By Siri Block
St. Olaf College
I. Introduction
Norway has long been established as a nation of peace; they award the Nobel Peace prize, settle conflicts between feuding nations, and act as a social progressive model for Western Europe. Despite its status as a philanthropic global leader, Norway has recently received criticism for strict immigration laws and failure to offer sufficient support in response to the refugee crisis. Why is Norway, a so-called “humanitarian superpower,” falling short in their duties to aid refugees?
This paper explores and critiques the Norwegian state’s response to the refugee crisis. I will first identify Norway as a “humanitarian superpower” and dissect the meaning behind this identity. Next, I will outline Norway’s cultural values surrounding trust, and illustrate how trust is embedded in the roots of a functioning welfare state. Then, I will explain how the refugee crisis has revealed this trust’s vulnerability, ultimately compromising Norway’s status as a humanitarian superpower. With this issue established, I will dissect three problematic Norwegian responses to the refugee crisis. The responses are physical, systematic, and societal. They begin with border violence and immigration control, move into asylum camps and immigration decline, and end with social isolation and distrust. I will then highlight historical parallels of injustice relating to the indigenous Sámi people and ethnic minorities within Norway. I will conclude the paper with suggestions to mitigate unjust responses to the refugee crisis. By looking into the Swedish response, I will identify possible pathways to reduce Norwegian distrust of refugees and reclaim their role as a progressive and peaceful nation.
II. Norway’s Identity as a “humanitarian superpower”
Norway has long been regarded a philanthropic leader internationally and wears the label “humanitarian superpower” with pride. The term “humanitarian superpower” refers to a nation that seeks to promote human welfare and does so at a higher level than other nations. In her chapter, “The Hazards of Goodness: the Legacy of Bjørnson and Nansen,” Nina Witoszek describes Norway’s welfare policy as “a policy based on an open aspiration to become a “humanitarian superpower.”[1] The former Minister of Foreign Affairs, Jonas Gahr Støre, identifies major roles Norway has played as a “peace nation,” which include its involvement in a number of peace and reconciliation processes, contributing a higher portion of their GDP to international development than any other country, and having more than 50,000 Norwegian personnel take part in peacekeeping forces in the last 50 years.[2] The list of peace contributions is indeed impressive, and Støre mirrors Witoszek’s claim when he concludes his list stating, “these figures and the general political debate have led to the claim that we are a ‘humanitarian superpower.’”[3] It is quite clear that Norway regards and prides itself in being a country whose ideals are rooted in harmony.
III. The Norwegian Value of Trust
With this progressive status established, it is important to identify what a nation of peace is built upon: trust. Trust is necessary to unify Norwegians as a community in order to allow for a functioning welfare state. Norwegian society is grounded in trust, which becomes clear when accounting for notable factors such as politics, to elements as trivial as transportation.
This trust occurs between the state and the people. The people must trust the government to fairly redistribute taxes to support the key tenets of a welfare state, such as universal healthcare and education systems. Second to having faith in their government, people must then put their trust in one another—trust that their fellow community members will pay into the welfare state and fully utilize its benefits. As Grete Brochmann and Anniken Hagelund assert in their article, “Migrants in the Scandinavian Welfare State: The emergence of a social policy problem,” the system “represents a particular type of welfare state characterized by universal access, generous benefits, a high degree of public involvement and comparatively high levels of redistribution.”[4] This welfare state is internationally admired for its ability to achieve the rare combination of high functioning economic success and social justice—all of which can be attributed to the essential baseline of mutual trust.
Trust makes the welfare system in Norway function, but this quality is not just embedded in the politics of Norway’s welfare state. On a smaller and more tangible scale, literal trust is depicted when considering Norway’s public transportation system. Rather than the obligatory scanning of transport passes and physical metro barriers found in the Scandinavian equivalents of Copenhagen and Stockholm, Norway’s capital Oslo relies on an honor system. In lieu of taking unnecessary time, money, and energy to monitor individual trips, ticket officers periodically enter the metro, buses, and trams to check for and fine passengers with expired tickets. This lenient model suggests that the state of Norway trusts citizens to use the system virtuously.
