Open letter concerning Erling Borgen’s film
In recent weeks, and last weekend in particular, Erling Borgen has been marketing his new film. He claims that it spotlights condemnable conditions, and that the film is free of falsehoods. He claims he has been met with a wall of silence; he claims he even “begged Aker Kvaerner to participate.” Borgen has denied us any opportunity to see the film. However, reports we have received and Borgen’s own statements to the media contain so many errors and distorted interpretations that we feel we must refute these allegations.
Borgen says he has uncovered new and shameful matters that, among others, involve Norwegian business and industry — and Aker Kvaerner. The truth is that he presents information that we have made freely available to the media for years. Borgen, however, presents that information with a slant based on his personal viewpoint. Borgen states that the parties he sought information from, refused to participate, including Aker Kvaerner. This is simply not true. We have provided information about our business activities to Borgen’s researcher Tarjei Leer Salvesen for many years, while he was still a journalist with the newspaper Klassekampen.
After Borgen and Salvesen began production of their new film, we continued to provide them with information on the same issues, both by telephone and via email. When the question of holding an interview came up, we asked Borgen to let us see what he considered we had done wrong — and for which allegations are now made against us — so that we would be able to comment on them. Borgen replied that we would not be allowed to see what we requested, unless we first agreed to an on-camera questioning session.
This disregard for journalistic ethics is something that, fortunately, we had not previously encountered. It’s the equivalent of saying, “First you have agree to make yourself available for questioning and be fully able to defend yourself; then you can find out what charges have been levied against you.” Moreover, film producer Borgen was to play the roles of prosecutor, judge, and jury. Aker Kvaerner considers it reasonable that the press poses demands on us on a daily basis; however, it is also reasonable that we pose certain demands on the media. Borgen confirms that several others that he sought to interview had refused to accept the terms and conditions he laid down; this in itself should have alerted him to the need to rethink the process he had planned.
Our policy is to seek to reply openly to media inquiries, and we agreed to answer any and all questions Borgen wanted to ask. However, given the terms and conditions that Borgen imposed, we chose to respond in writing — and we submitted comprehensive responses to each question we received. Based on the Norwegian guidelines for media editors, the so-called Redaktørplakaten [editors’ commandments], which stipulate that journalists must facilitate countering all allegations at the same time they are raised, we asked for Borgen’s assurance that the list of questions we received covered everything we would be accused of in his film. He confirmed that the movie featured no additional allegations about Aker Kvaerner. Subsequently, it has come to our attention that the movie does indeed present additional allegations about the business activities of Aker Kvaerner, for which we were never given the opportunity to respond.
A few weeks ago, the film was screened to a full house at Frogner Cinema in Oslo; it has also been screened to students, journalists from various media, politicians, NGO’s, and others. We have asked Borgen to let us see the movie, so that when the wave of criticism hits, we will at least be familiar with the allegations leveled against us. Borgen continues to refuse to allow us to see the film, citing the reason that, so far, it has only been shown to “a closed screening.”
Borgen claims that Aker Kvaerner’s former production of metal support structures for the MLRS Multiple Launch Rocket System deployed by Norway and other NATO member states, was in violation of Norwegian policy. The truth is that the deliveries made by Aker Kvaerner as a subcontractor for the MLRS system are included in the offset agreements Norwegian authorities entered into with foreign producers of defense equipment.
These agreements have been and continue to be Norwegian policy, successive Norwegian governments have devoted a great deal of time and effort to ensuring that Norwegian businesses are able to contribute subcontracted deliveries under such agreements. An example currently on the public agenda is the purchase of new fighter jets from abroad, for which Norwegian authorities are asked to go even further in securing sub-deliveries from Norwegian companies. In such offset agreements, it is not the individual Norwegian subcontractor, but, rather, the democratically elected Norwegian government that is responsible for evaluating domestic manufacturers, the destination country where production takes place, and the country purchasing and using the materiel.
Borgen believes that the rules governing such control over foreign partners should become far stricter. That political position is fair enough. However, it is totally unacceptable to promote his policy views by making a movie in which edited film clips, sound bites, and commentary portray Aker Kvaerner’s deliveries in a way that gives viewers the impression that these subcontracted deliveries amount to an enterprise best kept hidden from public awareness. Sound public debate is also undermined by the film’s attempt to mislead its viewers with the suggestion that such deliveries have been made improperly; the opposite is the case. If Borgen feels that the current policy, for which there has been broad agreement across political parties, must be changed, then he should just simply say so.
The film further presents Aker Kvaerner’s former contract at the US Navy Station at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as encompassing the installation and maintenance of tools of torture. The truth is that the contract we had at the navy base started in 1993, about ten years before any prison for terrorist suspects was established. Simply stated, the contract was about maintenance of sewage lines and improvement of drinking water conduits, mowing lawns, electric power grid maintenance, painting, and repairs.
Aker Kvaerner was responsible for maintenance, repairs, and upgrades to infrastructure and buildings at the US navy base. This base is more than 100 years old, and when the new prison was constructed, it was hooked up to the only freshwater source and power supply serving the base, for which Aker Kvaerner had a maintenance contract. Aker Kvaerner was also involved in building a hospital ward that is used by both military personnel and prison inmates. So, the truth is that our contract called for absolutely ordinary and reasonable straightforward work done at an allied navy base.
Borgen gives his audience the impression that merely ensuring freshwater supplies and a reliable power grid at the navy base somehow contributed to the US operating a prison that has been the subject of a great deal of criticism. This allegation is so far-fetched that it denies credibility. Applying the same logic, Norwegian power companies that supply electricity to public buildings, are just as culpable as those Norwegian governmental agencies criticized by Amnesty International and reported to the Human Rights Court for human rights violations for excessive use of investigative, pre-trial incarceration.
In Borgen’s film, it appears as though Aker Kvaerner sent secret letters to the national broadcaster, NRK, persuading them not to broadcast his film. This is another falsehood. Interestingly, Borgen has never requested a copy of any such letter. When the Norwegian daily newspapers Aftenposten and Dagens Næringsliv first inquired about such a letter on Monday, 3 April, it was in their hands within 15 minutes. The letter in question does not put pressure on NRK to prohibit broadcast of the film. It simply contained a copy of our responses to the questions asked by Erling Borgen, and we expressed our hope that the film would be editorially balanced. Both our responses to Borgen’s questions and the accompanying letter to NRK are publicly available at Aker Kvaerner’s website.
We at Aker Kvaerner are concerned with the defense of human rights and values, and consider these topics to be important matters for discussion. Naturally, Borgen is entitled to his opinions about how Norwegian public policy ought to be changed, as well as his claim that the film he has made deserves to be part of that debate. Regrettably, Borgen perverts public debate on a challenging topic by resorting to insinuations, half truths, and factual errors. He calls his film a documentary, which should mean that it is based on facts. From our point of view, however, that claim is far from the truth.
Inge K. Hansen
President and CEO
Aker Kværner ASA
Printable version