Speech on the occasion of NATO's 50th anniversary

The tragedy in Kosovo has provided a dramatic backdrop for NATO’s 50th anniversary. We are witnessing a new humanitarian disaster in the former Yugoslavia.

I doubt whether NATO's founders could have imagined that the Alliance one day would resort to military force outside the territory of its member countries in order to protect civilians from attack.

The Serbian regime's treatment of the ethnic Albanians in Kosovo over many years has created a conflict that now threatens peace and security on our continent. This was established by the UN General Assembly last September. The international community could not remain passive in the face of these events.

It is profoundly tragic that NATO has been obliged to use military force against Yugoslavia in order to achieve a solution in Kosovo. This has not been an easy decision. Critics of the decision have voiced well-founded objections. I have received a large number of letters from Norwegians who are worried about what is happening.

But we all recognize that there were no simple alternatives. There is broad political agreement in Norway that doing nothing would have been unacceptable. Rapid results could not be guaranteed.

After all the attempts to reach a negotiated solution had failed, it would have been untenable if NATO had remained a spectator in the face of developments in the very heart of Europe which brought such staggering humanitarian consequences and which had the potential to destabilize the entire region for many years to come.

I would like to stress that the Government shares in the sorrow of all the innocent victims of the conflict – Kosovar Albanians, Serbs and other Yugoslavs, and their families here in Norway.

We must ensure that the hostilities cease and political negotiations are resumed as soon as possible, so that the humanitarian disaster and the brutal ethnic cleansing can be brought to a halt.

The responsibility for this lies primarily with President Milosevic. If he withdraws his troops from Kosovo, ceases the attacks on civilians and allows the refugees to return, then NATO is prepared to cease its operations.

We must also look ahead. When a peaceful solution has been reached, we must be prepared to provide humanitarian assistance and resources for democratic and economic reconstruction. We must do what we can to enable the whole of the former Yugoslavia to become integrated into the European community of values.

The Government has already allocated over NOK 55 million to emergency relief, in cooperation with the EU and the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. We intend to propose funds for further assistance.

The main principle is to help the refugees where they are now and where they need it most. But at the same time we must be willing to open our doors to people in need. As you know, the Government is intending to give 6000 Kosovar Albanian refugees protection in Norway. We are cooperating closely with the High Commissioner on this.

Ladies and gentlemen,

NATO's military confrontation with Yugoslavia signals a new chapter in the history of the Alliance, and shows the gravity of the dilemmas and challenges facing NATO. It also shows that the Alliance has changed radically since the end of the Cold War.

By combining a sound military defence capability with an open political will to enter into dialogue, the Alliance helped to deter aggression and build confidence in relation to the east bloc countries.

The values on which NATO was founded – peace, freedom, democracy and human rights –finally regained a foothold in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe.

The exception was Yugoslavia. The wars in the Balkans have cast a shadow over the peace efforts of the international community throughout the nineties. For far too long, the conflict has been an open wound in a Europe that is otherwise in the process of becoming an integrated whole, without artificial divisions.

Norway has been actively involved since the beginning in the efforts to resolve the conflict, to achieve lasting peace, and to rebuild the economy and restore trust and tolerance between ethnic groups in the Balkans.

We have taken part in this work through the UN, which has made a major contribution in the former Yugoslavia. The UN employed peacekeeping forces and an active policy of peaceful diplomacy at an early stage in Croatia and Bosnia. And in Macedonia, the UN peacekeeping forces have helped to prevent the war from spreading further south.

We have also taken part through the OSCE, which has assumed an increasingly central role in pan-European security. The verification mission in Kosovo, which has now been temporarily withdrawn, is the largest operation ever launched by the OSCE. The work being done by the OSCE to strengthen democracy and human rights in Bosnia and Croatia is also one of the most important tasks it has undertaken during Norway's term as Chairman-in-Office. The Government is anxious to make proactive use of the unique opportunities offered by the OSCE, especially in the peace efforts in Kosovo and the Balkans in general.

And we have, not least, taken part through NATO. We have more than 800 Norwegian troops deployed in the stabilization force, which is the most important guarantor of the peace agreement in Bosnia. We are participating with Norwegian aircraft and personnel in the NATO operations in Kosovo.

Norway’s contribution to peacekeeping and peacemaking operations in Yugoslavia is an integral part of our commitment to peace and reconciliation, and of our active participation in the Alliance throughout the post-war period.

The fourth of April 1949 is not a date we remember in the same way as, for example, the ninth of April or the seventh of June. Nonetheless it is a historic date. It marked the point at which Norway broke away from the policy of neutrality we had been pursuing ever since we regained our independence in 1905.