IV. Trust’s Fragility: Norwegian struggles to extend trust to new neighbors
This phenomenal presence of trust within Norway’s social democratic welfare state and society is certainly something to be admired, however, a problem emerges when this essential trust is rooted in likeness. As people, we trust ourselves to do what is moral and fair, and we expect people who look like us, think like us, and have similar life experiences to uphold a parallel moral standard. With the influx of immigrants arriving in Norway in the last decade, illusions of difference threaten the baseline of trust on which the “humanitarian superpower” society functions. Historically ethnic Norwegians may view arriving non-Western immigrants as a concrete “Other” rather than neighbors to partake in and contribute to the welfare system. This immediate separation due to differences cultivates Gary Freedman’s concept of a welfare state as something paid by “us” for “them.”[5]
Another possible explanation for Norwegian distrust of immigrants could be applied from Thomas Hylland Eriksen’s report Immigration and National Identity in Norway for the Migration Policy Institute. Eriksen emphasizes that while the social welfare state is built upon the striving for national equality, this equality is systematically structured in a foundation of likeness. In order to achieve equality, similarity is essential—something that contradicts the efforts of diversity. As Eriksen points out, “likhet means both ‘equality’ and ‘similarity’ in Norwegian” so there is no real distinction between cultural similarity and equal rights.[6]
In addition to linguistic components, Norwegian national identity has historically been based on ethnicity and celebrates ancient ancestry rooted in Viking mythology. Eriksen explains, “Following the emergence of a Romantic nationalist ideology in the mid-19th century, the heroism and boldness that characterized the warlike Vikings were largely seen as positive expressions of Norwegian national spirit.”[7] This ethnic foundation is furthered when accounting for the vulnerability of Norway’s nationhood. Norway was under Swedish rule and did not receive full independence until 1905, and from 1940 to 1945, Norway was occupied by Nazi Germany.[8] Erikson suggests that these historical influences inform current fears that Norway “might again be besieged by foreigners.”[9]
This idea of the welfare state’s need for equality sheds light on a nationalistic desire for homogeneity resulting in a diversity threshold—it is rooted in the historical, political, and linguistic foundation of Norwegian culture. When considering the Norwegian response to the refugee crisis, it could be argued that Norwegians already existing within the welfare state, who uphold skepticism for new and unfamiliar neighbors, have taken measures to protect their trust-dependent society. Physical, systematic, and societal responses combat risks of the unknown that commence with immigrants, but simultaneously challenge Norway’s identity as a humanitarian superpower.
V. Response One: Physical blockades through border violence
The first response to perceived welfare threats is to physically prevent refugees from entering the Schengen Area. Oxford doctoral student and writer for the Washington Post, Isaac Stanley-Becker, dissects the injustices that can be found at the United Nations (UN) border. In his article on border camps, Stanley-Becker explains that the Schengen Area allows for free movement of goods and services for all European Union states, with the exception of United Kingdom and Ireland; however, this free movement applies solely to European citizens. Individual nation states are therefore awarded control over the movement of non-Europeans. With this in mind, screening at the Schengen border is “likely to unjustly favor white travelers, with people of color presumed to be trespassers in the privileged zone of porous Europe.”[10]
In order to seek asylum from warring home countries, displaced peoples must navigate natural and governmental perils to pass the EU border. According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, one in every eighteen refugees drowned attempting to cross the Mediterranean in just the first six months of 2018.[11] In Croatia, asylum seekers including women with infants and children, report being beaten and robbed by police “pushbacks” in efforts to find safety.[12] According to the Belgrade Centre for Human Rights, a pushback describes authoritarian action to prevent people from seeking protection on their territory by “forcibly returning them to another country.”[13] This allows a state to abdicate their responsibility to examine individual cases of border-crossers.
