However, unequivocal national pride in generosity has its limits, even in Norway. Vollebaek acknowledged that some people in his country, especially those represented by the Popular Party, have been questioning the wisdom of such ambitious giving.
“There has been some slight discussion lately about how much we give, but the fact that we should participate with a considerable amount of money in international development has not been questioned in the political environment,” he said.
Norway’s development assistance has increased 35 percent since 2001, and lately giving has gotten even easier as high oil prices have sent Norway’s revenues soaring. Although most Norwegians support their country’s generosity, some question how it is being applied.
“There is, of course, a political discussion about how much can be dispersed in a responsible way,” Vollebaek said. “It is related to what the G8 meeting addressed, which is good governance, transparency and the fight against corruption.”
The ambassador said countries that receive Norway’s assistance are expected to demonstrate improvements in the areas of human rights, open government and other democratic ideals.
“Otherwise, it is of course, very difficult to defend politically major transfers of money,” Vollebaek said. “This [holding nations accountable for the money] is an ongoing process. It’s not very easy, but we hope we have seen that some of our funds have been used in a way that improves society.”
The prime beneficiaries of Norway’s largesse tend to be the poorest countries in Africa and Asia, as well as select Central American nations, such as Guatemala and Nicaragua.
The government typically sets the contribution priorities or decides who will get what, and the Norwegian Parliament approves or disapproves. “We have a clear policy of focusing on the poorest countries,” Vollebaek noted.
Some skeptics contend that Norway’s standing as the world’s most generous nation is driven by political motivations, or the idea that it will help Norway become a more powerful player on the world stage.
“Some political scientists would say this was our goal, but I think that’s a little too sophisticated,” Vollebaek said. “I don’t think it really was a premeditated strategy. It merged from different angles and eventually became more of a political entity.”
But, of course, the fact is that such benevolence commands respect from other developed nations. And Vollebaek said Norway has come to realize this fact and embrace it.
“It gives us access to some of the major powers in areas we might not already have,” he said. “It gives us entry into the administration here and in other major countries that we think we wouldn’t have had otherwise.”
He added, “We have learned it more as a consequence or practice than actually as a premeditated strategy that is of interest to Norway.”
Vollebaek said he’s been impressed with the Bush administration’s commitment to giving to poor countries but acknowledges that Norway has frequently encouraged the world’s richest nation to do more.
“We have said over the years we would like the United States to increase its contributions because we think that is important,” Vollebaek said. “The United States really has taken seriously the desire to do more with development. We have urged the United States to become a more active contributor, and the same time we appreciate what they have been doing lately.”
Vollebaek also said that giving other countries a financial boost can help in the war on terror, even though some terrorists, such as Osama bin Laden, clearly come from wealthy families.
“If you look at where the terrorists come from, most of us would agree that they come from states or countries with economic and social problems, where there is a challenge to their situation,” Vollebaek said. “There are things that are lacking in their society.
“If we could help these societies with their economic and social development, and with the distribution of wealth, it is our belief and assessment that you would reduce the recruitment of terrorists,” the ambassador said. “It would be less interesting for groups of people to cede to terrorism because they would have other interests and goals in their lives.”
Michael Coleman is a contributing writer for The Washington Diplomat.
