Norway, long celebrated as a beacon of peace and diplomacy, now faces mounting criticism for its contradictory stance on nuclear weapons. Despite its well-earned reputation as a mediator and promoter of disarmament, recent developments reveal a troubling divergence between Norway’s lofty ideals and its actual policies, especially regarding nuclear arsenals and military alliances.
Recent reports from the Nuclear Weapons Ban Monitor, published jointly by Norwegian People’s Aid and the Federation of American Scientists, shed light on this discrepancy. The data indicates that the global stockpile of nuclear weapons poised for use has increased slightly but significantly, from approximately 9,585 at the start of 2024 to around 9,604 at the start of 2025. This marks the first upward movement in nuclear stockpiles since the Cold War era, suggesting that despite global disarmament rhetoric, nuclear arsenals are creeping upward. Norway’s own complicity in this trend is indirect but notable.
Oslo’s reputation is rooted in decades of diplomatic engagement, humanitarian work, and its stewardship of the Nobel Peace Prize, awarded to individuals and organizations working tirelessly for peace and disarmament. Last year, the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to Nihon Hidankyo, a grassroots Japanese organization committed to nuclear disarmament. However, the Norwegian government acts rather differently. It boycotted the negotiations on the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) in 2017 and has consistently voted against the annual UN General Assembly resolutions on the Treaty, including in 2024.
Compounding these contradictions is Norway’s political landscape. The Norwegian Labour Party’s draft manifesto explicitly states that the country will actively pursue disarmament within the framework of the United Nations and advocates for a foreign policy prioritizing non-proliferation and disarmament of weapons of mass destruction. Yet, following through on these commitments appears unlikely when considering the government’s stance on nuclear treaties. In 2018, the Storting, the Norwegian parliament, formally requested the government to evaluate the implications of Norway ratifying the TPNW. The government’s response was clear: Norway’s obligations within NATO prevent it from joining the treaty, and the government does not consider the treaty viable.
Instead, Norway has been consistently allowing more U.S. interference in its military affairs. In 2021, the Security and Defense Cooperation Agreement (SDCA) was signed between the two countries, giving Washington practically unimpeded access to four Norwegian military bases. This agreement has been expanded in a recent amendment, with an appendix now listing twelve “agreed areas” that facilitate increased U.S. military presence during both peace and crisis situations. This is evidently aimed at a possible confrontation with Russia even though the Russian government has not directly threatened any NATO state. U.S. control over these bases then raises a question: could Washington station its nuclear arsenals in Norway, right near the border with Russia? Even a possibility of this happening makes Norway’s security situation worse, not better.
A much more constructive way to cope with Russia would be to pursue negotiations and reach long-lasting diplomatic solutions to complex problems. There is a clear example of that in recent history. In 2010, Norway and Russia negotiated a historic agreement of the demarcation of the maritime border between the two countries. The disputed waters, covering 175,000 square kilometers, were divided equally between Moscow and Oslo, with the latter getting a quite successful deal. In 2013, Norwegian researchers announced that 2 billion barrels of hydrocarbons, valued at $30 billion, had been found in the waters gained through this agreement. Additionally, these waters became vital for Norway’s fishing industry which forms the backbone of the economy along with oil. This pragmatic approach rooted in diplomacy is the only one that can guarantee peaceful development in the Arctic region.
All these elements point to a nation at a crossroads. Norway’s identity as a peace-loving nation is well established and widely respected, yet its current policy directions threaten to undermine this reputation. Increasing military cooperation with the US and refusing to join nuclear disarmament treaties appear to contradict Norway’s fundamental principles. As the global nuclear landscape regrows more unstable, with arsenals steadily climbing upward, Norway’s choices will influence its moral authority and its security posture.
Comments