CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY

Ladies and gentlemen,

In the wake of September 11 ^th, >the United States –joined by its NATO Allies and others – has shown an unprecedented resolve in the efforts to combat international terrorism and bring those responsible for these terrible acts to justice.

A broad international coalition has been formed. The UN Security Council has stated that international terrorism is a threat to international peace and security, and confirmed the right of the United States to individual and collective self-defence. NATO declared the attacks of September 11 ^th> to be an attack on the Alliance as a whole. Many countries, including Norway, have contributed to the US-led military operations in Afghanistan.

The relations between the United States and Russia have been both broadened and deepened. President Bush and President Putin are now speaking of a "strategic partnership".

NATO and Russia are involved in extensive consultations on the modalities of a new cooperation within a "20-format".

NATO is about to be further enlarged. And the scope of security cooperation with candidate countries has also been widened through the cooperation within the Partnership for Peace (PfP) and the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC).

Beyond NATO, the fight against terrorism has also become a top priority for cooperation within the UN, the EU and the OSCE.

A lot has been done in a short space of time.

Ladies and gentlemen,

The most comprehensive attack on the US since Pearl Harbor was planned in underground caves in Afghanistan and carried out by a handful of men, using civilian airplanes whose tanks were loaded with explosive jet-fuel.

Terrorism is not new. But the thorough planning and scope of the September 11 ^th> attacks have turned the potential threat of terrorism into a real danger to us all.

But what is the threat we are facing today?

First, terrorism has become a global threat. Using modern means of communication, such as the Internet, terrorists have built intricate global networks - spanning continents - for the acquisition of resources, support structures and identification of targets.

Second, the terrorists' fanaticism and willingness to cause indiscriminate destruction, their disregard for human life - including their own, make the potential scale of the harm caused by their attacks unprecedented.

Third, as we have seen, a nearly unlimited range of tools can be used as weapons in the hands of terrorists.

Fourth, the distinction between state and non-state actors has become blurred. The relationship between the Taliban and Al-Qaida in Afghanistan is a case in point.

Fifth, today we are living in societies that are rapidly becoming more and more interdependent and integrated - in all respects. Modern means of transport and communication are eliminating the barriers of time and distance. They provide great benefits to many, but at the same time they increase our vulnerability and help terrorists get the upper hand.

In short, the new threat of international terrorism comes from advanced networks that have the intention - as well as the capacity - to strike on an unprecedented scale, and at any one of our open societies.

The threat is clearly asymmetric. It cannot be fully met by the traditional means we have at our disposal today, or by international security cooperation alone.

First, we must recognize that terrorism is a global threat. We will only be able to combat global terrorism by making our response equally global, and by building and maintaining a broad international coalition.

To maintain this broad international coalition we must keep the moral high ground, and refuse at all times to compromise on the values and principles we are defending.

Second, we will only succeed if we apply a broad range of measures.

We must use every means available to us - political, legal, diplomatic, financial and military.

We must actively promote the values terrorists despise - democracy, human rights, openness and tolerance.

International terrorist networks cooperate closely with, indeed emulate, international criminal networks. This is how they acquire financial and other resources. We must exchange information and intelligence, identify and eradicate the terrorists’ financial resources, and freeze their financial assets. Security Council resolution 1373 provides a broad and firm mandate for this.

We must also guard ourselves against the possibility of terrorist networks acquiring and using weapons of mass destruction.

There was a debate about the need for a broader concept of security in the wake of the Cold War. This need is even more apparent after September 11 ^th.>

Although neither being the sole reason nor any excuse for terrorism, poverty and oppression breed fundamentalism and extremism. Similarly the lawlessness and lack of state authority in so-called "failed states" make them safe havens for terrorists.

Poverty alleviation, good governance and conflict resolution are therefore important tools in the long-term fight against international terrorism.

The situation in the Middle East is a telling illustration of this. The conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians cannot be resolved by military means. A sustainable solution will require political concessions by both sides.

Global terrorism is nourished by the conflict in the Middle East. Hence, it is in the international community’s own self-interest to support the peace process by developing a strategy for a stronger and more systematic international effort to find a lasting political solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

In order to get the parties out of the current destructive, downward spiral and back to the negotiating table, both parties must end all acts of violence, the Israelis must immediately withdraw from Palestinian cities, and there must be an end to Palestinian terrorist attacks.

The UN Security Council has passed the necessary resolutions, the international community is committed to assisting the parties in finding a peaceful solution, and we stand fully behind Secretary of State Powell's current efforts.

But make no mistake. We cannot combat terrorism effectively unless we are willing to use military force.

The protected territory the Taliban provided in Afghanistan was a prerequisite for Al-Qaida's planning and training. The successful US-led military operations have greatly harmed Al-Qaida's capability to strike again.

But the challenge we now face from international terrorism makes new demands on our military capabilities. We need to cooperate effectively and develop our security instruments to meet this new threat. In this regard, NATO must be at the centre of our efforts.

It has been said that NATO has been sidelined during the US-led military operations against international terrorism.

Some have questioned whether NATO has the command structure and military capabilities to meet the new challenges to our security.

