Mr President,

The war in Iraq has now entered its second day. Our television screens are bringing glimpses of military activity and scenes from the fighting into every Norwegian home.

Norway is not at war, but the war is affecting every one of us.

War is always an evil. And in this war, too, our greatest concern is for the civilian population. The people of Iraq have suffered for many years under Saddam Hussein’s despotic regime, under wars and repression. Now ordinary Iraqis must also live with gnawing uncertainty about what this war may lead to.

Norway’s position is clear. We cannot lend our support to this war. Norway has consistently maintained that any military action must have a firm basis in international law in the form of a new decision by the UN Security Council. No such decision has been adopted.

The Norwegian Government, with broad support in the Storting, has consistently supported the UN strategy for disarming Iraq. Norway was a member of the Security Council and therefore participated in its unanimous adoption of Resolution 1441 on 8 November last year. This charted a way forward that we have given our full support, a way that we called the UN track.

We had hoped that Saddam Hussein would comply with the many binding demands made by the UN, so that it would be possible to resolve the conflict by peaceful means.

The Iraqi regime gradually became more co-operative, but only half-heartedly and reluctantly. Iraq has not complied with the requirements of Resolution 1441. After a while, diplomacy, the weapons inspections and increasing military pressure produced increasing results. Norway was therefore in favour of affording the UN weapons inspectors more time, while demanding that Iraq should take specific disarmament steps within tight, but realistic deadlines.

It is deeply regrettable that the Security Council was unable to agree on a course of action. Right to the end, we appealed to the Security Council to unite behind a common strategy, in accordance with Resolution 1441. But this did not materialise.

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. There is considerable uncertainty at this moment, both as regards the course of the war and as regards the more long-term international consequences.

This situation is difficult for all of us. We all feel a deep sense of unease about the possible outcome.

In this situation I would like to emphasise three important points:

• We hope that the military operations can be brought to an end as quickly as possible.
• The civilian population must be protected and their suffering must be reduced through effective humanitarian assistance.
• In the longer term, Iraq and the rest of the Middle East must be ensured a stable future based on peace, freedom and democracy.

Norway will play an active role in relieving suffering by providing humanitarian assistance.

Norway is also prepared to assist in rebuilding Iraq once the war has ended.

But we want to do more than that.

We wish to put our efforts towards peace and security into a wider context.

The Government will therefore work purposefully towards the following goals:

• Stabilising the entire Middle East region, and making progress in the deadlocked conflict between Israel and the Palestinians
• Promoting unity of purposein the global coalition against terrorism, and eliminating conditions that give rise to hatred and terrorism
• Overcoming discord in multilateral fora and strengthening the role of the UN as an organisation for peace.

We must not lower our ambitions. These are the goals we must work towards:

• Peace in the Middle East.
• Safety from international terrorism.
• Strengthening international law and the UN as an organisation for peace.

We have experienced tension and disagreement within the UN, within NATO and within the EU. Feelings have been running high. But now we must build bridges, not cement the divisions. Norway will play its part in ensuring that co-operation can be normalised as soon as possible in the bodies in which we participate. We must look to the future.

It is in this wider perspective that I also wish to discuss the current conflict in Iraq and the challenges this involves.

Many of us have a rather vague picture of Iraq. It is therefore worth remembering that one of the cradles of our civilisation lay in this region. Mesopotamia gave the world its first alphabet two and a half thousand years before the birth of Christ, and the oldest code of law in about 1 750 BC. The expression “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” can be traced back to paragraphs 196 and 200 of the Code of Hammurabi. And the epic of Gilgamesh also originates from Iraq: this is one of the world’s oldest surviving literary works, from about 2000 BC. The Tower of Babel and the Hanging Gardens of Babylon were also in what is now Iraq.

This cultural treasure house with its rich oil deposits has been destroyed by the despot Saddam Hussein. This is nothing less than a tragedy. He has started wars against two of his neighbours, which have resulted in huge losses of human life and impoverished the country.

He has used chemical weapons to attack the Kurdish minority in Iraq. Fifteen years ago, between 3 500 and 5 000 people died in the town of Halabja alone. And from February to September 1988, somewhere between 50 000 and 100 000 Iraqi Kurds died in systematic abductions, executions and gas attacks.

