Mr President,

The terrorist attacks on 11 September last year, when over 3000 innocent people from almost 85 different countries were brutally killed, showed with the utmost clarity that the threat of international terrorism is a very real one, and that none of us can feel safe.

We are all vulnerable, and it is a paradox that the most horrendous attacks on the world’s most modern and technologically advanced society could be planned and directed from mountain caves in one of the poorest countries in the world.

The entire intentional community is united in an effort to prevent such atrocities from ever being committed again.

This is why the UN, NATO, the OSCE, the EU and a whole series of other global and regional organizations are taking an active part in the fight against those who want to replace tolerance, freedom and diversity with intolerance, hatred and fear.

The war on international terrorism was the first major foreign policy challenge the new government was faced with. We have maintained the same firm line against the terrorists and their supporters as the previous government. This is a sign of the broad Norwegian consensus on this issue.

We have attached great importance to international cooperation and concrete Norwegian measures, such as legislation to dry up terrorist sources of financing, military support, and assistance to the civilian population in Afghanistan.

I realize that for many people the choices were difficult. We were faced with a number of dilemmas. Our success so far is due to the fact that we, in Norway and elsewhere in the international community, have managed to take difficult decisions and stand by them. We did not allow ourselves to be paralysed by these dilemmas. If we had hesitated, the terrorist threat facing our society would have been far greater than it is today. Al Qaida’s network would still have been intact and the Taliban regime would have continued to oppress its people and to support the terrorists.

Terrorists do not respect international rules. They are not interested in dialogue or compromise. In Afghanistan, Al Qaida controlled territory. Young people from all over the world went there to be trained as terrorists. From this territory they were sent to many different countries to operate as independent cells, cells that still exist.

Some people claimed that military force could not succeed against terrorism, because terrorism is such a diffuse enemy. But it was precisely the fact that Al Qaida was able to operate freely and had control over territory in Afghanistan that made it possible for them to plan, prepare and carry out terrorist attacks and to establish an efficient network of cells. This is why they had to be deprived of their territory. The use of military force was therefore absolutely necessary, even though this was the last measure we wanted to take. Particularly because civilians were bound to suffer.

However, terrorism cannot be combated by military force alone. Political, diplomatic, economic and legal tools are at least as important. And extensive international efforts are being made in these areas.

The war on international terrorism will be protracted and demanding. We will only succeed if we maintain a clear focus and stand together irrespective of national borders and religious and ethnic affiliation.

We must fight in accordance with the fundamental values on which our societies are based, and which we intend to defend.

We must fight to ensure that democracy and respect for human rights and human dignity apply to everyone.

We must expose the injustice and hopelessness that the terrorists are exploiting so ruthlessly.

We must not forget that the major challenges facing the world before 11 September are still with us – poverty, environmental degradation, HIV/AIDS and other infectious diseases, discrimination, oppression and violations of human rights.

What all these challenges have in common is that they are not limited by national boundaries, and they can only be met through international cooperation.

Mr. President,

The months since 11 September have taught us that the threats to peace, freedom and human rights are global, and that we as nations are in a much stronger position, and are better equipped to promote our respective national interests, when we cooperate than if we choose to stand alone.

Isolationism and unilateral action are not a good option in a modern, closely interconnected and interdependent world. This applies equally to both large and small states.

Today our security and prosperity are better safeguarded by our ability to influence others than by our ability to prevent others from influencing us.

This is why the Coalition Government said in the Sem Declaration, "Since a growing number of problems require global solutions, the UN and the multilateral institutions must be equipped to deal with greater responsibilities. The Coalition Government will seek to ensure that Norway plays an important role in strengthening international cooperation and further developing international law as a binding legal framework that applies to all nations."

The Sem Declaration is also clear on the subject of Norway’s priorities – "The Coalition Government regards the UN and the North Atlantic community as an important basis for its foreign policy."

Mr. President,

The terrorist strikes on 11 September shook American society to the core. They caused the greatest loss of American lives in a single incident since the American civil war, and constituted the most serious attack on the US since Pearl Harbor.

I believe we are right in not underestimating the significance and the consequences of 11 September for the American people and their political leaders.

