From its earliest days, Norway has seen itself as a humanitarian superpower.
One of its most beloved founding fathers, Fridtjof Nansen, pioneered the “Nansen Passport,” which gave stateless refugees access to more than 50 countries after World War I and is credited with helping 300,000 Armenians displaced by genocide. More recently, Norway was at the center of the historic, though now defunct, Oslo Accords in the Middle East.
Last year, it was the only country on the planet to spend at least 1% of its gross national income on humanitarian aid.
Why We Wrote This
With the United States under Donald Trump withdrawing from international humanitarian efforts, there would seem to be an opportunity for a middle power like Norway to step into the gap. But just how feasible is that, really?
Yet for all its ambition, Norway has always needed a big brother. Even as the country built a global brand as a compassionate friend and trustworthy facilitator, it has needed someone behind it to amplify those efforts and sometimes play “bad cop.”
For decades, that was the United States. Now, Norway is not quite sure what comes next.
It is the conundrum facing all of the world’s middle powers – those who wielded outsize influence through the post-World War II order created by the U.S. but now feel adrift. Such intermediate powers “are not powerless,” said Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney in a speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, earlier this year. “They have the capacity to build a new order that encompasses our values.”
In that light, this could be seen as Norway’s moment to step forward as the U.S. steps back its humanitarian commitments. But the past year has shown how hard it is to build a new order without a superpower to lead. Many countries are essentially waiting, hoping the U.S. returns to its former role. But that is by no means certain, and Norway shows the potential challenges ahead in adapting to a new reality.
“Peace facilitation and humanitarian aid are areas middle powers can use to have an impact on the global agenda and a seat at the table,” says Nina Græger, former director of the Peace Research Institute Oslo. “But when that area is further down the priority list for the big powers, that has an impact.”
A soft-power player
The instinct to help has long been a conspicuous part of the Norwegian identity.
While no one is quite sure why Swede Alfred Nobel asked that his peace prize be handled by a Norwegian committee, theories revolve around Norway’s reputation for peacemaking, even in the 1890s. After WWI, Nansen was also a leading figure in alleviating famine in Soviet Russia and Ukraine (in addition to being a legendary polar explorer and a founder of the science of oceanography).
That left an impression on the young nation. (Norway only gained independence from Sweden in 1905.) “Who were our cultural heroes when the nation formed?” asks Kristian Bjørkdahl, a professor at the University of Oslo who has studied Norway’s humanitarian identity. “[Nansen] became known as a humanitarian who went out there and helped tens of thousands of people.”
There is no question of the influence Norway has built in the humanitarian and peacemaking world since.
It is currently a primary peace broker in a wide array of places, including the Philippines, Colombia, and Haiti, with the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs maintaining a special section for peace and reconciliation. It also ranks No. 10 in the world in total spending on development assistance, despite having a population significantly smaller than the Toronto metropolitan area.
“I have often seen that Norway has an influence in international affairs beyond what a small-size nation normally would have,” says Jan Egeland, secretary general of the Norwegian Refugee Council and former head of the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. “That is because of soft power.”
He has been thinking about the topic since at least 1985, when his book “Impotent Superpower, Potent Small State” explored the opportunities that small states have. Others agree that some middle-power states can leverage the natural advantages of being smaller. No one felt bitter about Norway’s supplies of humanitarian aid, because the country had no significant colonial past to overcome.
“If you go to places in the Global South, one of the reasons we are welcome is because we don’t have these imperial entanglements,” says Dr. Bjørkdahl.
A need for a partner?
As the U.S. steps back from its global commitments, some see Norway as well-placed to help fill the gap.
“We see this as a good argument for stepping up our work,” says Iver Brynild Neumann, director of the Fridtjof Nansen Institute, a Norwegian research organization that focuses on global environmental governance.
The question is what middle powers can accomplish without big powers behind them. Norway’s role in the Oslo Accords was a crowning achievement, but it also would have been impossible without U.S. backing.
“There’s a clear limitation on Norwegian small power,” says Mr. Egeland, who was a key player in the talks. “Both sides trusted us, and there was a historic opportunity. However, Norway can’t force Israel to do anything it does not want to do. The U.S. can.”
Moreover, Norway doesn’t want to play the “bad cop” role, and without the U.S. to help, it doesn’t have clear alternatives. It is drawing closer to the European Union (of which it is not a member), but the EU does not have the same clout. If China showed an interest in peacemaking, “it’s a possibility Norway and China could work together,” says Dr. Neumann of the Fridtjof Nansen Institute.
But Norway’s global do-gooding has also had a political element that will be hard to replace.
“A lot of what Norway has done is for the approbation of the U.S.,” says Benjamin de Carvalho, a research professor at the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs. Its initial involvement in Haiti, for example, came at America’s request. “When Madeleine Albright asks if you can do something, you do it,” says Dr. de Carvalho, referring to the Bill Clinton-era secretary of state.
Alexander Zemlianichenko/AP/File
That leaves Norway – like other middle powers – in a new landscape without a clear path forward. “All notions of international order are built on an order built from above,” notes Dr. de Carvalho.
“I don’t know if we’re gutsy enough”
There are growing internal pressures in Norway, too. Norwegian politics is seeing the same populist political trends that have led many countries to cut humanitarian aid. But the deeper question of how to adapt to a changing world order seems foremost. A government white paper due next spring promises to look at how Norway should approach humanitarian aid in the future.
“There is a huge opportunity to invest in many countries and gain reputation and even more influence. But I don’t know if we’re gutsy enough to do that,” says Dr. de Carvalho. “Norway has been looking for the recognition it got from the U.S. Whose approbation are we looking for now?”
For many middle powers, the answer is still the U.S. Mr. Egeland notes how many NATO nations are racing to comply with President Donald Trump’s demand that they spend 5% of their federal budget on defense – all while slashing humanitarian aid.
“Most middle powers are being cajoled into the arms race, and then they do not fulfill their moral obligation to save lives and provide hope on other continents,” he says. “It leaves a gaping hole.”
He doubts that is the best way to build influence. He notes that the U.S., NATO, and Norway spent billions on military operations in Afghanistan, yet the country still fell to the Taliban. But Norway also built 133 schools; 131 of them remain operational, and half the students are girls.
Norway can and should push harder on humanitarian aid and peacemaking, Mr. Egeland says. But it can’t succeed without help. “The best thing is for big powers and small powers to work together as an orchestra.”