Foreign Minister Jan Petersen, Chairman of the Committee of Ministers

Statement at the Meeting of the Standing Committee

Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe,
Meeting of the Standing Committee, Oslo 7 September 2004

Check against delivery

Mr. President, distinguished members of the Parliamentary Assembly.

It is a pleasure and an honour for me to welcome the Standing Committee to Oslo.

I very much appreciate this opportunity to continue the frank discussions we had in Strasbourg in June during the plenary session of the Assembly.

Last week’s terrible and barbaric terrorist action have made it clear to all of us that the fight against terrorism must remain a top priority. The attack in Beslan, only the latest in a spate of terrorist attacks in Russia, is an acute reminder that we still have a long way to go in this fight. Like others, including the members of the UN Security Council, I have in my capacity as Chairman of the Committee of Ministers strongly condemned these acts of terrorism. I have been particularly appalled by the fact that the terrorists have deliberately targeted children, killing hundreds of them in cold blood.

The international community has demonstrated a remarkable solidarity with the Russian Federation in these difficult times. I welcome all the contributions made by governments and organisations to ease the pain of those who have suffered from terrorist attacks. Last night, Norway sent a special plane to Northern Ossetia, carrying urgent medical equipment for the children and adults who are hospitalized in Beslan.

It is now more important than ever to work for better social and economic welfare in the entire region of the Northern Caucasus. The Council of Europe has an important role to play, and is committed to continuing its co-operation with the Russian Federation on the institutional reconstruction of the Chechen Republic. The Council of Europe as well as other organisations, such as the OSCE, can make important contributions towards creating a basis for a viable political solution in this republic.

In the course of the summer, tension has also increased in Transnistria, with closures and occupations of schools that teach in the Latin script. In Belarus we have witnessed administrative harassment by the authorities, resulting in the withdrawal of the licence of the European Humanities University in Minsk. Both these actions are clearly in conflict with basic principles and standards that the Council of Europe is seeking to promote, whether in connection with minority rights or academic freedom.

As Chairman of the Committee of Ministers, I felt compelled to express my concern and regret at these developments, and called on the responsible authorities to rectify the situation and honour their commitments relating to the Council of Europe and its instruments.

The deterioration of the situation in South Ossetia is even more worrying. I have expressed my deep concern over the human suffering and loss of life caused by the escalation of the conflict, and reiterated the support of the Council of Europe for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of one of its member states. The latest developments in South Ossetia have confirmed that it is time to address the problems of substance at the highest political level. We should therefore consider carefully the proposals by both the OSCE Chairman-in-Office and the Georgian authorities to establish an appropriate international negotiation forum.

I plan to visit Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia in October. The visit will provide an opportunity to learn more about the southern Caucasus, and to discuss in greater detail issues of importance to these three countries. Follow-up on the obligations of these countries as members of the Council of Europe will be an important aspect of the discussions, both in the Caucasus and during next week’s visit to Sarajevo, Belgrade and Kosovo.

Mr. President,

During the Norwegian Chairmanship we are focusing on three main objectives.

Firstly, further promoting human rights and legal co-operation. A central element in this regard is the reform of the European Court of Human Rights.

Secondly, strengthening the co-operation between the Council of Europe and other European organisations.

And, thirdly, developing the role of the Council of Europe in preventing conflicts, through measures aimed at promoting good governance and strengthening intercultural dialogue and contact.

The most pressing issue under the first objective is the follow-up to the various elements of the reform package of the European Court of Human Rights. The Committee of Ministers adopted Protocol No. 14 to the European Convention on Human Rights, amending the control system of the Convention to make it more efficient. It also adopted a series of recommendations designed to improve the implementation of the Convention at the national level. The additional protocol was opened for signature last May. So far only 19 countries have signed. In order for the protocol to enter into force, all Council of Europe member countries must accede to it. There is a job to do here, both for parliamentarians and governments.

18 October we are inviting representatives from the member states, the Court of Human Rights and the academic community to a seminar to discuss the implementation of the reform package. Our aim is to ensure that the reform goes together with effective measures at national level, in order to reduce the Court’s backlog. Specific and effective measures must be taken to improve and accelerate the execution of the Court’s judgements.