Only three years later, Saddam Hussein attacked the Shia Muslims in the south of the country, who had risen in revolt after the Gulf War. It is likely that almost 30 000 people were killed during this campaign.

Massive drainage schemes have destroyed the homeland of the Marsh Arabs or Madan in southern Iraq, and annihilated a culture that has lasted for millennia.

We should therefore rejoice that Saddam Hussein now sees the writing on the wall – an expression that originates from a Bible story set in Babylon. What we deeply regret is the way this is happening.

Mr President,

Since the 1991 Gulf War, the UN Security Council has adopted a series of resolutions on Iraq. Weapons inspectors from the UN and the International Atomic Energy Agency have made a huge effort to investigate whether Iraq has illegal weapons of mass destruction and to verify the destruction of any such weapons.

Saddam Hussein’s regime did not fulfil its duty to co-operate actively with the inspectors. Nevertheless, prohibited weapons were found. In the period up to 1998, considerable arsenals of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction were destroyed. Far more of these weapons were destroyed as a result of the inspections than of the Gulf War.

The weapons inspections had to be interrupted in 1998 because of Iraq’s defiant behaviour. They were only resumed after the Security Council adopted Resolution 1441 on 8 November 2002.

There has been broad agreement that Iraq has not fulfilled its obligations under Resolution 1441. Co-operation has gradually improved on the process, but not the substance. There has not been sufficient disclosure of documentation proving the actual destruction of prohibited weapons. However, some Al Samoud missiles have been destroyed under controlled conditions.

Thus, the disagreement within the Security Council has not been over whether Iraq has in fact breached its obligations. Rather, it has been over whether sufficient progress has been made in the verification and destruction of weapons to justify allowing more time for disarmament of Iraq by peaceful means.

Despite the fact that Iraq has breached Resolution 1441, the Norwegian Government concluded that the weapons inspections should continue because progress was being made. A work programme detailing specific objectives should have been drawn up with realistic deadlines.

If Iraq had co-operated fully, there would have been hope of a peaceful solution. We wished to continue further along the peaceful route.

Norway deeply deplores the fact that the Security Council was not able to agree on a common strategy for further efforts to deal with the Iraq issue. The Council’s authority and ability to carry out its tasks can only be maintained if there is a willingness to compromise and to respect the special responsibility of the Council with regard to threats against international peace and security.

The Norwegian Government has considered it essential to contribute to the elimination of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction without using armed force. The use of armed force must always be the last resort when all other options have been exhausted, and only if the alternative is worse. This has also been our consistent ethical position in connection with assessments and choices we made with regard to the terrorist networks and the brutal Taliban regime in Afghanistan, and with regard to the operations in Kosovo.

The fact that some countries have resorted to military operations against Iraq without the authorisation of a new UN decision has resulted in a debate on the legal justification for this war under international law. Sweden’s Prime Minister Göran Persson has stated that the United States is violating international law. The United Kingdom and Denmark, on the other hand, have argued that the war has a basis in international law.

Norway has also considered this question carefully.

The Government is basing its position on legal advice from our own Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In this situation, I have not considered it appropriate to exert any political influence on the legal assessment. The advice we have received can be summarised as follows.

There is no doubt that Iraq must be prepared to face the most serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations under Resolution 1441.

The substantive requirements of international law for the use of force in accordance with the UN Charter and Resolution 1441, seen in conjunction with Resolutions 687 and 678, are therefore clearly met.

However, in keeping with the UN Charter and the structure of Resolution 1441, there are also procedural requirements that have to be met – i.e. certain steps must be taken before the use of force can be resorted to. This means that the opinion of the Security Council must be clearly reflected. We have to recognise that the Security Council could not agree on a new decision which would, in effect, have ascertained that the final opportunity for a peaceful solution had been exhausted. This would have provided an indisputable basis in international law for the use of force. It can obviously be questioned whether the use of force without a new UN resolution is in accordance with the UN Charter. However, the absence of a new Security Council decision does not necessarily mean that military operations are in breach of international law.

