Translation from the Norwegian

Check against delivery

Mr President,

Unfortunately, the situation in Iraq has not improved since my previous foreign policy address, which was on 14 June. Despite the substantial military resources being deployed, the situation in parts of the country cannot be said to be under control. I am thinking particularly of:

• the persistent, widespread use of violence against both Iraqi security forces and the multinational force,
• the frequent terrorist attacks on the police and civilian Iraqi targets,
• the repeated kidnappings and brutal killings of foreign nationals, including international aid workers.

Despite this extremely difficult security situation, the Iraqi Interim Government maintains that there is no alternative to the course it has decided on. It asserts that the only path to stability is through a political process based on democratic values. The Interim Government is being supported in these efforts by the various population groups in Iraq and by the international community, with the UN playing a leading role.

The international community shares the responsibility for what happens in Iraq. Therefore, it is the Government’s view that Norway should continue to contribute.

The future of the Iraqi people depends the success of these common efforts. Developments in Iraq will also have great significance for neighbouring countries and for stability in the region.

The Security Council has adopted a number of binding resolutions that make all of us responsible for Iraq’s future. It is not enough to say what we have been – or are – against. We must also say what we are for, and what we can and should do.

However, I would like to remind you of the Government’s clear, unambiguous position on the major issues faced by the international community in March last year prior to the invasion of Iraq:

• First, despite the fact that Iraq had clearly failed to comply with resolution 1441, the Government felt that the UN weapons inspectors should be allowed to continue their work. They had made progress, and we were of the view that a specific work schedule, with tight but achievable deadlines should be drawn up.
• Second, the Government felt that there was an insufficient basis in international law to resort to military action against Iraq. This would have required a new Security Council resolution.

Or, as the Prime Minister said in the Storting on 21 March 2003, when the war in Iraq was in its second day:

“We wished to see a peaceful resolution to the Iraq conflict. Now it is being settled by military force instead. Winning the war is one thing. Winning the peace afterwards is quite a different matter.”

This was the Government’s assessment of the situation at the time. What we have learned since then, including what we now know about there being no weapons of mass destruction, has confirmed the rightness of the Government’s position.

Mr President,

There has also been a focus on whether the situation was dealt with correctly after the invasion. Here, too, it is now clear that much could have been done differently. For example, as I said in my lecture to the Oslo Military Society on 4 October, the treatment of the prisoners in Abu Ghraib was outrageous and detrimental. We have been shocked by the recent television images of the actions of US soldiers, this time in Falluja. The Geneva Conventions are applicable and must be respected in Iraq. Any violations of their provisions must be investigated, and the perpetrators must be called to account.

It was unwise to exclude so many former members of the Baath party from participating in society, and to disband the Iraqi army and the Iraqi police.

The excesses that have been committed, and the misjudgements that have been made, have made the reconstruction of Iraq even more difficult. But the key issue now is what we should do to get the situation in the country on the right track.

The dictator Saddam Hussein and his tyranny are a thing of the past. Iraq now has an interim government, which has made it clear that the future Iraqi government will be based on democratic principles. The Security Council unanimously supports this government as a representative and legitimate interim government until the planned elections have been carried out.

Iraq needs help with stabilisation and reconstruction in order to achieve peace and security for its people, and in order to develop a democratic government. We have a common responsibility to assist in this process.

UN Security Council resolution 1546 of 8 June 2004 provides the basis for our common effort. It sets out the framework for a broad-based international approach to facilitate Iraq’s transition to a democratically elected government and the Iraqi people’s right freely to determine their own political future and control their own natural resources. The resolution also confirms that international support for the restoration of stability and security is essential to the well-being of the people of Iraq as well as to the ability of all concerned to achieve the declared objectives.

This is why the Security Council has requested NATO and other regional organisations to support the Iraqi Interim Government. The Interim Government made a similar request directly to NATO in connection with the Istanbul summit in June. At the summit there was also a separate meeting between representatives of the Iraqi authorities and NATO foreign ministers at which the Iraqis specified their request.

