Foreign Minister Jan Petersen

Foreign Policy Address to the Storting

Oslo, 14. June 2004

Check against delivery

Mr President,

I regret to say that the foreign policy situation has not improved since I held my annual foreign policy address in January. I therefore very much appreciate this opportunity to bring the Storting up to date on some of the serious challenges we are facing.

We are continually being reminded that the international terrorist networks are still capable of carrying out actions that cause extensive civilian casualties. We have also experienced this on our own continent, when Madrid was the target of appalling terrorist attacks in March.

We will, of course, do our utmost to ensure that the fight against international terrorism is as effective as possible. We will do this in all areas where we have the particular qualifications and resources that are needed.

Historically speaking, most of the security problems the world has had to deal with have had their roots in Europe. Today, however, we are finding increasingly frequently that the threats to international peace and security have their origin in the Middle East region. In my address today I will, in addition to discussing the fight against international terrorism, talk about the situation in Iraq and the efforts to help resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Mr President,

I would like to begin with the critical situation in Iraq. As the members of the Storting know, the Government’s view is that there was insufficient basis in international law for initiating military operations against Iraq last year.

We wanted to give the UN weapons inspectors more time, while at the same time demanding that Iraq take concrete steps to disarm within strict, but realistic deadlines. As we all know, that is not what happened.

After Saddam Hussein’s forces had been defeated, however, we faced a new situation. The task was to stabilise and rebuild Iraq, both economically and politically, as called for by the UN Security Council in resolutions 1483 and 1511. As part of our response to the UN call Norway is participating in the international stabilisation force that was established.

Once more we are in an important phase in the political process in Iraq. The first step was the appointment of an interim Iraqi government, headed by Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, on 1 June.

In his briefing to the Security Council on 7 June, the Secretary-General’s special envoy, Lakhdar Brahimi, made no secret of the fact that the process of putting an interim government in place had been a difficult one given the timeframe. However, consultations had been held with a large number of Iraqi organisations and groups. Mr Brahimi concluded his briefing to the Council by saying that the interim government struck a reasonable balance between a number of different considerations, and that it ought to be capable of garnering support for the further process leading up to elections for a transitional national assembly by the end of January 2005.

The other element in the new transitional phase is the Security Council’s unanimous adoption on 8 June of resolution 1549, which confirms that the occupation will end at the same time as sovereignty is transferred to the interim government, on 30 June. The role played by the occupying powers today will be taken over by the interim government.

This means that we have reached an important milestone in the political process in Iraq. Once more the assistance of the international community will be needed. We must all do our share to enable the holding of free elections and the establishment of a democratic Iraqi government.

The international community’s efforts in the time ahead will be based on resolution 1546 and the two letters to the President of the Security Council annexed to the resolution: Prime Minister Allawi’s letter of 5 June, in which he requests the Council to give the multinational force a mandate to contribute to maintaining security in Iraq; and Secretary of State Powell’s letter of the same date concerning the the multinational force’s legal status, including the requirement that the force be subject to the jurisdiction of the contributing states.

Together, the resolution and the two letters form the basis for the multinational force’s continued presence in Iraq, under a Security Council mandate in accordance with Chapter VII of the UN Charter and at the invitation of the interim Iraqi government. These documents also clarify the basis in international law for the force, which has been a condition for continued Norwegian military participation.

The force will be under a unified command, which will give the interim government a say in its activities. The interim government may request the Security Council to review the multinational force’s mandate at any time.

The resolution authorises the force to take all necessary measures to maintain peace and security in the country. It also calls for the establishment of Iraqi security forces, which will be responsible to the interim government. It is anticipated that these forces will progressively play a greater role and ultimately assume full responsibility for maintaining peace and stability in Iraq.

The resolution also requests UN member states to contribute military forces to the multinational force.

Mr President,

Mr Brahimi has repeatedly stressed that a credible political process leading up the holding of free elections and the establishment of a democratic Iraqi government is contingent on improved security. Secretary-General Kofi Annan has also stressed this, and he has made it clear that an international military presence in Iraq is therefore necessary. In his view, it is in the interests of all parties that everything possible is done to stabilise the situation. The UN Security Council also underscores the importance of stability as a condition for the political and economic development of Iraq. It will not be possible to begin reconstruction in earnest, or to utilise human resources constructively, until stability has been achieved.

