Mr. President,

The Government has now been in power for a full year. It has been a very eventful and stimulating year, not least in the foreign policy sphere.

We have witnessed a democratic revolution in Yugoslavia, and a Croatia that has joined the ranks of the European democracies, but the rest of the Balkans is still wracked with ethnic differences and considerable uncertainty.

We have witnessed a Middle East torn by violence, distrust and broken promises, an Africa embroiled in conflict, natural disasters and AIDS – but also hope, an Asia marked by sharp contrasts, political unrest and renewed economic growth.

We have witnessed a presidential election in the USA and a new administration with new priorities, a more self-assured Russia, and not least a Europe where the EU is preparing for enlargement while at the same time strengthening and deepening cooperation between the member states.

These are tendencies that, in a globalized world, also have consequences for Norway.

Norwegian foreign policy spans a very broad range. We have a broad involvement in many parts of the world.

The main objective of our foreign policy is to safeguard Norwegian interests, primarily in our neighbouring areas. However, we are deeply involved in other parts of the word as well – in our development cooperation efforts, our work for peace and reconciliation and our efforts to promote human rights – because we have an obligation to do something for others, and we believe that by fulfilling this obligation, we are also safeguarding our own long-term interests.

In our peace and reconciliation efforts, we only become involved in situations where the parties to a conflict want our assistance and where we are in a position to make a contribution. And in order for us to continue our efforts in a specific conflict, the parties must demonstrate a willingness to be reconciled rather than using us to create the impression that they want peace while doing something else in practice. We must thus be prepared to break off or at least suspend a specific effort if it seems as if the parties do not mean what they say.

In this statement I will focus on four key areas in our foreign policy – Europe, our cooperation with the USA, our relations with Russia and our work in the UN Security Council.

Mr. President,

In the course of the first decade of this millennium, we will be witnessing the reunification of Europe. EU enlargement will provide added impetus to the process of bridging the former East-West divide in Europe. At the same time we see that cooperation within the EU is becoming deepened and broadened. The many fundamental processes of change in Europe are radically altering the framework for Europe cooperation.

This is the reason why the Government has submitted a separate report to the Storting, Norway and Europe at the dawn of a New Century, which will be discussed by this body on 22 May.

The EU is the driving force behind European cooperation.

Our European policy is being pursued along two parallel tracks.

On the one hand, we must defend Norwegian interests and actively meet the new challenges posed to Norway by changes in the EU. We must as far as possible avoid being relegated to the sidelines in European politics, and becoming merely the recipient of decisions made by others. I want to emphasize, however, that even now we are finding that it is becoming increasingly difficult to request special arrangements and advantages. Within an enlarged EU there will be a greater number of internal interests to look after. It is most unlikely that the EU would be able to grant arrangements to non-members that it cannot grant to its own members.

The EEA Agreement will continue to be the cornerstone of Norway’s economic relations with the EU. It is therefore essential that we take our rights and obligations seriously. We should only exercise the veto right when important issues are at stake and a veto would get us somewhere. The fact that we have now had to close our borders to meat imports from EU countries demonstrates how important it is to think carefully through what we do. It would have been considerably more difficult to gain acceptance for this decision if Norway had had a past record of vetoing directives.

Moreover, in order to be heard, we, like other European countries, must take our share of the responsibility for building Europe, for promoting common European interests. And we must help to promote European peace and solidarity, to narrow the welfare gap between East and West, to make sure that Europe’s voice is heard.

Today, when so much attention is being focused on serious and highly infectious animal diseases in certain EU countries, we must not lose sight of the broader picture. The tendency we see today is that Europe is increasingly becoming synonymous with the European Union. The EU is becoming an obvious, natural political framework for all of Europe. We see the contours of an ever broader, more binding EU cooperation that is building peace and solidarity across national borders in Europe. The EU is in the process of realizing its aim of becoming a pan-European community.

