Norway and NATO: challenges after the Oslo meeting

Introduction

It is once again a pleasure and an honour for me to attend the Norwegian Atlantic Committee’s annual conference. Broadly speaking, the Norwegian Atlantic Committee represents a meeting place for everyone engaged in defence and security issues.

It is an organisation which wholeheartedly seeks to promote discussion, engagement and understanding of the world we live in.

It is an organisation that sees it as her obligation not only to disseminate information, but also to bring together people with different backgrounds. And it is an organisation that breeds and maintains fruitful discussions on security and defence related issues.

 The world has changed dramatically since the days the Norwegian Atlantic Committee was established. Among these changes is the steadily increasing flow of information. This development makes the effort of the Norwegian Atlantic Committee even more important. Through conferences and publications the Norwegian Atlantic Committee makes it easier for all who are interested to grasp the essence of a changing world. This I believe is vital in underpinning a vivid and open public debate on issues of common concern.  

For me this conference offers an excellent opportunity to share some reflections on important issues that we all here today are concerned about. Last months informal meeting of the NATO foreign ministers here in Oslo covered several key security policy issues. Of course, Afghanistan was on the agenda, - as well as Kosovo, enlargement, missile defence and our relationship with Russia.  

In fact, the spectrum of topics discussed at the meeting illustrates the shifts in security challenges during recent years and decades.    

Despite the broadening agenda, I believe it is still fair to say that NATO first of all remains an invaluable security organisation, - and an invaluable arena for political consultations on all relevant security issues. We have for a long time underscored the importance of maintaining NATO as the primary forum for real transatlantic political consultations.

For Norway it is crucial to note that NATO continues to recognize the indivisibility of security, and remains resolved to unite the efforts for collective security and defence, as well as for the preservation of peace and security outside NATO territory.

However, this resolve does not necessarily mean that our common effort results in smooth sailing. There have been, and will continue to be, challenging waters ahead. The Oslo meeting also reflects a number of such challenges.

Today I will concentrate on two issues that provide us with current and long-term challenges, from both a national and an alliance perspective. I will start with some of the main challenges facing us in Afghanistan, - before I proceed to our developing relationship with Russia. 

 

Challenges in Afghanistan

From its modest start more than five years ago, ISAF has become the most demanding operation in NATO’s history. Its course will heavily influence the further development in a troubled region. At the same time, our engagement in Afghanistan will also influence the support for NATO in our home countries, and therefore also have an impact on the further development of the Alliance. While we in NATO have serious discussions on how to proceed in Afghanistan, there is a complete consensus among all Allies to continue our operations in Afghanistan.  In Norway we are pleased to see the unanimous commitment within NATO to do what is required to ensure a positive development in war-torn Afghanistan.

From the Norwegian side, we have played an active role in developing an overarching strategy for the alliance’s and the international community’s operations in Afghanistan. Our approach has been focused along three important lines.

The first is a comprehensive approach to the problems facing us. We realize that military power is only one of many tools required to address Afghanistan’s problems. Our troops in the theatre are the first to acknowledge this. Afghanistan’s future will have to be built on three pillars; security, development and good governance. These three issues are fundamentally interlinked: Without security – no development or good governance. And with no development and improved governance – no long term security.

From the Norwegian side we have emphasized that the current challenges are more pressing in the areas of governance and development than in the military field. What our military are facing in Afghanistan today is a Taliban that fights an asymmetric war against the Afghan government and the international civilian and military presence.

All experience tell us that a threat like that first of all must be countered by addressing the underlying causes for the conflict – which in this case are found within the areas of 1) lack of governance – particularly at the local and regional levels and 2) lack of development.

When saying this I am not trying to reduce the importance of a strong international, military presence in Afghanistan. I am fully convinced that without the current ISAF presence, Afghanistan would be in danger of returning to chaos and most likely a full, civil war, and a safe haven for international terrorism. That is not an acceptable option.

The ISAF operation continues to be a prerequisite for a civilian effort to improve the standard of living and the development within important areas such as rule of law, democracy-building and effective governmental structures at all levels.

What I am saying, however, is that the international community has been far more effective in its military effort than within the civilian field. I am therefore encouraged by the fact that all NATO nations now see this in the same way, and realize that we now must give additional priority and focus to civilian development. In particular we need to develop our instruments for overall coordination of the civilian effort. It is Norway’s view that the United Nations now should undertake a more important role in this field.

The second line in our overall strategy for Afghanistan could be labelled “afghanization”. This comes from the fundamental acknowledgment that in the longer-term only Afghanistan herself can and should solve her internal problems. This is of course the desired end-state in all countries where international forces has been employed to end war and create peace, but it is probably even more true and important when it comes to Afghanistan. Through centuries the Afghan people have proudly fought outside military, and insisted on its right of self-determination.