The government shares the view that improved security is a necessary prerequisite for a credible political process, and that at present this can only be achieved by means of an international military presence. This is why the Government has decided to continue participating in the military stabilisation efforts in Iraq. The international community must give the interim government the support it needs in order to succeed. And Norway, too, must do its share.

When the Norwegian engineering corps has completed its task in a few weeks’ time, as scheduled, our military presence in Iraq will consist of a small number of staff officers whose tasks will include planning, logistics, civil-military co-operation, intelligence and engineering operations. In addition we will contribute military personnel who will, together with colleagues from several other countries, assist in rebuilding the Iraqi defence forces. Training is important here precisely because it will help to enable the Iraqis to maintain security themselves.

If the stabilisation of Iraq is to succeed, it is essential that the Iraqi people perceive the interim government as a legitimate one. It is also essential that the transfer of sovereignty on 30 June is perceived as real. Norway has stressed this to a number of the members of the Security Council and to other like-minded countries, including the USA and the UK. Resolution 1546 helps to provide such legitimacy by reaffirming the right of the Iraqi people freely to determine their own political future and control their own finances and natural resources.

Another important condition is that the UN must be given a key role in this process. This applies particularly to preparations for the elections in January next year, the efforts to establish a transitional national assembly and the drafting of a new constitution. The resolution does this by giving the Secretary-General’s Special Representative responsibility for these tasks. However, if the UN is to play a key role, adequate security must be provided for UN personnel. This can only be done by the multinational force.

The UN presence and efforts will in themselves lend legitimacy to the political process. I am therefore pleased to note that the Security Council resolution gives the UN a mandate that will lay the groundwork for such efforts.

A third important element is to speed up the reconstruction efforts. Not only is this important for the living conditions of the Iraqi people, but it will also have a stabilising effect. Resolution 1546 gives the UN Assistance Mission for Iraq, UNAMI, a central role in this process. Norway will assist in the reconstruction efforts, and the Government has allocated NOK 80 million for development assistance and humanitarian aid this year.

Mr President,

Not only must the multilateral force have a sufficient basis in international law. The force must also act in accordance with international law.

The Government considers it absolutely essential that neither human rights nor international humanitarian law is violated in the fight against terrorism. Unfortunately, we have seen a number of examples indicating that this is not always the case. The abuses in the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq can only be described as horrifying.

Iraqi prisoners in the Abu Ghraib prison and other detention centres in Iraq are unquestionably “protected persons” within the meaning of the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions. According to these two conventions, all protected persons are entitled to be treated humanely and with respect. If internees are subject to treatment that is inhumane, humiliating, degrading or adverse within the meaning of the conventions, this is in conflict with international law.

It is absolutely essential that the US authorities get to the bottom of what has been going on. In our view this is an obvious and necessary step, which the USA is also obliged to take under international law. We presume that the investigations that have been initiated will answer all the relevant questions related to accountability.

Norway has made it clear to the US authorities that we dissociate ourselves from the conditions that have been disclosed in the Abu Ghraib prison. We have also underscored that it is absolutely essential that the international forces in Iraq and elsewhere act fully in accordance with international humanitarian law, and that any suspicion of a violation is investigated. Those responsible for such violations must be called to account for their actions.

I do not think there can be any doubt that US treatment of Iraqi detainees has complicated the efforts to stabilise the country. Nor is there any doubt that the Iraqi people’s confidence in the USA, the US forces and Western democratic values in general has been shaken because of what has happened.

Mr President,

Before I leave the subject of Iraq, I would like to say that I am pleased that resolution 1546 was adopted by a unanimous Security Council. This unanimity shows that the Council has put behind it the division caused by the Iraq issue, which threatened to undermine the Council’s authority. The process leading up to the adoption of the resolution and the unanimous endorsement of it also show, in my view, that the transatlantic ties are back to normal after the disagreement on the grounds for military action against Iraq last year.

Mr President,

I would now like to turn to another major problem we are facing in the region: the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

This is fundamentally a political conflict and cannot be resolved by terrorism or by military means. The Government notes with concern that the parties do not seem willing to grasp this. On the contrary, they seem to be caught in a vicious circle of attack and retaliation.

The fighting in Rafah in Gaza last month, which left more than 40 Palestinians dead, including several children, has sparked strong international reactions. Norway protested strongly and called on the Israeli authorities to halt the operations.

No responsible government would question Israel’s right to defend itself. But it is established international law that any use of force must be necessary and proportional to the threat concerned. It is difficult to see the necessity of launching heavy military operations in densely populated areas.