However, the request to NATO from the Security Council and the Iraqi Government does not alter the fact that the major responsibility for security must lie with the Iraqi authorities. At the same time, the international community must take its share of the responsibility and continue its efforts to stabilise Iraq.

The Government’s policy all along has been that we should contribute actively to these efforts, and we will continue to pursue this policy. Norway has consistently followed the UN track, both before and since the war. The aim is, as I have said, to help to create a stable, democratic Iraq.

In this connection we are facing three main challenges:

• First, to contribute to greater security and stability in all parts of the country. There will be no progress in Iraq unless the security situation improves.
• Second, to strengthen the democratic political process, a process in which the holding of democratic elections in January next year will be a milestone. There will be no broad-based, stable development in the country unless the Iraqi government’s legitimacy is enhanced.
• Third, to lay the groundwork for the economic development of the country. Reconstruction and the revitalisation of the economy are also preconditions for progress in Iraq. Given its rich natural resources, Iraq has good prospects of managing without international development assistance in the long term. Therefore, Norway has no plans as regards long-term assistance to Iraq.

I will devote the rest of my address here today to these three challenges, and will also share with you some of my views on the situation in other parts of the Middle East.

Mr President,

The primary, immediate aim of the Iraqi authorities and the international community is to achieve greater security and stability in all parts of Iraq. Ensuring the safety of the population is essential for carrying out democratic political processes and for the country’s economic and social development.

As we have seen on the news, a Norwegian-financed study under the auspices of UNDP and Fafo has concluded that there is an alarmingly high level of acute malnutrition among children in some parts of the country. In the Government’s view, this emphasises even more clearly the need for security and stability in Iraq.

Unfortunately, stabilising the country has proved to be extremely difficult. The frequent, destructive assaults by the insurgents are still going on. The international community must be unambiguous in its condemnation of these acts. They cause great suffering to the population and endanger the political process. These terrorist acts are also the reason why Prime Minister Iyad Allawi declared a 60-day state of emergency on 7 November. If the elections are to be held as planned in January, and if they are to have the necessary political legitimacy, the population must be provided with a minimum of safety and security.

The security challenges are particularly great in what is known as the Sunni triangle around Baghdad, e.g. in the cities of Falluja and Samarra. The situation in this part of Iraq has for a long time posed an extremely grave challenge to the Iraqi Interim Government and the multinational force. The situation in Falluja also constitutes a direct threat to the political process in the country.

This was the background to the military operation that was launched on 8 November to gain control of the city and the surrounding area. The operation was carried out in close co-operation with the Iraqi security forces, and was not begun until Prime Minister Allawi had given the go-ahead.

Even though the multinational force has now taken military control of Falluja, the unrest has spread to other parts of the region. The security situation is still not under control.

The militant groups behind the violence are not homogeneous, but they are dominated by Sunni Arabs who are playing on the dissatisfaction among this part of the population. The Sunni population has exercised disproportionately strong control of the political course in Iraq for a very long time, and its position is now being threatened by a more even distribution of power. Former members of the Baath Party are particularly active. Other Islamist groups, including the al-Zarkawi network, which seems to have ties to al-Qaida, are also extremely well organised and are thought to be responsible for a number of assaults.

Unfortunately, these groups will in all likelihood seek to continue their violent attacks. For political and other reasons, they apparently feel it is in their interests that the Interim Government fails to succeed in the political process that is now under way. Their aim seems to be to create chaos and fear, to frighten Iraqis from becoming engaged in the political process and the reconstruction of important national institutions. The attacks on Iraqi police stations and recruitment centres for the Iraqi security forces must be viewed in this light.

The insurgents also seem to have been seeking by means of terror and violence to frighten international organisations, NGOs and private sector actors from becoming involved in Iraq. If they succeed in this, it will definitely have a negative effect on the situation in the country.