This was confirmed at the European Council in Nice in December, where a new treaty was adopted that will ease the way for enlargement to the east and to the southeast. The Council also decided to launch a new, broad debate on the EU’s, and thus Europe’s future with a view to a clarification in 2004.

Mr. President,

The negotiations on EU enlargement are proceeding as planned during the Swedish presidency. The European Council in Nice confirmed that the first new member states may be in place as early as half way through the next Storting term.

Enlargement of the EU entails enlargement of the EEA. Norwegian exports to Central European countries with which we today have free-trade agreements will be subject to arrangements provided for in the EEA Agreement. This will have consequences, for example for the Norwegian fishing industry. How serious these consequences will be will depend on the compensation arrangements we obtain in negotiations with the EU. As the EU accepts new members, the disparity between the EU and the EFTA pillar in the EEA will become even more striking, posing an even greater challenge. We will be subject to an even greater degree to decisions made by others without having sufficient influence ourselves.

In any case, it is clearly in the interests of all of Europe – and thus also of Norway – that EU enlargement to the east is carried out. The Government will soon complete a plan of action for the candidate countries, which is intended as a modest Norwegian contribution to their preparations for EU and EEA membership in the years ahead. We have already earmarked NOK 169 million for this purpose for this year and the next.

Mr. President,

I cannot talk about Europe today without mentioning the situation in Macedonia.

Macedonia exists today because moderate Albanians and modern Slavic Macedonians have managed to hold together at the political level despite internal opposition in both ethnic groups. Today this compromise is threatened. Macedonia is in the throes of what is perhaps its worst political crisis since it gained independence ten years ago. In this situation, the international community must support moderate forces and continued efforts to achieve an inter-ethnic dialogue and cooperation. In an effort to promote such a dialogue, Norway has offered the Macedonia authorities assistance in implementing confidence-building measures.

Mr. President,

We are now at an important stage as regards Norway’s and the rest of Europe’s relations with the USA. A number of important issues concerning the transatlantic ties are on the agenda. I might mention the US plans to develop a missile defence system – an issue on which the Government still has a number of critical questions, the development of a European Security and Defence Policy, involvement in the Balkans and eventually the question of a new round of NATO enlargement.

On several occasions President Bush has emphasized the importance of the NATO alliance and the transatlantic ties to the USA. We find this most gratifying.

However, there is no denying that there are divergent views in the USA as regards both the importance and the "health" of the cooperation between Europe and the USA. This is particularly the case in Congress. Therefore, it is important that the weighty issues now on the agenda are dealt with in a way that does not create unnecessary friction in this cooperation.

In recent weeks, the new administration has clearly indicated that it will support the development of a common European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP). However, the conditions have been equally clear. First, the initiative must result in a new burden-sharing between the USA and Europe, and an enhancement of the total military capability. Second, an ESDP must be compatible with cooperation in NATO and it must not weaken the transatlantic ties.

The Government agrees with these conditions. One of the reasons we support the ESCP is because it is a response to the call for a new burden-sharing. At the same time our own defence is being restructured in order to meet the new security challenges. In two weeks’ time, a Norwegian general will be assuming command of KFOR in Kosovo, which demonstrates our willingness to assume a greater share of the responsibility for our common security.

President Bush and the rest of the new administration have made it clear that initially the development and eventual deployment of a missile defence system have high priority. In general there is strong support in the USA for these ideas. While there was talk of a limited defence against a small number of missiles under Clinton, Bush has signalled that he wants a more comprehensive wide-ranging defence system.

The Bush administration has begun a review of all aspects of this issue, including how the defence of allied territory can be incorporated. The plans raise a number of difficult issues, for example in connection with the strategic balance, the future of the ABM Treaty, the consequences for arms control and disarmament, and relations with Russia and China. Until the proposals are more concrete, it is difficult to have any clear opinions on the US plans. However, we have noted the Bush administration’s express wish to conduct close consultations with the allies on the missile defence plans. We are confident that the USA will listen to allied views. My impression is that it will now also be possible to get constructive talks between the USA and Russia under way on this issue.