To summarise this point:

Based on the contents of previously adopted decisions, and as confirmed by Resolution 1441, Iraq must be prepared to face very serious consequences as a result of further material breaches of this resolution.

However, without a new decision by the Security Council, there is no clear basis in international law for resorting to armed force.

This is our assessment, but we fully realise that others will argue different points of view. Nevertheless, the Norwegian Government’s position is not primarily based on a consideration of international law and legal opinions. The Government has made an overall assessment of the situation and reached a political conclusion, which is clear. We cannot give our support to the present military operations. This is a political rather than a legal assessment.

Allied and like-minded countries have taken different views of certain aspects of the Iraq conflict.

Our own views are well-known. I explained them in a conversation with President Bush just a week ago. The United States respects our positions, and attaches great importance to continuing the excellent, long-standing co-operation between Norway and the United States. President Bush also underscored the fact that it is natural for friends to have discussions and differences of opinion. We agreed that the close and constructive co-operation between our two countries will continue.

Mr President,

Unfortunately, we have seen tensions arise within NATO in the process of dealing with the Iraq situation. This type of friction is only to be expected among 19 democratic nations. However, it is important that we now put these differences behind us.

There is disagreement concerning the handling of the Iraq crisis both between European allies and across the Atlantic. In other words, what we are seeing is not a clash of interests between Europe and the USA.

Throughout the cold war, Norway was one of the NATO members that clearly benefited from the solidarity within the alliance. Now Turkey, as a neighbour of Iraq, is particularly vulnerable. This is why NATO has implemented defensive measures in support of Turkey. These include the continuous monitoring of Turkish airspace and the deployment of missile systems to intercept hostile attacks. NATO member states are also providing equipment to protect the civilian population against chemical and biological attack.

Norway is one of the NATO countries that have made substantial contributions to this assistance, meeting needs that Turkey has defined as particularly important. Our contributions are a natural consequence of our alliance obligations and are a tangible expression of our solidarity with our alliance partners.

It is now important to re-establish unity of purpose within the UN Security Council and NATO. Only by maintaining strong international unity will we be able to meet the global threats we currently face.

We do not yet know how great a need for humanitarian assistance will arise in connection with the ongoing conflict in Iraq. Possible scenarios vary widely. In particular, it is very uncertain how large refugee movements will be.

In any case, Norway’s position is clear. The Government is prepared to do its utmost to relieve the humanitarian situation, which may become extremely difficult. Norway has already allocated NOK 160 million for humanitarian aid, and NOK 130 million of this has already been disbursed. Norwegian NGOs have received NOK 75 million so far.

In the weeks and months ahead, the Government is prepared to increase this humanitarian assistance and to participate in efforts to rebuild Iraq.

A large proportion of the Iraqi population is dependent on food distributed under the UN-administered Oil-for-Food Programme. With the funds from the Oil-for-Food Programme, it will be possible to continue financing substantial food assistance. The Minister of Foreign Affairs sent a letter to the UN Secretary-General yesterday expressing his support for the continuation of the programme. The UN Secretary-General yesterday requested the Security Council to authorise the temporary continuation of the Oil-for-Food Programme. This request is now being discussed by the Security Council.

It is important as a matter of principle to distinguish clearly between military action and civilian emergency relief. This distinction is also significant for the safety of the relief personnel.

In our opinion, the UN must be given the main responsibility for humanitarian efforts in Iraq. I am therefore very pleased that Secretary-General Kofi Annan has made it clear that the UN is willing to assume such a role.

We have already discussed the question of humanitarian efforts with the UN in Geneva and in New York, with the International Red Cross system, and with NGOs. We will also draw on our national preparedness systems for emergency relief products and personnel, which have been used in earlier international crises.

Mr President,

We must face the fact that the military campaign in Iraq may have an impact on the situation in the entire region. It may have negative consequences for the efforts to jumpstart the long-deadlocked dialogue between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

We must at all costs prevent the conflict from spreading and avoid the further exacerbation of the spiral of violence between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

Norway will continue its active involvement in this process and will support the attempts that are now being made to bring the parties back to genuine negotiations, primarily through the efforts of the Quartet.

