The Prime Minister's guest lecture for students at the PSIA at the Sciences Po

As delivered (with a set of some slides shown)

 Well, Arancha (Gonzalez, dean of PSIA, Sciences Po), thank you so much and thank you – all of you, students. This is an emotional moment for me because this is the first time I am back in a – you know – semi-academic function at Sciences Po. France offered me four years, the best – I would say – hardworking years of my life. When I left in 1985, if I had thought I would be back here in 2024 giving a lecture, I would have believed it. But if the dean would say it has to be in English, I would not have believed it.

Og så må jeg si til dere norske; det er fantastisk å se dere. There are Norwegian students here. We were two at the time when I was here. There are many more now and that is progress. So, I salute you. It is great.

It has been – you know – for me a bit going on roads of my life, because before coming here, I went to a small apartment not far from here and I visited the home of a 92-year-old woman who was the one who ran the restaurant down at the corner where I lived. I used to go there and had dinners three times a week. The restaurant is still there, it has not changed, but she is older. But when I left Paris in 1985, I took my bed that I had bought at the flea market, and I put it in her apartment. And it is now called ‘le lit du ministre’. So, I was observing, you know, this was my bed for four years. It is still there. It is beautifully prepared. So, if I need a sleep, I could go and sleep in that apartment.

Norway on the map

I am coming from a meeting with the President of the Republic, we talked about what Norway and France do together; on Ukraine, on the Middle East, what we do on Arctic affairs, polar affairs.

And for me, now, it is a pleasure to have the opportunity to speak on this topic. I am going to speak about Norway. And why do I do that? My lecture is called ‘On top of Europe – the Arctic and geopolitics’. – It is because I had one frustration as a young man with a lot of temper: When I came to Sciences Po in 1981, and when I spoke about my country Norway, very few knew where Norway was and what was happening up in the north. What we were watching, for instance on French TV and the weather forecasts, was this: this was Europe (new slide). And I was watching this every evening, and I said that; you cut the map at the 60th parallel, and if you cut the map at the 60th parallel, you only get Helsinki up there, you get Stockholm, you get Oslo, you get Bergen, but still my French friends they said – well, this is Europe.

Now, the meteo map these days looks like this (new slide). You have moved a bit further north, you see? Now, you catch at least Trondheim up there.

Geography matters

I am going to talk to you about something which I learned about at Sciences Po, but it has developed further in my life as a civil servant, as a diplomat, as a foreign minister for seven years, and now as prime minister for almost three years. And that is: geography matters.

Geography – geopolitics – is a very important subject; in order to understand where you come from; what is the environment of your geography; what does that entail for how you can do politics?

You cannot choose your geography. There is a country trying to change borders by force in Europe right now. But we all want to live on a continent where we deal with differences peacefully. And normally, Europe would have the biggest toolbox of any continent to deal with the most complex issues. From my perspective, my point on departure, is that you do not choose your geography.

And then I was thinking; what I will try to do with you now is to say the following: Part one, as a state, you do not choose your geography, but you should be fully aware of all its facts, qualities, and vulnerabilities. That's point one. And then comes point two: Geography does not exist in a vacuum. You have to understand what is at stake. You have to understand the values you want to base yourself upon, the friends you need to work with, and the neighbors you have to deal with.

The Arctic, Russia and Norway

Let me say at the outset, Norway has a 200 kilometers common border with Russia. You will see that on my map here (new slide). Norway has been at peace with Russia for a thousand years. We are the only neighboring country with whom Russia has not been at war. So being neighbor of Russia geographically is not one thing; it can be different things. If you come from Estonia – are there anybody from Estonia here? Yes. My colleague in Estonia, when I talk to her, she has a very different story of being neighbor with Russia. If you come from Finland – are there anybody from Finland here? Yes. I was with the Finnish prime minister yesterday; they have a very different story. We have in common that we have a Russian neighbor, but in different ways.

So here is the question then; where is Norway and how does that look? This (mew slide) is the big picture of the Arctic and here you see the Arctic Circle. By the way, 9% of the population in my country lives in the Arctic region. It is, basically, in the north of Norway and the north of Russia that you have people living. Let’s use one example from our geography; the 60th parallel (new slide) is Stockholm, Oslo, but there are more people living in the city of Tromsø, here, than there is north of the 60th parallel in the whole of Canada. That's important for the geopolitics. Do people live there? Are there resources? Are you next to something you have to look after and defend?