However, the pattern of conflict in Iraq is complex. The situation is calmer in the Shiite-dominated areas in the south and the Kurdish areas in the north, even though there has been an increase in violence, particularly in the city of Mosul. It is important that these areas remain stable. Otherwise this could easily lead to increasing internal fragmentation in Iraq, which could in turn destabilise the region.

One of the reasons why the situation in the north is more stable is probably that the Iraqi Interim Government has not challenged the Kurds’ special rights. Prime Minister Allawi has demonstrated political wisdom in this matter. At the same time it is important that the situation of the Kurds and their rights are safeguarded in the new Iraqi constitution that will be drawn up next year.

The main instrument we have for combating terrorist operations and stabilising the security situation is the multinational force. Today the force numbers about 150 000 personnel, the majority of whom are US troops.

Despite the fact that more than 30 countries are contributing to this force, there is no doubt that the USA, and to a certain degree the UK, will have to continue bearing the major share of the responsibility for the multinational military effort in Iraq. Countries such as Germany and France are not willing to become militarily involved, and it does not seem that any other countries are willing to take on a greater role.

The war in Iraq was a central issue in the US presidential election. Therefore, the re-election of George W. Bush on 2 November must also be viewed as an expression of the American people’s support for the current administration’s Iraq policy. At the same time, we know that it is a declared US objective to reduce the large-scale US military presence in Iraq as soon as the situation allows.

Therefore, in the long term it is essential that the Iraqis themselves are able to safeguard their own security. This will also help to enhance the government’s legitimacy among the population. However, the government that is elected in January will not have any choice to begin with. It will have to request a continued international military presence in order to ensure security in the country. In resolution 1546 of 8 June, the Security Council called for international support for the effort to restore security and stability in Iraq.

The decision to assist in training the Iraqi security forces, made at the NATO summit in Istanbul in June, must be viewed in this light.

On 17 November, the North Atlantic Council unanimously agreed on a plan of operation for a NATO-led training mission in Iraq. A NATO force numbering around 1700 personnel, some 300 of whom would be responsible for the actual training, is envisaged. The rest of the force would for example deal with tasks linked to headquarters, transport, logistics and protection of permanent installations and NATO personnel. General security in Iraq would be taken care of by the multinational force, as is the case today.

In addition to the training provided in Iraq, NATO would also be responsible for training Iraqi security forces outside Iraq. The plan is that the training of senior and middle-level officers should be carried out at Allied training institutions, including the NATO headquarters at Jåttå, outside Stavanger. The first course was held at the beginning of November.

It is important that NATO succeeds in carrying out the task it has taken on in Iraq. The NATO force must keep to its mandate, i.e. providing training, and not take part in the fighting. The Government would emphasise that NATO’s engagement must not be gradually widened. In order to ensure this, the plan of operation confines NATO’s efforts to training in a dedicated training centre with the necessary support functions.

The security arrangements for the NATO force will be a particular challenge. Therefore it is important that we keep in mind that the main responsibility for security lies with the multinational force.

The EU has also offered to assist, for example, in training Iraqi police officers. A group of experts will be sent to Iraq to evaluate this.

Mr President,

As regards Norway’s military involvement in Iraq, we currently have up to 10 staff officers in the British and Polish sectors. The Government previously decided, with the consent of the competent committee in the Storting, to contribute a small number of military personnel for rebuilding Iraqi defence forces within the framework of the international stabilisation force. The Government has chosen for the time being to set this aside, and is now considering whether we should instead contribute a small number of instructors to NATO’s training mission in Iraq.

The Norwegian authorities will take all necessary precautions to protect our personnel, and we are co-operating closely with our Allies on this.

In addition to the staff officers and any contribution we may make to military training inside Iraq, we will, as I have already mentioned, train Iraqi military personnel at Jåttå. Norway has also offered to help the Iraqi Interim Government by assisting in the training of senior Iraqi police officers in Norway. This is based on the positive experience we have had with similar training programmes for police officers in the Balkans, and now in Afghanistan.