We all know that Mahmoud Abbas - better known as Abu Mazen - has now accepted the post of Palestinian Prime Minister. I hope and believe that one result of his appointment will be that both parties intensify their efforts to achieve a durable peace. It is also encouraging that the USA has committed itself to playing an active role in this process. The Americans have indicated that they intend to publish the roadmap for peace in the near future.

Mr President,

The situation in Iraq has given rise to widespread fear of new acts of terrorism in various parts of the world. However, the probability of terrorist acts in Norway is generally considered to be low.

Nonetheless, a high level of security is being maintained at the missions of certain countries to Norway. The Defence Forces have stepped up security at military units and installations.

The Government has organised an ongoing process of preparedness assessments.

As a result of the terrorist attack on the USA on 11 September 2001, numerous measures have already been implemented to reduce society’s vulnerability to terrorism. National emergency preparedness measures have been reviewed and strengthened. Emergency plans at central, regional and local levels have been updated, and certain emergency measures have been taken to strengthen Norway’s ability to prevent terrorist attacks and reduce the vulnerability of critical social functions. Furthermore, a broad review of civil sector preparedness has been made, and approximately NOK 500 million has been allocated to strengthen this area. Public health preparedness against nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, usually referred to as “NBC preparedness”, has also been significantly upgraded.

We are also closely monitoring threats to Norwegian shipping, particularly in the Gulf. We are engaged in ongoing dialogue with the shipping industry regarding preparedness measures.

Norway will continue to play an active part in combating international terrorism through the UN and NATO.

This battle must be waged using broad range of instruments. This is the only path to success. At the same time, we know that the fight will be a long one. If we are to win, it will be of decisive importance to maintain the global alliance which was formed after the terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001.

Norway will continue its strong commitment to these efforts. We are participating actively in the fight against terrorism in financial, political, legal and military terms. We are continuing our extensive involvement in efforts to combat terrorism in Afghanistan and rebuild the country.

Mr President,

Norway has always emphasised the principle that the primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security lies with the UN Security Council. The UN is a cornerstone of our foreign and security policy. We must work within the framework of the world organisation when we seek solutions to international conflicts.

The Government will work actively to strengthen the UN. We wish the organisation to be as effective as possible. The UN must be our foremost peace organisation in the efforts to achieve international peace and security.

Norway has considered it absolutely essential to have the Iraq issue dealt with by the UN Security Council. Both during Norway’s term on the Security Council and in the months since then, we have consistently maintained that since the UN has the main responsibility, it is the UN track that must be followed. We have actively sought to present our views to the members of the Security Council, also after our term of office ended.

The UN Security Council has experienced a setback in connection with the Iraq issue. We must do everything we can to ensure that this is a brief incident. The UN has met setbacks before, and has recovered from them. No other body can fill the role of the UN in an increasingly globalised world. The UN is becoming more and more indispensable.

We are already seeing signs that the Security Council member states - irrespective of their views on the Iraq issue - want to see the UN back in action as soon as possible. This augurs well for the future, and Norway will give its wholehearted support to such efforts.

Mr President,

In conclusion, I wish to sum up a few main points.

For many years, the world community has been concerned about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction – for good reason. Iraq has repeatedly breached the obligations imposed on it by the UN.

On the basis of UN Security Council Resolution 1441, weapons inspections were resumed before Christmas. Iraq failed to co-operate as required by the resolution. However, the inspections were making progress, and we therefore wished to afford the inspectors more time.

The Security Council was unable to agree on a common approach, and Norway deeply regrets this. On this basis, the United States and the United Kingdom have gone to war. Norway is not in a position to support this action as the use of military force has not been based on a new Security Council decision.

Given this situation, Norway will provide humanitarian assistance and, when the time comes, also help to rebuild Iraq.

The Government also wishes to underline the importance of efforts to find a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This is a key both to ensuring a secure future for these two peoples and to reducing the level of tension in the region.

It will also be a priority task for the Government to help to overcome the differences we have witnessed within international organisations such as the UN and NATO. Support for multilateral co-operation within the framework of the UN and transatlantic co-operation based on NATO will continue to be a cornerstone of Norwegian foreign policy.