This is why it is so important to support the work of the current Afghan government and help building all the structures, centrally and locally, that are required to exercise a competent, loyal and just administration throughout. The Karzai government has a long way to go to reach such standards, but we need to keep in mind that Afghanistan never in history actually has been governed centrally. And we must also keep in mind that decades of civil war and the wrong-doings of the Taliban regime basically destroyed all governmental institutions. More than that, we are facing a country that for years has been victim to serious brain drain, with academics and intellectuals fleeing from their motherland. Most likely it will take years to restore this human and institutional capital.

The current government was elected through free and democratic elections, and is the only credible alternative to bring Afghanistan on the right track.

In achieving visible and lasting results we need to support the Government centrally as well as locally. More than that, we need to ensure that these two levels work in the same direction. This is obviously a demanding task with many pitfalls.

In order to ensure a gradual transfer of responsibility to the Afghan government, the international community must pursue programs that enable the various elements of government to become more effective. This is required in almost all branches; the security forces (military and police), finance, counter-narcotics, infrastructure building and numerous other areas. It is important that development aid from the international community is channelled through the Government of Afghanistan, so that a positive evolution reflects on the government, not only the donor nation.

From the Norwegian side we ensure that the major portion of our developing aid is being channelled through the Afghan government.

We have recently increased our efforts in training Afghan military and police forces, and are funding an academy for training of government officials. Based on requests from the Afghan government and NATO, Norway is currently also considering the provision of military equipment to strengthen the Afghan National Army.

We are also encouraging efforts to link modern democratic institutions with the traditional local institutions to reduce tensions and rally support in local communities. During my last visit to Northern Afghanistan, I had the pleasure of meeting representatives from the local shura. Speaking with them and listening to them explaining their tradition of local governance was for me an eye opener. It was an eye opener with respect to understanding a deep rooted legacy in Afghanistan. And it was an eye opener also with regard to bridging old and new systems of governance in Afghanistan.

We need to pursue our support to locally and centrally democratic elected institutions, but we also need to bring further the legacy of the shuras in Afghanistan.   

The third important line of approach is realizing that the Afghan conflict also has obvious regional causes and implications. Afghanistan has always been poor in terms of natural resources – but rather built its importance as a crossroads between the north and south, east and west of Asia. This has made it possible to make a profit from trade along those axes, but also made Afghanistan vulnerable to shifting foreign interests. Both Afghanistan’s problems and future solutions are therefore closely linked to her neighbours. The Central Asian borders divide people ethnically – and solutions must be found to decrease tensions that may arise from this. Growing economic powers like China and India will benefit from a stable Afghanistan.

Oil and gas producing countries with export requirements trough Afghanistan, would also profit a lasting stability. Moreover we see that Iran emerges as a regional power with regional interests. It is hard to imagine that we can assure a future stable and secure Afghanistan without the commitment and support of the rest of this troubled region.

Norway currently provides more than 700 troops to ISAF – a significant contribution from a small nation. We have focused our efforts in North Afghanistan and in Kabul – based on the requests we have got from NATO. We are committed to Afghanistan, and committed to succeed in Afghanistan. I am pleased to see that our NATO allies also share this commitment and share our analysis of the need for a truly comprehensive approach. Words of support, however, will not solve the problems – only action on the ground in Afghanistan will.

 

The developing relationship with Russia

“Between deterrence and reassurance”. This is the title of today’s chronicle in the daily newspaper Dagbladet. These terms were as we all know coined by Johan Jørgen Holst in a time of history that fortunately has changed dramatically. Today we see a different set of policy issues emerging on our common agenda - energy and management of resources in the High North are today at the core of our relations.       

10 years ago, this spring, NATO and Russia signed the founding act on mutual relations and cooperation. This was a watershed in NATO-Russian relations. It established a shared commitment to work closely together towards building a lasting and inclusive peace in the Euro-Atlantic Area.

Since the end of the Cold War there has been a growing realisation that both NATO and Russia share a number of common interests and challenges.

Most fundamentally, we realise that we both inhabit what Gorbachev termed our “common European home”. And that a lasting European peace can only be achieved through cooperation.

Since the end of the Cold War we have witnessed a remarkable transformation of relations between Russia and NATO. We have made significant steps towards closer cooperation.

The NATO-Russia Council (NRC) was established in May 2002 as the main forum for advancing NATO-Russia relations. The decision to establish the NRC was taken in the wake of the September 2001 terrorist attacks, which reinforced the need for coordinated action to respond to common threats. It signalled the determination to give the NATO-Russia partnership new impetus and substance.

NATO member states and Russia regularly consult on current security issues and are developing practical cooperation in areas of common interest.

NATO has received Russian support and participation in Operation Active Endeavour in the Mediterranean. The fact that Russia participates in an article 5 mandated operation is a timely reminder of how far we have come since the end of the Cold War.

This historical legacy, and 10 years of formal cooperation, is important to keep in mind in the light of recent disagreements between NATO and Russia. However, the fact that NATO and Russia are now partners in common endeavours does not mean that we will remain uncritical of developments in Russia, - or shy away from discussing our real differences. A constructive partnership involves discussions and dialogue also on politically sensitive issues.