The support of the USA is important in the efforts to integrate Russia into Euro-Atlantic cooperation, as can be seen in the Barents Cooperation and the Baltic Sea Cooperation.

It is also important that the USA participates in the cooperation on nuclear safety in northwestern Russia. Not only Russia, but the entire international community has a responsibility for ensuring that the hazardous nuclear waste on the Kola Peninsula is dealt with in a responsible manner. Norway therefore hopes that the USA – together with other countries with extensive resources – continues to be actively involved in the nuclear safety cooperation in the north.

Mr. President,

What is accepted as a matter of course by one generation will not necessarily be accepted by the next. Therefore, recognizing that the transatlantic ties, like our relations with the rest of Europe, are a mainstay of Norwegian foreign and security policy, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has now begun to examine all aspects of our relations with the USA. In the longer term, we want to develop a coherent, broad-based strategy for our relations with the USA. I envisage a dynamic process into which external actors will also eventually be drawn.

Mr. President,

Norwegian-Russian relations are good, but in the course of the past year we have observed traits that demonstrate that Russia is still a demanding partner. It is a more self-assured Russia we are meeting in our bilateral relations and our policy on the northern areas.

It is not unnatural now that Norway and Russia should have differing views and interests in respect of various issues. What gives us some cause for concern, however, is that Russia is showing some tendency to revert to old patterns of action and reaction, not least in matters of common interest in the north.

Current Russian policy with respect to Norway must therefore be characterized as complex. A spirit of cooperation and accommodation alternates with a critical attitude. Russia criticizes Norway for the Globus II radar in Vardø. They still insist that this facility can be utilized in a future US missile defence system – a claim we have repeatedly repudiated. Norway is also groundlessly criticized for modifying the special rules restricting military activity in Finnmark, and for the new environmental protection act for Svalbard.

We are meeting this criticism with firmness, openness and consistency.

We must also try to understand the differences which obviously still exist in the way we approach various matters, and seek actively to clear up misunderstandings and misconceptions as they arise. We must state our case plainly and objectively when we feel the Russian approach is not constructive enough. At the same time, it is important to keep the lines of communication open and maintain a running dialogue on all issues.

The Government presented its Russia strategy last year, which covers the entire range of issues in Norway’s relations with Russia. This strategy is a concrete expression of our willingness to invest in our relations with Russia and to coordinate our long-term efforts. The Russian reactions have been positive. The governments of both countries must now demonstrate a political will to clear away outmoded barriers so that it will be easier to work together in order to create better conditions for trade and investment.

Norway has felt a particular responsibility for people-to-people cooperation in the north – for confidence-building measures across a border which not so long ago was as good as sealed. In the space of a few years, the Barents Cooperation and other bilateral and multilateral cooperation schemes have emerged to tear down old divisions and replace them with a new spirit of cooperation across national borders.

We have also managed to get the EU involved in cooperation with Russia on nuclear safety in the north. At the ministerial meeting of the Barents Euro-Arctic Council last week, considerable progress was noted in the negotiations on a broad multilateral framework agreement for cleaning up radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel. If we succeed in putting this agreement in place, it will enable us to launch substantial international nuclear safety efforts in the region.

Norway and Russia manage extensive fisheries resources in the Barents Sea. Catch quotas and fisheries research are important elements in this joint effort. Unfortunately, we have had difficulty obtaining access to the Russian economic zone for Norwegian research vessels. We hope the permission finally granted for this year’s winter expedition signals a lasting change in the climate of research cooperation for the good of both countries, and that this will promote the sound management of our shared fish stocks.

In the energy field, too, we see considerable potential for closer cooperation with Russia, both in the Barents Sea and on the mainland of northwestern Russia. But it will not be possible to realize the full potential for cooperation in the Barents Sea until we have resolved the delimitation issue. It is also very important that petroleum extraction and transport activities are conducted in such a way that the environment and our shared fisheries resources are not endangered.

