistan. That garnered broad support in Europe, coming right after 9/11. But as the Bush administration turned its attention to Iraq and then led the invasion in 2003, it put a lot of pressure on US alliances. France and Germany [00:09:00], along with Belgium, first privately and then openly resisted US military action. A lot of this is now well-recorded, we know quite a bit about the tensions between those governments and the US. Much of it went on full display at the UN when the Bush administration sought resolutions against Saddam Hussein’s regime. What we focus on far less are the smaller members in NATO. In many ways, they were caught between the US on one hand [00:09:30] and France and Germany on the other. A country like Norway had to consider short term and long term diplomatic repercussions for what it did. Then there were also domestic considerations. Polls at that time showed that most Europeans, including Norwegians, did not approve of President Bush personally or the Global War on Terror. It came to be seen as superpower overreach and many European citizens expressed dismay [00:10:00] at what they saw as President Bush’s Texan cowboy persona. Norway’s government – which was of course democratically elected – had to take into account the sentiments of Norwegian voters. So that delicate balance is really interesting. It’s revealing of the many complex factors that shape international diplomacy.
DeClue: The tensions between major NATO allies and the US that you mention – were those unprecedented?
Leong: [00:10:30] Well, disagreements were not a new thing, but the timing increased the potential for a significant break. With the end of the Cold War and the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, NATO seemingly lost one of its overarching reasons for continued existence. Russia didn’t seem such a big threat. What was going to keep the US and Europe closely aligned? At the same time, France and Germany had political leaders who wanted [00:11:00] to demonstrate their autonomy from the US. They expressed wariness at American unilateralism, but also wanted to show they could stand up to it. In the meantime, we have President Bush embracing rhetoric such as “you’re with us or you’re against us” - not the exact words, but that was what people heard – rhetoric that sounded tough, but also rough to many European ears. So given this context, the stakes were extremely high. And smaller countries like Norway [00:11:30] had to calibrate their own responses in this minefield. Among the things I learned from the interviews with Norwegian officials is the careful effort they put into cultivating close, personal relationships with American leaders like Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. On the one hand, they Norwegians actively demonstrated support for American policies. On the other hand, they worked diligently within multilateral [00:12:00] frameworks like NATO to exercise their influence in those arenas. It’s worth bearing in mind that, more than other allies, Norway also has an international reputation as a peace-broker nation that its government and society highly valued and wanted to preserve – a type of soft power that allows it to punch above its weight in international diplomacy. Considering all these factors, [00:12:30] it was an incredibly challenging balancing act to maintain.
DeClue: It sure sounds like it. Well, we’ll be talking much more about your observations and sharing excerpts from those interviews with Norwegian officials and diplomats in the rest of our podcast. In the first full episode, we will find out how 9/11 affected international diplomacy as seen through the eyes of those who engaged in it. Our second episode will discuss the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the problems they created for NATO. And our final episode will look at how transatlantic policy [00:13:00] shifted over the course of the Bush presidency. For now, thank you, listeners!
Franklin: That’s it for Episode 0 – “Why Norway?” Thank you to Dr. LaiYee Leong, our project leader for the oral history collection this podcast is based on, “Transatlantic Diplomacy after 9/11: The U.S. and Norway.” And thank you to Polina DeClue, former research assistant with the Center for Presidential History, [00:13:30] and now a law student at SMU’s Dedman School of Law.
Season 1 of Firsthand History, “Cross Currents,” is a production of the Center for Presidential History at Southern Methodist University. Our thanks to the Dedman College of Humanities and Sciences for their support. Thank you to Pro Podcast Solutions, and to CPH research assistant Wardah Alvi for helping edit and produce this episode. Theme music—entitled “Endless Story”—was written by Nick Petrov, and licensed through PremiumBeat. [00:14:00] For more information on this podcast, and the oral histories it is based on, visit our website at www.smu.edu/cph.
Stay tuned for the next episode of Season 1, “Cross Currents,” as we delve into the U.S.-Norwegian diplomatic relationship in the immediate aftermath of September 11.
Thanks for listening. Until next time.
[End Transcription]