Minister of Foreign Affairs Bjørn Tore Godal

Norway and European perspectives

Guest lecture given by Sir Michael Howard, NUPI, 29. August 1995

Sir Michael Howard,
Ladies and Gentlemen,

We are here on the occasion of the second in a series of lectures dedicated to my predecessor, the late Johan Jørgen Holst. It is particularly fitting that this lecture will be given by Sir Michael Howard, since he is the grand old man of strategic studies, the very subject in which Johan Jørgen Holst excelled. It is even more appropriate in view of the fact that Sir Michael and Johan Jørgen Holst were close associates at the IISS for more than two decades.

Sir Michael and Johan Jørgen Holst also shared the same perspective on security in many respects. Starting from a consideration of the military aspects of security, particularly those related to nuclear weapons, Johan Jørgen Holst's thinking developed to include an extended concept of security, a concept which today forms the basis for the ongoing transformation of the European security architecture. Johan Jørgen Holst was at the forefront of the debate on how to develop a specifically European contribution to the challenge of managing the security problems confronting post-Cold War Europe.

Thus, a European perspective formed the basis for his work, particularly the issue of how Europeans can help to enhance their own security. Today our major challenge is to develop a stable European security architecture and to integrate the new democracies in Central and Eastern Europe into a general European context. Norway's geographic location at the point of intersection between the transatlantic, the European and the Russian dimension, enhances our possibilities of making an active contribution in developing new means of cooperation across former dividing lines.

Strengthening the political and economic ties between European countries is the best way of creating a more stable political climate in Europe. In this process the European Union has become the key institution for European cooperation and should play a leading role in the further development of democracy and prosperity on our continent. The future enlargement of the European Union towards the east and south will contribute to the stability and security of Europe.

However, all European institutions and cooperative arrangements support efforts to achieve stability and security in Europe. It is essential that we work in parallel at several different levels as we are drawing on a broad range of political, military and economic means. Our various efforts are mutually dependent and partially overlapping. The adaptation of existing institutions to new tasks characterizes the restructuring of European security. However, it is also a European perspective - and indeed a Norwegian one - that our European outlook is incomplete unless there is also a transatlantic link.

In many ways, NATO symbolizes the important transformation that has taken place in Europe in recent years. The Alliance has undergone enormous changes. Although the process is not yet finished, we can see the contours of a new organization in which political cooperation is becoming more prominent. The emphasis is no longer on defense against military threats, but on assisting the reform processes in the new democracies. This stems from the conviction that successful reform in the east is the best way to ensure European stability and thus our own security.

The main vehicles for NATO's contribution to European integration are the Partnership for Peace and the North Atlantic Cooperation Council. The PFP focuses on the military aspects of the reform process, while the NACC concentrates on civilian issues, including the management of pollution resulting from military activities. We are convinced that these arrangements will have more than a transitory value. They will serve both as a means of encouraging some partners to adapt their military and political systems with a view to subsequent NATO membership, and as a formal link to NATO for countries which do not become members of NATO.

A number of Central and East European countries have made it clear that their security needs can only be met by NATO membership. In response to this, NATO has embarked on a process towards an expanded Alliance. The enlargement study, which will be concluded this fall, will provide a realistic assessment of the practical consequences. At the NATO Ministerial Meeting in December we will consider the recommendations and conclusions of the study and how to continue the process.

Another important issue, which must be pursued actively, is to develop mutually beneficial relations between NATO and Russia. This is of particular relevance to Norway, given our common border with Russia, which is still Europe's largest military power. Without Russian cooperation, European security and stability cannot be ensured.

Moscow's decision to embark on its individual PFP Partnership Program is an important element in this process. It opens the door to the development of close political and military ties. In addition, we are developing a network of consultations and cooperation on a range of security issues of mutual interest. Our aim is to agree on the principles of NATO-Russia relations before the NACC Ministerial Meeting in December.

I would like to emphasize that this cooperation must go both ways. We expect Russia to abide by the basic principles and agreements to which it has committed itself. The CFE Agreement is an example in point.

The future division of roles and responsibilities between NATO and the WEU, which is the European pillar of NATO as well as the manifestation of the European security and defense identity, is being discussed. This discussion has an impact on the debate on the WEU's future, which is taking place in the run-up to the Intergovernmental Conference of the EU. Several options are being debated, ranging from an autonomous WEU, to integrating its responsibilities into the EU in the longer term.

The challenges facing post-Cold War Europe will require that we intensify our efforts. Our ability to meet these challenges will improve if these efforts are organized in a way that makes full use of the experience and resources of a broad-based group of European states, whether they are NATO and/or EU members. In view of this, we feel that European security would best be served by retaining the WEU as an autonomous organization. This would enhance its capacity for undertaking European crisis management and humanitarian operations on behalf of the UN or the OSCE while maintaining the WEU's links to the EU and NATO.

As mentioned earlier, integrating Russia into European cooperation structures is of vital importance for Europe's stability and security. One of the main aims of our relations with Russia is to integrate our positive, bilateral ties into regional, European and even broader, international cooperation. The Barents Cooperation plays an important role in these efforts. This regional cooperation is now well established with regular meetings at both the regional and the intergovernmental levels. This cooperation has substantially increased contacts between persons, organizations and local government bodies in the Nordic countries and in Russia. It represents our most important contribution to the integration of Russia into broader regional and international cooperation.

Environmental issues are one of the focal points of the Barents Cooperation. Some progress has been made, but a great deal remains to be done. Norway is especially concerned about the problems related to radioactive waste from civil and military activities and about the safety of the Kola nuclear power plant. These are complex and resource-intensive tasks which cannot be solved by Norway and the Nordic countries alone. They are global problems. It is therefore important to continue the trilateral cooperation between Norway, Russia and the United States on resolving environmental problems concerning radioactive waste from military activities in the northern areas. Norway is very interested in drawing the attention of the European Union and countries outside the region itself to the Barents Cooperation.

We are convinced that contributing to stable and sustainable economic development and securing democratic reform are the best ways for European countries to achieve stability and mutual trust in post-Cold War Europe. The Barents Cooperation and other initiatives for regional cooperation across the former East-West divide should be seen in this perspective. What is often referred to as the new architecture of Europe cannot be constructed in a way that excludes Russia. Integrating Russia into the cooperative structures of Europe is the major European challenge of our time. In my view, regional initiatives like the Barents Cooperation are one of the most constructive means of achieving this.

"Security is not competitive. It is a shared value," Johan Jørgen Holst once observed. This realization often requires a long exercise in education and poses a great challenge to politicians as well as scholars. I have tried to give you an idea of a politician's views in this respect, and I am looking forward to hearing what a leading analyst like Sir Michael has to share with us today.

---

Lagt inn 29 august 1995 av Statens forvaltningstjeneste, ODIN-redaksjonen