If everything goes according to plan, the first group of Iraqi police officers will arrive in Norway at the beginning of the year. Altogether we plan to hold four training courses.

Mr President,

Lasting security and stability cannot be achieved by military measures alone. The political process both in Iraq and in relation to the neighbouring countries is therefore an extremely important part of the efforts to stabilise the country.

The transfer of authority to the Iraqi Interim Government in June, and the convening of the Iraqi National Conference in August, were important steps towards a democratic government based on the principles of the rule of law. Despite the very difficult security situation, they have managed so far to keep to the timetable for establishing legitimate government structures, as called for by the UN Security Council.

It is extremely important that this progress is maintained in the months ahead. The next milestone will be elections for a new national assembly, which are scheduled to be held before the end of January next year. One of the national assembly’s most important tasks will be to draft a constitution that will form the basis for the election of a new government by the end of 2005.

If the government is to have the necessary legitimacy, there must be broad support for the election process.

Much of the news from Iraq is bad, but it is also important to bear in mind the progress that has been made. We are encouraged by the fact that Shiite Muslim leaders, such as the Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, have fully endorsed the democratisation process. Moqtada al-Sadr, the radical head of the Shiite Mehdi militia, has also adopted a more conciliatory tone lately, after a long period of armed opposition.

It looks as if the elections will enjoy broad support among the Kurdish population. A federal, unified Iraq – with a legitimate government – will be an advantage for this group as well.

Now it is extremely important that the people in the Sunni dominated areas also recognise the value of taking part in the forthcoming elections. The Arab Sunni Muslims make up about a fifth of the population of Iraq, and whether or not they support the election will have a considerable effect on how the outcome is assessed. If they do not participate in the election process and the future government, this could help to weaken it.

The UN will have a key role in ensuring that the elections are carried out as far as possible in accordance with accepted international standards. Unfortunately, the precarious security situation is also undermining the UN’s ability to assist with the preparations for the election. The organisation has recently increased the number of election experts to 25, and a further increase is planned in December. Most of the election preparations are being made by the Iraqi authorities, and they have been commended on their efforts by the UN.

As I said, if the UN is to play a greater role the security situation will have to be improved. We therefore welcome the efforts to put in place a protection force for UN personnel with the help of military personnel from Fiji, Georgia and the US.

The EU is also offering a package of measures to assist with the election process, including a proposed contribution to the UN protection force, further support for the election preparations, the provision of election experts and measures to strengthen the political dialogue.

The timetable for the election preparations is an ambitious one, but according to the head of the Independent Electoral Commission and the UN election experts, the preparations are on schedule. This is an impressive achievement in a country with no tradition of democracy.

The importance of ensuring the credibility of the election preparations cannot be overestimated. If the Iraqis succeed in establishing a stable and democratic state based on the rule of law, this will have positive consequences beyond Iraq’s borders as well.

A stable, predictable Iraq is in the interests of the whole region. So far most of the neighbouring countries have been drawn into a constructive co-operation on the development of the country. This is one of the goals of the conference being held today in Egypt. It is very important that Iraq’s neighbours support the efforts of Prime Minister Allawi’s interim government and do not do anything that could destabilise the situation in the region.

Mr President,

In the Government’s view, Norway, too, must support the Iraqi people in their efforts to gain control of their country. We must continue to provide political support to the Interim Government and its work. I have on several occasions assured my Iraqi colleague, Hoshyar Zebari, that we will do this, most recently at the meeting I had with him in New York at the end of September. His main concern was that the elections should be fair and credible. Mr Zebari is looking ahead, and so must we.

There is no doubt that our political support for Iraq is appreciated by the Iraqis. This was expressed most recently in a letter dated 25 October from Prime Minister Allawi to Prime Minister Bondevik.

The Government will respond to Iraq’s appeal to the UN for support for the election preparations by disbursing as soon as possible NOK 14 million of the transitional assistance to the UN, preferably earmarked for this purpose.

