In the middle of the Cold War, as a highly trusted bureau chief in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, he was convicted of spying for the main enemy, the Soviet Union. He was sentenced to 20 years in prison for breaching national security. It was a sensation that trumped most of the attention in the Norwegian public in the mid-80s, and the case was seen as very serious. The then Chief of Defense Fredrik Bull-Hansen estimated the damage to be equivalent to several Norwegian defense budgets. A meeting between Treholt and the Iraqi intelligence agent Radhi Mohammed in a cafe in Athens. The picture was taken by the Norwegian surveillance police. As a young journalist myself, I was employed by NTB at the time, and it was very special when then Attorney General Magnar Flornes personally rang the doorbell of the editorial office on a Saturday morning with a press release that bureau chief Treholt in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs had been arrested, charged with espionage for the benefit of Soviet Union. Gray area negotiations This was no one’s business. He was particularly known for the gray zone negotiations with the Soviet Union regarding the right to the sea in the north. He was state secretary to the Minister for the Law of the Sea, Jens Evensen, who ensured that Norway’s economic zone was extended to 200 miles, and thus became four times the size of mainland Norway. Together they traveled around the world, with Norwegian journalists in tow. The case was unbelievable, and the pictures the police presented were convincing. They showed Treholt together with top Soviet diplomats. One of them was Major General in the feared and infamous Soviet intelligence organization KGB and declared undesirable in Norway, Gennadij Titov. Arne Treholt discusses with one of his defenders – Jon Lyng – during the trial in 1985. Photo: Bernt Eide Treholt himself denied having been a spy. His explanation was that he tried to be a bridge builder between East and West. A kind of link in a time when there was little direct communication between East and West, and thus an extension of his work as a diplomat. But he kept it hidden from both employer, colleagues and family and he was not believed in court. The prosecution claimed to have found $15,000 in Treholt’s file folder. Photo: Erik Thorberg / Scanpix In the courtroom, he was good at expressing himself, and his defense speech made an impression on many. But he also had to acknowledge several facts. The photos the surveillance police had taken of the meeting with Titov in Vienna were of course important. He also had several classified documents in his briefcase when he was arrested. And not only that. He had received NOK 280,000 from Iraq’s intelligence service, for which he had also worked. Marked by the times One question that was asked then and many times afterwards is how serious the crimes he had actually committed. How important were the documents he was convicted of giving to the Russians? Was there a breach of the national security clauses, or had he “just” given them information that was well known even if the documents were classified? The trial was of course characterized by the times. In 1985, there were still cold fronts between East and West, and the court had no doubts, not even about breaches of national security. Treholt was sentenced to 20 years in prison. Treholt in his cell in Ila prison. Photo: Erik Thorberg / NTB premium The sentence was appealed, but later withdrawn because the Supreme Court would not consider the question of guilt, only the sentencing. And that was not what Treholt and his lawyer at the time, Arne Haugestad, were interested in. The wall fell in 1989, and the climate changed. Treholt was released from prison in 1992, for health reasons. Then the battle for resumption began, but it was a battle that never succeeded. Arne Treholt was no “persecuted innocence”, and the espionage conviction stands. But the discussion about whether the sentence was too severe will not stop even if the main character has now left us.
ttn-69
Arne Treholt – the spy who himself thought he was a misunderstood bridge builder – Statement