I will also show you this map (new slide), and take some time looking at it, because where you stand or where you sit depends on where you stand, or the other way round. Europe can also look like this. Here is Norway, and France will be somewhere down there, a bit ‘insulted’ for not being in the center. But this is the perspective from the north. Here is Russia. Here is the world's largest nuclear deterrence potential. This is where Russia has its nuclear arsenal. Here is Sweden. Here is Finland. Here is the Baltic. And this is the Arctic Sea. And this is the northernmost part of Norway, Svalbard islands. And then you have Greenland, Iceland, and Great Britain. Look at the ocean here. You have the great depths – 2 000 to 3 000 meters deep. And then you have more shallow waters.

Resources

Norway has the world's second largest coastline in kilometers, 100 000 kilometers coastline. I often am questioned, you know, is Norway a small country or a big country? We are 5,5 million people, that is not many people. But we have the second largest coastline.

We are the second largest exporter of fish. We are the main provider of energy to Europe, of gas, right now. So that is not a small country. So, again, when you do geopolitics, you have to know your geography. And you have to know the resources that you have. The Arctic is on top of Europe.

I became Foreign Minister in 2005, and I was now trying to look at what is changing around Norway. Looking east, we had a pretty stable relationship with Russia, good border relations with Sweden. Looking south, we had Europe. Norway is part of the Internal Market, but we are not a member of the European Union. When we look west, we see the UK and the US. And we have the transatlantic relations.

But looking north, that is really where things are changing. In 2005, it was predicted that you could sail the Northeast Passage to Asia by the end of this century. Now, today, you can sail. And you can save 40% of time by sailing from Rotterdam to Yokohama this way (new slide) than the other way. So, this is the climate change, change of biology and relations. These are waters, here, with tremendous energy resources, also fishing resources. But the heating environment makes that fish straddle. It moves around. It is also a source of tension and conflict.

So, we have a neighborhood with Russia. We have these great waters defining Norway and who we are. And around the Arctic, we have eight coastal states. The Arctic Council is the cooperative body. In the 1990s, nobody knew what the Arctic Council really was. Today, the Arctic Council is somewhere everybody seeks to be part of, be an observer. Because so much is at stake in this big Arctic. So, all this is pretty much north of ‘the meteo map’ that I saw here in France in 1985.

High North, low tension

So, now, to my second part. How should we define politics in this area?

Norway has for a long time had this approach; high north, low tension. We are served well by low tension. We have a big neighbor with whom we have lived at peace. But it is a pretty unstable factor to be next to Russia these days, as you can imagine.

We are served by a combination of two things, which is reassurance and deterrence. What does that mean? Reassurance means predictability, long-term, being recognizable. There are no surprises from Norway. We look after our affairs up here in a predictable manner. You will know what we do. If we inspect the way vessels are fishing up here – if you come from Spain or Norway or Russia or Iceland – and you break the rules, you are sought up by the Norwegian Coast Guard. That is predictable. And if you break the rules, you have to pay a fine. And if you break the rules seriously, you may be taken to a port. If you are Russian, Spanish, Norwegian, Icelandic, that is consistent. That is reassurance.

Deterrence is the other part. You want to be very clear that nobody can infringe on our sovereignty. And we do that in two ways; by our national defense and also by our NATO membership and our neighboring relations. This is how geopolitics have to run.

Maritime boundaries

I want to show you this one (new slide). This is a map concentrating on this area – Norway and Russia. So, look at this area, which is a bit upside down. I’ll turn the map again around; to illustrate to you what was for 40 years called the disputed area.

When the Law of the Sea gave the coastal states 200 nautical miles of economic zones, there were times when you had overlapping claims; my line goes this way, and my neighbor’s line goes that way. So, what do you do when you get overlapping claims? The Law of the Sea tells you that you have to sit down with that other country and negotiate the delimitation. It is not something you fix by a method; you have to negotiate it. Then there are principles according to international law on how you do that.

Norway worked for 40 years, with the Soviet Union first, and then with Russia. And I can tell you, having a disputed border with Russia is not something you wish to have. But at the same time, if you want to be reassuring and predictable, you don't give in to an easy solution. You have to hold on until you have something which is fair and lasting.

And it happened to me when I became Foreign Minister that the moment was approaching where both Russia and Norway saw its interest to finalize those negotiations. Because we both had an interest to have calm and stability out in the Arctic Sea, you see. Norway and Russia share one of the world's most valuable fish stocks, the Norwegian Arctic cod, 50/50, which is harvested in these waters. So, again, we want to have stability here.