Norway chose instead a Western, transatlantic alliance as the best guarantee of our country’s freedom and security.

Five years of occupation and war were followed by a series of dramatic events that explain why Norway took part in the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty in Washington on 4 April 1949.

In the Soviet Union, Stalin was pursuing an aggressive foreign policy. Finland was under great pressure. The communists came to power in Czechoslovakia and other Central and Eastern European countries. The Berlin blockade caused the climate between East and West to deteriorate even further.

Europe was on its way into the Cold War. The feeling that Norway was in a vulnerable position was getting stronger.

This disturbing course of events reminded our political leaders and the Norwegian people of our own hard-earned experience of 9 April 1940. Most people recognized that Norway needed mutually binding military and security policy cooperation with the democratic West. The United Nations was an important organization, but it was not sufficient to guarantee our security.

Norway’s new foreign policy orientation was nonetheless in keeping with basic historical attitudes held by Norwegians. Our history, our trade, our culture and our democratic form of government have deep roots in Western Europe and the USA. By joining NATO we joined a larger community of values founded on democracy, human rights and the rule of law.

But above all we joined a community that was to safeguard our freedom and security by political and military means. This was in keeping with Article 51 of the UN Charter, which establishes the right of collective self-defence.

However, this change in foreign policy orientation proved to be a difficult matter for our political leaders. The policy of neutrality also had deep roots. But far-sighted leaders such as Einar Gerhardsen and Halvard Lange recognized that an Atlantic alliance was a better alternative.

The political wisdom of the choice made in 1949 has been confirmed by the fact that support for the Alliance in Norway is greater than ever, as the debate in the Storting before Easter demonstrated to the full.

NATO membership has not impeded close, smooth relations with the then Soviet Union, and now with Russia. Our self-imposed bases and nuclear policy and the geographical restrictions on Allied exercises in Northern Norway have contributed to the trust and stability that have characterized our neighbourly relations.

For fifty years NATO membership has been one of the mainstays of our foreign policy and the core of our defence and security policy. For Norway, our ties with the USA have been and continue to be decisive in this respect.

Our binding affiliation with a credible defence alliance has given us security. At the same time it has given, and still gives us, an opportunity to play an active, innovative role in international politics.

This fiftieth anniversary gives us an opportunity to commemorate the history underlying our NATO affiliation and the importance it still holds for Norway.

However, the war in Kosovo and NATO’s crisis management in the Balkans demonstrate the need to reflect on the future role of the Alliance in the new security policy landscape in Europe.

With the collapse of the Berlin Wall, the threat of a direct military attack on the Alliance also disappeared. Many people felt that there was no longer a need for NATO as a guarantee of collective security.

Nonetheless, today, almost ten years after the disappearance of the threat as a clearly defined quantity, NATO is still an extremely dynamic, relevant institution. Why is this so?

The new conflicts that accompanied the dissolution of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia caused unrest in Europe. The countries of Central and Eastern Europe were left with a feeling of being in a security policy vacuum, and they approached NATO to find security in the Euro-Atlantic community.

Once again, the Alliance demonstrated that when major challenges arise, the member countries stand united to meet them. The leaders of the NATO countries recognized that the new security policy challenges in Europe called for new, resolute answers.

And the answer was not to dismantle NATO, but to begin a fundamental process of restructuring to create a new NATO.

The restructuring process began soon after the fall of the Berlin Wall. The summit in London in July 1990 established that Russia was no longer an adversary. At the summit in Rome the following year, the North Atlantic Cooperation Council was established as an outstretched hand to the new democracies. The Alliance adopted a new strategic concept. The concentration of forward-deployed heavy units in Europe was replaced by more lightly equipped, more mobile forces. In the course of the decade since the collapse of the Berlin Wall, military expenses in NATO have been reduced by 22 per cent on average. Forces have been reduced by 24 per cent. Nine out of ten nuclear weapons have been withdrawn from European soil.

However, the Alliance still lacked a clearly defined long-term policy for meeting the new challenges. This was formulated at the NATO summit in Brussels in January 1994. The declaration drew up guidelines for a broad-based process of adaptation for a new Europe.

The follow-up to this work was solemnly confirmed at the summit in Madrid in July 1997:

• NATO had now entered into a cooperation agreement with Russia and established the Permanent Joint Council, which made Russia NATO's partner in the efforts to ensure European security.
• Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary were invited to join NATO. Slovenia, Romania and the three Baltic countries were assured that the door to membership remained open.
• The Partnership for Peace and the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council now constituted a framework for ever closer joint activities involving the new partner countries and NATO.
• The European Security and Defence Identity had been further developed. The Western European Union was now in a position to draw on NATO resources for any operations it might undertake in which the USA does not wish to participate directly.