The US was wise enough to build an international coalition, with support from others. Ever since the military operations began in early October, the international coalition has been under continuous pressure, but it has held together. What we must do now is build further on this lesson and hold together in the war on international terrorism.

US foreign policy has always been shaped by two contradictory attitudes – one inward-looking and isolationist and one outward-looking and multilateral. Today, too, we are witnessing a tug-of-war between these two attitudes.

But national interests cannot be safeguarded in today’s world without close cooperation with others. No country, not even the strongest, can safeguard its national interests without cooperating with others.

The USA’s considerable military superiority and the successful military operations in Afghanistan have prompted some Americans to say that the US should pay less heed to Europe and other countries and to the need to keep the broad international coalition together, and should launch military operations against Iraq. This is a policy I would caution against. It would undermine the unity of the broad international coalition and in the long term weaken the possibility of eradicating terrorism.

However, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein is a despot, who has used weapons of mass destruction against his own people and made military attacks on neighbouring countries.

Only broad and lasting international pressure on the regime in Baghdad can change its current course. Iraq must comply with the requirements of the UN resolutions.

Mr. President,

Some people consider that the foreign policy gap between Europe and the US is becoming larger, and that Norway must soon choose sides.

I do not go along with any attempts to simplify what is basically a fundamental debate on whether close allies should be able to hold different opinions. The trans-Atlantic split has been a recurring topic of discussion, although with varying intensity, for many years. The Atlantic does not necessarily represent a wider gap today than it did during the Vietnam War or during the controversy over the nuclear weapons policy in the 1980s.

The US and the countries of Europe share the same values and attach the same importance to democracy and human rights. Our societies are in general very alike. Our foreign policy goals are also similar, even though we may have different views on how best to achieve them. This is why the Sem Declaration talks of the "Atlantic community".

I believe the best course that we and others, on both sides of the Atlantic, can take is to use our energy and influence to get the US and Europe to pull together in pursuit of the same goals. But if we are to succeed in this, each side must listen to the other and if necessary adjust its course.

This is especially important in NATO, where we must together devise ways for the Alliance to meet the new security challenges while at the same time fulfilling our collective defence commitments.

NATO’s enlargement is a fact. There is broad agreement within the Alliance that new members should be invited to join it at the summit in Prague in November. How many will be invited, and who they will be, will depend on the candidate countries’ own efforts and an overall political evaluation. Norway would like to see a broad enlargement that includes the Baltic states.

Mr. President,

In today’s Europe one of the most important policy challenges is to continue to build solidarity and cooperation across old political and economic divisions.

The OSCE is making a resolute effort to prevent conflict and build democratic institutions, in the Balkans, in the Caucasus and in Central Asia.

With the current strong focus on Afghanistan, it is important that we do not forget the region that lies between Afghanistan and Russia – Central Asia.

The OSCE has been focusing on democracy and human rights in precisely this region, but recently it has paid more attention to problems relating to arms proliferation, organized crime, drug smuggling and people smuggling – all important elements in the fight against international terrorism.

The Government is currently considering how to make our efforts in Central Asia more targeted and effective. This should include the use of Norwegian expertise in areas such as energy, the environment and support for democracy-building. In this connection we are cooperating closely with the OSCE.

Mr. President,

Europe is one half of the Atlantic community. Even though Norway has chosen to stay outside the EU, we must of course heed the important developments taking place in Europe: the EU is currently being enlarged by the addition of up to 12 new members, and its internal cooperation is being deepened and extended to cover an increasing number of important areas. One visible mark of this development was the introduction of a common European currency on 1 January. The introduction of the euro went far better than sceptics had predicted, and is a sign of unity and cooperation within the EU of historic proportions.

The dynamic nature of European cooperation means that safeguarding Norwegian interests requires hard work and continual vigilance.

The Coalition Government has made no secret of the fact that it consists of parties with different views on Norway’s relations and form of association with the EU, but it is united in its willingness to pursue an active European policy through the EEA Agreement and other cooperation agreements with the EU, such as the Schengen Agreement and Norway’s association with the ESDP and Europol.

The EEA Agreement has been an advantageous agreement for Norway in the areas it was intended to cover. But we do not deny that it does not fully safeguard our interests in such important areas as fish exports, nor does it reflect the considerable expansion of EU cooperation over the last 10 years.