Modern Russia emerges as a more confident player on the international arena, which over time hopefully will transform into an even more constructive political dialogue with the West.

Russia’s participation in the Euro-Atlantic security structures is of crucial importance to continued peace and stability both in our part of the world and globally.

Towards this background, President Putin’s latest statements in Munich and in his annual speech to the Duma, obviously caused concern both here in Norway and among our Allies. We choose, however, to interpret the Russian president’s views as an expression of frustration, as well as a signal to his domestic audience at the start of the campaign ahead of the upcoming elections.

When it comes to the substance of President Putin’s speeches, I wish to point to three issues in particular.

First, the Russian moratorium on its CFE treaty obligations is a signal that we take very seriously. The CFE treaty is an important part of the European security architecture.

It has contributed to significant reductions in offensive conventional military capacities. Perhaps most significantly, the treaty contributes towards transparency and confidence building through mutual military inspections. Norway is prepared to ratify the treaty, as soon as Russia fulfils its obligation to withdraw its forces from Georgia and Moldova.

Second, the American plans to establish bases in Poland and the Czech Republic as part of their Missile Defence-system has, as we all have noticed, brought strong opposition from Russia. Russia has claimed that the US interceptors are directed against Russian capabilities, - rather than against countries of concern in the Middle East. The Norwegian Government does not share this Russian viewpoint. We do not see these bases as a threat to Russia.

The planned US-bases in Poland and the Czech Republic will be based on bilateral arrangements and are planned to be operational in 2012.

The establishment of a US-system that covers large parts of Alliance territory will undoubtedly have consequences for the ongoing discussions in the Alliance, and will be subject of close consultations in NATO.

The planned missile defence system raises questions related to the basic principle of the indivisibility of security, and command- and control-issues. As already stated, the Norwegian Government has been and remains sceptical to the need for a global missile defence. Our position still remains that is necessary to discuss all aspects of this issue in NATO.

We must avoid a new arms race as a result of the development of missile defence systems. Consequently we have welcomed the US policy of wide-ranging consultations with Russia on this issue. This should reduce the danger of misperceptions and distrust. We believe that a process of close consultations, also within the framework of the NRC is important to alleviate Russian concerns.

The third issue is Russia’s concern with the prospect of NATO enlargement to CIS states, such as the Ukraine and Georgia. The possibility of including new members in NATO does - in our view - not pose a threat to Russia. It is important to realise that the old dividing lines in Europe no longer apply,   and that we all must respect every country’s sovereign right to choose their security alignment.

Let there be no doubt that both NATO and Norway want to strengthen the security cooperation with Russia and promote a constructive relationship.  But in order to achieve this, it is necessary to overcome a mindset that operates on a basis of spheres of influence.

The development of NATO - Russian relations over the past decade promises the beginning of a new era, - an era where Europe can stand united in the realisation that security for one requires security for all.

In this greater picture, Norway remains committed to strengthening our relationship with Russia. We will continue to build on our good neighbourly relations. This government has placed an increased focus on the High North – a region where we can only ensure sustainable use of resources and sound environmental management in cooperation with Russia.

Let me emphasise that Norwegian–Russian bilateral relations remain strong and close, with a focus on solving common challenges. We are increasing our cooperation, in particular with regard to our common resources, such as energy and fish. We want to strengthen our ability to secure the vulnerable environment and a sustainable development for the vast resources in the north.

Both in an alliance and in a national perspective, we need to continue to strengthen the cooperation with Russia, - and at the same time to address the recent statements regarding Russia’s foreign and security policy. This delicate balance will for some time to come most likely be one of the main challenges in our relationship with Russia, - both from a national and an alliance perspective.

 

Closing remarks

The two main themes I have spoken about here today illustrate the wide geographical and cultural spectrum embraced by Norwegian security and defence policy – from cold and icy arctic, to warm and sandy desert. It illustrates how our strategic environment has undergone – and will continue to – change.

But like John F. Kennedy once said: “Change is the law of life. And those who look only to the past or present are certain to miss the future.”

I firmly believe that by building on the sound foundation of alliance membership, by building on a strong and cooperative relationship with our Russian neighbour, and by continuing to contribute to international peace and stability, Norway is well prepared to meet the future.

As we do so, it is important to remember the many organisations and individuals that in past years have been a part of the continuously ongoing effort to create a better world. I would like to use this opportunity to express my gratitude and appreciation to one particular person who has devoted many years of his life to public service.

I am thinking of you, Alf Jakob Fostervoll. In relation to today’s topics, the Russia of today is obviously very different from the Russia that you dealt with in your time as minister of defence. And the deployment of Norwegian troops to Afghanistan was not on the agenda at that time.

For the past twelve years you have been the chairman of the board of the Norwegian Atlantic Committee. And I am certain that your solid experience, insight, integrity and ability to cooperate have been an invaluable resource.

This is your very last day as chairman, and that represents a considerable change in you life. But as you step into your future, let me say that it is the efforts of people like you, - dedicated and capable, - that have laid the foundation on which Norway can continue to contribute to building a better and safer world for all.