The measures to support the building up of the Iraqi judicial system will help to advance the democratisation process in Iraqi society. Norway is firmly of the opinion that the judicial process in Iraq must be conducted in accordance with international human rights standards and international criminal law. It is on this basis that we would consider supporting training programmes for the Iraqi judiciary.

We will reopen our embassy in Baghdad as soon as the security situation allows. Providing effective financial, political and other assistance to Iraq will require a Norwegian presence. Until the embassy is in place, the ambassador in Amman will also be accredited to Iraq, and the Amman embassy will be strengthened.

Mr President,

The precarious situation in Iraq is a threat to the lives and well-being of ordinary Iraqis. This is in itself a sufficient reason for us to do what we can to improve the situation. In addition, as I have said before, a better security situation is a prerequisite for political development and economic reconstruction.

The economic problems are formidable. After decades of war, misrule and oppression, the challenges are enormous, and the living standard of the average Iraqi has declined dramatically. According to the World Food Programme, a quarter of the population are dependent on food rations to survive.

However, the economic situation is not totally bleak:

• The government has managed to establish a stable national currency.
• Inflation is under control.
• The International Monetary Fund has predicted a high rate of economic growth in 2004, although we must not forget that the starting point is discouragingly low.

Thus progress has been made as regards some of the major framework conditions.

As I have said, the need for reconstruction is enormous. And so are the costs. The sums required are much higher than the USD 33 billion that was pledged at the Madrid conference in October 2003. At the same time the country has a foreign debt that has been estimated by the IMF to be a staggering USD 125 billion. It will be impossible for Iraq to service this foreign debt. It is therefore very important that Western countries and Russia have agreed on up to 80 per cent debt relief for Iraq through the Paris Club. The agreement also provides a framework for debt relief by other creditors who have larger claims on Iraq than the Paris Club countries.

Among the most pressing needs are the building of basic infrastructure for sewage and water and electricity supplies. The Interim Government has estimated that about 1.6 million new housing units are needed, and with 60 per cent of the population under 25, this need will only increase in the years to come. Unless this challenge is met in an adequate way, it will be yet another source of dissatisfaction and social unrest.

Iraq’s oil and gas industry accounts for over 90 per cent of its income. In other words it is essential to speed up the efforts to rehabilitate the petroleum industry. It is encouraging to note that, in spite of sabotage and run down infrastructure, production is back to about the same level as before the war, i.e. about 2.5 million barrels a day. On the basis of estimates by the IMF, the Iraqi Government expects production to rise to 3.5 million barrels a day in 2005. The importance of this for the reconstruction of the country goes without saying.

Mr President,

Norway has a role to play in the economic reconstruction of Iraq as well as in the political process.

Total Norwegian support to Iraq for the period 2003-2006 is likely to be about NOK 550 million. The bulk of this consists of humanitarian assistance, which was particularly extensive in 2003, transitional assistance and specific support through global private sector schemes amounting to about NOK 40 million a year.

Humanitarian assistance accounts for a large proportion of our support, as the following examples show. Norwegian People’s Aid runs democratisation and mine clearance projects in northern Iraq. We have also given support to Norwegian Church Aid, Norwegian Save the Children, the Red Cross, the Tromsø Mine Victim Resource Centre and other organisations for projects in the fields of health, assistance to refugees, water supplies, sanitation, mine clearance, etc. Our transitional assistance, which amounts to NOK 30 million a year, is channelled through the International Reconstruction Fund Facility for Iraq, which is under the auspices of the UN and the World Bank. Preparations for the forthcoming elections will be financed through this fund.

In addition to this, we have allocated funds for private sector development in Iraq. The Iraqi Interim Government has proposed that it should co-operate with Norway in the petroleum sector. This is currently being discussed by the Norwegian and Iraqi authorities. We are examining how we can make use of our oil and gas expertise in this co-operation. In the long term such co-operation could provide good opportunities for the Norwegian oil industry and lead to increased trade between our two countries.