Similar abuse while crossing the border into other Schengen countries is exemplified in the Open Society Foundation’s 2015 release of Europe’s Migration Crossing Points Captured in Six Short Films. This series of films depicts unsettling footage of men, women, and children risking their lives for a chance at a safer world. Depending on their chosen crossing point, countless individuals drown, are attacked or even shot in their attempts to cross the UN border.[14] Despite abuse and increased obstacles to prevent people from crossing, the frequency of attempts has not decreased; instead, the consequences of failed crossings have only become increasingly dangerous.
VI. Response Two: Systematic blockades through asylum camps and immigration decline
If asylum seekers successfully pass the Schengen border and arrive in Norway, the Norwegian state makes a second effort to mitigate perceived risk that arrives with “newcomers,” often in the form of asylum camps. Such camps often supply refugees and asylum seekers with baseline necessities until they can be sent back to their home countries. Margreth Olin’s 2012 documentary De Andre portrays a potentially unjust side of this refugee response. De Andre presents the stories of four male teenagers who flee from nations of conflict to seek safety in Norway. Because they are minors upon their arrival, the boys are held in purgatory-esque states of isolation until their eighteenth birthdays, when they will be legally deported back to their “deemed-safe” countries of origin.[15] While this practice of preparing youth for deportation has been abolished, the unsettling narratives in the film demonstrate unlivable and meaningless existences that have been forced upon asylum-seekers by the Norwegian government.
Norway has also taken steps to reduce the number of refugees they accept. In Oslo, for example, the Directorate for Integration and Diversity (IMDi) has requested the Oslo municipality settle only 250 refugees despite the city council’s plans to settle 300 in 2019. When considering past years, the number of settled refugees in Oslo has been severely cut, with 811 in 2015, 1,000 in 2016, and 850 refugees in 2017.[16] According to SSB/Norway Today, Norway took almost half the number of refugees in 2017 than the previous year’s 15,200. In his article on this strong decline in migration, Tor Ingar Oesterud writes, “[the] Schengen border controls and the EU-Turkey agreement were introduced during spring 2016 to limit the influx of refugees into Europe.”[17] In other words, tightening Norwegian borders may be a symptom of greater attempts to decrease the number of refugees into and throughout Europe.
These governmental responses to an influx of refugees in Norway highlights threads of a political agenda that is rooted in racism and xenophobia, disregarding the well being of individuals for the sake of blockading an imagined threat to the “society of trust” and Norway’s welfare state. In an interview with Fraser Nelson from The Spectator, Norway’s former Minister of Justice Sylvi Listhaug explains that the Norwegian model for immigration decreases the number of economic migrants or those coming from areas that have been deemed safe. Nelson quotes the former Minister: “We send people back to Afghanistan if they are not in need of protection; we send them back to Somalia if they are not in need of protection.” According to the article, police screen areas of Norway that illegal immigrants are suspected of living and working. Listhaug is quoted as asserting that, “if we find them, we send them out. That has also decreased crime in Norway, that’s very good.”[18] Listhaug has since resigned from her position as Norway’s Minister of Justice after accusing the opposition Labor Party of “putting ‘terrorists’ rights’ before national security.”[19]
VII. Response Three: Societal blockades through social isolation and distrust
Beyond violent EU border crossings and Norway’s inhumane deportation practices, the Norwegian state continues to dispute their role as a humanitarian superpower in considering social acceptance of refugees who are permitted to stay. Despite achieving refugee status or attainment of a residence permit, many Norwegian immigrants struggle to integrate into their communities. Countless non-governmental and government organizations, such as the Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC) and the Directorate of Integration and Diversity (IMDi), provide services to see that the basic living essentials of the refugees are met. For example, the NRC offers support in areas including education, food security, cash and voucher distribution, youth support programs, and legal assistance. Similarly, the IMDi provides introduction programs and Norwegian language training. While these programs propel Norway’s narrative as a philanthropic nation, refugees still struggle to find acceptance in their new homes. Although it is clear that they are given the necessary tools to learn the Norwegian language and integrate into the labor market, there is a hidden threshold for the acceptance of diversity for the sake of maintaining homogeneity in social practices of Norwegian society. Trust is not extended to the new and unfamiliar Norwegian neighbor.