Mr. President,

The Council of Europe is facing great challenges in a changing Europe. It will be important for our organisation to adapt to the new situation. We should do this by focusing on the Council of Europe’s core values and areas of expertise, and at the same time promote an even more constructive relationship with the two other major European organisations.

There is no lack of important tasks to take on, and that there is certainly enough work for the Council of Europe, the OSCE and the EU. The aim should be for these organisations to complement each other, rather than to compete.

One important objective during our chairmanship has been to strengthen and improve the co-operation between the Council of Europe and the OSCE. This process is already well under way, with the support of the secretariats of the two organisations, and the Bulgarian OSCE chairmanship. Later this month we will establish a Task Force to look at ways to enhance co-operation and co-ordination in areas of interest to both organisations.

In order for democratic culture to take root in a society, the principles of democracy must be implemented right down to the level closest to the citizens. Norway is committed to supporting the intergovernmental co-operation aimed at promoting local and regional democracy. Democracy building must be based on the active participation of citizens. All the countries and regions of Europe are currently considering these challenges.

A conference in Oslo on “Strengthening local democracy and democratic participation in a changing world” will discuss these important issues. Representatives from the Council of Europe member states and the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities have been invited to co-operate and participate in this conference that starts on 30 September.

Mr. President,

I understand that UN Special Coordinator Terje Røed Larsen had to cancel his scheduled meeting with the Committee later today. In light of Norway’s long term involvement in the Middle East Peace Process, I therefore take the liberty to spend a few minutes of my allocated time on this process.

The lack of progress in the peace efforts is course for great concern. I am particularly worried about the construction of the separation barrier on Palestinian land. I recognise Israel’s security concerns. I understand that the barrier can prevent terror attacks. But the barrier should not be constructed inside the West Bank.

I am also deeply concerned over the continued construction activities inside the Israeli settlements on the West Bank. The building of the wall and the construction in the settlements contradict international law and create facts on the ground which threatens a peaceful solution to the Middle East conflict. We all know what this solution should be: Two viable states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security.

Furthermore, I am worried about the state of play in the Palestinian Authority. While there has been substantial progress in financial reform, much remains to be done in reforming the police and security services in order to combat terrorism. I understand the de facto limitations the current situation imposes on the PA when it comes to deepening reform and fighting terrorism, but this cannot fully justify the slow pace on the Palestinian side.

Despite my rather bleak analysis, there are developments that might lead to something positive. Prime Minister Sharon’s plan for unilateral disengagement from Gaza and four settlements from the West Bank deserves our attention and careful support. However, my support is conditioned on a number of key factors:

A withdrawal from Gaza and parts of the West Bank must be in line with the Road Map, as endorsed by the United Nations Security Council and consistent with the vision of a two-state solution.

To be more specific:

• Settlers from Gaza must not be transferred to the West Bank.
• Withdrawal from the settlements must be closely co-ordinated with the Palestinian Authority.
• The final destiny of the settlements on the West Bank must be subject to final status negotiations between Israel and the PA, on the basis of the 1967 borders.
• All Israeli settlement activities in the West Bank must be frozen.
• And last but not least: The Palestinian refugee problem is also a final status issue. A pullout from Gaza should not pre-empt future negotiations on this matter.

If these conditions are fulfilled, and the withdrawal takes place, the Disengagement Plan could eventually breathe new life into the peace process.

In Europe we must do our outmost to support this process. First and foremost, we must demand from Israel that a withdrawal take place within parameters that supports peace, economic growth and a normalisation of the situation in Gaza. From the Palestinian Authority we must insist on a responsible and constructive approach on the disengagement issue.

A withdrawal from Gaza and four settlements on the West Bank that takes place within this framework, should receive the support of the international community, both politically and financially.

To this end, Norway is now preparing a meeting of the Ad Hoc Liaison Committee for assistance to the Palestinians in New York on 23 September. It is our ambition that this meeting can contribute to laying the foundation for a positive development after a possible Israeli withdrawal.

Last but not least, in my capacity as chair of the Ad Hoc Liason Committee, I would like to appeal to you to continue and to strengthen European financial support to the Palestinian Authority. Due to the present situation in the region, the Palestinian Authority is in great need for budgetary support. I know this is a controversial issue, but we have no choice. The PA is Israel’s and our partner in the peace process. If the PA erodes, moderate Palestinian politicians will disappear with it, and extremists are likely to take over. We must all work together to avoid such a development.