Cooperation between Russia and Norway following the Kursk tragedy is a good example of the sort of contact and openness we would like to see between close neighbours. Direct contact of this kind in the military sector in itself serves an important confidence-building function. Since this incident, we have worked to establish bilateral cooperation on warning, search and rescue in the event of an accident in the north. This would supplement the practical cooperation that has already been initiated between NATO and Russia in this area. The fact that Russia, for the first time, will be sending observers to this year’s "Partnership for Peace" military exercises in northern Norway is also a good sign.

The UN dimension has now become particularly important in our relations with Russia. A permanent seat on the Security Council is one of the main pillars of Russian foreign policy. Norway’s membership of the Council has made it an important meeting place for our two countries, and we have already found that we have similar views on a number of issues. Our seat on the Security Council will thus help strengthen our ties with Russia.

Russian foreign policy under President Putin is more cohesive than previously. Positions and standpoints display a higher degree of consensus and are better prepared, and the administrative structures in Russia have been improved. At the same time, the economy and national security have been given higher status in the Russian hierarchy of interests.

But Russia is also in the midst of a far-reaching process of reform. It is clearly in our best interests that Russia succeeds in consolidating democracy and developing a sustainable economy. Whether or not they do depends on the Russians themselves. But as a neighbouring country, and together with our partners in Europe and North America, we can make an important contribution.

Mr. President,

In my Statement to the Storting on 14 November last year, I stressed that a seat on the Security Council would be a national effort.

The general consensus regarding the UN and the broad political agreement in the Storting as regards our work in the Security Council are important to us.

Serving on the Security Council has been at least as demanding as we anticipated. During the three months we have held this seat, the Council has dealt with over 50 important matters concerning existing UN mandates and peace operations.

The matters on the Security Council agenda have ranged from Haiti to East Timor, from Kosovo to Sierra Leone. Around two-thirds of them have involved conflicts in Africa. But in fact, directing a special focus on Africa is one of the main priorities of our long-term Security Council effort. Therefore, I would first like to discuss the challenges facing us in Africa in more detail.

Most of the conflicts in Africa are internal conflicts which have caused enormous human suffering and loss of human life. Many of these conflicts have their roots in ethnic differences, poverty and oppression, or the struggle for the right to exploit valuable natural resources such as oil or diamonds. Our desire to focus on the underlying causes of war and conflict are therefore particularly relevant to the situation in Africa.

These conflicts are chiefly concentrated in three areas of the continent: the Horn of Africa, the Great Lakes region in Central Africa, and West Africa.

Norway has been involved on the Horn of Africa for a long time through extensive development cooperation activity and support for various of peace and reconciliation measures. Norway recently led the Security Council’s efforts to negotiate a resolution on further follow-up of the peace agreement between Ethiopia and Eritrea. We also actively oppose the lifting of the current weapons embargo until both parties have fulfilled their obligations under the cease-fire agreement.

The Democratic Republic of Congo is now the scene of a complex, large-scale conflict involving six neighbouring countries. This conflict has figured prominently on the Security Council’s agenda for the past couple of months. The Council is now making an effort to get the parties to the conflict to withdraw according to a joint plan set forth in the so-called Lusaka agreement, so that the UN can deploy military observers and troops. Norway will continue its humanitarian involvement in the region, and support mediation efforts aimed at establishing a political dialogue on the basis of the agreements that have been concluded between the warring groups in the Congo. I discussed this only yesterday in talks with Uganda’s foreign minister here in Oslo.

We are facing several worrying trends in West Africa. For many year the support given by President Charles Taylor’s regime in Liberia to the brutal rebel movement in Sierra Leone has destabilized the entire region.

Norway has taken an active part in the process of introducing economic sanctions against Liberia in order to halt Liberia’s diamond and arms trade with the rebel movement. The more closely targeted sanctions recently adopted against Liberia are essential in order to lay the groundwork for a political resolution of the conflicts in West Africa.

