5. The Kingdom of Norway
5.9 Conclusions
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
‧
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
58
since “money in the form of aid can often contribute to stabilizing political regimes and thus delay the need for reform.” Effective or not, in material or expertise assistance form, the foreign aid is and will likely continue to be one of the founding pillars of the Norwegian (public) diplomacy.172
But as we can see also in the words of Øyvind Østerud: “In concrete and practical matters, the “country without interest” has had number of rather specific interest after all.”173
5.9 Conclusions
Norway produces a message which is consistent with its basic values and any conflicting communication is minimal. This element helps Norway shape and maintain a positive image, or a brand, as the brand is based on Norway’s essence. Norway employs credible spokesmen, and governmental or NGO members in particular “have something in common” with members of the target audience. This Nordic country has ponderously chosen to focus on a process and long-term engagement, using collaborative projects to build trust and basic ability.
These projects explicitly enrich communication and give Norway the feedback it needs to help keep it from drifting off message at the same time.174
Bátora states that “A successful public diplomacy strategy of small/middle sized state will seek to position the country not only in locally attractive image- and value-platforms, but also in what might be called globally attractive image and value-platforms.”175
What Norway has achieved, was to position itself in what might be called multi-directional value and image platforms, which most of the Norwegian society can identify with,
172 Moore, T., 2012. Norway's Focused Strategic Communication Strategy. [Online]; Available at:
http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/item/2010/0912/comm/moore_norway.html[Accessed 7 5 2014].
173 Østerud, Ø., 1997. Between Realism and "Crusader Diplomacy": The Norwegian Channel to Jericho. In: A. F. Cooper, ed.
Niche Diplomacy. London: Macmillan Press LTD, p. 93.
174Moore, T., 2012. Norway's Focused Strategic Communication Strategy. [Online]; Available at:
http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/item/2010/0912/comm/moore_norway.html [Accessed 7 5 2014].
175 Bátora, J., 2005. Public Diplomacy in Small and Medium-sized States, Hague: Clingendael. p. 23.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
‧
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
59
and which at the same time are attractive to most political regimes, most religions and most cultures around the world.176
The ultimate goal of different public diplomacy strategies is to attract enough positive attention around the world to strengthen the country’s security and augment its influence.
Various opinions of numerous scholars and practitioners prove that the story of Norway can be considered as a particularly successful model.
Supposing that the academics and professional cited in this chapter are indicative of today’s leading theorists, then it seems that Norway is, deliberately or not, aspiring to be one of the best models presently available. Moreover, Norway was cited by many of these theorists as an example of what smaller countries could follow, in order to maximize their effect.
The current and recent (new) public diplomacy performed by Norway basically matches Melissen’s definition which states that “The new public diplomacy is no longer confined to messaging, promotion campaigns, or even direct governmental contacts with foreign publics serving foreign policy purposes. It is also about building relationships with civil society actors in other countries and about facilitating networks between non-governmental parties at home and abroad.”177 Norwegian foreign policy model offers a story of a successful engagement of this type and it offers an opportunity to learn from it example.
176 Bátora, J., 2005. Public Diplomacy in Small and Medium-sized States, Hague: Clingendael. p. 23.
177 Melissen, J., 2005. The New Public Diplomacy: Between Theory and Practice. In: J. Melissen, ed. The New Public Diplomacy, Soft Power in International Relations. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, p. 7.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
‧
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
60 What can be learnt?
Can other smaller countries learn from the Norwegian Model? Yes, but many of the lessons are more relevant to smaller wealthy states with no international security commitments around the world.
