Check Against Delivery

International Terrorism – One Year After

Nupi seminar at the Norwegian Nobel Institute 11 September, 2002

Speech by state secretary Kim Traavik

Today, we are reliving that terrible day, exactly one year ago, when thousands of innocent, unsuspecting civilians lost their lives. The images that flicker past our television screens remain intensely, almost unbearably painful. So are the photographs on display here today. We must never forget those who perished in this unspeakable tragedy or those they left behind.

September 11 brought home to all of us that even the most powerful of nations are vulnerable to the scourge of terrorism. The most comprehensive attack on the United States was planned in underground caves in Afghanistan and carried out by handful of fanatics, turning civilian airliners into deadly weapons of mass destruction.

The world changed on that day. Not only Americans lost their sense of security. The thorough planning and scope of the September 11 attacks has turned the potential threat of terrorism, which has been with us for much of the post-war period, into a real and present danger to us all.

Clearly, the sort of extremists that carried out the slaughter in New York and Washington are capable of committing similar atrocities elsewhere.

The fight against international terrorism will be a long-term struggle. There are no quick or easy fixes. In order to prevail, the international community must remain united. This is perhaps the main lesson that has been learned from September 11.

Today – one year after - the broad coalition that was so painstakingly built in the aftermath of September 11 still holds. Ensuring its continued cohesion is crucially important. To maintain the broad international coalition we must keep to the moral high ground. It is essential that we do not, knowingly or indadvertently, undermine the very values we are defending – democracy, the rule of law, human rights, civil liberties, and tolerance.

And we must continue to use every means available to us – political, legal, diplomatic, financial, and – if necessary – military.

Over the last twelve months much progress has been achieved in the fight against terrorism.

Al-Qaida branches and terrorist networks have been uncovered in several countries. Concerted efforts to identify and cut off the financial lifelines of the terrorists have made significant strides, although much remains to be done.

In Afghanistan, the Taliban has largely been defeated. The country is no longer a sanctuary of Osama bin Laden and his al-Quaida network. But Al-Quaida has been forced to retreat, it has not been eliminated.

The establishment of an interim government and the convening of the Loya Jirga this summer are important steps towards peace and reconciliation in Afghanistan. Norway will continue to contribute to the rebuilding and stabilisation of Afghanistan.

The international stabilisation force in Afghanistan has created a sense of security. Refugees have returned in the thousands. Even so, the security situation, particularly outside Kabul, is cause for concern. The recent attempt on the life of president Karzai, is graphic evidence of the precarious nature of the situation.

Humanitarian aid is generally coming through. But in some parts of the country the security situation is an obstacle to the aid effort.

And finally, women are starting to throw off their Burkhas, at least in Kabul and other cities. Norway has particularly emphasised the importance of enabling women to return to society.

In spite of the progress achieved in Afghanistan, the job is far from done. We still have a long way to go before this war-torn country is stabilised, much less set firmly on its path to democracy and a sustainable economy. The international community will have to stay the course. We for our part will continue to do our share.

The military operations in Afghanistan will have to continue, in parallel with sustained efforts to rebuild the country, until Taliban has been completely defeated, and until the terrorist infrastructure has been completely destroyed.

In the early stages, Norway contributed Special Forces and mine clearing personnel. They performed with distinction. For the next stage of the operations we are providing, together with Denmark and the Netherlands, fighter aircraft to be based in the Kyrgystan.

Although challenges remain, the achievements in Afghanistan and elsewhere indicate that the strategy adopted by the international community has been essentially sound. The role of the United Nations has been pivotal.

We will continue our efforts to strengthen the role of the Security Council as the pre-eminent organisation responsible for upholding international peace and security. And we must make better use of regional organisations such as NATO and the OSCE.

We attach particular importance to the role of the EU. Enhanced regional cooperation is a crucial element of the fight against terrorism. We welcome and have associated ourselves with many of the specific measures taken by the EU, such as the strengthening of legal instruments and enhanced law enforcement cooperation.