This (new slide) was, at the end, the disputed area, 170 000 square kilometers. Both made claims. And finally, we reached in April 2010 an agreement on this delimitation line. And this is not a simple line in the sea. This is a line which basically divides this territory strictly 50/50, half to each part. But the way the line is drawn is according to the latest principles of how you do that according to other examples of law.

I want to highlight this, because I want to say the following. This was Russia as a serious negotiating partner. And there was, I think, Financial Times that wrote at that moment, this is also Russia. Because this was the most modern treaty of ocean law in recent times.

So, now we have this border, on both sides. Here is the Russian nuclear arsenal. Here is our border. Here is Finland, and Sweden is over there. So, this area is now finally settled, divided. And I'm happy that we got that agreement, because I don't think it would be that easy to get such a breakthrough on these terms now.

Climate change

So let me come back to this one. Why do we have to focus on these areas in the north? We are now all preoccupied by Ukraine, by what happens in Europe. But it has ramifications beyond southern Europe. Climate change has the biggest impact on the Arctic. Temperature rises up here at Svalbard is five-six times higher than Southern Europe. So, there is more melting, more changing, more methane being released by melting tundra, and so on, up in the north.

News of climate change from the Arctic was the most important news to get the messages coming out of the IPCC in the early part of this century – that climate change is happening. You can extrapolate from what happens in the Arctic to other areas. So, the Arctic matters to climate, knowledge and action. And if Greenland melts – you know – and it melts indeed, it will be a huge challenge for all of us.

Then, being Norway, being neighbor to Russia, being in a status of sanctions after Ukraine, we still want to keep this: High North, low tension. Nobody is served by the opposite. And many other countries are now interested in the area, seeking their interests there. China, India, there is research going on, on Svalbard, in the oceans; both to understand the environment and also to – potentially – explore energy. This is an energy rich area.

Energy

You know that Norway is the main provider, as I said, of gas to Europe after Russia was cut off. This (new slide) is a ‘blood system’ in the body of geopolitical Europe. Norway has three major land installations for energy. We have 19 installations on the continental shelf and 9 000 kilometers of pipelines; 40% of the gas coming into France comes from Norway and we provide half of Germany's gas.

And we are now in transition; out of fossil and into renewables. So, we are going into offshore wind. Gradually, we will develop the offshore wind potential along these coasts. And gradually, you will see that part of these installations will come to an end as part of that chapter, because we are in this transition. 

We have the climate targets to reach by 2030; 50% of emissions from our oil and gas sector shall be gone by 2030, partly by electrifying with renewables and electricity the way we run the system.

Then, let me show you this one (new slide). In the 1990s, Norway put a tax on emissions from the platforms, which created an incentive for industry not to have emissions. And they came up with a technology of taking CO2 from the gas and pumping it down again into the reservoirs. This has been developed over the years. And now, Norway has a complete value chain of carbon capture and storage (CCS).

Let me just spend two minutes on this, because this is important. It is also geopolitics. I meet no climate scientists, be they from the political field, from the physical field, from the scientific field, who can point to success of climate targets in 2030 or 2050 unless we succeed partly with carbon capture and storage. We need to capture CO2 from gas to be able to produce hydrogen without emission. That is called blue hydrogen. If we take out the CO2 of the gas, we can produce electricity to create hydrogen. We are going to need this technology for the industries which have hard to abate emissions, like waste plants, cement production, and other industrial areas where you have – no matter what you do – you will have something remaining. And the idea here is that you have, from power and industrial plants, from oil and gas; you extract CO2, you transport it to capture plants, and then you take it out to reservoirs 2 000 meters under the seabed, where you can store it.

Norway probably has enough space on our continental shelf for all of Europe's CO2 for many decades ahead. And some said, 20 years ago, that this is science fiction. But it is not science fiction, it is happening now. And we have just signed with France an agreement on working on this further, together. We have it in our Green Alliance with the European Union.

The Nordics

And this is part of geopolitics in the north because this is one important part of many parts that are needed in Europe in order to reach our 2030 obligations. And then, I'll end on this one (new slide). Maps are telling, aren't they? You can use them and change perspectives. I know there are good examples of that in French literature. You can buy an atlas, and where you put the center really defines what are driving forces.

