Can you comment on the extent of Norway’s efforts in KFOR measured in manpower, equipment and NOK?

Bjørn Tore Godal: Norway’s efforts in KFOR are extensive and are by far our largest contribution to international operations. Today nearly 1200 Norwegian soldiers and officers are serving in or supporting KFOR. From April 2001 Norway will take over as lead nation. This means that 205 Norwegian soldiers and officers will serve at KFOR headquarters or in key support functions. NOK 1.9 billion has been budgeted for international operations for 2001. NOK 1.7 billion of these funds have been earmarked to cover obligations as lead nation in 2001 and the ongoing Norwegian KFOR contribution.

How important do you expect international operations will be for the Norwegian Defence Forces in the coming years, also after Kosovo?

BTG: Norway’s participation in international operations is nothing new in Norwegian defence and security policy. Nevertheless, Norway has long been a net importer of security. After the end of the Cold War, Norway can no longer expect that its allies will be as willing to contribute to Norway’s security unless we show our ability and willingness to participate in the common missions of the Alliance. NATO’s new strategic concept emphasises the ability to deal with crises. By helping to resolve conflicts we also strengthen our own security, both because the level of conflict in the world is lowered and because assistance to NATO and other international organisations is important in ensuring support for us if Norway’s security should ever be threatened. Participation in international operations must therefore be one of the core missions of the Norwegian Armed Forces in the future.

In which areas does the Ministry of Defence see synergies between participating in KFOR and having to defend Norway?

BTG: On the one hand, participation in KFOR is important in the sense that we demonstrate our willingness and ability to contribute a substantial military force together with our most important allies and partners in order to ensure peace and stability in Europe. On the other hand, participation gives the Norwegian Armed Forces relevant experience that will benefit our national defence, experience that we otherwise would not have had. More directly we find synergies when it comes to team-, commanding officer- and division training, as well as the use of our materiel under rugged operating conditions. Interoperability is increased by different nations solving task together based on NATO procedures, including a common language and the Alliance’s command and control procedures.

Why is Norway well suited for leading a complicated force such as KFOR?

BTG: It is important to underscore that KFOR is a NATO-led operation. Norway’s role is primarily to see to it that the Norwegian KFOR commander is able to carry out his difficult mission in the best way possible. Norwegian soldiers and officers will therefore constitute a considerable share of KFOR headquarter staff, and I am certain that they will do an excellent job. A key part of KFOR headquarters will be staffed by personnel from JHQ NORTH, at Jåtta, Stavanger. This NATO headquarters gives Norwegian officers a unique opportunity to collaborate with allied officers on a high level. Norwegian soldiers and officers have also garnered international experience from previous UN and NATO operations. In addition the large international exercises in Norway, such as Battle Griffin and Strong Resolve, provide key expertise for leading multinational operations.

Are there opportunities for the Norwegian defence industry to become better qualified for exporting through close collaboration with the Norwegian Armed Forces in international operations, and if so, how?

BTG: Whenever our forces participate in international missions, it is very important for them to have the best equipment possible for carrying out these missions. Good Norwegian products that are used on these missions will be noticed by our allies, and in this way international operations will be a showcase for the Norwegian defence industry. If improvements are needed, it is important for the industry to receive information to that effect. That is why a proper dialogue is essential, so that the experience that Norwegian forces have using Norwegian equipment in international service benefits the industry. Hopefully such a dialogue will also make the equipment more attractive to customers outside Norway.

Despite cutbacks and reorganisations in the Norwegian Armed Forces, is it important for us to have a Norwegian defence industry, and if so, why?

BTG: The consequences of any downsizing of the defence industry will mean that the Norwegian Armed Forces will increasingly have to go abroad to find industrial partners. This will make it more difficult to find suppliers and partners that understand the Norwegian Armed Forces’ basics needs and requirements, and have the proximity to the customer that the Armed Forces so far have benefited from. It has repeatedly been proven that the Norwegian defence industry, in collaboration with the Norwegian Armed Forces, is capable of making products that have been able to meet the Armed Forces’ needs cost-effectively. The Norwegian Armed Forces will gradually become more dependent on external suppliers to get access to the expertise that previously found within the Armed Forces themselves. It would therefore be a disadvantage for the Armed Forces not to have access to national defence industry/technological expertise that can meet the Armed Forces’ needs in areas of particular interest. If Norway is to be seen as a future credible partner in international collaborative projects, it is important that we have industrial expertise. Norwegian industry will also benefit from the knowledge and technology that such projects result in.

Does the new defence structure have different requirements for equipment and materiel, for example, on the technological level, from what we have seen previously?

BTG: The new defence structure does not require any different technology in principal from what we already have and are familiar with. However, the requirements for materiel are stricter as a result of general technological developments. Participation in international operations also helps raise material requirements. The materiel we use must be interoperable with that of other participating countries’ forces, and requirements for protection are absolute. There is therefore less room for unique Norwegian solutions in the future Armed Forces.