International Solidarity Makes Norway Safer
The views expressed in this blog post are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of CMI.
As a small but exceptionally wealthy state, Norway has a moral obligation to demonstrate international solidarity through global aid, cooperation, and responsibility-sharing. In the long run, these commitments also help to make Norway safer.
The Norwegian government is allocating record levels of funding to support Ukraine in the name of international law and solidarity, yet it is simultaneously proposing aid cuts and refugee policies that risk weakening these same norms. While supporting Ukraine is essential, these proposals are morally unjustifiable at a time when Norway enjoys unusually large fiscal space, and when more people are displaced than ever. Arguably, they also reflect a narrow and short-sighted approach to national and European security. As a small state with limited military power, Norway is safer in a rules-based international order grounded in binding multilateral cooperation and respect for international law. However, that order is now under mounting pressure. Against this backdrop, global aid and refugee protection should be understood as both moral obligations and vital contributions to strengthening the international norms and institutions that underpin Norway’s long-term security.
Aid cuts
In its proposed 2026 budget, the Norwegian government designates a quarter of its aid budget for Ukraine, signalling a continued strategic prioritisation of the country. At the same time, allocations to some of the world’s poorest countries continue to decline. NOK 355 million is being cut from the regional allocation to Africa, including civil society organisations working on democracy and human rights. Several aid organisations and analysts have warned that an increasing share of the aid budget is being redirected toward security policy and climate initiatives and have called this a “redefinition of Norwegian aid”.
Others, however, want Norway to cut even more. This includes the leader of Norway’s largest opposition party Sylvi Listhaug, who has repeatedly claimed that aid to countries outside Europe is “wasteful” and something Norway cannot afford in today’s geopolitical climate. These claims are misleading for several reasons. To begin with, Norway can definitively afford to both restore and increase aid to Africa and other regions outside Europe regardless of its vital commitments to Ukraine. Unlike most other European countries, Norway has not had to finance expanding its defence budget through large loans, which in other countries has placed increasing pressure on their welfare systems. Instead, Norway has earned extraordinary revenues from the war in Ukraine and will likely grow comparatively wealthier in the coming years. This gives Norway both a heightened opportunity and a greater moral obligation to redistribute more of its wealth. Indeed, as “involuntary war profiteers”, one could even argue that Norway is morally obliged to share all of its extraordinary gas revenues resulting from the war in Ukraine, as “this money, morally speaking, does not belong to us”, in the words of economists Kalle Moene and Ottar Mæstad. Given that foreign aid does not drive inflation, this is also economically feasible.
Second, cutting aid to non-European regions arguably reflects a narrow approach to national and European security. In making this argument, it is important to recognise that the record of foreign aid is highly uneven; not only does aid not always work, but it can also have unintended and damaging effects. That said, some of the proposed cuts – such as those affecting civil society organisations working on democracy and human rights in Africa – may hinder right-based development and democratic institution-building, which research shows can foster disaster preparedness, non-violent modes of conflict resolution, and political stability.
Regardless of debates about aid effectiveness, continued western aid cuts to Africa have also significant geopolitical implications at a time when China and Russia are expanding their economic, political, security and media presence in Africa. Since 2014, Russia has increased its engagement to counter international isolation, bypass sanctions, and secure political support for its war in Ukraine. Both China and Russia are also using state-controlled media to disseminate strategic and polarising narratives and disinformation. When Norway and other European states cut aid and fail to offer meaningful partnerships, Beijing and Moscow are well positioned to fill the vacuum. This weakens European influence and support for Ukraine at a moment when accusations of western double standards resonate strongly and geopolitical rivalry and tensions are growing. It also risks reducing access to critical infrastructure and resources, including rare earth minerals essential for both Europe’s green transition and the rebuilding of European defence industries.
Similar arguments apply to the Middle East. The Norwegian Red Cross has proposed that Norway adopt an extraordinary assistance package for Gaza, modelled on the Nansen Programme for Ukraine. Such an initiative could help meet the enormous humanitarian needs in Gaza and potentially support regional stability. By demonstrating political solidarity with the Palestinian people, it could also help to counter perceptions of Europe’s selective solidarity and increase Norway’s standing and credibility in the Global South.
United Nations
The second example concerns support for multilateralism, and the United Nations specifically. It is crucial to acknowledge that multilateral institutions are far from perfect: they are shaped by power asymmetries, colonial legacies, and institutional inefficiencies. Still, for a small state with limited military capacity, the predictability, rules-based framework, and inclusivity of multilateral cooperation remain particularly important. As the government itself notes, Norway’s security rests on strong multilateral institutions – both because global challenges require collective solutions and because the multilateral system generates global public goods, including security.
NATO is, of course, central to Norwegian security because it provides guarantees Norway could never secure alone. Yet the UN also plays an essential role. A strong UN helps sustain predictable rules, norms, and conflict-management mechanisms that reduce the risk of great-power domination, coercion by larger states, and unilateral aggression – including in the High North. For a small state, disputes handled through institutions rather than power politics offer a far more favourable strategic environment. Research also shows that UN peacekeeping can reduce the duration and intensity of armed conflicts and limit their escalation. Although Norway may be geographically distant from these conflicts, UN peacekeeping and mediation has stabilising effects on issues relevant to Norwegian security, including global energy markets, maritime trade, and displacement pressures.
