Speech to the WEU Parliamentary Assembly

I am grateful for the opportunity to address this distinguished assembly. And at such an important point in time for all of us.

We know that without America, Europe's role is incomplete. Without Europe, America's path will be lonely. Yesterday, and the day before, NATO Foreign Ministers meeting in Berlin strengthened the glue that binds us together. A platform was created for a more equal partnership in the Alliance.

We showed again that the main characteristic of the Alliance is its adaptability. We decided to reform the way NATO works. We agree on the principles for use of CJTFs. European allies will now be able to shoulder more of the burden, including in the form of operations led by the Western European Union.

One important experience and one important decision contributed greatly to the success of Berlin.

The experience is IFOR. NATO has demonstrated that it is the only organization which has the resources to tackle armed conflict of scale in Europe. NATO has simply demonstrated its unique qualities for military peace implementation. New NATO unites Allied and partner forces in IFOR in a successful peace-making effort. This is extremely important for generating co-operative security across the old divide. IFOR will allow us to go from practice - to theory, learning by doing.

The decision is the French Government's decision paving the way for agreement that a European Security and Defense Identity will be developed within the Alliance. Norway welcomes this. We agree that the Alliance is well suited for articulating European will.

Yesterday, I had the opportunity to congratulate France's President Jacques Chirac with his historic decision that France should renew its relations with NATO. It is yet another acknowledgment of NATO's indispensability in the new Europe.

This new French policy helped NATO renew itself. NATO will now be making more effective and cohesive contributions to the whole range of security challenges.

It can extinguish fires and alleviate their consequences. The stage is now set for developing the WEU as an instrument for European crisis management and humanitarian operations in accordance with the Petersberg Declaration, and as a supplement to NATO.

Norway supports an operational WEU, closely attuned to NATO, which can provide a stronger European contribution to the new security tasks, and in this way meet the expectations that the Europeans should shoulder an increased burden.

We should continue to rely on NATO in European crisis situations in the future. But the WEU might be put to use in less demanding circumstances, that require operations of a smaller scale, at low levels of tension, and where direct American participation for various reasons is not contemplated.

WEU will be able, subject to Allied decision, to draw on assets from NATO and on American political solidarity while exercising political and military control through the WEU Council.

We have gained in realism. "Separable but not separate" is the characteristic given to the kind of American-European security relationship we have been searching for. The European Security and Defense Identity will now be able to wield more clout when underpinned by operational capacity.

And it will be done by a more inclusive WEU on the basis of involving all of the 27. This will also allow the WEU to contribute to the integration of our partners into European security, supplementing NATO and the EU.

Berlin reaffirmed another message: NATO remains the essential European forum for consultation on security and defense. Experience shows that we must be able to identify a problem before hostilities break out. We simply must establish a common analysis at an early stage. This did not happen early enough in the case of Bosnia and the former Yugoslavia. Today, we must admit that consultations between Western countries were inadequate. Western powers were pulling in different directions when firm, concerted action could have made a difference at an early stage in the conflict.

Berlin, and the meeting with Russia's Foreign Minister also confirmed that NATO is open to new members, and it will have new members.

Russia has legitimate concerns about this, and I will return to those. In any case, the process will take some time. Some countries will join before others. No country is excluded a priori. An enlargement of NATO must contribute to increased security for all states and for Europe as a whole, also for countries which do not become new members at an early stage.

We aim to make the line thinner between member and non-member states.

The enlargement processes must be conducted in a manner that promotes democracy and reform in all partner states. Already the processes as such helps bring about the goals, and it promotes cooperation and confidence between Central and Eastern European neighbours.

Our concept of security for the new Europe must be broad, and it must go well beyond the confines of traditional military security. Democracy and welfare within our societies, and a safe environment, have become essential requirements. These civil aspects of security are the front line challenges for the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. Addressing them must be high on our agenda. This is why we welcome the very significant contribution made by the EU to ensuring economic development, welfare and democracy. We welcome an early enlargement of the EU. Norway, for its part, will do its utmost to contribute to the building of a unified Europe.

As indeed we have done in the past and are indeed doing.

I would like to invite you to take a look at Europe from an uncommon angle. I would like to use this occasion to persuade you to look at Europe from our Northern perspective.