Mr President,

I pointed out at the beginning of my address that a discussion of the situation in Iraq would be incomplete without a discussion of the situation in other parts of the Middle East.

The death of President Arafat marks the end of an era. This, together with the Knesset’s approval of Prime Minister Sharon’s disengagement plan, has created a new situation. We have noted a new willingness on the part of both Israelis and Palestinians to have contact with each other. Norway has stressed all along that the withdrawal from Gaza and the four settlements on the West Bank must be co-ordinated with the Palestinian authorities. I hope we can now lay the groundwork for a resumption of the peace process.

Now that the US presidential election is over, it is important that the US becomes more closely involved in the efforts to find a solution to the conflict. In a telephone call on 11 November, Prime Minister Bondevik urged President Bush to become more actively engaged in these efforts.

There is no need for a new peace plan. The Road Map for Peace has all the necessary elements for the realisation of the vision of a two-state solution. However, the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and the four settlements on the West Bank must be part of this framework, and thus a first step towards a Palestinian state.

It is now essential to secure political stability in the Palestinian Area. President Arafat’s successor must be elected in accordance with existing law, since this will give the new leadership the necessary legitimacy and support among the population. We have emphasised the necessity of this in our contact with the Palestinian Authority.

However, Israel holds the key to whether it will be at all possible to hold a presidential election. If an election is to be held, the candidates must be able to move about freely and people must be able to get to the polling stations. Israel must refrain from military operations. We have made our views on this subject known to the Israeli authorities.

After the planned Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and the four settlements on the West Bank, it will be vital to ensure economic development in the Palestinian Area. In my capacity as chair of the Ad Hoc Liaison Committee of donors, I have, in close co-operation with the Quartet, which consists of the UN, the US, Russia and the EU, taken the initiative for a meeting to identify what is needed to stabilise the Palestinian economy. Unless the economy improves, it will not be possible to strengthen the political processes. However, stabilising the Palestinian economy will require substantial concessions and measures on the part of the Israelis.

The Palestinian authorities themselves naturally have a large share of the responsibility for ensuring sound political and economic development. The new Palestinian leadership must continue the governance reform in accordance with the Road Map for Peace. Above all it is vital that the Palestinian Authority implements the remaining reforms in the police and security sectors and that it manages to halt the Palestinian attacks on Israel and Israelis.

The international community must continue to support the Palestinians and provide the necessary assistance for implementing these reforms. Norway is supporting the reforms in a number of areas.

A solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will have positive consequences for the whole region. This also applies to the situation in Iraq. Thus the Norwegian Government will continue to give high priority to the efforts to find a solution to this conflict.

Mr President,

We cannot, however, put off dealing with the problems in Iraq until a solution is found to other aspects of the conflict in the Middle East, or make such a solution a condition for dealing with them. The challenges in Iraq are many, and they must be tackled now. Unfortunately, most of them are difficult and persistent.

The only way we can succeed in this is through close and effective co-operation between key actors in the international community and the Iraqi authorities.

But the Iraqis themselves must take the main responsibility.

At the international level the UN must take special responsibility for co-ordination. Only the world organisation can give these efforts the necessary authority and legitimacy. But it is also important to maintain and intensify the ongoing political dialogue across the Atlantic and between leading European countries. A sound foundation for this was laid at the NATO summit in Istanbul. We must seek on both sides of the Atlantic to arrive at a common understanding of the situation and of what is needed if we are to succeed in the reconstruction of Iraq.

Norway’s role and contribution in Iraq must also be viewed in the context of our other international efforts. We want to contribute, but at the same time we must bear in mind that we have decided that Afghanistan is to be our main concern in that part of the world. This is in line with NATO’s decisions and with the Government’s own priorities.

The international community has everything to gain from a stable new Iraq with a legitimate, democratically elected government, and from the reconstruction of the country in a way that benefits the Iraqi people. And Norway intends to contribute to this process.