VZCZCXRO8671
RR RUEHIK
DE RUEHNY #0777/01 3510701
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 170701Z DEC 09
FM AMEMBASSY OSLO
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 8049
RUEHZL/EUROPEAN POLITICAL COLLECTIVE
RHEHAAA/NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL WASHINGTON DC
RHEHAAA/WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON DC
RUEHTV/AMEMBASSY TEL AVIV 1364
RUEHBUL/AMEMBASSY KABUL 0224
RUEHGB/AMEMBASSY BAGHDAD 0110

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 04 OSLO 000777 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR EUR/NB 
 
¶E. O. 12958:  N/A 
TAGS: OVIP PREL SCUL KPAO NO
SUBJECT: GOVERNMENT AND MEDIA REACTIONS TO PRESIDENT'S NOBEL VISIT 
 
OSLO 00000777  001.2 OF 004 
 
 
 
¶1. (U) This cable is Sensitive but Unclassified.  Please handle 
accordingly. 
 
---------------- 
GENERAL REACTION 
---------------- 
 
¶2. (U) The response to President Obama's visit, and to his Nobel 
Prize acceptance speech in particular, has on the whole been 
overwhelmingly enthusiastic, even panegyric.  Given widespread 
criticism of this year's award, grumbling about the enormous 
security requirements imposed on the host country, and annoyance 
with the abbreviated agenda, it is not too much to say that response 
to the visit has exceeded even the fondest expectations.  The 
dramatic change of heart during and after the visit was summed up 
sheepishly by newspaper of record Aftenposten in its December 12 
editorial: "In retrospect, much of that criticism seems rather 
petty." 
 
¶3. (U) Praise came from all quarters and extended to all aspects of 
the visit; media pundits, members of the Nobel Committee, government 
officials, politicians from left to right, the police, and the 
general public comented variously on the personal warmth o the 
President and the First Lady, the excellence in both form and 
content of the President's acceptance speech, the wisdom of the 
Nobel Committee's selection, the smooth execution of the visit 
(noting the effectiveness and cooperativeness of the White House 
staff and Secret Service detachment), and the larger significance of 
the visit for the bilateral relationship as well as for America's 
leadership role in the world - which is acknowledged ungrudgingly. 
 
¶4. (U) There was tremendous interest in and support for the visit by 
the general public, with a record-breaking 15,000 people turning up 
for the traditional torch parade to honor the laureate. 
 
¶5. (U) The visit was also a huge success for NRK and TV2. An average 
of just over 400,000 people watched the daytime coverage of the 
visit, and when the President and First Lady waved to the crowd in 
front of the Grand Hotel, more than one million viewers had tuned 
in. The visit set a new ratings record for TV2's Nyhetskanalen 
("news channel"). 
 
--------------------------------- 
POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENT REACTION 
--------------------------------- 
 
¶6. (SBU) Political and government reaction to the speech was 
overwhelmingly positive.  Members of the Nobel Committee were 
relieved and thrilled that the President's speech made such a good 
impression as to dissipate the earlier criticism about their choice 
of laureate.  Prime Minister Stoltenberg commented to Ambassador 
White that it was an "important" speech that "said things that 
needed to be said." On the evening after the speech, the Prime 
Minister told NRK TV that he and the President agreed on many things 
and said that the advantage of working with Obama is that he is 
frank and says what he thinks.  Foreign Minister Store said that the 
award "went over well in Norway," and Minister of Petroleum and 
Energy Riis-Johansen said that the speech was "terrific."  Several 
politicians did take note that the speech was about war as much as 
it was about peace; at the same time, most stated that they 
understood that this was appropriate given the context. 
 
¶7. (SBU) A few members of the far left, from the SV ("socialist 
left") party and the Red (neo-communist) party, pronounced the 
speech to be good rhetorically but ultimately unconvincing on the 
legitimacy of the Afghan war.  In contrast, Siv Jensen, leader of 
the populist right-wing Progress Party, told PolCouns that some in 
the government (i.e. in the SV party) "should listen to the speech 
three or four times" so that they would better understand why Norway 
is involved in Afghanistan.  In a TV interview, SV leader and now 
Minister of Education Kristen Halvorsen said that she agreed that 
sometimes force needs to be employed to combat violence, but not in 
every situation; she added that it was truly an ethical dilemma.  On 
December 10, Erna Solberg of the Hoyre (conservative) party told 
PolCouns that although she would have liked the speech to be more 
concrete, touching on the situations in different regions of the 
world, she found the speech to be well thought out on the level of 
principle in defining the dilemma of seeking peace through war. 
 