Today Norway has no direct access to the important new cooperation areas in the EU, such as the efforts to develop a common European foreign, security and defence policy, the cooperation on justice and home affairs and the Lisbon strategy for a competitive and sustainable EU economy. On the other hand, we have cooperation agreements in several areas.

At the same time, this situation represents a great challenge for us. This is becoming increasingly evident as EC legislation has consequences for more and more important areas of the Norwegian economy and Norwegian society.

Since Norwegian EU membership is not on our agenda at present, it is all the more important that we pursue a well-thought-out, active and purposeful policy towards the EU, making full use of existing agreements and arrangements, and that we are willing to expand our cooperation.

As part of these efforts, the Government has recently adopted a European policy platform, which forms the basis of a targeted European policy with a number of specific tools. I would now like to say a few words about some of the priorities outlined in this platform.

The Government’s main priority in its European policy is the proper follow-up and effective utilization of the EEA Agreement. We wish to bring the Agreement up to date so that it is more in keeping with the EU’s legal basis since the Maastricht and Amsterdam treaties. However, we must take note of the fact that the European Commission has said that it does not have the capacity to do this during the enlargement negotiations.

The enlargement of the EU and the EEA must take place in parallel. We are encouraged by the fact that the European Commission is also of this view. But this poses a particular challenge to us: our exports of fish and seafood to the candidate countries will suffer when our current free trade agreements with these countries cease to apply. The Government is currently evaluating a number of different options to try to solve this problem.

We will also seek to solve the problems that the salmon farming industry is now encountering in the EU market. The EU’s current discrimination of producers from third countries is unreasonable and must cease.

We will also seek to ensure that the European Commission terminates its proceedings against the gas-producing companies on the Norwegian continental shelf.

We will furthermore seek to eliminate the delay in implementing Community acts in Norwegian law, and in general to ensure that the tempo both here and in connection with the incorporation of new Community acts into the EEA Agreement is stepped up. We will include the business community, the social partners and NGOs in an active dialogue on the functioning of the EEA Agreement.

The Government intends to present a white paper on the EEA cooperation in April.

The Government also wishes to expand the formal and informal cooperation that has been established between Norway and the EU on foreign, security and defence policy, on justice and home affairs policy and on regional policy. We have begun an active dialogue with the EU in these areas.

We intend to actively follow up the military and civilian resources that we have made available to the EU. We will give priority to arriving at a practical form of cooperation with the EU on European security and defence policy.

We have therefore indicated that we are prepared to continue participating in the police force in Bosnia when responsibility for the force passes from the UN to the EU at the end of the year.

We have also said that we are prepared to contribute to an EU-led operation in Macedonia if it is agreed that the responsibility for this is to be transferred from NATO to the EU.

As regards EU cooperation in the field of justice and home affairs, we will actively follow up the agreements that have been concluded, especially the Schengen Agreement, the Dublin Convention and the Europol Convention. We will link Norway as closely as possible to the cooperation on justice and home affairs in the EU, especially in connection with the fight against international terrorism. Our support for the EU’s common position on terrorism has been an important step in this direction.

Mr. President,

11 September also marks a watershed as regards Russia. The terrorist attacks helped to consolidate the fundamentally new orientation in Russian foreign policy that had already begun.

For several years Russia had been emphasizing its relations with partners in Asia and the Middle East, among other places, as a counterbalance to its relations with the USA and Europe. The principle of several centres of power, or "multipolarity", was frequently underscored.

President Putin, on the other hand, has stressed Russia’s affiliation with Europe. He is aware that the only way Russia can regain its status as a great power is through constructive cooperation with the West. Even before 11 September, Putin strongly advocated building a political and economic partnership with the EU.

At a single stroke, 11 September created a situation where Russia once again became an important partner for the US.

Russia became a key member of the international coalition against terrorism. Cooperation with the countries of Central Asia was important for preparing for military operations targeted at the terrorist networks and the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.

Subsequent events have shown that President Putin is following up this new orientation. We see it in Russia’s relations with the US, and we see it in Russia’s relations with NATO and the EU. A telling example was the muted Russian response to the US announcement in December of its decision to withdraw from the ABM Treaty.