This is a map putting Norway, Sweden and Finland together. And the reason why I do it this way is that these three countries now are allies in NATO, since a few months, which means that preparing for our defense and our common security; we have to look at this as one geographical area. And let me just underline; Norway is a threat to nobody. The Nordics are a threat to nobody. But we have to arrange ourselves so that nobody can threaten us, and work together in a different fashion.

You will see that here, along the North Sea and the Atlantic; any reinforcements to the defense of Norway are now relevant for defense of Sweden and of Finland, which has this long border with Russia. It is the longest land border with Russia. And Norway and Sweden have the longest bilateral border of any country in Europe. But these are three like-minded countries. We work together very closely. We had the Nordic prime minister’s meeting yesterday in Stockholm, where we work on these issues to move forward in the combination of reassuring and deterrence.

Security

It is obvious that Russia's war on Ukraine has changed circumstances. We are living in a more unpredictable, more dangerous environment. But I will still say that we will need to have contacts across the border. We still will need to be able to talk. And there will be a day; we have to look for that, a day when we get back to something which is more looking-forward for Europe and not being kind of driven down to ever-escalating rhetoric and closing of doors.

Remember, back in the Second World War, in 1941-42, that leaders were envisaging what post-war would look like, far before the war was over and decided. And I think we, as political leaders in Europe today, have to look at what will that future look like? How can countries in Europe be secure, big and small? And as I see it, there is no return to the Yalta vision, where there are two or three countries sitting down, drawing up zones of influence, saying that this is for me and this is for you, because the small countries who are put in those boxes don't want to be in those boxes. They want to decide for themselves.

But every country, small and big, have the right to have security and not be in the position to be threatened. Here, I believe that the Nordics, up in the north, working together, can make important contributions.

Norway has a five-year support program for Ukraine, which is a 50-50 defense and civilian support system. It is a program which we have agreed in Parliament with all parties behind it; which means that whoever will govern Norway after the next elections will be bound by that program, will be committed to that program, because Ukraine needs long-term support.

Norway is a founding member of NATO, and we go to NATO Summit in Washington DC in July. And that has to be a summit that will confirm that we have modern plans, but also that we are a political-military alliance that also has a responsibility for getting peace and stability.

Conclusion

So, dear friends, my conclusion is the following: You have to know your geography. You cannot choose it. You can have a beautiful geography and a horrible geopolitical environment. Norway has a pretty harsh geography, but we are pretty fond of it. And we have had a geopolitical environment that we have managed. And that is our responsibility in this changing environment to still manage it with Europe, with our partners, with our allies, and with our Nordics. We have to strengthen our defense and make it modern, as all countries have to do.

But we should not give up in this world the thinking that issues should be solved diplomatically, peacefully, through negotiation and through other opportunities. And that is why I think it is important for my country not only to be bound by this region, but to take responsibility as we now do in the Middle East; we have done for 30 years, with Spain, by the way; we have been working to look for another way than confrontation and war. And we will continue to invest in the capacity to support peace processes, reconciliation processes, where we can make a difference. And one advantage of being small and having no colonial past and no really material power is that sometimes you can be a useful intermediary, because you have nothing you are seeking for yourself. And that is why my diplomats can still make an important contribution in Colombia, Venezuela, with countries in that region. We can also be so in the Philippines, regions far away from us.

And I'll end on this, that when I was foreign minister, I coined for myself this expression, that the purpose of foreign policy is to make domestic policy possible. Think about that.

And I was trying to say that we need to be clear about our interests. What are our interests? They are very much linked to geography. And where can we make a difference? And at Sciences Po, when you are here doing studies, you are used to this four-square-table; you can put together those two dimensions, making a difference and having an interest.

So, follow me on this one: There are areas where you have an interest and you can make a difference, and so, you should put an emphasis on that. Then there are areas where you have no interests and you can't make a difference, so don't spend much time on that. But then there are the two intermediaries. And that is the one where you don't have an interest, but you can make a difference. For example, Norway does not have a direct interest in solving domestic issues in Colombia. But we could make a difference. Then we should consider doing it, because in the bigger picture, it's useful. The most challenging thing is when you really have an interest, but you really can't make a difference. That is the worst position to be in. That's where we have to influence, you know, to get this ability.

But for that to be said, you have to know your geography, you have to know your values, and you have to know your friends. – Thank you.

 

More information and a video recording of the event:

• 60 minutes with Jonas Gahr Støre, Prime Minister of Norway | Sciences Po Paris School of International Affairs