Mr. President,

Before I return to the domain of the Council of Europe, allow me to touch on another issue that I believe would be of interest to a group of internationally oriented Parliamentarians.

One third of mainland Norway lies north of the Arctic Circle. Norway therefore has strong, permanent interests in the questions concerning the northern areas. Even though these questions are not high on our agenda in the Council of Europe, they are of importance both for the security and the environment of Europe.

During the Cold War, Norway’s geographical position was strategically important. East-West confrontation and military strategic interests were the main factors in defining priorities in the Arctic region. Today, confrontation is replaced by co-operation and a common concern for the serious challenges facing all the Arctic countries.

For Norway, developing our co-operation with Russia in the north is especially important. We are pursuing this bilaterally and within the framework of international organisations.

Norway and Russia share a 196 kilometre-long border, which was closed for many decades, being one of the two border lines where NATO and Soviet forces were directly facing each other. Today there are more than 100 000 border crossings a year. During the last 10 years we have witnessed the development of a remarkably dynamic network across the border, between local authorities, business enterprises, schools and NGOs. These are grassroots contacts, on a people-to-people basis.

Today’s flourishing contact between Norway and Russia in the north is remarkable compared with the era of the Soviet Union, although in fact it is similar to the situation before the Russian revolution in 1917.

But, challenges still remain. The most immediate of them is the management of the large amounts of nuclear material in the Russian part of the Barents Region. There are good reasons why nuclear safety has been at the centre of Norwegian-Russian co-operation for the last 10 years. In the Kola Peninsula there is an old nuclear power station; a large number of nuclear submarines waiting to be dismantled; service ships with large quantities of spent nuclear fuel on board, some of it damaged and therefore difficult to handle; a run-down storage site with fuel from 100 reactors; and tons of solid and liquid nuclear waste in Andreyev Bay.

The nuclear task facing us is enormous – and it is urgent. Small countries can offer important contributions, and Norway has taken a lead in assisting Russia. In recent years international efforts and co-operation have expanded significantly. The 9/11 terrorist attacks made us realise that terrorists will not hesitate to use weapons and materials of mass destruction for malicious purposes. Nuclear safety and security have therefore become an integral part of our joint efforts to counter the new security threats.

The other great challenge facing us in the north is environmental. Science has documented that the signs of climate change are more pronounced in the Arctic than in other regions of the world. Hence, global warming and climate change is now the most pressing item on the Arctic environmental agenda.

The ice of the Arctic is melting. Open sea has already been observed around the North Pole in the summer. The melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet broke all records in 2002, and current estimates indicate that the ice sheet will have disappeared by the end of this millennium.

Although the speed and consequences of this climate change are not yet fully clear, we must be prepared for the fact that climate change and natural resource management in the Arctic will have an increasing impact on the entire planet. It may also have enormous economic consequences.

Since Arctic pollution originates to a large extent in areas south of the Arctic, measures to protect its environment cannot be limited to the region. Hence, we must study the problems and work out the solutions together.

There is an increasing understanding for this need. Two weeks ago I received Senator Mc Cain and five other US senators at Svalbard and two weeks before that 55 NATO Parliamentarians visited the archipelago. They had all expressed a wish to increase their knowledge of the challenges posed by the climate change.

Mr. President,

Returning to the Council of Europe agenda, I would like to conclude with a few words on the Third Summit of the Council of Europe. The decision to convene the Summit on 16-17 May next year under the Polish Chairmanship is certainly one of the most notable developments since we last met. The Summit will provide an opportunity for the member states to discuss the direction the organisation should take in order to adapt to the new Europe. This means focusing more clearly on the Council’s key objectives, and on the areas where it can make a difference.

I have noted with satisfaction the great interest member states have taken in this matter. We must prepare the Summit thoroughly to ensure that it is fruitful. This work has been started under the Norwegian Chairmanship. We will actively seek contributions from all member states in order to establish a focused and limited agenda. The Summit should enable the Council of Europe to play its role side by side with other European organisations as effectively as possible. I look forward to constructive contributions from the Parliamentary Assembly in this process.

Thank you for your attention.