¶8. (SBU) Evaluating the speech as a piece of political rhetoric, 
praise from politicians was uniformly effusive.  An Embassy contact 
in the Human Rights Section of the MFA stated that it was "probably 
the best speech of the decade."  That estimation was widely shared 
 
OSLO 00000777  002.2 OF 004 
 
 
among other MFA contacts, including those in the North America 
Section and the Non-proliferation Section.  Some key contacts, in 
the Ministry of Defense among other places, speculated that the 
speech would significantly improve U.S.-Norway relations by 
increasing confidence in U.S. leadership in the Norwegian public at 
large. 
 
¶9. (SBU) As for the visit as a whole, President Obama impressed his 
Norwegian government interlocutors.  Prime Minister Stoltenberg said 
that Obama "has values and positions which are close to the 
Norwegian ones."  He added that the President has a "strong 
personality and is exciting to listen to." Defense Minister Grete 
Faremo stated that it was clear that the President greatly valued 
Norway's promise of additional civilian and military aid to 
Afghanistan. 
 
 
 
-------------- 
MEDIA REACTION 
-------------- 
 
¶10. (U) Several commentators characterized the speech as historic; 
center-left tabloid Dagbladet's Senior Commentator, Halvor Elvik 
opined that the Peace Prize challenged Obama's own thinking about 
reconciling the irreconcilable, writing, "his speech, and his 
discussion of the dynamic between use of armed force in conflicts 
and working for stable and lasting peace, will spur debates well 
into the future.  I venture that the Obama Peace Prize will hold a 
key position in the history of the prize, and the acceptance speech 
will be one of its primary documents." 
 
¶11. (U) Political Editor Hanne Skartveit of VG, Norway's largest 
newspaper, wrote on December 11 that peace in Europe has cost 
American blood, and peace-loving Norwegians and Europeans must 
understand that war can be necessary to secure peace.  "Yesterday's 
speech will stand as one of the great speeches in Nobel history, 
perhaps the greatest."  Skartveit also noted that Obama is a proud 
American; humble, yes, in receiving the prize, but not when it comes 
to the role of the U.S. in ensuring peace in the world. Obama talks 
about good and evil and right and wrong, and he has a form that 
allows him to extol U.S. military might while at the same time 
talking about peace in way of which Europeans approve.  He is, quite 
simply, on Europe's wavelength. 
 
¶12. (U) Dagbladet and Aftenposten carried the speech in its entirety 
in Norwegian, and Dagsavisen translated excerpts.  In the December 
11 edition of Aftenposten, Elin Kleven, Director of the Norwegian 
Communications Association, characterized the speech as the best 
ever made on Norwegian soil.  In the same edition, Harald 
Stanghelle, Aftenposten's Political Editor, wrote "Nobel has reaped 
much criticism for its peace prize award - it's doubtful whether 
much of that remains after yesterday's speech."  Stanghelle said it 
was one of the best speeches he had ever heard. 
 
¶13. (U) Dagbladet wrote in its editorial: "Expectations before 
Obama's speech were high.  Afterwards, it was described as a 
masterpiece.  The importance lies not so much in the rhetoric or the 
delivery, but in that Obama had used his own words about his own 
thoughts about being a president at war with ambitions of creating 
peace and contributing to a better world." 
 
¶14. (U) Mala Wang-Naveen, Aftenposten commentator, characterized the 
speech as "brilliant" and the paper's Foreign Editor Kjell Dragnes 
wrote that the speech shows evidence of a man who has dug deeply 
into the history of cultures and religions. 
 
¶15. (U) Commentator Kjetil Wiedswang wrote in Dagens Naeringsliv on 
December 11 that as a political/philosophical lecture, which is what 
it was, the acceptance speech was consistent and well-articulated, 
but it will also be subject to scrutiny and criticism on its merits 
as such.  There are many who believe the very concept of "just war" 
is untenable, he stated, and many of these skeptics have previously 
received the Nobel Peace Prize. 
 
¶16. (U) Aftenposten's New York correspondent Alf Ole Ask noted that 
Obama declined to comment on a question from the international press 
about the growing terror threat in the U.S., and the 5 American 
Muslims who were recently arrested in Pakistan.  Obama instead 
emphasized the great degree to which Muslims are well-integrated 
into U.S. society.  Ask also commented on the U.S. reaction, and 
said the speech made Obama more popular in conservative circles than 
perhaps ever before, and that some have noted that if George Bush 
had given the same speech, the reaction would have been outrage in 
 
OSLO 00000777  003.2 OF 004 
 
 
broad circles, instead of the nearly across the board praise. 
 