The upcoming enlargement of NATO is seen by some as making the Alliance more cumbersome, and slower in reaching decisions and carrying out its operations.

Many point to the gap in military capabilities between the United States and its European allies. Some say the gap is so wide that it is becoming more difficult for the European forces to operate together with their American allies. Some therefore predict that the US wants or feels it has to adopt a "go it alone" approach in future operations, where it will increasingly interact with allies on a bilateral basis.

And some also see the development of a common security and defence policy within the EU as a potential competitor for the role of guardian of European security.

In short, there is concern that NATO is becoming less relevant.

We heard similar predictions about NATO's future role in the aftermath of the Cold War. But NATO transformed itself into a new security tool that responded effectively to the new requirements.

NATO has remained as strong and essential as before in safeguarding our basic security needs.

NATO has been the primary forum for close consultations on common security issues between allies.

NATO has proven to be an excellent instrument for expanded security cooperation in our region - through both the Partnership for Peace and the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council.

NATO has proven to be a key instrument for peacekeeping in the Balkans.

NATO responded quickly after September 11 ^th> by declaring that the terrorist attack against the United States was an attack against all the allies. There can be no more powerful sign of solidarity with the United States than this decision, taken the day after the attacks occurred, and – for the first time in the history of the Alliance – Article V was activated. This was of course a compelling argument for Norway to join its allies in operation "Enduring Freedom".

While the new debate about NATO's relevance may be based more on perceptions than realities, it must be taken seriously.

It is in the strong interests of all NATO countries, and indeed of the international community as a whole, that NATO is both perceived and preserved as a vital instrument of stability in an unstable world.

But NATO needs once again to adapt and transform, just as it did so successfully after the Cold War.

Preparations are now under way in the Alliance with a view to the Prague Summit in November. Norway will be an active participant in those preparations, and we will work for the kind of broad renewal and reform of NATO that is required.

Let me mention some of our most important priorities:

First, if NATO wants to remain the security organ of choice, it needs to agree on further steps whereby member states can improve and renew their military capabilities.

I believe we should establish a focused work programme with concrete and realistic aims that the allies can follow to counter, in particular, the terrorist threat.

Today, the Alliance needs mobile, quickly deployable forces, and increased capacity to transport forces by sea and air. Of course, not all of the allies can do everything. We need to develop cooperative schemes for sharing resources and we need further specialization. In Norway we have taken steps in that direction by developing special forces that so far have been deployed in the Balkans and in Afghanistan.

Second, we should open up for closer cooperation with Russia.

It has become quite clear that NATO and Russia have many common interests and face many common challenges. Negotiations are under way between Russia and the Alliance to establish a new organ, the NATO-Russia Council, where member countries will both work individually and take common decisions and joint action. There is already agreement that the fight against international terrorism will be high on the agenda, as will crisis management, non-proliferation, arms control and confidence-building measures. The new Council will also deal with issues like search and rescue at sea and civil emergencies.

I believe that this new Council "at 20" will prove to be a new and positive departure in the evolving relationship between NATO and Russia, and that genuine partnership and cooperation will replace the activities carried out by the existing organ, the Permanent Joint Council (PJC) - a Council that has often been felt by Russia and NATO to be somewhat irrelevant.

The new forum will test Russia's ability to enter into a new and enhanced relationship with the West, and will also test the ability of the allies to engage with Moscow and further integrate Russia into Euro-Atlantic structures.

Third, in Prague we need to add new members to the Alliance. Not only to prove that we keep our word and that the door is in effect open to new members, but to widen and consolidate the area of stability in Europe.

Several of the applicants are well on the way to fulfilling the requirements for membership. And I recall that those criteria not only relate to military aspects. They also relate to democracy and good governance, to human rights and minorities, and to well-defined and agreed national borders, all of which have a direct bearing on stability.

The acceptance of new members in NATO is an important investment in long-term security and stability for Europe - and Norway. This is why the Norwegian Government favours a broad enlargement, by five to seven new members - including the Baltic States. The enlargement should be as inclusive as possible, and span from the Baltic to the Black Sea.

Fourth, we must resolve the remaining questions that are still unanswered between NATO and the EU. All EU and NATO countries, including Greece, must accept the proposal that is now on the table. Only then can the two organizations cooperate effectively.

Action against terrorism is a case in point, where the EU possesses forceful tools - in particular in the judicial, financial and economic areas – while NATO can contribute with military means.

As a non-member of the EU, Norway has much to gain if agreement is reached between NATO and the EU. It is in our interests that the EU is put in a position to use NATO assets and capabilities, such as the Alliance's Command Structure and its planning capacity.

We must prevent a situation where the two organizations drift apart, and where competition takes the place of cooperation.

There are of course other challenges as well. But these four stand out as being key to the future success of the Alliance.

We must now do what we can to prevent negative perceptions from becoming realities. Perceptions that only undermine the central role of NATO as a bulwark against terrorism, a force for stability, and the key forum for consultations on security questions between its members.

We must see to it that the Alliance not only remains relevant, but that it can once again adapt and transform itself so that it remains the vital organ all of us want it to be.