The various conflicts in the region have created a serious refugee situation in the border areas between Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea. Around 200 000 refugees, mainly from Sierra Leone, are trapped in the border areas and have been victims of fighting and attacks from rebel forces and regular military units from the countries involved. We are now considering new measures to strengthen the UN’s and our own humanitarian efforts in the region.

State Secretary Raymond Johansen visited West Africa last week to find out how Norway can intensify its cooperation with other countries in West Africa and help them build up their capacity to take part in international peace operations. We have already entered into similar cooperation with countries in southern Africa.

Mr. President,

In spite of Africa’s dominant place on the Security Council’s agenda, I believe we would agree that the UN has only partly succeeded in dealing with these conflicts.

There is a growing recognition among many African leaders that the primary responsibility for development and peace in Africa rests on their own shoulders. There is little the UN or the international community can do unless Africa’s leaders themselves give peace and development top priority. Unfortunately, what we see far too often today is that the desire for power and financial gain for a small elite is allowed to come before the basic needs of the people.

In any case, however, the international community cannot stand by while war and conflict destroy the progress we have witnessed in many African countries in recent years. We all share a responsibility for Africa’s future.

Mr. President,

We have employed our first months as chair of the Sanctions Committee for Iraq to acquaint ourselves thoroughly with the various aspects of the sanctions regime and how it functions in practice.

It is absolutely essential for us to be able to base our policy on information we have obtained ourselves and on our own evaluation of the situation. Thus we have taken steps to reopen our embassy in Baghdad, while at the same time increasing our staff both in Oslo and at our UN mission in New York.

We are aware that the sanctions against Iraq are not functioning as intended, and that the time is ripe to change them.

We must find solutions that better safeguard the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people, while at the same time preventing Saddam Hussein from developing weapons of mass destruction and once again threatening peace and stability in the region.

The problem today is that Iraq is not cooperating with the UN. Moreover, Saddam Hussein is taking a line where he deliberately allows his own population to suffer in order to gain international sympathy and support for lifting the sanctions without having complied with UN requirements.

There is full agreement among the Security Council members that Iraq must comply with the requirements of Security Council Resolution 1284 (1999) before the sanctions can be lifted.

In Norway’s view it is very important to pay particular attention to the needs of the civil population when imposing and maintaining sanctions. There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein is cynically taking advantage of the Iraqi people. Today, almost NOK 40 billion remains unused in the UN "oil-for-food" account. This money could have been used without any further ado to buy food and medicines. However, Saddam Hussein’s propaganda war does not exempt the Security Council from doing everything in its power to protect the civil population.

But we must not delude ourselves into thinking that the international community can meet all essential civilian needs if Saddam Hussein chooses to allow the population to suffer as part of his cynical propaganda game.

During talks with Colin Powell in Washington last month, I put forward proposals for concrete changes to the sanctions regime. This was the result of active efforts to explore the possibilities of making the sanctions more focused and effective.

First, we stressed that the number of so-called "holds", i.e. contracts that are held back by the Sanctions Committee, should be substantially reduced. Our own analyses show that most applications to export items to Iraq which are held back for closer evaluation are for equipment which cannot reasonably be associated with the production of weapons.

Second, we advocated that it be considered whether the list of previously-approved items in the "oil-for-food" programme should be expanded, in other words whether the list of items for which it is not necessary to apply for an export licence should be expanded.

Third, we suggested that it should be possible to reduce the list of items that can be used for both civilian and military purposes, which are known as "dual use" items. In this way more items for which the main area of application is of a civilian nature could be exempted.

I had the definite impression that Powell himself was prepared to undertake a fundamental re-evaluation of the sanctions regime against Iraq, and was therefore most receptive to our ideas. Our ideas have subsequently been presented both to the UN Secretary-General and to the other permanent members of the Security Council. The response has been overwhelmingly positive.