Jeff Crisp’s article, “Refugees and the Global Politics of Asylum,” could offer a two-tiered explanation behind the foundation of this social boundary. The first part is rooted in supplementing the unknown with fear. Crisp makes the argument that citizens or residents in the country can receive arriving refugees and asylum seekers with negativity, hostility, and tension. Crisp writes, “When asylum seekers arrive from distant and unfamiliar countries that are associated in the public mind with terrorism, radical Islam and political violence, then the public reaction is likely to be even more negative.”[20] Public reaction to this dissimilarity tends to be hostile because many individuals in the accepting-country’s public body associate difference with danger.
The second tier of Crisp’s argument that could provide insight when considering this boundary relates back to the idea of “out-groups,” which are groups of people who are isolated for not being a part of the cultural majority. In asylum-seeking situations, there are many difficult tensions that naturally arise, and it can be tricky to create a perfect policy to respond to these conflicting struggles. With an out-group, it becomes easy for majority culture Norwegians to alleviate blame for welfare state issues or cultural change, often targeting those who deviate from or are “interrupting” homogeneity. Crisp argues that politicians and governments uses asylum-seekers as ends to shift anger and blame: “Rather than showing real leadership in this area of public policy, government and opposition parties in a number of countries have become locked into an unseemly competition to talk tough on asylum and (like their counterparts in the developing world) to scapegoat the asylum seeker.”[21] Shifting blame for the goal of self-preservation, as suggested in this quote, could certainly be a common force propelling desires for homogeneity and “social exile” for refugees residing in Norway.
VIII. Indigenous and Ethnic Minority Parallels: Norwegian dissociation from historical oppressive relationships rooted in national identity
It is important to note that shifting blame to a cultural “Other” is nothing new to Norway. Long before the refugee crisis, similar desires to defend homogeneity have manifested in relation to Norway’s ethnic minorities. Norway’s national minorities include Kvens (of Finnish origin), Jews, Romani (a mixed, “travelling” group), Roma, and Sámi (indigenous nomadic peoples of Northern Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Russia).[22] There are estimated to be 15,000 Kvens, 1,500–2,000 Jews, 2,000–3,000 Romani, and 400 Roma living in Norway today.[23] Erikson points out that despite these low numbers, “there has been a considerable animosity toward minority groups. In the Norwegian constitution of 1814, Jews were not even allowed in the country. Groups of itinerant Roma from Southeast Europe are even today associated with begging and petty crime. “Norwegianification (fornorskning) was the official policy well into the 1970s toward the Sámi.”[24]
Norway’s relationship with their indigenous Sámi people has been especially unjust. The 1930s eugenics movement in Scandinavia resulted in more than 60,000 Swedes and 40,000 Norwegians being sterilized against their will.[25] These sterilizations targeted ethnic minorities and were motivated by racist desires to support a “superior Nordic race” and rid society of “genetic inferiority.”[26] In addition, a surplus of emotional and mental abuse was inflicted upon the Sámi in attempts to assimilate peoples to Norwegian majority culture. Young children were taken from their parents and forced to attend abusive boarding schools, where the Sami language was forbidden and the shamanistic religion of the Sámi was suppressed through burning of sacred drums and Christianization.[27] When considering traditions, history, and policy surrounding Norway’s ethnic minorities, it is impossible to separate a deep-rooted and painful history of oppression by Norwegian majority culture.