The Government has also consistently condemned the suicide terrorism practised by extremist Palestinian groups. We have repeatedly urged the Palestinian Authority to do its utmost to combat Palestinian terrorism.

We have also repeatedly made it clear that, in the Government’s view, terrorism is an unacceptable means to a political end. This also applies to the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

A concerted, targeted effort on the part of the Quartet, i.e. the UN, the EU, the USA and Russia, could strengthen the peace efforts and give them legitimacy. Their Roadmap for Peace has received the endorsement of the UN Security Council, and has in principle been accepted by the parties. In the Government’s view, the Roadmap is still the Israelis’ and Palestinians’ best hope for peace since the Intifada began in September 2000.

If Israel withdraws from Gaza and four settlements on the West Bank, this will be an important first step and could create a new dynamism. As you know the Israeli cabinet voted in principle to do this on 6 June. This in itself is positive, of course, even though the final decision to evacuate the settlements has been postponed once again.

Now it is important that the international community persists in its demand that the withdrawal must be effected in accordance with the Roadmap and the vision of a two-state solution. We must also demand that the Israelis withdraw fully from Gaza and that the settlers from Gaza are not transferred to the West Bank. The question of borders and of the final destiny of the refugees must be decided in final status negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, as called for by the Quartet – including the USA.

An Israeli withdrawal from the settlements in Gaza and the West Bank would have to be co-ordinated with the Palestinian Authority. A well functioning Palestinian Authority is an important condition for progress in the peace efforts and a viable two-state solution. Norway has therefore been involved in a comprehensive effort to assist the Palestinian Authority with internal reforms and can point to progress in the field of financial management.

But the Palestinian Authority cannot carry out reforms in a vacuum. The success of the reforms also depends on Israel, which controls a number of the basic parameters. Israel must provide conditions that enable the Palestinian Authority to implement important reforms, not least in the security sector.

As chair of the Ad Hoc Liaison Committee for Assistance to the Palestinians, I have taken the initiative for an assessment of what the AHLC can do to contribute to political and economic progress in Gaza in the event of a withdrawal. I am pleased to note that the Quartet countries fully support such a role for the AHLC.

As we continue our efforts to make progress in Gaza, we must not of course forget the West Bank. Unfortunately, the wall that is being built, partly on occupied territory, and the steady expansion of the illegal settlements do not give reason to believe that Israel plans to withdraw from the occupied territories in accordance with Security Council resolutions 242 and 338.

The Palestinians still have to deal with a number of challenges in the fields of security and the administration of justice. In Norway’s view, the Palestinian Authority should be doing much more than it is doing at the moment. For example, the security forces must be restructured in accordance with the requirements of the Roadmap.

A trust fund for budget support to the Palestinian Authority, administered by the World Bank, is now in place. Norway donated USD 12 million to the fund and was the first country to make a contribution. The money will primarily be used for wages and operating costs in the health and education sectors. In its capacity as AHLC chair, Norway has also encouraged other countries to contribute to the fund. I am pleased to see that these efforts are beginning to bear fruit, and that countries such as the UK, Japan and Canada have contributed to the fund.

Mr President,

A solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would stimulate progress in the efforts to deal with other challenges faced by the countries of the region. On the other hand, the lack of progress in this conflict must not prevent urgently needed changes from being made in other parts of the region.

During the past year there has been a growing debate on the need for reforms, modernisation and democratisation in the Middle East.

UNDP’s 2003 report on the situation in the Arab world has provided important input to the debate. The report underscores the need for modernising Arab society, particularly as regards education and social and economic conditions, and calls attention to the need to improve the status of women in the Arab countries.

The need for reform is by no means new, but it attracted renewed attention when the concept of the Broader Middle East was put on the international agenda in 2003.

The reform issue featured prominently on the agenda for the G8 summit in the USA on 8-10 June, which was also attended by several of the countries of the region. The statement issued by the summit expresses a desire for active, constructive co-operation with the countries of the Middle East and North Africa on development and reform, based on the countries’ own needs and local conditions. The statement also recognises that the general development and reform efforts in the region cannot take place in isolation from the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians or the situation in Iraq.

The G8 countries will take the initiative for creating a special co-operation forum for G8 and regional foreign and economic ministers. They will also establish a broad-based co-operation programme.