Russia’s new approach to NATO is another sign that we are embarking on a new era. In the run-up to the NATO Ministerial in Reykjavik this spring, we will seek to develop a completely new form of cooperation between NATO and Russia whereby the NATO countries and Russia will come together on an equal footing to devise joint initiatives and measures, for example in the fight against international terrorism, crisis management and non-proliferation and arms control.

We welcome this new development. We now have a valuable opportunity to put in place a qualitatively new kind of cooperation which will lay a firmer foundation for security and stability in the entire Euro-Atlantic area.

Mr. President,

We also see signs of a new, more constructive Russian approach in our bilateral relations with Russia. In his statement to the Storting a year ago, my predecessor spoke of a tendency on the part of Russia to criticize Norway on a number of issues. Insofar as Russia takes up any of these issues now, it is done in a more constructive spirit.

I hope, and I do believe, that this reflects a will on the part of Russia to enter into a new phase in Norwegian-Russian relations. We are looking forward to President Putin’s visit to Norway this autumn. However, we must recognize that there are still certain very important unresolved issues in our bilateral relations, such as the negotiations on delimitation of the Barents Sea, and it will also be natural for us to raise the question of Russian abuses in Chechnya.

The environment and nuclear safety are among our most important cooperation areas. Norway and other countries have been working for several years to put in place a multilateral framework agreement with Russia. Such an agreement would make it possible to mobilize much greater resources and a broader international commitment to solving the enormous environmental and nuclear safety problems in the north. We hope it will be possible to reach agreement on this document before the summer. This would be a great step forward. Once agreement has been reached, I will immediately contact the countries affected in order to ensure that the agreement is implemented as quickly as possible.

Another important area in our cooperation with Russia is the management of our common fish resources in the Barents Sea. Here, too, we have seen a positive trend in recent months. For one thing, we hope it will be possible to find effective ways of cooperating on research expeditions in both countries’ economic zones. This is essential in order to ensure sound resource management.

I would also like to mention the Barents Cooperation, which continues to be one of the main pillars of our relations with Russia. For nine years it has provided an important framework for our relations at both central and regional level, and not least in terms of people-to-people cooperation along the border in the north. We are finally seeing the results of these efforts in the private sector as well. The Government will continue to support the Barents Cooperation in the years ahead, and will take steps, for example, to make it easier for Russians who wish to do so to work in North Norway. We hope to use the 10 ^th> anniversary of the Barents Cooperation next year to consolidate and further deepen this cooperation.

Mr. President,

Last Friday, the parties in the ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka concluded a formal ceasefire agreement. Norway has been a facilitator in the process of reaching an agreement, and the parties asked Norway to make the agreement public. We have also been asked to lead an international monitoring mission to observe whether the parties fulfil their commitments. The ceasefire has paved the way for negotiations on a political solution to the conflict. A conflict that has lasted for 20 years and cost more than 60 000 lives. It has created deep distrust between the ethnic groups and their leaders, but both parties are now showing a clear willingness to build confidence. They know that the road to peace, reconciliation and development is a long and difficult one. But they also know that continuing the conflict will lead to even more suffering for the civilian population and even worse economic and social conditions in the country.

Over the years, repeated attempts have been made to hold peace talks, but without results. We have indicated our willingness to assist the parties in new attempts, since we have noted a new will to make progress. This is expressed in the agreement in three ways. Firstly, the agreement sets out a step-by-step approach that is both realistic and practicable. Secondly, both parties wish for international observers, which in itself is a commitment by the parties vis-à-vis the international community. Thirdly, the agreement puts considerable emphasis on improving living conditions for the people on the island and not only on purely technical ceasefire issues. This shows the parties’ determination to restore a normal way of life for the people of Sri Lanka.

However, we must expect problems and setbacks along the way. Norway has agreed to continue to assist the parties, and we have asked the international community for political and economic support in this demanding process. The need for humanitarian assistance and help with reconstruction is particularly pressing.

Norway has a long tradition of providing humanitarian assistance to people in distress and to the oppressed. Ever since Fridtjof Nansen, humanitarian assistance has been part of our national identity. Ever since Hambro, Norway has sought to promote binding cooperation between the nations of the world. As a small country, it is in our interests to strengthen the international legal order and international bodies, to promote democracy and human rights and to contribute to the peaceful solution of conflicts.