The Norwegian state has begun to overcome injustices inflicted upon the Sámi through the establishment of a Sámi Parliament, which was founded in 1989 with the Parliaments passage of the Sámi Act.[28] The Sámi Parliament acts as the Sámi’s own political body, and is in place “to promote political initiatives and to carry out the administrative tasks delegated from national authorities or by law to the Sámi Parliament.”[29] In addition, the Norwegian State was the first country to ratify the ILO Convention no. 169 on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which acknowledges the Sámi’s right to further develop their culture and the authorities’ obligation to initiate measures to support this work.[30]
Despite these steps forward, a narrative of dissociation from injustice lingers in Norwegian society when considering their relationship to the Sámi. Henry Minde, a professor at the University of Tromsø in northern Norway, suggests a tone of Norwegian justification for wrongdoings in his article “Assimilation of the Sámi- Implementation and Consequences.” Minde thoroughly covers Christianization, the boarding school phenomenon, the process of Sámi representation in policy, and concepts of “the white man’s burden.” While the article presents an impressive linear history of Sámi and Norwegian majority culture relations, it falls into excusing injustices rather than making amends through its disconnected vocabulary and passive tone. For example, Minde states “in this sense it could be said that it will take about 130 years from the establishment of the Sámi Parliament until the Norwegian State will have ‘settled its account’ regarding the norwegianification policy.”[31] This conclusion leaves readers with the impression that the Norwegian state can simply pay off a long-term systematic relationship of physical and psychological oppression through purely monetary means.
Similarly, Norwegian Laila Stien’s short story, “Skolegutt,”[32] which translates to “Schoolboy,” circumvents Norwegian guilt while presenting the Sámi injustices that took place in boarding schools. The story retells incidents from the eyes of a young Sámi schoolboy, who faces mockery and is forbidden to speak his mother tongue. The reading however, takes the tone of justifying oppression rather than apologizing for it. The teacher is described as merely wanting the best for her students, while the Sámi student’s parents are cast unaware, scoffing at the prospect of formal education. This representation of mistreatment reveals that the dissociating of Norwegian majority culture from the historical oppression of the indigenous Sámi is a pattern that continues to cycle into modern day.
An incentive to dissociate from Norwegian injustices inflicted upon the Sámi peoples could be explained through considering Michael Billig’s chapter on “Banal Nationalism.” When discussing identify and categories, Billig uses the Social Identity Theory, which attributes the existence of groups to individuals choosing to associate as a member of that group. The dissociation of oppression by Norwegian majority culture becomes relevant when identifying the method in making such “groups” desirable; it is necessary to identify an “outgroup” in order to form a solid “ingroup.”[33] Therefore, some ethnic Norwegians or “majority culture” subconsciously or intentionally selects ethnic minorities and indigenous groups to act as outgroups in order to raise their psychological identity as the “ingroup.” If Norwegian national identity follows the model in Billig’s chapter, fully accepting oppressive wrongdoings would conflict with maintaining a positive self-image, making it difficult for the group or nation to exist under its desired ideals.
These identity-grouping theories could not only explain denial and disconnect between Norwegian majority culture and their historically tyrannical relationship with the Sámi, but could also be extended to current hostility and shortcomings surrounding the refugee crisis.
IX. Discussion
When returning to our initial inquiry of why Norway, a “humanitarian superpower,” is falling short in its duties to aid refugees, there is no clear-cut answer. One could argue that some Norwegians believe refugees pose a threat to the welfare state and trust-dependent culture found in Norway. The new and unfamiliar Norwegian neighbor cannot be trusted to partake in society because they appear to be different from historically ethnic Norwegians. Therefore, the act of protecting this trust-dependent society manifests itself first through physical and systematic backlash, ranging from violent border crossings into the Schengen Area to the Norwegian government’s asylum camps and unjust political agendas. Beyond physical and systematic barriers, Norway defends their trust-reliant society using societal blockades rooted in racism and xenophobia.
If this is indeed the case, how exactly can Norway begin reclaiming their role as a nation of peace? What can they do to move beyond ignorant mistrust of refugees in order seal the cracks of Norwegian support systems? Although this task is daunting and difficult to navigate, challenging ignorant ideologies surrounding the new neighbor would be a small step forward. In other words, Norway’s receiving society must find common ground between seemingly opposite cultures. With this goal in mind, it could be possible to establish the trust between old and new members of the community that the Norwegian system thrives upon.