Focus on the far north of Norway. There is Pasvik, the river, which is the border between Norway and Russia. That border is 192 km long. It is a scenic environment, inviting to anglers and recreation. But for seven decades - strictly closed for human contacts.

During the Cold war, there was more human contact across the Berlin Wall than there was across Pasvik. And when the Wall fell, Norwegian and Russian sentinels could look at each other across the river and ask - what now?

Norway has been at peace with Russia for 1000 years. When the Red Army crossed Pasvik in 1944, it was to liberate Norway, not to conquer it. And the Red Army withdrew after having completed its mission, quite in contrast to what it did in Central Europe.

On the Norwegian side of Pasvik is the county of Finnmark, as large as Denmark with a population density of 1 person pr. square kilometer. On the Russian side is the Kola peninsula, which has about two million people. It is home to the greater part of the Russian navy and large air force and army units.

Norway's NATO membership together with our non-provocative defense posture contributed greatly to regional stability during the Cold War decades. Our foreign and defense policies where part of the larger picture of European stability. And when the Berlin Wall fell, we went ahead and launched a new and civilian basis for expanded trade and cooperation across the border. We initiated the Barents initiative, named after the Barents Sea of which Norway and Russia are the littoral states.

Before 1917, trade and exchange had flourished in the Barents region. Our ambition was to reestablish patterns of trade, cultural exchange and civil cooperation on a broad scale. New democratic Russia responded to that call.

We have spearheaded the Barents co-operation with the Russians - we have succeeded in involving our neighbours - Sweden and Finland and we have brought along the European Union, and the US as observer.

The Barents Region, like the Baltic Region , has become an important generator of regional co-operation of importance for all of us.

This Northern European perspective must not be forgotten, even at a time when we are all rightly concerned with Bosnia, and prevention of regional conflicts.

The North of Europe belongs in the wider security picture. The overall picture changed when Sweden and Finland joined the European Union, and it changed when Norway joined the WEU as associate member, and when Sweden and Finland became observers.

The European Union - with the participation of Norway, is now active in the region through INTERREG and other programmes, contributing to growth and prosperity which also benefits Russia, a fact which is duly recognized by the Russian government.

This northern region is highly relevant also to the WEU. In fact, among the forces which we have notified as answerable to the WEU, we have included the Defense Headquarters North Norway which may be used in WEU- operations following possible natural catastrophes or nuclear contamination threats in the region.

Be aware that there are close to 100 decommissioned nuclear submarines located a few miles from our border. There is spent nuclear fuel there, from the Russian fleet of ice-breakers. There is a huge nuclear power plant there. How we deal with all this nuclear material is important in a non-proliferation perspective and in an environmental perspective. Such material cannot be allowed to float around.

We are pleased to have the attention and the cooperation of the European Union, of the US, and of France. France's nuclear technology can be usefully deployed here in the interest of our common security.

Norway's main interests lie in this region. Our role in Northern Europe, as a founding member of NATO, will remain an important contribution to European security and to public order. But like in the past - we look beyond our own neigbourhood and take our share of responsibility for broader security.

Norway is actively involved in Bosnia and the former Yugoslavia with about 1000 troops in IFOR. We have been in Lebanon with close to 1000 troops since 1978. More than 1 per cent of all Norwegians have carried a blue helmet in the service of United Nations peace-keeping forces since Korea and Kashmir. We have made contributions to peace in different regions, including the Middle East through the Oslo process.

The countries of the Nordic region - Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland and Iceland are more actively present in the shaping of European security than ever before in modern history - through EU membership - NATO membership, OSCE and different kinds of affiliation to the WEU. A Northern European perspective that is better heard is probably also better understood.

Security was a key argument for Swedish and Finnish EU membership. For a majority of Norwegians, our membership of NATO meant that EU membership was seen less as a question of belonging to the Western community. We made that decision back in 1949.

Today, Norway is basing its relations with the European Union on the agreement on the European Economic Area. That agreement gives us less influence in EU decision making, but it makes Norway an integral part of the internal market, though without a seat in Brussels or Turin when decisions are taken.