Our humanitarian efforts and our efforts to promote peace and reconciliation help to improve the lives of those who are suffering under war and conflict. At the same time, we have found that the role we are playing in several of the world’s conflict zones is making us an interesting dialogue partner for other parties. Great attention is paid to Norway’s views on humanitarian issues and on developments in certain areas of conflict. A further, important effect of our role is that it allows us to promote Norwegian views on matters that affect our national interests in areas where we might otherwise have difficulty in being heard.

Norway’s humanitarian role is also an important foundation for our work in the UN Security Council. Since the 1990s, the Security Council has been involved in efforts to resolve a number of armed conflicts. Most of these have been civil wars, where nine out of every ten people killed have been civilians, often killed with all too readily available handguns. Many of these conflicts are taking place in poor countries, especially in Africa.

This is why we have chosen during our membership of the Security Council to focus particularly on conflict prevention and peace building in Africa, and on strengthening the ability of African countries to take responsibility for their own peace and security.

The conflict between Ethiopia and Eritrea has cost almost 100 000 lives in the course of the past four years alone.

Norway has had the primary responsibility for dealing with this conflict in the Council. Now we have reached a crossroads. The parties have agreed that a border commission is to decide on the border between the two countries. The border commission will probably give its final verdict before the end of March. This will hopefully pave the way for a lasting peace settlement.

I visited Ethiopia and Eritrea less than two weeks ago. And a few days ago, Norway’s Ambassador to the UN headed a mission from the Security Council on a working visit to these countries. The main purpose of both of these visits was to support the peace process, among other things by examining ways of achieving smooth and rapid implementation of the border commission’s report.

The question of extending the mandate for the UN peacekeeping force in Ethiopia and Eritrea – UNMEE – will come up in March, during the Norwegian presidency of the Security Council.

I have strongly urged the parties to put a stop to this cruel and meaningless conflict. And if no progress is made, it will not be due to any lack of effort on the part of the UN or Norway.

Mr. President,

In Zimbabwe President Mugabe is in the process of destroying the country’s economy and its democratic government.

As you know, Norway has halted all country-to-country assistance to Zimbabwe and, together with other countries, sought to exert the greatest possible political pressure on Mugabe and his regime.

The EU decided last week to withdraw its election observers and impose targeted sanctions on Mugabe and his supporters.

However, the EU, Zimbabwe’s neighbouring countries and the opposition in Zimbabwe all wish to have as many international observers as possible present during the election. Norway has now decided to send 21 election observers to Zimbabwe, and they will stay there until after the election on 9-10 March provided working conditions are acceptable and their safety is satisfactorily assured. The EU fully supports the sending of observers by other countries, including Norway.

The question of whether Norway should also impose sanctions will be continually assessed as the situation develops, especially as regards the safety of Norwegian personnel.

Mr. President,

Norway’s involvement in Sudan is based on long-established traditions and extensive cooperation with Norwegian NGOs and research institutions. Now that Kenya is playing an active mediating role and the US has become more involved in the conflict, the prospects of progress in the peace process seem brighter than they have for a long time.

The result of this was that in January, the parties entered for the first time into a humanitarian ceasefire agreement in the strategically important area around the Nuba Mountains, where a Norwegian will head the international monitoring unit.

I have also asked the Minister of International Development to follow up the peace process in Sudan.

Mr. President,

The situation in Afghanistan will unquestionably be high on the Security Council agenda next month, too.

The most urgent matters now are physical safety and political stability.

Unless the many armed factions are quickly and effectively integrated into Afghan society, there is a great danger that Afghanistan will continue to be split between local warlords whose power is largely based on violence and drug trafficking.

Unless there is some progress in the political process soon, there is a danger that the Interim Administration, headed by Prime Minister Karzai, will lose its legitimacy and be relegated to the sidelines.

Afghanistan has been given a new start. But neither the Afghan people nor the rest of the world community can afford to fail.