¶17. Dagsavisen's December 12 editorial said the speech was "perhaps 
the best that has been given at any award ceremony," but added that 
the reputation of both the President and the Prize depends on an end 
to the war in Afghanistan. 
 
¶18. (U) The First Lady also received rave reviews in the Norwegian 
press, and in the December 12 edition of Aftenposten was portrayed 
as strong, intelligent, stylish and unaffected. 
 
-------------------------- 
CRITICISM: MINOR AND MUTED 
-------------------------- 
 
¶19. (U) Even critics acknowledged the brilliance of Obama's speech, 
while not necessarily agreeing with its "just war" premise.  But NRK 
(Norway's national public broadcaster with 98% market penetration) 
Middle East correspondent Sidsel Vold and Middle East expert 
Professor Hilde Henriksen Vaage were among the commentators who 
expressed surprise that the Middle East wasn't a larger component of 
the speech.  Vold says Obama seems to have resigned on the Middle 
East issue, despite having put it at the top of his agenda a short 
time ago.  International Peace Research Institute (PRIO) Director 
Kristian Berg Harpviken found it troubling that a Peace Prize winner 
would insist on the necessity of war, thereby distancing himself 
from people like Gandhi and Martin Luther King.   NUPI's Helge 
Luraas commented in newspaper Klassekampen that the Nobel Committee 
gave Obama a platform to promote the global U.S. military footprint, 
and several peace movement representatives expressed indignation 
about Obama suggesting that the current U.S. military engagement in 
Afghanistan and Iraq were examples of "just war." 
 
¶20. (U) Inevitably (in Norway) enthusiasm itself becomes an object 
of criticism, and Klassekampen's December 12 editorial ridiculed the 
Norwegian press's "subservient" coverage of the visit and the 
unanimous praise of the speech.  "The rhetorical move of comparing 
the threat from al-Qaeda with the one of Hitler Germany in the 
thirties and forties is gravely manipulating and misleading...  The 
two bloody and civilization-destroying invasions in Afghanistan and 
Iraq cannot be justified with the terror threat, and can harshly be 
said to be fruitful contributions in the fight against it." 
 
¶21. (U) SV Deputy Baard Vegard Solhjell was not won over by the 
speech and said Obama evaded the fact that the U.S. has used 
military force purely out of self-interest rather than to protect 
people and create peace.  He mentions Afghanistan as an example of 
such an unsuccessful mission.  He also missed Obama's perspectives 
on how international organizations can work better, the U.S. 
approach to the UN, promotion of non-proliferation, and addressing 
the Middle East conflict (Aftenposten, December 12). 
 
¶22. (U) Secretary General of Norwegian People's Aid Petter Eide 
wrote in a December 12 op-ed in Dagbladet that he hopes President 
Obama includes Israel among the countries he was referring to in his 
speech who "break rules and regulations," and that he stands firmly 
behind his words from Cairo that the Israeli settlements are illegal 
and undermine peace. 
 
--------------------------- 
EARLY RESPONSE TO CRITICISM 
--------------------------- 
 
¶23. (U) In a glowing tribute to the U.S. and a scathing indictment 
of the left in VG's December 15 edition - Progress Party's (FRP) 
Sylvi Listhaug (a former Ambassador Robert Stuart Fellow) wrote that 
although she was initially strongly opposed to giving Barack Obama 
the Nobel Peace Prize, the lesson he taught the Norwegian left and 
the rest of the world about the challenges confronting the world's 
only superpower, and the complexities of managing war and peace, 
made the awarding of the prize well worth it.  "For those of us who 
love America, Obama's speech was fantastic."  For decades, she 
continues, "the U.S. has sacrificed its sons and daughters for peace 
in Europe and the rest of the world; it is in reality the American 
taxpayer who is financing our security."  Listhaug is particularly 
incensed about SV's opposition to the effort in Afghanistan, and the 
thrust of her tribute to the U.S. is an attack on the left; she 
finds it interesting that both Kristin Halvorsen and Erik Solheim 
(both of SV) responded to Obama's speech by insisting that they are 
not pacifists, and would condone the use of force in certain 
situations; Listhaug asks them to explain what those situations 
might be. 
 
 
 
OSLO 00000777  004.2 OF 004 
 
 
WHITE