X. Solutions: Considering the Swedish model
In order to find social cohesion, Norway must call upon traits that universally connect people. When searching for a solution, Norway should look east to its neighbor Sweden. Sweden serves as an example of a society that consciously strives to build community and trust between differing cultures. Gudshus and the United Invitations, two Non-Governmental organizations located in Stockholm, exemplify this goal of finding common ground to establish trust by means of religion and food.
Gudshus, a community space in which Lutheran, Catholic, and Muslim religious services all occur, is a great example of efforts to band dissimilar communities together to promote positive dialogue, understanding, and ultimately trust. While religion admittedly has the potential to become divisive, it is something practiced and understood by a vast majority of nations—it is human. A concept similar to Gudshus could be incorporated in Norwegian integration in order to build a bridge between not just religions, but people.
Another alternative to create trust and emphasize humanity is exemplified in the United Invitations, an organization founded by Swede Ebba Akerman. This organization connects Swedish “newcomers” and receiving society members to gather for dinner together. The act of sharing food and hosting in the intimate setting of one’s home breaks down boundaries, enabling unfamiliar groups to build new communities from a vulnerable baseline. This organization emphasizes the trust sought-after by making invitations and events completely independent of the organization itself. Hosts and guests must have trust in one another for the event to succeed. These community efforts are effective tools in beginning to mitigate public xenophobia and racism. It is crucial, however, to remember that they serve as merely a small step in an immense web of issues surrounding Norwegian response to the refugee crisis.
XI. Conclusion
As a globally recognized humanitarian superpower, Norway has much to improve upon when it comes to immigration policy and international negotiations. From a cultural position, however, Norwegians need not eliminate their grounding in the concept of trust, but rather expand it to create social cohesion and integration between refugees and receiving members of Norwegian society. Finding community in common ground is a necessary first step in the long journey of migrant support and political transformation. Once the Norwegian response to the refugee crisis is reformed, Norway can begin to reclaim their role as a nation of peace and as a humanitarian superpower.
Bibliography
The Belgrade Center for Human Rights and Macedonian Young Lawyers Association. “A Dangerous ‘Game’: The pushback of migrants, including refugees, at Europe’s borders.” Oxam International. April 2017. https://www-cdn.oxfam.org/s3fs-public/file_attachments/bp-dangerous-game-pushback-migrants-refugees-060417-en_0.pdf.
Billig, Michael. “National Identity in the World of Nations.” In Banal Nationalism. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 1995.
Brochmann, Grete and Anniken Hagelund. “Migrants in the Scandinavian Welfare State: The emergence of a social policy problem.” Nordic Journal of Migration Research 1, no.1 (2011): 13–24.
Crisp, Jeff. “Refugees and the global politics of asylum.” The Politics of Migration: Managing Opportunity, Conflict and Change. Edited by Sarah Spencer. Malden, M.A.: Blackwell, 2003.
Davies, Thom and Karolína Augustová. “Violent Reality of the EU Border: Police Brutality in the Balkans.” openDemocracy. October 23, 2018. https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/can-europe-make-it/violent-reality-of-eu-border-p/.
De Andre. Produced and written by Margreth Olin. Norway: Speranza Films A/S, 2012. DVD.
Eriksen, Thomas Hylland. Immigration and National Identity in Norway. Washington, D.C.: Migration Policy Institute, 2013.
“Europe’s Migration Crossing Points Captured in Six Short Films.” Open Society Foundation. 2015. https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/voices/europe-s-migration-crossing-points-captured-six-films/.
Haavie, Siri. “Sterilization in Norway – a Dark Chapter?” Eurozine, Samtiden. April 9, 2003. https://www.eurozine.com/sterilization-in-norway-a-dark-chapter/.
“The ILO Convention on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.” Edited by Kjersti Bjørgo and Ann Kristin Lindaas. Government.no. Ministry of Labour and Social Inclusion. August 20, 2018. https://www.regjeringen.no/en/topics/indigenous-peoples-and-minorities/urfolkryddemappe/the-ilo-convention-on-the-rights-of-indi/id487963/.