As chair of the Afghanistan Support Group (ASG), Norway considers it important that the humanitarian assistance and the reconstruction efforts support the difficult political process in the country, and do not undermine it. The Afghan Interim Authority must therefore be put in a position to govern the country and oversee the assistance efforts. The donor countries, the UN agencies and other aid organizations must be less preoccupied with planting their own flags and more concerned with helping the Afghans themselves to build up their country.

Last year, Norway allocated about NOK 310 million to Afghanistan, mainly for humanitarian assistance. This year we will be providing NOK 350 million as humanitarian assistance, transitional aid and more long-term assistance. More than NOK 50 million of this money has already been provided to the Interim Authority as direct budget support in order to contribute to political stability. We have also expressed our readiness to help to build up a police force in the country in cooperation with other countries.

As President of the Security Council in March, we will seek to rally more international support for the Interim Administration and to extend the mandate of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan (ISAF). The question of whether the jurisdiction of this force should be extended to comply with repeated Afghan requests for more international assistance to resolve the country’s internal security problems is being considered. But here, too, it is the Afghans who must ultimately take responsibility for their own future.

Mr. President,

Not a day goes by without reports of new violence in the Middle East. If we view the situation in a longer-term perspective, we see that it is particularly in the past two years that we have witnessed a tragic and violent escalation of the conflict, in the form of both excessive Israeli use of force and liquidations, and repeated Palestinian terrorist attacks. The region is caught in a destructive spiral of violence which must be broken.

We are left with a Palestinian society on the brink of collapse. We are left with a frustrated, demoralized civilian population who are becoming increasingly receptive to the extremists’ simplistic and violent solutions. We are left with a Palestinian president who is under house arrest and who at the same time is being held responsible for everything that happens – such as new Palestinian suicide operations. And this is in spite of the fact that Israel has been systematically putting increasing numbers of Arafat’s own police and security forces out of action.

The Israeli people have neither peace nor security. The Israeli civilian population is being hit harder and harder by new terrorist attacks, and even the most incorrigible optimists on the Israeli side are beginning to lose all hope of a peaceful solution.

Finding a way out of this impasse is no easy task. Neither of the parties seems to have any strategy for putting an end to the violence. Confidence in the other party is at an all-time low – both among political leaders and in the population. Violence is being systematically reciprocated with more violence, even though both parties know deep down that this only further inflames the enmity and hatred.

Terror is indefensible. President Arafat must do what he can to stop the terrorist attacks on Israel. At the same time, the Palestinian people themselves must settle accounts with the factions responsible for the blind hatred and terror.

An important reason for this deadlock, however, is Israel’s occupation and lack of willingness to engage in a genuine political dialogue. Israel should have responded positively after the violence receded following Arafat’s speech on 16 December last year. The Israeli approach has too strong a focus on security, reliance on military solutions and a lack of willingness to talk about the underlying political problems.

The public humiliation of President Arafat, the collective punishment of the Palestinians and the extensive Israeli military punitive actions only serve to further exacerbate the situation.

We will continue to seek actively to put the parties on a more constructive track. To begin with by promoting dialogue and confidence-building measures, pointing out where and when the parties fail to comply with the Oslo Accords, and encouraging them to abide by their obligations under international law.

Norway is currently heading the only international observer mission in the area – the Temporary International Presence in Hebron (TIPH). We are in favour of deploying international observers in other parts of the Palestinian territories as well. But this is not an option unless both parties are willing to accept such a solution. Such acceptance is necessary if the observers are to be able to carry out their mission.

We will also attach particular importance to promoting greater social and economic stability in the Palestinian territories during our chairmanship of the Ad Hoc Liaison Committee (AHLC). We are therefore arranging a meeting of donor countries in Oslo as a concrete means of improving the situation.

What must be done immediately, however, is to put a stop to the violence and help to build up the minimum of confidence necessary for the parties to resume negotiations. This is the main essence of the Mitchell Report, in which former Foreign Minister Thorbjørn Jagland was involved, and which was endorsed by the international community.

And last but not least, it is important that the US exerts new, unrelenting pressure on both parties. However, it is up to the parties themselves to make peace in the Middle East. We cannot force them to resolve their problems by peaceful means if they themselves have more faith in violence and conflict. But nor can we relinquish our efforts for peace and against terror and violence.