We have to work in a different fashion, - acting more in a bilateral way, such as when I use the occasion of this visit to Paris to meet the French President and the Prime Minister to discuss issues such as NATO, the WEU and the Intergovernmental conference of the EU. Our message is clear; Norway is taking its full share of responsibility in the new shaping of European security.

We are working with all of you on the analysis of the new security threats as they evolve. New and potentially dangerous threats today include proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, environmental degradation and ethnic antagonism. Furthermore, the security of Europe today depends more than before on internal and regional stability in the Middle East and North Africa, in Central and Eastern Europe, and in Russia.

We are concerned with the problem of weak democracies and economic decline as primary sources of instability and conflict. Democracy and prosperity generate security as it has for fifty years in the West. NATO gave us the faith in the future that we needed for long-term investment and building of the welfare states in the framework of the EC and EFTA. Now the EU should be seen as the web of civil security - extending the benefits of growth to new partners and candidate countries to the East.

The new democracies must be given the opportunity to contribute to our co-operation, and to benefit from it. European security is not simply a question of territorial integrity and national independence. It includes concerns for a peaceful , just and secure social order for the individual and for groups of people.

Few countries are more concerned with that challenge right now than the countries of Central and Eastern European. My belief is in integration. We are, as I have told you, making our very own contributions in the north.

A stable and prosperous Russia is essential for long- term stability and security in Europe. The extension of security towards the east must encompass Russia and the Ukraine as well. We must ensure that strong co-operative bonds turn Moscow towards Europe in a decisive way.

Increased co-operation will stimulate democracy and economic and social development. I believe that we should devote more attention to Russia. We must take our professed willingness to strengthen co-operation seriously. The coming year may well be a crucial one. Russia must not be isolated as a result of the restructuring of European security. Nor must Russia isolate itself.

NATO and Russia have laid a solid foundation for close cooperation. As a neighbour of Russia, - as Russia's only NATO neighbour, - we are pursuing transparency and cooperation by means of mutual maneuvers and mutual inspection.

Together with the US and European partners we are involved in transformation and dismantling of military capacity. We are, as I told you, helping Russia to deal with its excess nuclear capacity and nuclear waste, dismantling of decommissioned nuclear submarines, safer storage of spent nuclear fuel, and safety of nuclear installations.

Our cooperation includes alleviating housing shortages for retired military personnel, joint salvage operations at sea and joint assessment of nuclear contamination. We even discuss use of excess Russian military air-lift capacity in Norwegian humanitarian assistance operations in third world countries.

The best source of stability and security will be economic and social progress in Russia. It will advance such progress if Russia does not mistake our Western security efforts in any conceivable way as posing a threat against it. We can do that by visibly focusing on preventive defense, as presented by the US Secretary of Defense in his recent report to the Congress.

The Soviet Union turned down the offer of the Marshall Plan after the Second World War, on its own behalf and on behalf of Eastern Europe. These countries lost decades of development while Germany and Japan are among the strongest economies in the World and candidates for membership of the Security Council. Let us now give Russia the security we had to develop. Let us integrate, invest and reassure. That must be done with Russia, and it can be done. But it requires that Russia and the west gain confidence in each other, and that reform takes place in a way that ensures that human ingenuity is used for civilian productive purposes.

Russia has legitimate security interests connected to the content of NATO's extension and policy. But Russia seems only slowly to acknowledge the changes that NATO has undergone. NATO has never threatened the Soviet Union or Russia, not does it have any policy or plan of ever doing so. Today, NATO, has reduced its military forces by 30 per cent, US troops in Europe have been reduced by 60 per cent, and nuclear weapons by 80 per cent. NATO has no nuclear missiles on European soil and there are no plans to change that situation.

Perhaps is the notion of NATO in Russia colored by 5 decades of verbal denunciation, - and by the inclination of the military there to present an aggressive picture of NATO in order to ensure their own military spending. We in the West might in the past have painted a too hostile picture of Soviet intentions as well.

Stability is a subjective notion. We have it as long as we agree that we have it. And while it takes time to change and erase notions of antagonism, I believe we are heading towards a situation in Europe where we can use our strength and creativity in the interest of human progress and do away with fear and suspicion as we knew it.

Thank you, Mr Chairman.