Mr President,

I would like to sum up my impressions after my recent visit to the Middle East. There is cause for cautious optimism as regards the future of the area. The meeting in Sharm el-Sheikh last Tuesday was the first Israeli-Palestinian summit in four years. It yielded results that are in themselves positive: a cessation of hostilities, and the establishment of four joint working groups to follow up issues that are important to the parties. Egypt and Jordan also deserve credit for their efforts prior to and during the summit.

However, it is the parties’ will for peace that will be decisive. I noted a willingness to implement measures conducive to peace on the part of both Israelis and Palestinians. President Abbas gave the impression of firm resoluteness, and will give priority to security, the fight against terrorism, and reform of the Palestinian Authority. I saw the same resoluteness on the Israeli side, not only as regards carrying out the withdrawal from Gaza and certain towns on the West Bank, but also as regards the release of Palestinian prisoners.

This is a good basis for further efforts to implement the Road Map for Peace and, in the longer term, final status negotiations. At the same time, we must be prepared for setbacks. I strongly urged the parties not to let isolated incidents obstruct their efforts to achieve a peaceful settlement. I warned them against letting extremists take control of the agenda by giving them the power to halt the process.

Even though progress has been made and there is a positive atmosphere between the parties, we must not underestimate the difficulties that lie ahead. The final status issues – refugees, the settlements, the national border between the two states, and Jerusalem with its holy places – are the most difficult to resolve.

During my visit I discussed the religious dimension of the conflict with religious and political leaders from both sides and from all the three religions involved, not least in connection with Jerusalem. All of them realise that a solution must be based on mutual respect and access for all to their holy places.

In many conflict-ridden regions, religion, particularly the abuse of religion, is part of the conflict. Through dialogue and a focus on shared values such as human dignity, peace and reconciliation we can reverse this so that religion becomes part of the solution. This must also be incorporated into school curriculums. Respect and tolerance for people of different faiths must be learned from childhood.

An important challenge in the Middle East is to improve the living conditions of the Palestinians. Many are concerned about the decline in the standard of living. Unemployment is very high. Economic growth in the Palestinian Area will be decisive for the peace process. The Palestinians must be able to see the results of the peace process in their daily lives. They must be given the hope of a better future. This applies not least to Gaza after Israel has withdrawn. Here Norway will play a key role as chair of the group of donor countries, the AHLC. This is something both parties stressed during my visit. We intend to convene a ministerial meeting as soon as the situation is right.

A solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will be important for the whole region. Syria must comply with Security Council resolution 1559. The country must respect Lebanon’s sovereignty. At the same time it must stop supporting groups that are using terror to disrupt the peace process in the Middle East. Norway urges both Israel and Syria to resume negotiations on a peace agreement.

The election in Iraq was a first step towards a democratic Iraq in accordance with Security Council resolution 1546. The international community must assist the Iraqi people in overcoming the destructive forces that are using violence to impede the political process towards a democratic, united and stable Iraq. The violence will, however, go on as long as part of the population does not regard the new political institutions as legitimate. It is therefore vital that the Sunni Arabs are drawn into this political process. The peace will not be won until Iraq is united in a desire for freedom, peace and democracy.

I believe NATO may have a job to do in the Middle East. Not with combat forces, but through co-operation projects. NATO is currently involved in such co-operation with partner countries in the Balkans and in the former Soviet Union. In particular, I believe NATO could be an important partner for the Palestinian Authority in its efforts to reform its security system. I discussed this with President Abbas last Sunday, and he was positive to the idea. I will therefore take this up at the NATO summit next week.

The NATO summit will give us an opportunity to show that the Alliance is once more united. The debate over the Iraq war has put a strain on the climate of co-operation within the alliance, not just across the Atlantic, but equally between various countries in Europe. The division within the EU has been deep. Nonetheless, we must take care not to dwell on the friction; we must focus on the things that unite and strengthen the alliance.

We must not lose sight of the fact that NATO has in fact undergone extensive modernisation and restructuring, so that the alliance today is much better equipped to tackle new security challenges in the broad sense. At the same time NATO has undergone several rounds of enlargement. The alliance is an effective community of nations, and not only in the fight against international terrorism. We must be equally alert to the alliance’s capacity to promote stability and prevent conflict, prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, prevent ethnic abuses like those we saw in the Balkans and contribute to training and institution building with a view to safeguarding security and peace. And last but not least, NATO has the resources to carry out demanding UN-mandated tasks – and thus strengthen multilateral co-operation and world peace.

Norway will work actively to ensure that NATO continues to be an important forum for transatlantic dialogue and co-operation.

German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder’s statement a few days ago could be interpreted as a sign that he is giving less priority to transatlantic dialogue within NATO and more to dialogue along the EU-USA axis. This would not be in Norway’s interests and should be opposed. However, if this trend continues, it will be a new factor in our future assessment of our status in relation to the EU.

Europe and the EU are quite different today from what they were when we last voted on the question of Norwegian membership, in 1994. The EU is no longer a Western organisation, but more of a pan-European one. If and when we address once more the issue of Norwegian EU membership, we must all, regardless of where we stand, take this new situation into account. We must continuously consider our relationship to European co-operation.

We need a strong world organisation. Despite its many weaknesses, the UN has achieved a great deal. We all need a well functioning UN in order to cope with the major global challenges, such as climate change and humanitarian disasters like the tsunamis, which took more than 200 000 lives this past Christmas. But we also need the UN to resolve many smaller, but nonetheless serious crises. This is why it is so important for us to ensure that the UN reform efforts are successful. The UN must become an even better tool for peace and security, human rights and development. In an international community characterised by globalisation, national and regional forums and solutions are often insufficient. We will increasingly need global, multilateral solutions and co-operation forums for meeting the challenges of our time. And Norway will be an active advocate of such solutions and forums in international politics.