These important changes will be further developed at the Washington summit in a couple of weeks' time. And NATO will take further steps to adapt to the security challenges of the future.

The Alliance will be adopting a revised Strategic Concept. NATO's new responsibilities, which are related to crisis management, peace operations and cooperation with partner countries, will be given a central place in the concept.

This does not mean that the traditional core functions related to collective defence and transatlantic solidarity will be any less important.

On the contrary, our commitments under Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, according to which an armed attack on one or more of NATO's member countries is considered an armed attack on them all, will continue to be the lifeblood of the Alliance.

The Alliance's military striking power is primarily a function of the sum of the individual member countries' national forces. This is what makes NATO such an effective instrument for dealing with threats to peace and security in Europe, in cooperation with the UN and the OSCE.

We must make every effort to strengthen NATO's effectiveness as a defence organization for its 19 member countries, and ensure that it has a sound military capability for collective defence. By retaining this core from “the old NATO”, we are at the same time ensuring that the Alliance remains vital and relevant and in a position to carry out new peace tasks.

This is especially vital to Norway, given our geographical and strategic location, our Atlantic orientation and our close defence policy cooperation with the USA and the UK.

Active Norwegian involvement in the Alliance’s crisis management is one aspect of the solidarity expected of the member countries. By helping to solve common problems in other parts of Europe, we are laying the foundation for joint Allied involvement in solving the security problems in our own neighbouring areas.

At the same time we must work to enhance NATO's legitimacy as a community of values, based on the promotion of peace, democracy, the rule of law and human rights, for the whole Euro-Atlantic area. By also retaining this core from “the old NATO”, we are making sure of broad popular support for the Alliance and its principles.

The Government considers it very important that NATO's crisis management outside the borders of the Alliance's member countries is based on international law. This is in keeping with our commitment to international order based on legal rules.

We all have reason to be satisfied with NATO's peacekeeping efforts in Bosnia in cooperation with the UN and the OSCE. The Dayton Agreement could not have been implemented if NATO had not taken the lead and deployed a force of 50 000 troops.

Broad-based participation of troops from partner countries, including Russia, is central, in political and military terms, to the efficiency and legitimacy of the NATO-led stabilization force in Bosnia. The presence of this force is still crucial for stabilizing peace in this war-torn country.

Peacekeeping cooperation with Russia, partner countries and other organizations will undoubtedly be one of the key tasks of the new NATO as we move into the next century.

The Government will ensure that the Norwegian defence forces continue to be properly equipped for the active participation necessary to safeguard all of our most important security policy interests. The Government will appoint a broad-based, fast-working committee to examine the challenges that emerge from the forthcoming NATO summit and the new Strategic Concept and make recommendations in connection with the drawing up of a new Long-term Report on Norwegian Defence.

Ladies and gentlemen,

I doubt whether the far-sighted leaders who signed the North Atlantic Treaty on 4 April 1949 expected NATO to live for 50 years and to contribute to the longest period of stability we have ever known in Europe.

Nor did they imagine that NATO would enter the next millennium as a cornerstone in a security partnership that would extend beyond the Treaty borders.

Through the Alliance's agreements with Russia, Ukraine and the partner countries almost the whole of the Euro-Atlantic area has been woven together into a community for the promotion of peace and stability.

The Government attaches great importance to preserving the close cooperation that has been established with Russia. It is vital that NATO and Russia continue their partnership, independently of the crisis in Kosovo. We believe that Russia can play a very valuable role in finding a peaceful solution to the situation in Yugoslavia. We must take active advantage of this.

The purpose of Norwegian foreign and security policy is, in addition to safeguarding Norway’s interests, to contribute in a larger context to:

• peace, freedom and security, and
• the promotion of human rights.

We are seeking to do this by participating actively in the UN and other international organizations, by keeping a high profile in our efforts in the fields of development cooperation, human rights and conflict resolution, and by maintaining our firm commitment to Nordic and Euro-Atlantic cooperation. Our membership of NATO is central in this context.

NATO will endure. Not because this is a goal in itself, but because the Alliance will continue to be the main organization for stability, security, peace and democracy in the Euro-Atlantic area.

At the same time it is clear that NATO will continue to change. For example, both Europe and North America want the European countries to take greater responsibility for crisis management on their own continent.

The Government will make active efforts to ensure that the rights Norway enjoys today as an associate member of the Western European Union will be retained if the development of a European Security and Defence Identity leads to the incorporation of the Western European Union into the EU.

Support for NATO as a vital, dynamic alliance for the 21st century depends ultimately on whether the new NATO, with its 19 member countries and its many partner countries, manages to maintain its internal unity, solidarity and transatlantic ties. I am confident that we will succeed.