Minde, Henry. “Assimilation of the Sami –Implementation and Consequences 1.” Acta Borealia: A Nordic Journal of Circumpolar Societies 20, no. 2 (2010): 21–146.
Nelson, Fraser. “Norway’s tough-love approach to the refugee crisis.” The Spectator. November 25, 2017. https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/11/norway-is-hard-on-migrants-but-tough-love-works/.
“Norway Justice Minister Quits to Avert Government Collapse.” The Guardian. March 20, 2018. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/20/norway-justice-minister-sylvi-listhaug-quits-avert-government-collapse.
Oesterud, Tor Ingar. “Strong decline in refugee migration.” SSB & NorwayToday. June 20, 2018. https://norwaytoday.info/news/strong-decline-refugee-migration/.
Partida, Inga Rebecca. “Suffering Through the Education System: The Sami Boarding Schools.” Sámi Culture. The University of Texas at Austin. https://www.laits.utexas.edu/sami/dieda/hist/suffer-edu.html.
“The Sámi Act.” Edited by Kjersti Bjørgo and Ann Kristin Lindaas. Government.no. Ministry of Local Government and Modernisation. May 29, 2007. https://www.regjeringen.no/en/dokumenter/the-sami-act-/id449701/.
Stanley-Becker, Isaac. “Border Camps show the Schengen zone only ever promised Europeans free movement.” NewStatesman America. July 5, 2018. https://www.newstatesman.com/world/europe/2018/07/border-camps-show-schengen-zone-only-ever-promised-europeans-free-movement.
Stien, Laila. Nyveien: Noveller. Oslo: Nordnorsk Forfatterlag, 1979.
Støre, Jonas Gahr. “Norway – a Peace Nation. Myth or Fact?” Nobel Peace Center, Oslo. April 24, 2006. https://www.regjeringen.no/no/dokumentarkiv/stoltenberg-ii/ud/taler-og-artikler/2006/norway–a-peace-nation-myth-or-fact–/id420860/.
Taylor, Gerard. “250 refugees to be settled in Oslo in 2019.” Norway Today Media. December 19, 2018. https://norwaytoday.info/news/250-refugees-to-be-settled-in-oslo-in-2019/.
Witoszek, Nina. “The hazards of goodness: the legacy of Bjørnson and Nansen.” The Origins of the “Regime of Goodness”: Remapping the Cultural History of Norway. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 2011.
Endnotes
[1] Nina Witoszek, “The hazards of goodness: the legacy of Bjørnson and Nansen,” The Origins of the “Regime of Goodness”: Remapping the Cultural History of Norway (Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 2011), 191.
[2] Witoszek, “The hazards of goodness: the legacy of Bjørnson and Nansen,” 193.
[3] Jonas Gahr Støre, “Norway – a peace nation. Myth or fact?” (Nobel Peace Center, Oslo, 2006), https://www.regjeringen.no/no/dokumentarkiv/stoltenberg-ii/ud/taler-og-artikler/2006/norway–a-peace-nation-myth-or-fact–/id420860/.
[4] Grete Brochmann and Anniken Hagelund, “Migrants in the Scandinavian Welfare State: The emergence of a social policy problem,” Nordic Journal of Migration Research 1, no. 1 (2011): 13.
[5] Brochmann and Hagelund, “Migrants in the Scandinavian Welfare State: The emergence of a social policy problem,” 13.
[6] Thomas Hylland Eriksen, Immigration and National Identity in Norway (Washington, D.C.: Migration Policy Institute, 2013), 7.
[7] Eriksen, Immigration and National Identity in Norway, 3.
[8] Eriksen, Immigration and National Identity in Norway, 3.
[9] Eriksen, Immigration and National Identity in Norway, 3.
[10] Isaac Stanley-Becker, “Border Camps show the Schengen zone only ever promised Europeans free movement,” NewStatesman America, July 5, 2018, https://www.newstatesman.com/world/europe/2018/07/border-camps-show-schengen-zone-only-ever-promised-europeans-free-movement.