Norway has long been a staunch supporter and significant contributor to the UN. Yet, at this moment of global turbulence, the organisation is facing what many describe as the deepest crisis in its history, characterised by chronic underfunding, declining legitimacy, and eroding trust. Against this backdrop, Norway could more wisely deploy its considerable resources to strengthen UN agencies, rather than implementing the proposed NOK 128 million reduction.
Another meaningful way of supporting a multilateral system under strain would be to increase the resettlement quota. The UN recommends that high-income countries like Norway admit several thousand resettlement refugees annually to ensure predictability and uphold meaningful global responsibility-sharing. However, in the past years, Norway has decreased the annual quota every year; this year, the proposal is a record low of 100 people. The government argues that the quota must be viewed “in relation” to asylum arrivals from Ukraine, but asylum and resettlement serve different purposes and are intended to be complementary protection mechanisms. A commitment to resettling at least five thousand resettlement refugees annually would be a modest but meaningful contribution that signals Norway’s commitment to global responsibility-sharing. It can also be understood as an investment in binding multilateral cooperation at a time when many states look out for their national interests at the expense of their commitments to the international system.
Asylum Policy
The third and final example concerns Norway’s asylum policies. Although the government presents itself as a firm defender of the UN and international law, Norway’s asylum practice reveals a more inconsistent picture. Since 2015, successive governments have introduced multiple asylum restrictions that run counter to UNHCR’s recommendations, including expanded reliance on internal flight alternatives, broader use of temporary protection, and increased forced returns. These measures are framed as necessary to safeguard the Norwegian welfare state, yet they conflict with responsibility-sharing principles and the commitment to durable solutions embedded in the Refugee Convention and the Global Compact on Refugees.
In recent years, several ministers have also proposed measures that would directly undermine the basic human right to seek asylum. This includes several Ministers of Justice signalling a willingness to close the northern border to asylum seekers due to heightened security concerns in the High North. After a visit to Denmark in 2024, Tonje Brenna further opened the door to externalising asylum processing and reception to African states in exchange for aid – a policy previously rejected by the Labour Party as irresponsible. At a meeting of the Council of Europe in Strasbourg in December 2025, the current Minister of Justice, Astri Aas-Hansen, took it a step further by signalling that Norway is considering moving both asylum reception centres and detention centres abroad.
Similar proposals are spreading across Europe and arguably undermine international law by treating asylum not as a fundamental right and international obligation but as a privilege or commodity that can be traded with poorer nations. They also outsource responsibility for refugee protection to countries with fewer resources and more fragile institutions, essentially treated in colonial terms as warehouses for rich European countries to offload unwanted populations.
Crucially, these policies are being proposed at a time when long-standing critiques of the liberal international order are gaining real traction across the Global South – especially in response to the war on Gaza and perceptions of western inconsistency. From my own fieldwork on Lesvos, I also know that many Greek politicians and local residents are deeply frustrated by Northern European states’ reluctance to shoulder their share of responsibility for asylum seekers in Europe.
Why does this matter for Norway’s security? The government has rightly recognised that addressing double standards in international policy and strengthening the legitimacy of international institutions are important strategic priorities. But achieving these goals requires western and European states to demonstrate a more consistent and principled commitment to international law, including the UN Refugee Convention. Norway should therefore demonstrate that it upholds the right to asylum and remains committed to global and intra-European responsibility-sharing – even when facing domestic pressures or heightened security concerns in the High North.
Security Through International Solidarity
At a time when authoritarian practices are spreading, multilateral institutions are weakening, and Europe is turning inward, Norway has a unique opportunity to champion international law and solidarity beyond Europe’s borders. Compared to most other countries, Norway enjoys substantial financial room for manoeuvre due to its enormous wealth and the extraordinary gas revenues generated by the war in Ukraine. As argued above, the government should therefore consider using a greater share of this income to expand global aid and increase funding to UN agencies. It should also accept more refugees, even if this places pressure on communal services and housing.
Why so? Given Norway’s exceptional affluence, sharing resources and receiving refugees are, above all, moral obligations. The arguments for this are many and well known and reflect classical liberal sensibilities: extreme global inequalities in a world marked by extreme poverty and need are, by definition unjust, and especially so when these disparities largely stem from structural barriers and historical coincidence or luck, rather than hard work or merit. While not explored further here, there are also strong arguments that Norway carries a political responsibility to offer safe havens and support due to the country’s entanglement in the conflicts and crises from which people are suffering or fleeing.
Moreover, a wealthy state such as Norway risks forfeiting its moral leadership if it turns its back on the world’s poorest and continues to shift responsibilities for refugee protection onto non-European states with far fewer resources. Conversely, a strong and consistent commitment to international law and solidarity through global aid and refugee protection could increase Norway’s soft power and reputation, particularly in the Global South.
Finally, given the government’s overarching ambition to “secure Norway”, it is important to emphasise that such acts of international solidarity can help strengthen the international norms and institutions that underpin Norway’s security. As the Norwegian prime minister and foreign minister have repeatedly stressed, defending international law and binding multilateral cooperation is vital for the security of a small state like Norway. Yet today both systems are under mounting pressure. The UN faces a historic funding crisis, and trust in multilateral institutions and international law is rapidly eroding. In this context, increased core funding for the UN and higher resettlement quotas would not be merely symbolic gestures, but vital system-repairing measures for a rules-based international order in deep crisis. Arguably, the same applies to asylum and migration polices that respect the Refugee Convention and contribute meaningfully to global responsibility-sharing.