It is significant that the G8 countries are so clearly basing their initiative on the cultural and political diversity of the region and local ownership, while at the same time stressing that this diversity must not be exploited to prevent reform. This is in keeping with our views.

Norway is pleased to note that the G8 countries are supporting development and reform efforts in the Palestinian Territory and the AHLC. We are particularly pleased to see that the G8 is now urging donors to contribute to the World Bank’s Trust Fund for budget support to the Palestinian Authority.

The EU has been working for a long time to establish closer co-operation with the Mediterranean countries through the Barcelona Process. These efforts will continue and at the same time more priority will be given to the security policy aspects. The EU’s new security strategy is based among other things on the need to enhance security and stability in its neighbouring areas. The Barcelona Process is a tool for achieving this aim by means of increased trade, economic development and broader political, parliamentary and cultural co-operation. The EU’s new neighbourhood policies are also an important vehicle both for promoting stability and development in the Middle East region, and for enhancing security in Europe.

The Government agrees that there is a need for fundamental reforms and modernisation in the region, and our approach to these challenges is similar to that of the EU. We have advocated that NATO should be given an opportunity to contribute to this modernisation process with regard to defence and security issues. It looks as if the Alliance is close to reaching agreement on offering the countries in the region an opportunity for extended co-operation on combating terrorism, defence reform, border security and civil preparedness, among other things.

One of the central features of the international debate has been a growing recognition of the fact that the countries of the region must themselves take responsibility for developing the reforms. Successful reforms depend on local ownership and must build on the respective countries’ own traditions and culture.

However, there is no reason to deny that the reactions in the Arab countries have been mixed. For example, the lack of progress in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is being exploited by forces opposed to reform. And the abuses that took place in the Abu Ghraib prison have unquestionably not made it any easier to gain acceptance for what many people in the region perceive as demands based on Western values and norms.

The countries of the region differ greatly from each other, particularly with regard to degree of democracy and form of government. The differences are clearly illustrated by the difficulty experienced at the Arab summit in May in reaching agreement on the wording of texts relating to human rights and gender equality. However, we are pleased to see that there are some signs of democratisation and modernisation in the region, particularly in the Maghreb area and in some of the smaller Gulf states.

In the talks I have had with Arab leaders during the past year, I have been pleased to see that they acknowledge the need for modernising their societies. Therefore, we will continue our dialogue with a view to strengthening co-operation with Arab countries on reforms that build on their own aspirations and priorities.

Mr President,

The security situation in Afghanistan is becoming increasingly precarious. Two Norwegians were recently killed while involved in military and humanitarian service in the country. I would like to express the Government’s deep regret and sympathy with the families of soldier Tommy Rødningsby and Dr Egil Kristian Tynæs.

The two killings illustrate the security challenges the authorities and the international community are facing in Afghanistan. The country will need international support in its stabilisation and reconstruction efforts for a long time to come. The work being done by Norwegian military forces and humanitarian aid workers is an important contribution to these efforts.

The situation in Afghanistan is still characterised by political, ethnic and religious differences. The Transitional Government is being opposed by local warlords and elements linked to the Taliban and al-Qaida. The rapidly growing drug economy gives particular cause for concern. The proceeds from drug production are increasingly being used to finance local warlords, which makes it difficult for the central government to gain control of the whole country.

ISAF’s strong military presence will continue to be necessary to ensure political stability. It will also help to curtail the power of the warlords. In our international military commitment, Afghanistan will be our main priority in the time ahead.

In 2004, Norway’s contribution to ISAF will number around 320 persons, including just under 200 in a guard and security company in Kabul, a command element comprising 50 persons for one of ISAF’s three battalion battle groups and 20 persons for the British-led stabilisation team being established in Meymaneh, in the western part of the country. Norway is also providing fire and rescue personnel for the international airport in Kabul and up to 10 police instructors for training an Afghan police and border police force.

Norway’s giving priority to Afghanistan is in line with the priority given to the country by NATO, which is expected to be confirmed at the NATO summit in Istanbul on 28-29 June. NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer has, with the full support of the member states, stressed how important the efforts in Afghanistan are for the Alliance. However, more military resources are still needed if the Alliance is to succeed in achieving its aim of establishing five new regional stabilisation teams before the Istanbul summit.

It is essential that the political commitments we have undertaken with regard to Afghanistan are followed up by the necessary resources. Therefore, it is important that the unanimous support given to President Hamid Karzai’s transitional government at the successful Afghanistan conference in Berlin at the end of March is followed up by concrete contributions.