We are therefore working to elaborate these ideas with a view to developing more concrete proposals.

However, allow me to stress the fact that it is not easy to weigh the balance between on the one hand relaxing the sanctions regime in order to improve the humanitarian situation of the civil population in Iraq, while on the other hand making the sanctions more focused and effective in order to prevent Saddam Hussein from acquiring weapons of mass destruction.

In brief, the issue of sanctions is technically complicated and, from a political and humanitarian point of view, extremely sensitive. Thus it will take time before agreed solutions can be implemented.

Mr. President,

Independently of the sanctions against Iraq, a general discussion about the use of sanctions as an instrument is currently taking place in the Security Council.

The Government’s view is that, as a general rule, sanctions – whether economic or otherwise – must be agreed upon and based on resolutions adopted by the UN Security Council.

We will seek to make sanction more focused and effective, so that they primarily affect the actual decision-makers in the countries they apply to, and not the civil population. We will also seek to make the wording of the resolutions unambiguous, so that the countries to which the sanctions apply have a clear idea of the conditions that must be fulfilled before the sanctions can be suspended or lifted.

The aim of sanctions shall not be to punish anyone, but to improve a situation. Therefore, we believe that the sanctions policy must encourage a political process in which both the tightening and relaxing of sanctions are alternatives, depending on the willingness or lack of willingness of the country in question to comply with the requirements.

Therefore, we advocate that, as a general rule, sanctions should apply for a specified period. This would make the sanctions more flexible in that the Security Council would have to make a concrete evaluation at regular intervals of the degree to which the country in question has fulfilled the Council’s requirements and adapt further sanctions accordingly.

Finally, we wish to stress the need for undertaking a thorough analysis of the humanitarian consequences of sanctions, both before they are implemented and as their effects become apparent, as in the case of Iraq.

Mr President,

There is general agreement on the key aspects of Norwegian foreign policy. This gives us strength. This gives us credibility. This is important to preserve.

Not least at a time when we are facing far-reaching changes and upheavals.

The globalization we are in the midst of – unleashed by modern science and technology, reinforced by economic and political integration and frequent contact over national borders – presents us with new and important challenges.

As a technologically advanced society which is heavily dependent on other countries, Norway probably has great deal to gain from globalization.

But we have also a great deal to gain by regulating international market forces. Globalization increases the need for political control. In the same way that we make guidelines for world trade, we must implement political measures that regulate the free flow of capital.

We need strong global mechanisms and arrangements. I would compare the present situation to the situation 100 years ago, when new technology paved the way for capitalistic production methods. To begin with, this unregulated capitalism led to brutal exploitation of the workers. Only with the advent of the welfare state, with legislation that protected people and gave them rights, and welfare schemes that promoted social cohesion, did society become better for everyone.

It is this mixture of market forces and political control that we must achieve at the global level. We must build a global welfare state on the same pattern as the national welfare state.

I therefore wish to inform the Storting that I have taken the initiative for a comprehensive study on how we can help improve control of international market forces. This is intended as the basis for a report to the Storting which we plan to submit by the end of next year.

Mr. President,

We must meet the challenges of globalization through international cooperation. The cooperation that has developed in the WTO is an example of rules-based cooperation between countries – in this case in the area of international trade.

According to the WTO Agreement, negotiations in the areas of agriculture and services were to have commenced on 1 January last year. The work done on these areas in Geneva last year was concentrated on laying the groundwork for the negotiations. We are currently at the stage where the first proposals are being tabled.

A Norwegian proposal in the field of agriculture was put forward in January this year, and we are in the process of presenting a negotiating proposal about trade in services.

As you know, the long-term aim of the agricultural negotiations in the WTO is to achieve significant gradual reductions in agricultural subsidies and tariffs. In the negotiations, factors that must be taken into account include non-trade factors and the particular situation of developing countries. The importance of taking non-trade factors into account in a satisfactory manner was emphasized in the Norwegian proposal. The need for improved market access and special treatment for developing countries was also specifically pointed out.