[11] Thom Davies and Karolína Augustová, “Violent Reality of the EU Border: Police Brutality in the Balkans,” openDemocracy, October 23, 2018, https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/can-europe-make-it/violent-reality-of-eu-border-p/.
[12] Davies and Augostová, “Violent Reality of the EU Border: Police Brutality in the Balkans.”
[13] The Belgrade Center for Human Rights and Macedonian Young Lawyers Association, “A Dangerous ‘Game’: The pushback of migrants, including refugees, at Europe’s borders,” Oxfam International, April 2017, https://www-cdn.oxfam.org/s3fs-public/file_attachments/bp-dangerous-game-pushback-migrants-refugees-060417-en_0.pdf.
[14] “Europe’s Migration Crossing Points Captured in Six Short Films,” Open Society Foundation, 2015, https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/voices/europe-s-migration-crossing-points-captured-six-films/.
[15] De Andre, prod. and written by Margreth Olin (Norway: Speranza Films A/S, 2012), DVD.
[16] Gerard Taylor, “250 refugees to be settled in Oslo in 2019,” Norway Today Media, December 19, 2018, https://norwaytoday.info/news/250-refugees-to-be-settled-in-oslo-in-2019/.
[17] Tor Ingar Oesterud, “Strong decline in refugee migration,” SSB & NorwayToday, June 20, 2018, https://norwaytoday.info/news/strong-decline-refugee-migration/.
[18] Fraser Nelson, “Norway’s tough-love approach to the refugee crisis,” The Spectator, November 25, 2017, https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/11/norway-is-hard-on-migrants-but-tough-love-works/.
[19] “Norway Justice Minister Quits to Avert Government Collapse,” The Guardian, March 20, 2018, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/20/norway-justice-minister-sylvi-listhaug-quits-avert-government-collapse.
[20] Jeff Crisp, “Refugees and the global politics of asylum,” The Politics of Migration: Managing Opportunity, Conflict and Change, ed. Sarah Spencer (Malden, M.A.: Blackwell, 2003), 82.
[21] Crisp, “Refugees and the global politics of asylum,” 83.
[22] Thomas Hylland Eriksen, Immigration and National Identity in Norway, 3.
[23] Thomas Hylland Eriksen, Immigration and National Identity in Norway, 3.
[24] Thomas Hylland Eriksen, Immigration and National Identity in Norway, 3.
[25] Siri Haavie, “Sterilization in Norway – a Dark Chapter?” Eurozine, April 9, 2003, https://www.eurozine.com/sterilization-in-norway-a-dark-chapter/.
[26] Siri Haavie, “Sterilization in Norway – a Dark Chapter?”
[27] Inga Rebecca Partida, “Suffering Through the Education System: The Sami Boarding Schools,” Sámi Culture, The University of Texas at Austin, https://www.laits.utexas.edu/sami/dieda/hist/suffer-edu.html.
[28] “The Sámi Act,” ed. Kjersti Bjørgo and Ann Kristin Lindaas, Government.no, Ministry of Local Government and Modernisation, May 29, 2007, https://www.regjeringen.no/en/dokumenter/the-sami-act-/id449701/.
[29] “The Sámi Act.”
[30] “The ILO Convention on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples,” ed. Kjersti Bjørgo and Ann Kristin Lindaas, Government.no, Ministry of Labour and Social Inclusion, August 20, 2018, https://www.regjeringen.no/en/topics/indigenous-peoples-and-minorities/urfolkryddemappe/the-ilo-convention-on-the-rights-of-indi/id487963/.
[31] Henry Minde, “Assimilation of the Sami –Implementation and Consequences 1,” Acta Borealia: A Nordic Journal of Circumpolar Societies 20, no. 2 (2010): 143.
[32] Laila Stien, Nyveien: Noveller, (Oslo: Nordnorsk Forfatterlag, 1979).
[33] Michael Billig, “National Identity in the World of Nations,” in Banal Nationalism, (Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 1995), 60–92.