As Moore highlights, one of the examples to follow lies in the improvement of the outreach by increasing public diplomacy budgets, staff and professional training, and making better use of dialogue and collaborative projects. The crucial part is also the better use of new technologies and new minds, meaning enthusiastic young people, not directly employed by the government, as in the case of the Norwegian NGOs. Another improvement might consist of increasing the budgets for educational exchange and smoothly directing those who do study abroad to less-popular destinations which could be a valuable and lasting investment in two-way communication. With the end of employing the soft power successfully, there is a need to make the state and its foreign policy more attractive to foreigners.178
Norway is of interest also as an example to the other smaller countries because of its relative success in moving towards specific goals. Strategic leadership entails many qualities:
all-pervading assessment of issues, perception of the interests of the voiceless as well as the powerful, creative solutions about alternative approaches, determination, and ability for sustained advocacy.179
In conclusion, as summarized by Langmore, Norway’s public diplomacy agenda does follow today’s best practices, as assessed by a series of strategic communication professionals and academic analysts. The Norway Model is persistent and interactive, designed for long-term engagement on all three levels of public diplomacy levels: monologue, dialogue and
178 Moore, T., 2012. Norway's Focused Strategic Communication Strategy. [Online]
Available at: http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/item/2010/0912/comm/moore_norway.html [Accessed 14 5 2014].
179 Langmore, J., 2011. Learning from Norway. Griffith Review, May.Issue 32: Wicked Problemss, Exquisite Dilemmas.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
‧
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
61
collaboration. The active employment of Norwegian NGOs and both private and parasternal firms operating around the world is very effective and competent.180
Norway appears to have established a positive, distinguishable brand around the world, but this brand is inseparable from what Norway is and how it operates. Norway is broadly considered as one of the best places to live: peaceful, prudent and caring. An important factor is that the Norwegian public intensely support their government’s activities overseas, which makes an ambitious development program easier to fund today and more probable to maintain in the future. Employing non-governmental spokespeople, trainers and collaborators, since their personal beliefs are likely to align fairly closely with the overall governmental direction is also an advantage which cannot be seen in the case of other countries. Norway still has some minor concerns looking to the future, such as whaling, Arctic claims and social cohesion, but all of those concerns seem controllable, compared to the challenges facing most of the other nations. Norway recognizes that it is “a small country with oil resources that relies on a law-based international system to protect its off-shore resources,” but it is energetically and visibly working to strengthen that international system.181
A crucially effective part of the new public diplomacy networking, a quiet, methodical business, is that Norway has made good use of them for their own benefit but also for the profit of others. Combined with niche diplomacy which requires recognition, publicity and secured position,182 they have created a stable position for Norway on the world scene. As Henrikson proclaims, it is difficult to keep the niches in the 21st century and they have to be kept primarily by politicians and (public) diplomats. Norway appears to be very well aware of
180 Langmore, J., 2011. Learning from Norway. Griffith Review, May.Issue 32: Wicked Problemss, Exquisite Dilemmas.
181 Ibid.
182 Henrikson, A. K., 2004. Niche Diplomacy in he World Public Arena: The Global Corneres of Canda and Norway. In: J.
Melissen, ed. The New Public Diplomacy: Soft Power in International Relations. U.K: Palgrave Macmillan.p.71.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
‧
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
62
that and invests sufficient resources into the funding and personnel of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs which is the vital creator of Norwegian public diplomacy.183
Norway is a successful example of a very active public diplomacy and a new public diplomacy strategies adapting flexibly and rapidly to the constantly changing world. Its peculiarities lie in its wealth which allows Norway to pursue foreign aid agenda on a big scale and with almost no limits. Another important factor is the nature and the character of the country, the citizenship and its culture which makes the Norwegian brand credible and sustainable. There are important lessons to be learnt from Norway and its public diplomacy practice but it is important to notice that the tradition of Norwegian public diplomacy and the scale of dedication and prioritization of this strategy has been much higher than in other countries. The results of the Norwegian public diplomacy are deep rooted and its success is a result of determined efforts and insistent dedication which has started several decades ago.
What is almost certain is that the idea of looking for a country’s own “niche” while contributing to the development and a more stable and peaceful world is something any country can take as an example from Norway and we might say that judging from the model of Norway one of the best public diplomacy practices is the promotion of “global good”.
183 Henrikson, A. K., 2004. Niche Diplomacy in he World Public Arena: The Global Corneres of Canda and Norway. In: J.
Melissen, ed. The New Public Diplomacy: Soft Power in International Relations. U.K: Palgrave Macmillan.p.71.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
‧
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
63