Norway has selected Afghanistan as one of its partner countries in development co-operation as from January 2004. This year the country will receive approximately NOK 300 million in Norwegian assistance, in addition to our military and humanitarian contributions.

Mr President,

The importance of the international efforts to prevent Afghanistan from once more becoming a safe haven for terrorists has not diminished in the almost three years that have passed since the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington. Despite all the measures that have been implemented to combat international terrorism, the al-Qaida network still has the capability, in co-operation with local groups, to carry out terrorist attacks and damage our societies. It is extremely worrying that there are a number of signs that terrorist groups have attempted to acquire weapons of mass destruction.

We cannot sit back and watch this happen. We must take steps to protect ourselves. But at the same time we must ensure that the fundamental human rights we are seeking to protect are respected. This applies even when we are combating an enemy as serious as international terrorism.

Not surprisingly, our experience since 11 September 2001 has confirmed that the fight against terrorism cannot be won by military means alone, even though they are absolutely necessary in certain cases. We must also make use of other measures, and we attach great importance to political reforms, economic measures, strengthening the police and justice sector and the educational sector, and promoting cultural contact and inter-religious dialogue. We must weaken the terrorists’ position and the respect they unfortunately command among various groups. We must eliminate the underlying causes of terrorism, whether they are economic or political, or involve the misuse of religion. Only in this way can we hope to eradicate the breeding ground for terrorism and recruitment to terrorist organisations. At the same time we must abide by our fundamental conviction: no end justifies the use of terrorism as a means.

Even though regional organisations such as NATO and the EU are important, it is the UN that must have the leading, co-ordinating role in the fight against international terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. This is why it is so important that the Security Council unanimously adopted resolution 1540 on the prevention of proliferation of such weapons. This resolution gives the Security Council a key role, while at the same time underscoring the importance of the global disarmament and non-proliferation agreements. The resolution calls on all member states to intensify their efforts to combat the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. It makes special mention of the risk of non-state actors and terrorists acquiring such weapons.

The Government will work actively to promote the implementation of this resolution, among other things by giving priority to the work being done in the various non-proliferation and export-control regimes. The next Review Conference for the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, which will take place in 2005, will play an important role in these efforts.

I am pleased to be able to say that some progress has been made in the efforts to prevent proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi has expressed his willingness give up his chemical, biological and nuclear programmes. It is also encouraging that Iran has established co-operation with the International Atomic Energy Agency, even though a great deal remains to be done.

Mr President,

On 4 March this year, Norway became a full partner in the Proliferation Security Initiative, or PSI. Fifteen countries are participating in this co-operation, including the USA, Russia, France and the UK. The aim is among other things to prevent ships and aircraft from being used in the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. As Norway is a major shipping nation, it is important to ensure that Norwegian ships are not used for this purpose.

Efforts are now being made under the auspices of the International Maritime Organisation to establish multilateral rules for preventing proliferation by means of ships. This process will, however, take time, and even though the Government would prefer a multilateral solution, we cannot sit back and wait until it is in place. Therefore, the Government is in favour, on certain conditions, of concluding bilateral agreements within the framework of the PSI. To begin with we intend to conclude a reciprocal agreement with the UK on the boarding of ships. The agreement will be in accordance with Norwegian and British national law and fully in keeping with our obligations under international law. This entails among other things that permission must be given to board a Norwegian ship in each individual case. The question of liability for compensation will also have to be clarified with respect to the shipowner, the crew and the cargo. The agreement will be duly submitted to the Storting before the Government signs it.

Norway will host the next meeting of experts in the PSI, which will be held in Oslo on 5-6 August. The purpose of the meeting is to further develop the legal basis for the co-operation, the exercise programme and the exchange of intelligence with a view to combating the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

Mr President,

We have a difficult time ahead of us in our efforts to achieve peace and stability and combat terrorism. The challenges are many and great, particularly in the Middle East region. But the fight against international terrorism is not confined to any geographical area. It must also be pursued on our own continent. And as I have said, we will only succeed through binding international co-operation.

It is important that we employ both long-term and short-term measures in our fight against international terrorism. This is why our own efforts to combat poverty, promote human rights, and free people from political, religious and ethnic oppression are so important. What is more, if we are to succeed, we ourselves must, in the fight against international terrorism, respect the fundamental freedoms and rights we wish to defend. Ultimately, it is our own credibility that will be decisive in this fight.