Russia, a key partner in the international coalition, has played an essential role in keeping it together. The fight against terrorism is at the top of the agenda of the recently established NATO-Russia Council. So is preventing the proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction. We for our part intend to use this new forum to work for more effective export controls and strengthened nuclear safety.

Export controls really are the first line of defense in preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction. And it is vitally important to prevent fissile materials from falling into the hands of terrorists and other criminals. Crude, but deadly weapons can be manufactured from such materials.

n the aftermath of September 11, doubts have been raised - on both sides of the Atlantic - as to Nato’s continued relevance.

- Some critics say that the Alliance was not prepared for this kind of asymmetrical attack on its territory.

- It is pointed out that NATO was not in the lead of the military operations in Afghanistan.

- It is alleged that the US chose "alleingang" in the war against terrorism, because European allies largely lacked relevant military capabilities, and because of the Balkans experience of waging "war by committee".

These are legitimate issues. Still, this sort of criticism in my opinion is wide of the mark.

First, let us not forget that the US responded to the first direct attack on its homeland since Pearl Harbor. Had the attack been on London or Berlin, the role of NATO would have been different.

The United States chose not to make full use of NATO structures. But the Alliance made a vital contribution to the protection of US territory, thereby enabling the US to concentrate on the military campaign against the Taliban regime. And individual allies, including Norway, contributed significantly to the American-led operations.

Second, the common strategic and military culture forged through decades of joint planning and practical exercises within the NATO framework clearly contributed to the success of the operations in Afghanistan.

Having said this, there can be no doubt that NATO needs once again to adapt and transform. The fight against terrorism cannot be fought with yesterday's capabilities.

We need tools specifically designed to counter terrorism and the spread of weapons of mass destruction. Above all, we have to see to it that our military forces are flexible and mobile and – most important of all – that they can work together. We have seen this in the Balkans. We are seeing it again in Afghanistan. In the run-up to the Prague Summit, this will be a priority task.

We fully recognise that there are different views on a number of important issues on the two sides of the Atlantic. A healthy trans-Atlantic debate has always been the hallmark of the Alliance.

But we know that the glue that holds us together is much stronger than the single issues that divide us. The trans-Atlantic ties remain ties that bind. We must place our differences in a broader perspective. And we must never lose sight of the overriding and long-term objectives that unite us.

Finding a way to deal with Iraq that does not endanger the international coalition against terrorism is a challenge. Saddam Hussein’s quest for weapons of mass destruction can not go unchecked.

A united Security Council has repeatedly demanded immediate and unfettered access by UN inspectors. All diplomatic and political means must be exhausted in our attempt to get Saddam Hussein to comply with the demands of the Security Council.

Military action could only be a last resort, in the face of a clear, imminent and documented threat. Any such descision in our view should be anchored in the Security Council.

Dealing with terrorism is a daunting challenge. The campaign will continue unabatedly in the coming year, both at national and international level. Over the last twelve months Norway has spent around 500 million kroner on beefing up civil defense and related purposes. We will continue to take the necessary measures.

But we must beware lest we allow the fight against terrorism to become the only priority item on the international agenda. The recent World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg was a timely reminder of this.

Ladies and gentlemen,

There can be no excuse for terrorism. No perceived or real grievance can justify indiscriminate destruction and wanton disregard for human life. But poverty and oppression breed fundamentalism and extremism. Hence, the alleviation of poverty, good governance and peaceful resolution of conflicts are indispensable tools in the long-term campaign against terrorism.

The situation in the Middle East is a case in point. It clearly nurtures global terrorism. The conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians cannot be resolved by military means. A sustainable solution will require political concessions by both sides. It is in the self-interest of the international community to develop a viable strategy for a lasting political solution. To that end, the interests and legitimate grievances of both sides will have to be taken into account.

This is not a "clash of civilisations", as Samuel Huntington put it. This is civilisations defending themselves against extremism, destruction and barbarism.

Thank you.