This time around, the Norwegian negotiating proposals encompass six service areas: shipping, aviation, energy services, telecommunications services, financial services and what are known as business and professional services. These are all important export sectors for Norwegian trade and industry. For example, through the EEA Agreement, Norway already has an open market for these service areas. Through the WTO negotiations we hope to secure better market access for Norwegian companies in important markets for Norwegian service suppliers.

I wish to emphasize that the negotiations are not concerned with how we organize our societies. It is clearly stated in the agreement that this is the responsibility of the national authorities. This also applies to how we organize the public sector. Thus, the question whether parts of the public sector should be exposed to competition is for the national authorities to decide. There are no such obligations in the agreement. The negotiations are being pursued in such a way that the countries decide at any given time what obligations they wish to undertake.

In addition to the negotiations that are under way, useful work has been going on in Geneva, and in the form of bilateral contacts in the capitals, with a view to laying the foundation for a new comprehensive round. In this connection, it is important that the new US administration has now demonstrated a positive attitude towards the question of new negotiations. At the same time there is a growing recognition that an active effort must be made as regards special trade measures for the developing countries. I therefore hope that it will be possible to reach agreement on new, comprehensive negotiations before the next WTO ministerial conference, which will be held in Qatar at the beginning of November.

In the further discussions in preparation for the ministerial conference in Qatar, it will be particularly for important for Norway to ensure that the negotiations include increased market access for industrial goods, including fish and fish products, as well as improvements in the trade regime in important areas.

I intend to return to the Storting before the summer with a statement about the status of the WTO negotiations and the preparations for the ministerial conference in Qatar.

Mr. President,

Norwegian foreign policy must have both a moral dimension and a dimension based on national interests.

The moral dimension is based on the premise that we must not be sufficient unto ourselves. We have obligations that extend further than ourselves and beyond our borders. We have obligations to children who are suffering, whether in Norway, Sierra Leone or Kosovo. It is a question of solidarity.

I would, Mr. President, maintain that if we were to reduce our contributions to the UN and our development assistance appreciably, Norway would not only be changing its character, it would be selling its soul.

We must be aware that in large parts of the world the UN represents the only hope for millions of children and adults.

A policy that allowed for such reductions would also be incompatible with the dimension of our foreign policy that is based on specific national interests. Because our foreign policy is so broad, we have points of contact with the EU and the major powers Norway is dependent on.

Mr. President,

I see it as my job to incorporate these moral and interest-based dimensions into Norwegian foreign policy.

We must not exaggerate our own importance. I would like to quote the words of former Minister of Foreign Affairs Knut Frydenlund: "Norway’s influence in the world is much greater than could be expected given its resources and size, but less than we perceive it to be".

However, we can make a difference in a small way if we play our cards right.

The Middle East is an example of this.

Many people feel that we should have condemned Israel’s use of violence more strongly. However, in the UN, Norway has made it clear that we are opposed to excessive use of violence. So it must be the way we have expressed ourselves publicly that is being questioned. But mere condemnation will not achieve peace in the Middle East. It can only be achieved through reconciliation which can build mutual confidence and lay the groundwork for negotiations. This is where Norway has a contribution to make. And if we maintain contact with both parties, we can do something for the Palestinians, who are the weakest party in this conflict. Norway has done much to put together an economic assistance package for the Palestinian authorities. Because we have weighed our words, our appeal to Israel to lift the blockade will have even more weight.

Therefore Mr. President, I would like to add a third dimension to our foreign policy – the result-orientated, both-feet-on-the-ground approach that the Nordic countries in particular are known for.

However, if we are to achieve results, we must think in a long-term perspective, gradually building up a firm foundation for Norway’s position as a serious and credible partner in foreign affairs. This is crucial, not least in relation to our important allies, the USA, an EU which is increasingly Europe’s mouthpiece, and Russia, our important neighbour in the east.